For those of you wondering what ever became of the findings of the review committee, which completed its task quite some time ago, the subject is finally coming up for some sort of decision on how to structure the unit. It is set for discussion and vote at tomorrow’s BOS meeting. One issue is whether the unit will be placed under Sheriff or D.A. management (if it will continue to have its own sworn law enforcement personnel), or remain under County Counsel authority (in which potential criminal cases would be referred to the DA for investigation). The TS article references “staff reports” but makes no reference to the review committee’s report.
Personally, I think it’s a huge mistake to blend building and land code enforcement with criminal investigations. We are the only county which as done so and we’ve seen the results.
The BOD meetings always start at 9:00, but I don’t know where the CEU issue is on the agenda. If there are any CLMP people reading, maybe you can post what information you have?
27 comments
Comments feed for this article
November 30, 2009 at 10:28 am
Anonymous
Why can’t each agency simply be responsible for its own enforcement?
November 30, 2009 at 10:57 am
SkiptToMyLou
Why didn’t you link to the actual agenda? It has the details the T-S doesn’t and it also gives you the info of where it sits on the agenda.
November 30, 2009 at 1:09 pm
Eric Kirk
I didn’t feel like it.
http://co.humboldt.ca.us/board/agenda/questys/
November 30, 2009 at 1:52 pm
edsvoice
Here is the link to the matter at hand.
http://co.humboldt.ca.us/board/agenda/questys/MG152849/AS152886/AS152888/AI192968/DO192969/BOSAgendaItem.pdf
November 30, 2009 at 7:45 pm
Anonymous
why can’t we have Kirk Girard take over the code enforcement unit, he could really stick it to those crazed back to the landers who think living on our natural resource lands is an enviromental alternative to cluster developments and high density living.
December 1, 2009 at 8:26 am
anonymous
KMUD news Monday night has a look at some issues involved.
The major issue is deciding whether Code Enforcement is a civil matter, or whether it will be made into a criminal investigating unit, which no other county does.
Worth noting that the proposal either keeps the CEU as non-deputized unarmed investigators under County Counsel for no increase in budget, or arms them under the DA’ supervision at the cost of $175,000 a year.
Good news is the Sheriff said he’s not interested in having the CEU in his department.
Most of the other issues in the Task Force report are ignored.
Also worth noting that this report and agenda were released on Friday afternoon during a holiday weekend for immediate action by the Supes on the following Tuesday. Does it look like they are trying to duck public input?
Even if they are not, it’s very disrespectful of the public, given the huge concerns created by the CEU raids last year.
December 1, 2009 at 10:14 am
back to the future
the county’s new code enforcement plan is revealed quite vividly on one small paragraph of their newly proposed “rules of operation” LISTEN UP: “C.E. will NOT be required to keep minutes of any of their “meetings” because they say that having to do so would “deter the participants from fully participating in the “meetings”". Ask yourself why this would be.
This can only mean that they want to operate in secret again and not be accountable for any thing that they are hatching against the citizenry.
Of course any legitimate group/organization keeps minutes of what was discussed/voted on/ plans etc……but our county Code Enforcement thinks that they don’t need to keep no stinkin minutes……
December 1, 2009 at 10:27 am
anonymous
This was taken off the agenda and rescheduled for December 15.
December 2, 2009 at 8:59 am
anonymous
Clif C will be on the CLMP Show on KMUD 7 pm Wednesday to answer Boonie Blackberry’s questions on this issue.
December 2, 2009 at 9:48 am
Eric Kirk
Thank you! I’ll miss the live version, but I’ll check the archives later.
December 2, 2009 at 10:30 am
edsvoice
So if what you are saying is true, than only a legitimate group/organization keeps minutes of what was discussed/voted on/plans ect. Would you include 501c3 community based non-profits into that mix?
So would you include the Southern Humboldt Community Park Inc. Board of Directors as one of those legitimate groups/organizations?
December 2, 2009 at 1:09 pm
Lodgepole
Please, Ed, it’s past tiresome.
December 2, 2009 at 1:39 pm
anon says
“C.E. will NOT be required to keep minutes of any of their “meetings” because they say that having to do so would “deter the participants from fully participating in the “meetings””.
code enforcement didn’t write this language….neely and clendenanan did………sorry i ever got talked into voting for that guy, he’s been a huge dissappointment so far.
December 2, 2009 at 3:10 pm
longwind
To be polite, Clif, Jill Duffy and lame duck county administrator Loretta Nickolaus wrote it, or at least signed it. Loretta won her spurs a year ago near Christmas when she wrote the staff recommendation that Code Enforcement be supervised by the Sheriff directly. After all, his Drug Task Force was already getting illegal warrants from the CEU, why not put ‘em under orders? Hers was the last official peep about Code Enforcement until now, one Christmas later.
Speaking of disappointments, gun-lovin’ Loretta will retire any day now. Since Clif and the gang have stalled responding to the Task Force report for well over a year, they could have stalled another two weeks for Loretta to stop pushing guns, and written balanced recommendations.
This behavior is so outrageous it eclipses the many sound recommendations made to the Supes that are ignored by it. Clif had presented himself as sympathetic to the goals of the Task Force. This recommendation over his signature is just the opposite.
Very quickly, the Task Force called for 3 blue-ribbon committees to be formed, to address decades-old county conflicts and problems of rural housing, land use and environmental health issues. All await real attention, or they will only receive it from armed code cops operating essentially at random. That’s what the Task Force asked for in addition to a rational cop policy. The only ghost of all this is Clif’s recommendation that a newly empowered Oversight Committee not take minutes or notes. Absence of those minutes was one of the specific, enumerated points that the Task Force suggested changing. Go get ‘em, Clif.
December 2, 2009 at 9:01 pm
Ben
Eric… I would be very interested to hear your opinion of Cliff’s contention that Code Enforcement should be armed as he stated on the CLMP show tonight.It seems to me that Staff wants a structure that deflects responsibility as they probably expect more blowups over Code Enforcement activities.
December 2, 2009 at 9:17 pm
Eric Kirk
I haven’t listened to the show yet, but I don’t see why building or land code enforcement agents require arms. If they anticipate physical danger, then they should be able to request Sheriff escort. Arming someone who is essentially a building inspector generates an institutionalized expectation of trouble which may have been one factor in the abuses of a couple of years ago. So I haven’t heard his reasoning, but this may be one of those issues on which I disagree with Clif.
I’ll listen in a little later on and comment.
December 3, 2009 at 9:27 am
anon says
“code enforcement didn’t write this language….neely and clendenanan did………sorry i ever got talked into voting for that guy, he’s been a huge dissappointment so far.”
there should be a thread on the CLMP show last night…people really need to listen to it and see what cliff is really about…….
I listened to cliff on the CLMP show last night and he most certainly is turning out to be a complete disappointment……he continued to imply that code enforcement was a criminal/Law enforcement issue.He stumbled all over himself all throughout the show and had no good answers for the hard questions Bonnie was asking him.
Then when asked about why he’s not supporting southern humboldt in acquiring a connection to the “humboldt access TV” feed so people can wacth the Board of Supes meetings like they can in No.hum,………his answer was incredibly lame lame lame…… he said ” well you’re not going to get the full understanding of the meetings by doing that because you can’t really see people’s BODY Language…….and Bonnie said..so you’d rather see us go without any service than to get service and not be able to see people’s body language?…..of course he stumbled all over himself……
How do you spell OUT OF TOUCH??
December 3, 2009 at 10:02 am
Baffled N. Dismayed
Wow…I can’t believe Cliff was elected! He was an embarrassment to himself and his constituents. His arguments regarding the pistol packing code enforcement officer were so inept, it was ludicrous. He obviously cannot distinguish the difference between a police/sheriff officer and a code enforcement officer. The code enforcement officer needs to be versed in land use and building codes, not criminal justice. His argument that a guy with a gun is more effective than a code compliance officer without a gun again has no solid ground. His reference about “horror stories” involving code enforcement officers on the code enforcement website was totally inaccurate. He lied and basically admitted it later on in the show when a woman checked the website and challenged him. He said “…maybe that’s a bad lead, anyway…” What a joke!
His response to the cost ($175,000 annually) was laughable. He referred to it as being insignificant. He said, “In governmental terms that’s not a big amount of money”. Gees, what a politician. It didn’t take long for him to become a full fledged bureaucrat. The BOS needs to carefully consider the costs with the benefits and also consider all the other issues in the County that could use some additional funding.
Cliff “personally guaranteed” that the code enforcement program will not initiate any complaints on their own. If that’s true than he needs to follow through and make sure that happens. Unfortunately, in his short tenure as our representative, Cliff has already built a record of not following through or getting back to folks like he promises. We need to hold him accountable.
In talking about the General Plan Update and public participation, again his responses to Bonnie’s questions were vague and hollow. For him to infer that he possibly can’t attend the SoHum Planning Commission meeting is a cop-out. Of course he can attend the meeting. To the dismay of many folks who attended the May meeting when the Planning Department came down, Cliff aligned himself with staff, sitting with “them” and not sitting with his constituents. This was obviously, a sign of things to come!
Enough of my ramblings. Cliff is not who we thought he was. What a disappointment! Hopefully, he’s a “one and done” Supervisor.
December 3, 2009 at 10:11 am
anon says
erik when are you going to put a thread up about Sacramento REJECTING cliff/lovelace/neely’s housing element plan that they submitted.
Their plan was flawed from the start saying that shelter cove had over 1,000 more lots to build on and they got busted for it by Sacramento. FYI, of the 58 counties applying for these block grants, ONLY Humboldt County was rejected.
By this rejection HC will be losing millions of much need $$ from the state Block Grants.
Check out Humbolt Mirror. They have the document.
December 3, 2009 at 10:12 am
Anonymous
Clif has done a wonderful job as supervisor. You are fixated on your own narrow agenda. But anyone who has been paying attention knows that he is probably the most accessible supervisor the county has seen in decades. His challenge is that some of his constituents think that the world revolves around them and only them.
December 3, 2009 at 12:45 pm
Eric Kirk
Hadn’t heard about that. It’s been the subject of a lot of discussion and I’m not too surprised because I’m sure there are plenty of developers out there who want real opportunities to develop. I guess the question is where they’re going to find the inventory. Do the incorporated areas count?
Personally, I think one-size-fits-all state mandates which press counties build and build are atrocious, and I wonder if the mandate was a developer-lobbied response to controlled growth measures passed in counties and municipalities around the state.
In any case, I’ll read it later and post about it.
December 3, 2009 at 12:52 pm
Eric Kirk
To the dismay of many folks who attended the May meeting when the Planning Department came down, Cliff aligned himself with staff, sitting with “them” and not sitting with his constituents. This was obviously, a sign of things to come!
Well, he represents the county as to they. I believe he was invited in that capacity. You’re saying he should have been sitting in the audience and not fielding questions? I don’t think that would have gone over well.
In any case, I think he’s doing very well – a clean break from his predecessor and addressing environmental and smart growth concerns – issues which used to be of concern to some of his Sohum detractors. He’s broken no campaign policies. As far as I can see, he’s delivered on what he promised. Who did you think he was?
December 4, 2009 at 8:38 am
longwind
Clif has been accessible to our local Local Solutions claque (Dennis Huber, Eric etc) and the Community Park interests. You decide if they’re ‘special’ or not. Representatives of the great majority of SoHum residents, who have discovered very strong disagreements with the townies of Local Solutions, have not found Clif to be accessible at all, except to describe his ‘learning curve,’ at the end of which he says he’ll listen to us trying to assist his learning. It’s been beyond frustrating, and Bonnie expressed the feelings of many people before the Supes and on the CLMP show.
Clif attended Code Enforcement hearings after his election and before he took his seat. He seemed to be paying attention. My two-cent psychologising would be that Clif has joined a group of people thinking and talking in easy to understand ways, and he’s eager to fit in. But his constituents don’t fit in that groupthink, never have and never will. The cognitive dissonance between how fun it is to really relate to Loretta Nickolaus, Dennis Huber et al, and the reality of their hostility to the rural livestyles of most of us down here on this end of Clif’s district, causes such discomfort that he changes conversation with us to music and sports as quickly and completely as he can. He’s not mean, and I don’t think he’s stupid. But he’s a bit worse than useless as a representative, unless your interest is special enough to merit actual county attention, so he can chime into what his new friends are already talking about.
Self-sufficient communities will never be ‘special,’ because they don’t need politics badly enough. I for one take this lesson to heart, and cultivate my garden. I made a mistake in supporting Clif Clendenen, and he’s making a big one in not supporting us.
btw, I know I may be wrong about this, and that Clif may still get a clue. I’d like to give him one. The way forward is to talk concretely, and if possible to break out of the ‘Crips and Bloods’ rivalry mentality as characteristic of our Young Turks who think they’re in charge, as of our Old Turks who probably still are.
December 4, 2009 at 9:42 pm
Anonymous
Bottom line, the Code Enforcement Unit stepped on some dope growers toes. Ouch.
Dope growers, and their supporters are someof the biggest babies, whiners.
December 5, 2009 at 10:35 am
longwind
Not that facts matter, but the people who code enforcement actually stepped on here the day we said no more included a longtime chain-saw repairman, a retired foreign service officer, and a black dog beaten bloody. Because the code cops couldn’t find a single joint despite trampling over a half-dozen properties, they told a landowner he had to replace his septic system, rip out his water line, and get rid of his son’s house. That’ll teach those drug lords.
Investigation revealed that code enforcement often went out to threaten the victims of incompetent and negligent county management. Yee Haw was the best-known example of people actually taken to cheap housing by county workers, only to be made homeless at gunpoint by other county workers. Heck of a job, dope growers.
The most troublesome issue is such repeated county effort to resolve the effects of their own maladministration at gunpoint. Ever wonder why not another county within two hundred miles of here needs what Clif says we do? Are ‘we’ that much worse than, say, Trinity outlaws? Or just hated that much more?
December 8, 2009 at 7:16 am
anonymous
Cynthia Elkins had an enlightening interview with the director of the California Association of Code Enforcement Officers on the Monday evening KMUD news. Everyone following this issue of arming the CEU needs to hear this. Briefly, the Association opposes arming officers and making them into police officers–for very logical and compelling reasons. He put the Humboldt issues in to a statewide context and brought some refreshing independent perspective to the issues.
I’m very concerned with the blurring of the distinction between civil and criminal law in this move by the Supes. I’m grateful to Cynthia for this report.
Cynthia very discreetly avoided calling Clif Clendenon a mealy-mouthed liar, but this report shows him to be one. If he isn’t, he has certainly proven himself to be someone who doesn’ think for himself, but who swallows lies from county staff at face value and repeats them despite the evidence of the Task Force investigation and report.
Eric, this issue is going to stay hot–can you please move this back to the front page?
December 8, 2009 at 9:07 am
Eric Kirk
I haven’t heard the story yet, but I’ll put your post on the front page.