Laserfiche WebLink
TO ' • <br />:, <br />ly:i•1:1 <br />Dr1TE May 12 , 1971 <br />SUBJECT p�rican Ice and Cold Storage <br />Building <br />QTY OF [VERETT. CVCRETT. `NASHINGTON <br />It was after this refusal of a permit that the complaints were <br />made against Mr. Dougherty. It is very peculiar that it took so <br />long to ma}:e tHe complaints, especially when the rn�ner is in <br />violation of a City Ordinance which reauires a building permit <br />before work is started, Zf the complaints aqainst ?•tr. Dougherty <br />are true, why were they not made imr.tediately? <br />There has been some discussion about 14r. Anderson, Port t4anaqer, <br />entering into this matter. iir. l�nderson was not present at the <br />time of ^ir. Dougherty's inspection, nor is it a Port matter <br />and he has no interest in this case to our knoo:ledqe. His <br />opinions should not be considered, or even be allo�aed to have any <br />bearing. <br />I feel iir. Dougherty wz <br />if work was being done in <br />Electrical Codes. He did <br />Electrical work which is 3 <br />"red tagged" this Fror}.. F1 <br />of the requirements of the <br />are his duty to discharge. <br />s entirely within his duties to determine <br />violation of the City Building anc'. <br />not hide his iclentity. Fie found <br />n violation of the Electrical Code and <br />e located the manager ard informed him <br />�lectrical Code. All of these things <br />tlny charges that are made against Mr. Dougherty have not been <br />proven, and are only one man's word against another. xhe <br />experience of tir. Dougherty in past similar circwnstances leads <br />me to believe 24r. Dougherty, especi.ally wlien he is accu�ed by <br />someone who is guilty of a violation of a City Ordinance. It <br />agpears that there is sone other reason for these charges, and <br />"•tr. Dougherty is beinq deliberat�ly and falsely accused. <br />is:19B5 <br />