Photo by mensatic via MorgueFile.com

A discussion item on tonight’s Finance Committee agenda had to do with the NSI investigation follow-up.  Mayor Keith Bosman gave the details of the print out that was discussed at the last meeting.  A person started work on his garage, putting in a window, without a building permit.  He also needed a zoning review.  Therefore, he had to pay for the building permit, $60, for the zoning review, $60, plus a $60 penalty on each for a total of $240.  Both he and Frank Pacetti, city administrator, conferred with each other.  Bosman stated that the two of them thought that they should deal with the situation ”in a common sense way.”  They both decided to rescind the zoning review and penalty.  The person paid for the building permit and its associated penalty.  Bosman stated that “decisions like this are made on a regular basis by city inspectors and, if he had to go back, he would handle it the same way.”

Chairman David Bogdala said that he appreciated Bosman’s comments, but that “the problem is not whether or not it was a common sense way to deal with the situation.  We approved several here tonight (approval of the rescinding of permit fees).  The Common Council will hear our recommendations.  But, there’s nothing that allows you to do that.  When this whole thing started, I questioned both of you.  ‘Have we waived any fees?’  This went on for a couple of months.  Both of you said no, that it was never allowed to happen.  Now, once caught, you blame it on the guy who’s no longer here (Director James Schulz).  Now, we find out that it was not just Schulz; it’s the administration, too.  You are not in a position to allow this.  Then, once we find out that there were some fees rescinded, I asked you to go back and look.  We’ve had 14 since August 1st (the first date that this issue came up).  Prior to August 1st, there were zero.  Now, all of a sudden, with the news articles, and everyone watching, we’ve been bombarded with rescinding fee requests.  Now, we’re following due process.  I find it disturbing that we were not given the truth.  The mayor had no authorization to waive the fee.”

Alderperson Theodore Ruffalo echoed Bogdala’s sentiments.  “It’s simple checks and balances.  The staff is an extension of your office (Bosman’s).  It’s your responsibility.  That’s the reason for having checks and balances.  It was not upheld here.  Something’s wrong.  It’s unfortunate.  This is not the way business should be conducted.”

Then, Bosman started to relate that assistant city attorney Matt Knight was working on a change in the ordinance that would not require a zoning review when putting in a window.  Bogdala asked the zoning coordinator, Paula Blise, if she was aware of this new ordinance change, and she said that she was not.  Bogdala said, “If this were D.C., we’d be talking about the Potomac Two-Step.  The fact remains that this committee was lied to.  We are not here debating an ordinance change.  This is a major issue.  And, you’re trying to sweep it under the rug.  It’s a big deal.  It doesn’t matter whether it’s $6,000 or $6.  We denied one here today.  That decision was given its due process.  Now, that was different from the person whose fees were waived upstairs.  I want the disciplinary process taken.  We were lied to on numerous occasions.  The mayor needs to recognize that.  The citizens were also lied to.”

Bosman disagreed.  “There has been no cover up.  Questions were answered to the best of our ability.  I don’t feel that any discipline is needed, and it will not be given.”

Alderperson Katherine Marks wanted to come up with a process on how to prevent this from happening going forward.  Blise stated that, over the last three or four years, with the director having discretionary judgment, how it has impacted the department.  Inspectors stopped enforcing once they saw that building inspection fees were overturned.  “This process makes us more accountable.  Maybe, we’ll be a little more careful not to let it get to this point.  If an ordinance change is needed, it should be carried out.  Things like this shouldn’t be done behind closed doors.  It hurts the department.”

Alderperson Eric Haugaard asked the city attorney, Ed Antaramian, a question.  He wanted to know if the mayor has the authority to exercise discretion.  “Isn’t that in conflict with the ordinance?”  Antaramian’s answer was that “supervised people exercising discretion are subject to supervisory review.”  He further clarified the difference between discretionary and ministerial decisions.  ”Discretionary decisions are reviewable by the supervisor.  Ministerial decisions are not discretionary and, therefore, not reviewable.  It should not have been waived.”   

Bogdala made the statement that “No one ever said that there shouldn’t be discretion.  Every day, a police officer or an inspector makes discretionary judgments in citing or not citing for a particular infraction.  But, where’s the complainant’s due process?  There’s a citizen out there being ignored.”  Ruffalo stated that he thought that this was all problematic.  “And, with the mayor saying that there will be no discipline.  We all make mistakes.  But, when consistent mistakes are made, and you are told only half-truths and lies.  This can only be done so many times.  It’s a leadership problem.  And, also, with the city staff not being reviewed on a yearly basis.  They should have discipline.  In the military, it’s the same.”

Alderperson Tod Ohnstad stated that he felt that the cases heard tonight and the last several months show us that we have a process put in place.  Cases to be reviewed come here.  It’s a good thing.  I hope the process continues.”  

Ruffalo wanted to know when the example happened.  The answer given was last fall.  “So, we identified the problem in the ordinance last fall, and we are just now doing something about it?”  Bosman stated that a situation such as this doesn’t come up every day.”  “Again,” Ruffalo stated, “this is a leadership problem, and a consistency issue.” 

Bogdala stated that he wanted to make one thing clear.  “As has been stated, this is not me against the administration.  We need answers to our questions.  It shouldn’t take four to six months.  We shouldn’t be downplaying it by pointing at a glitch in the ordinance, hereby bringing confusion and anger.  This goes far beyond this committee.  People have been cheated.  People appealed.  How many have not been afforded this appeal route?  I’m not sure if this issue has been put to bed.  For now, we’re going to receive and file it.  We may need further discussion.”  Bosman apologized and wanted to get together to discuss a solution.  Marks wants this committee to be privy to the information being discussed.