BROWARD OFFICE OFTHE INSPECTOR GENERAL …...Jul 14, 2015 · Division - Elevator Section, Ref. OIG 14-025 Attached please find the final report of the Broward Office of the Inspector

To:

From:

Date:

Subject:

BROWARD OFFICE OFTHE INSPECTOR GENERAL

MEMORANDUM

Honorable Tim Ryan, Mayor, Broward County

John :d :::,b,::~:::~::n~r::rd ?tsommissioners July 14, 2015

OIG Final Report Re: Unsubstantiated Allegatio11 of Gross Mismanagement By The Broward County Environmental Licensing and Building Permitting Division - Elevator Section, Ref. OIG 14-025

Attached please find the final report of the Broward Office of the Inspector General (OIG) regarding the above-captioned matter. The OIG investigation did not result in a finding of gross mismanagement in the Elevator Section ' s handling of its relatively high number of elevators overdue for annual inspection. The OIG investigation did, however, identify significant inadequacies with the management of the Elevator Section - inadequa

BROWARD OFFICE

OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL

FINAL REPORT

===========================================================

OIG 14-025

July 14, 2015

Unsubstantiated Allegation of Gross Mismanagement By The Broward County Environmental Licensing and Building Permitting

Division – Elevator Section

BROWARD OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL

OIG 14-025

July 14, 2015

Page 1 of 29

FINAL REPORT RE: UNSUBSTANTIATED ALLEGATION OF GROSS

MISMANAGEMENT BY THE BROWARD COUNTY ENVIRONMENTAL LICENSING AND BUILDING PERMITTING DIVISION – ELEVATOR SECTION

SUMMARY

The Broward Office of the Inspector General (OIG) has concluded an investigation of allegations that mismanagement at the Broward County Environmental Licensing and Building Permitting Division1 (ELBPD) – Elevator Section caused a substantial backlog in annual elevator inspections, thus creating a public safety risk. The OIG investigation did not result in a finding of gross mismanagement, but it did identify significant concerns with the operation of the Elevator Section. In this report, we detail those concerns and make recommendations intended to alleviate mismanagement issues and enable more timely compliance with inspection requirements mandated by Florida Statutes and administrative authorities.2 In August 2014, the OIG received information that 3,916 of Broward County’s approximately 9,900 elevators were overdue for their required annual inspections. During the course of this investigation, we learned that overdue annual elevator inspections are a common problem in the elevator industry throughout Florida. The number of overdue elevator inspections in Broward County, however, had drastically increased from the 1,309 elevators that were overdue for inspection in January 2013. The OIG discovered that there were several factors that contributed to the excessive number of overdue annual inspections at the Elevator Section, including the termination of three elevator inspectors in March 2014 for failing to perform their duties; the additional resignation of a fourth inspector; scheduling conflicts with elevator maintenance companies when scheduling inspections; and a failure by management to monitor the number of overdue inspections. Near the close of the investigation, we met with the newly-assigned Elevator Section management and discussed our concerns. Thereafter, we provided the Section with an opportunity to ameliorate the situation during the first quarter of 2015. During the first quarter of calendar year 2015, the Section reduced the number of overdue annual inspections to 3,582. Although we are still troubled by the size of the remaining backlog, the OIG recognizes the Elevator Section’s efforts to reduce the number of overdue annual inspections. While this investigation did not substantiate the allegations of gross mismanagement, the OIG continues to have concerns as to the effectiveness of the management of the Elevator Section and its ability to address the number of

1 Formerly known as the Broward County Permitting, Licensing and Consumer Protection Division (PLCPD) 2 Section 12.01(D)(1)(a) of the Charter of Broward County requires the OIG to issue a report at the conclusion of an investigation of allegations involving gross mismanagement, regardless of whether the allegations were substantiated.


FINAL REPORT RE: UNSUBSTANTIATED ALLEGATION OF GROSS MISMANAGEMENT BY THE BROWARD COUNTY ENVIRONMENTAL LICENSING AND

BUILDING PERMITTING DIVISION – ELEVATOR SECTION

OIG 14-025

July 14, 2015

Page 2 of 29

overdue inspections. Accordingly, the OIG will continue to track the Elevator Section’s progress on this issue. OIG CHARTER AUTHORITY

Section 12.01 of the Charter of Broward County empowers the Broward Office of the Inspector General to investigate misconduct and gross mismanagement within the Charter Government of Broward County and all of its municipalities. This authority extends to all elected and appointed officials, employees and all providers of goods and services to the County and the municipalities. On his own initiative, or based on a signed complaint, the Inspector General shall commence an investigation upon a finding of good cause. As part of any investigation, the Inspector General shall have the power to subpoena witnesses, administer oaths, require the production of documents and records, and audit any program, contract, and the operations of any division of the County, its municipalities and any providers. The Broward Office of the Inspector General is also empowered to issue reports, including recommendations, and to require officials to provide reports regarding the implementation of those recommendations. ENTITIES AND INDIVIDUALS COVERED IN THIS REPORT

Florida Department of Business and Professional Regulation – Bureau of Elevator Safety The Department of Business and Professional Regulation’s (DBPR) Bureau of Elevator Safety3 is statutorily required to ensure that elevators and escalators throughout Florida are safe. The Bureau fulfills this mission by enforcing elevator safety laws and licensing and regulating industry professionals, elevators, escalators, and other vertical and inclined conveyance devices. Broward County Environmental Licensing, Building, and Permitting Division The ELBPD protects public safety, health and welfare by administering and enforcing all applicable building, zoning, consumer protection and animal care ordinances, codes, laws, rules, resolutions and regulations in effect. Elevator Section The Elevator Section is a unit of the ELBPD that regulates approximately 9,900 elevating devices countywide.4 The Elevator Section is charged with issuing permits for new installations and any alterations of existing devices. The Section is also responsible for:

3 The Bureau of Elevator Safety is a part of DBPR’s Division of Hotels and Restaurants. 4 During the timeframe covered by this investigation, the number of elevators regulated by the by the Elevator Section ranged from 9,700 to 9,900.




OIG 14-025

July 14, 2015

Page 3 of 29

Ensuring compliance with Florida Statutes and the Florida Building Code through review of all construction plans for new and remodeled elevating devices;

Ensuring safety of elevating devices through mandated enforcement by Qualified Elevator

Inspectors per Chapter 399 of Florida Statutes, Chapter 61C-5 of the Florida Administrative Code, and Chapter 30 of the Florida Building Code;

Completing inspections associated with certificates of operation issued for elevating devices;

and

Timely coordinating with fire, police, paramedics and other emergency responders on accidents involving elevating devices.

The Regulated Business Administrator The Regulated Business Administrator initially became involved with the Elevator Section when he was tasked with conducting an internal investigation of several employees in that section. When the Assistant Building Official charged with managing the Elevator Section was re-assigned to another project, the Regulated Business Administrator requested that he be assigned the duties associated with managing the Section in addition to his other ELBPD duties. The Assistant Building Official The Assistant Building Official referred to in this report is currently assigned to the Fort Lauderdale-Hollywood International Airport. Prior to his being assigned to the airport in August 2014, his responsibilities included managing the Elevator Section. After his re-assignment to the airport, his responsibilities were divided between the Elevator Section Supervisor and the Regulated Business Administrator. The Elevator Section Supervisor The Elevator Section Supervisor (Supervisor) was hired in May 2013 following the retirement of the former Elevator Section supervisor (Former Supervisor) on January 31, 2013. He has worked in both the public and private sectors in the elevator maintenance and inspection field since 1980. Although he previously reported to the Assistant Building Official, he now reports to the Regulated Business Administrator. RELEVANT GOVERNING AND ADMINISTRATIVE AUTHORITIES

Chapter 399, Florida Statutes (Elevator Safety) Termed the “Elevator Safety Act,” the purpose of this chapter in the Florida Statutes “is to provide for the safety of life and limb and to promote public safety awareness” as “[t]he use of unsafe and




OIG 14-025

July 14, 2015

Page 4 of 29

defective lifting devices imposes a substantial probability of serious and preventable injury and exposes employees and the public to unsafe conditions.” §399.001, Fla. Stat. (2014). The relevant sections of this chapter require annual inspections and testing by the assigned authority.

While the Bureau of Elevator Safety is statutorily required to ensure that elevators and escalators throughout Florida are safe, the agency can, and has, contracted with a number of local agencies to enforce this duty. To date, the Bureau has delegated its duty, through contract, to Broward County, Miami-Dade County, the City of Miami, City of Miami Beach, and Reedy Creek. These contracted jurisdictions can execute their duties as they see fit, including allowing the use of private inspectors. Broward County has recently joined those jurisdictions that allow for the use of private inspectors but only for those elevators maintained by one specific company. Section 3001, Florida Building Code This chapter of the Florida Building Code governs the design, construction, installation, alteration, repair, and maintenance of elevators and conveying systems and their components in the State of Florida. ASME A17.1 (2007)(w/2008a & 2009b addendum), Safety Code for Elevators and Escalators This safety code for elevators and escalators, published by the American Society of Mechanical Engineers (ASME), addresses elevators, escalators, dumbwaiters, moving walks and material lifts. It also provides requirements applying to the design, construction, installation, operation, testing, inspection, maintenance, alteration and repair of these conveyances.

8.11.1.1.1 Periodic Inspections (a) Periodic inspections shall be made by an inspector employed by the authority having jurisdiction or by a person authorized by the authority having jurisdiction... ***

8.11.1.1.2 Periodic Tests

(a) Periodic tests as required in 8.6 shall be witnessed by an inspector employed by the authority having jurisdiction, or by persons authorized by the authority having jurisdiction...




OIG 14-025

July 14, 2015

Page 5 of 29

61C-5 (Florida Elevator Safety Code), Florida Administrative Code The Florida Administrative Code (F.A.C.) is the official compilation of administrative rules for the State of Florida. 61C-5 of the F.A.C. constitutes the Florida Elevator Safety Code. It also requires annual inspections and testing as well as provides for citations as follows:

61C-5.023. Citations

(1) Upon a determination of probable cause, the division will issue a citation for:

(a) Performing work without a valid permit or license, or

operating an elevator without a valid temporary operating permit as required under Chapter 399, F.S.

(b) Operating an elevator with a certificate of operation that has been expired for two or more consecutive years…

***

(7) A citation issued under paragraph (1)(b) will result in a fine of $250 for the first offense and $500 for the second offense. Citations issued under paragraph (1)(b) will be dismissed if a valid certificate of operation has been obtained before the citation becomes a final order.

Operations Section Guidelines for Elevator Safety Personnel, Elevator Section Policy and Procedure Manual (2006) The Elevator Section’s publication (Section Manual) produced for the purpose of establishing policies and procedures for the regulation and inspection of elevators and escalators. INVESTIGATION

Investigation Overview This investigation is predicated on information alleging that mismanagement at the Elevator Section caused a significant backlog in annual elevator inspections, thus creating a public safety risk. The investigation involved the review of substantial documentation by OIG Special Agents including, but not limited to, Florida Statutes, the F.A.C., the Florida Building Code, ASME 17.1, training materials, SOPs, activity reports, inspection reports, and emails. OIG Special Agents also conducted interviews of management officials from the Bureau of Elevator Safety, the Miami-Dade County Office of Elevator Safety (Miami-Dade County), the Reedy Creek Improvement District (Reedy Creek) and the ELBPD, as well as interviews of current and former employees of the Elevator Section.




OIG 14-025

July 14, 2015

Page 6 of 29

Specifically, the OIG obtained a report indicating that in August 2014, 3,916 of Broward County’s approximately 9,900 elevators were overdue for annual inspection (Exhibit 1). Thereafter, the OIG obtained a report indicating that in October 2014, 3,931 of the elevators were overdue for their annual inspections (Exhibit 2). This was in stark contrast to January 2013 figures which reflected only 1,309 elevators overdue for their annual inspections (Exhibit 3). The OIG was able to verify the accuracy of these figures through its interviews of multiple members of Elevator Section management. Once contacted and given the opportunity to address the number of elevators overdue for annual inspection, the Elevator Section was able to reduce the number of elevators overdue for annual inspection to 3,582 by March 30, 2015 (Composite Exhibit 4, consisting of a January 15, 2015 memorandum from the Inspector General to the Regulated Business Administrator, and an April 10, 2015 memorandum from the Regulated Business Administrator to the Inspector General). As there continued to be a significant amount of elevators overdue for annual inspection, the OIG remains concerned about the Section’s ability to timely reduce the backlog. Notwithstanding the Elevator Section’s number of overdue annual inspections, the OIG does not find gross mismanagement in the Section’s handling of the matter given the termination of a significant number of staff members in 2014. Interviews conducted by OIG Special Agents revealed that generally, the elevator industry as a whole, from the state level to the local level, experiences difficulties with ensuring the timeliness of annual inspections: albeit at different degrees. Before privatizing the inspection process in 2000, the Bureau of Elevator Safety, which is responsible for 45,000 elevators, had “thousands” of overdue inspections despite having 24 inspectors on staff. As of September 2014, the number hovers around 1,000 delinquent inspections – this with the use of private inspectors along with Bureau inspectors. Miami-Dade County, which uses private inspectors for elevators on private properties, has approximately 20% of its 10,841 elevators overdue for inspection. The OIG has, however, identified significant ongoing areas of concern with the management of the Elevator Section. On March 30, 2015, 3,582, or 36%, of Broward County’s at that time 9,967 elevators were still overdue for an inspection. This number of overdue elevator inspections is especially disconcerting considering the fact that on January 30, 2013, Broward County only had approximately 13% of their elevators overdue for an annual inspection. Through its investigation, the OIG has learned that there were several factors that may have contributed to the drastic increase in the number of elevators overdue for annual inspection in Broward County. However, the OIG cannot discount or minimize the role that management played in the deterioration of the Elevator Section’s performance, as discussed below.

1. Elevator Section Management did not Endeavor to Keep Abreast of Overdue Annual Inspections After the Former Supervisor’s Retirement

When the Former Supervisor retired, on January 31, 2013, 1,309 of the County’s elevators were overdue for their annual inspections (Exhibit 3). Through witness interviews, OIG Special Agents determined that, by all accounts, the Former Supervisor was well-respected and knowledgeable. He routinely met with maintenance company representatives and did not allow them to fall behind on their inspections. In fact, he ensured that they communicated with Elevator Section inspectors when




OIG 14-025

July 14, 2015

Page 7 of 29

coordinating inspections. Additionally, the Former Supervisor monitored the number of outstanding annual inspections through reports generated by an Elevator Section employee. Upon the Former Supervisor’s retirement, the Assistant Building Official, who had shadowed the Former Supervisor for five to six months before his retirement, was tasked with managing the Elevator Section. Because of perceived5 difficulties with hiring due to pay disparity between Broward County and the private sector as well as other government agencies, a new supervisor was not hired until five months later in May 2013. During his interview with OIG Special Agents, the Assistant Building Official candidly admitted that he only became aware in May or June 2014 that overdue annual inspection figures had “shot through the roof.” Until this point, he did not monitor the number of overdue annual inspections despite being charged with managing the Elevator Section. Instead, he merely assumed that the number of outstanding annual inspections continued to be around 1,000 – the number it was when he was originally assigned to the Section in January 2013. Indeed, the Assistant Building Official made the assertion that inspections were “generally up to date” in a February 19, 2014 email (Exhibit 5). The Assistant Building Official’s failure to monitor the number of overdue annual inspections is disturbing given the fact that such figures were readily available in the County’s Public Operating System (POSSE) internal database. Indeed, three daily reports based on these figures (the Outstanding Annual Inspections for Commercial Elevators Report, the Average Inspections Due Report, and the Overdue Inspections by Inspector Report) were historically provided to the Former Supervisor in order to track the work performed by the unit. Notwithstanding the fact that these reports were readily accessible, the Assistant Building Official opted to forego familiarizing himself with them, even going so far as instructing the employee who generated these reports to stop disseminating them altogether. The Assistant Building Official’s failure to keep abreast of the number of overdue annual inspections was not only unreasonable, in and of itself, but wholly illogical considering the composition of the Elevator Section in March 2014. During that time period, the Section terminated three inspectors for misconduct and lost an additional inspector for other reasons. In a matter of a month, the Elevator Section went from eleven inspectors to seven. Whereas the loss of approximately 40% of manpower should certainly raise an organization’s red flags as to its ability to perform, the Assistant Building Official still did not endeavor to determine whether the Section was conducting its inspections in a timely manner – a task that, if undertaken, would have immediately alerted him as to the dismal overdue annual inspection numbers.

5 While the Assistant Building Official considered the pay disparity between what the Elevator Section pays and what other organizations pay to be an obstacle to hiring, the Regulated Business Administrator denied the existence of such an obstacle.




OIG 14-025

July 14, 2015

Page 8 of 29

The Assistant Building Official was subsequently reassigned to the airport in August 2014 and is no longer charged with any duties involving the Elevator Section. Currently, the Section has been directed to prepare two weekly reports: one that tracks all elevators with overdue annual inspections and another that tracks elevators with expired certificates of occupancy. These two weekly reports are now distributed to Section employees, who have been instructed that the figures reflected therein are a high priority. Although a third of the County’s elevators remain overdue for inspection, the fact that the Elevator Section is currently undertaking efforts to rectify the situation caused, in part, by the Assistant Building Official’s failure to monitor overdue annual inspections is promising.

2. The Supervisor was Assigned Too Many Duties, Resulting in His Failure to Effectively Supervise the Elevator Section

The Supervisor reported to the Assistant Building Official, who was then managing the Elevator Section. The investigation revealed that the Supervisor was assigned roles that unreasonably exceeded that of an Elevator Section supervisor, a fact that even the Regulated Business Administrator acknowledged during his interview with OIG Special Agents. Indeed, the Supervisor seemed to be not only the Section supervisor, but a pseudo-manager6 as well as an elevator inspector. Pursuant to the position’s job description, the Supervisor’s “[w]ork involves planning and organizing the work of the Elevator Section; supervising Elevator Plans Examiners, Elevator Inspectors and assigned subordinate staff; reviewing elevator installation plans, blueprints, specifications, and materials lists to determine compliance with applicable standards and regulations; and coordinating contractual service agreements.” (Exhibit 6). Through at least December 2014, the Supervisor’s responsibilities included reviewing plans and permits for the installation of new and remodeled elevators, and reviewing variance requests. However, he was also tasked with supervising the inspections performed by the inspectors, and scheduling and performing inspections himself. In fact, since approximately August 2014, he spends almost all of his time performing inspections. This was verified by not only the Supervisor himself, but by other employees of the Elevator Section.7 What is more, upon the Assistant Building Official’s re-assignment to the airport, the Supervisor was charged with being the point of contact for the Bureau of Elevator Safety. These responsibilities include preparing and sending the Monthly Activity Report, as well as conducting telephone conferences and bi-annual meetings with the Bureau and representatives from the other contracted jurisdictions. This, in addition to, the Regulated Business Administrator’s directive that the Supervisor revise the Section Manual.

6 According to the Regulated Business Administrator, there is no actual budgeted position for Elevator Section manager. Although the Assistant Building Official supervised the Supervisor and acted in a Section manager-type capacity, the budgeted position he held, and continues to hold, is that of Assistant Building Official/ELBPD Manager. 7 The fact that the Supervisor has dedicated his time to performing inspections rather than acting in a supervisory capacity is perhaps a direct result of the fact that the Assistant Building Official also tasked him with “handl[ing] the problem” once the number of overdue annual inspections came to light.




OIG 14-025

July 14, 2015

Page 9 of 29

The OIG notes that, in his initial interview, the Regulated Business Administrator acknowledged that the Supervisor’s duties were too broad and assured that, in the future, his duty to conduct inspections would be reduced so that he could dedicate his time to supervisory functions. However, during the Regulated Business Administrator’s second interview on April 23, 2015, he admitted that the Supervisor is still operating as an inspector, despite his earlier assurance to eliminate that burden. However, the assignment of duties has changed since December 2014. Currently, the Supervisor is almost exclusively charged with duties associated with working out in the field conducting and supervising inspections, as well as the “on the job” training of new inspectors. Further, the Supervisor is charged with being available to the inspectors either via cell phone or, if needed, in person during an inspection. Meanwhile, a supervisor with Code Compliance has been brought in to handle in-office supervisory duties within Elevator Section including overseeing the scheduler, handling attendance issues, handling annual evaluations, and creating the citation program. He is also charged with monitoring the GPS data from the inspectors’ county vehicles on a daily basis and handling the creation and implementation of a citation enforcement program for the Section. While it is the Elevator Section management’s prerogative to discharge duties amongst its ranks as it sees fit, its arrangement of duties from May 2013 through at least December 2014 wholly failed to appreciate the impact of overtasking one individual or position. Specifically, Section management failed to recognize that the natural effect of overtasking the Supervisor would be his inability to properly execute his duties.

3. Elevator Section Management Failed to Maintain Effective Relationships with Elevator Maintenance Companies

Until recently, Broward County required that an Elevator Section inspector be present to monitor the tests which are performed by the elevator maintenance company technician.8 The consensus of all the witnesses interviewed was that one factor that led to the current state of the Elevator Section’s overdue annual inspection numbers was difficulties in scheduling inspections with the elevator maintenance companies. This was also a problem prior to January 2013. However, where the Former Supervisor would regularly meet with maintenance company representatives to ensure that elevator companies would communicate with inspectors for effective coordination of inspections, such a relationship seemingly did not exist between January 2013 and December 2014, as evidenced by a sample of emails reviewed by the OIG as a part of this investigation. Instead of engaging in a collaborative effort to get elevators inspected, all parties focused on the assignment of blame. The evident lack of collaboration between the maintenance companies and the Elevator Section acted to impede the Section’s ability to conduct inspections in a timely fashion. By way of example, one witness recounted that shortly after the Supervisor was hired, one of the major elevator maintenance companies stopped scheduling inspections on Mondays and Fridays. This decision

8 The requirement remains in place with the exception of one specific elevator maintenance company.




OIG 14-025

July 14, 2015

Page 10 of 29

effectively reduced the choice of days that Section inspectors could inspect elevators owned by that company by 40%. Instead of addressing this issue with the company, the Supervisor reportedly chose to dismiss it, stating, “I can’t do anything!” In his April 23, 2015 interview, the Regulated Business Administrator described the changes that have since been instituted in efforts to address communication between the maintenance companies and the Elevator Section. He explained that an employee has been charged with coordinating the scheduling of inspections on a full-time basis. That employee has daily communication with the maintenance companies and has been able to improve the coordination when scheduling inspections with the maintenance companies. Moreover, the Regulated Business Administrator reported that he has had frequent conversations with the company which maintains the largest amount of Broward County elevators to ensure that inspections are being coordinated efficiently. He has been assured by them that the scheduling problems of the past have been resolved.

4. The Elevator Section Failed to Fully Utilize its Citation Program

Further, the Elevator Section has also failed to make full use of its citation program in order to assure compliance with inspection timeframes. The Assistant Building Official explained to OIG Special Agents that the Elevator Section philosophy was “let’s get [elevators] fixed and running.” As a result, citations were rarely issued by Section inspectors. A citation program, however, is considered to be an effective tool in gaining the compliance of elevator owners and maintenance companies in scheduling annual inspections, in correcting deficiencies, and in ensuring the safe operation of elevators. To that end, the Elevator Section invested resources in updating its citation program. However, up until March 30, 2015, only sixteen citations have been issued to elevator maintenance companies and owners despite the fact that the Section now has an updated citation program (Composite Exhibit 4). These citations were all for failing to obtain a final inspection for permitted work (Exhibit 7). When questioned about the incidental number of citations issued, the Regulated Business Administrator explained that once the Elevator Section is able to meet requests for annual inspections, he anticipates being able to issue citations for other violations, including overdue annual inspections and expired certificates of operation.9

5. The Elevator Section Failed to Maintain A Current Policy and Procedure Manual

Finally, the OIG investigation determined that the Elevator Section does not have a current policy and procedure manual. In fact, the most recent version of the Section Manual is dated 2006. This version of the manual does not address many of the recent changes in Elevator Section policy, such

9 Although waiving citations for those inspections that are untimely as a result of the Elevator Section’s inability to schedule them does make sense, the Section should still be able to issue citations to those who have made no effort to schedule their annual inspection in a timely manner, and those who have not cured violations observed during an initial inspection in the time given.




OIG 14-025

July 14, 2015

Page 11 of 29

as the new inspection exemption for two-stop elevators.10 Although the failure to revise or update the Section Manual predates the Regulated Business Administrator’s, the Assistant Building Official’s, and the Supervisor’s tenure with the Elevator Section, the fact remains that there has been no effort to update the manual despite the Regulated Business Administrator’s acknowledgement of its extreme importance.

Remedial Action by the Elevator Section On April 10, 2015, the Regulated Business Administrator provided this office with a memorandum addressing three issues: (1) the number of overdue annual inspections as of March 30, 2015; (2) the number of annual inspections conducted in the first calendar quarter of 2015; and (3) a description of any actions taken by the Elevator Section to address the OIG’s concerns (Composite Exhibit 4). Further, the Regulated Business Administrator participated in an additional interview with OIG Special Agents on April 23, 2015. In his memorandum, the Regulated Business Administrator reported that the Elevator Section had reduced the number of expired elevator certificates of operation by 12.5%. He also reported a 3.5% decrease in overdue annual inspections, from 3,707 on December 9, 2014 to 3,582 on March 30, 2015. Moreover, with eight full-time inspectors on board11, the Elevator Section reported conducting a total of 1,773 annual inspections/periodic test inspections in the first quarter of 2015.12 During his additional interview, the Regulated Business Administrator expanded upon the changes implemented in the Elevator Section during the first quarter of 2015. In addition to the changes described above – namely, the generation of weekly reports; the addition of the Code Compliance supervisor; the improved relations with elevator maintenance companies; and the enhancement of the citation program – he also reported that the Section had adopted the two-stop exemption, thereby allowing 25% of the county’s elevators to be eligible for exemption from Section-conducted annual inspections. Further, the Section is now allowing private inspectors to witness the second part of the inspection for elevators maintained by the maintenance company which currently maintains the majority of Broward County elevators, potentially reducing the number of required annual inspections. The Section will consider allowing other companies to follow suit on a case-by-case basis upon request. INTERVIEW SUMMARIES

As a part of the investigation, OIG Special Agents conducted numerous witness interviews. Significant interviews are summarized below:

10 A detailed description of the two-stop elevator exemption can be found below in the Regulated Business Administrator’s interview summary. 11 Although the Elevator Section was considered fully staffed as of April 10, 2015, two inspectors were not accounted for in the above because they had only started their training during the relevant time frame. 12 Although this figure is significantly lower than the number of inspections reported over the last two years (Exhibit 8), the Regulated Business Administrator explained that during the first quarter of 2015, the Elevator Section changed the fashion in which it counted inspections performed, yielding lower – but more accurate – figures.




OIG 14-025

July 14, 2015

Page 12 of 29

1. Interview of the Chief, Florida Bureau of Elevator Safety

The Chief has been employed by the State of Florida for twenty-eight years, the last ten years with the Bureau of Safety. He served in both the capacities of deputy chief and operations chief before being promoted to chief in 2010.

The Chief explained that pursuant to Chapter 399, Florida Statutes, the owner of an elevator is responsible for the safe operation, proper maintenance and inspection, and correction of deficiencies noted during an inspection of that elevator. Every elevator is required to display a certificate of operation which is valid for a period not to exceed two years. A timely satisfactory inspection is required for the renewal of a certificate of operation.

The Chief further explained that the Deputy Chief is responsible for the management of the contract between the DBPR and Broward County that empowers the County to enforce Florida Statute 399, parts of the Florida Building Code, and Chapter 61C-5 of the F.A.C. The DBPR has the same contract with other jurisdictions, which are also overseen by the Deputy Chief. The Chief stated that the Bureau of Elevator Safety and each of the contracted jurisdictions handle the inspection process differently. The Bureau has oversight of approximately 45,000 elevators. As it has only ten inspectors for the entire state, the Bureau allows private third-party inspectors to conduct annual inspections – a practice that has been allowed since the year 2000. He also stated that prior to privatizing the inspection process, the Bureau, at one point, had only four inspectors and “thousands” of overdue inspections. As of September 16, 2014, the Bureau had approximately 1,000 delinquent inspections.

Although the Chief was unaware of the fact that Broward County had over 3,000 elevators that were overdue for an annual inspection, he was aware that there was an issue with delinquent elevator renewals. Supervisors at the Elevator Section, namely the Former Supervisor, the Assistant Building Official, the Supervisor, and another individual had been informing him for several years of this problem. The Chief explained, however, that the issue of delinquent elevator renewals was not unique to Broward County. Indeed, they, as well as other contracted jurisdictions, have also struggled with this problem. The Bureau of Elevator Safety addressed its own problem by dedicating one staff member to inspect the severely, or “hard-core,” delinquent elevators.

The Chief explained that enforcing Chapter 399, Florida Statutes can be very difficult. Several issues contribute to the problem of overdue inspections. Some elevator owners are not aware of the annual inspection requirement and, in turn, fail to obtain an inspection for their elevators. Other elevator owners will have their elevators inspected but then fail to correct the deficiencies noted during the failed annual inspections in a timely matter. Then, there are elevator owners who do not pay the fines that were incurred as a result of the inspection.




OIG 14-025

July 14, 2015

Page 13 of 29

If the Bureau of Elevator Safety was to determine that the Elevator Section has a significant issue with overdue inspections, the Chief would inquire as to why the inspections were overdue as well as have them provide solutions. Depending upon the severity of the problem, the Bureau may consider termination of the contract. The Chief volunteered that possible solutions to the problem could include the hiring of additional staff and allowing private, third-party inspectors to conduct the annual inspections. The implementation of either of these solutions would be acceptable to the Bureau.

2. Interview of the Deputy Chief, Florida Bureau of Elevator Safety

The Deputy Chief has been employed with the State of Florida for thirty-one years. He has been with the Bureau of Elevator Safety since 2005 and has served as the Deputy Chief since 2009. The Deputy Chief advised that he has never been an elevator inspector in the public or private sector, and stated that his duties have been in the field of contract management and administrative oversight.

The Deputy Chief is responsible for managing the contract between the DBPR and Broward County. He is also managing the same contract with four other jurisdictions: Miami-Dade County, the City of Miami, the City of Miami Beach, and Reedy Creek. He has managed these contracts since 2005.

The Deputy Chief explained that Chapter 399, Florida Statutes requires that an elevator be inspected on an annual basis in order to receive a certificate of operation, which, in turn, is required to operate the elevator. The statute places the responsibility to ensure that the elevator is inspected on the owner of the elevator.

The annual inspection, also known as a routine inspection, is conducted in two parts. The first part is conducted by an Elevator Section inspector using a checklist known as the A17.2 Checklist. The second part, referred to as the periodic test, is performed by a Qualified Elevator Inspector, also known as a third-party inspector, and witnessed by an Elevator Section inspector. Both parts of the annual inspection could be performed either on the same day or on two separate days.

In 2003, the Bureau of Elevator Safety had a significant number of overdue elevator inspections as it had 24 inspectors to perform inspections on 50,000 elevators throughout Florida. A decision was made to allow third-party inspectors to perform both parts of the annual inspection and complete the required Elevator Inspection Report without having the need for a Bureau inspector to witness the inspection. Nevertheless, Bureau inspectors still periodically monitor annual inspections during the course of their duties. Presently, Miami-Dade County, the City of Miami, and the City of Miami Beach have contracted with third-party inspectors and use them, as well as their own inspectors, to perform inspections. Broward




OIG 14-025

July 14, 2015

Page 14 of 29

County and Reedy Creek are the only two jurisdictions that utilize their own inspectors exclusively.13

The Deputy Chief reported that according to the DBPR Division of Hotels and Restaurants 2010-2011 Annual Report, the Bureau of Elevator Safety attained a 97% compliance rate for current certificates of operation. The Deputy Chief attributed the high compliance rate to the change of policy which allowed the annual inspections to be performed by the third-party inspectors, and also to the implementation of a citation program. 3. Interview of the Chief Elevator Inspector, Miami-Dade County

The Chief Elevator Inspector stated that Miami-Dade County has 10,841 elevators in its jurisdiction, which includes 1,200 County-owned pieces of equipment. Currently, there are 2,229 elevators, or approximately 20%, that are overdue for an inspection. These overdue inspections include elevators that were inspected but did not pass. The Chief Elevator Inspector explained that the Miami-Dade County enforcement unit monitors the overdue inspections list and directs inspectors to investigate complaints involving elevators with overdue inspections. Inspectors prepare 800 to 1,000 inspection reports each month and approximately 18,000 inspection reports annually. In addition to the Chief Elevator Inspector, the Miami-Dade County staff consists of two supervisors, seven field inspectors, and one contract specialist. Like representatives from the Bureau of Elevator Safety, the Chief Elevator Inspector explained that Chapter 399, Florida Statutes requires an elevator owner to maintain their elevator and ensure that inspections are conducted annually. The annual inspection consists of two parts: one conducted solely by an inspector, and the second part conducted by either a private inspector or a government inspector. He advised that the second part is the more difficult part to conduct because it requires coordination of the schedules of two or three people: the contracted elevator maintenance company employee, a third-party elevator inspector, if one is used, and, based upon the situation, a government elevator inspector. The Chief Elevator Inspector went on to explain that before 2002, the DBPR was under contract with Miami-Dade County to enforce Chapter 399, Florida Statutes. This contract was terminated in 2002 when new statutory fee limits restricted the county’s ability to operate at its funding level. From 2002 through August 2003, all elevator inspections were performed by private inspectors who sent their inspection reports directly to the Bureau of Elevator Safety. On August 22, 2003, Miami-Dade County entered into a new contract to enforce Chapter 399, Florida Statutes. Early on in the contract both private inspectors and county inspectors were

13 Although such was a correct statement at the time of the Deputy Chief’s interview, Broward County has since started allowing the use of private inspectors under certain circumstances.




OIG 14-025

July 14, 2015

Page 15 of 29

conducting inspections. All inspection reports were sent directly to the county. This system, however, produced uneven inspection results. The Chief Elevator Inspector stated that at the present time, the Miami-Dade County inspection process somewhat mirrors the Bureau of Elevator Safety process in that private inspectors conduct the inspections on private property and county inspectors perform inspections on the 1,200 elevators owned by the county. Miami-Dade County also utilizes the Bureau’s citation program. In addition, the county conducts a quality assurance program, as required by the contract, through which county inspectors conduct follow-up inspections of both private and county inspections on locations randomly chosen by a software program. There have been instances where some locations selected for follow-up have had violations despite an indication that no violations were noted. The Chief Elevator Inspector observed that such discrepancies raise questions on the quality of the inspections being performed. 4. Interview of Elevator Section Employee A

Employee A reported that the Elevator Section inspection staff currently consists of the Supervisor and eight full-time inspectors. No one in a management position above the Supervisor has any knowledge or experience in the elevator safety profession. The Elevator Section was responsible for the inspection of approximately 9,800 elevators. Approximately 3,900 elevators, about 40%, have outstanding overdue annual inspections. In July 2013, only 10% of the elevators in the County were overdue for their annual inspection. Employee A stated that the management decision that had the largest impact on the Elevator Section and contributed to the high rate of overdue annual inspections was the termination of three experienced inspectors in March 2014 and the failure of the County to fill those positions quickly. By October 2014, only one of the vacated positions had been filled. Employee A provided several examples of directives issued by the Supervisor that he believed were harmful to the efficient operation of the Elevator Section. For instance, the Supervisor recently advised the inspectors that, instead of allowing the larger maintenance companies to use the internet-based system to schedule the annual inspections, the inspectors were to contact the elevator owners and schedule the inspections personally. This process, however, leads to more time spent on scheduling the inspections and only serves to further slow the scheduling process as the owner has to contact the maintenance company, who has to then re-contact the inspector. Employee A described the Former Supervisor as very knowledgeable about the management of the Elevator Section. He was much more forceful in dealing with the elevator maintenance companies and held them accountable to ensure that they communicated with the Elevator Section inspectors when coordinating the inspections. When the Former Supervisor was in charge, only about 10% of the total numbers of elevators in the County were overdue for their




OIG 14-025

July 14, 2015

Page 16 of 29

annual inspections. Indeed, he would routinely meet with the maintenance company representatives and not let them fall behind to the extent that they are today. Employee A explained that, shortly after the Supervisor was hired, the elevator maintenance company that handles the maintenance for approximately 40% of the elevators in the county stopped scheduling inspections on Mondays and Fridays. This effectively reduced the amount of time that inspectors could perform inspections on those elevators by 40%. This is one of the main contributing factors to the backlog of annual inspections. The Supervisor refused to address this issue with the company and basically threw up his hands, stating “I can’t do anything!” Employee A also reported that, until recently, inspectors were assigned to geographic areas based upon the zip code to conduct inspections. Six to eight months ago, however, the Supervisor changed this system to a system where inspectors were randomly assigned inspections across the county. This new system is causing Elevator Section inspectors to spend more time driving to inspections and thereby further reduces their efficiency. Finally, Employee A recounted that the Former Supervisor used to issue citations to elevator owners. As of the date of his interview, however, inspectors had not been provided citations to use. The Regulated Business Administrator has brought in a Code Compliance employee to help formulate a citation program. When the new program is implemented, elevator owners will be issued a citation when they have not made the required repairs within 100 days of the inspection date, which is an additional ten days over the 90 days provided for in Chapter 399, Florida Statutes.

5. Interview of Elevator Section Employee B

Employee B reported that the Elevator Section is under the control of the Regulated Business Administrator as well as other officials in the ELBPD. The Assistant Building Official had no working knowledge or experience related to elevator construction, permitting or inspection. The Supervisor had previously worked as an inspector for the state of Florida and preferred to perform inspections rather than supervise the Elevator Section. In August 2014, the Assistant Building Official was transferred to a project manager position at the airport. Employee B observed that the Elevator Section does not have enough inspectors to complete all the inspections. The Supervisor has been out of the office completing inspections and plan reviews much of the time which should be spent supervising the Elevator Section. This has left the Section largely unmanaged and lacking any coherent priorities or directions to achieve its responsibilities. The management and staffing deficiencies have caused a backlog of approximately 3,500 overdue annual elevator inspections. Some of these past due inspections are two or more years




OIG 14-025

July 14, 2015

Page 17 of 29

overdue. An existing Overdue Annual Inspection Report in POSSE reflects all elevator inspections and indicates which inspections are overdue. Up until July 2014, Employee B reported to the Supervisor and was in charge of a variety of Elevator Section functions, including addressing problems involving permits and inspections with contractors, handling complaints on a variety of issues, and assisting with inspector requests for information. She also used to produce three reports on a daily basis which would assist supervisors and inspectors in tracking the work performed by the unit; the Outstanding Annual Inspections for Commercial Elevators Report, the Average Inspections Due Report, and the Overdue Inspections by Inspector Report. The Assistant Building Official recently told her to stop disseminating the Overdue Inspections by Inspector Report to Elevator Section staff without providing a reason for the change. In July 2014, the Regulated Business Administrator informed her that she would be acquiring customer service functions and reporting to another individual who is with the Broward County Pollution Prevention Remediation and Air Quality Division. 6. Interview of the Former Supervisor

The Former Supervisor began his employment with Broward County on January 8, 2007 and was the supervisor of the Elevator Section until he retired on January 31, 2013. When he retired, there were between 1,400 to 2,000 overdue annual elevator inspections in the County. He has since learned the number has increased to approximately 4,000 elevators.

The Former Supervisor opined that there were several factors which have contributed to the growing number of overdue annual elevator inspections. These factors include a failure by the Elevator Section to enforce the annual inspection requirement, a failure to conduct follow-up inspections when violations were observed during an initial inspection, the inability to gain the compliance of elevator owners and maintenance companies to timely schedule the inspections, and reduced staffing levels. The Former Supervisor stated that a citation program would aid in gaining the compliance of the elevator owners and maintenance companies in scheduling annual inspections and correcting the deficiencies that are observed during inspections. While a citation system existed during his tenure, it lacked the technological capability to track and was rarely used. The Former Supervisor explained that there are several issues involving the elevator maintenance companies which impact the Elevator Section’s efficiency. For example, the company that maintains the highest percentage of elevators in the county stopped scheduling inspections on Mondays and Fridays because of the negative financial impact to the company. The failure to schedule inspections on these days contributed to the growing number of overdue annual inspections. The Former Supervisor also advised that elevator maintenance companies are not permitted to charge the owners for the time that it takes their mechanics to actually perform the annual test so the maintenance companies are not keen on scheduling inspections.




OIG 14-025

July 14, 2015

Page 18 of 29

7. Interview of the Regulated Business Administrator

The Regulated Business Administrator was interviewed on two occasions. During his first interview on November 13, 2014, the Regulated Business Administrator explained that he began his career with Broward County in 1996 when he was hired as a Code Enforcement Officer. After being assigned to positions with increasing responsibility during his tenure with the county, he was appointed to the position of Regulated Business Administrator in the ELBPD in October or November of 2013. In February 2014, he was charged with coordinating an investigation into an allegation of misconduct involving several employees in the Elevator Section. Three elevator inspectors were subsequently terminated as a result of the investigation.14 A fourth inspector voluntarily resigned shortly thereafter. In May 2014, the Assistant Building Official, who at that time was charged with managing the Elevator Section, was transferred to fill a vacant position at the airport. At that point, the Regulated Business Administrator requested that he be charged with managing the Elevator Section in addition to his other duties despite the fact he has no experience in the elevator safety or inspection field.

When the Regulated Business Administrator took over the Elevator Section management duties, he realized that he had “walked into a sinking ship.” In his opinion, the problems that existed at the Section were not caused by mismanagement. Instead, he continued, there was a need for a change in management style from the Assistant Building Official’s laissez-faire style to his own stronger, authoritarian style. The Regulated Business Administrator was provided with copies of two reports that had been prepared by the Elevator Section, Status of Elevators with Overdue Annual Inspections, dated January 1, 2013, and Outstanding Annual Inspections for Commercial Elevators, dated October 1, 2014 which reflected overdue annual inspection numbers of 1,309 and 3,931, respectively.15 The Regulated Business Administrator admitted that these numbers were very high and advised that there were two primary issues which led to the number of outstanding annual inspections growing out of control: (1) the termination of the three inspectors and the resignation of a fourth inspector in March 2014, and (2) chronic issues involving the scheduling and cancellation of inspections with the elevator maintenance companies. The Regulated Business Administrator was unaware of the “huge” amount of overdue annual elevator inspections until June 2014, when one of the elevator maintenance companies submitted a public records request for the number of outstanding annual inspections. The company made the records request because some of their clients were unable to obtain a new certificate of operation because they were unable to get their elevator inspected due to the backlog of inspections.

14 The misconduct consisted of the employees going to their homes and/or to other non-work related locations while reporting that they were working. A Global Positioning System (GPS) device installed in the vehicles used by Elevator Section inspectors was instrumental in the identification of the misconduct. 15 This meant that, as of October 1, 2014, 40% of the total number of 9,884 elevators under the jurisdiction of the Elevator Section had not been inspected for at least one year.




OIG 14-025

July 14, 2015

Page 19 of 29

After the four inspectors left the Elevator Section in March 2014, the number of inspectors was reduced from eleven to seven. It was his decision to not quickly fill the four positions as he wanted to make sure that the misconduct issues that were identified during the investigation of the three inspectors did not extend to other members of the Elevator Section.

The Regulated Business Administrator advised that prior to hiring any new inspectors, he directed the Supervisor to ensure that the Elevator Section was using the existing staff as efficiently as possible. Once this was completed, he decided to only hire one new inspector every two months to slowly assimilate the new inspectors into the unit. Currently, there are eleven full-time inspector positions and one part-time position in the budget with only one full-time position still vacant as of November 2014. The Regulated Business Administrator stated that the discrepancy between the starting salary at the Elevator Section and in the private sector has not been a hindrance to hiring new inspectors.

The Regulated Business Administrator explained that the Elevator Section did not track the number of outstanding annual inspections on a monthly basis, nor did it produce a monthly report which included this number, until after the OIG requested this information during an interview with the Supervisor on September 30, 2014.16 As a result of the OIG request, he directed the Elevator Section to begin producing and maintaining a monthly report so that this number could be closely monitored by the Supervisor. While the number of outstanding annual inspections may have possibly been monitored at some unknown time in the past, his staff has advised him that this information is not available as it was not saved.

The Regulated Business Administrator also explained that another issue which contributed to the excessive backlog of outstanding annual inspections was the constant complications that occur during of the scheduling of inspections between the elevator inspectors and the elevator maintenance companies. After he learned that the scheduling of inspections was a major problem, he directed that one employee be assigned to coordinate the scheduling of inspections on a full-time basis. This employee was tasked with this responsibility in an effort to improve upon the current process, however, she subsequently resigned. Another employee was then assigned those duties.

The Elevator Section recently instituted a new inspection exemption procedure for elevators that only stop at two adjacent floors and have a current service contract in efforts to reduce the current number of outstanding annual inspections. This exemption is sanctioned by Chapter 399, Florida Statutes. The Regulated Business Administrator explained that owners of two-stop elevators will have the option of either having an Elevator Section inspector or a private inspector perform/witness the annual inspection. An elevator maintenance company presented the concept as a way to reduce the amount of inspections performed by Elevator Section staff

16 The OIG requested that the Regulated Business Administrator provide the number of outstanding annual inspections from November 2013 to October 2014 either in a monthly report or in some other fashion in order to obtain a historical understanding of this issue. He advised that this information did not exist because the Elevator Section did not prepare a monthly report reflecting these figures as they were not closely monitoring the number of outstanding annual inspections.




OIG 14-025

July 14, 2015

Page 20 of 29

and to enable this particular elevator company’s clients, and those of other elevator owners, to obtain a new certificate of operation in less time.

The new two-stop exemption procedure requires that a standard form be completed by the elevator owner and the Certified Elevator Inspector on an annual basis and submitted to the Elevator Section. Upon receipt of this form, the Section “will take the elevator owners and maintenance companies word” that there is a maintenance contract in place and will not require a copy of the contract. The Section will perform spot-checks to ensure that the inspections performed by the private inspectors were performed as required.

The Regulated Business Administrator acknowledged that he directed the Supervisor to spend a majority of his time in the field conducting inspections. After reviewing the supervisory and administrative responsibilities that had been assigned to the Supervisor, and considering that a portion of the Assistant Building Official’s duties were also assigned to the Supervisor after the Assistant Building Official was transferred, the Regulated Business Administrator admitted that the Supervisor’s scope of responsibility was too broad for one supervisor. The Regulated Business Administrator assured that, in the future, the Supervisor’s inspection duties will be reduced in order to allow him to spend more time performing supervisory functions. The Regulated Business Administrator also assured that “call-back” inspections, which are return visits after an initial inspection has identified violations which need to be corrected, would be conducted as the number of overdue annual inspections is reduced.

Finally, the Regulated Business Administrator stated that the Section Manual was in need of revision as it had not been updated since 2006. It does not address many of the recent changes to be instituted at the Elevator Section, such as the new two-stop exemption, the use of call-back inspections to follow-up on violations found during inspections, and the new citation program. There is no timetable for when this revision will take place despite the importance of having an updated manual to provide new hires at the Elevator Section.

The Regulated Business Administrator was subsequently re-interviewed on April 23, 2015 in order to discuss his April 10, 2015 memorandum as well as to obtain an update on the state of the Elevator Section operations. Prior to this interview, the Regulated Business Administrator provided the OIG with his memorandum (Composite Exhibit 4) which reported that as of March 30, 2015, 3,582 of the, at that time, 9967 elevators under the Section’s purview were overdue for their annual inspections. This new figure represented a 3.5% reduction from the 3,707 elevators which had overdue annual inspections on December 9, 2014. The Regulated Business Administrator reported that the Elevator Section has set a short-term goal of reducing the number of overdue annual inspections to 20% (1,998) over the next six months. While this number would still be too high for his liking, the Regulated Business Administrator continued, it would show significant progress in the right direction.

The Regulated Business Administrator stated that the Elevator Section has undergone significant changes since he took over in May 2014. Specifically, there have been personnel




OIG 14-025

July 14, 2015

Page 21 of 29

changes due to misconduct, an installation of a new management philosophy which included greater accountability and increased oversight of the inspectors, changes in how the inspections are scheduled with the elevator maintenance companies, and other administrative changes aimed at improving the efficiency of the Section. He further offered that the Section has made significant strides in improving the factors that contributed to the excessive number of overdue annual inspections.

To begin, the Elevator Section has been directed to prepare two weekly reports: one which tracks all elevators with overdue annual inspections and a second report which tracks elevators with expired certificates of occupancy. Section personnel have been advised that these two issues are their top priorities. The reports are distributed to ensure that everyone keeps focused and sets their priorities accordingly.

Further, in an effort to reduce the number of overdue annual inspections, the Supervisor and he approved a new process so that private inspectors can witness the test portion of the annual inspection. This process was approved in either December 2014 or January 2015. Whereas previously, the Elevator Section required a Section inspector to witness elevator tests conducted by elevator maintenance companies, the new procedure allows elevator tests to be witnessed by private inspectors. This new procedure was implemented at the request of an elevator maintenance company with not only one of the largest amount of elevators under contract, but with the highest number of overdue inspections.

In explaining this new process, the Regulated Business Administrator conceded that the Elevator Section does not have a written policy on it and that he did not seek the approval of his superiors prior to implementing the new procedure. Instead, the process was approved through the Supervisor (and himself) as the Supervisor is considered the “Authority Having Jurisdiction.” The Regulated Business Administrator also noted that although this particular elevator company is the only company that has contracted with a private inspector, he would consider approving the process for any company that has a significant amount of elevators with overdue annual inspections on a case-by-case basis.

The Regulated Business Administrator also advised that the Elevator Section implemented a two-stop exemption process in December 2014. As a whole two-stop elevators account for 25% of all elevators in the County. To date, 95 elevators have been approved for exemption.

Additionally, the Elevator Section has made improvements to the process that it uses when scheduling inspections with the elevator maintenance companies. One employee has been assigned to coordinate the scheduling of inspections on a full-time basis. She has daily communication with the maintenance companies and has been able to improve the coordination when scheduling inspections with the maintenance companies. Further, the Regulated Business Administrator has personally engaged in frequent conversations with the maintenance company that services the largest number of County elevators to ensure that inspections are being coordinated efficiently.




OIG 14-025

July 14, 2015

Page 22 of 29

Further, a supervisor with Code Compliance was brought in to relieve the Supervisor of many administrative duties at the Elevator Section such as overseeing the scheduler, handling attendance issues, handling annual evaluations, creating the citation program, and a myriad of other duties that would take away from the time that the Supervisor could spend in the field conducting and supervising inspections. This supervisor is also charged with monitoring the GPS data from the inspectors’ vehicles on a daily basis. As a matter of fact, the supervisor, along with an individual from another division, is working on creating alert reports to better utilize the GPS system.

The Code Compliance supervisor is also handling the citation enforcement program for the Elevator Section. Although there were only the sixteen citations issued to elevator maintenance companies and owners in the first quarter of 2015 for failing to obtain a final inspection for permitted work, this was only a starting point for the program. In the future, they anticipate issuing citations for other violations, including overdue annual inspections and expired certificates of operation, once they are able to meet requests for annual inspections.

In the Regulated Business Administrator’s opinion, the Elevator Section is currently being adequately supervised with the Code Compliance supervisor handling the administrative duties and the Supervisor responsible for the field duties, which include both conducting and supervising inspections. The Supervisor is always available to the inspectors either via cell phone or by joining the inspectors on-site during an inspection. The Supervisor is also responsible for the “on the job” training of new inspectors.

The Regulated Business Administrator acknowledged that the Elevator Section has still not started the process of revising the nine-year old Section Manual. Although it remains high on the list of priorities, there is simply not enough time at the moment where, regardless if the revision is done in-house or by an outside consultant, the Supervisor would still have to be intimately involved in the process.

As far as staffing concerns, the Regulated Business Administrator reported that the Elevator Section has eleven full-time and one part-time inspector positions in its budget. They have divided the 9,900 elevators located throughout the County into geographic areas and management believes that the number of budgeted positions is appropriate for the number of inspections that need to be performed. The Regulated Business Administrator denied the presence of a retention problem at the Elevator Section. Instead, he assigned the Section turnover to a wide range of reasons, including termination for failing to adapt to the higher standards of accountability and personal reasons outside of management’s control. He further insisted that, although salary has come up during the interview of some prospective new hires, it has not been an impediment to hiring. The Regulated Business Administrator characterized the morale at the Elevator Section as




OIG 14-025

July 14, 2015

Page 23 of 29

“good” adding that “[the Elevator Section is] building a new team and changing a culture is always a difficult process which includes some growing pains.” 8. Interview of the Assistant Building Official

The Assistant Building Official was first hired by Broward County in 1996 as a building inspector, but then left to obtain a position as the Chief Structural Inspector with the City of Hallandale Beach in 2004. He was rehired with the County in 2006 as an Assistant Building Official and, in May 2012, was assigned to the position of ELBPD manager, which included management of the Elevator Section. Although he had no experience in the elevator industry, he was an experienced manager who could address the day-to-day issues at the Section, such as attendance, evaluations, and personnel issues. After the Former Supervisor retired in January 2013, the Assistant Building Official’s duties changed to solely managing the Elevator Section. The Assistant Building Official noted that the Former Supervisor had years of experience in the elevator safety field and was knowledgeable as to the Florida Building Code regulations which govern the installation and inspection of elevators. The position vacated by the Former Supervisor was not filled until May 2013. The new Supervisor and an administrative coordinator reported directly to him and the inspectors reported directly to the Supervisor. The Assistant Building Official recounted that the supervisor position was difficult to fill because of the large disparity in starting salary between what the County pays and what the private sector and other county and municipal governments pay. The Assistant Building Official’s management responsibilities at the Elevator Section required that he be in the office; he rarely went out in the field with the inspectors. His primary responsibility was to “make sure that the elevators in the County were safe and running.” Specifically, the Assistant Building Official’s duties included the oversight of permitting on new and remodeled elevators, inspections, handling citizen complaints about malfunctioning elevators and other issues, and management of the daily operations of the Elevator Section. He learned the day-to-day operations of the Section while working with the Former Supervisor for five to six months before his retirement. In May 2014, the Assistant Building Official was assigned duties at the airport. He was entirely reassigned from the Elevator Section to the airport in August 2014. His prior managerial duties at the Elevator Section were split between the Supervisor and the Regulated Business Administrator. When the Assistant Building Official took over management duties at the Elevator Section, there were approximately 9,000 elevators and ten inspectors. At that point, there were about 1,000 elevators overdue for their annual inspections. The Assistant Building Official admitted




OIG 14-025

July 14, 2015

Page 24 of 29

that, while he could have obtained relevant figures from his computer, he was not actively monitoring the number of overdue annual inspections as it was not considered a problem at the time. Instead, he was handling a bigger issue which was the constant friction between the elevator owners, maintenance companies, and inspectors – a common problem in the governmental elevator inspection field in Florida. The Assistant Building Official, like the Regulated Business Administrator, was provided with copies of two reports, Status of Elevators with Overdue Annual Inspections, dated January 30, 2013, and Outstanding Annual Inspections for Commercial Elevators, dated October 1, 2014 which reflected overdue annual inspection numbers of 1,309 and 3,931, respectively. The Assistant Building Official also acknowledged the accuracy of the figures and explained that he first became aware that the number of outstanding annual inspections had “gone through the roof” in May or June of 2014, as he had not previously been monitoring the numbers. He assumed that the number of outstanding annual inspections was still around 1,000. When the problem was brought to his attention, he directed the Supervisor to handle it. The Assistant Building Official explained that the factor that had the largest impact on the growing numbers of outstanding annual inspections was the drastic reduction in the number of inspectors at the Elevator Section in March 2014. During that time, three inspectors were terminated for, among other things, taking long lunch breaks and not working until the end of their shift.17 A fourth inspector also resigned for unrelated reasons. Prior to March 2014, there were eleven full-time inspectors and one part-time inspector assigned to conduct inspections in eleven designated areas. Despite not having monitored the number of outstanding annual inspections, the Assistant Building Official reported that losing four inspectors greatly impacted the Elevator Section’s ability to conduct inspections in a timely fashion. He subsequently admitted that he did not know if the actions or inactions of the three inspectors may have contributed to the growing number of outstanding annual inspections, as he did not research that matter. The Assistant Building Official recounted that when the four inspectors left the Elevator Section, he immediately requested that the open positions be filled. While it would normally take about one month to fill a vacant position, it took two months to fill the first of the four positions. He was forced to reassign the seven remaining inspectors to cover the eleven geographic areas which obviously increased the number of elevators to inspect. The Elevator Section ran efficiently when one inspector was assigned to a designated area because that inspector became knowledgeable about details such as the age and condition of the elevators and was able to take “ownership” for those elevators.

17 Although inspector vehicles had been equipped with GPS in June 2012, the Assistant Building Official did not monitor the GPS data either before or after these inspectors were investigated. The Assistant Building Official ultimately acknowledged that, in hindsight, the Supervisor and he were probably responsible for the poor supervision of the inspectors’ daily activities prior to March 2014.




OIG 14-025

July 14, 2015

Page 25 of 29

The Assistant Building Official identified the large disparity between starting salaries in the private sector and at other governmental elevator inspection agencies in South Florida as the largest impediment to expeditiously filling the inspector positions. While the starting salary for elevator inspectors at the Elevator Section is around $52,000, Miami-Dade County offers an annual starting salary of $65,000. Experienced private sector elevator mechanics earn around $85,000 annually. The Assistant Building Official was unaware of any requests to conduct a salary study or to raise the entry-level salary for the inspector position. With regard to scheduling, the Assistant Building Official explained that the Elevator Section utilizes a web-based system to schedule inspections which can be accessed by the elevator maintenance companies. He opined that the Section’s system works well and is viewed as a model system by other county and municipal governments that conduct elevator inspections. However, problems with scheduling arose after March 2014 when the number of inspectors was severely reduced. The elevator maintenance companies with the largest number of elevators to maintain would request the most amount of time from the inspectors so that they could have their elevators inspected. With regard to enforcement, the Assistant Building Official explained that, while inspectors are empowered to issue citations for elevators which do not have a current certificate of operation and other violations, citations were rarely issued during the time that he was managing the Elevator Section. The general philosophy of the Section was “let’s get them [the elevators] fixed and running.” As an example of that philosophy, the Assistant Building Official described an instance where an elevator had several major violations which were not being addressed by the owner. Rather than issuing a citation, he threatened to have the elevator shut down. The owner chose to quickly address the violations. The Assistant Building Official recognized, however, that a citation program used in the right situations could increase the compliance of the elevator owners and the efficiency of the Elevator Section. To that end, he has directed a supervisor with Code Compliance to establish an efficient and more aggressive citation program. The Assistant Building Official also suggested that call-back inspections – re-inspections conducted after violations were found during an initial inspection – would also be a good idea. As it stands now, elevator owners sign a copy of the inspection report and send it to the Elevator Section as proof that minor violations have been corrected with more serious violations requiring the signature of a certified elevator mechanic. Once Section staffing levels are increased and the number of outstanding annual inspections is reduced, the Assistant Building Official continued, the Section would consider call-back inspections for more serious violations that involve safety issues. The Assistant Building Official went on to report that the Supervisor is currently spending a majority of his time in the field conducting inspections instead of supervising the unit. Moreover, while the Supervisor already had a wide range of responsibilities, he ended up also acquiring the Assistant Building Official’s former responsibilities upon his re-assignment. The




OIG 14-025

July 14, 2015

Page 26 of 29

Assistant Building Official acknowledged that the Supervisor’s scope of responsibility is too broad for one supervisor. Finally, the Assistant Building Official advised that the Section Manual that is currently being used by the Elevator Section was written several years ago, and while it does address the major responsibilities of the Section, it is in need of revision.

9. Interview of the Supervisor

The Supervisor was hired in May 2013. Although he previously reported to the Assistant Building Official, he now reports directly to the Regulated Business Administrator. When he was hired by the County, the Supervisor was basically provided with “on-the-job” training by his subordinates, the Elevator Section inspectors. He had no training on the monitoring or tracking systems that were in place at the time in the Section, nor did anyone explain his responsibilities as the Section supervisor. His current responsibilities include reviewing plans and permits for the installation of new and remodeled elevators, reviewing variance requests, supervising the inspections performed by the inspectors, and scheduling and performing inspections himself as time allows. Upon the Assistant Building Official’s recent assignment to the airport, the Supervisor was also assigned to be the point of contact between the deputy chief of the Bureau of Elevator Safety and the County. These responsibilities include preparing the Monthly Activity Report and sending it to the deputy chief, and conducting telephone conferences and bi-annual meetings with the deputy chief and representatives from the other contracted jurisdictions. The past several weeks, however, he has spent almost all of his time performing inspections because “a lot of work has piled up.” Specifically, “they are behind on their annuals – of course.” The Supervisor explained that Broward County has 9,884 elevators that are required to be annually inspected by the Elevator Section. At the time of the interview, September 30, 2014, the Elevator Section had eight inspectors – nine, including himself – on staff

Documents

BROWARD OFFICE OFTHE INSPECTOR GENERAL …...Jul 14, 2015 · Division - Elevator Section, Ref. OIG 14-025 Attached please find the final report of the Broward Office of the Inspector