The Director of Building Inspections, Mr. Delmus Wilkinson – Building Official, and the Assistant Director of Building Inspections, Ms. Tam Landis, two of the ones who were forcing us to follow non-existent regulations, were in attendance (she was the secretary to the Board). They made many false statements regarding the regulations and me. Most of the time they nudged each other and giggled, like high-school sweethearts, and made fun of me as I presented official material.
All of the Board Members were licensed contractors, bonded and insured, who were required to obey Construction Laws which in Pensacola were covered in the Standard Building Code. Some of the Board Members were owners of multi-million dollar enterprises. Yet, the Board Members admitted to consistently breaking the construction law themselves which resulted in additional income from unnecessary construction required by City Officials and the opportunity to steal building materials and artifacts from property owners – such as happened to us.
The whole board appeared to be heavily biased in favor of City Officials. The Board ignored the Standard Building Code Regulations I supplied, the only official construction regulation authorized in Pensacola, which clearly showed that the City Officials were breaking the law.
Mr. Wilkinson used his usual excuse for refusing to recognize exceptions listed in the regulation when he said at the meeting, “So in order to use the building code you’ve got to use it as a whole and not just pick out just one sentence that might fit your particular need.” He meant that he ignored all official, defined exceptions to the applicability of these rules; such as a CO is not appropriate on change of tenant if the classification remained the same. Mr. Wilkinson also ignored the exclusion for properly documented historic houses, which ours was. These interpretations on the part of Mr. Wilkinson were in violation of the Standard Building Code.
Breaking the only authorized construction law in Pensacola (the SBC) apparently provided the Board Members with a windfall income based on illegal demands. The Board Members fiercely defended these illegal requirements.
This fact was evidenced when Board Member James C. Moulton stated, “I’m not talking about the Standard Building Code. I’m talking about a local ordinance.”
Excerpts from the verbatim transcript of the Pensacola Construction Board
of Appeals Meeting follow:
of Appeals Meeting follow:
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Minutes of Board Meeting – beginning of the discussion of my case
Minutes of Board Meeting – beginning of the discussion of my case
Board Member James Boyd: Ms. Mead, I spent about three hours of my time reading all these letters and proposals today. It seems to me that the problem here is not that the City has not accepted the fact that it is a commercial facility. Is that the problem?
Mary Mead: No. But I’m not changing…
Board Member James Boyd: (inaudible)
Mary Mead: There is a problem on when a Certificate of Occupancy is required.
Board Member James Boyd: It’s required anytime you change. It’s just for the protection of a businessman and I do it every day.
Mary Mead: Every time you change what?
Board Member James Boyd: You change the occupant or you change the use.
Mary Mead: Okay. But where is that? See I have been through the Building Code and I spoke to the authors of it. I have spoken to the people in Tallahassee but that isn’t in here. That is being enforced and it specifically says otherwise. If you would (Board Member James C. Moulton: excuse me) turn to the next page (Board Member James C. Moulton: excuse me).
Board Member James C. Moulton: Is that the local ordinance?
Mary Mead: This is the Standard Building Code.
Board Member James C. Moulton: I’m not talking about the Standard Building Code. I’m talking about a local ordinance.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------There was a lengthy discussion of the situation. I was the only attendee who
had a copy of the Standard Building Code and the only one who referenced
the SBC as the official authority.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Minutes of Board Meeting – the end of the discussion of my case
Board Chairman Ken Woolf: That’s the reason I was asking you. Mr. Fleming’s here.
Mr. John Fleming: I’m John Fleming from the City Attorney’s Office. I think Mr. Wilkinson has ably stated the City’s position.
Board Member Don Jehle: One other question. Delmus were you – this Declaratory Statement from the Building Commission. Did you that attend that here or did someone from the City attend?
Mr. Wilkinson: No, I didn’t. That was a written statement that was sent to them and addressed to them and I don’t disagree with the Declaratory Statement. It is not saying anything other than – I mean I’ve agreed with what they have said. It is not a change of occupancy. But that’s not the issue they were addressing.
Board Member Don Jehle: I understand. I just wanted to make sure.
Mr. Wilkinson: No. No.
Board Member James Boyd: I have read all of Mr. Wilkinson’s –
Board Chairman Ken Woolf: Speak up.
Board Member Boyd: I have read all of Mr. Wilkinson’s letters of correspondence to Mrs. Mead, and other than some innuendoes and personal accusations, I find nothing legally binding that would change my mind as to the importance of a Certificate of Occupancy for the protection of the public, their safety, and their welfare.
Board Chairman Ken Woolf: Is that a motion?
Board Member James Boyd. I make a motion that – well howdya – I don’t think we’ve had one quite like this before, have we? I’ll have to put on my glasses and look at it. I guess the simplest thing to do would just be to make a motion that the variance be denied. Actually, she’s contesting the legality.
Mary Mead: Absolutely.
Board Member James Boyd: of the situation
Mary Mead: Right.
Board Member James Boyd: Which I’m trying to figure out how (inaudible)
Mr. Wilkinson: It wouldn’t be a variance request. Ms. Mead is appealing my interpretation of the Building Code. Therefore, the Board would either be upholding my interpretation of the Code or overruling my interpretation and granting her appeal.
Board Member James Boyd: OK I that – I make a motion to uphold the City’s position.
Board Chairman Ken Woolf. Do we have a second?
Board Member Don Jehle: Second.
Board Chairman Ken Woolf: Any comments? OK. All in favor. Does everyone understand the motion? All in favor, aye.
Board Members: Aye.
Board Chairman Ken Woolf: All opposed, nay.
Board Chairman Ken Woolf: OK. Thank you Ms. Mead.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Since everyone had voted “Aye,” I was dismissed from the meeting.
Board Member Boyd stated, “I find nothing legally binding that would change my mind as to the importance of a Certificate of Occupancy for the protection of the public, their safety, and their welfare.” That’s because Mr. Boyd and all other Board Members studiously ignored the Standard Building Code which is the required construction authority for Pensacola.
The Building Inspections Department is not authorized or responsible for the protection of the public, their safety, and their welfare. The Fire Department is authorized and has the responsibility to protect the public, their safety and welfare in their buildings by conducting fire and safety inspections to insure this. Regulations forbid the Building Inspection Department the authority and responsibility for this job.
The Pensacola Construction Board of Appeals voted to continue to allow City Officials (Mr. Bonfield, Mr. Caton, and Mr. Wilkinson) to break the Standard Building Code regulations.
I researched the composition of the Board. I found that there appeared to be a major conflict of interest since:
1) all of the Board Members were contractors who appeared to benefit by the illegal requirement to force the CO procedure on property owners.
2) almost all of the Board Members had contracts and were doing business with the City, or, in other words, were de facto employees of the City and not independent or impartial at all.
Florida Statutes prohibit a member of an advisory board to “corruptly use or attempt to use his or her official position or any property or resource which may be within his or her trust, or perform his or her official duties, to secure a special privilege, benefit, or exemption for himself, herself, or others.” as discussed in Chapter (6) printed below. It appeared that the Board members support and enforce illegal requirements which provide a benefit to themselves since they are members of the construction community.
Florida Statutes prohibit a member of an advisory board, or his employer, from having a contract with the City as discussed in Chapter (7) printed below. Almost all of the Board Members had lucrative contracts with the City in violation of Florida Statutes.
THE 1999 FLORIDA STATUTES
THE 1999 FLORIDA STATUTES
(1) DEFINITION.--As used in this section, unless the context otherwise requires, the term "public officer" includes any person elected or appointed to hold office in any agency, including any person serving on an advisory body.
(6) MISUSE OF PUBLIC POSITION.--No public officer, employee of an agency, or local government attorney shall corruptly use or attempt to use his or her official position or any property or resource which may be within his or her trust, or perform his or her official duties, to secure a special privilege, benefit, or exemption for himself, herself, or others.
(7) CONFLICTING EMPLOYMENT OR CONTRACTUAL RELATIONSHIP.--
(a) No public officer or employee of an agency shall have or hold any employment or contractual relationship with any business entity or any agency which is subject to the regulation of, or is doing business with, an agency of which he or she is an officer or employee, excluding those organizations and their officers who, when acting in their official capacity, enter into or negotiate a collective bargaining contract with the state or any municipality, county, or other political subdivision of the state; nor shall an officer or employee of an agency have or hold any employment or contractual relationship that will create a continuing or frequently recurring conflict between his or her private interests and the performance of his or her public duties or that would impede the full and faithful discharge of his or her public duties.
…It appeared that the City Officials and the contractors, especially the ones on the Construction Board of Adjustments and Appeals, partnered together to establish their own policies which are forbidden by the Standard Building Code, the construction law, to further their own interests and, in the process, have caused great harm to property owners in Pensacola.
We were constantly threatened that we could be arrested if we did not follow the demands of the inspectors in the Building Inspection Department even if their demands were against the law. Mr. Wilkinson or one of his employees, dressed in their pseudo police uniforms, constantly patrolled our house and frequently barged in and made illegal demands.
It appeared that City Officials refused to allow the people of Pensacola to live under the rule of law and under the U.S. Constitution but instead, subjected them to illegal demands which violated the law despite the fact that a many of us, including my husband and myself, served our country in the military to protect and defend the constitution of the United States. Even though the Constitution guaranteed equal treatment under the law, City Officials denied us the use of law enforcement, denied us the protection of the law, our assets were being stolen and City Officials appeared to regularly break the law and their actions were condoned by the Pensacola Police Department, the Escambia County Sheriff, the Florida State Attorney, DBPR and Governor Jeb Bush.
I wrote Mr. Bonfield, Pensacola City Manager, on August 5, 1999, again pinpointing the illegal actions on the part of City Officials, and informed him that the Board he had insisted I appear before voted to continue illegal practices in Pensacola. I also sent a copy of the verbatim transcript of the meeting. “Yesterday I appeared before the Construction Board of Appeals, as you have frequently suggested, for relief as you have refused to do anything to correct the Pensacola Building Inspection Department’s misinterpretation and misapplication of the Standard Building Code in regard to Certificate of Occupancy (CO).”
I summarized the meeting with the result that the Construction Board of Appeals voted unanimously to allow the Building Inspection Department to continue illegally requiring a certificate of occupancy on change of tenant. I stated to him that, “Several members closed their eyes and sat with pained expressions most of the time. Ms. Landis and Mr. Wilkinson rolled eyes at each other. The Board would not even address the illegal passage of 8-99.”
It appeared that the City Officials were very friendly to this special interest group – developers in Pensacola which included builders, architects and real estate professionals.
At the same time, Pensacola City Officials were hostile to regular folks. City Officials refused to enforce any Florida Statutes which legally limited the power of this special interest group which included Florida State Statutes regarding conflict of interest for members of advisory boards, Florida State Statutes regarding discipline by the City Building Official (Mr. Wilkinson) regarding contractor misconduct and the Standard Building Code which forbade requiring a Certificate of Occupancy on change of tenant, etc.
I, again, asked Mr. Bonfield, as the Pensacola City Manager, to have the Building Inspection Department do their job by obeying the law in regard to CO’s and proper inspections of contractor’s work before accepting it as complete.
Below is the official report of the City of Pensacola Construction Board of Adjustments and Appeals.
