The inspector placed an internal supervisor note — the “handyman” label and the representative’s complaints to elected officials — inside a single July 18, 2025 email addressed to the owner’s friend and copied to the owner, rather than in a separate, supervisor-only message.
A city inspector was emailing back and forth with a friend of the property owner about an upcoming inspection. On July 18, 2025 he sent one email to that friend, with the owner copied, and added his own supervisor to it. S.10 Most of the email is normal inspection talk — what was built in the backyard, the wiring added to the front of the house, and how to get it permitted. S.10 But inside the same email is a side note to his supervisor: that he had left some paperwork on the supervisor’s desk, that he was calling the property’s representative “the handyman,” and that this person had been complaining about the case to city council, a councilman, the mayor, and the police chief. S.10 That kind of note is internal staff business; the normal way to send it is a separate message to the supervisor only, not a message addressed to the owner’s friend with the owner copied. Douglas Pierson held the title of Supervising Building Inspector, Housing and Dangerous Buildings. City Code Enforcement Contacts This detail only became visible because the owner’s side obtained the City’s records and the actual scanned email was read by hand — the wording does not show up in a text search of the case file, since it exists only as a scanned image. R.26-1965
Bottom line: the city’s own scanned email shows the inspector putting an internal note to his supervisor — including a label for the owner’s representative and a list of who that person had complained to — inside a single email that went to the owner’s friend and the owner, instead of keeping it as a separate, supervisor-only message.On July 18, 2025 at 7:28:50 a.m., the assigned inspector sent one email — subject “Re: 4800 T St.” — addressed to the property owner’s friend, with the property owner and the inspector’s supervisor on copy. S.10 The message opens “Karin,” and runs as owner-facing correspondence: it covers the pending inspection, the storage shed and work room built in the backyard, the electrical added to the front of the house, and what is needed to get the property “back to what it was prior to work performed there, or get it permitted.” S.10 In that same paragraph block the inspector writes “I have also added my supervisor to the email,” then turns and addresses the supervisor directly: “Doug, I left paper work on your desk that was provided to me from the handyman on the property for you to look at. The handyman has sent complaints to city council, councilman Guerra, the mayor, the chief, etc.” S.10 That note — a characterization of the property representative as “the handyman” and a list of whom the representative had complained to — is internal supervisor business, delivered inside a message whose addressed recipient is the owner’s friend and whose copy list includes the owner. Douglas Pierson’s title, Supervising Building Inspector, Housing and Dangerous Buildings, appears on the City’s own contacts page. City Code Enforcement Contacts
This detail became visible only because the owner’s side obtained the City’s records and the actual scanned email was read by hand — the language does not appear in a text search of the case file, because it exists only as a scanned image. S.10 R.26-1965
The City-produced scan shows a single email dated July 18, 2025 7:28:50 a.m., subject “Re: 4800 T St.,” To the owner’s friend ([email protected]), Cc the property owner ([email protected]) and the supervisor ([email protected]). S.10 The supervisor’s title — Supervising Building Inspector, Housing and Dangerous Buildings — is on the City’s own contacts page. City Code Enforcement Contacts
The body begins “Karin,” and addresses the inspection, the storage shed and work room built in the backyard, the front-of-house electrical added with extension cords, and getting the property permitted or restored to its prior state. S.10
The same message says, in the owner-facing text, “I have also added my supervisor to the email” S.10 — the single send, as composed, put the supervisor on the owner-facing thread.
Directly after the supervisor-addition line, addressed to “Doug”: “I left paper work on your desk that was provided to me from the handyman on the property for you to look at. The handyman has sent complaints to city council, councilman Guerra, the mayor, the chief, etc.” S.10
The “handyman” characterization of the representative and the list of the representative’s complaints to elected officials sit inside a message addressed to the owner’s friend and copied to the owner — content the ordinary handling would carry in a separate, supervisor-only email. S.10
The City’s own scan shows one email, sent to the owner’s friend and copied to the owner, carrying both owner-facing inspection content and an internal note to the inspector’s supervisor. S.10 The owner-facing text itself states the supervisor was “added to the email,” and the supervisor note then characterizes the representative as “the handyman” and lists his complaints to city council, Councilman Guerra, the Mayor, and “the chief.” S.10 The produced record shows internal staff-management content and a label for the representative placed in front of the owner side of the case.
The strongest City response is that the inspector was efficiently handling a single thread, the supervisor was a copied recipient who needed the update, and combining the owner-facing note with the supervisor note in one message was a harmless administrative shortcut. The supervisor being on copy does not explain placing the internal note inside a message addressed to the owner’s friend, where the owner side reads it. S.10 That note characterizes the representative as “the handyman” and lists his complaints to city council, the Mayor, and “the chief” — internal staff-management content with no owner-facing purpose. The ordinary handling was a separate, supervisor-only message; the City’s own scan shows it was not done that way. This is a record-handling point in an enforcement case carrying notices, penalties, and permit consequences. A native email showing the supervisor note was sent separately would disprove the claim. No such record has been produced. R.26-1965 Card 47
