What's more important for a permit office to have: timely permitting or effective enforcement?

[Eric]

In your experience, which is more critical for ensuring quality permitting administration? Is it timely permitting or effective enforcement? Why do you think so?

 

[Emily C]

Wow!
Excellent question. Effective enforcement is a tough one, because of things like staffing, and prioritizing. What is a top priority for the resident may not necessarily be for the staff (ie it is not a danger to life/safety, it's just an eyesore).
Timely permitting I would say is overall more important because there is state law that governs the timeline so jurisdictions need to follow it.

 

[Eric]

Wow!
Excellent question. Effective enforcement is a tough one, because of things like staffing, and prioritizing. What is a top priority for the resident may not necessarily be for the staff (ie it is not a danger to life/safety, it's just an eyesore).
Timely permitting I would say is overall more important because there is state law that governs the timeline so jurisdictions need to follow it.

I'm going to play devil's advocate here and say 'effective enforcement' is more important. What's the value of the law, after all, if the regulated community doesn't have some sense that it could possibly be enforced? I think you really do need cases periodically popping up in the news where people are getting fined (or worse) for failing to follow the law and get their work properly permitted. Such cautionary tales often serve as the best and most effective form of public education about your permitting program.

Timely permitting is, of course, critical as well. Politicians often make permitting efficiency their main focus, which makes sense b/c permitting delays are so often a source of frustration for businesses and individuals. But at the end of the day, I'd say enforcement is what makes a permit program "real" in the eyes of the regulated public. People have to know that they need to get permitted and follow the law because, if they don't, they could get hit with real financial or criminal consequences.

 

[W3 Planning and Research]

I think it is a mixed answer. From a permitting point of view, timely and accurate is the most important. It is always my goal to get permits out the door as quickly as possible while still making sure that they meet all required codes.

Enforcement of violations in the field needs to be done in an effective manner. Enforcement of violations involves a legal framework that has to be followed exactly to ensure that everyone's right are being followed and that due process is adhered too. What that means is that effective code enforcement is usually a slow process.

 

[Calico]

I see time as both reward and punishment. If I want to get permitted quickly, I do my checklist properly. I'm wasting everyone's time otherwise. The project and the people involved are punished indirectly. I understand such punishment may not be effective for everyone, so that's where stronger enforcement programs play their roles.

 

[Eric]

Enforcement of violations in the field needs to be done in an effective manner.

True. We have protocols we follow starting from investigating the "alleged violation" to establishing that a violation occurred and then coordinating with EPA and other federal/state/local agencies on a resolution. It definitely takes time and we have to consider whether the resources invested in the process are worth what the public's getting in return. Enforcement is discretionary and needs to be executed strategically in order to best serve the agency's mission.

 

[W3 Planning and Research]

One problem that I see in the industry quite a bit, and I was highly critical of, is that the industry feels the plan reviewers are their quality control. So what I saw was that they would turn in inferior work, expecting us to find their problems. This cost them time, which we of course were blamed for. I gave the industry several talks on self policing and having someone else review their work before submittal, all of which fell on deaf ears. The inferior work stopped when I required that the owner be listed in all communication from our Department to the contractor. As soon as their inferior work and mistakes became public, it was amazing how fast they decided to take our advice and improve their quality. That in turn resulted in reduced permitting times! People always like to blame the jurisdiction for the delays and failures, but my experience was that 90% of the time the problem was with the contractors themselves.

 

[Eric]

One problem that I see in the industry quite a bit, and I was highly critical of, is that the industry feels the plan reviewers are their quality control. So what I saw was that they would turn in inferior work, expecting us to find their problems. This cost them time, which we of course were blamed for. I gave the industry several talks on self policing and having someone else review their work before submittal, all of which fell on deaf ears.

I think that permit applicants, and especially their consultants, need to view the end goal of the permit process as not just about "getting a permit" but about "getting a legally defensible permit." If a permit office gives you a piece of paper saying you're authorized to do work, but the underlying review/documentation is flawed, then you're still bearing potential risk (e.g., delays if there's litigation). Ideally consultants should view their interaction with permit offices as a collaboration, with a mutual focus on ensuring all details have been adequately reviewed and that all requirements are met. Agencies can and do make mistakes and can be subject to lawsuits. Applicants/consultants have a real role, alongside permitting staff, helping to ensure the permit can survive legal scrutiny.

The inferior work stopped when I required that the owner be listed in all communication from our Department to the contractor.

Great suggestion! Permitting staff definitely shouldn't hesitate to cc the applicant on emails to their consultant. I know it kind of feels like you're cc'ing that person's boss, which we generally avoid (unless necessary) in a lot of other professional interactions. However, as long as you're consistent about it, you're really serving the applicant's best interest by ensuring the quality of their consultant's submittals (whether good or bad) is fully transparent.

 

[W3 Planning and Research]

I think that permit applicants, and especially their consultants, need to view the end goal of the permit process as not just about "getting a permit" but about "getting a legally defensible permit." If a permit office gives you a piece of paper saying you're authorized to do work, but the underlying review/documentation is flawed, then you're still bearing potential risk (e.g., delays if there's litigation). Ideally consultants should view their interaction with permit offices as a collaboration, with a mutual focus on ensuring all details have been adequately reviewed and that all requirements are met. Agencies can and do make mistakes and can be subject to lawsuits. Applicants/consultants have a real role, alongside permitting staff, helping to ensure the permit can survive legal scrutiny.



Great suggestion! Permitting staff definitely shouldn't hesitate to cc the applicant on emails to their consultant. I know it kind of feels like you're cc'ing that person's boss, which we generally avoid (unless necessary) in a lot of other professional interactions. However, as long as you're consistent about it, you're really serving the applicant's best interest by ensuring the quality of their consultant's submittals (whether good or bad) is fully transparent.

I completely agree. I was in one jurisdiction where I was ordered repeatedly to approve permits (I refused) because they were not legally defensible. I knew that every permit we were issuing was being watched by special interest groups primed for litigation against any misstep we made. I am thankful in my 25+ year career, I have never had a lawsuit filed against me that we were found to be responsible for. If you do the right thing, it may be a tough path, but you will be far more respected for taking it.

 

[Calico]

I completely agree. I was in one jurisdiction where I was ordered repeatedly to approve permits (I refused) because they were not legally defensible. I knew that every permit we were issuing was being watched by special interest groups primed for litigation against any misstep we made. I am thankful in my 25+ year career, I have never had a lawsuit filed against me that we were found to be responsible for. If you do the right thing, it may be a tough path, but you will be far more respected for taking it.

The pressure must have been immense, but thank you for not giving up! I can see why you and Eric feel strongly about proper enforcement, but we will need many more people like you fighting against the corrupt. Maybe it's better handled by an external group, though I know that doesn't guarantee anything.

 

[W3 Planning and Research]

The pressure must have been immense, but thank you for not giving up! I can see why you and Eric feel strongly about proper enforcement, but we will need many more people like you fighting against the corrupt. Maybe it's better handled by an external group, though I know that doesn't guarantee anything.

I have walked away from 2 organizations now where the corruption was rampamy. I have fired a building official, building inspector and code enforcement officer for doing work on their homes without permits, contracting on duty, and stealing. Ths industry needs more people willing to stand up and do what it right. We don't make the laws, we just have to enforce them, but the tough part is educating elected officials on what the actual laws they and their predecessors have approved, when they get complaints that the building department is being too "mean".
At the end of the day, my biggest fear was always having someone hurt in a structure because of something we overlooked or failed to do. Our job is safety first and foremost, not appeasing people who refuse to follow the adopted codes.