It took a writ of mandamus for Brian Gerving to do his job. Greg Sparks is the same guy who released unverified allegation against Floyd Squires to the media regarding the Blue Heron.
Here is round 2 of Travis Schneider vs City of Eureka.
Read the following email exchanges for yourself. Why does Greg Sparks have an issue with elected officials being included in these emails? Does Sparks think he is king and gets to do whatever he wants with no oversight?
Instead of fluff PR pieces , other local media needs to do some real investigative reporting on the City Council, City Manager, Department heads and how permits are handled.
From: Travis Schneider <tschneider@pacaff.com>
Sent: Wednesday, September 18, 2019 9:47 PM
To: John Polansky <jpolansky@ci.eureka.ca.gov>
Cc: Brian Gerving <bgerving@ci.eureka.ca.gov>; Austin Allison <aallison@ci.eureka.ca.gov>; Kim Bergel <kbergel@ci.eureka.ca.gov>; Greg Sparks <gsparks@ci.eureka.ca.gov>; Heidi Messner <hmessner@ci.eureka.ca.gov>; Natalie Arroyo <narroyo@ci.eureka.ca.gov>; Robert Black <rblack@attyblack.com>; Jourdan O'Hanen <johanen@ci.eureka.ca.gov>; Leslie Castellano <lcastellano@ci.eureka.ca.gov>; Susan Seaman <sseaman@ci.eureka.ca.gov>; Dustin Owens <dustin.owens@gmail.com>; Steve Watson <swatson@ci.eureka.ca.gov>; Brian Stephens <bstephens@ci.eureka.ca.gov>; Robert Dumouchel <rdumouchel@ci.eureka.ca.gov>; Brian Heaton <bheaton@ci.eureka.ca.gov>
Subject: Final Inspection - 206 W. Sixth Street
Subject: Final Inspection - 206 W. Sixth Street
John,
Hope all is well. I called in to schedule a final inspection on 206 W. Sixth Street this evening. It sounds as if you have had an exchange of texts with Edward Houghton (building owner/operator) indicating you will not be available for the inspection with all the other departments (i.e. fire, police, community development, code enforcement, etc.) tomorrow. Not sure how you already know your schedule for tomorrow since I presume no inspection schedules are issued until the day of inspections based on our past dialogue, the departments own message machine, and yours (and the director’s) repeated requests for a cell phone call or text request on inspections vs. email. However, it would be particularly convenient if you could join us tomorrow. Please advise accordingly, and not via a text (since I don’t text), as I consider this an inappropriate way of conducting business considering your admitted deletion of texts due to the number of Public Records Acts requests. Given the toxicity of your department, I can’t fault you for your communication preferences, however we need to get this building a final certificate of occupancy for the owners and operators, and clearly conventional methods of scheduling are not preferred. Thanks in advance for your cooperation.
TS
From: Brian Gerving <bgerving@ci.eureka.ca.gov>
Sent: Thursday, September 19, 2019 9:31 AM
To: Travis Schneider <tschneider@pacaff.com>; John Polansky <jpolansky@ci.eureka.ca.gov>
Cc: Austin Allison <aallison@ci.eureka.ca.gov>; Kim Bergel <kbergel@ci.eureka.ca.gov>; Greg Sparks <gsparks@ci.eureka.ca.gov>; Heidi Messner <hmessner@ci.eureka.ca.gov>; Natalie Arroyo <narroyo@ci.eureka.ca.gov>; Robert Black <rblack@attyblack.com>; Jourdan O'Hanen <johanen@ci.eureka.ca.gov>; Leslie Castellano <lcastellano@ci.eureka.ca.gov>; Susan Seaman <sseaman@ci.eureka.ca.gov>; Dustin Owens <dustin.owens@gmail.com>; Steve Watson <swatson@ci.eureka.ca.gov>; Brian Stephens <bstephens@ci.eureka.ca.gov>; Robert Dumouchel <rdumouchel@ci.eureka.ca.gov>; Brian Heaton <bheaton@ci.eureka.ca.gov>
Subject: RE: Final Inspection - 206 W. Sixth Street
Travis,
John is not able to attend the group inspection because he is out of the office on a personal matter. I will be there in his place. See you at 11:00.
Best regards,
Brian
From: Travis Schneider
Sent: Wednesday, September 25, 2019 7:34 AM
To: Brian Gerving <bgerving@ci.eureka.ca.gov>; John Polansky <jpolansky@ci.eureka.ca.gov>
Cc: Austin Allison <aallison@ci.eureka.ca.gov>; Kim Bergel <kbergel@ci.eureka.ca.gov>; Greg Sparks <gsparks@ci.eureka.ca.gov>; Heidi Messner <hmessner@ci.eureka.ca.gov>; Natalie Arroyo <narroyo@ci.eureka.ca.gov>; Robert Black <rblack@attyblack.com>; Leslie Castellano <lcastellano@ci.eureka.ca.gov>; Susan Seaman <sseaman@ci.eureka.ca.gov>; Dustin Owens <dustin.owens@gmail.com>
Subject: RE: Final Inspection - 206 W. Sixth Street
Brian,
Just when I think I couldn’t be more surprised, I get a call from my client Monday mid-day indicating Mr. Polansky (your field inspector) would like to conduct an inspection at 4:00PM at 206 W. Sixth Street, the very same building where you walked through and gave us a final inspection on Thursday (see your response below if you don’t recall) with Fire, Police, and Planning Staff . At no time did I receive a call from Mr. Polansky, nor request an inspection another inspection from the COE Building Dept. Furthermore, the owner did not request an inspection. Clearly, after you left a punch list of items from your inspection on Thursday we (myself, subcontractors, business owner, etc.) were all under the impression that our final inspection was complete pending the items noted in your punch list. This was all the more evident, considering the fact that you took a picture of the card and indicated that once the fire and life safety matters were addressed that a Temporary Certificate of Occupancy would be issued. In true Mr. Polansky fashion he arrived at 4:15 to do the 4:00 inspection none of us requested. When asked why he was present, he indicated he was there to do the ‘Final Inspection’. When asked who requested said inspection, the response was no one. When asked if you had asked him to come do the inspection, the answer was ‘no’. When told you had done the final inspection we were asked by Mr. Polansky what you inspected, and if you had inspected specific items. We were then informed that you were not a part of the project and did not have the ability to inspect project elements, which was a surprise to me considering your position as the Public Works Director and Building Official. I made it very clear that you’re provided one opportunity to do a final inspection, and you had done it on Thursday, and that repeated or double jeopardy inspections are not an option. In spite of popular belief by your department; my subcontractors, clients, nor I are in the business of providing educational field trips because your staff 1) is rogue and feels they can drop in at their leisure 2) because they (i.e Mr. Polansky) feel left out on a final inspection 3) there is no communication or management of building department staff under your direction. Because of your position and power you don’t hear this from others in the community because you have cultivated an environment of fear and recourse, let alone delays on projects that are already behind schedule and over budget because of the outlandish requests in the plan check phase. As I have said before and will say again, the community does not trust you or your department because of these continued displays of mismanagement of the building department. If anyone in City management actually cared they would facilitate a meeting to address said matters, and hear form the building community, but yet we choose to ignore the obvious. So in closing, please tell me why Mr. Polansky came to do a final inspection? Please tell me how many final inspections you will conduct? Clearly one would hope that you would gain control of your staff and department, because this continued behavior and lack of management is once again exposing the City of Eureka to future legal action.
I look forward to a clear explanation of said matters.
TS
From: Travis Schneider <tschneider@pacaff.com>
Sent: Thursday, October 3, 2019 7:17 AM
To: Brian Gerving <bgerving@ci.eureka.ca.gov>; John Polansky <jpolansky@ci.eureka.ca.gov>
Cc: Austin Allison <aallison@ci.eureka.ca.gov>; Kim Bergel <kbergel@ci.eureka.ca.gov>; Greg Sparks <gsparks@ci.eureka.ca.gov>; Heidi Messner <hmessner@ci.eureka.ca.gov>; Natalie Arroyo <narroyo@ci.eureka.ca.gov>; Robert Black <rblack@attyblack.com>; Leslie Castellano <lcastellano@ci.eureka.ca.gov>; Susan Seaman <sseaman@ci.eureka.ca.gov>; Dustin Owens <dustin.owens@gmail.com>; Richardfursman@hue.life
Subject: RE: Final Inspection - 206 W. Sixth Street
Brian,
Its very difficult to sympathize with your department, let alone understand the City’s policies on building and inspection when you continually do not respond to public question and allow your staff to run rogue. Now after more than a week, my client nor I are left with any better direction than we were last week. Essentially your department conducted two ‘Final Inspections’ , without explanation for the second inspection, and when confronted about the matter it has been merely crickets. Clearly you either have no explanation, have blatantly chosen to ignore the subject, or some combination of both. In any case, this response, or lack thereof, demonstrates your complete lack of control of your staff, the position, and abuse of power provided by being the Building Official and Public Works Director.
Given our timely requests to the matter, and the lack of response, we will continue to operate under the Temporary Certificate of Occupancy until a concise response can be obtained.
TS
From: Brian Gerving <bgerving@ci.eureka.ca.gov>
Sent: Thursday, October 3, 2019 8:17 AM
To: Travis Schneider <tschneider@pacaff.com>
Cc: Austin Allison <aallison@ci.eureka.ca.gov>; Kim Bergel <kbergel@ci.eureka.ca.gov>; Greg Sparks <gsparks@ci.eureka.ca.gov>; Heidi Messner <hmessner@ci.eureka.ca.gov>; Natalie Arroyo <narroyo@ci.eureka.ca.gov>; Robert Black <rblack@attyblack.com>; Leslie Castellano <lcastellano@ci.eureka.ca.gov>; Susan Seaman <sseaman@ci.eureka.ca.gov>; Dustin Owens <dustin.owens@gmail.com>; Richardfursman@hue.life; edward Houghton <edward@thecannavisegroup.com>; Robert Dumouchel <rdumouchel@ci.eureka.ca.gov>; John Polansky <jpolansky@ci.eureka.ca.gov>
Subject: RE: Final Inspection - 206 W. Sixth Street
Travis,
I believed that your email was rendered moot by our subsequent communications with your client, both in person and via email. The temporary Certificate of Occupancy issued last week, a copy of which is attached, clearly indicates which items must be addressed before the final C of O may be issued.
I believe that your email below mischaracterizes your conversations with Mr. Polansky at the site. His intent in visiting after he returned to the office last week was merely to ensure that you and Mr. Houghton had a clear understanding of previous communications the three of you had about outstanding issues, communications which you didn’t relay to me when we met the day before. It is neither practical nor appropriate for me to proactively tell every employee under my direction which specific tasks they should perform (or not perform) on a daily basis. I don’t believe that Mr. Polansky’s follow-up visit to the site was inappropriate in any way.
You have stated on several occasions that you believe I am abusing the power of my position. What you have left out of your argument is an acknowledgement that none of corrections listed on the temporary C of O are unreasonable. Every item listed is required by code and was either shown correctly on the plans and built incorrectly, not shown on the plans because it didn’t need to be, or specifically approved as a deferred submittal last year (and not subsequently submitted for review). If you would like to argue the legitimacy of any of the corrections, please feel free to do so. The fact of the matter is that our staff, from our counter crew up, has done everything they can to keep this project moving forward.
I look forward to continuing this conversation in a positive manner so that we can work toward a final Certificate of Occupancy for the building.
Regards,
Brian
From: Travis Schneider <tschneider@pacaff.com>
Sent: Thursday, October 3, 2019 12:05 PM
To: Brian Gerving <bgerving@ci.eureka.ca.gov>
Cc: Austin Allison <aallison@ci.eureka.ca.gov>; Kim Bergel <kbergel@ci.eureka.ca.gov>; Greg Sparks <gsparks@ci.eureka.ca.gov>; Heidi Messner <hmessner@ci.eureka.ca.gov>; Natalie Arroyo <narroyo@ci.eureka.ca.gov>; Robert Black <rblack@attyblack.com>; Leslie Castellano <lcastellano@ci.eureka.ca.gov>; Susan Seaman <sseaman@ci.eureka.ca.gov>; Dustin Owens <dustin.owens@gmail.com>; Richardfursman@hue.life; edward Houghton <edward@thecannavisegroup.com>; Robert Dumouchel <rdumouchel@ci.eureka.ca.gov>; John Polansky <jpolansky@ci.eureka.ca.gov>
Subject: RE: Final Inspection - 206 W. Sixth Street
So let’s get this straight. I have a question or make a request and then you contact our client. Let me remind you that I’m the general contractor on the project, and I’m in charge of correcting any deficiencies, furthermore, I’m the one who called in the initial final inspection request to your hotline (as requested in our settlement). That being the case, I think it is only common courtesy to deal with me (or my client and I together) and not directly with my client. I don’t contact the Finance Dept. when I respond to issues with the Bldg. Dept. This is not the first time this has happened, and further demonstrates your attempts to avoid me altogether and avoid the situation at hand.
You’re probably onto something here when you say, ‘It is neither practical nor appropriate for me to proactively tell every employee under my direction which specific tasks they should perform (or not perform) on a daily basis.’ What is your job is to provide your employees guidance and direction. Anyone who thinks otherwise probably shouldn’t be in City Management. My construction crews just don’t put a door in because they think it is a good idea without checking with the owner or me. Your people shouldn’t schedule inspections just because they think one should be done, or because they have nothing better to do, especially when a casual review of the file would reveal one had already been completed. So you’re indicating that it’s ok to show up for a second final? You don’t think this is inappropriate? Do you think it would be appropriate for the inspector or yourself to provide an explanation why this is acceptable or standard procedure with your department. I’m concerned about this since I have never seen this with building departments in any other jurisdiction, but even more so since you as the Building Official (highest ranking position in the Building Dept.) conducted a final on your own accord.
I wasn’t going to argue the legitimacy of the corrections, but since you brought it up, we can go there. Shall I send you your punch list versus the one produced by Mr. Polansky? Shall we discuss the fact that Mr. Polansky had been through the building just a few short weeks before and we exchanged an email summarizing the items that needed to be addressed; very similar to the same visits we had with the Fire Dept., Planning Dept. and Police Dept. The only difference being is that unlike Fire, Police and Planning, your department came back with a whole new set of issues, not once, but twice because you felt it necessary to complete a final yourself, and then apparently send your inspector down without speaking to me to do another. So there you have it, that’s an abuse of power, and a lack of control of your staff, and yet the only way I get a response out of you is when I get upset or the City gets sued. So we can continue to argue this matter, or you can own the continued mistakes that occur under your watch and the ignorance to the matter. Let’s be honest, you probably wouldn’t have gotten an email today if you had merely answered my questions a week ago when I posed them. Wait, I think that was the basis of our litigation with you the last time (I can re-send a synopsis if you don’t remember). How well did that work out for you and the City the last time? Not so well did it.
TS
On Thu, Oct 3, 2019 at 3:41 PM Greg Sparks <gsparks@ci.eureka.ca.gov> wrote:
Travis,
My follow up to this email conversation will be kept to you, Dustin, Bob, Brian and myself. I am interested in de-escalating conflict and focus on solving the problem. We may disagree as to what the problem is, but you saw fit to include elected officials and the City Manager recruitment consultant in the email chain. That is not appropriate. A focus on criticizing and belittling doesn’t address the punch list items. Let’s work together to make sure these items are completed and your client is pleased with the end result.
A preferred approach for you in communicating with the Building Official is to include the City Manager and City Attorney.
Thank you,
Greg Sparks
From: Dustin Owens <dustin.owens@gmail.com>
Sent: Thursday, October 3, 2019 4:02 PM
To: Greg Sparks <gsparks@ci.eureka.ca.gov>
Cc: Travis Schneider <tschneider@pacaff.com>; Robert Black <rblack@attyblack.com>; Brian Gerving <bgerving@ci.eureka.ca.gov>
Subject: Re: Final Inspection - 206 W. Sixth Street
Greg:
I don't understand why you would have a problem with elected officials, etc. being cc'd on any communication concerning the City or its employees. It is all public information/discourse and it concerns their City.
I too hope that cooperation can occur and things can be resolved and move more smoothly in the future. However, it feels like my client (as well as some others) is being targeted with some pretty odd, inconsistent, and ultimately abusive behaviors that come from this Department. When we make steps towards that cooperation, we are faced with some really strange behaviors / responses from the City that are quite obviously inappropriate. I also have serious concerns about other abuses within the City and, particularly, this Department. I know, for example, that a certain City employee has either deleted text messages in response to public records act requests, or refused/failed to provide them. I have been told that there was a City "policy" not to accept lawful service of process, although when I asked for a copy of that policy via a PRA none was produced (obviously because it doesn't actually exist and would be plainly illegal/inappropriate). I've also received information that a certain employee of the City engaged in some quid pro quo with regard to a local project in order to protect their personal interests / prevent certain information from coming to light about them. All of these issues involve this particular department. Those issues are of public concern. They are important issues for our elected officials and any hiring consultants to be aware of. Certainly, there isn't a good reason to keep them in the dark or try to discourage my client from communicating with elected officials, beyond just trying to control the narrative.
Sincerely,
Dustin E. Owens
From: Greg Sparks <gsparks@ci.eureka.ca.gov>
Sent: Thursday, October 3, 2019 4:23 PM
To: Dustin Owens <dustin.owens@gmail.com>
Cc: Travis Schneider <tschneider@pacaff.com>; Robert Black <rblack@attyblack.com>; Brian Gerving <bgerving@ci.eureka.ca.gov>
Subject: RE: Final Inspection - 206 W. Sixth Street
Dustin,
Department directors are appointed by the City Manager and can only be disciplined or removed by the City Manager. I included the City Attorney, so that we could address this in an appropriate manner without a concern that I, as the City Manager was controlling information or giving any appearance to covering performance issues or other concerns. The City Attorney works for the City Council-under contract, and not the City Manager.
The only real purpose in including the City Council and the consultant is an attempt to discredit Mr. Gerving. The other issues you brought up can be addressed with the City Attorney if you believe some type of illegal or inappropriate behavior is going on with city employees. We take employee conduct very seriously. We have terminated many employees over my time with the City for poor performance, misconduct, and such. I have not seen anything from Mr. Gerving that leads me to the type of conclusions that your client and yourself are intimating.
Thanks,
Greg
Related posts:
https://johnchiv.blogspot.com/2019/06/travis-schneider-had-to-file-writ-of.html?m=1
https://johnchiv.blogspot.com/2019/06/city-of-eureja-settles-with-travis.html?m=1
https://johnchiv.blogspot.com/2019/05/closed-session-for-todays-eureka-city.html?m=1
https://johnchiv.blogspot.com/2019/04/incompetence-or-abuse-of-power-read.html?m=1
No comments:
Post a Comment
Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.