Citizens of Saint Paul -vs- The City of Saint Paul Part 5 "Code Enforcement Officer Jeff Hawkins testimony"
Scroll down the page for parts 1 thru 4
Note: The Fair Housing Lawsuit complaints are located to the right of the screen under the Scales of Justice. Please click onto the COMMENTS for the story.
Note: The Fair Housing Lawsuit complaints are located to the right of the screen under the Scales of Justice. Please click onto the COMMENTS for the story.
posted by Bob at Tuesday, January 20, 2009
5 Comments:
JEFFREY J. HAWKINS,
5 having been first duly sworn, was examined and
6 testified as follows:
7
8 EXAMINATION
9 BY MR. SHOEMAKER:
10 Q. Mr. Hawkins, we're here for a deposition in the
11 Frank Steinhauser, et al., Sandra Harrilal, et
12 al., and Gallagher, et al, cases, the federal
13 cases that were brought in 2004, 2005, against
14 the City of St. Paul and a number inspectors.
15 And I just want to give you a little
16 preliminary background on the procedure here.
17 The court reporter is going to take
18 down my question and your response, your
19 answer. And she'll be looking for a "yes" or a
20 "no" if it's an affirmative or a negative
21 response to my question. So make sure you use
22 a "yes" or a "no" if that's appropriate.
23 Secondly, if you don't understand a
24 question that I'm asking of you this morning
25 just let me know, tell me you don't understand
1 or you want me to restate it.
2 And then, finally, let's make sure
3 that only one of us is talking at a time
4 because it's difficult for Cheryl to take down
5 more than one person talking at a time.
6 Is that understood?
7 A. Yes, I understand.
8 Q. Have you ever had your deposition taken before?
9 A. My wife is a court reporter and a legal
10 secretary so she's groomed me before or
11 cautioned me on my speed of speech.
12 Q. Just for the record, Mr. Engel is here as well
13 on behalf of the Gallagher plaintiffs but none
14 of the plaintiffs have arrived yet.
15 How did you prepare for your
16 deposition this morning?
17 A. I guess I already don't understand the
18 question.
19 Q. Other than meeting with Mr. Larson did you
20 review any documents, talk to anyone in
21 preparation for your deposition?
22 A. No, I didn't.
23 Q. Okay. Have you ever looked at any one of the
24 complaints in the federal cases that I
25 mentioned earlier?
1 A. No, I have not.
2 Q. Okay. Have you talked to anyone about the
3 nature of the claims being made by the
4 landlords against the City and inspectors?
5 A. No, I haven't.
6 Q. Okay. When did you first realize that there
7 were or there was a lawsuit against the City by
8 the plaintiffs?
9 A. I believe I was walking to the courthouse and I
10 saw them picketing outside the courthouse and I
11 saw Frank Steinhauser there and talked to him
12 for a few minutes.
13 Q. Okay. Do you remember was that a couple
14 summers go?
15 A. It had to be probably two years ago, maybe two
16 and a half.
17 Q. Do you recall what was said during your
18 conversation with Mr. Steinhauser?
19 A. No, it was pretty much just general chitchat,
20 how have you been 'cuz he lives in Inver Grove
21 Heights and so do I. And we had, you know,
22 through my dealings with him up to '97 to 2000
23 we had a pretty good working rapport so --
24 Q. Okay. You're talking about when you were with
25 the Code Enforcement office of the City of St.
1 Paul?
2 A. That is correct.
3 Q. At some point you transferred to the City
4 Zoning Department from Code Enforcement, is
5 that right?
6 A. That is correct, I took a test and I was
7 promoted.
8 Q. Let's just talk about your employment history
9 with the City of St. Paul. When did you start
10 with the City, Mr. Hawkins?
11 A. 1981.
12 Q. And what was your first position?
13 A. I was a Property Clerk One at the City of St.
14 Paul Impound Lot working as a civilian employee
15 for the police.
16 Q. And how long did you have that position?
17 A. Fifteen years. Well, I was promoted within and
18 took tests and moved up to -- and when I left I
19 was the manager of the impound lot.
20 Q. All right. So that would have brought you to
21 about 1996?
22 A. I believe -- it was 1997 because I had left the
23 City for about four months to pursue another
24 career.
25 Q. All right. So about 1981 to 1996 or so you
1 were with the police department starting as a
2 property clerk and then moving up to manager
3 with that department?
4 A. Correct.
5 Q. All right. And then you left the City for
6 about four months and then came back to the
7 City in what position?
8 A. The time when I left was in 1983 is when I left
9 the City to build some houses. But my partner
10 robbed Peter to pay Paul and I was back at the
11 impound lot in no time.
12 And so then in 1990 -- I was there
13 till '97, April of '97 when I was offered a
14 position at Code Enforcement.
15 Q. And what was your first position at Code
16 Enforcement?
17 A. Environmental Health Inspector One I believe is
18 what the title was.
19 Q. And how long were you with Code Enforcement
20 then from 1997?
21 A. I was, it was May '97 until August of 2000 when
22 I started in Zoning.
23 Q. August of 2000, okay, is when you moved over to
24 Zoning?
25 A. Correct.
1 Q. All right. Were you involved in the program
2 that was called PP2000 or Problem Property
3 2000?
4 A. Yes.
5 Q. Okay. When did that program start in
6 relationship to when you left the City, let's
7 say August 2000, how far before that did that
8 program start?
9 A. I believe we actually started working on it
10 like late '99, like November or December, but I
11 can't really be sure.
12 Q. Okay. So you think maybe the fall of 1999?
13 A. I'm thinking that, that I was doing it back
14 then. It didn't have a formal name at that
15 point in time, just a --
16 Q. That program, do you know how that originated?
17 A. You know, I really don't recall.
18 Q. Do you remember who from the City promoted the
19 program or at least had a leadership role in
20 the program?
21 A. Well, I think it was when Dick Lippert came in
22 and we were looking at different ways to do
23 enforcement.
24 Q. He was the manager of Code Enforcement during
25 that period of 1999 through 2000 until you
1 transferred to Zoning, correct?
2 A. Correct.
3 Q. Who else was involved that you recall with the
4 Problem Property 2000 Program?
5 A. The other inspectors were Joel Essling and Joe
6 Yannarelly and then myself.
7 Q. Now you had been a Code Enforcement officer for
8 a couple of years by the time that you
9 referenced the start of this Problem Property
10 2000 Program, correct?
11 A. Correct.
12 Q. Okay. How did the code enforcement for you
13 change, if it did at all, when you changed from
14 Code Enforcement operations to a Problem
15 Property 2000 Program?
16 A. I would have to say we were more proactive I
17 think dealing with the landlords that had
18 multiple properties that seemed to have -- and
19 multiple complaints. I started I believe in
20 that, in the fall by taking case files that
21 were, you know, an inch-and-a-half thick seeing
22 if we could get some resolution and because
23 just sending orders and tickets and that sort
24 of thing wasn't, didn't seem to be doing the
25 trick and our idea was to get compliance.
1 Q. So if we back up then, if a file was fairly
2 thick obviously it had some history of Code
3 Enforcement attention on that particular
4 property file, correct?
5 A. That is correct.
6 Q. All right. And was it typical for these files
7 that had attention by the Problem Property 2000
8 inspectors and had a history, was it typical
9 that a number of different enforcement tools
10 had been used on the property as it related to
11 trying to get compliance?
12 A. Could you be more specific?
13 Q. For example, if you had a file that was
14 assigned to you and the other inspectors as a
15 Problem Property 2000 file and it had you
16 mentioned a fairly thick folder, I would assume
17 that there would have been a number of
18 enforcement type tools that had been used by
19 inspectors, for example, summary abatements,
20 correction notices, possibly condemnations,
21 things of that type?
22 A. Yes, the individual area inspectors would have
23 done that.
24 Q. Okay. So those files when they got to the
25 point of Problem Property 2000 would it be fair
1 to say that a wide variety of enforcement tools
2 had been utilized by the inspectors by that
3 point?
4 A. That would be fair to say.
5 (Whereupon, Frank Steinhauser and
6 Joseph Collins enter conference room.)
7 MR. SHOEMAKER: Just for the record
8 Mr. Steinhauser and Mr. Collins have appeared
9 at the deposition now.
10 BY MR. SHOEMAKER:
11 Q. Now there was a focus on trying to get
12 compliance on these selected properties. How
13 were the properties selected by Mr. Lippert and
14 others in the Problem Property 2000 Program?
15 A. They were again, like as I described, they were
16 properties with a vast history, with a history
17 of enforcement that the individual area
18 inspectors were having problem resolving the
19 complaints or the repeat complaints.
20 Q. Okay. So I've been to the White Bear office of
21 the Neighborhood Housing Property Improvement
22 Department and I know that when you were with
23 the program it wasn't located out at White
24 Bear, it was located downtown, is that right?
25 A. It was located, first it was where the
1 Juedemann Building is, the Public Health
2 building. And then we moved out to the East
3 Team Police Station on Payne and Minnehaha.
4 Q. Now when you had both of those locations how
5 were the property files maintained, were they
6 maintained in a storage room or a file room?
7 A. Correct, they were in a file room.
8 Q. Okay. So when these selected owners with
9 multiple properties were brought within the
10 Problem Property 2000 Program was the selection
11 process such that you looked at the size of the
12 file and that's what triggered the inclusion of
13 a certain property into the program or was it
14 something else that was a selection criteria?
15 A. Actually what it was was I was assigned to
16 take, I guess take a file that an area
17 inspector wasn't getting resolution on or
18 seemed to be having some pitfalls. And I would
19 take that file from the inspector, I would go
20 and I would review the whole file. Then I
21 would communicate with the landlord to try to
22 resolve, try to get a game plan to resolve.
23 Q. All right. So it sounds like there was an area
24 inspector who was responsible for making a
25 selection of any properties that he or she may
1 have had some difficulty with and that's how
2 they got to the point of being included in the
3 Problem Property 2000 Program, is that right?
4 A. Correct.
5 Q. All right. So you have area inspectors that
6 have a certain geographical area that they deal
7 with from the standpoint of Code Enforcement
8 operations in the City, correct?
9 A. That would be correct.
10 Q. All right. Now do you remember was there a
11 meeting by the manager or held by the manager
12 of Code Enforcement, Mr. Lippert, with all of
13 the area inspectors whereby he instructed them
14 to look at their property files to determine if
15 there was a property that was a problem for
16 them?
17 A. I don't recall if there was a meeting or a memo
18 or --
19 Q. Somehow though you were provided with certain
20 owners and property addresses that other area
21 inspectors had selected for you and other
22 PP2000 inspectors to work on?
23 A. Correct.
24 Q. Do you remember how many properties or how many
25 owners you were assigned to work with at the
1 start of the program?
2 A. I don't recall a specific number.
3 Q. Do you know if there was more than ten owners?
4 A. My recollection is I dealt I guess -- I don't
5 think it was ten, I think it was less than ten.
6 Q. Okay. And you had Mr. Essling that was working
7 with you as well at the start of the program?
8 A. That is correct.
9 Q. Mr. Yannarelly came in later I believe to
10 replace you, is that your understanding?
11 A. Yes, it was Joel and I mainly.
12 Q. So Mr. Lippert as the manager would have been
13 working with you and also with Mr. Essling in
14 the program?
15 A. Correct.
16 Q. Okay. So two inspectors and one manager would
17 have been the staff for the PP2000 as you
18 recall?
19 A. As I recall, yes.
20 Q. Did you have any assigned clerical staff during
21 that time period other than what you had
22 normally?
23 A. We had just the general clerical staff that was
24 there.
25 Q. Do you remember how often you would have had
1 any type of communications with Mr. Lippert
2 regarding the PP2000 Program?
3 A. I think we communicated several times a week on
4 what was going on. It wasn't -- it was just an
5 ongoing reporting.
6 Q. Now, did Mr. Lippert have an office in the Code
7 Enforcement office that you described the two
8 locations?
9 A. He had a cubicle next to mine.
10 Q. Okay. So you could just if you wanted and he
11 would happen to be in the office you could just
12 talk to him whenever so desired, right?
13 A. Correct.
14 Q. Did you have any formal meetings where both Mr.
15 Essling and you and Mr. Lippert would have been
16 present where you'd talk about, you know, how
17 the program was going, the kind of things that
18 you needed to do to help facilitate running of
19 the program. Do you remember that?
20 A. I believe it was more an informal just
21 day-to-day updating, discussing problems if we
22 had any or how the program was working, how we
23 were getting compliance.
24 Q. Okay. I've only been able to locate two
25 documents that are specific in reference to the
1 PP2000 Program with names of participants. I
2 noticed on, and I'll identify this as
3 Deposition Exhibit 1, Hawkins No. 1, and I'll
4 show it to you there.
5 For the record it's STP 0408, STP
6 408. And at the top it says Mike Morehead and
7 then it has a hyphen and then PP2000 Report.
8 And it's a memo from Dick Lippert to Joel
9 Essling, yourself and Joe Yannarelly, cc to
10 Mike Morehead and Fred Owusu?
11 A. Owusu.
12 Q. Owusu. What was Fred Owusu's role with regards
13 to the PP2000?
14 A. At this point in time of the Code Enforcement
15 history we were assigned to CSO, Citizen
16 Service Office, and Fred Owusu was the manager
17 of the Citizen Service Office.
18 Q. All right. So Code Enforcement was underneath
19 CSO at that point?
20 A. Right.
21 Q. All right. So that's why he was being copied
22 on this memorandum from Mr. Lippert you
23 believe?
24 A. Correct.
25 Q. All right. And then Mike Morehead was the
1 actual director of Code Enforcement, is that
2 true?
3 A. That is correct.
4 Q. And Mr. Lippert was the next or he was
5 underneath Mr. Morehead?
6 A. At this point in time I believe he was an
7 assistant to Mr. Morehead. He had been with
8 the FORCE unit before that and then after that.
9 Q. Okay. Let's talk a little bit about the
10 process when you were told you had certain
11 owners that had multiple properties, some of
12 the properties or maybe all of their properties
13 had large histories of code enforcement. Tell
14 me how you went about dealing with these
15 particular owners. Was it a different
16 methodology that you used from your normal area
17 inspector duties than working with owners of
18 properties?
19 A. The mindset of PP2000, again I was leaving it
20 when we finally formalized a name for it. So,
21 you know, it was just a couple of months as
22 PP2000 but we, I -- this is pretty much the way
23 I did my work anyway. I'd go and talk to
24 people instead of just sending letters.
25 And that was the idea with PP2000 is
1 that you communicate with the landlords and see
2 what problems they were having so that you
3 could formulate a better plan for compliance
4 instead of just constant punishment for it.
5 Q. You had been a code inspector for a couple
6 years, as you mentioned, prior to the PP2000
7 work. How much interaction had you had before
8 you got involved with the PP2000 Program, how
9 much interaction had you had with landlords in
10 the City?
11 A. Again, as I just stated, I did, I had personal
12 interactions with them instead of just letters.
13 I tried to talk them, tried to call them, meet
14 them at their sites so --
15 Q. All right. That was the case before PP2000 as
16 well?
17 A. Correct.
18 Q. So there wasn't any change really there in the
19 way that you worked as an inspector prior to
20 PP2000 and afterwards?
21 A. Correct, and I still do it that way.
22 Q. Okay. How many landlords prior to the 2000,
23 PP2000 Program, how many landlords had you
24 worked with do you think on a yearly basis, do
25 you have any numbers that come to mind?
1 A. I really couldn't even begin to answer you.
2 Q. Yeah, what I'm trying to find out is what kind
3 of experience level you had with working with
4 landlords in the City of St. Paul prior to
5 being selected by Mr. Lippert to work in the
6 PP2000 Program? Would you characterize it as
7 extensive work with landlords or --
8 A. Yes, I'd say extensive 'cuz I was city-wide
9 several times, not the just an area inspector
10 so --
11 Q. Okay. Had you had experience working with
12 landlords that had difficulties with their
13 properties prior to being selected to work with
14 the PP2000 Program?
15 A. Yes.
16 Q. What kind problems had you seen as an area
17 inspector prior to the PP2000 work that you
18 did, do you have a general characterization of
19 the type of problems you saw landlords having
20 in the City that you were coming across?
21 A. A generalization?
22 Q. Yeah, then we'll get specific.
23 A. For a generalization just the economy. The
24 tenants, the tenants would, a lot of the
25 problems that we have like with exterior trash
1 problems and that sort of thing, it's actually
2 a behavioral problem with the tenant, not
3 necessarily the landlord. The landlord
4 supplies the garbage can so somebody doesn't
5 put it in there.
6 Q. Okay. So you've got exterior issues that you
7 saw that were, at least in your mind, generated
8 by tenant behavior issues, correct?
9 A. In many cases.
10 Q. Okay. Anything other than trash and things of
11 that nature that you saw from the exterior that
12 were causing difficulties for landlords in the
13 City prior to your being included in the
14 PP2000?
15 A. Again economics is what I saw there too
16 where --
17 Q. What do you mean by the economics issue, Mr.
18 Hawkins?
19 A. Well, as the building was becoming more
20 deteriorated and it cost more to fix it up I
21 guess, and so landlords that had twenty-one,
22 twenty-two properties it was more difficult for
23 them than somebody that had one or two
24 properties to keep them in line.
25 Q. Okay. So, in other words, you saw some
1 difficulties of certain landlords who had large
2 rental property holdings in being able to
3 maintain the exterior of their deteriorating
4 structures?
5 A. That seemed to be the case.
6 Q. Okay. How would you deal with either
7 complaints or observations of exterior code
8 deficiencies on properties owned by those types
9 of landlords prior to the PP2000?
10 A. If we had a complaint I would have to go in and
11 inspect. And then I would issue orders,
12 contact the landlord, talk about resolution or
13 compliance whether, you know, whether it was
14 going to be through summary abatement or they
15 needed -- I'd give them a short window, if they
16 needed an extension I would usually give them
17 an extension of time.
18 Q. Okay. Did you ever have conversations with
19 landlords about the cost of doing repairs on
20 properties as it related to their attempting to
21 keep rents within the affordable range, did you
22 ever have any discussions like that with
23 landlords?
24 A. I believe that's why I got that economics in my
25 head is because I heard it from the landlords
1 Q. Okay. You think that you heard landlords say
2 that they were concerned about the cost of
3 maintaining the exteriors of their properties
4 as it related to trying to keep rents in a
5 reasonable, at reasonable rates?
6 A. I believe that that was told to me.
7 Q. All right. How about any observations that you
8 made prior to the PP2000 Program as it related
9 to interior issues where landlords were having
10 difficulties with their rental properties as it
11 related to the interior issues of the property?
12 A. I think the same issues with the exterior were
13 on the interior too. You have equipment that's
14 older and older and needs to be replaced and
15 it's economically challenging, of course. And
16 then, like you say, the rents would have to go
17 up to set off the difference. There was also
18 problems with the tenants again, you know,
19 destroying the inside as well as the outside,
20 disconnecting smoke alarms, dogs and cats.
21 Q. Sanitation issues you mean?
22 A. Yeah, sanitation.
23 (Whereupon, Thomas Gallagher enters
24 conference room.)
25 MR. LARSON: Mr. Hawkins, I've been
1 noticing both of you have been speaking over
2 each other. So maybe if you --
3 THE WITNESS: Oh, I'm sorry.
4 MR. LARSON: -- could just pause and
5 wait a little bit that might help. The court
6 reporter has been taxed a little bit but so far
7 she's been keeping up.
8 MR. SHOEMAKER: Thanks, Eric.
9 Also for the record here, Tom
10 Gallagher has joined the deposition as well.
11 BY MR. SHOEMAKER:
12 Q. All right. So I'm trying to get as much
13 knowledge as you have as it related to the
14 problems that you saw for landlords in the
15 inner-city rental property area prior to your
16 joining the PP2000 Program. And you've given
17 me some information that you had acquired based
18 on your experience as it related to exterior
19 and now interior issues.
20 Is there anything else you can
21 remember generally as it related to problems
22 that the landlords were having during that
23 period that you were an area inspector in the
24 late '90's?
25 A. I can't think of anything else
1 Q. The interior issues that you talked about, some
2 of which related to tenant-caused damage, how
3 would you make those types of observations on
4 the interior of rental properties?
5 A. Well, when you're making the inspection you
6 would, you could see if there was something
7 that was run down and hadn't been repaired in a
8 long time or had been repaired shoddily, let's
9 say. And you could also see things that were
10 destroyed or, you know.
11 Q. So did you have any training as to how to tell
12 the difference between something that was
13 normal wear and tear and something that was
14 damaged by a tenant or an occupant or a guest,
15 or is that just common sense?
16 A. I was going to say it was just common sense on
17 my part, I -- maybe it was the wrong call but I
18 think I can determine if something is neglect
19 or something is damaged on purpose.
20 Q. Okay. Let's look at Exhibit 1 here, Mr.
21 Hawkins. I'd like to just ask you a question
22 about this. I showed you a copy of this before
23 we started here this morning.
24 Do you recall getting this
25 memorandum from Mr. Lippert that he indicates
1 was going to be put in your personnel file?
2 A. To be honest with you until I read it here I
3 had forgotten totally about it.
4 Q. What do you recall Mr. Lippert telling you as
5 it related to his opinion on the overall effect
6 of the PP2000 Program? Did he ever make a
7 comment to you as to what his opinion was as to
8 how the program either met its goals or failed
9 or anything of that nature?
10 A. Well, in the memo here, of course, he states
11 that it did exactly what we wanted it to do to
12 gain compliance and to have a working
13 relationship with the landlords at that time.
14 Q. Okay. So outside of the memo do you have that
15 recollection as well that that was Mr.
16 Lippert's opinion?
17 A. That was our goal for the whole program.
18 Q. Okay. It was your goal but do you believe that
19 Mr. Lippert voiced that opinion to you outside
20 of this memorandum that he believed that the
21 goals were met?
22 A. I believe through our ongoing conversations
23 that it was reiterated or, you know, enforced
24 that we were doing a good job and this is what
25 we wanted to do, we wanted to work towards
1 compliance and towards everybody having a good
2 working relationship instead of the constant
3 enforcement, enforcement, enforcement.
4 Q. All right. Why was it that those involved with
5 the PP2000 wanted to have or wanted to
6 establish a good working relationship with the
7 landlords in the City?
8 A. We felt that the stock, the City, the stock of
9 the housing could get better if we had a
10 cooperative instead of adversarial relationship
11 with the landlords.
12 Q. Okay. Now tell me what the adversarial type
13 program was compared to the working
14 relationship, can you give me a little bit of
15 description of those two types?
16 MR. LARSON: I'm going to object, it
17 misstates the earlier testimony. With that
18 objection you can go ahead and answer.
19 MR. SHOEMAKER: Yeah, I want to
20 know, let me clarify the question.
21 BY MR. SHOEMAKER:
22 Q. You mentioned that the working relationship
23 with the landlords versus an adversarial
24 relationship. Can you describe the adversarial
25 relationship and then let's talk about,
1 secondly, about the working relationship.
2 A. Okay. Well, in my opinion the standard
3 enforcement action the way it's lined up in the
4 ordinance where there's a complaint, the
5 inspector goes out, he issues orders. If the
6 orders aren't complete there's a summary
7 abatement or a tag issued.
8 I guess adversarial is probably the
9 wrong word but a piece of paper talking to
10 somebody versus an inspector going out and
11 talking to somebody and finding out, you know,
12 can you get this fixed, can you get this done,
13 what's your time line. Let's work together. I
14 know you have other problems, everybody does,
15 but we have to get this done.
16 So if I say you have seven days and
17 that's it, and that's, I mean that's what a lot
18 of the inspections were because that's what
19 it's, states was our job is supposed to be, is
20 to go out and --
21 Q. Get compliance?
22 A. Get compliance, and here are your tools. And
23 so I was just trying to use another tool, my
24 head (indicating).
25 Q. All right. So that's what you described as
1 adversarial or would you say the enforcement
2 side of the code operations. And when you're
3 talking about a working relationship you're
4 talking about communication with an owner
5 that's other than some formal written
6 communication to the owner?
7 A. That is correct, strict compliance with the
8 enforcement versus thinking out of the box,
9 communicating.
10 Q. All right. Had this working relationship been
11 tried before that you knew of before the
12 PP2000?
13 A. Not formally but, like I said, that's pretty
14 much the way that I always operated.
15 Q. Do you know if any other inspectors had
16 operated the same way as you prior to the
17 PP2000 where they tried to have a working
18 relationship with the landlords, had
19 communication with them that was other than
20 just the writings?
21 A. I believe there were other inspectors that did
22 the door knockings and tried to talk to the
23 inspectors, or I mean to the landlords or the
24 tenants or whoever, or the property owners,
25 versus just sending a letter or posting a
1 notice.
2 Q. Now when the program became, or was informal I
3 should I say, before it actually had a title
4 PP2000, was Mr. Essling and Mr. Lippert and you
5 working in the program on an informal basis?
6 A. Again I don't recall particularly if, if
7 Mr. Lippert was there yet.
8 Q. But at some point just before you left to go to
9 Zoning the program then obtained the title
10 PP2000?
11 A. Correct, it had a formal name and goal.
12 Q. All right. Do you know if the group of
13 inspectors and Mr. Lippert ever reported to the
14 City Council about the PP2000?
15 A. I don't recall if they did or not.
16 Q. Do you know if anybody from the City Council
17 had an interest in PP2000?
18 A. As a rule the City Council had lots of interest
19 in whatever Code Enforcement was doing.
20 Q. And you're speaking in general fashion?
21 A. Correct, in general.
22 Q. But you don't recall any specific interest by
23 any City Councilmember or aide about this
24 particular PP2000 Program?
25 A. That may have been the case but I don't recall,
1 this is a long time ago.
2 Q. How about with regards to Councilmember Kathy
3 Lantry, do you recall any interest that she had
4 during the time you were with Code Enforcement
5 in or on the issues of Code Enforcement
6 matters?
7 A. Council President Lantry, at that time Council
8 Person, was very involved in how Code
9 Enforcement was to do their job or she was, her
10 ward is on the east side and there was a lot of
11 complaints in her ward. And so she would be
12 keen to any complaints therein and follow-up
13 and would call individual inspectors even, or
14 the bosses to see how things were coming. We
15 had district meetings, that sort of thing, if I
16 recall correctly.
17 Q. All right. So when you were an area inspector
18 did you have any contact with Councilmember
19 Lantry that you recall?
20 A. Yes.
21 Q. How frequent was that?
22 A. Not very often, I mean random, you know, at a
23 council meeting or a district council meeting
24 here and a phone call there.
25 Q. All right. And then once you were selected to
1 work with certain owners that had multiple
2 properties, which you then described as being
3 the kind of informal PP2000, later became the
4 official PP2000, did Councilmember Lantry have
5 any increased contact with you?
6 A. I don't recall that there were any -- it was an
7 increased amount. I had my chain of command
8 and it would just be a question about a certain
9 house or a certain, you know, when something
10 was going to get done or that type of thing.
11 Q. Would she call the inspectors directly though
12 with complaints that you remember?
13 A. She does now to me but, in Zoning, but I don't
14 recall that. You know, it was so long ago
15 that, you know, that may have been just at
16 district council meetings and just an
17 inquisitive note, but normally she would travel
18 through the chain of command.
19 Q. Now if you go back to Exhibit 1 here in the
20 second sentence you see the reference to
21 positive effect --
22 A. Mm-hmm.
23 Q. -- referring to the program? Is that something
24 that you know what is being referred to here,
25 this positive effect?
1 A. It was an overall positive effect, if I recall
2 correctly. It was the landlords liked the
3 program, the council people. The neighborhood
4 people saw an improvement in the housing stock
5 and there were less complaints coming through
6 the system.
7 Q. When you say a "working relationship with the
8 landlords," is that the type of relationship
9 that led to this positive effect?
10 A. Yes.
11 Q. All right. So describe it again for me if you
12 would. I just want to make sure I know what
13 you and Mr. Essling and Mr. Lippert were trying
14 to do other than get compliance. How do you
15 describe this PP2000 working relationship?
16 A. I guess the idea that I recall or that was in
17 my head was that the landlords were partners in
18 this too. That they needed, they wanted -- it
19 wasn't that they did not want to clean up their
20 properties or fix up their properties and we
21 had to understand that I guess. So what we
22 wanted to do is communicate with the landlords,
23 say, you know, we'll work with you to a point
24 but the things have to still be in compliance.
25 So we listened to them, listened to
1 their problems and then tried to work it out
2 together. So we were more of a partnership
3 versus I'm telling you what to do and by when.
4 Q. All right. And this communication process, did
5 you see that it always had a positive effect or
6 were there cases where certain landlords no
7 matter what you tried to do you still had lack
8 of compliance?
9 A. That is correct, on some landlords it was very
10 effective and other landlords it was
11 ineffective.
12 Q. Okay. Out of the landlords that you were
13 working with what was the percentage of
14 landlords where it had a positive effect as it
15 related to the files you worked on?
16 A. The files I worked on? I don't know if I could
17 -- again it's hard to recall but I only had a
18 very small number that weren't, that was
19 ineffective. So I would say the majority, 70
20 percent, 60 or 70, at least 70 percent probably
21 worked well. And then there were certain
22 landlords where it worked tremendously I think.
23 Q. So within this hundred percent group that you
24 worked with you think about 70 percent where
25 you had this working relationship under PP2000
1 it had a positive effect?
2 A. Yes, I believe so.
3 Q. All right. You also mentioned something about
4 certain of the landlords that had a, what was
5 it, a very good effect?
6 A. Yeah, extremely good I think. I think --
7 Q. Was that within the 70 percent?
8 A. Yes.
9 Q. Okay. But then there might have been 30
10 percent of the landlords where you still had
11 difficulties?
12 A. That is correct.
13 Q. All right. Why was it do you believe that you
14 still had difficulties with 30 percent of the
15 group even though you had this effort to
16 establish a working relationship with them and
17 communicate with them?
18 A. Because even though we were up front in what
19 our, you know, what our needs were, you know,
20 from a City standpoint, ordinance standpoint,
21 they weren't always up front or they weren't up
22 front at all. They'd say, you know, they came
23 to play the game instead of work it out.
24 Q. All right. So you believe that they misused
25 the program that you were providing to them,
1 the working relationship that you were offering
2 to them?
3 A. Correct.
4 Q. Do you have any names in mind of landlords that
5 abused the system that the City was offering to
6 them?
7 A. You know, I can't even think of the landlords'
8 names anymore. I know certain areas that they
9 were but I couldn't really even begin to --
10 Q. Let me ask you a question about Mr.
11 Steinhauser. How long have you known him as a
12 landlord?
13 A. Since shortly after I arrived in '97.
14 Q. Okay. Did Mr. Steinhauser, was he ever
15 selected to be a member of the PP2000 landlord
16 group?
17 A. Yes.
18 Q. All right. Was he a landlord that you
19 monitored or you managed under --
20 A. Yes.
21 Q. -- that PP2000?
22 A. Yes, I worked with Mr. Steinhauser.
23 Q. All right. And from a standpoint of your
24 interactions with Mr. Steinhauser how often did
25 you work with him in that particular program?
1 A. I believe we had for sure weekly communication,
2 if not on a daily basis.
3 Q. All right. Were there certain properties that
4 were subject to your interaction with Mr.
5 Steinhauser during that period?
6 A. As I recall there was just a few of his
7 properties that were I guess under our PP2000
8 Program, not necessarily all of his.
9 Q. Do you remember where location-wise those
10 properties were located within the City?
11 A. Again it was a long time ago but the lower east
12 side is where I think I dealt with Mr.
13 Steinhauser.
14 Q. Now from the standpoint of Mr. Steinhauser and
15 your involvement with him did you utilize the
16 working relationship program that you described
17 earlier here this morning?
18 A. Yes, I did.
19 Q. All right. And how did you work with Mr.
20 Steinhauser in that particular role under
21 PP2000?
22 A. One of the things that I did was when I got a
23 complaint in I would, I had his phone number, I
24 would give him a call and I would say, "We've
25 got a problem. I just got a complaint in here
1 and I'll be going out there." And he'd usually
2 meet me out there. We'd arrange to meet out
3 there or he'd have the problem fixed before I
4 even got out there.
5 And, as a matter of fact, I thought
6 our relationship was working really well when
7 he would call me up and say, "A tenant left
8 last night or over the weekend and I've got
9 some mattresses and some garbage out there. I
10 called my guy already, he won't be able to pick
11 it up till tomorrow." So that's what I felt
12 was very, was success.
13 Q. All right. So he was taking the initiative and
14 calling you just to give you a head's up as to
15 an issue that he believed would be of concern
16 to you and the City before the City actually
17 was observing a particular problem?
18 A. That is correct, he mirrored what I did with
19 him.
20 Q. Okay. In those cases where he made contact
21 with you to let you know that a tenant had
22 moved, he had some issues there with, let's
23 say, trash or mattresses that had to be
24 removed, would you follow up to make sure that
25 he, in fact, took care of those or his people
1 took care of those?
2 A. Yes.
3 Q. All right. And did he, in fact, take care of
4 the issues that he raised with you?
5 A. I've never had to write a citation so, yes.
6 Q. So your answer would be when Mr. Steinhauser
7 would call you about, let's say, a tenant
8 moving and leaving mattresses or other
9 discarded materials on the property saying,
10 "I'm going to have that taken care of," when
11 you followed up and looked at it, looked at the
12 property those issues had been remedied, is
13 that right?
14 A. Correct.
15 Q. All right. Anything else you can remember
16 about how you worked with Mr. Steinhauser
17 during this period that overall was the Problem
18 Property 2000 Program?
19 A. Again a generalization because I don't remember
20 all the specifics, we would communicate quite
21 often. Some, some of the things that he had
22 that were a complaint or a problem that was an
23 ordinance violation, some things you could give
24 an extension, you could give more time like a
25 roof leak or something. And then there was
1 other ones that had to go, you know,
2 life-safety issues that had to be corrected.
3 And so we would work within that
4 realm, let's prioritize which ones have to get
5 done first, which ones have to get done second,
6 and meet him with the understanding that they
7 did have to get done from my standpoint. And
8 the ordinance, I couldn't just ignore it. And
9 me from his experience knowing that it takes
10 time and money to improve the housing stock.
11 So I think I understood what it took to run his
12 business and he understood what it took to run
13 my business.
14 Q. Let me back up a little bit. You mentioned
15 that you were going to build some homes back in
16 1983 but you had an issue with a partner,
17 correct?
18 A. Yes.
19 Q. Did you ever have any background in
20 construction at all?
21 A. Yes.
22 Q. Tell me a little about that.
23 A. When I was in college I worked for Zachman
24 Homes, Z-a-c-h-m-a-n. I worked the summers and
25 then vacations and stuff. So we built houses
1 in White Bear Lake, West St. Paul, Inver Grove
2 Heights, Cottage Grove.
3 And then I, later the superintendent
4 that I worked for there started his own home
5 building company and I went to work for him for
6 awhile off and on.
7 And then I left the City to be
8 partners with him and that didn't work out.
9 Q. Okay. Now what type of training did you have
10 either prior to or during the time that you
11 were building homes?
12 A. I learned it all on the job starting as a
13 laborer.
14 Q. Okay. And then describe any skills that you
15 picked up during the time period that you built
16 homes that you've described.
17 A. I learned carpentry, roofing, some plumbing,
18 some electrical, ventilation. I did build my
19 own house and addition. And then I remodeled
20 my mother's house.
21 Q. Do you hold any professional licenses at all?
22 A. No.
23 Q. So this is hand's on training that you received
24 from others that you worked with?
25 A. Correct.
WEST COURT REPORTING
(320) 275-3466
JEFFREY J. HAWKINS - 02/15/07
42
1 Q. The time period that you worked with Mr.
2 Steinhauser during the late '90's, how many
3 properties do you remember having contact with
4 him on?
5 A. I can't recall.
6 Q. Would it have been more than five properties?
7 A. Possibly.
8 Q. More than ten properties?
9 A. I think he owned more than ten but I don't
10 think that I had contact with him on more than
11 ten.
12 Q. Okay. How would you describe the result of
13 your working with Mr. Steinhauser in this
14 PP2000 Program?
15 A. It's the only relationship I remember from the
16 PP2000 Program or for Code Enforcement, so it
17 sits very well in my mind I think that that was
18 what the epitome of the program was, the
19 success.
20 Q. Okay. So you would describe your working as a
21 City code inspector and a PP2000 inspector with
22 Mr. Steinhauser as a successful relationship?
23 A. Yes, I believe that that's what I wanted for
24 all those other landlords or the other ones in
25 the 70 percent and the 30 percent that didn't
WEST COURT REPORTING
(320) 275-3466
JEFFREY J. HAWKINS - 02/15/07
43
1 cooperate, that's, that's what I was looking
2 for when I, we started this type of thing.
3 Q. Okay. Did you follow up with Mr. Steinhauser
4 as it related to code issues after you went to
5 the Zoning Department?
6 A. I believe Frank called me a couple times --
7 Q. About issues?
8 A. -- asking, yeah, just asking, you know, asking
9 my opinion, that sort of thing.
10 Q. When do you recall the last time that you would
11 have talked to Mr. Steinhauser about a Code
12 Enforcement issue where he was asking for an
13 opinion from you?
14 A. You know, I really don't recall. The last time
15 that I spoke with Mr. Steinhauser would have
16 been again outside the courthouse when they
17 were picketing.
18 Q. Okay. Were there other landlords that you
19 recall that were involved in the PP2000 Program
20 where you thought they also had a positive
21 result through your work on the program?
22 A. As I said before I thought that for the most
23 part the program worked well and there was
24 probably a 70/30 split there but I can't
25 recall --
WEST COURT REPORTING
(320) 275-3466
JEFFREY J. HAWKINS - 02/15/07
44
1 Q. You can't recall any other names?
2 A. -- any other names.
3 Q. Okay. Do you recall an audit that was
4 conducted by the CSO office that resulted in a
5 CSO 2000 audit of the CSO office?
6 A. There may have been but again I don't have any
7 positive recollection of it.
8 Q. Okay. You don't remember being interviewed as
9 part of that survey or audit program?
10 A. No, I really, I really don't recall it.
11 Q. Do you remember anything about what was called
12 the Dayton's Bluff Initiative as it related to
13 neighborhood groups assisting in monitoring
14 properties in the Dayton's Bluff area for Code
15 Enforcement?
16 A. What I remember from the Dayton's -- that was
17 right when I was leaving it I believe. And I
18 think, I think, I'm trying to think was that --
19 I may, I may be getting them mixed up with
20 another initiative because there was always
21 another initiative. But that Chuck Votel and
22 Gy Willits were assigned to Dayton's Bluff to
23 be on, to be in the area, you know, and
24 available for anybody to talk to them any time.
25 So that's the influx.
WEST COURT REPORTING
(320) 275-3466
JEFFREY J. HAWKINS - 02/15/07
45
1 I know that as a general rule even
2 to this day with my licensing and zoning
3 inspections the district councils do like to
4 have a hand's on and they try to do crime
5 prevention. They -- many areas have people to
6 walk around looking, you know, for lost dogs
7 and trash problems so --
8 Q. The problem property report, printed report of
9 1995, do you ever remember seeing that or
10 looking at that?
11 A. I don't recall.
12 Q. How about the City Council's chronic problem
13 property case study that was printed in March
14 of 2002, do you remember looking at that?
15 A. No.
16 Q. Do you remember anything about the St. Paul
17 Tenants' Union's dispute with the City over the
18 FORCE officers' raids of homes in the City?
19 A. No, I wasn't privy to most of these things.
20 Q. Did you ever work with the FORCE unit at any
21 time?
22 A. No, I did not.
23 Q. Okay. Did you ever go on a tour of the City
24 with any of the mayors of the City or their
25 staff at any time you were a City employee?
WEST COURT REPORTING
(320) 275-3466
JEFFREY J. HAWKINS - 02/15/07
46
1 A. No.
2 Q. How about with any of the City Councilmembers
3 touring the City?
4 A. No.
5 Q. Okay. Did you ever have contact with any
6 tenants that would have been sourced to
7 landlords from Project Hope?
8 A. I've heard of Project Hope but I don't think
9 I've ever had any affiliation with it.
10 Q. Okay. Never came across any tenants that were
11 from Project Hope that were living in
12 landlords' properties in the City?
13 A. Not that I recall. I think I've since with the
14 Zoning heard, and I think that's when the
15 context of Project Hope came up.
16 Q. What can you tell me about that context?
17 A. Again it's pretty much just the name.
18 Q. Okay.
19 A. Because I do commercial so the residential
20 inspectors are near me too so --
21 Q. How about any tenants from Dorothy Day or
22 Catholic Charities, ever have any contact with
23 them?
24 A. Not with tenants, no.
25 Q. Okay. Did you ever form a definition of what a
1 problem tenant was within the City during the
2 time that you were a code inspector?
3 A. Not that I recall that we actually named or had
4 requirements or qualifications for a problem
5 tenant. I don't even recall using that
6 terminology.
7 Q. Okay. How about with regard to, did you ever
8 hear the phrase while you were a code inspector
9 "problem property"?
10 A. Yes.
11 Q. Okay. From a standpoint of PP2000, obviously,
12 it's used that way --
13 A. Right.
14 Q. -- but was there a definition that was
15 recognized within Code Enforcement while you
16 were an inspector there?
17 A. I don't think there was a policy or a
18 definition or actual parameters for a problem
19 property. Again it was, I believe it was
20 because of the history or possibly even the
21 amount of life-safety issues that could have
22 been at the property at any given time.
23 Q. Now when you look at life-safety issues,
24 obviously, if there's a life-safety issues that
25 you observe at a rental property that can be a
1 trigger for condemning the property if it's not
2 taken care of right away, is that true?
3 A. That would be one of the remedies.
4 Q. Okay. That would be one of the alternatives
5 that you could use in order to gain compliance
6 would be to use a condemnation notice to the
7 owner?
8 A. Yes.
9 Q. Okay. What would be some of the other
10 alternatives that you would have at your
11 disposal if you saw a life-safety issue or
12 life-safety issues at a rental property other
13 than condemning the property?
14 A. Well, with the life-safety issue you could
15 order, you can send orders for a very short
16 time, see if it can't get fixed immediately.
17 Q. So, in other words, send a written order to the
18 owner but have a short compliance deadline?
19 A. Correct.
20 Q. All right. Anything else that would be at your
21 disposal as an inspector where you had
22 life-safety or life-safety issues that were
23 present at a rental property so that you would
24 not have to condemn the property but you could
25 use some other enforcement tool to gain
1 immediate compliance?
2 A. You could also use, I'm trying to think, in
3 some situations we would go to Kay Wichenstein
4 who was at house calls and work with her. That
5 was usually sanitation though.
6 Q. Well, if you had a sanitation issue that was
7 created by occupants, tenants, guests or both,
8 any combination, you could work with a certain
9 agency to try to help the tenants, the
10 occupants to clean up the interior of a
11 property so that you didn't have to condemn it
12 and force people out of the home?
13 A. Right, or mental health issues maybe.
14 Q. So you've seen situations where you've got a
15 tenant that has a mental health issue and, as a
16 result, you've got a sanitation issue that
17 could, in fact, lead to a condemnation of the
18 unit due to what, a gross unsanitary?
19 A. Correct.
20 Q. All right. So there you try to get some mental
21 health experts to help out the tenant?
22 A. The only situation I had that was extreme like
23 that with the gross unsanitary, with the mental
24 health issues, I did have to condemn that
25 building and I had to have Social Services take
1 the kids into the hospital and have them
2 inspected.
3 And then I -- the mother was, had
4 the mental health issue and wasn't taking her
5 medication. And the father got it cleaned up
6 in a week and they were back in.
7 Q. Now as an inspector prior to the PP2000 Program
8 where you started working with that group, how
9 many times do you recall having to condemn a
10 single-family home or a duplex?
11 A. I probably couldn't -- in the three years that
12 I was there I probably condemned three
13 buildings.
14 Q. All right. And one of them would have been the
15 property you just mentioned where the mother
16 had a mental health issue?
17 A. Correct.
18 Q. All right. And then you condemned it but the
19 husband cleaned the place up and then you
20 removed the placard of condemnation within
21 about a week?
22 A. Right.
23 Q. During the time that that property was
24 condemned were any of the occupants allowed to
25 live in the property?
1 A. No, they could not live there.
2 Q. Okay. So was the typical order where they
3 could be there during the day cleaning the
4 property up but then after a certain time in
5 the evening they had to leave?
6 A. That is correct.
7 Q. That's fairly typical, is it not, with a
8 condemnation that at a certain time period in
9 the evening the City does not want occupants
10 inside of a condemned structure, correct?
11 A. That is correct.
12 Q. All right. What's the policy behind that?
13 A. Because if it's a condemned building they don't
14 want somebody habitating it, they can be there
15 working but they don't want somebody living
16 there in that life-safety issue.
17 Q. All right. Let's go back for a minute to the
18 alternatives to condemnation. In the
19 situations where you had three condemnations or
20 three properties condemned describe the other
21 two situations as it relates to what was the
22 trigger for condemnation, do you recall that?
23 A. One I had a gas shut off.
24 Q. Okay. So there you had a lack of a basic
25 facility --
1 A. Right.
2 Q. -- which triggers a condemnation under the
3 code, right?
4 A. Correct.
5 Q. Okay. How about the third structure, do you
6 recall that?
7 A. I believe in the third structure I had, I don't
8 believe I had -- there were, I don't know,
9 there were, there was one family, it was a
10 duplex. And there was a backup in the sewer.
11 So there was some plumbing problems there.
12 Q. All right. So you had to order an immediate
13 vacate of that property --
14 A. Correct.
15 Q. -- because of the sewer gas?
16 A. Correct. I think they were back in in two
17 days.
18 Q. All right. So there was a placard of
19 condemnation that was posted by you on the
20 property with an immediate order to vacate the
21 property for the safety of the occupants?
22 A. Correct.
23 Q. And probably also the residents in the
24 neighborhood, right?
25 A. (Nods head affirmatively.)
1 Q. Is that true, with the gas leak?
2 A. Yeah. It was a -- no, it wasn't a gas leak, it
3 was a --
4 Q. Sewer?
5 A. -- sewer, yeah, a sewer backup.
6 Q. All right. That may not be a hazard of
7 explosion?
8 A. No.
9 Q. Just mainly someone could be --
10 A. That would be sanitary issues.
11 Q. Okay.
12 MR. LARSON: Mr. Hawkins, slow down.
13 You're really taxing the court reporter here.
14 MR. SHOEMAKER: It's partly my fault
15 too. Okay. I apologize.
16 BY MR. SHOEMAKER:
17 Q. Let's go to the alternatives that were
18 available to you during the three years that
19 you were a code inspector so that you would not
20 have to order individuals to leave their homes.
21 You mentioned that you would try to get
22 immediate compliance with the life-safety
23 issues so you would be communicating with
24 either the homeowner or the occupant or both to
25 try to get that resolved, is that right?
1 A. That is correct.
2 Q. Okay. Was that something that was foremost in
3 your mind to try to notify the person in
4 control of the property and to tell them what
5 needed to be done in order to not have the
6 condemnation take effect?
7 A. The sooner, I felt the sooner that I
8 communicated with somebody that could fix the
9 problem the better for everyone.
10 Q. All right. Now if the property was condemned
11 and you believed that you had to have an
12 immediate order to vacate, were you concerned
13 about the occupants trying to find an
14 alternative place to live during the time the
15 condemnation was in effect?
16 A. Yes, and that's when we would to try use our
17 contacts at house calls or the different
18 agencies that supplied housing shelters.
19 Q. Do you remember during the time that you were
20 an inspector whether it was difficult for
21 occupants to locate alternative shelter in the
22 three cases where you had condemned properties?
23 A. If I recall correctly, and I think I am, two of
24 them, the two cases where it was just a short
25 term, they were able to get into a shelter.
1 And the third one where I had to condemn and
2 take -- have the kids taken out they went to
3 relatives, family.
4 Q. Do you recall during your three years at Code
5 Enforcement any political pressure on you as an
6 inspector from any official with the City of
7 St. Paul, whether it be the City Council or the
8 mayor's office, anyone else?
9 A. Me per se?
10 Q. Right.
11 A. No.
12 Q. Did you learn about any political pressure on
13 any other inspectors during the time that you
14 were an inspector with the City?
15 A. I guess I don't understand what "political
16 pressure" is because --
17 Q. Well, for example, did you learn at any time
18 that any inspector believed that a superior to
19 the inspector was pressuring the inspector to
20 make a Code Enforcement call that the inspector
21 did not believe was appropriate?
22 A. Not to my knowledge. The way I look at it is
23 when I go out and I do the inspections, I
24 enforce the ordinance and I pass it up the
25 line, whether that's to the City Attorney's
1 office or to council or to, you know, to the
2 supervisors, and that's their arena then. But
3 I can only make the call on what the ordinance
4 states.
5 Q. Okay. So you yourself, you were not pressured
6 by anyone to make a call on a property that you
7 didn't believe was appropriate?
8 A. No.
9 Q. Okay. Have you had any work as a code
10 inspector on any Public Housing Agency single
11 family or duplex during the three years you
12 worked with Code Enforcement?
13 A. I don't recall if I did or not.
14 Q. Nothing stands out with regards to any rental
15 properties owned by PHA during the time you
16 were an inspector?
17 A. No.
18 Q. Do you remember a conversation with Mr.
19 Steinhauser shortly after Andy Dawkins was
20 hired by the City to head Code Enforcement?
21 A. We may have had a conversation, I don't -- I
22 can't remember the specifics.
23 Q. Do you remember if Mr. Steinhauser contacted
24 you about the fact that Mr. Dawkins and his
25 inspectors had issued condemnations on some
1 his properties during the fall of 2002?
2 A. That may have well been.
3 Q. You may have had a conversation with him about
4 that?
5 A. Right.
6 Q. Do you remember what he may have said in
7 response about Mr. Dawkins?
8 A. No, I don't recall.
9 Q. You don't recall?
10 A. No.
11 Q. Have you ever worked for an owner of rental
12 properties at any time?
13 A. Not that I know of, no.
14 Q. You built some homes?
15 A. Mm-hmm.
16 Q. How many homes do you think you've built
17 besides your home and then assisting in the
18 remodeling of one of your family members'
19 homes?
20 A. How many have I worked on?
21 Q. Right.
22 A. Thirty to, somewhere thirty to fifty I would
23 guess.
24 Q. And the nature of your work on those properties
25 would range from being a common laborer to
1 doing carpentry work and other types of work?
2 A. Correct.
3 Q. Let me have you look at what's been marked as
4 Exhibit 2, Mr. Hawkins. This is a letter, it's
5 not been Bated. I just got this from Mr.
6 Steinhauser who I believe got it from his
7 former attorney, Pat Whitney. So I'm putting
8 that on the record here for Eric and I'll try
9 to get this Bated.
10 But it's a letter from Mr. Lippert
11 of March 8th, 2000, to Mr. Steinhauser. And it
12 references you in the last paragraph.
13 A. Yes.
14 Q. Do you see that?
15 A. Yes, I see that.
16 Q. Do you remember seeing any letters like this to
17 landlords about early 2000?
18 A. I believe that when we started the program, the
19 official program of PP2000, that we sent this
20 out to landlords with multiple properties.
21 Q. Okay. So this would be like an introductory
22 letter to a landlord that was going to be
23 included in the PP2000 Program?
24 A. Correct, so they can sit down and discuss it.
25 Q. Do you remember having a conversation at any
1 time with Mr. Steinhauser and anyone else at
2 the start of Mr. Steinhauser's inclusion in the
3 PP2000 Program?
4 A. I'm sure we did have a conversation but I don't
5 recall.
6 Q. Was it customary with the PP2000 Program when
7 you included a landlord such as Mr. Steinhauser
8 to have an in-person meeting with the owner?
9 A. That is correct.
10 Q. Okay. So do you believe there was an in-person
11 meeting with Mr. Steinhauser?
12 A. I believe there was.
13 Q. Do you remember who would have been at the
14 meeting?
15 A. I don't know if it may have just been me and
16 him or Joel and him.
17 Q. Do you remember Patricia Whitney being present
18 at a meeting with Mr. Steinhauser and yourself?
19 A. I remember probably several times that I met
20 with Patricia Whitney for Mr. Steinhauser and
21 for other landlords.
22 Q. Okay. Was your contact with Patricia Whitney
23 as an attorney for Mr. Steinhauser, how would
24 describe that relationship?
25 A. The relationship between --
1 Q. Yeah, with your interaction with Ms. Whitney
2 who was an attorney for Mr. Steinhauser, would
3 you characterize that as negative or positive
4 or somewhere in-between?
5 A. I guess I don't even have any feel for it at
6 all. I mean she was a representative of his
7 and I just, I may have -- I think she's called
8 me on several items for him stating, you know,
9 what they were going to do on some properties.
10 But I don't, I guess I don't understand the
11 question.
12 Q. Well, when she would contact you or you had
13 contact with her would you consider that to be
14 part of this working relationship that you
15 described with Mr. Steinhauser earlier?
16 MR. LARSON: Just as long as I've
17 got him by the microphone here.
18 THE WITNESS: I think that I treated
19 her as a representative, so my working with her
20 was similar to my working with Mr. Steinhauser.
21 BY MR. SHOEMAKER:
22 Q. Okay. So you would characterize your contact
23 with Ms. Whitney on behalf of Mr. Steinhauser
24 as being in that positive response, positive
25 result that you talked about earlier?
1 A. Yes.
2 Q. That you gained from Mr. Steinhauser's
3 involvement with PP2000?
4 A. If I recall correctly, yes.
5 MR. SHOEMAKER: Let's just take a
6 short break, Eric, and stretch our legs. I'll
7 need about two, three minutes here.
8 (Whereupon, a brief recess was
9 taken. Matthew Engel also present.)
10 MR. SHOEMAKER: All right. Let's
11 get back here after a short break off the
12 record.
13 BY MR. SHOEMAKER:
14 Q. And we were talking about your involvement
15 as a code inspector for the City. I wanted to
16 ask you a question, if during the time you were
17 a code inspector for the period of about three
18 years or so did you have discussions with any
19 of the other inspectors about a different
20 approach from PP2000, an approach that would be
21 more of a heavy-handed approach to enforcement
22 with problem property owners? Do you ever
23 remember a discussion like that with fellow
24 inspectors?
25 A. No.
1 Q. Did you ever learn about other approaches that
2 the City had taken previous to PP2000 in
3 attempting to gain compliance from landlords in
4 the City?
5 A. I don't recall any specific ideology, just that
6 we had tools that we needed to use or that we
7 could use to gain compliance.
8 Q. All right. Did you and the other inspectors
9 involved with PP2000 ever conclude that the
10 working relationship method of PP2000 worked
11 better than heavy code enforcement approach
12 worked?
13 A. I guess I don't understand the "heavy."
14 Q. Well, for example, if you just go out and use
15 immediate criminal housing citations or, you
16 know, frequently condemned properties to try to
17 gain compliance, that's what I would describe
18 as a heavy-handed approach to code enforcement.
19 And my question to you is would you
20 consider that to be more of a targeted
21 enforcement type approach than working with a
22 landlord? Do you see the two differences --
23 A. Yeah --
24 Q. -- between working with --
25 A. -- no, I -- correct
1 Q. -- a landlord and trying to meet the landlord
2 and tenants' interest and needs versus just
3 going out and purely having an enforcement role
4 and using criminal citations and condemnations?
5 Can you see the difference between the two or
6 don't --
7 A. Yes.
8 Q. -- you see that?
9 A. Yes, I see the difference.
10 Q. All right. Did you ever have any conversations
11 with those within Code Enforcement about the
12 two approaches?
13 A. At one point in time I had a supervisor that
14 questioned why I didn't have many citations or
15 -- because that was the way he gauged my work
16 because he could see that I had tags or lots of
17 orders issued.
18 Q. From a productivity standpoint?
19 A. Correct. And so I used summary abatements more
20 at that time and I worked with landlords. But
21 a lot of it was working with property, regular
22 property owners too, not just landlords.
23 Q. So one of the ways that you were seeking to
24 gain compliance was to use summary abatements
25 and then contacting and communicating with the
1 owners about code issues at their properties?
2 A. Correct.
3 Q. Versus using criminal citations?
4 A. Correct.
5 Q. All right. And your particular supervisor at
6 that time, do you remember who that was?
7 A. It was Chuck Votel.
8 Q. So he was trying to gauge inspectors'
9 productivity within the City in a Code
10 Enforcement role by looking at citations?
11 A. That's what he said to me.
12 Q. Did he want to change the way that you were
13 seeking compliance from owners so that you
14 would then write more citations?
15 A. Again he brought it up as a point that he
16 wanted to know that I was doing my job, that I
17 was not -- and my answer to him was check the
18 compliance.
19 Q. Do you know if he did that?
20 A. Yes, he did.
21 Q. And did he then communicate back to you that he
22 was satisfied with the way that you were
23 enforcing the code in the City?
24 A. That is correct.
25 Q. All right. So he voiced his approval of the
1 methods that you were using to gain compliance?
2 A. I don't think he necessarily applauded them, I
3 think he said it worked for me.
4 Q. What did you think of Charles Votel in your
5 relationship with him in the City Code
6 Enforcement role?
7 MR. LARSON: I'm going to object in
8 that I don't see where it's relevant nor likely
9 to lead to the discovery of admissible
10 evidence. Go ahead and answer.
11 THE WITNESS: He was just another
12 boss, I mean --
13 BY MR. SHOEMAKER:
14 Q. Was he easy to get along with or otherwise?
15 A. Most of the time he was easy to get along with
16 me.
17 Q. So you didn't have any personal conflicts with
18 him?
19 A. No.
20 Q. Do you know if others had disagreements with
21 Mr. Votel?
22 A. I believe Mr. Votel had some documented
23 problems between employees and himself but not
24 myself.
25 Q. All right. Were you invited to a Code
1 Enforcement meeting after Mr. Dawkins took over
2 the directorship of Code Enforcement in the
3 City?
4 A. Not that I recall.
5 Q. Invited by mistake where you got a memo about a
6 meeting, do you recall that?
7 A. No, I really don't recall receiving it.
8 Q. In going back to the Problem Property 2000
9 Program in this working relationship that you
10 and Mr. Essling and Mr. Lippert promoted with
11 landlords, what interests of the tenants were
12 you seeking to promote in your working with the
13 landlords in a goal toward getting compliance;
14 in other words, you've got tenants that are in
15 the rental properties and they have certain
16 interests, certain concerns that need to be met
17 from a standpoint of the code, correct?
18 A. Correct.
19 Q. All right. In this program of PP2000 what type
20 of concerns and interests were you and the
21 other inspectors seeking to assist or promote
22 in your working relationship with the
23 landlords?
24 A. I guess I'm really not following the question.
25 Q. Well, let's backtrack for a minute. If you had
1 a landlord that was not maintaining a property,
2 that could have an adverse effect on the
3 tenant, correct?
4 A. That is correct.
5 Q. All right. So a tenant's interest would be to
6 have a safe, healthy environment, right?
7 A. Correct.
8 Q. A tenant's interest may be as well to have
9 affordable housing, correct?
10 A. That is correct.
11 Q. All right. So there's a number of concerns
12 that are there from the standpoint of the
13 occupant or the tenant that the inspector has
14 to keep in mind when the inspector is going out
15 for an enforcement role on a rental property,
16 is that right?
17 A. That is correct.
18 Q. All right. And the landlord has certain
19 interests as well that are going to be in the
20 forefront of the inspector's mind when you're
21 doing enforcement as you've mentioned here this
22 morning, correct?
23 A. That is correct.
24 Q. Economics, time line in order to get the work
25 done, other types of concerns that the landlord
1 has, right?
2 A. Correct.
3 Q. So as an inspector you're trying to balance
4 those interests between the tenant and the
5 landlord, correct?
6 A. That is correct.
7 Q. As well as the City's interests in having
8 compliance?
9 A. Correct.
10 Q. And then the neighbors that may be making
11 complaints about the condition of exteriors of
12 properties, correct?
13 A. Correct.
14 Q. So if you have a lot of interest you've got a
15 balance as an inspector when you're on a Code
16 Enforcement call on a property, correct?
17 A. That is correct.
18 Q. And you mentioned that you have a number of
19 tools that you can use in order to gain
20 compliance. And I assume that those tools are
21 also to help meet all the different interests
22 that are converging at the property?
23 A. That would be correct.
24 Q. All right. Now did you ever have any
25 conversation with anyone in Code Enforcement
1 during the time you were an inspector about the
2 concern that if there was too heavy of a handed
3 Code Enforcement, that is a lot of citations, a
4 lot of condemnations requiring landowners to
5 have their properties up to the quality of,
6 let's say, a suburban community, that that was
7 going to drive landlords' costs up and drive
8 landlords out of the inner city.
9 Did you ever have any conversations
10 with anybody about those kind of concerns?
11 A. There was a general thought I think, I don't
12 recall a specific conversation but I know that
13 we enforced minimal property standards, not
14 some suburban covenants or anything of that
15 effect.
16 Q. What was your general understanding as to what
17 the code required on exteriors of single family
18 and duplexes as it related to painting issues,
19 siding issues, that kind of thing, where it
20 would rise to the level of a code deficiency?
21 We've heard inspectors say that you had to have
22 a certain percentage of the exterior needing
23 paint before you'd actually have a violation.
24 Do you have any reference point
25 how you used to call that when you were an
1 inspector for three years, what kind of leeway
2 you had?
3 A. If there, if there was a violation of the
4 exterior, whether it would be the roof or the
5 peeling paint or rotted soffits, something to
6 that effect, those were not life-safety issues
7 so you could actually extend it out a little
8 bit.
9 Q. For the time period for compliance?
10 A. Correct.
11 Q. All right. But how about before you would
12 actually call it, if you had flaking, peeling
13 paint on the exterior of a rental property, how
14 much of the surface would you have to have
15 peeling or flaking before you would actually
16 require a landlord to paint that?
17 A. I don't know that there was a percentage but I
18 mean over half. I really, you know, if I had a
19 specific case and a specific property I could
20 answer that better but as a general -- every
21 property was its own individual property and
22 specifics, it may have had, it may have had
23 many multiple things or it may have had just a
24 small violation.
25 Q. Okay. So if you had a complaint and you went
1 out to look at it and it was a small violation,
2 in other words, it was just a corner of the
3 exterior that was in need of paint how would
4 you deal with that? Would you call the
5 owner --
6 A. I would probably talk to the owner.
7 Q. Say, "There's a complaint" --
8 A. Right.
9 Q. -- "can you fix it up? It shouldn't take too
10 much effort"?
11 A. Correct.
12 Q. I mean with common sense, right?
13 A. Right. Or I may even send an order stating
14 that, "There has been a complaint and you had
15 some peeling paint, I'd like to" --
16 Q. With this complaint system did you ever acquire
17 knowledge that someone was misusing the
18 complaint process; for example, a neighbor
19 maybe had it in for another neighbor and was
20 complaining about a condition of the neighbor's
21 property and you determined that it was an
22 invalid complaint. Did that ever occur while
23 you were an inspector for the three years?
24 A. As an inspector if a complaint comes in we do
25 have to go out and verify it. And if there's a
1 violation we will act on that, and if it's not
2 we will mark it unfounded. But we can never
3 not go out on the complaint.
4 Q. Right, you have to follow up on the complaint,
5 correct?
6 A. Correct.
7 Q. How often would you determine that a complaint
8 was unfounded?
9 A. I couldn't say.
10 Q. Did it ever happen?
11 A. Oh, yes.
12 Q. Did it happen frequently enough to be a
13 concern?
14 A. A concern for who?
15 Q. Well, a concern that someone was misusing the
16 complaint system, trying to get at an owner of
17 a property, whether it was a homeowner occupied
18 or a rental property, for some other reason
19 than a valid reason?
20 A. I can say that I've been at properties that
21 were clearly there because of a neighborhood
22 dispute.
23 Q. Okay. So there was a neighborhood dispute and
24 you ended up coming out on a complaint and you
25 discovered that there was a neighborhood
1 dispute there?
2 A. When you come out to a place and you find it
3 unfounded and then you get another complaint a
4 week later or -- but that's, that's city-wide,
5 that's not just Code Enforcement.
6 Q. Okay. Does that happen as well in the Zoning
7 role that you've had with the City where you've
8 found unfounded zoning complaints as well?
9 A. Yes.
10 Q. That were based on neighborhood disputes?
11 A. Yes.
12 Q. Okay. That puts the inspector in a fairly
13 difficult position, does it not, where you've
14 got neighbors disputing and one neighbor or
15 neighborhood group is trying to use you to gain
16 an upper hand against another neighbor in a
17 dispute?
18 A. That doesn't really affect me after 25 years in
19 the City.
20 Q. All right. So what you do as an inspector is
21 you attempt to look at the complaint in a
22 neutral fashion and determine whether or not
23 there's any validity to the complaint and then
24 take appropriate action?
25 A. That is correct.
1 Q. All right. Have you ever seen in the role as a
2 code inspector for the three years, have you
3 seen any racial disputes that have come to your
4 attention with regard to code compliant issues?
5 A. Racially --
6 Q. Racial disputes in the neighborhood that then
7 generated a complaint on a property?
8 A. I wouldn't know specifically that it would.
9 Q. You wouldn't know that?
10 A. I wouldn't, no. If somebody calls in a
11 complaint again I go out neutral and so, and a
12 lot of times I don't know who the complainant
13 is so --
14 Q. All right. The reason why I ask that is
15 because in the 2002 chronic problem property
16 case studies there's a number of references to
17 neighborhood disputes that were thought to be
18 racial in basis and I just wanted to know if
19 you had ever any experience with that where you
20 were called out on a code complaint and you
21 discovered that there was a racial dispute that
22 was underlying the complaint?
23 A. On a factual basis I do not know of it but I
24 have, in my opinion I have had cases where I
25 felt that that could possibly be a factor in
1 the complaint. So when you have a new family
2 move in and all of a sudden you get a
3 complaint, a lot of complaints.
4 Q. All right. Now you're talking about a new
5 family move in that would be buying a property
6 or renting a property?
7 A. Either/or.
8 Q. All right. So how often have you seen that
9 situation where you've had a new family move in
10 and you then said, well, "One of the factors in
11 the complaint here might be the fact that
12 they're of a different race"?
13 A. A couple of times.
14 Q. Okay. What race were the new residents to the
15 neighborhood?
16 A. In a specific case? I believe the one family
17 was Hmong and another family was Mexican.
18 Q. All right. And what was the makeup of the
19 neighborhood racially, do you know in those two
20 cases?
21 A. No, but the old neighborhood, well, St. Paul,
22 they're all old neighborhoods but I couldn't be
23 specific to the entire neighborhood.
24 Q. Okay. When you were working as a code
25 inspector with the landlords in the PP2000
1 Program did you come in contact with any of
2 their tenants during the time that you were
3 working in that program?
4 A. Sure.
5 Q. How often did you come in contact with the
6 tenants of the landlords that were in the
7 PP2000 Program?
8 A. Well, if I was out at the home with the
9 landlords and the tenants were there then we'd
10 have the contact there or if -- sometimes the
11 landlords would actually, you know, want me to
12 speak to their tenants pertaining to trash,
13 smoke detectors, that type of thing. So it
14 was, the idea was communication all around so
15 that everybody could resolve the problem, get
16 it done quick and easy.
17 Q. Prior to the PP2000 work that you undertook
18 with Mr. Lippert and Mr. Essling what areas of
19 the City had you been involved with as an area
20 inspector?
21 A. Predominantly when I started I was on the east
22 side assisting Don Juneman, that's where I was
23 getting my training. I was assigned to the
24 Frog Town Weed and Seed and did inspections out
25 in Frog Town. And then did, actually also did
1 exterior when I first started exterior
2 inspections throughout the City.
3 Q. Okay. Now the time period that you were
4 working on the east side, how long of a period
5 was that approximately?
6 A. I probably worked the east side most of my
7 career.
8 Q. Okay. So that would overlap from the start
9 through the PP2000?
10 A. Right.
11 Q. Okay. And then how about the Frog Town area
12 with the Weed and Seed Program?
13 A. I worked there with Weed and Seed probably 1998
14 to '99 for about, oh, I suppose six, six or
15 eight months.
16 Q. All right. Now out of the time period that you
17 worked on the east side you said it was over
18 the total period that you were with Code
19 Enforcement, how many of the rental properties
20 did you come in contact with on the east side,
21 pretty extensive contact with the rental
22 properties over there?
23 A. Yes, I think so, wherever there was a
24 complaint.
25 Q. All right. Can you tell me from your
1 experience on the east side what the racial
2 makeup was predominantly of the rental
3 properties there that you saw that you
4 observed?
5 MR. LARSON: I'm going to object,
6 lack of foundation, calls for speculation.
7 With that you can answer.
8 THE WITNESS: I really don't know, I
9 mean there was, it was a tremendous mix. The
10 east side is a melting pot.
11 BY MR. SHOEMAKER:
12 Q. How about with regard to the Frog Town time
13 period?
14 Eric, I'll give you the same
15 objection if you want on that.
16 MR. LARSON: Thank you, I'll take
17 it.
18 BY MR. SHOEMAKER:
19 Q. The time period you worked with Frog Town, in
20 the Frog Town area with Weed and Seed, did you
21 make observations as to the type of tenants
22 racially that were predominantly in the Frog
23 Town area during that period?
24 A. I didn't make any notations but for the most
25 part the Frog Town area consisted of
1 African-American and Hmong.
2 Q. How about during the period that you were
3 working with problem property landlords in the
4 PP2000 Program, what racial makeup did most of
5 those landlords have for tenants that you
6 experienced?
7 A. Nothing stands out.
8 Q. How about with regard to Mr. Steinhauser's
9 properties that you had contact with during the
10 PP2000 Program, what type of tenants did Mr.
11 Steinhauser have from a racial standpoint?
12 A. Again it doesn't, it really doesn't stand out.
13 I see the houses and --
14 Q. Okay. You don't remember meeting any of his
15 tenants during the time period that you were
16 kind of monitoring or managing his properties?
17 A. I must have but not specifically.
18 Q. Okay. Do you have any opinion as to how the
19 Code Enforcement Department was managed by
20 Mr. Andy Dawkins?
21 MR. LARSON: Objection, lack of
22 foundation, speculation.
23 BY MR. SHOEMAKER:
24 Q. Do you have any personal view?
25 MR. LARSON: Same objection. Also
1 is not relevant nor likely to lead to discovery
2 of admissible evidence.
3 BY MR. SHOEMAKER:
4 Q. The question still stands.
5 A. Okay. No, I don't. You could say the same
6 thing about the mayor and the president and
7 everything else. I just do my job.
8 Q. Are you familiar with the number of vacant
9 buildings currently in the City of St. Paul,
10 have you had any, have you learned about that
11 issue?
12 A. I've heard, I've heard some numbers but I can't
13 remember what it is. I know that it's on the
14 increase with foreclosures and that's -- and I
15 understand that they're expanding the vacant
16 building program because of all the extra
17 vacant buildings, but specific information I
18 don't have.
19 Q. Did you ever have any discussion with Mr.
20 Lippert or any other superior in Code
21 Enforcement about a concern that if Code
22 Enforcement was pushed too much on the
23 landlords that there would be an abandoning of
24 rental properties, low-income rental properties
25 in the City?
1 A. I don't know if I ever had that conversation
2 with him. There is a vague memory that I
3 believe the landlords told me that so I may
4 have passed it on.
5 Q. What do you recall that the landlords had
6 conveyed to you from a standpoint of their
7 concern if Code Enforcement was ramped up
8 against them?
9 A. Well, I think if I recall correctly in the
10 context when we were setting up the PP2000
11 Program, when we were bringing the landlords in
12 and speaking to them like Mr. Steinhauser and
13 Ms. Whitney, we wanted to get their opinion on,
14 you know, what would work and what wouldn't
15 work. And it was -- and I believe at that time
16 that's when it was conveyed to us that they'd
17 all have to abandon the property if we ramped
18 up. But I don't know that it was coming from
19 the Code Enforcement side saying, "We're going
20 to ramp up, "I don't think it was in response
21 to that.
22 Q. Okay. So you just remember that the landlords,
23 certain landlords were conveying to you and the
24 others in the PP2000 Program that if Code
25 Enforcement was ramped up that the landlords'
1 costs would increase to a point where the
2 landlords may have to abandon their property
3 from an economic standpoint?
4 A. That's my understanding of it.
5 Q. That's what you recall being conveyed to you by
6 the landlords?
7 A. Correct.
8 Q. Do you know if that was, that message was
9 conveyed to Mr. Lippert as an official of Code
10 Enforcement during the same time period?
11 A. Again I don't know that that message was
12 conveyed or if he was privy to that.
13 Q. Do you know if Mr. Essling was told that as
14 well by landlords?
15 A. I don't recall. Again this is just coming from
16 personal recollection of six years ago.
17 Q. Okay. Did you ever issue a requirement to any
18 property owner that they had to have a LIEP
19 code inspection, code compliance inspection
20 performed on their property?
21 A. A code compliance inspection would be required
22 if the building was condemned and vacant, I
23 believe category two vacant building.
24 Q. Okay. That's your understanding?
25 A. That's my understanding. I don't believe I
1 ever ordered a code compliance.
2 Q. Okay. We've seen some documentation where a
3 property is condemned by the code officials and
4 inspectors and a code compliance is not
5 required. And we've seen situations where
6 there's a condemnation in writing and then a
7 code compliance is required.
8 Did you have that same type of
9 experience when you were a code inspector
10 during the three years you worked with the
11 City?
12 A. Not while I was with Code Enforcement.
13 Q. Okay. How about any time afterwards?
14 A. The LIEP, excuse me, the LIEP office has the
15 vacant building inspector and the code
16 compliance inspections are ordered through and
17 vacant building fees I believe are paid there
18 also still. So that's, so what I picked up I
19 picked up just from hearing or seeing things
20 there.
21 Q. Do you know a Jim Seeger at the LIEP office?
22 A. Yes, I do.
23 Q. Do you have contact with him on a pretty
24 frequent basis?
25 A. I wouldn't say frequent; once in awhile.
1 Q. Okay. Did you ever discuss with any of the
2 other PP2000 inspectors the issue of recording
3 code compliances of landlords with older
4 buildings?
5 A. No.
6 Q. Do you know if any of the landlords ever
7 mentioned to you a concern that going through a
8 code compliance with the LIEP office was so
9 expensive that it would require them to abandon
10 their property?
11 A. If there was, if I understand your, the
12 question correctly on all buildings code
13 compliance would be required?
14 Q. Well, did a landlord ever express to you their
15 concern that they, if they had to go through a
16 code compliance with the LIEP office that would
17 adversely affect them economically in their
18 trying to provide a rental property in the
19 City?
20 A. As a generalization I think, yes. So if it
21 was, if, again this is recalling or else you've
22 just put a thought in my head but, no, the key
23 -- I think that again we go back to the
24 economics and common sense. And what PP2000
25 did was try to work with the landlords to
1 facilitate them so that they could improve
2 their stock and provide affordable housing and,
3 but yet be within the realms or the parameters
4 of the ordinance, the property standards.
5 Q. All right. So there was an understanding that
6 if you had code enforcement at too high of a
7 level that it was going to adversely affect the
8 landlord's ability to provide low-income
9 housing, affordable housing?
10 A. In my opinion?
11 Q. Right.
12 A. Yes, that would be common sense.
13 Q. Okay. Can you tell me what the phrase
14 "grandfathering protection" means to you as a
15 Zoning employee, employee of the Zoning
16 Department?
17 A. Grandfathering is another term for a legal
18 nonconforming structure or use, something that
19 was permitted at one point in time in the
20 history and due to code changes or rezonings or
21 new ordinance that they would not be permitted
22 in this day and age.
23 Q. But because of what --
24 A. Because it's --
25 Q. -- formed in the previous time under a previous
1 code as long as you don't change the use you
2 can --
3 A. Right.
4 Q. -- continue to have a nonconforming use, right?
5 A. As long as you don't have any interim use
6 that's permitted or the use ceases to exist for
7 365 days.
8 Q. All right. Now we had the deposition of
9 Michael Urmann from the Fire Department and we
10 asked him the question about grandfathering.
11 And he talked about if you had a rental
12 property and you had a condemnation that you
13 would be able to go back and once you corrected
14 the principal items that were the cause of the
15 condemnation, as long as you didn't change the
16 use his department would allow the landlord to
17 continue to rent the property without having to
18 bring it up to a current code.
19 I want to ask you the same kind of
20 question. When you were an inspector for three
21 years if you condemned a property you would
22 have principal violations that triggered the
23 condemnation, correct?
24 A. That is correct.
25 Q. All right. And would you require the
1 landowner, whether it was a rental property
2 owner or homeowner occupied, would you require
3 them to remove the principal violations in
4 order for them to reoccupy the property?
5 A. That is correct.
6 Q. All right. When would you require them to go
7 to the next level to bring it up to the current
8 code before they would be able to reoccupy the
9 property?
10 A. I don't believe I ever did. We had our major
11 complaints, life-safety, gross unsanitary, and
12 then we would have the secondary, soffit,
13 windows, doors, locks, smoke detectors would be
14 in the first group. In order to reoccupy
15 they'd have to take care of the principal
16 violations. And then there would be a time
17 frame to accomplish the rest to bring in -- up
18 to code.
19 Q. All right. So if you had a condemnation you
20 would have to have at least one principal
21 violation that was a trigger under the code for
22 condemnation?
23 A. Correct.
24 Q. Those typically are life-safety issues,
25 correct?
1 A. Correct.
2 Q. And so the life-safety issues would be required
3 to be remedied by the owner of the property
4 before the property could be reoccupied?
5 A. That is correct.
6 Q. But any of the other violations that would not
7 constitute either individually or cumulative a
8 condemnation trigger, those could be remedied
9 by the owner over a longer period of time?
10 A. That's the way I did it.
11 Q. And have occupancy during the time that you're
12 remedying the other violations?
13 A. Correct.
14 Q. All right. Was there any emphasis while you
15 were a code inspector for the three years in
16 trying to get properties into the vacant
17 building program so that the City could require
18 substantial renovations through the LIEP code
19 compliance process?
20 A. Vacant buildings was pretty much separate from
21 us, in a separate office. So I mean there
22 weren't any marching orders to condemn
23 buildings and get them into vacant buildings.
24 I mean, as a matter of fact, there were lots of
25 vacant buildings that were out there that,
1 because the landlords kept them up they never,
2 they never had to register. So I guess you
3 would call them unoccupied. And as long as we
4 didn't have to board them or, you know, there
5 wasn't break-ins and the grass was cut and
6 stuff we would not push it; if there were
7 multiple violations continued at a location
8 then I think I believe that was the criteria to
9 go to a vacant building.
10 Q. Okay. That criteria to go to the vacant
11 building program.
12 A. Mm-hmm.
13 Q. All right.
14 MR. LARSON: Can we take a break for
15 a second?
16 MR. SHOEMAKER: Sure. You need to
17 tell --
18 MR. LARSON: I notice Mr. Teng Vang
19 was here. I just want to let him know and also
20 want to give him an idea of where we're at, how
21 long he's going to have to be waiting out
22 there.
23 MR. SHOEMAKER: Well, I'd like to be
24 done here within 20 minutes to 25 minutes or
25 so. So we'll try to stay on target here for
1 11:30.
2 (Whereupon, a brief recess was
3 taken.)
4 MR. SHOEMAKER: Okay. Let's get
5 back here and we'll try to wrap this up, Mr.
6 Hawkins.
7 BY MR. SHOEMAKER:
8 Q. Let's talk a little bit about the inspector's
9 role in issuing correction orders on a property
10 based upon observations that certain things
11 need to be remedied. If you issued a
12 correction order that required or triggered a
13 permit to be pulled by the owner of the
14 property would you follow up to see if the
15 permit actually had been pulled by the owner?
16 A. I don't believe so.
17 Q. Now if you didn't follow up to see if the
18 permit was pulled how would you know if the
19 work had been performed in an appropriate
20 manner that fell within the permit requirement,
21 generally how would you do that?
22 A. I don't recall any specifics but on a --
23 Q. Did you have at your disposal as a code
24 inspector the ability to tap into the LIEP
25 office to see if a permit had been pulled?
1 A. Not at that time.
2 Q. Okay. So you would have had to either rely on
3 the owner to pull the necessary permit,
4 correct?
5 A. Correct.
6 Q. Or you could have called the LIEP office and
7 checked on the particular address to see if a
8 permit was pulled?
9 A. That is correct.
10 Q. All right. Was it your policy to rely on the
11 owner to get the permits and kind of a
12 good-faith approach, if you will?
13 A. I think at that time the agenda was to get
14 compliance and that's what we looked at. And
15 we had so many complaints that that's exactly
16 what we looked at. There wasn't -- I don't
17 remember inner-agency follow-up.
18 Q. Okay. When you came across landlords that had
19 to do substantial renovations to their rental
20 properties did you acquire knowledge that the
21 tenants in some of those cases would have to
22 relocate while the renovations were taking
23 place?
24 A. I don't recall that any of the ones that I
25 dealt with that the tenant was ever displaced
1 except for those three condemnations that I
2 talked about earlier.
3 Q. All right. Was it your concern as a code
4 inspector that if a renovation was necessary it
5 could have an adverse impact on the occupants,
6 on the tenants of the property?
7 A. Yes.
8 Q. That's a "yes?"
9 A. Yes.
10 Q. Okay. And the adverse impact would be is that
11 if you required a renovation of a property
12 whereby the tenant could not continue to live
13 in the property the tenant may not be able to
14 find a suitable alternative housing
15 arrangement, is that right?
16 A. That is correct.
17 Q. All right. So was it your goal to try to work
18 with the landlords in order to meet the
19 necessary City interests of gaining compliance
20 but also continuing to provide the low-income
21 housing in the City?
22 A. Correct.
23 Q. All right. Did you ever condemn a unit of a
24 duplex but not condemn the whole property?
25 A. Again I don't recall ever --
1 Q. In the three situations that didn't occur?
2 A. That wasn't, that wasn't an occasion.
3 Q. Do you know if others in your department during
4 the time that you were working as a code
5 inspector ever condemned a portion of a
6 structure instead of the entire dwelling?
7 A. I'd have to look at the individual
8 documentation to --
9 Q. But again if an inspector went out and wanted
10 to preserve housing for a tenant would the goal
11 be to condemn the smallest portion of a
12 dwelling in order to try to facilitate
13 continued occupancy of the property?
14 A. Correct, if the violations were only in one
15 unit then you wouldn't condemn the whole
16 building.
17 Q. You wouldn't want to displace more than the
18 tenants that were in the particular unit that
19 had a triggering of a condemnation, correct?
20 A. Correct.
21 Q. Okay. Did you have any contact with a landlord
22 by the name of Ray Hessler during the time that
23 you were a code inspector in the three years
24 you worked with --
25 A. Yes, I believe
1 Q. Do you remember generally what your impression
2 was of Mr. Hessler's rental property
3 management?
4 A. Again it's a long time ago. I believe I dealt
5 mainly with his wife, I think Katie, if I
6 recall correctly but --
7 Q. Did you have a positive working relationship
8 with Katie Hessler on their rental properties?
9 A. I believe so.
10 Q. Did you ever work with a Bee Vue in any of his
11 rental properties?
12 A. Yes, I did.
13 Q. What's your recollection of your working with
14 Mr. Vue?
15 A. Mr. Vue was, when he first came on was kind of
16 a new landlord and, but he seemed to be a hard
17 worker and he fixed up properties. And I never
18 had a working problem with him.
19 Q. Okay. Was he cooperative with you?
20 A. Yes.
21 Q. How many different properties did he work with
22 you on?
23 A. Two or three.
24 Q. Was that also involved in the PP2000 Program?
25 A. I don't know if he was or not, he may have
1 been.
2 Q. But you recall a positive working relationship
3 with Mr. Vue?
4 A. Yes.
5 Q. Do you know if anyone else had anything other
6 than a positive relationship with Mr. Vue as it
7 related to Code Enforcement during the time you
8 were there with Code Enforcement?
9 A. Not to my knowledge.
10 Q. How about Mr. David Baudette with his rental
11 properties, did you have any contact with him?
12 A. Can you spell the last name?
13 Q. B-a-u-d-e-t-t-e.
14 A. The name sounds familiar but I don't recall.
15 Q. How about with Ken Johnson?
16 A. I don't believe that I had contact with
17 Mr. Johnson.
18 Q. Do you know if anyone else had contact with Ken
19 Johnson as a landlord in the City of St. Paul?
20 A. I'm not sure.
21 Q. Okay. How about Steve Johnson?
22 A. Again the name's familiar but I don't recall a
23 relationship.
24 Q. How about a landlord named Mark Meysembourg who
25 had some properties on the east side, Euclid
1 area, Sycamore, Jessamine?
2 A. I don't recall him.
3 Q. You don't recall him. Okay.
4 Matt, you've got questions. I'll
5 defer to you now and I may have one or two
6 follow-up, that should be it.
7
8 EXAMINATION
9 BY MR. ENGEL:
10 Q. Good morning, Mr. Hawkins. My name is Matt
11 Engel, I am an attorney. I represent the
12 plaintiffs in the third lawsuit, Gallagher, et
13 al., versus Magner, et al. I just have a few
14 questions for you.
15 Other than from Mr. Steinhauser did
16 you hear from any other landlords about the
17 change in Code Enforcement in around 2000?
18 2002? I'm sorry.
19 A. No, I didn't.
20 Q. As part of your Problem Property 2000 work was
21 there ever any discussion or research of
22 studies out of Baltimore or Milwaukee, does
23 that sound familiar at all?
24 A. No. No, it doesn't. I'm sorry.
25 Q. Did part of your work in the Problem Property
1 2000 or even in Code Enforcement in general,
2 was there any talk about forcing sales of
3 property?
4 A. No.
5 Q. How about looking at teetering neighborhoods,
6 does that ring a bell at all?
7 A. No.
8 Q. Do you know if that terminology had ever been
9 used in Code Enforcement?
10 A. I don't remember hearing it.
11 Q. Do you know Mr. Dawkins at all, have you met
12 him?
13 A. I've met him at coordination meetings.
14 Q. At any point did you become familiar with the
15 code enforcement that was taking place on Mr.
16 Dawkins' property at 767 University, does that
17 sound familiar at all?
18 A. No, it doesn't.
19 Q. You said when you were with Code Enforcement
20 the Vacant Building Department was in a
21 different office?
22 A. Well, we were in the same office but they had
23 like an office right around the corner from us.
24 Q. Did you have any dealings with Steve Magner as
25 part of your duties in Code Enforcement?
1 A. I knew who he was and normally we would refer,
2 if the vacant building was referred it would go
3 to the clerical staff. And then he was an
4 inspector at that time that -- and would go out
5 and take a look at.
6 Q. So he was a vacant building inspector?
7 A. Mm-hmm (nods head affirmatively).
8 Q. He wasn't a supervisor at that time?
9 A. I'm not sure when he became the supervisor.
10 Q. And as far as referring buildings to the Vacant
11 Building Department is that something that your
12 supervisor in Code Enforcement would direct you
13 on or train you on?
14 A. Correct.
15 Q. And what was your understanding of when a file
16 should be referred to Vacant Buildings?
17 A. If you had an abandoned property and there was
18 multiple violations there that hadn't been
19 corrected, or a continuing violation like tall
20 grass and weeds, open to entry, broken windows,
21 things of that sort where the property wasn't
22 being kept up from the property owner not being
23 there.
24 Q. And when you say "abandoned" do you mean
25 unoccupied?
1 A. Yeah, an unoccupied building that had code
2 violations. We have many, many unoccupieds
3 that there are no code violations.
4 Q. And I think you said earlier today that one of
5 the potential issues you saw was that there
6 would be an unoccupied building but if the
7 landlord kept it up it wouldn't go to Vacant
8 Buildings. Is that --
9 A. That was my understanding of the way they did
10 it.
11 Q. Did you ever work with Mr. Magner on any files?
12 A. Then, back then?
13 Q. Yeah.
14 A. No.
15 Q. Have you had any conversations with him since
16 you went to Zoning?
17 A. Yes, in a professional capacity.
18 Q. What would you guys speak about in a
19 professional capacity?
20 A. We were both on a coordination, enforcement
21 coordination city-wide coordination group where
22 we discussed problems throughout the City and
23 updated, you know, what's going on here or
24 there. In some of my licensing and zoning
25 issues I needed to bring in summary abatements
1 I need to bring Code Enforcement in.
2 Q. How often does this coordination group meet?
3 A. Once a month.
4 Q. And that's current, currently you meet once a
5 month?
6 A. Currently, yes.
7 Q. Who else is in the coordination group?
8 A. The Fire Department.
9 Q. Does the same person show up from the Fire
10 Department?
11 A. It's usually their representative is Pat Fish
12 or Steve Zaccard, the LIEP director, deputy
13 director of licensing, environmental health,
14 somebody from PED.
15 Q. Would that be Mr. Kessler?
16 A. Mr. Kessler would be there, Christine Rozek,
17 who's licensing, Kris Schweinler, lead
18 licensing inspector, myself, my supervisor
19 Wendy Lane from Zoning. Just most of the
20 people that have any enforcement opportunities
21 or actions in the City so that we can
22 coordinate different things, warn people about
23 properties.
24 Q. So what would you say the goal or the purpose
25 of this group or committee is?
1 A. Communication.
2 Q. Among the different departments?
3 A. Right.
4 Q. So are reports generated that each department
5 brings to share with the other departments?
6 A. No, not per se, no reports. We will bring up
7 items that we have an illegal duplex, you know,
8 Zoning might bring that up. Or give a head's
9 up on ordinance changes that are coming along.
10 Q. Do you ever discuss certain property owners or
11 landlords?
12 A. Certain properties, you know, will come up, the
13 Fire Department will condemn something, you
14 know, a building and want us to know. And then
15 let us know how that's coming because a lot of
16 times there's a license involved, or if a
17 license is being revoked or a conditional use
18 permit is being revoked all the other parties
19 need to know.
20 Q. Has there been any discussion of these lawsuits
21 within this committee or this group?
22 A. No, there hasn't.
23 Q. Is there someone who keeps minutes of this
24 group or what happens, who's there, that type
25 of thing?
1 A. Yes, the assistant to the director is Robert
2 Humphreys.
3 Q. Do you know if these meetings are open to the
4 public or --
5 A. No.
6 Q. Where are they located?
7 A. They're located on the fourth floor of LIEP in
8 the Congress Building.
9 Q. Has Mr. Magner ever expressed concern about the
10 number of vacant buildings in the City either
11 within the group context or outside of that?
12 A. I believe that's where I got my figures that
13 the vacant, or that foreclosures are going up
14 and that the vacant buildings will increase
15 with the foreclosures. That's what -- I
16 believe I got that through one of our
17 coordination meetings.
18 Q. Do you know an individual by the name of Wally
19 Nelson?
20 A. Yes.
21 Q. Do you know Wally personally?
22 A. No.
23 Q. What do you know about Wally Nelson?
24 A. Wally Nelson comes into our office quite a bit
25 to build homes or remodel homes. I think he's
1 done some lot splits. I believe he's a
2 contractor and developer.
3 Q. Have you worked with Wally on those issues?
4 A. Yes, on some of the different lot splits and
5 also when he's looking at maybe buying a lot or
6 some land and wants to check on the zoning and
7 that sort of thing.
8 Q. How long have you known of or known Wally?
9 A. Oh, I suppose he's been in to get permits since
10 I've been there so I would guess 2000. I think
11 I knew his name six months after I started
12 there probably I would guess.
13 Q. Would you say that there's certain contractors
14 or landlords who are players in that market or
15 bigger players in that market?
16 A. You know, I guess so. I really don't pay
17 attention to it but, you know, you see the same
18 faces.
19 Q. Do you know if Wally Nelson has any type of
20 relationship with Steve Magner?
21 A. No, I don't.
22 Q. Do you know Renovation, Inc., as being Wally's
23 company or heard of Renovation, Inc.?
24 A. You know, I didn't put a name on it, I just see
25 Wally.
1 Q. Does your department get contacted by
2 contractors on a frequent basis asking
3 questions and that sort of thing?
4 A. Yep.
5 Q. Are they directed at certain inspectors or is
6 there someone who fields all the calls from the
7 public?
8 A. It would go to individual inspectors. There's
9 general lines, you know, like Plan Review will
10 have a general line plus their plan reviewers,
11 inspectors all have their -- the building
12 inspectors and trade inspectors all have their
13 own lines and a senior inspector that would
14 take calls when the inspectors are out, and
15 then for Zoning and Licensing we take our own
16 calls plus general information calls would come
17 to us too.
18 Q. I think Mr. Magner may have testified that he
19 might spend up to an hour or two per day
20 dealing with calls from contractors or from the
21 public about properties.
22 Would that be an accurate reflection
23 for Zoning or do you think that would be more
24 because he's in Vacant Buildings?
25 A. As far as how many --
1 Q. How many calls and how much time you spend in a
2 day dealing with public calls about properties?
3 A. I would assume that myself and the rest of the
4 inspectors an hour and a half, two hours a day.
5 I mean the building inspectors take calls from
6 7:30 to 9:00 every morning to set up
7 inspections, questions.
8 But at Zoning we have people call
9 from, you know, people inquiring about land,
10 real estate agents, contractors, people. And
11 we have complaints both business, you know, on
12 a commercial basis and residential. So we
13 spend a lot of time on the phone and at the
14 counter.
15 Q. Do you ever get questions about, you know, the
16 value of the property or how your zoning
17 decision might affect value of property, does
18 that ever come into play?
19 A. Well, in a specific sense, yes, because if
20 somebody wants to split a property and they
21 want to make two properties out of it, of
22 course it has some financial ramifications
23 there. Or if there's, if something that's
24 zoned for a duplex and it's been a single
25 family but they want to make it a duplex they
1 may have to get a variance.
2 But again that's, there's a, in the
3 zoning code it's a fine line of what is for
4 economic only and what is for to increase more
5 units along those initiative lines.
6 Q. Now in your role as either Code Enforcement or
7 in Zoning have you ever had a member of the
8 public offer you anything for certain
9 information or, you know, doing a certain,
10 taking a certain action on a certain property?
11 MR. LARSON: I'm going to object.
12 The question is vague and ambiguous.
13 THE WITNESS: No.
14 BY MR. ENGEL:
15 Q. Have you ever gone out with any contractors or
16 property investors for dinner or drinks or
17 anything like that?
18 A. No.
19 Q. Would you do that if someone offered?
20 A. No.
21 Q. Why wouldn't you?
22 A. I'm a civil servant. I don't get paid a lot.
23 All I have is my integrity.
24 Q. So you think that would tarnish the integrity
25 to be doing those sorts of things?
1 A. Yes.
2 Q. Are you aware of any investigations that might
3 be going on within any of the Code Enforcement
4 departments, and when I say that I mean NHPI or
5 LIEP or Fire Prevention?
6 A. Not that I'm aware of.
7 Q. How about Zoning, any investigations going on
8 in Zoning?
9 A. I hope not.
10 Q. Have you ever heard of Brad Marrow or Marrow
11 Partners?
12 A. The name sounds familiar but I don't think I've
13 had any affiliation.
14 Q. Couldn't put a face to the name?
15 A. No.
16 Q. How about Jim Sass?
17 A. No.
18 Q. Do you know who Tom Gallagher is?
19 A. That guy down there you mean (indicating)?
20 Q. Seated at the end of the table?
21 A. Yes, I do.
22 Q. Have you had any dealings with Tom in your
23 duties with the City?
24 A. Yes, I have.
25 Q. And if you could just generally give me your
1 recollection of what type of dealings you've
2 had with Mr. Gallagher.
3 A. I've dealt with him in Zoning standpoint and in
4 Licensing with properties that he's purchased
5 and cafes that he's made.
6 Q. What's your experience been like with Mr.
7 Gallagher, positive?
8 A. It's been positive.
9 Q. Anything negative that you can recall from your
10 dealings with him?
11 A. Not from our one-on-one.
12 Q. How about Mr. Joe Collins, do you know him at
13 all?
14 A. I don't recognize the name.
15 Q. Was this Zoning Department underneath, is under
16 the LIEP office?
17 A. Yes, it is.
18 Q. So if there are changes in funding or cuts to
19 funding to LIEP would you have occasion to
20 learn about that information in your role?
21 A. Not in my role, no.
22 Q. Would you happen to know if during your time
23 with Zoning and LIEP if Mayor Kelly took any
24 funding away from LIEP and maybe put it to a
25 general fund? Does that sound familiar at all?
1 A. I couldn't speak specifically to it but I
2 believe there was, LIEP has dedicated funds
3 from permits and stuff and special funds. And
4 I believe a million dollars was put into the
5 general fund during the Kelly administration.
6 Q. Was there any reaction to that within your
7 department?
8 A. Not that I was privy to.
9 Q. Did anyone express concern about that?
10 A. I know that we, we were reorganizing some of
11 our general fund at that point in time and I
12 believe about the same time Zoning was put in
13 under a special fund also. But I can't, I
14 don't know about any particulars.
15 MR. ENGEL: That's all I have.
16 Thank you, Mr. Hawkins.
17 MR. SHOEMAKER: One further
18 question.
19
20 EXAMINATION (continuing)
21 BY MR. SHOEMAKER:
22 Q. Going back to the PHA rental properties in the
23 City of St. Paul you're aware that PHA has had
24 for an extended period of time a fairly large
25 portfolio of rental properties in the City, is
1 that true?
2 A. I believe so.
3 Q. All right. And the portfolio has included
4 high-rise rental properties, correct?
5 A. I believe there's some high-rise.
6 Q. All right. Town home, family-type rental
7 properties like McDonough, Mount Airy, correct?
8 A. Correct.
9 Q. All right. And then scattered-site properties
10 that would consist of single family and some
11 duplexes?
12 A. That is correct.
13 Q. All right. During the time that you were in
14 Code Enforcement do you know of any agreement
15 between PHA and the City whereby PHA was
16 allowed to basically manage and inspect their
17 own properties without any involvement by the
18 City code inspectors?
19 A. I know that if a PHA property came up we
20 weren't the authority to go inspect it, yes --
21 Q. In other words, if there --
22 A. -- I never inspected PHA.
23 Q. -- you're saying if it came up, if there was a
24 complaint on a PHA scattered-site home that
25 came up on the radar screen code inspectors
1 from your office were not the ones that were to
2 deal with that?
3 A. We were not assigned to it, no.
4 Q. Okay. Who was assigned to handle those
5 complaints, do you know?
6 A. I'm not sure.
7 Q. Well, how do you know that your office of code
8 inspectors with Mr. Morehead or Mr. Lippert or
9 any other director were not to be responsible
10 for handling those complaints on PHA
11 properties?
12 A. I just know I never went out on one. Actually
13 I did go out on one once.
14 Q. Was that an exterior complaint?
15 A. Yes, I believe it was.
16 Q. All right. Did you write orders on that?
17 A. I went out and I found out who the owner was
18 and I went to my supervisor and I believe I
19 turned it over to him at that point.
20 Q. Told your supervisor that it was a PHA-owned
21 property?
22 A. Right.
23 Q. And what did your supervisor tell you?
24 A. Again vague but I think he had me call the PHA
25 to get it cleaned up but I don't believe any
1 orders were sent. I believe I gave the file to
2 him then. I can't --
3 Q. Was it your understanding while you were a code
4 inspector that there was a working relationship
5 between the City Code Enforcement employees and
6 officials and the PHA management?
7 A. I'm not sure what the relationship was.
8 Q. You just know that in one case where you
9 received a complaint you went out to the
10 property, determined the property's owned by
11 PHA, turned it over to your supervisor?
12 A. And called PHA to tell them that there was,
13 there was a garbage problem or whatever it was.
14 Q. Did you take any follow-up action to check and
15 see if PHA had actually taken care of the
16 complaint?
17 A. I don't recall.
18 Q. All right. Do you know of anyone else that had
19 any different relationship with them from a
20 standpoint of Code Enforcement than you did?
21 A. Not that I recollect.
22 Q. Was it your understanding that PHA pretty much
23 was self-managing, self-inspecting their rental
24 properties in the City?
25 A. I believe so, yes.
1 Q. Do you know if that's changed since then?
2 A. I have no idea.
3 MR. SHOEMAKER: Okay. That's all
4 the questions I have. Matt?
5 MR. ENGEL: No.
6 MR. SHOEMAKER: Thank you very much,
7 Mr. Hawkins.
8 THE WITNESS: Thank you.
9 MR. LARSON: We'll read and sign.
10 (Whereupon, the deposition was
11 concluded at 11:37 a.m.)
...and your point is, Bob?
Jeff use to work in Code and had a good relationship with one of the landlords that are suing...and the point is?
Hell, anyone can get along with Jeff, even I get alond with Jeff. Who knows you might even get along with Jeff, Bob, so what's the point?
Chuck Repke
The point is Chuck that this inspector says the landlord was a good landlord while all of you are sayiong every landlord you have ever seen is a slumlord.
Chuck,
I get along with everyone I meet. From rich to poor, innocent to guilty. There is good and bad in all of us. I am a Libra, the "balancer of mankind". :-)
Jeff, is a rare individual. You bet I would get along with Jeff. Jeff wouldn't allow his integrity be compromised.
As Jeff stood up at the end of the deposition he stated off the record "My integrity is all I've got, I hope I still have a job tomorrow".
Jeff, you and I sleep soundly at night, I'm sure others aren't so lucky.
I invite new readers here to go to the front page and scroll down to the innocent looking child to the right of the screen. There is powerful words of wisdom written beneath this image. I occasionally read these words to reinforce my reasons for keeping A Democracy Town Hall going.
I read the blurb about the kid Bob. What you forget, and to put it in Don Henley's words, we have "a whole new breed of men without souls." Results are all that matters Bob....the ends justifies the means. City leaders have sold their souls to the devil so they can get re-elected time after time. There is no right and there is no wrong in St. Paul any longer.....just corruption and its political hacks that spin it as if it is OK and normal.
Post a Comment
<< Home