kessler final report 0308

8/2/2019 Kessler Final Report 0308

1/97

PREPARED FOR:

CLARKCOUNTY, NEVADA INTERNALAUDIT DEPARTMENT

MARCH 11, 2008

KESSLE

RI

NTERNATIO

NAL

A UDIT O F C L A R K C O U N T Y D E V E L O P M E N T

S E RVICES B UILDING D IVISION A N D C L A R K

C O U N T Y FIRE D E PA RT M E N T C OMPLAINT P R O C E S S


2/97

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Introduction... 3

Scope. 4

Building Division Complaint Process.. 5

Dereliction of Duties by Inspectors.. 11

Proactive Code Enforcement (PACE).. 18

Building Division Complaint Sample... 18

Selective Recording of Complaints Building Division. 19

Investigative Fees. 23

Other Fees. 26

Retention of Records 27

Demeanor.. 27

Ability to Alter Computer Data 29

GPS Technology... 31

Clark County Fire Department Complaint Process.. 32

After Hours Complaints 36

Clark County Fire Department Sample 37

Selective Recording of Complaints CCFD 37

Undue Influence 38

Union Management Interview.. 39

Comps to Building Division and CCFD... 40

Appendix 42

Complaint 06-00010656... 43

Complaint 06-00000485.. 46

Complaint 06-00008223... 47

Complaint 05-11404 and 04-10981...... 49

Complaint 06-00009389... 51

Complaint 06-00000488 and 06-00001115.. 52

Complaint 06-00011334 and 08-00000241..... 54

Complaint 06-00009445... 56

Complaint 06-00007995... 57

Complaint 06-00008360... 58

Complaint 06-00008361... 59

Complaint 06-00008397... 60

1


3/97

Complaints 06-00009308 & 06-00009309 & 06-00009310 & 06-00009311.. 61

Complaint 06-00012031... 64

Complaint 06-00008368... 65

Complaint 06-00012027... 66

Complaint 06-00009037... 67

Complaint 06-00008359... 68

Complaint 06-00008719... 69

Complaint 06-00004859... 70

Complaint 06-00004264... 71

Complaint 07-302. 72











Complaints 07-444, 07-445 and 07-446... 83




Index. 87

2


4/97

Introduction

It stands to reason that the public is entitled to feel a reasonable

amount of trust and security in relation to the safety standards put into

place by local government in regards to building and fire safety codes and

the treatment of violations. Building and fire safety inspectors and other

officials are entrusted with the public safety and should perform their jobs

ethically and conscientiously.

Kessler International (Kessler) was recently commissioned to

perform an audit of the circumstances surrounding the way a complaint

lodged by a whistleblower employed at a Harrahs property on August 23,

2006 was handled by the Clark County Development Services Building

Division (Building Division) and the Clark County Fire Department

(CCFD). Kesslers audit has revealed that in this instance, the public

trust was clearly violated.

The processes in place relative to building and fire safety code

violations are meant to ensure the public safety and safeguard the lives of

residents and an estimated 39.2 million visitors and tourists who travel

annually to Las Vegas. Kessler has determined that these processes have

significant weaknesses, and the lack of internal controls and accountability

that they require allows inspectors and others in positions of public trust to

circumvent the controls currently in place. Inadequate record keeping,

falsified reports, favoritism and a general lack of concern and sense of

urgency regarding complaints by the inspectors has caused Kessler to

conclude that significant change to the current practices needs to be

implemented.

3


5/97

During the audit, Kessler observed that the County Manager and

her management staff were committed to exposing weaknesses in the

system currently in place and to taking corrective action to prevent future

occurrences. This commitment was demonstrated on countless occasions.

Kessler also noted that many of the employees who work at the Building

Division and the CCFD are dedicated public servants performing critical

work and doing it well. But unfortunately, Kessler uncovered a number of

instances where unethical practices, falsification of records, and a general

failure to perform the functions essential to their positions, whether due to

lack of training or refusal to be personally vested in their work, was

demonstrated by Clark County employees. These employees cast a stigma

on the commitment of their counterparts.

Scope

Kesslers audit pertained only to the handling of complaints by the

Building Division and the CCFD. It should be noted that the Department

of Administrative Services Public Response Office (CCPRO) is the

agency that accepts residential building complaints. This offices

practices were not reviewed as a portion of this audit.

The special audit procedures encompassed:

Interviews of the whistleblower in the recent matter involving

Harrahs Entertainment, interviews of Clark County Building Division

Development Services Department Personnel, interviews of other Clark

County Personnel, interviews of Clark County Fire Department Personnel

and other interviews of individuals with knowledge of the complaint

process. Kessler also attempted to speak with Harrahs employees, but

Harrahs Entertainments Chief Litigation Officer refused to allow Kessler

to speak with any individual associated with Harrahs, claiming that the

4


6/97

county caused him problems with the contractors board and thus he did

not want to have to defend any other claims.

Kessler reviewed thousands of documents including the Building

Division complaint forms, logs, case histories and reports for the years

2006 and 2007 and sampled certain complaints. Kessler also reviewed

thousands of documents relative to the CCFD complaint process,

including complaint forms, logs and reports for the years 2006 and 2007

and sampled certain complaints. Other documents reviewed surrounding

the complaint process for both the Building Division and CCFD included

internal and external emails, departmental correspondences, procedure and

policy manuals, rules and regulations, permit and complaint database

information, media articles and other research materials.

Kessler also reviewed GPS records applicable to Building Division

inspectors vehicle usage.

Building Division Complaint Process

On October 1, 2001 a memorandum of understanding became

effective between Clark County Department of Administrative Services

and Building Division regarding working assignments for residential

construction. The agreement stipulates that Clark County Department of

Administrative Services Public Response Office (CCPRO) became

responsible for the following areas:

Handling all zoning related enforcement issues for existingcommercial or residential properties.

Complete the action of Notice and Orders forwarded for theirprocessing from the Building Department.

5


7/97

Initiate the enforcement involved with work without permits forstand-alone single family and duplex residences.

Undertake and administer all enforcement actions for accessorystructures located at stand-alone single family and duplex

residences.

Accompany Building Department personnel when the BuildingDepartment is requested to provide technical assistance on stand-

alone single family or duplex residences.

In existing neighborhoods, i.e., those in which base construction occurred

prior to 1980, CCPRO will conduct all inspections for residential

complaints and attempt to resolve with available staff or through

communications with the Building Department. Site involvement by the

Building Department will be kept to a minimum.

Requests for abatement and other referrals will be sent to the Building

Department Inspections Services Building Permit Specialist. Contact for

technical issues will be through the Managers of Inspections Services.

The Clark County Building Department will be responsible for the

following:

Handle all building code related enforcement issues for multi-family andcommercial properties.

Assist CCPRO on a technical consultant basis. Upon the expiration of a Notice and Order, submit a written request for

CCPRO to proceed with abatement action under Chapter 11.06 of the

Clark County Code; provide CCPRO with all files and documentation

required to complete enforcement actions.

The Building Department will make every endeavor to prioritize CCPROreferrals and expedite responses within 15 working days.

6


8/97

Complaints may be received from various sources including walk-

in, telephone, facsimile, email and mail. Kesslers audit was strictly

limited to the Building Division and CCFD complaint process and did not

include any aspect of CCPRO.

The Building Division website

(http://www.co.clark.nv.us/development_services/index.htm) does not

provide the public with information regarding the ways available to them

for filing complaints, nor does it address the complaint process in any

way. Additionally, no specific telephone line is provided for filing

complaints, and calls to the general number after hours and on holidays

are met with a recorded message which does not allow the caller to be

directed to a voicemail to leave complaints.

Kessler reviewed the Procedure for Accepting and Processing

Complaints as provided by the Building Division (Exhibit 1). Following

this review, a conversation was held with the Building Permits Specialist

that handles complaints who indicated that when a complaint is initially

received the complaint is written on a scrap of paper and the forms

developed specifically for recording complaints are not used. Kessler has

learned that the information recorded on the scrap of paper is then

transferred into a computer generated form. These scraps of paper

involving the original contact with the complainant are discarded when the

form is typed. This individual indicated that she had literally no training

in the procedures for speaking with complainants on the telephone and the

proper documentation of information provided by the complainant.

During the course of the audit it became apparent that the

procedures outlined in Exhibit 1 above are interpreted differently by

different Building Division personnel.

7
http://www.co.clark.nv.us/development_services/index.htmhttp://www.co.clark.nv.us/development_services/index.htm


9/97

The audit also disclosed that the Case Action report which is the

inspectors notes regarding a complaint is often missing from the files

stored in records. Some inspectors we spoke with indicated that these

sheets were forwarded along with the case to the Building Permits

Specialist for filing in records, while others indicated that they threw them

away.

Recommendations

The Procedure for Accepting and Processing Complaints of the

Building Division does not at all address the manner in which complaints

are accepted, only who they may be received from. The lack of a

procedure allows for the recording of complaints on scraps of paper, and

not the Request for Code Enforcement Services forms specifically

developed for this purpose, with the information ultimately being

transferred to an electronic database (HTE) sometimes weeks, if not

months later. The documentation regarding complaints from the Building

Division that Kessler reviewed seldom included these Request for Code

Enforcement Services forms.

Kessler recommends that when initially received, complaints only

be entered onto the approved form and that any notes regarding the

complaints, handwritten or otherwise, be maintained in the file. The

approved form should then be used to immediately enter the information

into the HTE database. The Building Division should maintain any loose

handwritten notes as well as make the Request for Code Enforcement

services form mandatory, and retain both in the files in accordance with

the Nevada Revised Statutes Chapter 239-Public Records as the original

complaint is not always what is recorded.

8


10/97

Since the inspectors notes are public records and may be used as

evidence in the event of criminal prosecution, Kessler recommends that all

notes be clear, concise, comprehensive and free of abbreviations and that

notes shall be entered for every action or activity associated with a case,

including but not limited to:

Inspections Phone Calls Research Office Visits Hearings Letters and Faxes sent or received

The Request for Code Enforcement Services form should

incorporate a section for the person taking the information from the

complainant (typically the Building Permits Specialist) to record their

name as well as a section for recording the time the complaint was

received, as Kessler has been informed that cases are weeks behind in

being translated from the scraps of paper or Request for Code

Enforcement Services forms into the HTE database.

The Request for Code Enforcement Services forms should also

incorporate a referrals section to record which agency it was referred to if

not being handled by the Building Division. These referrals should be

maintained in the Building Division files.

A recurring weakness noted during Kesslers audit is that

documents from all phases of complaint resolution are routinely discarded.

It should be mandatory that any documents generated by all involved

parties during all phases of the complaint investigation be preserved in

9


11/97

records because these documents could become the basis for testimony at

administrative hearings or at trial.

Kessler recommends that accommodations be made on the

Building Division website to allow the public to submit complaints

electronically and anonymously. At a minimum, information regarding

the different methods available for filing a complaint should be provided

on the main page of the Building Division website.

Additionally, a voicemail box should be established so that callers

can leave pertinent information concerning suspected violations after

hours. Kessler called the general number after hours and was unable to

leave a message.

Many of the complaints Kessler reviewed demonstrated an

extraordinary amount of time between when the complaints were received

to when they were resolved in light of the urgency of the matters involved.

Kessler recommends that a mandate be established which prioritizes the

complaints by potential hazardousness:

1. High Priority, requiring an inspection immediately2. Medium Priority, requiring an inspection within three days3. Low Priority, requiring an inspection within twenty daysKessler recommends that the Building Division provide the

Building Permits Specialist with the appropriate training in regards to the

procedures for speaking with complainants on the telephone and the

proper documentation of information provided by the complainant. This

training should be extended to any employees involved in the complaint

process and encompass not only procedures, but ethics in performing

duties as public employees regarding the handling of complaints. All staff

10


12/97

should also receive training in investigative report writing and proper

documentation procedures for complaint files.

Kessler also recommends that all complaints filed within the last

few years be reviewed by Building Division management. Where the

complaint is of a serious nature and it is not documented sufficiently to

determine if a true inspection was conducted we recommend that the

complaint be re-investigated.

Dereliction of Duties by Inspectors

A number of complaints were lodged with the Building Division

and CCFD concerning illegal construction at Harrahs properties by a

whistleblower who worked for Harrahs. A Complaint was filed with the

Building Division in June of 2006 for unpermitted work of Harrahs Las

Vegas South tower and another complaint was filed in August of 2006

concerning 13 floors being remodeled at Harrahs Rio. Additionally, the

whistleblower filed a complaint with the CCFD in March of 2007

concerning Harrahs Las Vegas. According to the records Kessler

reviewed, the initial complaint at Harrahs Las Vegas was founded by the

building inspector and a Notice Of Violation was given to correct the

conditions within 30 days of the notice dated June 23, 2006. On July 13,

2006 the case is closed because a permit was issued.

It is not clear why the second complaint concerning the Rio from

the same whistleblower was not taken seriously by Supervising Inspector

2. Furthermore, Kessler does not understand how Special Assignment

Section Commercial Combination Inspector could convey to the fire

department that nothing was found in April 2007, when in fact a Notice of

Violation was issued to Harrahs Las Vegas. Details of the individual

complaints involved are outlined below.

11


13/97

Harrahs South Mardi Gras Tower - Building Division Complaint 06-00006922

This complaint, which was filed on June 21, 2006 at 2:51PM

according to the Complaint Response form, alleges that 13 floors of

Harrahs Mardi Gras tower had major remodeling work conducted without

permits. On June 23, 2006 an inspection was done by Building Inspector

3 who issued a Notice of Violation to Harrahs for work done without

permits in the guestroom suites, giving them 30 days to correct said

violations. On July 13, 2006 an email from Supervising Inspector 1 was

sent to the complaint desk indicating that the case should be closed

because a permit had been obtained for work on this job. The permit

number given was 06-31805. Records indicate that the permit was issuedon July 25, 2006 and received a Certificate of Occupancy received on

October 9, 2007.

Incidentally, the construction companys name on the permit is

Contractor 1. Kesslers research has disclosed that in 1999 a former

terminated Clark County Building Inspector Supervisor was indicted on

13 counts of falsifying inspection records, eleven of which involved

projects on the strip. Information released by the Clark County District

Attorneys office implies that Contractor 1 received favoritism from this

inspector on work that he was performing at the Sands, Harrahs,

Tropicana and Ballys. According to information Kessler has received

from both the County Managers office and the Internal Audit

Department, the construction company involved in this action refused to

testify against the building inspector and the case was dismissed.

Furthermore, Kessler has learned that the Building Inspector Supervisor

that was indicted regained employment in Clark County in a different

division outside of Development Services after a judge ruled he was

entitled to his job back.

12


14/97

Harrahs Rio Hotel - Building Division Complaint 06-00009803

This complaint was submitted via telephone by the complainant on

August 23, 2006 at 2:58PM according to the Complaint Response form. It

was entered into the case history report on August 23, 2006 at 2:41PM.

The complaint alleges that the Rio Hotel & Casino, built three towers

from the 3rd to the 19th floor without permits (check the super suites). He

also mentioned the post tension cables on the slabs. According to the

case history, on August 23, 2006 this complaint was assigned to

Supervising Inspector 2.

Kessler located an email from the complaint desk dated October17, 2006 asking Supervising Inspector 2 if he wants the case closed.

The next event involving this complaint is dated November 3,

2006 and listed as follow up to supervisor. Conversely, this event is

listed as November 30, 2006 in the case log. On January 24, 2007 the

complaint desk requested a follow up on the case. On February 20, 2007

the log indicates that the case was closed and sent to records by

Supervising Inspector 2. After the February 20, 2007 log entry, an entry

dated February 16, 2007 is seen in the case log indicating that Supervising

Inspector 2 inspected 37 rooms from the 3rd to the 19th floors and that all

of the floor plans, plumbing layouts, mechanical and electrical locations

matched the approved plans on record. The work that had been done was

completed in early 2006 and included new receptacles, switches, switch

plates, plant, carpet, flooring, wall paper, new sinks with countertops, and

new toilets, all of which, according to Supervising Inspector 2, require no

permits. The only work found requiring a permit according to this report

was the replacement of one light fixture in each unit. Supervising

Inspector 2 indicates that the Rio representatives were given a copy of the

13


15/97

Clark County Building Administrative Code and advised regarding permit

requirements. The complaint was closed.

Kesslers audit disclosed an action sheet applicable to case number

06-9803. Entries in the action sheet indicate that on January 23, 2007,

Supervising Inspector 2 located plans on one wing of the tower at the Rio

and that Records are searching for the others. On February 15, 2007,

Supervising Inspector 2 indicates that he located the plan on all three

wings and setup an appointment for Friday, February 16, 2007 to inspect

the property. The next entry, dated February 16, 2007 by Supervising

Inspector 2 indicates that the file may be closed.

Kessler found a memorandum from Supervising Inspector 2 to the

Assistant Director discussing the actions he took in connection with this

complaint. In this memo Supervising Inspector 2 indicates that the week

following the complaint he visited the site of the complaint and could see

no outward evidence of any construction that had recently taken place or

construction currently underway in that tower. This is contrary to what is

reported in the complaint log as there is no indication that this inspection

occurred in the documentation provided.

Kessler also found an email dated October 22, 2007 at 6:53AM to

the Assistant Director of the Building Division which states that the

Supervising Inspector 2, walked with (Rio employee 1) and (Rio

employee 2) when I went out with plans on 2-26-07, this information is

also in the memo dated 10-6 of 07. The first time I went out was in

August of 2006 after I received the initial complaint of construction

without permits, and I walked through the tower without a Harrahs

representative looking for some sign of work to be done. It was several

weeks later before I found out that the work had been completed in March

of 2006. Despite his assertion that he walked the property on February

14


16/97

26, 2007 in this email, Complaint History forms and other documents list

the inspection as having been conducted on February 16, 2007.

Additionally, the aforementioned memo of October 10, 2007 was not

provided to Kessler.

Additional email correspondence was located dated March 27,

2007 between the Building Division Secretary and Building Division

Assistant Director which indicates that the complainant was requesting a

status of this complaint. The email states that the Assistant Director, met

with the original contractor and did not find any issues and further stated

that the Assistant Director would call the complainant for further details in

a few days. This email is forwarded to Supervising Inspector 2 from

Assistant Director on the same day. The email states, Please give this

guy a call, briefly discuss what you saw at the Rio and with who, and

advise that we have taken the complaint as far as we are going to at this

time, as we are not an investigative dept., but we did look but found

nothing.

Kessler spoke with Supervising Inspector 2 who indicated that in

connection with this complaint he originally visited the site before

speaking with the complainant. He added that during this visit he did not

meet with anyone, only looked for signs of construction. Supervising

Inspector 2 stated that he drove around common yards and walked through

corridors. The following week, he added, the complainant called to obtain

a status of the case and informed him that the construction took place a

considerable time in the past. At this point, he informed Kessler, he

searched for the plans and could not find them. He continued by stating

that when he received the plans in January or February of 2007 he called

and made an appointment with Rio employee 2, which was explained to

Kessler as a normal course of action when handling a complaint.

15


17/97

For this meeting, Supervising Inspector 2 indicated that he met Rio

Employees 1 and 2 at the security desk and that during his conversation

with them they denied doing any work requiring permits. Supervising

Inspector 2 could not recall how many rooms were visited during this

visit, but did recall that all rooms visited were in wing 3 and were

unoccupied at the time. Supervising Inspector 2 stated that what he

observed matched the floor plans and that he never noticed where doors

had been removed. He informed Kessler that he later learned that after the

story appeared in the Las Vegas Review-Journal most of the renovation

work was in wing 1 and on the 19th floor in all three wings. Supervising

Inspector 2 asserted that during his visit, Rio staff changed the

programming of the freight elevator causing the floor number that

displayed on the elevator panel to read 19 when it stopped at the 18th floor.

When Kessler attempted to clarify how Rio staff were also able to change

the numbers on the floor by the elevators and the room numbers,

Supervising Inspector 2 stated that they probably changed those numbers

also, claiming that, these people arent completely honest. Supervising

Inspector 2 stated that the Fire Department inspectors encountered a

similar problem with the elevators. When Kessler subsequently spoke to

Fire Inspectors, they acknowledged a similar problem in a passenger

elevator, but said that when it was brought to Rios attention it was

immediately fixed. When Kessler requested a copy of the report

documenting this problem from the inspector that claims to have observed

the problem, none was available.

Kessler also reviewed the GPS records for Supervising Inspector

2s vehicle and determined that on February 16, 2007 at 9:02AM the

vehicle was reported at West Viking Road and South Valley View

Boulevard. The log indicates that the vehicle was only at the location for

38 minutes. There were no logs available for the first undocumented

inspection.

16


18/97

Kessler contacted personnel at Harrahs Entertainment and spoke

with their Chief Litigation Officer in an attempt to speak with the Harrahs

Entertainment employees whom Supervising Inspector 2 contended he met

with at the site during his second visit. The Chief Litigation Officer of

Harrahs Entertainment refused Kessler permission to speak with any

employees of Harrahs Entertainment.

Based upon the above information, Kessler is of the opinion that

the Building Inspectors handling these complaints were derelict in their

duties by failing to properly inspect the property in question, and by

falsifying the official documents indicating that the complaints were

actually investigated. All indications suggest that no inspections were ever

conducted.

Harrahs Las Vegas Hotel CCFD Complaint 07-297

On March 22, 2007 a complaint was received concerning Harrahs

Hotel at 3475 S Las Vegas Boulevard. On April 4, 2007 the complaint

was assigned to FD Inspector 5. The complaint alleges, Hotel has

allegedly remodeled 1000+ rooms between the 3rd and 19th Floros [sic]

without pulling any permits or having any inspections. They have over

800 penetrations in the fire separation walls between the rooms.

Complainant can be contacted via cell The only action taken by FD

Inspector 5 is noted as a conversation with Building Division Special

Assignment Section Commercial Combination Inspector wherein it was

stated, Spoke with (Special Assignment Section Commercial

Combination Inspector) from Bldg. upon his inspection nothing found.

No date is provided in this documentation as to the date of inspection by a

Building Division inspector. It is unclear why no inspection was

17


19/97

conducted by this CCFD inspector in this matter, instead, the complaint is

marked as unfounded and is referred back to the Building Division.

Furthermore, a search of the database of Building Division

complaints did not reveal any complaint being logged in 2007 concerning

this matter, and documentation was only noted for a previous complaint as

referenced above as 06-6922 wherein it was noted that in August of 2006

the CCFD provided clearance for the Building Division to proceed with

inspections in an attempt to issue a C of O. The documentation reviewed

precludes any real understanding of when inspections were actually

conducted, by what department, and what the findings and results were.

This complaint was deemed unfounded and closed on April 6,

2007.

Proactive Code Enforcement (PACE)

Many communities utilize a PACE program to determine the

compliance of codes outside of the permit and complaint process. A

PACE program, when properly established and implemented will allow

the Building Division on a recurring basis to assure the public that the

structures in Las Vegas are safe and code compliant. Additionally, a

PACE program will be an impetus for shady property owners to have

second thoughts about commencing construction not in conformance with

the codes or without permits or the use of unlicensed contractors.

Building DivisionComplaint Sample

Kessler sampled a three month period of complaints lodged in

2006 to determine the length of time between opening, inspection, and

closing of complaints. The audit revealed that no reliance could be placed

on information in the complaint logs as it was discovered that complaints

18


20/97

were not logged appropriately, complainants statements were not

accurately recorded, complaint resolutions were falsified and proper and

complete documentation was not maintained.

In general, the complaints system as currently operating at the

Building Division is severely flawed. There is a complete lack of

accountability and checks and balances in the system, allowing for large

lag times between cases being opened and closed and between the dates

received and dates inspected. In fact, our sample disclosed that 23

complaints out of 97 in our sample took more than five days to investigate

with five taking more than thirty days and one taking 397 days. What is

extremely troubling is that Kessler found cases which were assigned and

inspected before they were received. Additionally, many cases which

indicated they were inspected and closed have little or no documentation

to support the inspectors contention that they actually ever visited the

sites in question.

Based upon the deficiencies Kessler noted in the complaint

process, Kessler analyzed all of the complaints filed during this sample

period in order to best be able to provide appropriate recommendations.

The samples annexed herein display blatant examples of deficiencies in

the complaint process.

Selective Recording of Complaints - Building Division

During the course of the audit Kessler learned that not every

complaint that is lodged is officially recorded in the Building Division

system. Manager of Building Inspections claimed that, we dont set up

complaints on permitted work. This statement was contradicted by a

Building Permits Specialist who advised us that it is common practice to

setup complaints even though the work is permitted, as it is not always

19


21/97

able to be immediately determined that a permit has been issued at the site

that is subject of a new complaint.

Kessler encountered instances of complaints which either were not

logged properly or were later removed from the case history system.

Examples of these are outlined below.

3880 Arville Street Suite K

This complaint was received by Supervising Inspector 2 on

September 13, 2007 concerning 3880 Arville Street Suite K (Wonderful

Massage Spa) from the property owners agent who owns the property.

The complainant stated that work being done at the address had been

approved by the Building Division but was not in compliance with the

approved plans. The complainant further stated that the tenant and the

tenants contractor had indicated to them that everything was okay and

that the work had been approved by the county.

Kesslers audit uncovered that on September 17, 2007 Supervising

Inspector 2 drafted a memorandum to Manager of Building Inspections

indicating that no inspections for that address were recorded at the

Building Division, so he assigned Building Inspector 7 to inspect the site.

During the inspection it was found that, as the complainant suggested, the

job did not match the approved plans and a Notice of Violation was

issued. In this memorandum, Supervising Inspector 2 also states that he

found inspection approvals for that address for underground plumbing and

rough plumbing approved by Building Inspector 8 on September 7, 2007.

The rough mechanical, rough electric and framing had also been approved

on September 7, 2007 by Building Inspector 9. Building Inspector 9 also

approved the drywall nailing inspection on September 10, 2007.

20


22/97

According to documents Kessler obtained, this is not the first time

Building Inspector 9 has approved work that was not in conformance to

approved plans. It was noted that he has been allegedly reprimanded

numerous times in the past for similar deviations from accepted Building

Division procedures. The documents further reveal that preferential

treatment was provided to at least three contractors by Building Inspector

9 by allowing the contractors to call Building Inspector 9 directly to

schedule same day inspections. It was also found that Building Inspector

9 worked outside of his assigned area, performed inspections in technical

areas where he has not been trained, approved inspections without visiting

the site, and performed certain inspections and approved inspections when

the construction was not complete or not in compliance with the plans or

the code.

Furthermore, Building Inspector 9 approved inspections out of

sequence with the construction and inspection process and authorized

electrical power for projects in direct violation of departmental policy.

According to the documentation reviewed, many of Contractor 3s

projects had multiple inspection disapprovals by the assigned area

inspectors but were immediately approved by Building Inspector 9.

Kessler also learned that final inspections were approved before rough

inspections, that in many cases no site visits were done at locations

approved by Building Inspector 9 based upon GPS documentation and that

request and inspection result dates were backdated in the system by

Building Inspector 9. It was also indicated in the file that Building

Inspector 9 inspected Building Inspector 10s church in a matter of 10

minutes.

Kessler has been informed by various individuals at the Building

Division that these practices occurred routinely and it was estimated that

at least 30 40 occurrences were documented. Kessler interviewed a

21


23/97

number of individuals in attempts to determine why a complaint as serious

as this one was not properly documented in the complaint log. No one at

the Building Division would provide a plausible answer, with the only

explanation provided that it was an employee issue and that it was handled

internally.

Furthermore, Kessler spoke to Building Inspector 9 to obtain a

better understanding of the circumstances surrounding this complaint and

the related allegations. Building Inspector 9 informed Kessler that he did

not dispute any of the allegations and that he would get telephone calls

from the contractor every day for advice because they did not have a good

command of the English language. Building Inspector 9 claims that he

hadnt singled out this contractor in providing this service, simply stating

that he did it for, good customer relations. Building Inspector 9 claims

that other inspectors conducted inspections outside of their assigned area

as well, but that he was singled out because he was allegedly involved in a

lawsuit regarding sexual harassment. He also claimed that the Assistant

Director and the Manager of Building Inspections both took swings at

him. It is unfathomable why this matter was not referred to a law

enforcement agency when management for the Building Division became

aware of the situation approximately three months ago. Kessler

recommended to the County Manager that this matter and the previous

matters involving Inspectors 8, 9, 10 and any other involved inspectors be

referred to law enforcement. It is our understanding as of the date of this

report that the County Manager has taken action concerning these

incidents and additionally authorized Kessler to contact a law enforcement

agency and present the documentation gathered during the audit.

22


24/97

5100 E Tropicana Avenue Apartment 22

Kessler located an email dated February 15, 2006 from the

complaint desk to Supervising Inspector 3. The email indicates that a

complaint regarding 5100 E Tropicana was filed indicating that the

building was full of drug users, dealers, and sexual offenders. The

complainant states that she lives within walking distance of the building

and that her children have friends who live there. The complainants

daughter was raped in the building in an empty, vacant apartment. The

complainant further stated that the empty apartments are open and are not

boarded to keep people out. The complainant goes on to beg for help.

This complaint was not logged on a Complaint Response form

until August 21, 2006, almost a half year later, an unacceptable lapse

between the time a complaint was lodged and when it is officially

recorded and attended to. According to the case history log, Special

Assignment Section Commercial Combination Inspector visited the

subject property with a Health Department inspector and found no

violations of the building code. The Building Division case was closed on

August 22, 2006. The Health Department inspector found numerous

issues at the site and stated that management offered tenants alternate

accommodations, which were declined. A complaint as serious as this

clearly should have been addressed promptly, recorded and investigated.

It is a serious misdeed on the part of the Building Division to allow so

much time to lapse between record and inspection.

Investigative Fees

According to the Clark County Building Administrative Code 2004

Clause 22.02.360 Work Without A Permit, Section A, Whenever any

work for which a permit is required by this chapter has been commenced

23


25/97

without first obtaining a permit or exceeds the scope of a valid permit, a

special investigation shall be made before a permit may be issued for such

work.

Further referenced is the Clark County Building administrative

code 2004 Clause 22.02.360 Work Without A Permit. Section B states

that, An investigation fee, in addition to the permit fee, shall be collected

whether or not a permit is then or subsequently issued. The investigation

fee shall be assessed at a rate equal to double the appropriate permit fee

required by this chapter in the appropriate tables with a maximum fee of

$4,000.00.

Clause 22-03.365 Other Inspections and Fees states that, An

existing building or structure which is not covered by an existing valid

building permit may be inspected by the Building Official at the owners

or other interested partys request upon payment of the appropriate fee.

This service shall be available at the option of the Building Official for a

rate of seventy-five dollars ($75.00) per hour per inspector, with a one-

hour minimum. It appears that Building Division personnel have

interpreted the code to allow for a quarter of an hour increments when the

charges exceed the one hour minimum despite the fact that Kessler has

been informed that the charges should be broken down in half hour

increments by Building Division management. Additionally, the Building

Division Building Plans Examination Division short log check-in form

dated 04-04 states the rate per Clark County Building Administrative Code

is ($75.00/hour-1/2 hour minimum). No documentation in either the

Administrative Code or the Policies and Procedures appears to justify

these practices.

Kessler spoke to various individuals at the Building Division to

obtain an understanding of how these investigative fees are handled.

24


26/97

These fees are supposed to be assessed as double the permit fee as noted

above. Kessler was provided with an accounting of the investigative fees

collected for 2007 applicable to Work Without A Permit. These fees

totaled $29,122.70 and were only collected on residential construction. It

is clear that no attempt was made to collect any double permit fees from

high-rise buildings, multi-family dwellings, and mobile trailer parks, the

structures under the responsibility of the Building Division in terms of

complaints. Despite Kesslers sampling of complaints filed and Notices of

Violations (NOV) issued by the Building Division Kessler could not

locate one instance where a strip property or any property under the

jurisdiction of the Building Division was assessed this investigative fee.

When Kessler questioned the Permit Application Department,

Kessler was informed that the inspectors have the leeway to waive these

fees and that the work without a permit penalty is not charged if it is not

reported by the inspector. Kessler also spoke to the Assistant Director of

Inspections who informed us that his department routinely submits Notice

of Violations (NOV) to the Permit Application Department and that those

documents should be the basis of collecting the investigative fee. Kessler

was further informed that these investigative fees are only charged when

an inspector notifies the Permit Application Department to charge them.

Recommendations

Kesslers audit disclosed a vast injustice regarding the assessment

of penalties regarding homeowners and commercial/multi-family

properties. Kessler recommends that penalties be assessed uniformly and

consistently to all property owners who are guilty of violations. Kessler

also recommends a change in the Clark County Building administrative

code 2004 Clause 22.02.360 Section B to remove the $4000.00 fee limit,

which appears only to be in place for the benefit of the properties

25


27/97

encountered during this audit which were not assessed any fee. The

failure to assess appropriate fees on the part of the Building Division leads

to questions as to why certain groups are exempt from the Building

Administrative code. Furthermore, the knowledge by this special group

that penalties will not be assessed gives them no impetus to comply with

regulations and further the public perception of corruption in the

complaint process. By requiring the assessment of penalties as Kessler

recommends, public safety will be improved via pressure put upon

property owners to comply with building codes.

Kessler also recommends that in addition to the penalties currently

in place, consideration should be given for a special penalty fee when life

safety violations involving the public are discovered.

Other Fees

Kessler was also provided an accounting for 2007 of same day

inspection fees ($33,525.00), overtime inspection fees ($392,297.80) and

special inspection fees ($23,932.50). These fees are collected by Building

Division Inspectors from a variety of sources including the owners of

high-rise buildings, multi-family and residential buildings. These fees are

usually not related to complaints and reflect the amount collected for work

conducted without a permit requiring special assistance as referenced in

the administrative code or for non-routine or expedited inspections.

During various conversations with Building Division personnel,

Kessler obtained explanations regarding fee collections that for larger jobs

the owner deposits money with the building department and the inspectors

write up slips for the time spent inspecting the projects. The time gets

credited against the money on deposit at a rate of $75.00 per man hour.

These charges are referred to as overtime charges.

26


28/97

Kessler was further informed by Building Division employees that

except for advance deposit accounts as noted above, the inspectors collect

these fees in both cash and check form although checks are encouraged.

Another source provided contradictory information, indicating that cash is

not accepted at all, claiming that if the owner does not have a check the

inspector will instruct the owner / contractor to bring or mail the check to

the Building Division. If they fail to pay, allegedly, the next inspection is

held up. It has been stated to Kessler that in many cases no effort is made

to bill for or collect these fees.

Retention of Records

During the course of the audit, it was determined that the Building

Division and CCFD Inspectors routinely discarded official business

records including their notes, inspection reports, and other documentation

crucial to effective review and follow-up of existing complaints.

Furthermore, some of the Building Division Inspectors Kessler

spoke with indicated that they forwarded their notes to the building

permits specialist (complaint desk) to have the documents scanned and

filed. Our audit disclosed that either the inspectors were falsely reporting

to Kessler that the documents were sent for scanning, or the documents

were sent to the complaint desk but never processed for scanning and

retention. This is a significant weak point in the internal controls of the

complaint process as key data was not available for this review.

Demeanor

The Inspector is a professional representative of the Building

Division and CCFD and should at all times be courteous, respectful,

helpful, reasonable and knowledgeable. Although code enforcement is

27


29/97

similar to law enforcement it is not police work and Inspectors are not

expected to be confrontational. If for any reason the code violator

becomes confrontational the Inspector should leave the site immediately

and contact the Inspection supervisor to discuss appropriate actions.

While Kessler concurs with the premise that an inspector is not law

enforcement, it is clear that an Inspector must be an investigator to

determine if complaints exist.

During the course of the audit, inspectors repeated the mantra that

they are not investigators. Kesslers discussions with management of

the Building Division supported this mantra, as does the email

correspondence of March 27, 2007 referenced in the Rio complaint above.

Another position which was common among the inspectors

concerning the Harrahs complaint was that the complainant who happens

to be a whistleblower was a crybaby after he was discharged and many

of the inspectors Kessler spoke with questioned the motive behind his

complaints indicating that they did not understand why he did not come

forward while he was working at the location, contending that he should

have known and immediately reported that work was being done without

permits.

The very nature of a complaint review is that complaints lodged

need to be investigated fully in order to determine their validity. In

essence, these inspectors and management are indicating to Kessler that

they are not there to perform the essential functions of the complaint

process or that they are not fully aware of what these functions should

entail.

28


30/97

Recommendations

Kessler recommends that all inspectors be instructed that the

public serves as their eyes and ears in many cases, and that complaints

from these individuals should not be taken lightly. Additionally, training

should be provided to the inspectors concerning investigative techniques

involving complaints, including ethics in investigating and investigative

report writing. Inspectors should also be instructed that they should not be

making assumptions when investigating a complaint, and that all

determinations they make should be based upon fact since public safety is

often involved in the complaints lodged with the Building Division and

CCFD.

Kessler also recommends that in situations involving suspected

corruption or the appearance of corruption, these matters be referred

immediately to an outside agency for a proper and independent

investigation. As referenced in this report, one Building Division

Inspector was found to be conducting complaint investigations outside of

his assigned area and demonstrating the appearance of questionable

behavior and favoritism with the only explanation being that it was good

customer service. This is an example of an incident being investigated

within the department that would be more appropriately handled via an

outside agency as Kessler recommends. It should be noted that upon

bringing this matter to the attention of the County Manager, she

immediately requested that law enforcement commence an independent

investigation.

Ability to Alter Computer Data

During Kesslers audit a test was conducted to determine the ease

with which computerized data regarding complaints could be changed to

29


31/97

reflect different dates and information contained in the case history

reports. The test, conducted with the assistance of a Building Division

employee determined that although the complainants name and the

narrative of the complaint can be edited it is documented, whereas the

section where the inspectors notes is reported can be edited without

leaving a trail. This is a significant weakness in internal controls

insomuch as inspectors and others have the ability to change information.

The case history reports are intended to be one of the definitive records

which summarizes individual complaint histories along with the

supporting documentation to the history. The fact that the supporting

documentation is often missing and that the computerized documenting

the inspectors work is able to be easily changed indicates that little

reliance can be placed on any of the information contained in these logs

provided to us.

As noted in the complaint reviews above, instances were also

noted where inspectors were presented with the supporting documentation

they prepared and case history reports that resulted from this

documentation that were provided to Kessler and admitted that these

documents were falsified. It should be noted that these points were

stressed to the Building Division in an Internal Controls review document

from the Clark County Internal Audit department and at the conclusion of

that review management of the Building Division stated, Inspections

recognizes the identified deficiencies and is taking measures to correct the

issues and still provide the needed flexibility for the inspection staff.

Recommendations

Obviously, the Building Division did not seriously address the

deficiencies outlined by the Clark County Internal Auditor. Kessler

suggests that the recommendations contained in this report be assessed by

30


32/97

management and immediately implemented so that a recurrence of the

events which transpired surrounding the Rio complaint should never

happen again.

GPS Technology

It has been brought to Kesslers attention that a significant tool

available to Building Division management is not being utilized to its

fullest potential. Kessler has learned during the audit that the GPS logs

which reflect the travel patterns and stops of Inspectors are only reviewed

in situations which might result in a conflict and not on a routine basis to

determine if Inspectors are performing the tasks they are assigned.

Recommendations

Kessler recommends that GPS be utilized on a regular basis to spot

check an Inspectors day log against the GPS records to ascertain that

what the Inspector claims to be doing is reflected.

31


33/97

Clark County Fire Department Complaint Process

The Clark County Fire Department Fire Prevention (CCFD)

complaint process is outlined in a one page memo entitled Complaint

Process (Exhibit 3). The process indicates that complaints can be

submitted via, several different formats, telephone, fax, mail, e-mail or in

person. Following submission, complaints are to be entered into an

electronic file. According to the memo, complaints are able to be edited

after they are entered. Once it is entered, it is processed and assigned to

inspectors. After the complaint has been investigated, the required

paperwork is placed in the Deputy Fire Marshals mail slot. The process

indicates that the Marshal should then review and forward the paperwork

to the designated clerical staff to enter into the database and close the

complaint. It is then submitted to imaging.

Recommendations

The Complaint Process document of the CCFD addresses the

manner in which complaints are accepted but not who they may be

received from. This document also does not address where complaint

details are originally recorded prior to being entered into the Complaint

database. The lack of a procedure allows for the recording of complaints

on scraps of paper which Kessler has been informed are discarded

following their alleged transcription into electronic format since its been

determined that the original complaint is not always what is transcribed.

Kessler recommends the following to assist in accordance with the Nevada

Revised Statutes Chapter 239-Public Records.

As with the Building Division, the inspectors notes are considered

public records and might be used as evidence in the event of criminal

prosecution, Kessler recommends that all notes be clear, concise,

32


34/97

comprehensive and free of abbreviations and that notes shall be entered

for every action or activity associated with a case, including but not

limited to:

Inspections

Phone Calls

Research

Office Visits

Hearings

Letters and Faxes sent or received

Kessler recommends that when initially received, complaints be

entered onto an approved form and that any notes regarding the

complaints, handwritten or otherwise, be maintained in the file. The

approved form should then be used to enter the information into the

database.

Kessler further recommends that the ability to edit complaints as

detailed in the complaint process be limited and security permissions

placed on the database. CCFD management personnel indicate that the

database maintains a log of anyone entering or editing a field, although

Kessler was not provided with any evidence to demonstrate that this log

exists.

The documentation Kessler reviewed regarding CCFD complaints

does not have any record of the time of day that complaints are received

readily available. It is unclear whether this information is recorded at all.

Kessler recommends that this information be recorded on the Complaint

forms and maintained in the Complaint database.

Kessler also recommends that the method by which a complaint

was submitted be maintained on the Complaint forms and in the

33


35/97

Complaint database as it is also unclear whether this information is

currently recorded at all.

CCFD personnel have indicated that on occasion complaints are

not recorded on the day they are received. Kessler recommends that it be

mandatory for complaints to be entered into the database, reviewed and

assigned on the same day that they are received. This practice will

eliminate the lag time Kessler has observed between receipt of complaints

and assignment, which in some cases was over one month.

The complaint process should be expanded to incorporate

accountability for documentation that is required to be included in a

complaint file, requiring the existence of a completed complaint

form/inspection record.

Documentation reviewed relative to CCFD complaints during the

course of the audit showed discrepancies between the Inspector listed on

the complaint log and the Inspector who signs the complaint form.

Kessler recommends that care be taken when recording the assigned

Inspector into the electronic database so that an auditable trail is created as

to who was responsible for the complaint.

The CCFD complaint forms contain fields to summarize the

resolution of a complaint, including Unfounded, Corrected, Referred, and

Other. During the course of the audit, it was often noted that Unfounded

was checked without appropriate documentation of whether an inspection

was conducted or any details surrounding how it was determined that the

complaint was unfounded. Kessler recommends that a detailed description

of the acts taken to determine the resolution of a complaint be documented

on the complaint form. It was also noted that there is no direct area for

Inspectors to record where and at what date and time of day an inspection

34


36/97

occurred. This should be immediately incorporated into the complaint

form and implemented as procedure.

During Kesslers verification of the complaint process in

attempting to determine if anyone actually conducted an on-site inspection

of complaints marked unfounded, Kessler was referred to the Inspectors

day sheets. In many cases, these supplemental sheets which are not part of

the complaint process, was able to support a contention that a particular

inspector visited the site. Troubling though, was that on a number of

occasions certain Inspectors day sheets were not completed or were either

lost or deleted from the computer system, thus making it impossible to

ascertain whether a complaint site was ever inspected. Kessler

recommends that all staff be required to complete day sheets and that

supervisors are held responsible for ensuring that these sheets are

completed and maintained on a daily basis.

As with the Building Division, a recurring weakness noted during

Kesslers audit is that documents from all phases of complaint resolution

are discarded. It should be mandatory that any documents generated

during the complaint investigation be preserved in records.

Kessler recommends that accommodations be made on the CCFD

website to allow the public to submit complaints electronically and

anonymously.

Additionally, a voicemail box should be established so that callers

can leave pertinent information concerning suspected violations after

hours. Kessler called the general number after hours and was unable to

leave a message.

35


37/97

As seen with Building Division, many of the complaints reviewed

demonstrated an extraordinary amount of time between when the

complaints were received to when they were resolved in light of the

urgency of the matters involved. Kessler recommends that the below

mandate be established which prioritizes the complaints by potential

hazardousness:

1. High Priority, requiring an inspection immediately2. Medium Priority, requiring an inspection within three days3. Low Priority, requiring an inspection within twenty days

Kessler also recommends that all complaints filed within the last

few years be reviewed by CCFD management. Where the complaint is of

a serious nature and it is not documented sufficiently to determine if a true

investigation was conducted we recommend that the complaint be re-

investigated.

After Hour Complaints

According to documents reviewed by Kessler, only six complaints

were lodged through dispatch. Based upon information received during

the audit, it appears that dispatch normally tells the person lodging the

complaint via telephone to call fire prevention rather than opening an

incident for TOA themselves (TOA references To Other Agency). When

they do create a TOA it is normally for after hour calls. The only other

entry that they might make is that fire prevention was notified. Kessler

spoke to a fire inspector who indicated that he knew complaints were

being received after hours and not recorded by dispatch. The inspector

further stated that due to the fact that Las Vegas is a 24/365/7 city, it

should be imperative that complaints lodged after normal business hours

be treated with the same urgency as complaints lodged during the day.

36


38/97

Clark County Fire Department Complaint Sample

Kessler was provided with the complaint log for the periods

January 2006 through December of 2007. A sampling was conducted of

303 complaints provided which were filed primarily between the dates of

February 2007 and May 2007. Only two were dated in 2006. Out of the

303 complaints, 66 had no assigned dates on the paperwork, 8 were

lacking inspector names, and 179 had no inspection form attached with

only notes jotted on the complaint form.

Kesslers audit showed that 224 complaints took 30 days or less to

resolve after they were opened. 3 of the 303 had completed dates that

were prior to the date the complaint was received. 7 had more than 200

days between when the complaint was received and when it was closed.

12 were between 100 and 200 days and 57 took between 30 and 100 days.

Out of the 303 complaints, 24 had no complaint log entries, 23 had

no complaint forms attached and 99 had insufficient documentation to

support the disposition or the notes marked on the complaint form.

Selective Recording of Complaints CCFD

Among the documents we received from CCFD was a Record of

Communications dated July 26, 2007 documenting a telephone call

between a CCFD fire official and an Engineering Department employee of

Harrahs. The document is referring to a complaint and indicates that the

conversation encompassed notification that a former employee of Harrahs

indicated that Harrahs was doing construction without the proper permits

and that life safety systems were breached and later covered up without

the proper repairs. The memo goes on to indicate that Harrahs is alleging

37


39/97

that the former employee is retaliating because he is angry for losing his

job, assuring the fire official that permits are obtained anytime life safety

systems are repaired. Based upon this communication, the fire official

recommended that no further action be taken (Exhibit 2).

Undue Influence

During Kesslers discussions with CCFD staff, CCFD staff

complained that on more than one occasion they were directed by CCFD

management not to write violations concerning life safety issues, alleging

that there was undue influence exerted by county commissioners over

CCFD management. The CCFD staff requested that they not be identified

in this report because they were afraid for their job.

It should be noted that an audit concerning this matter was not

within the scope of Kesslers engagement and thus no further work has

been conducted regarding these allegations.

Recommendations

Although the allegations claim that this influence occurred in the

recent past, and that the CCFD staff claims to have specific documentation

concerning these issues, it does not appear that this matter has been

referred to or investigated by any outside agency. Kessler recommends

that Clark County provide all staff who perceive wrongdoing be provided

with a means to report wrongdoing, fraud, or ethics violations without fear

of retribution, lawsuits, or media attention. Kessler has also been

informed that there is a whistleblower ordinance in place in Clark County

and employees should be routinely advised of their rights under this

ordinance.

38


40/97

Trade Union Management Interview

Kessler spoke with a trade union management official who advised

us that it is common practice for the hotels to create a company to

circumvent the system. Kessler was informed that these companies use

unskilled, unqualified, and unlicensed people to perform the trade thus

avoiding any licensing or permit requirements. In fact, in his experience,

he said that blueprints and specs are sometimes not even used and that the

project is built as they see fit. He indicated that many of his members are

afraid to report these violations for fear of losing their job and being

blackballed from future projects.

This individual also informed Kessler that another ploy used by the

hotels is to use a licensed individual to pull the permits but then there is no

supervision or oversight by this licensed tradesman. In fact, this

individual stated that he has observed that these licensed individuals have

been known to be affiliated with more active permits than it was possible

for them to handle. In large part, this is a Nevada State Contractors Board

issue and it is recommended that the County Manager forward these

allegations to the board.

This individual also informed Kessler that it is common practice

for some inspectors to conduct drive-by inspections when conducting

routine construction approvals during the permitting process.

Recommendations

As stated elsewhere in this report, it is imperative that Building

Division implement a proactive inspection program and immediately

begin assessing significant penalties to any owner or contractor in

violation of Building Division codes. Kessler also recommends that any

39


41/97

hint of negligence or corruption on the part of the inspectors be

immediately investigated.

Comps To Building Division and CCFD

NRS 281.481, subsections 1, 2 and 4 provide the following

regulations regarding a public employees acceptance of gifts.

1. A public officer or employee shall not seek or accept any gift, service,

favor, employment, engagement, emolument or economic opportunity

which would tend improperly to influence a reasonable person in his

position to department from the faithful and impartial discharge of his

public duties.

2. A public officer or employee shall not use his position in government

to secure or grant unwarranted privileges, preferences, exemptions or

advantages for himself, any member of his household, any business entity

in which he has a significant pecuniary interest, or any other person.

4. A public officer or employee shall not accept any salary, retainer,

augmentation, expense allowance or other compensation from any private

source for the performance of his duties as a public officer or employee.

Despite these regulations, a number of individuals with whom

Kessler spoke advised Kessler that some Building Division and CCFD

inspectors did not want to create a hostile environment at the hotels where

they were assigned to inspect complaints since it was alleged that certain

inspectors receive comps from the hotels including meals, show tickets,

stays at other properties and branded clothing.

40


42/97

Kessler was informed by CCFD management that in one situation,

in the first quarter of 2007, an architectual firm sent gift certificates to the

Fire Plans Checker. Documentation we have secured indicates that the

Fire Plans Checker returned the gift certificates to the firm in accordance

with Clark County Rules and Regulations (Exhibit 4).

Kessler also read in the Las Vegas Review Journal that following

the fire at the Monte Carlo hotel, Many of the emergency responders who

helped put out the fire and assist with the evacuation were invited to attend

the show as guests of Burton and the resort. According to CCFD

management the Fire and Hazard Prevention Services-Division returned

the offers of gifts from the Monte Carlo.

It was also noted during Kesslers field audit which took place in

December 2007 at the offices of the Building Division, Kesslers staff

observed contractors bestowing gifts of food upon employees in the permit

division. According to Clark County personnel with whom Kessler spoke,

Kessler was advised that it is an acceptable practice for any Clark County

employee to accept food gifts from citizens as long as it is shared among

the entire office staff.

41


43/97

APPENDIX

42


44/97

Building Division Complaints

Complaint 06-00010656

This complaint involved Harrahs Mardi Gras Tower and was

received on September 12, 2006 at 2:22PM according to the complaint

response form used by the clerk that accepts the complaint. Upon a

review of the Case History Report maintained by the Building Division, it

was found that the report indicates that the complaint was entered into the

system on September 12, 2006 at 1:43PM and was assigned to an

inspector at 2:15PM which is before the time the complaint is shown to

have been received. This complaint alleged the installation of cabling for

power or other uses on the third floor penetrating trusses and firewallswithout a permit. According to the Case History Report on September 19,

2006 at 1:15PM an entry is made simply stating that an inspection was

performed by the inspector we are referring to as Building Inspector 1 on

September 15, 2006, indicating there were no violations found. On

September 18, 2006 at 1:17PM Supervising Inspector 1 closed the case.

There is no reference anywhere in the documentation provided during the

audit indicating that any work was observed by Building Inspector 1 with

or without a permit.

Kessler discussed this complaint with Building Inspector 1 who

indicated that to the best of his recollection that he spoke with Harrahs

employee AA whom he met at the hotel and accompanied him to the site

of the complaint. The inspector stated that the area was locked and that

Harrahs Employee 1 had to unlock the cage. He indicated in his

discussions with Kessler that he was at the job site for at least an hour to

an hour and a half and was there between 2:00PM and 4:00PM in the

afternoon. The inspector also indicated that while he was there, he parked

his car in the parking garage limousine drive up area of the hotel. The

inspector indicated that he found a contractors job box at the site of the

43


45/97

complaint, opened it, and found building department permits contained

therein.

When questioned about which permit covered the work that was

being performed, and requesting the permit number, Building Inspector 1

was unable to provide the information. Instead, he telephoned

DynaElectric Co. of Nevada and requested a permit number from them for

any work done on the third floor.

A few days following this telephone call, Kessler was provided

with permit number 06-34130 which was issued on July 26, 2006 which

covers the installation of conduit for a wireless cellular telephone system.

The application for the permit indicates no plans. Also contained in the

documentation provided to us by Building Inspector 1 was a set of plans

drawn by American Tower dated February 08, 2006 for the installation

and operation of an in-building distributed antenna system.

Remarkably, Building Inspector 1 was the inspector assigned to

this permit and according to inspection records of the Building Division,

he conducted rough electrical inspections for this job on October 19, 2006,

October 20, 2006, October 24, 2006, December 14, 2006 and a final on

December 14, 2006. It is questionable if the permit that was supplied to us

corresponded to the un-permitted work alleged in the complaint and it is

also questionable as to how Building Inspector 1 could be unfamiliar with

the complaint when questioned especially because he was the assigned

inspector on the property and allegedly inspected the same work

encompassed in the complaint on five occasions, with the first inspection

one month after the complaint.

According to the GPS log for the vehicle driven by Building

Inspector 1 on the day the alleged complaint inspection took place we

44


46/97

found an entry at 12:23PM indicating that the inspector parked his vehicle

at Winnick Avenue and Audrey Street and from the time he shut off the

vehicle to the time he started the vehicle at this location the total elapsed

time was 39 minutes.

Kessler also spoke with Supervising Inspector 1, who closed the

complaint. He indicated that he did not remember what the complaint was

about but was informed by Building Inspector 1 that permits had been

issued for the work. When Kessler requested any notes or documentation

that was available Supervising Inspector 1 indicated that he did not

maintain copies, having thrown them away, but contends that copies were

forwarded to the records department for scanning. A check of the records

department indicated no copies were available.

45


47/97


According to the Complaint Response form, this complaint was

taken on January 19, 2006 at 9:23AM. The complaint alleges that

extensive remodeling of suites without building, electrical, mechanical and

plumbing permits was conducted at 2870 South Maryland Parkway, Las

Vegas NV. Documentation contained in the complaint file indicates that

on February 16, 2006 an email was sent to Supervising Inspector 1

requesting a status report. On February 17, 2006 Supervising Inspector 1

indicates that Building Inspector 2 has been unable to make contact with

the complainant. On March 10, 2006, another request is made of

Supervising Inspector 1 in which he responds that the case was already

closed, as permits had been obtained for the work.

Kessler spoke with the complainant who indicated that she was

never contacted by anyone from the building department and that no

inspection was ever done, since the suite reported in the complaint was a

suite which she had recently rented to expand her practice from an

adjacent suite. She indicated that she knew extensive renovations took

place in this building without permits. Furthermore, she also filed a

complaint concerning construction which covered electrical outlets with

paneling. The complainant stated that this was the only complaint the

Building Division ever followed through on. As of the date of our

conversation with the complainant, no one from the Building Division had

contacted the complainant or followed through with an inspection on the

areas she complained about.

46


48/97


According to the Complaint Response form, this complaint was

filed on July 14, 2006 at 2:30PM. The complaint alleges Harrahs Casino

working without permits on electrical and a new slab at the Carnival

Court. According to the Case History Report, this complaint was entered

into the system on July 14, 2006 at 2:49PM. This report indicates that the

case was assigned to Building Inspector 1 and was inspected on July 18,

2006 revealing that framing, plumbing, and electrical were installed

without permits. A Notice of Violation was issued as was a Notice to

Correct by August 22, 2006. Notice was served on Harrahs Employee 1.

On September 18 of 2006 Supervising Inspector 1 indicates that permit

number 06-33284 was obtained for the work performed on this job and

that the complaint should be closed. A review of the permit file indicates

that the permit was issued on September 8 of 2006 to Contractor 1 for the

installation of a new kiosk with electrical and plumbing. Also contained

within the permit file were plans which were dated August 14, 2006 listing

Contractor 1 as the contractor of record. The file also contained electrical

plans for Contractor 2 which is a company owned by Harrahs Employee

1. Kessler contacted Harrahs Employee 1, who is no longer employed by

Harrahs, first by dialing the telephone number contained on the building

plans. The phone was answered by the Carpenter Shop Foreman of

Harrahs who indicated that the telephone and telephone number was

given to him when employee AA retired from Harrahs about 6-8 months

ago. This individual refused to provide his name.

Further research provided an additional number for Harrahs

Employee 1. A call placed to this number reached the subject, who stated

that he had a company known as Contractor 2 which he utilized for plan

and permit purposes while employed by Harrahs. He stated that the job

referenced in this complaint was a small job, approximately 600 square

47


49/97

feet, and that he was told that no permit was required to do the job. The

employee refused to supply the individuals name that stated that no

permit was required. Kessler then inquired as to whether there were other

situations where new construction did not require a permit. His only

answer was that everything is being blown out of proportion by the

newspapers and that good people are losing their jobs. He further stated

how competent the Clark County building inspectors were. Kessler then

requested information as to how plans could have been drawn just two

days prior to a permit being issued and approved the day following

submission, and that the rough inspections could be completed two

working days following issue of the permit, with the final inspection

completed in just three more days. Harrahs Employee 1 would only

reiterate how competent the building inspectors were. Kessler also

questioned him as to how the work, as cited in the July Notice of

Violation, could have commenced prior to July without plans, and how

electrical work was completed when the Violation was issued. Harrahs

Employee 1 had no answer. The complainant in this matter informed

Kessler independently that a building inspector told Harrahs Employee 1

that he wouldnt have required him to have a permit for this project if

someone had not filed a complaint.

48


50/97

Complaint 05-11404 and 04-10981

According to the complaint response form, a complainant filed a

complaint regarding the MGM Mirage Resort and Casino on September

30, 2005 at 3:48PM. The complaint alleges that the company was

installing two transformers and switches in the UPS room and that the

work is being done without the proper permits. Kessler also reviewed the

Case History Report which indicates that on September 30, 2005 at

2:48PM an entry is made establishing the complaint. That same day the

complaint is sent to Supervising Inspector 3. On October 20, 2005 the

complainant sends a follow up to someone identified on the Case History

Report as JNH. On November 1, 2005, an entry is made in the log for no

violation found, no unauthorized or unpermitted installations found.

Kessler noted that Supervising Inspector 2 is referenced on the log as the

inspector. Little paperwork is available regarding this complaint, and that

which Kessler reviewed contains contradictory references to different

Supervising Inspectors B and C.

Kessler spoke with the complainant/whistleblower regarding this

complaint, who indicated that she was an electrician employed at the

MGM Mirage at that time. She indicated that both she and the inside

engineer were never contacted by anyone from Building Division

concerning the complaint and that her experience has been that complaints

are not taken seriously. She informed Kessler that she previously filed a

complaint in 2004 alleging substantial work being done without permits,

including a new welding shop built on the property, remodeling a buffet in

the casino, remodeling of old slot repair shop, addition of office in the

engineering department, spa remodeling, and that plumbers installed

electrical work and gas and steam lines in the buffet were constructed by

uncertified welders. Kessler obtained a copy of this complaint, numbered

04-10981, dated November 1, 2004 at 1:34PM. The only documentation

49


51/97

available was the Case History Report which indicates that the complaint

was turned over to Building Inspector 4, who was supervised by

Supervising Inspector 3. An entry in the log dated January 27, 2005 reads,

Permits haven [sic]applied and violations have been fixed per

(Supervising Inspector 3). The case is closed on this date. On the

complaint response forms resolution area, the section for No Violation

Found indicates that the complaint is closed, but the area regarding Notice

of Violation Issued is checked although despite an extensive search, the

Building Division could not locate said Notice. Additionally, the

resolution area indicates that the complainant was notified by Supervising

Inspector 2. The complainant maintains that she was never notified and

that the violations were never corrected.

50


52/97


A complaint was filed on August 16,

kessler final report 0308

Documents