Six municipal engineers and building inspectors have been asked to appear before the city’s Human Resources Committee to answer to charges of “neglect of duties,” resulting in City Engineer Colvern Venture being accused of negligence and abusing his office.
The committee will meet with the officers from the City Engineer’s Department today on the recommendation of City Mayor Patricia Chase-Green, who at last week’s statutory council meeting recommended that disciplinary action be taken against three members of the City Engineers Department over flooding in the city.
Contacted for comment on the accusations yesterday, Venture said that he could not respond until he had seen all the documents and was more aware of the nature of the complaint.
According to the Mayor, subsequent to the flash flooding last December, three engineers were placed on a rotating shift to overlook the operations of the sluices and pumps and asked to submit regular reports to Venture. It has been claimed by him that they failed to fulfil these duties.
The engineers identified have denied this accusation, while noting that for months they submitted reports chronicling persistent problems which were never addressed by Venture until the Mayor became involved.
Chase-Green herself noted that “things that could not have been done in weeks were done in 48 hours” once she contacted the engineer.
Deputy City Engineer Ron Eastman, in his written response to Human Resources Manager Paulette Braithwaite, has challenged the claims of neglect and non-cooperation made against him, while stating that Venture received several updates from his office since they discussed several matters on a daily basis, including drainage infrastructure. He also claimed that it was the same officers (engineers) now being accused of failing to write reports who “helped the current city engineer transform his reporting approach to a more technically inclusive approach on the engineering implications if matters are not addressed.
“All drainage matters have been given priority and made to supersede any other task because of the impact it has on the city and its inhabitants,” Eastman explained, while noting that he encountered the mayor while fulfilling his duties of visiting several locations to further update on their operation.
“I vividly remember calling the current city engineer after visiting a location on the installation of a pump that was under mechanical repairs we discuss a day ago as to why it was not installed to date. The answer received was and I quote, ‘It is not my responsibility to ensure it is install it is the workshop manager to do that and if he don’t the council will deal with him,’” he reported.
Along with the engineers, several building inspectors have been asked to appear before the committee. While it is not clear why this is so, one inspector, Vaughn Canterbury, in a correspondence to Braithwaite, said he believed that he was being singled out after raising concerns about works on an unauthorized building. According to his written response, Canterbury has in the last three months sent two memos to the City Engineer. One of these memos, dated April 18, questioned why Venture granted permission for construction of a roof over a building never approved by the department.
Canterbury explained that as the officer in charge of the Werk-en-Rust area, he did not grant permission for the applicant to place a roof over an authorized building at Lot 18 aka 21 Lombard Street, Werk-en-Rust, Georgetown.
He explained that the plan could not be approved by the department or by the Central Housing and Planning Authority because it is an encroachment on the pavement and breaches other sections of the building by-Law.
The application has since September 24, 2014 been in the plan not in order file, however whilst carrying out routine checks within and around the area on April 9, 2017 Canterbury said he observed building works being carried out on the fourth floor of the existing building.
Upon enquiring, he was presented by the owner with an approval for building works, dated January 11, 2017, Ref: CV/MH/NH, to construct a roof over the existing three-storey building. The approval, which was attached to his response, was signed by the City Engineer.
Canterbury subsequently brought to Venture’s attention that the building was actually four and not three storey and that no approval was granted for its construction, yet an approval was granted to place a hip roof over third floor.
He also mentioned several other inconsistencies he had drawn to the attention of the City Engineer that have not been addressed.
He argued that instead of addressing these complaints, some of which were made more than a year ago, Venture recommended that he face disciplinary action for neglecting duties and being disrespectful.
