On February 3, 2008, FreePetey wrote an article entitled, LMDC & NYS Urban Development Corporation Act and Immunity.  In addition, FreePetey has written a number of articles about 3 RCNY  § 11-01 entitled Buildings in the Course of Construction and Buildings Undergoing Demolition which contains the 15 day rule. In the coming legal apocalypse for FDNY, FDNY may be accused of violating The Fifteen Day Rule. In its defense,  FDNY can wield a potent shield, The Urban Development Corporation Act, which confers both civil and criminal immunity unto whomever followed LMDC's plan.

FDNY was part of LMDC's plan for 130 Liberty Street. However, LMDC gave FDNY only a limited role.   FDNY was designated in the plan as an emergency responder.  FDNY was not designated in LMDC's plan as an Inspector of the building.  LMDC assigned the role of inspector to others. FDNY did its job and fulfilled its role under the LMDC plan for 130 Liberty Street.

The City of New York has gone on record that FDNY had the duty to inspect the toxic Deutsche Bank Building (Click Here).  However, as the readers of this blog have learned, with regard to this particular building, that was not the case. In an article dated November 10, 2007, FreePetey called upon the FDNY Commissioner to give the speech, thereby defending the honor of FDNY.  Instead the Commissioner has kept silent about the limited role LMDC gave FDNY in the demolition - deconstruction of the toxic Deutsche bank building before the tragic fire.  His silence has been an invitation to others to vilify the FDNY (Click Here).  It is - as it has always been - time for the Commissioner to give the speech (Click Here). The big question remains: "When will the Commissioner begin to publicly defend the honor of the FDNY?"  FDNY did its job as it was defined on and before August 18, 2007.  Why don't you say so, Nick? Or has NYC painted itself into a corner from where it would be politically embarrassing to escape? (Click Here).

Can he handle the unvarnished truth? Even when the investigation takes us to him?Click for Audio

Our Lord said to St. Faustina:

"Encourage souls to say this chaplet that I have given you.  Whoever recites this chaplet shall receive great mercy at the hour of death. When they say this chaplet in the presence of the dying, I shall stand between my Father and the dying person, not as a just judge but as a merciful savior. Priests will recommend this chaplet to sinners as the last hope of salvation. What a paradise it is for a soul whose heart knows itself to be so loved by GOD!"

The Chaplet of Divine Mercy

"Eternal Father, I offer you the body, blood , soul and divinity of your dearly beloved son, Our Lord, Jesus Christ, in atonement for our sins and the sins of the world. For the sake of his sorrowful passion,  have mercy on us and on the whole world.

We talked about the 11/5/2007 reduction in inspection frequency in prior articles:

• There are rules and there are exceptions to the rules.  Even the 15 day inspection rule found in 3 RCNY § 11-01 has exceptions. (Click Here)
• Is there a double standard?  Do only the "little guys" get  "sidelined" for violating 3 RCNY § 11-01 or do the "big guys" too? (Click Here)

What did the 11/5/2007 McNally memorandum do?

On 11/5/2007, FDNY's Chief of Operations, Patrick McNally got out his red fire ax, rolled up his sleeves, spit in his hands, grabbed its handle and swung it against 3 RCNY §11-01 again and again and again.  He hacked, and cut, and swung and  chopped and whittled the mighty log that was 3 RCNY §11-01 into a tiny toothpick - just a small fraction of its original size! His ax whittled a mountain into a molehill.

But why?

Why did FDNY feel the need to whittle away the log that was 3 RCNY §11-01 until it was no more than a tiny toothpick?

This is a good question but there are better questions.

Why did not FDNY feel the need to whittle away 3 RCNY §11-01 before the tragic August 18, 2007 fire?  Or, as McNally, put it, why wasn't there a need to "eliminate" "confusion" before the tragic August 18, 2007 fire? 

Why didn't FDNY feel the need during the first three quarters of 2007?

Why didn't FDNY feel the need during 2006?

Why didn't FDNY feel the need during 2005?

Why didn't FDNY feel the need during 2004?

Why didn't FDNY feel the need during 2003?

Why didn't FDNY feel the need during 2002 when Scoppetta first came to occupy the office of FDNY Commissioner?

Why was there no confusion that needed to be eliminated during 2002, 2003, 2004, 2005, 2006 up until November 5, 2007?

What was now happening at FDNY - that was not happening before - that caused McNally to wield his red fire ax upon 3 RCNY §11-01.

The reason is, pure and simple, the numbers. 

The numbers were given to us in CDAWG's report entitled "Strengthening the Safety, Oversight and Coordination of Construction, Demolition and Abatement Operations". It can be downloaded by clicking here. On Page 22 of the Report, CDAWG tells us that since 2002 - the year that Scoppetta first occupied the office of FDNY Commissioner - there were 6000 buildings per year under construction or demolition pursuant to Alt 1 permits and 58,000 buildings per year under construction or demolition pursuant to Alt 2 permits.  On page 14 of the report, CDAWG tells us that there 5000 buildings under demolition per year pursuant to demolition permits. That is a total of 69,000 buildings under construction and demolition per year.  If FDNY would follow 3 RCNY § 11-01, 69,000 buildings under construction or demolition would require 2 times 12 times 69,000 or a total of 1,656,000 inspections by FDNY over the course of a year. 1,656,000 inspections converted into man hours at 3 hours an inspection times 5 firefighters per inspection equals 24,840,000 man hours. A year has (365 times 24 equals) 8760 hours in it. 24,840,000 man years thus equals 2836 man years. Hence to comply with 3 RCNY § 11-01, would take 2836 firefighters working 24 hours a day 7 days a week 365 days a year for one year. An impossible burden!

So McNally chopped and hacked and whittled 3 RCNY § 11-01 down to a manageable size. In his 11/5/2007 Memorandum, McNally eliminated 15 day inspections for buildings undergoing construction and demolition pursuant to Alt 1 and Alt 2 permits and reduced the frequency to 1 time a month from 2 times per month for buildings below a 75 foot height threshold.  With McNally's chopping, hacking and whittling, 3 RCNY § 11-01 now becomes manageable for FDNY.

But why was the need to chop, hack and whittle way 3 RCNY § 11-01 felt by FDNY on 11/5/2007 and not sooner?

Isn't the answer obvious?

Because FDNY was not doing 15 inspections before the tragic August 18, 2007 fire,  the need to escape from the crushing burden of 3 RCNY § 11-01 was never felt!  FDNY felt the crushing burden of 3 RCNY § 11-01 only when the top of FDNY finally decided to put 15 day inspections into practice amongst the rank and file of FDNY. However, implementing 3 RCNY § 11-01 as written would impose a gigantic burden upon the rank and file of FDNY so Scoppetta had McNally take out his red fire ax and whittle 3 RCNY § 11-01 down to a manageable size.

9/11/2001:  Scoppetta knows that 130 Liberty Street is damaged and rendered toxic

6/11/2002:  Scoppetta involved when Deutsche Bank Blocks FDNY's search for 9/11 remains. See FreePetey Article dated 9/5/2007 entitled, 'June 11, 2002 NY Daily News " Bank Blocks Hunt for 9/11 Remains"' by clicking here and the article dated 2/6/2008 entitled, 'Déjà vu all over again!' by clicking here and the article dated 12/2/2007 entitled 'A TALE OF TWO MISSIONS (or One Hand Can't Clap)' by clicking here.

11/5/2003:  Scoppetta present at the reopening of the Ten House. See FreePetey article dated 10/21/2007 entitled 'November 5, 2003: The Reopening of FDNY's the Ten House' by clicking here

5/17/2007: Pipe falls from 130 Liberty Street onto the Ten House.

Why issue the report now? Why not wait until after the Manhattan District Attorney concludes its investigation? This report could well have been released later rather than sooner.  In the tabloids we read about celebrities who get in trouble with the law and then immediately check themselves into a rehabilitation center for drugs or alcohol. The logic behind the behavior of celebrities who get in trouble with the law is the logic behind this report.  The City wants to demonstrate to the Manhattan D.A. that it is doing something to resolve the causes that resulted in the problem.  It is FreePetey's earnest hope that the Manhattan D.A. does not accept this token of reform until the City frees the three innocent fire officers whom FDNY has exiled to the FDNY sidelines and restores them to active duty.  The City's token of reform is insincere and incomplete, until the City restores to them their dignity.

A preliminary review of the report indicates that CDAWG has wrestled with most, if not all, of the issues raised on the FreePetey website. CDAWG, however, gives no credit to FreePetey - not even a footnote. Yet, despite CDAWG's parsimony in attribution, its report completely vindicates and exonerates the three FDNY officers who were hastily and unjustly sidelined after the tragic August 18, 2007 fire at the former Deutsche Bank Building.

FreePetey was worried that, when FDNY's investigation concluded, FDNY would attribute the inspectional lapses to a rogue Captain, a rogue Battalion Chief and a rogue Divisions Chief and falsely claim that they acted like lone wolves by doing their own rogue thing unlike other Captains, Battalion Chiefs and Division Chiefs within the FDNY.  FreePetey was worried that FDNY would conclude that it had the proper systems in place and that the inspectional lapses were the result of human failure within an isolated, limited area of FDNY and not a result of a catastrophic systems failure job wide within the entire FDNY. FreePetey talked about systems failure, for example, in an article dated February 27, 2008 entitled 'Who dropped the ball? FDNY institutions failed not FDNY fire officers' which can be read by clicking here, in an article dated February 9, 2008, entitled, 'FDNY's 'Know-how & knowledge' distribution infrastructure was broken before the August 18, 2007 fatal fire and Scoppetta dropped the ball by not fixing it' which can be read by clicking here. FreePetey also discussed this in an article dated February 6, 2008 entitled, 'Déjà vu all over again!' which can be read by clicking here.  It turns out our worries were unfounded. The FDNY's investigation has concluded and CDAWG'S report "Strengthening the Safety, Oversight and Coordination of Construction, Demolition and Abatement Operations" attributes the inspectional lapses to a catastrophic FDNY systems failure. The inspectional lapses were a catastrophic management malfunction at the very top of FDNY and CDAWG did not attribute the inspectional lapse to any of the three sidelined FDNY officers.  Systems failed; people didn't. FDNY systems were flawed; not FDNY people. And the top of FDNY not its bottom was responsible for the systems that failed. To put it in computer terms, the FDNY operating system failed not FDNY applications. Apparently, FDNY systems failed because FDNY did not have any systems analysts - you know, those guys and gals with the black horn-rimmed glasses and the pocket protectors who are super smart and are the only ones who know what is really going on [FreePetey has a handful of these guys on its staff]- working for FDNY to develop the "detailed process maps" (see the 2nd paragraph on page 2 of the report) that CDAWG developed as a first step in trying to figure out what went wrong.  When the "detailed process maps" were drawn and then analyzed, it became clear to CDAWG that the inspectional lapses resulted from gross defects in the systems that FDNY had in place not the fire officers FDNY had in place and CDAWG has made extensive recommendations to fix FDNY system defects.

In this article, FreePetey will provide its view of the report.  

First, it is important to take note of its title:   "Strengthening the Safety, Oversight and Coordination of Construction, Demolition and Abatement Operations".  CDAWG is juggling three balls here and it is important to watch the three balls bounce in order to understand the meaning of the report.  The three balls being juggled are 1) Construction 2) Demolition and 3) Abatement.  As you watch CDAWG juggle these three balls keep in mind that FDNY is involved with only two of them and not the third. FDNY is involved in Construction and Demolition but not Abatement. By segregating abatement from construction and demolition, CDAWG keeps the FDNY away from any responsibility for inspecting contaminated buildings. "The Department of Environmental Protection (DEP) regulates and inspects abatement operations in the five boroughs." said CDAWG on page 1. "DEP inspectors undergo rigorous training and are well-versed in DEP rules for the proper conduct of abatement operations" on page 11. As FreePetey has said from the beginning, the local firehouses are not trained and equipped to inspect contaminated buildings. CDAWG agrees with FreePetey on this point.   Because FDNY is not to be involved in the abatement of contaminated Buildings, CDAWG does not address the internal FDNY rule that buildings be inspected in ordinary work clothes. See, FreePetey's 2/12/2008 article entitled "Ordinary Work Clothes & the 'snowball effect'" by clicking here.  Firefighters will continue to enter buildings under construction and demolition in ordinary work clothes.  Firefighters will stay out of buildings under abatement and hence the local firehouses need not be equipped with special equipment and training and FDNY need not allocate three units to an inspections - one to inspect, a second to decontaminate and a third to cover.  [Note: Not considered in the report is how FDNY will handle a Class A, B, C, D, E building that is under abatement whose regular cyclical inspection is coming up. Put your thinking caps back on CDAWG. Perhaps the cross-training of DEP inspectors that CDAWG desires or the FDNY SOC mentioned on page 12 will cover this]  This report confirms that the job of inspecting contaminated buildings ought not to be the job of the local firehouses of FDNY.  Even though FDNY was a part of CDAWG and has come to the public conclusion that contaminated buildings are beyond the ability of the local firehouse's to inspect, why is it that the three FDNY fire officers are still being sidelined?  Doesn't the FDNY delegation to CDAWG understand the implications of its own report?

The report begins with the claim that "The City immediately recognized that the fire raised broader questions about the way that construction, demolition and abatement operation are regulated and conducted, and the extent to which the activities of the City agencies primarily responsible for overseeing these operations are coordinated. (Page 1)". This is bullshit- rubbish.  If the City Immediately recognized the broader questions, the City would never have tried to scapegoat the three FDNY officers who were hastily and unjustly sidelined. The City recognized the broader implication not immediately but only after the friends of the three sidelined FDNY officers started to speak up and out to prevent them from being railroaded by their perfidious leader. That is when the City eyes were opened to broader implications. The City's immediate recognition was "Oh, shit, we f@#$ed up!" Don't flatter yourselves with an unwarranted claim of perspicacity. You were blinded by the headlines and the clamor of the rabble and sacrificed three good fire officers to appease them. Disgraceful!

 * * * * * * * * * *

The 3rd Page:  On the third page of the report - it is not numbered - is a list of the members of the Construction, Demolition and Abatement Working Group. Listed is the FDNY's delegates to it.  Question:  How many 15 day inspections did any of the FDNY delegates to CDAWG make, at what addresses and where are the reports?  Did they ever make any? Do they know of anyone who made any?

 * * * * * * * * * *

Page 3:  "... inspectors and other responders must have proper training and personal protective equipment to do the job."  This is what FreePetey has said from the beginning.  See, for but one example, FreePetey's artile of October 5, 2007 entitled 'The Duty to Inspect' by clicking here. The Ten House had neither the training nor the equipment to do the job. Why are the three FDNY fire officers still being sidelined given that CDAWG has publicly acknowledged the exigency of training and equipment?

 * * * * * * * * * *

Page 3:  "12.  DEP should formally establish a policy that strictly limits simultaneous abatement and demolition work, and require a variance - including review by DOB and FDNY - to undertake it.  The single track approach is better than the double track approach because the double track would have FDNY and DEP to overlap.  Single Track eliminates overlapping oversight. Keeping FDNY away from abatement operations allows FDNY to continue to have inspections done by the local firehouse in non-contaminated buildings without the need for special resources being allocated to them for contaminated buildings. Knowing that contaminated buildings are sui generis, why are the three FDNY fire officers still being sidelined?

 * * * * * * * * * *

Page 5:  "FDNY should amend Rule 11-01 and other inspection requirements to establish appropriate frequency and scope of demolition inspections by the Department.  This is discussed below on Page 29. Currently FDNY is operating in violation of the NYC Administrative Procedure Act; yet, FDNY is not sidelining anyone for such violation.

 * * * * * * * * * *

Page 5:  "Non Jurisdictional Buildings 33.  The City should pursue state and federal legislation to require that any building built or demolished in New York City is subject to the City's Building and Fire Codes, regardless of owner. Until that requirement is in place, the City should seek to enter into agreements with Federal, State and international building owners to allow DOB and FDNY to conduct inspections and assure code compliance so that these agencies have critical information about conditions at these properties that could affect public safety.  This will be discussed below. See, for example, the FreePetey Article of December 6, 2007 entitled Jurisdiction Revisited by clicking here.

Page 12 on which it is said "The Working Group also reviewed the capacity of properly trained and equipped ... FDNY personnel to enter containment areas in response to emergency situations or to conduct an inspection.  The members of the FDNY Special Operations Command (SOC) are trained and equipped to enter containment or other hazardous areas that require personal protective equipment ("PPE")."  Notice that CDAWG omits local firehouses as FDNY units trained and equipped to handle contaminated buildings. Does that omission mean anything to the FDNY delegation to CDAWG? FDNY was a part of CDAWG and permitted the CDAWG report to say that only FDNY Special Operations are fit for toxic buildings, yet, why are the three FDNY fire officers still being sidelined? Something is not fair here!

 * * * * * * * * * * 

Page 12:  " FDNY and DOB personnel should be properly trained and equipped to conduct these [abatement operation] inspections ".  What FDNY personnel? FDNY Special Operations not the local fire houses.  The local firehouses are not mentioned in CDAWG's report. How can CDAWG come to the conclusion that contaminated buildings are the responsibility of someone other than the local firehouse, FDNY be part of CDAWG, yet, FDNY continues to sideline the Fire Officers responsible for the local firehouse? Where is the fairness for the three sidelined fire officers?

 * * * * * * * * * * 

Page 13:  "Footnote 33:  To implement this recommendation, DEP, DOB, and FDNY should establish criteria that must be met to conduct simultaneous abatement and demolition, which should be adopted in its rules or internal procedures of each agency. At a minimum, the procedures should (i) require a join evaluation of the proposed operation by DEP, DOB and FDNY; and include (ii) inspection protocols for each agency ...  At a minimum, FDNY ought to have had inspection protocols for a building undergoing abatement and demolition.  Take a look, for example,  at FreePetey's Article dated 5/26/2008, entitled, 'Let's "sideline" them for violating an FDNY protocol that did not exist before the August 18, 2007 fire: Chapter 8, or, First finalize the procedure then Inspect' by clicking here. Or take a look at FreePetey's Article dated 11/5/2007 entitled 'Is Captain Peter Bosco being framed for violating rules that did not exist during his assignment to Ten Engine?' by clicking here. CDAWG says that FDNY ought to have such a protocol. That means that such a protocol did not exist. That means the three officers are being framed for violating a protocol that did not exist! Only in America! In the land of the free and the home of the brave, the little guys get sidelined while the big guys stay in the game!

  * * * * * * * * * *

Page 13:  The Working Group conducted an end-to-end review of the demolition process, including extensive working sessions and site visits with ... FDNY...  CDAWG is claiming here that CDAWG was thorough.  End-to-end review sounds complete. Working sessions and site visits with FDNY sound like no stone was unturned. Kudos to CDAWG for such extraordinary effort! During such an extraordinary investigatory effort, CDAWG certainly asked FDNY personnel "Did you ever do a 15 day inspection for a building under demolition and if so, at what address?"

"How many were done in Fiscal Year 2007?"
"How many were done in Fiscal Year 2006?"
"How many were done in Fiscal Year 2005?"
"How many were done in Fiscal Year 2004?"
"How many were done in Fiscal Year 2003?"
"How many were done in Fiscal Year 2002 when Scoppetta became your Fire Commissioner?"

Surely, an end-to-end review of the demolition process would include such obvious questions like this? Yet, mums the word for CDAWG. CDAWG says next to nothing about FDNY's 15 day inspections of buildings under demolition prior to the tragic fire! FreePetey has commented on them. See the series of FreePetey articles the first one is dated July 8, 2008 and is entitled 'Compare the records of NYC DOB and FDNY" by clicking here. Did CDAWG compare the records? Why was it important for CDAWG to say next to nothing about such inspections? Is it because Scoppetta and his henchmen were members of CDWAG and CDAWG did not want to embarrass its own members.  Meanwhile, the FDNY delegation to CDAWG had no qualms about throwing the three sidelined officers under a bus and keeping them there (Click Here)! Is this the kind of report that comes out when the foxes are in charge of the hen house?

  * * * * * * * * * *

Page 14:  Since 2002, DOB has issued approximately 5,000 demolition permits per year ... Hmmm! Let's count.  5,000 buildings under demolition per year since 2002.  2002 is the year Scopetta occupied the office of FDNY Commissioner.  By 2003, the total would be 10,000. By 2004, the total would be 15,000. By 2005, the total would be 20,000. By 2006, the total would be 25,000. By 2007, the total would be 30,000.  2 inspections per building per month means that FDNY - if FDNY would have actually been doing 15 day inspections of buildings under demolition - would be doing 60,000 inspections per month or 720,000 per year or 4,320,000 in total from 2002 - 2007.  4,320,000 is a shit load lot of 15 day inspection. Moreover, note that this does not include buildings under construction during this time frame. There is a story in the Bible about Abraham and the cities of Sodom and Gomorrah. Abraham asked God, "Will you sweep away the innocent with the guilty?" and started bargaining with God to spare Sodom and Gomorrah if Abraham could find 50 innocent men therein.  Abraham obtained from God a promise to spare the cities if 10 innocent men were found.  So let us ask CDAWG this.  How many of these 4,320,000 15 day demolition inspections during the time that Scoppetta held the office of FDNY Commissioner were actually done by FDNY and if so at what addresses? What do you say CDAWG? Can you show us 50? Can you show us 10?

[Deep Throat has suggested to FreePetey that we now convert these 4,320,000 15 day inspections into FDNY man hours. Once again FreePetey thanks Deep Throat for all the help during these hours of crisis]

Let us assume that a thorough inspection takes 3 hours. Moreover, keep in mind that an inspection is not done by one firefighter. It takes five firefighters to do an inspection.  4,320,000 15 day demolition inspections times 3 hours = 12,960,000.  12,960,000 times 5 men = 64,800,000 man hours from 2002 - 2007 to do the 15 day demolition inspections (the 15 day construction inspections are not included). 64,800,000 man hours is a shit load lot of hours! 1 year is composed of 365 days. In a year there are 24 hours times 365 day = 8760 hours.  To do just the 15 day demolition inspections from 2002-2007 required (64,800,000 man hours divided by 8760 hours) 7397 man years.  In other words, from 2002-2007 a period of 6 years, for FDNY to do the required 15 day demolition inspections, FDNY would have devoted 7397 man years.  Divide that over the 6 years from 2002-2007 and for 15 demolition inspections alone requires 1233 many-years each year.  That's devoting 1233 firefighters 24 hours a day, 7 days a week for the entire year! Obviously, 15 day demolition inspections alone would overburden FDNY let alone 15 day construction inspections, regular inspections of A, B, C, D, and E buildings and the fires that need to be put out.  Is it any wonder that FDNY many decades ago, decided to not do any 15 day inspections at all (Click Here). Such a huge expenditure of FDNY resources - if they were expended at all - would certainly appear on FDNY budgets through the years, no? If such expenditures do not appear on FDNY budgets, the absence would be further confirmation that 15 day inspections were simply not done by FDNY. What did the budgetary allocation look like in FDNY's budget for the conducting of so many man hours of 15 demolition inspections and then add on for the 15 day construction inspections? Does FDNY's budget contain any allocation for any 15 inspections? FreePetey wrote about this in an article dated Sept. 5, 2007 entitled, "Follow the money..." that can be read by clicking here.

Page 27 " Last fall, FDNY determined that some local Companies were not conducting inspections of construction and demolition sites every 15 days ..."  Bullshit. Bullshit. Bullshit. Or as Gomer Pyle used to say to Sergent Carter in a southern twang, "For shame, for shame, for shame." What an abuse of an adjective! How cunning is CDAWG that it has attempted to hide the truth by subsitituting the word,'some' for the word 'all'. 'Some', however, is not a big enough word to cover up the truth. The truth is poking out from underneath it like a big hot dog pokes out of a tiny bun. 'Some' converts CDAWG's report into a work of fiction - poor fiction.  Good try, CDAWG, but you were caught with your pants down and your obfuscation in your hand. "For shame, for shame, for shame." Let us ask a question: if CDAWG knew that all local Companies were not conducting 15 day inspections yet reduced all to some, is such an obfuscation considered the filing of a false instrument? CDAWG what did the FDNY delegation to CDAWG say about the sentence: "Last Fall FDNY determined that some local Companies were not conducting inspections of construction and demolition sites every 15 days." When you ran this sentence by Scoppetta, did he say, "Yeah, that's true?". When you ran this sentence by Cassano, did he agree that it was true? When you ran it by McNalley, did he tell you "some" or "all"? What did Tobin say about it?  CDAWG, did you ask any of the four whether any of them had been involved in a 15 day inspection, and if so, at what addresses?  For shame, for shame, for shame. FreePetey wonders what these four fire officers would say under oath when sworn to tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth.  Every fire officer that FreePetey has interviewed without exception has said that they never conducted any 15 day inspections in their careers. Yet, CDAWG cunningly tries to increase the incidence of 15 day inspections from none to some. CDAWG's cunning use of the word 'some' for 'all' must be understood in light of the other cunning obfuscation that CDAWG used in this report. CDAWG reported on page 25 that 8924 15 day inspections were done in Fiscal Year 2008.  This is obfuscation by omission. CDAWG loudly said nothing about the number of 15 day inspections in prior fiscal years. A strange omission, no? Why is CDAWG embarrassed to give us these numbers in their report?  Again, CDWAG is caught with its pants down and its obfuscation in its hand. For shame, for shame, for shame, By the way, how many buildings is 8,924 15 day inspections in Fiscal Year 2008? 15 day inspections are two a month or 24 a fiscal year per building. 8.924 divided by 24 equals 372 buildings! On Page 14 of the report, CDAWG says that 5000 buildings are being demolished per year. This 5000 number does not include the buildings under construction.  372 compared to 5000. What a shortfall! According to these numbers, FDNY is still not complying with the 15 day mandate! Do you understand why FreePetey calls the inspectional lapses a catastrophic systems failure! Come on, CDAWG, the numbers that you put forth tell us more than you want us to know! For shame, for shame, for shame.

* * * * * * * * * *

Page 28:  Issue 24: Upgrade of FDNY Databases and internal communications and administrative systems. FDNY currently uses multiple databases and paper-based systems that do not facilitate efficient data sharing within and outside the agency.  FreePetey wrote about this in an Article dated 2/9/2008 entitled "FDNY's 'Know-how & knowledge' distribution infrastructure was broken before the August 18, 2007 fatal fire and Scoppetta dropped the ball by not fixing it". It can be read by clicking here. Once again CDAWG has borrowed FreePetey's suggestion.

* * * * * * * * * * 

* * * * * * * * * * 

Page 29: Rec. 28: FDNY should amend Rule 11-01 and other inspection requirements and establish among other things, the appropriate frequency of construction and demolition inspections to maintain public safety. FDNY should revise its rules to reflect its inspection practices and should track and regularly report the results of required inspections under the revised rules.    FreePetey has said that FDNY's unilateral amendment of 3 RCNY §11-01(a) made a lot of sense but was in violation of the NYC Administrative Procedure Act. 

See: FreePetey Article of 1/14/2008 entitled "Is there a double standard? Do only the "little guys" get "sidelined" for violating 3 RCNY § 11-01 or do the "big guys" too?" by clicking here

 Also see, FreePetey Article of 7/8/2008 entitled "Compare the Records of NYC DOB and FDNY" by clicking here

Apparently the Construction, Demolition and Abatement Working Group now agrees with FreePetey.  Will Scoppetta sideline himself and the Big Brass who violated the NYC Administrative Procedure Act or is "sidelining" just reserved for the bottom of FDNY? Is it fair that Scoppetta and the Big Brass can violate the NYC Administrative Procedure Act and not be sidelined? What does Mayor Bloomberg have to say about the Rule of Law within the City of New York?

* * * * * * * * * * 

The official FDNY form that FDNY supervisors used to track inspections within FDNY proves this.

 CLICK ON IMAGE ABOVE TO DOWNLOAD A BIGGER PDF VERSION OF ABOVE INSPECTION TABLE

Only A, B, C, D, and E buildings were tracked.  Buildings under construction and demolition were off the official FDNY radar.  Scoppetta, his top brass and their predecessors did not care whether such inspections were done or not done.

A survey of FDNY officers conducted by FreePetey confirms that inspections of buildings under construction and demolition were simply not done.  Officers with 20, 25 and 30 years of experience universally say that they did not do one such inspection during their entire FDNY careers. Take your own survey.   Ask Cassano whether he did any 15 day inspections during his career at FDNY. Ask McNalley. Ask any of the Borough Chiefs. Ask all of the Division Chiefs. Ask the Battalion Chiefs. Ask the Captains. Ask the Lieutenants. Ask the Fire Fighters.

But remember you don't have to take their word for it. 

All that needs to be done is to compare NYC DOB construction  and demolition permits with FDNY inspection records.

So when someone tells you that he did 15 day inspections of buildings under construction and demolition, ask him for the address of the building. Don't be surprised in asking for the address that fudging begins.  Distrust a fire officer who says that he did inspections of buildings under construction and demolition every 15 days but cannot give you an address.  Ask him how he reported the completion of such inspections on the FDNY computer.  If you get an address, compare the address with the official inspection records of FDNY. Such a comparison will confirm that inspections of buildings under construction and demolition slept on FDNY's books, were never awakened and never put into practice within FDNY until after the tragic August 18, 2007 fire.

Had the top FDNY Brass wanted the local firehouses to do 15 day inspections of buildings under construction and demolition and not just inspect A, B, C, D & E buildings, the top FDNY Brass could have implemented such inspections.  Look how the top FDNY Brass implemented them after the tragic August 18, 2007 fire! However, you cannot blame three dedicated and diligent firefighters for not doing something that the top FDNY Brass had absolutely no expectation of them doing before the tragic August 18, 2007 fire. Its like punishing your children for failing to do something that you never told them they must do.  That's just not fair! Its not fair especially when the practice of not inspecting buildings under construction and demolition is a decades old FDNY practice.

"But the chiefs said it was hard to believe that city officials did not realize that, for decades, the inspection rule has been one of the hardest to enforce." Note: Al Baker wrote an article in the NY Times on 9/8/2007 about it entitled "Fire Chiefs Say Inspection Rule Defies Reality". It can be read by clicking here.

Strasser is very angry. He strides across the floor toward Renault who is standing at the bar.

Strasser:  You see what I mean. If Lazlo's presence in a cafe can inspire this unfortunate demonstration, what more will his presence in Casablanca bring on? I advise that this place be shut up at once.

Renault: (innocently) But everybody's having such a good time.

Strasser:  Yes, much too good a time. The place is to be closed.

Renault:  But I have no excuse to close it.

Strasser:  (snapping) Find one. 

Several French officers surround Lazlo, offering him a drink.

Renault thinks for a moment then blows a loud blast on his whistle.  The room grows quiet, all eyes turn to Renault.

Renault: (loudly) Everybody is to leave here immediately! This cafe is closed until further notice!

An angry murmur starts among the crowd. People get up and begin to leave.

Rick comes quickly up to Renault.

Rick:  How can you close me up. On what grounds? 

Renault:  I am shocked, shocked to find that gambling going on in here!

This display of nerve leaves Rick at a loss.  The croupier comes out of the gambling room and up to Renault. He hands him a roll of bills.

Croupier:  Your winnings, sir.

Renault:  Oh. Thank you very much.

Here are the questions that FreePetey would like Perfidious Nick to answer (with Perfidious Nick's expected responses:

Question: How many buildings were constructed and demolished in the City of New York from the time you became Commissioner to August 18, 2007?

Answer: I don't know the exact number.

Question: Can you estimate?

Answer: I can't estimate?

Question: Isn't knowledge about the number of buildings under construction and demolition important so that you can make sure that FDNY devotes adequate resources to such inspections?

Answer: Yes.

Question: In other words, the allocation of FDNY resources would be vastly different if there were only 10 buildings under construction and  demolition during the 5 and 3/4 years you held the position of Fire Commissioner than if there were 10,000 of such buildings, correct?

Answer: Yes.

Question:  Mr. Commissioner, we subpoenaed the construction and demolition permits from the NYC Dept. of Buildings for the 5 and 3/4 years you held the position of Fire Commissioner. We learned from the NYC Dept. of Buildings that there were 15,236 (note: this is only a guess; the actual number may be more; the actual number may be less) under construction and demolition during your tenure as Fire Commissioner.  Does that number sound right?

Answer: I have no idea.

Question:  Mr. Commissioner, how many of these 15,236 buildings were inspected every 15 days by FDNY?

Answer:  I am not sure.

Question: You are the Fire Commissioner, are you not?

Answer: Yes, I think so.

Question:  Mr. Commissioner wouldn't it be important for the Commissioner of the FDNY to know how many of the buildings being constructed and demolished are being inspected every 15 days by FDNY and how many are not?

Answer: Yes, but I don't know.

Question:  Can you tell us in percentage terms how many were inspected every 15 days? Would it be 100%? Would it be 75%? Would it be 50%? Would it be 25%? Or would it be 0%?

Answer: I don't know.

Question: Mr. Commissioner, we subpoenaed the FDNY inspection records for the 5 and 3/4 years you held the position of Fire Commissioner. We matched these records against the construction and demolition permits of the NYC Building Department.   Mr. Commissioner, would you be surprised to learn that not one of these 15,236 buildings were inspected by FDNY every 15 days?

Answer: -silence- 

Question:  Mr. Commissioner, when did you find out that FDNY did not inspect any buildings under construction and demolition during your tenure as Fire Commissioner?

Answer: -silence-

Question: Mr. Commissioner. if no unit of the FDNY was inspecting buildings under construction and demolition during your tenure as Fire Commissioner, was it fair to "sideline" Bosco, McDonald and Fuerch for not doing such inspections when every officer from the lowly lieutenant to yourself at the top of hierarchy was not doing such inspections or causing such inspections to be done?

Answer: -silence-

Al Baker wrote an article in the NY Times on 9/8/2007 about it entitled "Fire Chiefs Say Inspection Rule Defies Reality". It can be read by clicking here.  Al Baker began the artilce by saying

Within days of the fatal fire at the former Deutsche Bank building last month, the Bloomberg administration said it would investigate whether other large buildings being built or torn down were being properly inspected by fire companies every 15 days, as required. New York City has yet to announce the findings of that inquiry. . .

It is nearly a year later and still NYC has yet to announce the findings of that inquiry.

Al Baker commented that

The Bloomberg officials had characterized the requirement as an important safety precaution and cited it as the rationale for reassigning a local engine company’s commander whose firefighters had not inspected the bank building in the months preceding the fire, in which two firefighters died.

It seems "the Bloomberg officials" did not know that FDNY has never implemented within its rank and file 15 day inspections of buildings under construction and demolition.  It is a rule that is on FDNY's books but it is a rule that FDNY for at least 25 years has never implemented. The officers of the local firehouses were never instructed to conduct inspections of buildings under construction and demolition by their Battallion Chiefs; the Battallion Chiefs were never instructed to conduct such inspections by their Division Chiefs; the Divisions chiefs were never instructed to conduct such inspection by their Boro Commanders; the Boro Commanders were never instructed to conduct such inspections by the Chief of Department; the Chief of Department was never instructed to conduct such inspections by the FDNY Commissioner. 15 day inspections for buildings under construction and demolition were on FDNY's books but such  inspections were dormant - never put into practice by FDNY. This dormancy existed before Scoppetta.  Scoppetta too inherited it.

Al Baker continued in his NY Times arcticle of 9/8/2007 entitled "Fire Chiefs Say Inspection Rule Defies Reality" Click here saying:

But the chiefs said it was hard to believe that city officials did not realize that, for decades, the inspection rule has been one of the hardest to enforce.

 The Baker article continued:

“It is impossible to keep up with these 15-day inspections because each year the number of construction, demolition and alteration sites increases as does the number of our responses to emergencies,” said Deputy Chief Richard J. Alles, an official of the Uniformed Fire Officers Association.

“We know that headquarters knows all this,” said Chief Alles. “They are not living in a vacuum.”

 The Baker article continued:

 Fire Department rules specifically require buildings under demolition to be inspected every 15 days,” the mayor said. Continuing, he said, “We do not know why the Fire Department did not inspect the building, nor inspect the standpipe. The regulations clearly call for it and it’s Engine 10, which is right next door, that had the responsibility to do that.”

 Have you asked, Mr. Mayor, the results of a comparison between NYC DOB's construction and demolition permits and FDNY's inspection records for the same buidlings? The numbers are there, Mr. Mayor and the blame does not belong to the bottom of the FDNY hierarchy.

The Baker article continued:

But Mr. Scoppetta stressed in his interview yesterday that Captain Bosco and the two other officers were not disciplined, in his view. Rather, he said, they have been put on the sidelines while the various investigations run their course.

It's lonely on the sidelines.  After all this time there, neither Scoppetta nor Bloomberg has offered a single kind word to the three wrongfully sidelined fire officers.

The Baker article continued: 

“It seems to me that the discipline was a little heavy-handed and overreacting,” said former Assistant Chief Stanley P. Dawe, who retired in 2004 as the chief of the Fire Prevention Bureau.

 Mr. Baker ended his article saying:

Retired Chief Dawe said the department should also review the failure of anyone at headquarters to notice that no 15-day inspection reports from the Deutsche Bank building were filed for months after inspections ceased in 2006.

“Were they not reading the reports?” he said. “Were they not analyzing the reports correctly? Was the information that inspections were not being conducted included in the reports but hidden in the numbers?”

He added, “I am not sure how they could not know.”

 CLICK ON IMAGE ABOVE TO DOWNLOAD A BIGGER PDF VERSION OF ABOVE INSPECTION TABLE

In our last blog entry, we suggested that a comparison be made of FDNY inspection records and NYC DOB permits for the construction and demolition of buildings.  By doing this, it would become clear that - as a matter of well-established policy and long standing practice - FDNY did not inspect buildings under construction or demolition. The comparison will show that, for each NYC DOB construction and demolition permit, there is no corresponding records of FDNY inspections every 15 days.  When the comparison is done, be sure not to forget the time dimension of such a comparison. Go back 5 years, 10 years, 15 years, 20 years, 25 years.  This was not an isolated policy of some rogue battalions and divisions. This was the policy and practice of FDNY job-wide more than 25 years in place.

This job wide well-established policy and long standing practice pre-existed Scoppetta. Scoppetta too inherited it. Al Baker wrote an article in the NY Times on 9/8/2007 about it entitled "Fire Chiefs Say Inspection Rule Defies Reality". It can be read by clicking here.

Therefore, the sidelining of the three dedicated and diligent fire officers was shocking - putting aside the toxicity of 130 Liberty Street for the moment - because they were being sidelined for following a job wide well-established policy and long standing practice of FDNY.  Non - inspection of buildings under construction and demolition was the norm not the exception.

Scoppetta knew this. The big chiefs at headquarters knew this. Yet, despite knowing this, Bosco, McDonald and Fuerch were sidelined.  Disgraceful!

Take a look at the form above that was used by FDNY to monitor the FDNY inspection process for units in the field.  FDNY did not monitor buildings under demolition and construction. There is no place for such buildings on the official FDNY form.  All FDNY cared about was the A, B, C, D, & E buildings.  Those are the classification of buildings on the form.  Don't you think that if buildings under construction and demolition were being monitored there would have been a slot for them on the official FDNY form? That there is no slot for buildings under demolition and construction confirms that FDNY job wide well-established policy and long standing practice was to ignore such buildings. FDNY's computer program prior to the August 2007 fire did not even have a drop down box so that a 15 day inspection of a building under construction and demolition could be registered!

The only shocking thing would be if Scoppetta and the big FDNY chiefs deny knowledge of this but claim that they thought that FDNY was inspecting buildings under demolition and construction.  A simple comparison of the NYC DOB construction and demolition permits with the corresponding FDNY inspection records would prove that such a denial of knowledge would be bullshit- well, at least - untrue.

The actual text of the fifteen day rule says that

Deputy Chiefs shall cause continued inspections of buildings in the course of construction and demolition at least every fifteen (15) days, but more often where conditions dictate. 3 RCNY 11-01(a)  click here.

FDNY's 75 foot distinction cut down inspections to 12 times per year instead of 24 times per year for buildings under construction and demolition.

But what was FDNY doing before the tragic fire? What was the established practice and policy of FDNY?

Keep in mind that before the tragic fire, there was no choice for an inspection of a building under construction or demolition in the drop down box of FDNY's computer program in which inspections were reported to headquarters. It was as if FDNY did not care about inspections of buildings under construction and demolition!

FDNY classified buildings using letter designations A, B, C, D, and E.  'A' buildings were inspected 1x per year. E buildings were inspected 1x every 5 years.  On information and belief, 130 Liberty Street was an E building. In every firehouse in the City of New York was a cabinet in which the 'A' buildings were in their own section separate and apart from the 'B' buildings which were in their own section separate and apart from the 'C' buildings etc. etc. This inspection cabinet did not have a separate section for buildings under construction and demolition.  Before the fatal fire, FDNY only inspected A, B, C, D & E buildings. FDNY did not inspect buildings under construction and demolition. This was a job wide practice.  FDNY inspected A, B, C, D, and E buildings. 

FDNY did not inspect buildings under construction and demolition. To sideline three dedicated and diligent fire officers for not doing something that the entire fire department was not doing is a heinous miscarriage of justice.  If the top of FDNY wanted such inspections to be done, the top of FDNY should have implemented 3 RCNY 11-01(a) (click here). Don't blame the fire officers in the field when the top of FDNY failed to implement 3 RCNY 11-01(a) (click here).  The Captain of the local firehouse, his battalion chief and his division chief would have done the job if job had been given to them.  The job of inspecting buildings under construction and demolition was not given to fire fighters in the field. The top of FDNY did not give them the job of inspecting buildings under construction and demolition.  Put aside the toxicity of this particular building for the moment.  The top of FDNY did not implement 3 RCNY 11-01(a) (click here). 

Am I correct in my assertion?

To find out, all that needs to be done is a comparison of NYC DOB's permits for construction and demolition with FDNY's inspections records for the same buildings. 

What will such a comparison disclose? 

It will show that FDNY did not inspect buildings under construction and demolition at all before the fatal August fire.

This ommission is not the fault of the bottom of FDNY but of the very top of FDNY. It seems that FDNY sidelined the wrong suspects.  Has Mayor Bloomberg asked FDNY Commissioner Scoppetta what are the results of the comparison of NYC DOB's permits for construction and demolition with FDNY's inspections records for the same buildings? This would tell him that an injustice has been done to the three sidelined fire officers. A leader worthy of higher office would not let such an injustice stand uncorrected. How about it Mr. Mayor? Are you a leader worthy of higher office? So far you have not demonstrated that you are worthy. You take the side of your tea and crumpet cronies (Click Here) and have no compassion for the little guy. That is what we have said here in this blog and that is what the Governor of the State of New York has just recently said. Prove to us it is not true, Mr. Mayor.  Free the three dedicated and diligent fire officers from the sidelines.