Home Brentwood Brentwood Code Enforcement “Conflict of Interest Policy” Puts Burden on Police

Brentwood Code Enforcement “Conflict of Interest Policy” Puts Burden on Police

by ECT

IMG_9890

It may have taken longer than some residents would prefer, but it looks like the City of Brentwood is ready to move forward with a conflict of interest policy for code enforcement during tonight’s city council meeting, however, the solution now puts a burden on Brentwood Police and that is not okay.

The policy came about due to complaints by a group of concerned residents on Carnegie Lane that a rental home owned by Brentwood’s senior code enforcement officer, Berenice Arteaga, has been the source of constant neighborhood disruption, including code violations and domestic disturbances.  With the home being owned by an employee within code enforcement, it created a messy situation.

The council hopes to create a policy that takes care of the perceived conflict of interest by using police officers over code enforcement when it comes to rental homes of city employees.

The policy is rather straight forward:

It shall be the City’s policy that no staff member from the Code Enforcement or Building Inspection sections administer or have any involvement with any related code enforcement case involving a property owned by any Code Enforcement staff member, City Building Inspector, Department Director, City Attorney, City Manager, or member of their immediate family. In the event that a Code Enforcement case involves one of the employees mentioned above, or a member of their family, provisions will be made so that the case is removed from any employee that may have a perceived conflict.

Councilman Erick Stonebarger was quoted back in February by the Contra Costa Times stating the current process is flawed and failed the residents which has affected their quality of life.

“When you have co-employees monitoring each other, it can cause tenuous situations,” he said. “I want our employees to invest in the community. We want to protect them as property owners and handle any perceived conflicts.”

While Councilman Stonebarger is correct, the policy really doesn’t solve a long-term problem because now they are likely taking resources from police for code enforcement when a potential conflict of interest occurs.

This could have simply been solved if code enforcement folks simply performed their job to the fullest of their ability.  Instead, rather than holding code enforcement accountable for not doing their job, the Council appears set on a work around of the situation.

This option is a good start according to George Esquivel, but it doesn’t go far enough when a problem arises.  He doesn’t like the idea of taking police off the streets for code enforcement and would prefer people just perform their job and be held accountable.

“There are a couple folks on the city council trying to do something but they have their hands tied. I sat with Councilman Stonebarger and understand his point of view of what they are trying to do it but it’s a red tape kind of situation. This is a good first step, but they do need to do more. This is not enough,” said Esquivel.

With tonight’s meeting, hopefully the code enforcement issue will resolve itself in one form of another as its been going on since last December. Knowing that police are strapped, this is a poor solution and a lazy one at that on the councils part .

Here is a look at the Staff Report.

Subject/Title: A Resolution adopting a new City Council/Administrative Policy 20-29, Code

Enforcement Conflict Policy

BACKGROUND

In the event that a Code Enforcement complaint is received concerning a property owned by a City employee with an actual or perceived conflict, staff is proposing to establish procedures in which the conflict or perception of conflict is removed. The proposed policy would apply to employees of the Code Enforcement or Building Inspection sections, as well as Department Directors, the City Manager and the City Attorney. The policy would also apply to family members of those aforementioned employees.

It shall be the City’s policy that no staff member from the Code Enforcement or Building Inspection sections administer or have any involvement with any related code enforcement case involving a property owned by any Code Enforcement staff member, City Building Inspector, Department Director, City Attorney, City Manager, or member of their immediate family. In the event that a Code Enforcement case involves one of the employees mentioned above, or a member of their family, provisions will be made so that the case is removed from any employee that may have a perceived conflict. For example, the Police Department shall conduct the investigation if the property is owned by a Code Enforcement employee or Building Inspector. If the case involves a Department Director, the City Manager shall oversee the investigation and may retain an outside, independent investigator to conduct the investigation. If the case involves the City Manager, the Community Development Director shall consult with the City Attorney and may hire an outside investigator.

This policy has been reviewed and approved by the Neighborhood Improvement Committee at their meeting of May 13, 2013 and the Committee recommends the City Council adopt the policy

http://www.ci.brentwood.ca.us/citycouncil/ePacket/ccap2013/ccep20130611.pdf

 

You may also like

11 comments

JimSimmons42 Jun 11, 2013 - 7:57 am

George Esquivel is 100% correct.

cme Jun 11, 2013 - 8:09 am

Let me check if I understand this. Does this mean that certain people that work for the city (and their family members) are exempt from Police involvement regarding code violations regarding owned property? Why should anyone be given an opportunity to avoid following the law because they know the police cannot investigate?

burkforoakley Jun 11, 2013 - 8:22 am

No, currently Brentwood has dedicated code enforcement. Should a home be owned by city staff or family members, that particular incident is removed from code enforcement response and Brentwood PD will take over on that incident in the name of “conflict of interest”. Meaning it takes an officer off the street to deal with a complaint from a home owned by a city staff person.

char ehrhart Jun 11, 2013 - 9:06 am

Thank you for the clarification.

Julio-Antioch Jun 11, 2013 - 8:45 am

If the person involved had any pride and self respect this would not be necessary at all. But because this person felt above the law now there is a mess. Grow up people and do your job. Not fair the pass it off on the police.

Chuck Varnado Jun 11, 2013 - 9:19 am

So basically, because the city of Brentwood, will not enforce it’s own policies against it’s code enforcement officer, who is failing to perform his duties. The police department has to pick up his slack.. DOH, fire his ass! Problem solved!

Pete Thomas Jun 11, 2013 - 9:21 am

Anyone else would be fired for taking advantage of their position like that and not doing their job. Brentwood Council has had the opportunity to make this right and the failed. Shame on them for putting more strain on PD because a couple people don’t want to do their job.

William Jun 11, 2013 - 10:56 am

Thanks for bringing attention to this. Those involved should have been replaced months ago. This solution hurts everyone but the code enforcement and burdens PD. Thanks for calling it for what its. I expect better from our council but I guess not.

CJ Jun 11, 2013 - 9:33 pm

I am one of the “concerned” residents who brought this situation to light way back in November 2012. I was able to discover the owner of this SECTION 8 house. When I spoke w/ the “landlords” never did they tell me that they BOTH work for the city of Brentwood. Our initial complaints were dismissed – in fact we were told to “just go ahead & call code enforcement with any issues.” This was said BEFORE we knew that a SENIOR code enforcement officer & husband owned the property. Glad to see the policy was put in to place – FINALLY! Amazing how these two keep their jobs & collect “twice” from the taxpayer. There is no shame for them.

Em Jun 14, 2013 - 12:27 am

Well put!

H8R of Big Gov Jun 12, 2013 - 10:09 am

Should be a condition of employment…
Code Violation by City Employee not corrected within Muni Code time standard = FIRED!

Comments are closed.