The following is from a council committee meetings in which code enforcement was discussed by our city leaders. (I know, sounds exciting) It is verbatim, taken from recordings, so it should be taken into account there are a lot of ‘ums’ and verbal jumping around, which is different than writing and quite natural in speech. While boring on the outside, there is importance here, it tells you what they are doing at City Hall in your name. I say they’re up to no good and this is just one example of this. I promise, it is ultimately interesting. I have taken the liberty to add my comments to the proceedings, highlighted in red. Enjoy.

City of Whitehall Council Committee Meeting

May 28, 2013

19:04:00

Council President Jim Graham: “In our last council meeting there were some comments regarding code enforcement. Just so, I just wanted to make sure that, just to remind everybody on council if you’ve forgotten, what the code enforcement officer’s rights are as far as property is concerned. So, this is right out of our own book here* and it’s (A) 104.3, its ‘Right of Entry’. ‘Where it is necessary to make an inspection to enforce the provisions of this code, or whenever the code official has reasonable cause to believe that there exists in a structure or upon a premises a condition in violation of this code, the code official is authorized to enter the structure or premises at reasonable times to inspect or perform the duties imposed by this code, (this next part is the 4^th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution) provided that if such structure or premises is occupied the code official shall present credentials to the occupant and request entry. If such structure or premises is unoccupied, the code official shall first make a reasonable effort to locate the owner or other person having charge or control of the structure or premises and request entry. If entry is refused, the code official shall have recourse to the remedies provided by law to secure entry.’” (He has to ask permission to inspect something, if he doesn’t get permission, either verbally or with no communication, he then has to ask a judge’s permission via a search warrant)

(He then goes on to read from Section 106, Violations, Section (A) 106.5 Abatement of Violations) “The imposition of the penalties herein prescribed shall not preclude the legal officer of the jurisdiction from instituting appropriate action to restrain, correct or abate a violation, or to prevent illegal occupancy of a building, structure or premises, or to stop an illegal act, conduct, business or utilization of the building, structure or premises’”.
J.G. Cont.’: “Basically, what a lot of this means, if the code enforcement officer, I should probably have Mike (Shannon) explain this, he could probably do it better than me, but if he has, if he believes that there is a violation he has a the right to go and check, he has to have reasonable cause that there is a violation and if he believes he has reasonable cause…”

Councilperson Leslie LaCorte: “…to enter private property?”

Graham: “…yes, then he can go and check out the situation and see if in fact there is a violation. Now here’s something thats, that this actually goes on…should he see a violation on another piece of property while he’s on a piece of property he also has the opportunity to inspect that code violation so, anytime the code officers are on a piece of property or any other piece of property, on a piece of property and they see violations on another piece of property…not that they would (but they have), er, and I’m not, I’m just saying, you know, you just get, you’re leaving and you happen to notice there’s a violation…”

Mayor Kim Maggard: “Mmmmm-hmmm…” (The Mayor doesn’t catch the verbal sidestep that Jim Graham has taken. Who exactly is watching out for the citizens here?!)

Graham: “…at the adjacent property he has the right then to go and take care of that, so that question came up and I know we all know what I just thought it would be a godd thing to remind everybody just to make sure, uh, we’re all aware of what, what code enforcement can and can’t do when it comes to being on property.”

(If the council members only took into account what Jim Graham offered them regarding code enforcement, instead of their own self-research, they’d have been more confused than before he ‘helped’ out. And what was his ‘help’? He used his position as President of Council (that was simply handed him, having run unopposed) to “remind” the council members what the Code Enforcement Officers (CEO”s) “rights” are (Not what the citizens rights are. Why hadn’t they done this for themselves?). He reads from the International Property Maintenance Code**, specifically 104.3 ‘Right of Entry’ and 106.5 ‘Abatement of Violations’, saying that if the CEO “believes” there is a violation he has the “right” to go and check (if he has reasonable cause). He then posits that once CEO’s are on a property they have a right to notice violations on other properties and “go and take care of that”.

Council President Graham is dead wrong in his public assertion of the CEO’s “rights” as he so misinformed the Whitehall City Council members that evening. In Camara v Municipal Court- 387 US 523 (1967) it specifically states; “search warrants which are required in nonemergency situations should normally be sought only after entry is refused.” “When the right of privacy must reasonably yield to the right of search is, as a rule, to be decided bu a judicial officer, not by a policeman or government enforcement agent”. “…the possibility of criminal entry under the guise of official sanction is a serious threat to personal and family security”. “The warrant procedure is designed to guarantee that a decision to search private property is justified by a reasonable government interest…If a valid public interest justifies the intrusion contemplated, then there is probable cause to issue a suitablt restricted search warrant”.

What he never stressed to council was that they first had to ask permission from the owner/occupant and if it is refused or not given, seek out a warrant from a judge. Apparently the citizens representatives didn’t need to be ‘reminded’ of those little details by Jim Graham. He thought reminding them all what the CEO’s rights are was more important than reminding them of what the citizens rights are. When I pointed this out after the meeting, he sheepishly grinned and said, “I know”. I asked him, since he’d publicly said all this, that he should correct it for the public record. I asked him several times to do this and he never did, allowing the incorrect misinformation to stand as the public record. To them, if its not in the public record, it doesn’t exist.

In light of my concerns, the troubling photographic evidence supplied and my understandable request, for the citizens sake, for a moratorium on code enforcement that I submitted to them the prior week, this presentation by Jim Graham was all that was offered. He spoke on the topic a mere three minutes and thirty seconds before veering off to discuss a landscaping fence issue for a full eight minutes and thirty seconds, nearly three times the length afforded a constitutional issue.)

*http://publicecodes.cyberregs.com/icod/ipmc/2012/

**http://www.iccsafe.org/

The International Property Maintenance Code is distributed by the ‘International Code Council’ or, I.C.C, a self-described “member-focused association”. On the surface it seems their business is creating codes, like a law-making entity would do, but if you dig a little deeper there is also a business goal that seems to help increase their presence and power, both with self-promotion and self-aggrandizement, bringing in money from sales of memberships, materials, books, etc. From their website; “In 2004, the International Code Council developed a long-term business plan for the newly formed association” A business plan.

Here are some of their goals (with my thoughts in red);

Objectives Goal 1: Business Growth  – The ICC will evolve and expand toward new opportunities while focusing on its core competency of developing codes and standards. (Why must more codes be developed? Aren’t we sqeezed by them enough already?)  1.4 Develop and maintain a comprehensive strategy for dealing with competitive threats, 1.5 Implement a strategy to reduce variability in revenue, and 1.6 Pursue strategies for emerging markets that have positive financial implications. 

Objectives Goal 2: Core Function – The ICC will continue to ensure the I-Codes are the most universally used and accepted model codes and standards in the built environment.  2.2 Build and expand the support mechanisms of the core codes in the areas of training, certifications and adoptions , and 2.3 Build and expand the reach of the ICC outside of current geographies.

Objectives Goal 3: Customer Value (Who are their customers? Cities?)– The ICC will be acknowledged for exceptional products and services and as the best source of solutions for Member and all customer needs. (Writing codes that cities buy and utilize is like selling a product, except it is the communities that suffer by a anti-unique, standardized sameness) 3.1 Develop and implement a segmentation and channel strategy that aligns costs to serve with value and revenue, 3.2 Develop and implement solution-based products and services that address ways to deal with the current economy, 3.3 Develop and implement a professional development strategy for the markets that the ICC serves, and 3.4 Foster collaboration between Membership groups.

Goal Four Objectives Goal 4: Policy and Thought Leadership (What in the world is ‘thought leadership’?!)– The ICC will be recognized (not hopes to be but WILL be) as the advocate and credible expert for those involved in the built environment. 4.1 Communicate the ICC Mission and role of Code Officials at the local, state, national and global level, (This will seemingly give them a great deal of power, I’m not comfortable with Whitehall using them for this reason) 4.2 Develop a strategy for collaboration with federal governments to protect the interests of the ICC and influence decision making on built environment issues, (This says it all and is frightening from the viewpoint of our community’s interests.  Law is made for man and not man for the law. If a business whose objective is to protect their own interests is providing cities with codes to adopt as law, are those things in the best interests of that city or the ICC? Is anyone paying attention enough in City Hall to differentiate this sort of thing? ) 4.3 Identify and institutionalize a method to ensure the voices of non-governmental interests are heard and considered, (Why would anyone need this, particularly in America, when we already have the United States Constitution? ) 4.4 Increase the relevance of the ICC to elected officials,(Hopefully not more than or to the detriment of the citizens themselves.) 4.6 Develop and implement a strategy to impact thought leaders. (!!)

Objectives Goal 5: Social Responsibility/Visibility – The ICC will support Members in being visible and socially responsible in their communities through expertise and professionalism with the use of ICC products and services. (Yes, but are there any ‘products’ which will teach Whitehall City Hall how to be ethically responsible and not abuse codes against citizens and their rights?) 5.1 Ensure a position for the ICC as an authoritative leader ( Whitehall City Hall, the Mayor, council, the Service Department and the code officials have already fully embraced this stance) in sustainability and other emerging areas when supported by relevance and market demand, 5.2 Implement a brand strategy that will position Members as part of a recognized and respected profession

In my view, I see the ICC as a business who has grand plans for themselves selling a global standardized vision for the built world where their agendas take priority over everything else, that which Whitehall has seemingly jumped on board with no reservations. Adopting codes for us, written by others, making our city government then, not a people’s government but rather, a self-appointed, ersatz ‘home-owners association’. Driving the community with a myriad of codes, written by others, which seem designed to shape and affect communities with an authoritarian hand from a business standpoint. Those which municipalities like Whitehall adopt in part due to laziness or ineptitude in writing and adopting codes more specific and respectful to an organic dynamic which actually exists here. In so doing, these communities foist and enforce the arbitrary natures of this ‘association’s’ codes on the unsuspecting citizenry, that which pleases the interests of a few but which can disrespect the freedom and liberty of many.  

Is this global code-creating entity what Whitehall wants to be associated with? Where do the citizens come into play in all this ‘business’? It seems like alot of legal jargon and business but little of what truly makes up any community, the human factor, the people who bring their individuality to the table. I saw little nod from the ICC towards an actual care for these community’s people. I fear this sort of ‘business’ will eventually wipe out individual character in our community, that which makes it as special as it is, bringing about an inhuman, bland, vanilla-based standardization, not only of Whitehall, but America too. Where individual character and expression is discouraged and fined out of existence for the comforting ‘compliance’ of those in power (and who are doing business). Where messy liberty is cast aside for the tranquility and control of a few who don’t really appreciate the loud, boisterous full range of humanity, nor respect the ‘freedom and liberty for all’ that entails.

The thoughtless banality of this standardization rose here because citizens paid no attention while all this was being foisted on them by their own neighbors who they elected to watch out for and govern their interests but instead acted in their own self-interests, investing in powerful entities who seem to have more care for business objectives than a community’s organic character and spirit. Our elected leaders, due to their own foolishness, allowed this pernicious standardization, dangerous to freedom and liberty, to rise in our community. Given this then, it would seem more appropriate to call Whitehall by what it is they’re working towards; instead of ‘City of Pride’ it should be renamed, ‘Standardized City of Punitive Compliance’, or, as Mayor Maggard tagged it ‘Opportunity Is Here’. (Just not if you’re a homeowner or veteran or senior citizen or anyone else with individual character and/or who’ve invested their entire lives in Whitehall or anyone who feels one has a right to their personal liberty in America) Welcome to Somewhere USA!!