Clark County

45 Rockefeller Plaza, Suite 2000, New York, NY 10111-2000
Phone: (212) 286-9100 | Fax: (212) 730-2433 | www.investigation.com

Audit of Clark County
Development Services
Building Division and
Clark County Fire Department
Complaint Process
Prepared For
Clark County, Nevada
Internal Audit Department
March 11, 2008
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
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

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
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
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 existing
commercial or residential properties.
Complete the action of Notice and Orders forwarded for their
processing from the Building Department.
5
Initiate the enforcement involved with work without permits for
stand-alone single family and duplex residences.
Undertake and administer all enforcement actions for accessory
structures located at stand-alone single family and duplex
residences.
Accompany Building Department personnel when the Building
Department 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 and
commercial 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 CCPRO
referrals and expedite responses within 15 working days.
6
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
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
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
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 immediately
2. Medium Priority, requiring an inspection within three days
3. Low Priority, requiring an inspection within twenty days

Kessler 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
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 J une 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 J une 23, 2006. On J uly 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
Harrahs South Mardi Gras Tower - Building Division Complaint 06-00006922

This complaint, which was filed on J une 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 J une 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 J uly 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 issued
on J uly 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
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 3
rd
to the 19
th
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 October
17, 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 J anuary 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 3
rd
to the 19
th
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
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 J anuary 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
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 J anuary 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
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-J ournal most of the renovation
work was in wing 1 and on the 19
th
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 18
th
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

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 3
rd
and 19
th
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
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 Division Complaint 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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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 immediately
2. Medium Priority, requiring an inspection within three days
3. 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

Clark County Fire Department Complaint Sample

Kessler was provided with the complaint log for the periods
J anuary 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 J uly 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
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
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
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
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 J ournal 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
APPENDIX

42
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 firewalls
without 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
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 J uly 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
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

According to the Complaint Response form, this complaint was
taken on J anuary 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

According to the Complaint Response form, this complaint was
filed on J uly 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 J uly 14, 2006 at 2:49PM. This report indicates that the
case was assigned to Building Inspector 1 and was inspected on J uly 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
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 J uly Notice of
Violation, could have commenced prior to J uly 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
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 J NH. 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
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 J anuary 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

A complaint was filed on August 16, 2006 at 3:04PM concerning
the Ramada Express in Laughlin. The complaint alleges that the
complainants wife had fallen and broke her hip and wrist on what they
believed were faultily designed stairs leading from the main road to the
Ramada Express entrance. According to the complaint response form, on
August 17, 2006 (notably the Case History report shows the assignment as
having been done August 16, 2006) the complaint is assigned to Building
Inspector 5 who visits the location and conducts a field inspection,
determining that the steps were constructed without county building
permits or inspections. Additionally, the stairs did not comply with the
current or previous codes, and a Notice of Violation was issued on August
18, 2006 (notably, the Case History report shows the inspection completed
on August 23, and that the Notice of Violation was issued on August 18).

The case history report indicates follow ups to the inspector on
August 25, 2006, October 3, 2006, November 16, 2006 and J anuary 24,
2007. As of the date of this report, this case was still listed as pending
with no resolution and no permit has been secured.

51
Complaint 06-00000488 and 06-00001115

This complaint was initially called in concerning Sushi Rikki
located at 3900 Paradise Road Suite B on J anuary 20, 2006 at 10:25AM.
The complaint alleges remodeling without building, electrical, mechanical
or plumbing permits. On February 1, 2006 Supervising Inspector 1 sends
an email to the complaint desk indicating that on J anuary 25, 2006 an
inspection was made by Building Inspector 3 and no violations were found
and asks that the case be closed.

On February 8, 2006 at 10:15AM, seven days later, another
complaint regarding 3900 Paradise Road Units A and B (Firefly
Restaurant) was lodged alleging tenant doing improvements without
permits. An email dated February 13, 2006 indicates that Building
Inspector 3 performed an inspection on February 9, 2006 and a Notice of
Violation was issued for work done without a permit. Follow up was
scheduled for March 15, 2006. Two additional Notices of Violation were
issued on March 9, 2006 and April 10, 2006 for this property, continuing
the first Violation Notice.

On J une 12, 2006 a certified mail, return receipt requested letter
was sent to the owner of record indicating that permits must be obtained
by J uly 12, 2006. According to an email dated J uly 10, 2006 permits were
obtained for the work at Dragonfly Restaurant under permit number 06-
13991, issued on April 26, 2006 and 06-27476 issued on J une 12, 2006
and the case was closed. Sushi Rikki and Firefly Restaurant are not
further addressed in any of the documentation regarding this location.

Kessler spoke with Building Inspector 3 and inquired as to how he
could not have discovered the violations during his first visit to the
property and why follow up was conducted in J une when a permit was
52
issued in April. He had no explanation and had no documents to show
that he even went out on the first visit, and no answer as to how the
violations were overlooked. He said that the inspector saves no
documents, either giving them to the Supervising Inspector or throws them
away as they serve no purpose. He further stated that when no violation
exists at a complaint site no paperwork is completed, the practice is just to
tell the supervisor that no violation exists.

53
Complaints 06-00011334 and 08-00000241

A complaint was filed with the Building Division on September
26, 2006 concerning demolition and remodeling work without permits at
the Rolex Store, The B Bar and a new clothing store at the Wynn Resort.
According to the Case History report an inspection was made by Building
Inspector 3 and he stated that no violations existed, referencing that work
was performed on Permit number 06-26846. Kessler reviewed the permit
06-26846 which was issued on J uly 6, 2006 and determined that the
permit was for a retail center remodeling of La Flirt. This permit had
nothing to do with the complaint that was filed, yet the complaint was
closed on September 26, 2006.

Kessler inquired of Building Inspector 3 as to why a permit that
did not reference the complaint was cited as evidence to close the
complaint. Kessler also requested copies of any reports documenting that
an inspection was even done. Building Inspector 3 indicated that he has
no documents to show that he went out to do the inspection, as he does not
keep case files and any of his personal papers are thrown away.

During the course of the audit, Kessler uncovered information that
on J anuary 5, 2008 Supervising Inspector 1 re-opened this complaint
following our discussion regarding the complaint with him, as number 08-
00000241. According to the Case History report, it appears that research
was done and determined that the B Bar was completed under permit 05-
51450. The permit for the Rolex store was 05-53373 and the permit for
the mens accessory store was permit 06-4386. According to the Case
History report, all of the inspections were done on this store through final
approvals. Supervising Inspector 1 determined that the complaint was not
valid and closed the case.

54
It is unclear as to how such misinformation could be contained in
the first Case History report, and how a complaint with so much missing
information could be closed. The lack of documentation regarding the
initial complaints leads Kessler to question whether an actual inspection
was ever performed.

55

Complainant called in a complaint regarding the Flamingo Hotel
swimming pool on August 17, 2006. The complaint alleges the
complainant, stepped down on one of the seats in the pool while holding
a drink in one hand and not using the hand rail provided. She stated that
she injured herself. She is questioning the codes for the pool. The case
was assigned to Building Inspector 3 and Supervising Inspector 1. An
entry in the Case History report indicates that an inspection was performed
on August 21, 2006 and no violations were found. The case was closed on
the same day.

Kessler spoke to the complainant in this matter who informed us
that when she called to file a complaint she was treated harshly and as if it
was an imposition for the complaint to be recorded. She further stated that
the narrative as contained in the case history report was not what she
reported. The complainant indicated that she complained that there was
no hand rail provided and that the pool was not properly marked for
depth. This is a clear example of why it is important that original
documents be maintained as in this case the complaint was incorrectly
transcribed or carelessly documented by the individual taking and
recording the initial complaint. The complainant stated that she attempted
to follow up concerning this complaint to no avail.

56

According to the complaint response form, on J uly 11, 2006 at
2:56PM a complaint concerning 3885 S Decatur Boulevard was supplied
to the Building Division by CCPRO. The complaint was a long letter
which points out a number of health related issues and the fact that there is
no public elevator and that the building is not handicapped accessible.
The complaint form lists the complaint as, Employee says the woman
restroom has no air vents and no handicapped accessibility. The
complaint was assigned to Building Inspector 6 on J uly 11, 2006. No
work was done on this complaint until February 1, 2007, more than 200
days following its assignment to an inspector.

On February 1, 2007 Special Assignment Section Commercial
Combination Inspector (the supervisor responsible for handling
complaints) claims he visited the site and determined that the building had
handicapped accessibility, based on the fact that there were handicapped
ramps leading to the building, and parking spaces with signage indicating
the spaces were reserved for handicapped individuals. In the Case History
report, he also indicates that it was an anonymous complaint and that most
issues dealt with Health Department or maintenance issues, indicating that
he needed specific suite numbers, etc.

Kessler spoke with Special Assignment Section Commercial
Combination Inspector, who indicated that he never checked the
restrooms, claiming that he did not have a suite number. Despite this, the
case was closed with no violations found.

57

On J uly 18, 2006 a complaint was opened applicable to 6347
Elvido Avenue. The narrative of the Case History report indicates the
following, (Special Assignment Section Commercial Combination
Inspector) made an inspection, the temperature pressure relief line for the
water heater is not routed to the outside of the building (UPC 608.5). The
space under the stairs on the east side of the building has been enclosed for
storage (IBC 1005.3.2.2). An entry in the Case History log for J uly 18,
2006 indicates that Special Assignment Section Commercial Combination
Inspector made an inspection and that a Notice of Violation was to follow.

The next entry dated J uly 18, 2006 indicates, Wrong address,
closed case and sent to records. Kessler questioned Special Assignment
Section Commercial Combination Inspector who had no explanation.

58

On J uly 18, 2006 a case was opened in reference to 9810 Ramhorn
Canyon Street. The narrative of the complaint reads that, (Special
Assignment Section Commercial Combination Inspector) made an
inspection, service equipment riser and panel have become disconnected
from the building (NEC 110.13A). The next entry in the Case History
log indicates that the case was assigned to Special Assignment Section
Commercial Combination Inspector and on the same day the log indicates
an inspection was done and a Notice of Violation was to follow. The next
entry on the log, still on the same day indicates, Wrong Address, closed
case and sent to records. Special Assignment Section Commercial
Combination Inspector again had no explanation.

59

On J uly 18, 2006 a case was opened in reference to 484 Albert
Avenue. The narrative of the Case History report reads, (Special
Assignment Section Commercial Combination Inspector) made an
inspection, a storage area has been constructed under the stairs in violation
of (IBC1005.3.2.2). The next entry reads that it was assigned to Special
Assignment Section Commercial Combination Inspector and that he made
an inspection on the same date with Notice of Violation to follow. On
J uly 19, 2006 a Notice of Violation was sent to the owner of the property
indicating that the violation must be corrected by August 24, 2006. An
entry in the log for August 24, 2006 indicates that a follow up to the
inspector is necessary. On October 10, 2006 an entry is in the log
indicating Special Assignment Section Commercial Combination
Inspector indicates that correction was complete. Within the case file, the
only documentation showing that the violation was corrected is a
handwritten note on the Notice of Violation indicating, Received call.
Correction completed. Close case. The case is closed on that date.
Again, it is shown that Special Assignment Section Commercial
Combination Inspector did not visit the site of a violation to ensure that
the corrections were completed.

60
Complaints 06-00009308 & 06-00009309 & 06-00009310 & 06-00009311

Each of the above-referenced complaints was submitted by the
same complainant involving properties managed by the complainants
company. According to the case history report complaint 06-00009308
was opened on August 11, 2006, 06-00009309 was opened on August 15,
2006, 06-00009310 was opened on August 15, 2006 and 06-00009311 was
opened on August 11, 2006.


On August 15, 2006 the complaint response form indicates that at
7:25AM complaint 06-00009308 was filed by the management company
concerning 3200 Cameron Street C and indicating that the owner is
remodeling and taking walls down without permits. An inspection is
purported to have been done by Special Assignment Section Commercial
Combination Inspector who lists There is no evidence of any work being
done. No rubbish, no construction materials, no contractor or trucks. No
workmen. Spoke with (complainant). With no work going on and no
violation exists for work without permits per (Special Assignment Section
Commercial Combination Inspector). The case is closed on August 16,
2006 despite the fact that the log entry regarding resolution is shown as
August 15, 2006.


On August 15, 2006 the Case Response form shows that this
complaint, regarding 3262 J ericho Street D and indicates that the owner is
remodeling and taking walls down without a permit is received. It was
assigned to Special Assignment Section Commercial Combination
Inspector. Contradictorily, the case log shows that complaint was
61
established on August 11, 2006. On August 15, 2006 an entry identical to
the previous case is entered into the case log regarding no evidence of
work being done. This case is closed on August 16, 2006 despite the fact
that the log entry regarding resolution is shown as August 15, 2006.


On August 15, 2006 this complaint, regarding 4471 Rich Drive C,
indicating that the owner is remodeling and taking walls down without a
permit is opened, yet it is assigned on August 11, 2006 to Special
Assignment Section Commercial Combination Inspector. The narrative
on the Case History report where the complaint is usually listed shows that
no violation was found as of August 16, 2006 per Special Assignment
Section Commercial Combination Inspector. This case is contradictorily
shown as having been closed on August 16, 2006 and August 22, 2006.


This complaint is established on August 11, 2006 regarding 4444
W. Desert Inn Road B and is assigned to Special Assignment Section
Commercial Combination Inspector on August 15, 2006 regarding owner
remodeling and taking walls down without permits. The complaint
response merely indicates no evidence on August 16, 2006 and the case
is closed, yet the Case History report uses the same verbiage as the other
cases regarding no evidence of work being done.

Combination Inspector and asked him how four properties, all turned in by
the managing agent as having work done without a permit, could be found
to have no violations. Special Assignment Section Commercial
Combination Inspector admitted that he never entered or attempted to
62
enter the premises concerning these complaints. Special Assignment
Section Commercial Combination Inspector added that after driving
around the neighborhood and seeing no evidence of construction materials
he closed the complaints.

63

On October 12, 2006 a complaint was filed at 3:29PM indicating
that a living room ceiling collapsed at 3770 South Swenson Apartment
304B. The case was assigned Special Assignment Section Commercial
Combination Inspector on October 12, 2006. The handwritten narrative
on the Complaint Response form indicates that on October 13, 2006,
Spoke w/office crews working on ceiling today. Phone #provided is for
the office. Bldg Dept not involved in maintenance issues. No violations.
Please close case. Contradictory information is contained in the Case
History report, which lists that on October 13, 2006 Special Assignment
Section Commercial Combination Inspector, Made an inspection, spoke
with office, crews working on ceiling today. Phone #provided is for the
office. This narrative indicates that an inspection was made while the
handwritten never makes mention of an actual visit.

Combination Inspector who indicated that he called the office and was
advised that work was being done to correct the problem.

64

A complaint was submitted by CCPRO on J uly 18, 2006 at
4:10PM regarding 3895 Palos Veras Street indicating that the service
equipment riser and panel boards had become disconnected from the
building (NEC 110.13A). According to the Case History report Special
Assignment Section Commercial Combination Inspector was assigned the
case at 1:03PM on J uly 18, 2006, prior to the submission time of the
complaint. The next entry on the Case History report indicates that
Special Assignment Section Commercial Combination Inspector made an
inspection at 1:03PM on J uly 18, 2006 with the results of Notice of
Violation to follow. On J uly 19, 2006 a certified Notice of Violation is
mailed to the owner.

Confusingly, on August 24, 2006 a follow up to the inspector
regarding the complaint is sent to the complaint desk. Another request for
information is shown as the next log entry as having been sent out on J uly
29, 2006. The case is closed on August 29, 2006. Documents contained
in the complaint file indicate that, Friend of owner called spoke with
friend 8/25 wants till Monday 8/28 to complete. No further indication
is given in this file that an inspection was conducted to verify that
correction was made.

65

On October 12, 2006 at 3:05PM a complaint is received
concerning 5207 Garden Lane Apartment C. The complaint alleges all
electrical fixtures are shorting and the appliances are working. This
appears to be an error in transcription on the part of the Building Division
Building Permits Specialist. According to the Case History report the case
is assigned to Special Assignment Section Commercial Combination
Inspector on October 12, 2006. This report also indicates that on October
13, 2006 Special Assignment Section Commercial Combination Inspector,
made an inspection, spoke to (complainant). She stated that the
electrician had been in over the weekend and corrected the problem. I
advised her that was good news because as a maintenance issue there was
nothing I could do for her. The case is closed on October 16, 2006.

Upon further review of the documentation contained in the file
Kessler found handwritten notes on the Complaint Response form which
indicate that on 10/13 phoned 09:42 no answer/called 10:42 no
answer, call 12:40 no answer. The next entry on this document is dated
October 16, 2006 and reads, Spoke with (complainant). She stated that
the electrician had been in over the weekend and corrected the problem. I
advised her that it was good news because as a maintenance issue there
was nothing that I could do for her. Please close case.

It is apparent that despite an inspection having been documented
on the Case History report on October 13, 2006, no inspection was ever
conducted at the subject location.

66

On August 9, 2006 at 8:57AM a complaint concerning 530 Los
Feliz Street was received regarding, Various preious [sic] projects have
resulted in enclosing the service entrance equipment and not allowing
sufficient safe working space provide adequate access and clearance at
panel. According to the Case History report, the complaint was received
on August 8, 2006 and assigned to Special Assignment Section
Commercial Combination Inspector. The next entry in the Case History
report indicates that Special Assignment Section Commercial
Combination Inspector, made an inspection, various previous projects
have resulted in enclosing service entrance equipment and not allowing
sufficient safe working space. Issued a Notice of Violation.

The file contains a Notice of Violation issued on August 8, 2006
indicating that the problem had to be corrected by October 15, 2006. The
next entry in the case history report is dated October 15, 2006 as a follow
up to the inspector. On October 18, 2006 the Case History report lists,
Email sent to (Special Assignment Section Commercial Combination
Inspector). The next entry dated October 24, 2006 indicates follow up
pending, followed by an entry dated October 16, 2006 indicating
corrections complete, closed case and sent to records Special Assignment
Section Commercial Combination Inspector.

There appears to be no documentation in the file indicating that an
inspection was ever done at the location. Again, this complaint
documentation contains numerous errors in date sequencing in the log
information and demonstrates a lack of responsibility by the inspector.

67

According to the Case History report, this case was opened on J uly
18, 2006. It should be noted that the Case Response form is missing from
the documentation provided. The Case History report goes on to state that
the case was assigned to Special Assignment Section Commercial
Combination Inspector on J uly 18, 2006. The narrative of this case reads,
(Special Assignment Section Commercial Combination Inspector) made
an inspection, the pressure relief line for the water heater is not routed to
the outside of the building UPC 608.5. Cover plates are missing on
switches / plugs at the laundry room (NEC 110.27).

On J uly 19, 2006 an entry is made in the Case History that a
Notice of Violation is sent certified mail return receipt requested. The
date that corrections need to be made by is listed as August 24, 2006 on
the Case History. The Notice of Violation was not able to be produced by
the Building Division. The Case History report has an entry dated J uly 22,
2006 that the mail was returned to sender, unable to forward. According
to the Case History log, on August 31, 2006 Special Assignment Section
Commercial Combination Inspector sends a second notice via certified
return receipt requested mail to the address. A review of the file indicates
that the second Notice of Violation was shipped via regular US Mail and
was returned to sender, attempted not known unable to forward.

On September 20, 2006 an entry is noted, corrections complete
(Special Assignment Section Commercial Combination Inspector) Close
case and send to records. No evidence is seen of any permits having
been issued or a follow up inspection having been done to prove that these
corrections were made.

68

This complaint was submitted on J uly 31, 2006 regarding 5940 W
Flamingo Road. On J uly 31, 2006, a building inspector reported, Work
without permit at Suite 10. Considerable work (all permits) is being done.
Contractor is (Contractor 4). Her contractors license is (XXXX)? Her
cell phone number is (XXX-XXX-XXXX). On February 6, 2007, an
entry is made into the case history report showing the status as pending.
No entries are made following this entry and there is no indication that the
matter was ever resolved.

Kessler spoke with Building Division staff who claimed that the
contractor was referred to the Contractors Board for doing work without a
permit. None of this information is documented on the complaint form
and when Kessler searched for this referral on the Contractors Board
website, none was found. In fact, when Kessler spoke with one Building
Division staff member his exact comments were, I thought it went away.

From information obtained during the audit we were able to
identify that Contractor 4 owns Contractor 3 as noted below in the section
regarding selective recording of complaints.

69

On May 4, 2006, at 12:08PM the complaint response form
indicates, Roof drain from the adjacent property is discharging into his
property. The complaint location is noted as 4870 W Oquendo Rd. An
email dated August 31, 2006 from the complaint desk requests an update
of the case. Building Inspector 11 who was assigned to the case responds
that he didnt have this case and requests a new copy of the complaint, to
which the complaint desk responds on the same day, I put a copy in your
mailbox.

On October 18, 2006, the complaint desk again requests a status
update, and inquires as to whether they can close the case. On the same
day Building Inspector 11 sends an email to Building Inspector 12 and
Building Inspector 13 asking, Did one of you two investigate this?
Building Inspector 13 responds, I did not investigate this property.
Again on the same day, Building Inspector 11 emailed Building Inspector
13 stating, Please call the lady and make an appointment to look into her
concerns. The email exchange that day continues with Building
Inspector 11 telling the complaint desk, I made contact with (XXXX) and
this has been resolved. Closing the case and sent to records.

This case was closed five months following its opening. No details
are provided during this exchange as to whether an inspection was ever
done, or to the degree of involvement of Inspectors 12 and 13.

70

This complaint involves 4718 W Twain Avenue. This complaint
alleges that an inspector found bars over egress windows. The documents
Kessler received simply indicate that certified mail letters were sent to the
owners on April 27, 2006 and according to the complaint response form,
non-deliverable letter sent. No other resolution is noted in this file.

71
CCFD COMPLAINTS

Complaint 07-302

On March 26, 2007 the CCFD received a complaint concerning the
Wynn Hotel, located at 3131 S Las Vegas Boulevard. The complaint was
assigned to FD Inspector 1 on April 4, 2007. The complaint states that,
The fire alarms went off on Wednesday evening. Complainant was in the
theatre and hotel personnel began to evacuate the guests. They would not
however let them go out the nearest fire exit even while the alarms were
going off. They made them exit back out to the gaming area. The
complaint form indicates in handwriting, Per conversation with Chief
Engineer, may have been conducting test. The case is closed May 20,
2007.

There is no documentation provided which allows Kessler to
determine when and if any physical inspection was conducted. To wait 9
days before assigning this case to an inspector and 55 days for the
inspector to merely place a phone call concerning this complaint seems to
be an inordinate amount of time.

72
Complaint 07-218

On March 2, 2007, the CCFD received a complaint regarding the
Sands Expo and Convention Center located at 201 E Sands Avenue. The
complaint was assigned to FD Inspector 2 on April 4, 2007 and the nature
of the complaint specifies that, Security is padlocking the emergency
exits on the second floor at 5:30PM, despite a large number of people still
in the building. This complaint is not inspected until J uly 10, 2007 at
which point the FD Inspector 2 informed a Venetian hotel employee to,
Remove all chains and padlocks from exit doors immediately. These
doors are not permitted to be locked at any time, for any reason nor by any
method. These doors are designed for exiting and shall not be locked or
obstructed at any time. Any future locking of these doors will result in
further actions by this department to include citations. The case is then
closed. No follow up was conducted to determine if the Sands Expo and
Convention Center complied with these directives. It took 130 days for
this written warning to be issued following receipt of this complaint,
leaving untold amounts of employees and tourists at the center in jeopardy
and unable to quickly exit the building in the event of an emergency.

73
Complaint 07-318

On March 28, 2007 a complaint was lodged concerning Caesars
Palace Pure Nightclub located at 3570 S Las Vegas Boulevard. The
complaint stated that there are Several hundred people waiting around in
front of this club on any given night. There is no line just a large mass of
people pushing and shoving to get in. This is unsafe in case of fire or
other emergency. FD Inspector 3 was assigned this case on April 4,
2007 and placed telephone calls to the location and spoke with a
representative whom the inspector reports said, They have bouncers and
security inside and outside to avoid problems however when crowd lets
out from coliseum is when people are pushing and shoving.

The case is listed as completed on April 5, 2007, but another note
in handwriting dated April 11, 2007 appears on the complaint form
indicating, Called above number and left message. It is unclear as to
what, if any, resolution to this matter was realized.

74
Complaint 07-326

On April 3, 2007 a complaint was received concerning the Royal
Hotel and Casino located at 99 Convention Center Drive. The complaint
was submitted by a licensed architect after he informed the manager of the
hotel of the complaint and they denied anything was wrong. The
complaint included both building department and fire department concerns
including unlicensed construction activity in public corridors, steel wires
protruding from wall moldings, wall finishes were unfinished raw material
in violation of building code, fire exit doors violated life safety codes,
doors were propped open to allow fresh air ventilation due to sewerage
backups, and fire alarms were suspect for working order.

On April 6, 2007 FD Inspector 4 inspected the property and found
various violations including fire exit doors not closing, debris on center
staircase, faulty exit signs, no records of smoke detection testing in rooms
and no sprinkler inspection records. FD Inspector 4 found at the time of
his visit no emergency exits propped open and considered these minor
violations allowing the hotel to have the items corrected by April 13,
2007. The complaint form indicates that the case is closed on April 17,
2007 yet the inspection record indicates that the case was completed on
April 22, 2007. It is not clear when any inspection took place since the
inspection record indicates numerous dates next to the deficiencies
without any corresponding explanations.

75
Complaint 07-272

On March 19, 2007 an anonymous complaint is filed concerning
Harrahs Las Vegas at 3475 S Las Vegas Boulevard. The complaint was
assigned to FD Inspector 5 on March 19, 2007. The complaint alleges
that, Near Oyster Bar, in the back of the house there is a hallway that is
designated an emergency exit that is not kept clear. They have built a
wall in the middle of the hallway separating it now making two hallways
approximately 3 feet wide. It appears from the documentation provided
that on March 23, 2007 FD Inspector 5 simply faxed the complaint form to
Building Division Supervising Inspector 3 requesting, Can you have
someone look into this.

A review of the complaints of the Building Division for the
corresponding period does not reveal any corresponding complaint being
logged by the Building Division. Kessler asked the Assistant Director to
search the records to see if he could find the complaint, to no avail.
Therefore, it is unclear if this matter has ever been addressed by either
department.

76
Complaint 07-486

This complaint was received on May 9, 2007 in connection with a
report of a resident of a housing complex located at 3500 Paradise Road
grilling, on the patio and then dumps the hot charcoals over the edge of
the balcony. The case complaint file was assigned to FD Inspector 6 on
May 17, 2007 and was closed on May 22, 2007 when the inspector simply
jots the phrase, nobody home. No further investigation is shown to have
been conducted.

77
Complaint 07-375

This complaint which was lodged on April 12, 2007 and assigned
to FD Inspector 7 involves a caller stating that at 7200 Las Vegas
Boulevard the, locker room located on the north side near the pool area is
a 15 x 20 utility type room used as a waiting area for the consolidated
resorts timeshare sales staff (60-80). Complaints of improper exiting,
overcrowding, and hot. Staff are told they will be fired if they wait
outside the room. Sprinkler system installed.

On April 16, 2007 FD Inspector 7 visited the location and found
the room was designated as a utility type room of approximately 879
square feet with tables and chairs located inside the occupancy would have
been 58 people max. The inspector noted that currently there are 48 chairs
and 15 tables in the room. The inspector indicated that it constituted a fire
hazard regarding exiting. Based upon the linear feet of exiting the room
should have only had an occupancy level of 12 people max. The inspector
informed a representative of the property that effective immediately a limit
of 12 people was placed on the room and all of the excess tables and
chairs had to be removed.

The complaint was listed for re-inspection on May 23, 2007.
There is no indication in the file that this property was ever re-inspected.

78
Complaint 07-312

On March 28, 2007 a complaint is lodged concerning 4770 Nevso
Drive concerning, Welding company has large amounts of propane.
There are also fumes seeping through the walls. This case was not
assigned to FD Inspector 8 until April 4, 2007. The only notation on the
file was that it was unfounded on J une 10, 2007. There is no explanation
provided in the documentation in regards to the two plus month lapse and
as to how it was determined that the complaint was unfounded. On
J anuary 17, 2008 after being questioned about this incident it appears that
CCFD had an inspector call the landlord of the building and it was
determined that the tenant was no longer on site.

79
Complaint 07-452

A facsimile was received on May 7, 2007 by CCFD concerning
7160 Darby Avenue, a group home in which 9 elderly people reside. The
facsimile goes on to state that despite notifying the caretaker, a battery
operated smoke alarm in the building constantly beeped for over a month.

The complaint was assigned to FD Inspector 3 on May 9, 2007.
Attached to the complaint was a print out dated May 7, 2007 indicating
that only six beds were approved for this facility. FD Inspector 3 did not
visit the location until May 22, 2007. At this time, he found the smoke
detector chirping, no records on site for the smoke detectors and a paddle
locked front door. The inspector informed the facility that they had 48
hours to correct the violation. The case is listed as closed on May 22,
2007 but an entry on the complaint form indicates, Verified corrected on
5/24/2007.

It is unclear why the delay involving a life safety issue occurred
and furthermore why the overcrowding of the facility was never addressed
by the inspector.

80
Complaint 07-503

On May 9, 2007 an email was received by the Fire Prevention
Bureau from what appears to be the local fire station requesting assistance
concerning an odor at 600 S Eastern Building M Suite 14 of a strong
smell of gasoline in this location and neighboring suites as well. The
email indicates that an attempt was made on the above date to make
contact with the owner but no one answered the door and the door was
locked. The odor was noted to be present but, not strong enough to
warrant forcing entry. The email continues stating, Per the reports I
have received, this sounds like a chronic problem with no resolution.

The complaint was not logged in as being received until May 14,
2007 and was not assigned until May 17, 2007 to FD Inspector 9. It
appears that on J une 5, 2007, since the odor was still present, another
complaint was received via email. FD Inspector 9 simply sends an email
to the original complainant requesting a timeframe when the odor is more
prevalent and further requesting that an email be sent every time the odor
is highly prevalent indicating that the case would be kept open. The very
next day, the complainant responds indicating that the odor is prevalent
when, we arrive at about 7:45 and, the only access would be early in
the AM or mid-afternoon and that the owner is only there 2-3 on Fridays
for payday.

The next entry we have on the complaint is simply a handwritten
note that FD Inspector 9 talked to the complainant on August 1, 2007
regarding resolution of the odor problem. The complaint was closed as
being corrected. FD Inspector 9 handwrites, stopped by several times
and checked the landscaping business and found all in order. The
inspector does not record when he visited the location nor does he indicate
details of any visits.
81
Complaint 07-491

This anonymous complaint which was received May 9, 2007
involved the Harley Davidson Caf located at 3725 Las Vegas Boulevard
and states, Stairway is full of stuff and the exit doors are difficult to
open. The complaint is assigned to FD Inspector 10 and is not
investigated until May 17, 2007 at which point the only reference in the
file is, corrected on the spot 17 May 07. It is unclear why it should take
so long for a complaint of this nature to be inspected.

82
Complaints 07-444, 07-445 and 07-446

These complaints are all dated as being received on May 7, 2007
and concern 4282, 4300 and 4318 Ridge Crest Drive. These complaints
were assigned to FD Inspector 11. Attached to the complaints is a
facsimile dated April 24, 2007 indicating that these complaints have been
previously filed regarding health hazards and fire hazards due to
accumulation of debris, hardware, and miscellaneous objects. The
complaint goes on to delineate the objects as including discarded and old
signs, placards, machinery and other hardware on the front of the property.
Also noted are the presence of commercial vehicles and inoperative
vehicles that are continually parked in front and back of the property and
cars, old parade floats, models of space vehicles and shuttles, all over.
Additionally, the complainant notes that carts filled with tools and parts
are left in front of the property and in the driveways and that workman
habitually use the front of the property and driveways as a shop to build,
repair and assemble vehicles, models and parade floats. Continuing, the
complainant indicates that there have been 2 fires at the property since the
complainant resided in the neighborhood.

It is also alleged that the owner contends that he knows people at
code enforcement and has allowed them to have a luncheon at his home.
It should be noted that CCPRO (code enforcement) would be the agency
responsible for enforcing code violations. According to the complaint
form FD Inspector 11 inspected the site on May 10, 2007 simply noting on
all three complaints that there is no trash or debris visible on the property
from a public way and the case was closed on the same day.

Kessler has obtained information indicating that these properties in
a residential neighborhood are considered tourist attractions and are open
to the public during a certain period each year.
83
Complaint 07-162

A complaint was received via email on February 12, 2007
concerning a number of issues at the Tropicana at 3801 S Las Vegas
Boulevard. This complaint, which was assigned to a fire inspector on
February 14, 2007, alleges that areas were not in compliance with NFPA
fire code requirements. Included was the fact that stairways did not have a
proper latch but instead the latch was replaced by a pull handle.
Additionally, a storage area was constructed inside the stairwell under the
stairs. Also in the complaint was that the housekeeping staff was storing a
carpet cleaner inside the stairwell and that fire rated labels on the sides of
the door had been painted over. The only resolution to this complaint was
the corrected box showing an x through it on the CCFD inspection record.
Most interesting was that this matter was listed as completed on February
13, 2007, one day before the complaint was assigned to an inspector.

84
Complaint 07-560

On May 17, 2007 a complaint is received via email regarding gas
cans and barrels with unknown contents at 6463 High Sierra Drive which
the complainant felt were a danger. This complaint was forwarded to
CCFD from the Code Enforcement office and assigned to FD Inspector 12
on J une 1, 2007. This complaint is shown as completed on J une 14, 2007,
being checked unfounded with a note on the complaint for stating,
Nothing visible from the front or sides of house. No clear indication is
given on the form as to when an inspection was conducted.

85
86
Complaint 07-277

On March 20, 2007, a complaint is received regarding business
conducted in a home without a business license and strong paint fumes at
2347 Orinda Street. This complaint is assigned to FD Inspector 13 on
March 22, 2007. Not until May 11, 2007 is the file noted as being
completed, being marked as unfounded. Notes on the complaint file dated
May 11, 2007 indicate, New owner at this address stated that the old
owner did have a welding business. The new owner does not have any
welding equipment or painting equipment. It is unclear from this note
whether an on-site inspection was ever conducted and why it took so long
for the complaint to be resolved.

INDEX
*

A
Abatement action 6
Ability to Alter Computer Data 1, 29
Accessory structures 6
Accommodations 10, 23, 35
Accountability 3, 19, 34
Activity 9, 33
unlicensed construction 75
Administrative Services and Building
Division 5
Administrative Services Public Response
Office 4, 5
Agency 4, 9, 29, 36, 38, 83
Air vents 57
Alarms 72, 75
All over 83
Allegations 14, 22, 38-9
claim 38
Alter Computer Data 1, 29
American Tower 44
Answer 48, 53, 66
plausible 22
Antenna system, distributed 44
Apartment 66
22 23
304B 64
Apartments, empty 23
Appointment 14-5, 70
April
10 52
12 78
13 75
16 78
17 75
22 75
26 52
27 71
2007 11
Areas
assigned 21-2, 29
direct 34
Arville Street 20
Assigned area inspectors 21
Assistant Director 14-5, 22, 76
of Inspections 25
Audit 3, 4, 7, 8, 18, 22, 26-8, 30-1, 34,
36, 38, 43, 54, 69
Audit Department 12
Auditor 30
August
11 61-2
15 61-2
16 51, 61-2
17 51, 56
18 51
21 23, 56
22 23, 47, 62
23 3, 13, 51
24 60, 65, 68
25 51
29 65
31 68
Avenue, Albert 60

B
Bally 12
Bars 54, 71
Bldg 17
Bldg Dept 64
Board 39
contractor's 5
Branded clothing 40
Buffet 49
Building
code 6, 23, 26, 75
department 5, 6, 26, 44, 46, 75
Building Administrative 26
Building Department Inspections Services
Building Permit 6
Building Division 1, 3-5, 7-11, 14, 17-28,
30-2, 35-6, 39-41, 43-4, 46, 49, 50,
54, 57, 68-9, 76
case 23
and CCFD 5, 11, 27, 29
complaint process 7
inspectors 40
Inspectors 27
Building Division Building 66
Building Division Building Plans
Examination Division 24
Building Division Complaint Process 1, 5
Building Division Complaint Sample 1, 18
Building Division Complaints 12-3, 43
Building Division Inspectors 26, 29
Building Division Inspectors Kessler 27
Building Division in June 11
Building Division Kessler 25
Building Division procedures 21
Building Division Secretary and Building
Division Assistant Director 15
Building Division Special Assignment
Section Commercial 17
Building Division Supervising Inspector 76
Building Division system 19
Building Inspections 19, 20, 22
Building Inspector 11-2, 20-2, 43-8, 50-
2, 54, 56-7, 69, 70
assigned 20
Building Inspector Supervisor 12
Building inspectors 17, 48
Building Official 24
Building permit, valid 24
Burton 41
Business 86
entity 40
landscaping 81
87
license 86
welding 86

C
Caesar's Palace Pure Nightclub 74
Callers 7, 10, 35, 78
Cameron Street C 61
Carlo, Monte 41
Carnival Court 47
Carpenter Shop Foreman of Harrah 47
Carpet cleaner 84
Case
files 54
histories 5
Case Action 8
Case History 51, 54-60, 62, 64-8
Case History Report 30, 43, 47, 49, 50
Cash 27
Casino 49, 75
CCFD 1, 3, 4, 11, 18, 32, 37, 72-3, 79,
80, 85
complaint
forms 34
process 5
complaints 33-4
inspection record 84
inspectors 18
management 36, 38, 41
personnel 33
personnel 34
staff 38
claims 38
website 35
CCFD COMPLAINTS 72
CCPRO 4-7, 57, 65, 83
Ceiling 64
living room 64
Cell phone number 69
Cellular telephone system 44
Center staircase 75
Certificate of Occupancy 12
Certified mail letters 71
Chairs 78
Charcoals, hot 77
Charges 24-6
Chief Engineer 72
Chief Litigation Officer 17
of Harrah 17
Clark County 4, 12, 30, 38, 41
Clark County Building 24-5
Clark County Building Administrative Code
14, 24
2004 23
Clark County Building Department 6
Clark County Building Division
Development Services 4
Clark County building inspectors 48
Clark County Code 6
Clark County Department 5
Clark County Development Services
Building Division 3
Clark County District Attorney 12
Clark County Fire Department 3, 32
Clark County Fire Department Complaint
Process 1, 32
Clark County Fire Department Complaint
Sample 37
Clark County Fire Department Personnel
4
Clark County Fire Department Sample 1
Clark County Personnel 4
Clark County Rules 41
Clause 23-5
Clearance 18, 67
Closed case 58-9, 67
Code
compliant 18
enforcement 8, 27, 83, 85
requirements 84
violator 28
Code Enforcement Services forms 8, 9
Codes 18, 21, 24, 51, 56
administrative 24-6
Combination Inspector 17
Commercial properties 6
Commitment 4
Company 39, 47, 49
complainant's 61
Complainant 7, 9, 10, 13, 15, 17, 20, 23,
28, 46, 48-50, 56, 61, 66, 72, 81, 83
notes 83
Complainant's
daughter 23
name 30
wife 51
Complaint
05-11404 1, 49
06-00010656 1, 43
06-00011334 1
06-00012027 2, 66
06-00012031 2, 64
07-162 2, 84
07-218 2, 73
07-272 2, 76
07-277 2, 86
07-297 17
07-302 2, 72
07-312 2, 79
07-318 2, 74
07-326 2, 75
07-375 2, 78
07-452 2, 80
07-486 2, 77
07-491 2, 82
07-503 2, 81
07-560 2, 85
database 32-4
information 5
88
desk 12-3, 23, 27, 52, 65, 70
documentation 67
file 11, 34, 46, 65, 77, 86
form FD Inspector 83
forms 5, 33-5, 37, 69, 72, 74-6, 80
completed 34
histories 30
investigations 9, 29, 35
location 70
log 14, 18, 22, 34, 37
entries 37
process 4, 5, 7, 10, 18-9, 26-8, 32-5
document 32
entitled 32
resolutions 9, 19, 35
response 62
form 12-3, 23, 43, 46-7, 49, 51, 57,
61, 64, 66, 70-1
review 28
site 35, 53
Complaint History forms 15
Complaints
06-00011334 54
07-444 2, 83
above-referenced 61
anonymous 57, 76, 82
edit 33
handling 57
initial 11, 14, 55-6
Kessler 10
occasion 34
recording 7
of 8, 32
residential 6
residential building 4
setup 19
system 19
Compliance 18, 20-1, 84
Comps 40
Comps to Building Division and CCFD 1
Comps To Building Division and CCFD 40
Computer system 35
Computerized data 29
Concise 9, 32
Conformance 18, 21
Confrontational 28
Connection 14-5, 77
Construction 14-5, 18, 21, 37, 46, 48
base 6
company 12
company's name 12
illegal 11
materials 61, 63
residential 5, 25
Consultant basis, technical 6
Contact 6, 7, 22, 28, 46, 70, 81
Contacted personnel 17
Contends 45, 83
Contention 35
inspector's 19
Contractor 12, 15, 21-2, 27, 39, 47, 61,
69
Contractors Board 69
Contractor's
job box 43
license 69
Controls insomuch 30
Convention Center Drive 75
Conversation 7, 16-7, 26, 37, 46, 72
Copy 13, 16, 49, 70
Corrected box 84
Corrections 60, 65, 67-8
Corrective action 4
Corridors 15
Corruption 26, 29, 40
suspected 29
County 5, 20
building 51
commissioners 38
County Manager 4, 12, 22, 29, 39
Criminal prosecution 9, 32
Crowd lets 74
Crybaby 28

D
Darby Avenue 80
Database 18, 32-4
electronic 8, 34
Date 17, 22, 34, 37, 46, 50-1, 60, 68, 81
sequencing 67
Dated April 74, 83
Dated August 47, 70
Dated February 13-4, 23, 44, 52
Dated March, located 15
Dated November 13, 49
Dated October 13-4, 66-7
Days 6, 10-2, 15, 19, 36-7, 44, 48, 52,
57, 72-3
Debris 75, 83
Decatur Boulevard 57
Dedicated public servants 4
Deficiencies 19, 30, 75
Demeanor 1, 27
Department 11, 18, 25, 29, 40, 45, 73,
75-6
Department of Administrative Services
Public Response Office 4
Department, engineering 37, 49
Department Personnel 4
Departmental
correspondences 5
policy 21
Deposit accounts 27
Deputy Fire Marshal 32
Dereliction of Duties 1, 11
Desert Inn Road 62
Development Services 12
Display blatant examples 19
89
Documents 5, 9, 10, 21, 25, 27, 30, 32,
35-7, 53-4, 56, 65-6
Kessler 21, 71
list 15
official 17
Dollars, seventy-five 24
Doors 16, 73, 75
Double permit fees 25
Dragonfly Restaurant 52
Drive-by inspections 39
Driveways 83
Drug users 23
Duplex residences 6
During Kessler 38
Duties 1, 11, 17, 40

E
Eastern Building 81
Egress windows 71
Elapsed time, total 45
Elderly people 80
Electrical fixtures 66
Electrical locations 13
Electrical outlets, covered 46
Electrical work 48
installed 49
Electrician 49, 66
Electronic file 32
Electronic format 32
Elevator, public 57
Elevators 16
Elvido Avenue 58
Email 7, 12-5, 23, 46, 52, 67, 70, 81, 84-
5
correspondence 15, 28
exchange 70
Emailed Building Inspector 70
Emergency 73-4
exits 73, 75-6
responders 41
Employee AA 47
Employees 4, 10, 17, 38, 40-1, 48, 57,
73
cast 4
public 10
Employment 40
indicted regained 12
Encountered instances 20
Enforcement 6
actions 6
complete 6
issues 5, 6
law 22, 28-9
English language 22
Entry 13-4, 36, 43, 45, 49, 50, 56, 58,
60, 62, 67-9, 80-1
next 14, 58-60, 65-7, 81
Environment, hostile 40
Errors 66-7
Ethics 10, 29
Evidence 9, 32-3, 54, 61-3, 68
No evidence 62
Evidence, outward 14
Excess tables 78
Exit 72-3
doors 73, 75, 82
signs, faulty 75
Expedite responses 6
Expense allowance 40
Experience 39, 49

F
Facsimile 7, 80, 83
Failure 4, 26
Falsified reports 3
Favoritism 3, 29
received 12
Faxes 9, 33
FD Inspector 17, 72-83, 85-6
February
12 84
13 84
14 84
15 14
16 14-6, 46
17 46
20 13
2007 37
Fee collections 26
Fees 1, 24-7
maximum 24
special penalty 26
File 6, 8, 14, 21, 33, 47, 56, 60, 65, 67-
8, 71, 78-9, 82, 86
Fire Department 16
Fire and Hazard Prevention Services-
Division 41
Fire Inspectors 16
Fire Plans Checker 41
Fire Prevention 32
Fire Prevention Bureau 81
Firefly Restaurant 52
Flamingo Hotel 56
Flamingo Road 69
Floor
number 16
plans 13, 16
Floors 11-3, 16, 73
third 43-4
Floros 17
Forms
approved 8, 33
short log check-in 24
Framing 20, 47
Freight elevator 16
Fresh air ventilation 75
Fridays 14, 81
Front 74, 83, 85
90
Fumes seeping 79
Functions 4, 28

G
Gaming area 72
Garden Lane 66
Gas cans 85
Gift certificates 41
Gifts 40-1
food 41
observed contractors bestowing 41
Good customer
relations 22
service 29
Government 40
local 3
GPS 16, 31
documentation 21
logs 31, 44
GPS Technology 1, 31
Group, special 26
Guests 41, 72

H
Hallways 76
No hand rail provided 56
Handicapped accessibility 57
Handicapped ramps 57
Handwriting 72, 74
Handwritten 8, 33, 60, 64, 81
notes 8, 66
Hardware 83
Harley Davidson Caf 82
Harrah 4, 11-2, 14, 37, 47
employee of 37
Harrah's Casino 47
Harrah's complaint 28
Harrah's Employee 43, 47-8
Harrah's employee AA 43
Harrah's Employee, contacted 47
Harrah's employees 4
Harrah's Entertainment 4, 17
Harrah's Entertainment's Chief Litigation
Officer 4
Harrah's Hotel 17
Harrah's Las Vegas 11, 76
Harrah's Las Vegas Hotel 17
Harrah's Las Vegas South 11
Harrah's Mardi Gras 12
Harrah's Mardi Gras Tower, involved 43
Harrah's properties 3, 11
Harrah's Rio 11
Harrah's Rio Hotel 13
Harrah's South Mardi Gras Tower 12
Hazardousness, potential 10, 36
Hazards 78, 83
health 83
Health Department 23, 57
High Priority 10, 36
High Sierra Drive 85
History 13, 30
log 23
reports 30
system 20
Home 83, 86
group 80
Homeowners 25
Hotel personnel 72
Hotels 17, 39, 40, 43, 75
Hour
increments 24
half 24
minimum 24
Hour Complaints 36
Hours 7, 10, 24, 26, 35-6, 43, 80
Hours Complaints 1
Hours, normal business 36
House 76, 85
HTE 8
database 8, 9
Hundred people 74

I
I thought it went away 69
IBC 58, 60
Impartial discharge 40
Incident 22, 29, 36, 79
Index 2
Individuals 4, 21-2, 24, 29, 40
handicapped 57
licensed 39
Individual's name 48
Influence, undue 1, 38
Information Kessler 12
Inspected Building Inspector 10's church
21
Inspection 6, 9-12, 14-5, 17-8, 20-1, 23-
5, 27, 30, 33-4, 36, 43-4, 46, 51-2,
54-6, 58-61, 64-8
alleged complaint 44
approvals 20
conducted 22
disapprovals, multiple 21
electrical 44
expedited 26
fees 26
overtime 26
special 26
field 51
final 21, 48
form 37
on-site 35, 86
performed 21
physical 72
process 21
record 34, 75
reports 27
result 21
91
staff 30
supervisor 28
undocumented 16
Inspections Services 6
Inspector
claims 31
names 37
reports 74
Inspectors 1, 3, 11-2, 22, 24-32, 34-6,
39, 40, 43-5, 57-8, 60, 64-5, 67, 71-
2, 77-8, 80-1, 84
assigned 34, 44
involved 22
Kessler 28
notes 30
Inspectors 12 70
Inspector's notes 8, 9, 32
Inspectors work 30
Installation 43-4, 47
Interviews 4
Investigation
fee 24
independent 29
Investigative dept 15
Investigative fees 1, 23-5
Investigative techniques 29
Not investigators 28

J
Jericho Street 61
JNH 49
Job 3, 12, 20, 26, 38-9, 44, 47-8
site 43
July
10 73
11 57
12 52
13 11-2
14 47
18 47, 58-60, 65, 68
19 60, 65, 68
25 12
26 44
29 65
31 69
dated 37, 52, 58, 68
July Notice of Violation 48
June
10 79
12 52
14 85
21 12
23 12
dated 11

K
Kessler 3-5, 7-41, 43-9, 52, 54-8, 62, 64,
69, 72, 76, 83
audit 19
authorized 22
concurs 28
deficiencies 19
documentation 33
file 66
informed 15-6, 22, 39, 48-9
permission, refused 17
Kessler's
attention 31
audit 3, 4, 7, 9, 14, 20, 25, 29, 35, 37
engagement 38
field audit 41
research 12
sampling 25
staff 41
verification 35
Knowledge 4, 26

L
La Flirt 54
Lag time Kessler 34
Las Vegas 3, 18, 36, 46
Las Vegas Boulevard 17, 72, 74, 76, 78,
82, 84
Las Vegas Review Journal 41
Las Vegas Review-Journal 16
Latch 84
Law enforcement agency 22
Lawsuits 22, 38
Letter, long 57
Letters 9, 33
Licensed architect 75
Licensed tradesman 39
Life safety systems 37-8
Light fixture 13
Listing Contractor 47
Location 16, 21, 28, 45, 51-2, 67, 74, 78,
80-1
Log 5, 13, 16, 30-1, 33, 49, 50, 59-62
entry 13, 61-2, 65
information 67
Los Feliz Street 67
Low Priority 10, 36

M
Mail 7, 27, 32, 68
certified 52
requested 68
Maintenance issues 57, 64
Management 22-3, 28, 31
company 61
staff 4
trade union 39
Manager 75
Manager of Building Inspections 19, 20,
22
Managers of Inspections Services 6
Managing agent 62
Mantra 28
92
March
10 46
15 52
19 76
20 86
22 17, 86
23 76
26 72
27 28
28 74, 79
Marshal 32
Mass, large 74
Media
articles 5
attention 38
Medium Priority 10, 36
Members 39, 40, 69
Memo 14-5, 32, 37
Supervising Inspector 14
Memorandum 5, 14, 20
Men's accessory 54
MGM Mirage 49
MGM Mirage Resort and Casino 49
Minimum, one-hour 24
Mobile trailer parks 25
Models 83
Monday 65
Money 26
owner deposits 26
Multi-family
dwellings 25
properties 25

N
NEC 68
110.13A 59, 65
Neighborhoods 6, 63, 83
residential 83
Nevada 44
Nevada Revised Statutes Chapter 8, 32
Nevada State Contractors Board 39
Nevso Drive 79
NFPA 84
Nobody home 77
Non-deliverable letter sent 71
Notices
of Violation 52
of Violations (NOV) 25
Notification, encompassed 37
NOV (Notices of Violations) 25
November
16 51
30 13
NRS 40

O
Objects 83
miscellaneous 83
Occasions 4, 35, 38, 44
Occupancy 12, 78
level 78
October
10 15, 60
12 64, 66
13 64, 66
15 67
16 66
18 67, 70
19 44
20 44, 49
24 44
Odor 81
Office 41, 49, 64
staff 41
Office Visits 9, 33
Officer, public 40
Oquendo 70
Orinda Street 86
Overcrowding 78, 80
Overtime charges 26
Owner 24, 26-7, 39, 52, 60-2, 65, 71,
81, 83, 86
remodeling 62
Oyster Bar 76

P
PACE (Proactive Code Enforcement) 1, 18
PACE program 18
Paddle locked front 80
Paint fumes, strong 86
Painting equipment 86
Palos Veras Street 65
Panel 59, 67
boards 65
elevator 16
Paperwork 32, 37, 49, 53
Parking garage limousine 43
Parties, involved 9
Passenger elevator 16
Pecuniary interest 40
Penalties 25-6, 39
assessment of 25-6
People max 78
Perception, public 26
Permit 5, 11-3, 18, 20, 23-6, 43-4, 47-8,
51-2, 54, 61-2, 69
division 41
fee 24-5
file 47
number 12, 44, 47, 52, 54
penalty 25
purposes 47
requirements 39
regarding 14
valid 24
Permit Application Department 25
Permitted work 19
Person 9, 32, 40
93
lodging 36
Phases 9
of complaint resolution 9, 35
Phone 47, 64
Phone Calls 9, 33
Plans 14-5, 21, 44, 47-8
approved 13, 20-1
electrical 47
Plates 68
switch 13
Plumbing 20, 46-7, 52
layouts 13
underground 20
Police work 28
Pool 56
area 78
Post tension cables 13
Power 43
authorized electrical 21
Practices, office's 4
Preferential treatment 21
Premises 28, 63
Prevention 36
Prioritizes 10, 36
Private source 40
Proactive Code Enforcement (PACE) 1, 18
Proactive inspection program 39
Problem 5, 16, 64, 66-7, 74
chronic 81
Procedures, special audit 4
Processes, permitting 39
Processing Complaints 7, 8
Projects 21, 26, 39, 48, 67
Property 14, 17, 20, 25, 40, 44, 49, 52,
60-2, 70, 75, 78, 83
adjacent 70
owners 25-6
owner's agent 20
owners, shady 18
Public employees acceptance 40

Q
Questioned Special Assignment Section
Commercial Combination 58

R
Ramada Express 51
in Laughlin 51
Ramhorn Canyon Street 59
Rate 24, 26
Rated labels 84
Re-inspection 78
Receipt 34, 73
Recommendations 19, 30
Recommendations 8, 25, 29-32, 38-9
Record of Communications 37
Referrals 6, 9, 69
prioritize CCPRO 6
section 9
Regulations 5, 26, 40-1
Reliance 18, 30
Remodeling 46, 49, 52, 61-2
retail center 54
spa 49
work 12, 54
Renovation work 16
Request 6, 21, 46, 65
Request for Code
Enforcement services form 8
Enforcement Services
form 9
forms 8, 9
Request, party's 24
Requested information 48
Requested letter 52
Residential buildings 26
Residential properties 5
Residents 3, 77
Resolution 34, 51, 61-2, 71, 74, 81, 84
area 50
complaint response form's 50
Responsibility 25, 67
Retention 1, 27
Return receipt 52
certified 68
certified mail 68
Review management 30
Rich Drive 62
Ridge Crest Drive 83
Rio 11, 14-5
complaint 28, 31
employee 14-5
representatives 13
staff 16
Rio Employees 16
Rio Hotel & Casino 13
Rio's attention 16
Rolex 54
Rolex Store 54
Roof drain 70
Room numbers 16
Rooms 13, 16-7, 75, 78
laundry 68
locker 78
utility type 78
Routine construction approvals 39
Royal Hotel and Casino 75

S
Safety
codes 3
violated life 75
inspectors 3
public 3, 26, 29
standards 3
Sample period 19
Samples 19
Sands 12
94
Sands Avenue 73
Sands Expo and Convention Center 73
Scanning 27, 45
Scope 1, 4, 24, 38
Scraps 7-9, 32
Security 3, 73-4
desk 16
permissions 33
Selective Recording 69
of Complaints 1, 19, 37
Sender 68
September
10 20
12 43
13 20
15 43
17 20
18 43, 47
19 43
20 68
26 54
30 49
Service 22, 24, 40
entrance equipment 67
enclosing 67
equipment riser 59, 65
Sewerage backups 75
Sexual
harassment 22
offenders 23
Sheets 8, 35
supplemental 35
Shop 83
slot repair 49
welding 49
Shoving 74
Showed discrepancies 34
Site 14-5, 17, 19-21, 23, 28, 35, 43, 57,
60, 79, 80, 83
involvement 6
Slabs 13, 47
Smell, strong 81
Smoke
alarm, operated 80
detection 75
detector chirping 80
detectors 80
South Maryland Parkway 46
South Swenson 64
Spaces 57-8, 67
parking 57
Special Assignment Section Commercial
Combination 60
assigned 64
Special Assignment Section Commercial
Combination Inspector 11, 17, 23,
57-68
Specialist 6-10, 19, 66
Sprinkler system 78
Staff 6, 10, 35, 38, 78
designated clerical 32
housekeeping 84
timeshare sales 78
Stairs 51, 58, 60, 84
designed 51
Stairways 82, 84
Stairwell 84
Status 15, 69
update 70
Steel wires protruding 75
Storage area 60, 84
Street, Audrey 45
Strip property 25
Subject 20, 47
location 66
property 23
Submission 32, 48
time 65
Suite 20, 52
10 69
14 81
Suites 46
guestroom 12
neighboring 81
Supervising Inspector 11-7, 20, 23, 43,
45-7, 49, 50, 52-4, 56
Supervisor 13, 35, 53, 57
Sushi Rikki 52
and Firefly Restaurant 52
Swings 22
Switches 13, 49, 68

T
Telephone 7, 10, 13, 32, 36, 47
number 47
Telephoned DynaElectric Co 44
Tenant 20, 52, 79
Tenant's contractor 20
Tenants, offered 23
Terminated Clark County Building
Inspector Supervisor 12
Time Building Inspector 21
TOA 36
references 36
Tools 31, 83
Tourist attractions 83
Tourists 3, 73
Tower 13-4
Trade Union Management Interview 39
Trail 30
auditable 34
Training 4, 7, 10-1, 29
Transcription 66
Travel patterns 31
Tropicana 12, 23, 84
Tropicana Avenue 23
Trusses, penetrating 43
Trust 3
95
96
public 3
Twain Avenue 71

U
Un-permitted work 44
Uncertified welders 49
Uncovered information 54
Unfinished raw material 75
Union Management Interview 1
Unlicensed contractors 18
Unlicensed people 39
Unpermitted installations 49
Unpermitted work 11
Unwarranted privileges 40
UPC 58
UPS room 49

V
Vacant apartment 23
Vehicle 16, 44-5, 83
commercial 83
inoperative 83
space 83
usage 5
Venetian hotel employee 73
Violation issued on August 67
Violation Notice 52
Violations 3, 11-2, 20, 23, 25, 38-9, 43,
47-54, 56-62, 64-5, 67-8, 75, 80
direct 21
enforcing code 83
ethics 38
life safety 26
minor 75
safety code 3
suspected 10, 35
Voicemail box 10, 35

W
Wall
finishes 75
moldings 75
paper 13
Walls 76, 79
separation 17
taking 61-2
Water heater 58, 68
Weakness, recurring 9, 35
Weaknesses 3, 30
exposing 4
Weekend 66
Welding company 79
Welding equipment 86
West Viking Road and South Valley View
Boulevard 16
Whistleblower 3, 4, 11, 28, 49
Wings 14, 16
Winnick Avenue 45
Woman restroom 57
Wonderful Massage Spa 20
Work 4, 6, 12-4, 16, 19-21, 23-6, 28, 38,
43-9, 52, 54, 57, 61-2, 64, 69
Wrong Address 59
Wynn Hotel 72
Wynn Resort 54

X
XXXX 69, 70

Y
Yards, common 15

Clark County

Загружено:

Сведения о документе

Авторское право

Доступные форматы

Поделиться этим документом

Поделиться или встроить документ

Параметры публикации

Этот документ был вам полезен?

Это неприемлемый материал?

Авторское право:

Доступные форматы

Clark County

Загружено:

Авторское право:

Доступные форматы

45 Rockefeller Plaza, Suite 2000, New York, NY 10111-2000

Phone: (212) 286-9100 | Fax: (212) 730-2433 | www.investigation.com

Вам также может понравиться