In the wake of the shark feeding frenzy at the Richmond City Council last Tuesday night set off by a series of articles by a single journalist, I submit that the subject is sufficiently complex to deserve a more objective approach by the City Council.
This is, first of all, not an effort to defend or excuse any of the management deficiencies that exist in the Housing Authority, and believe me, they do exist. But it is an effort to place the issues in a context that is much different than that portrayed by series of articles and the heated pronouncements of “shocked” City Council members. The City Council smelled blood in the water, and they went after the city manager and the housing authority director with a vengeance I have seldom seen, all based on the reporting of a single person. I think it is time for cooler heads to prevail and to step back and take time to find out what the facts are.
One of the things that makes Bill Lindsay a good manager and a good leader is the way he stands behind his staff. This doesn’t mean that he tolerates poor performance, but it does mean that he believes in providing resources, training and mentoring to correct deficiencies rather than simply firing people.
Nowhere is this better demonstrated than when a group of African American police officers accused Chief Magnus of gross racial discrimination, insensitivity and retaliation. Lawsuits were filed in both state and federal court. The press jumped all over it. the NAACP was outraged. Seemingly incriminating videos were widely circulated. Several councilmembers suggested it was time for Magnus to go and that the City should bite the bullet and pay millions to make the problem go away. But Lindsay stuck by his chief, as ultimately did the City Council. Magnus was exonerated. The court challenges were thrown out. Ultimately, all the litigation was abandoned. All this didn’t mean that the Police Department was perfect; however. Policies and programs were instituted that were intended to address even the perception of racism or racial insensibilities.
Another example is the Port Department. A scathing 2012 audit found almost unbelievable mismanagement, But instead of reacting by summarily firing the director, Lindsay provided resources and guidance to address the numerous deficiencies, and the department and the City are better off for it. In the Port case, there was no feeding frenzy and no calls by the City Council for firings and resignations. In fact, just the opposite happened. The same Council members who expressed the most outrage at the Housing Authority revelations chastised me for even bringing the subject to public attention.
Lindsay has demonstrated, however, that he knows when the time has come to cut someone loose, as he did Leslie Knight. But to his credit, he did not rush to judgment based on media coverage, allegations and pressure from some councilmembers. He first conducted a thorough investigation and acted when the time was ripe.
Managing a city is not a piece of cake. Due to increasing costs not matched by rising revenues, the number of Richmond employees is about half what it was at the turn of the 21st Century. Yet by most measurements, the City is far better off today. Crime continues to plummet. Streets are in the best condition they have been in for years. Parks are well cared for. Based on the semi-annual survey, residents continue to increase their satisfaction with city services and the quality of life in Richmond.
Managing a housing authority is even more challenging than managing a city. All the funding comes from HUD and is based on formulas rather than needs. Operation is required to conform to a labyrinth of sometimes conflicting federal regulations. Like the City, the Housing Authority has been forced to cut staff due to funding constraints. If a roof is leaking, it doesn’t mean that HUD is automatically going to buy you a new roof.
All of the preceding was for context. Now let’s look at the specific allegations raised in the recent articles. There are some very strange things about both the allegations and the reaction of certain councilmembers to them.
First of all, most of this is old news. With the exception of claims of mistreatment and inattention to maintenance requests and security by tenants, the fodder for most of the criticisms was information derived from documents preceding an action taken by the entire City Council about a year ago, all of which is pubic record. As a result of unacceptably low scores on the Public Housing Assessment System (PHAS) for previous years as late as 2011, HUD did, in fact, conduct an extensive investigation of the Housing Authority operations. The documents cited in the articles were those released by HUD in conjunction with their assessment. Note that on Tuesday night, the only suggested remedy Nat Bates would acknowledge, in the face of repeated prodding by Jovanka Beckles, was an investigation by HUD. This has not only occurred, but the City Council knows it and authorized a recovery plan just last year.
Here is what happened.
On April 12, 2012, HUD concluded an assessment of the Richmond Housing Authority and worked with the City to prepare a recovery plan which was provided by HUD on January 23, 2013. The Recovery Plan listed three areas of concern under governance and five areas of concern under finance designed to improve RHA’s financial position, increase their PHAS rating and ensure ongoing sustainability.
RESOLUTION NO. 1964 RESOLUTION OF THE BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS OF THE HOUSING AUTHORITY OF THE CITY OF RICHMOND APPROVING AND AUTHORIZING THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR TO EXECUTE THE PUBLIC HOUSING AGENCY RECOVERY AND SUSTAINIBILITY (PHARS) 2013 RECOVERY PLAN WITH THE U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT (HUD)
WHEREAS, HUD annually evaluates a public housing authority’s management of its public housing program using four tools, referred to collectively as the Public Housing Assessment System (PHARS) and the housing authority has not scored well in the financial conditions indicator; and
WHEREAS, due to RHA’s financially troubled rating, HUD assigned a PHARS team to identify the causes of RHA’s troubled financial performance and to work with RHA to develop a recovery action plan to move RHA from a troubled status to a sustainably standard or high performer status ; and
WHEREAS, the PHARS team conducted their assessment from December 12, 2011 to April 2012 , and a copy of the assessment was received on August 8, 2012, which was forwarded to all members of the Housing Authority Board of Commissioners; and
WHEREAS, written responses were provided to the initial assessment which were also forwarded to all members of the RHA Board of Commissioners an d several follow - up meetings were held with the PHARS Team and the members of RHA staff, the RHA Board Chair and the City Manager to finalize the PHARS Recovery Plan; and
WHEREAS, the final Recovery Plan from HUD on Wednesday January 23, 2013 and the Recovery Plan lists three areas of concern under governance and five areas of concern under finance designed to improve RHA’s financial position, increase their PHAS rating and ensure ongoing sustainability ; and WHEREAS; RHA staff is committed to working with HUD and successfully improving all areas of concern identified in the recovery plan and request board approval and authorization to execute the plan.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE COMMISSIONERS OF THE HOUSING AUTHORITY OF THE CITY OF RICH MOND, COUNTY OF CONTRA COSTA, STATE OF CALIFORNIA, THAT: The Executive Director is authorized to execute the Public Housing Agency Recovery and Sustainability (PHARS) Plan with the U. S. Department of Housing and Urban Development and the Executive Director is hereby further authorized to take all actions necessary to implement the foregoing resolution.
On February 5, 2013, the City of Richmond Housing Authority Board of Commissioners adopted Resolution 1964 to authorize entering into the agreement with HUD to institute the plan.
From the February 5, 2103 Minutes:
A motion by Councilmember/Commissioner Thompson, seconded by Councilmember/Commissioner Butt, adopted Resolution No. 1964, approving and authorizing execution of the Public Housing Agency Recovery and Sustainability (PHARS) Agreement with the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, by the following vote: Ayes: Commissioners Boardmembers/ Councilmembers Bates, Beckles, Butt, Myrick, Vice Chairperson/Vice Mayor Boozé, and Chairperson/Mayor McLaughlin; Housing Authority Tenant Commissioner Thompson .Noes: None. Absent: Commissioner/Boardmember/Councilmember Rogers and Tenant Commissioner Hall. Abstain: None
The pertinent documents can be fund as follows:
It is noteworthy that at the time this item was discussed, not one person, including any tenants, made a complaint about the operation or maintenance of Housing Authority units. The two Housing Authority Tenant Commissioners supported it without comment. Vice-Mayor Booze, appointed by the mayor as liaison between the Housing Advisory Commission and the City Council said nothing and voted in favor of the resolution.
Why is this noteworthy? Because as of January 23, 2013, any previous misconduct or mismanagement at the Richmond Housing Authority was water under the bridge, not necessarily justified or excused, but as far as HUD was concerned, it was history. It was time to move forward.
One of the “workout” provisions (“Measures to Achieve Outcome”) of the HUD Recovery Plan was some continuing education for the Richmond Housing Authority Board/City Council regarding procurement.
The Housing Authority Board and Advisory Council attend HUD-sponsored Board training. Proper oversight of housing authority measured by compliance with Recovery Agreement, and meeting minutes which show proper oversight and actions relating to housing authority.
Soon thereafter, a HUD representative came to the City Council meeting and made a lengthy PowerPoint presentation about HUD procurement policies. The Richmond Housing Authority does, in fact, have a really poor record of procurement compliance, including as reported in the investigative articles, that a former employee was arranging contracts for a relative in violation of HUD regulations. However, one of the most recent violations was not by RHA staff but by the Housing Authority Board of Commissioners, which consists of the City Council plus two public housing tenant representatives, who rejected a security services procurement recommendation by staff who had followed procedures, and approved a contract with a lower ranked firm based on the fact that the firm was “local.” Nat Bates and Corky Booze, who led the outrage at the February 18 City Council meeting, were the primary advocates of violating procurement policy.
In March 0f 2013, the Richmond Housing Authority had already taken measures to resolve portions of five of the eight original deficiencies identified by HUD. The due dates for correcting various deficiencies ranged from various times throughout 2013 to dates that have not yet occurred in 2014. Resolution 1965 authorized reporting progress to HUD:
RESOLUTION NO. 1965 RESOLUTION OF THE BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS OF THE HOUSING AUTHORITY OF THE CITY OF RICHMOND AUTHORIZING THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR TO SUBMIT COMPLIANCE VERIFICATION WITH SECTIONS G001B, G001C, F001A, F002A, and F004A OF THE PUBLIC HOUSING AGENCY RECOVERY AND SUSTAINIBILITY (PHARS) 2013 AGREEMENT TO THE U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT (HUD)
WHEREAS, the PHARS team from HUD conducted their assessment from December 12, 2011 to April 2012 , and a copy of the assessment was received on August 8, 2012, which was forwarded to all members of the Housing Authority Board of Commissioners ; and
WHEREAS, written responses to the initial assessment which were also forwarded to all members of the RHA Board of Commissioners , and the final version of the Recovery Agreement was received from HUD on January 23, 2013, and at the February 5, 2013 meeting the RHA Board authorized execution of the agreement ; and .
WHEREAS, The Recovery Agreement lists three areas of concern under governance and five areas of concern under finance designed to improve RHA’s financial position, increase the PHAS rating and ensure ongoing sustainability ; and
WHEREAS, RHA staff is requesting Board approval to submit verification of compliance with Section G001B, which requires a resolution from the City that there should be no further accrual of interest on any obligations the City considers owed to them from past financial transactions and that the City has confirmed and the RHA concurs that there has not ever been , nor ever will be , interest charge d to the Housing Authority obligations ; and
WHEREAS, Section G001C requires a resolution from the City that it will suspend charging the Housing Authority for centralized costs and/or indirect cost allocations until a cost allocation plan is submitted to and approved by HUD, and charges have been suspended and the cost allocation plan has been submitted to HUD on March 8 , 2013 for review and approval; and
WHEREAS, Section F001A requires that the Housing Authority develop Internal Control Policies to be adopted for Housing Authority use and these policies have been developed and submitted to HUD for review and approval on March 14, 2013; and
WHEREAS, Section F002A requires that the Housing Authority adopt a procurement policy that complies with federal and state requirements and spells out responsibilities, including file maintenance and record retention, and the procurement policies have been developed and submitted for HUD review and approval on March 7, 2013 ; and
WHEREAS, Section F004A of the PHARS Agreement requires that the Housing Authority Finance Department be placed under the control of the City’s Finance Department, and this transition was undertaken and completed on March 5, 2012 ; and
WHEREAS; RHA staff is committed to working with HUD and successfully improving all areas of concern identified in the PHARS Agreement and request Board approval and authorization to adopt this resolution and submit it to HUD as verification of compliance with those Sections identified.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE COMMISSIONERS OF THE HOUSING AUTHORITY OF THE CITY OF RICHMOND, COUNTY OF CONTRA COSTA, STATE OF CALIFORNIA, THAT: The Executive Director is authorized to submit compliance verification with t he above cited sections of the Public Housing Agency Recovery and Sustainability (PHARS) Agreement to the U. S. Department of Housing and Urban Development and the Executive Director is hereby further authorized to take all actions necessary to implement the foregoing resolution.
The March 26, 2013, Minutes state:
On motion of Commissioner Rogers, seconded by Vice Chairperson Boozé adopted Resolution No. 1965 authorizing the executive director to submit verification of compliance with the HUD Public Housing Assessment Recovery and Sustainability (PHARS) Agreement by the unanimous vote of the Richmond Housing Authority Commissioners.
Once again, not one person, including any tenants, made a complaint about the operation or maintenance of Housing Authority units. The two Housing Authority Tenant Commissioners supported it without comment. Vice-Mayor Booze, appointed by the mayor as liaison between the Housing Advisory Commission and the City Council said nothing and voted in favor of the resolution.
In summary, both the City Council and HUD were aware of virtually all of the “media exposed” operational and management shortcomings of the Housing Authority as recently as last year, and the City Council voted unanimously to pursue a recovery plan. There were no calls for resignations, no expressions of outrage, and in fact, little discussion at all. HUD, the city manager and the city council all knew there was a problem and were taking steps to address it.
The only thing new in the recent media blitz were the allegations of mistreatment and lack of responsiveness to individual tenants. What was reported may or may not have been accurate, but it surely deserves to be verified and examined in context by the City Council before leaping to conclusions and calling for resignations. What happened Tuesday night was irresponsible.
It is important to understand that public housing in Richmond remains immensely popular. Hundreds, if not thousands, of people remain on the wait list for a public housing unit in Richmond and, despite any shortcomings by the Housing Authority, would take the place of any of the recent complainants in a heartbeat.
Finally, the strangest thing of all is that until the critical articles authored by Amy Julia Harris came out on February 14 through 17, no one had brought any of the individual tenant mismanagement and mistreatment complaints to the attention of the city manager or most council members. Not the Housing Advisory Commission. Not the individual tenants. Not Councilmember Booze whose job it is as liaison to communicate Housing Authority issues to the City Council. It appears that Booze had been aware of the allegations but instead of sharing them with the City Council, sat on them until after the articles were published and then spent two hours expressing outrage about the revelations and interrogating the Housing Authority director.
When the City Council adopted the Recovery Plan in February 2013, there was no media coverage at all, no Amy Julia Harris, no tenant complaints and no Housing Advisory Commission comments. There was not a word from Nat Bates or Corky Booze. Where was everyone?
The purpose and duties of the Housing Advisory Commission (RMC 3.48.020) are:
The purpose of this commission is to advise the commissioners of the housing authority on all matters concerning the administration of the housing authority. The commission shall:
- Review the operations and proposed activities of the housing authority and submit recommendations to the commissioners of the housing authority. Final decisions with respect to such recommendations shall be made by the commissioners of the housing authority;
(2) Communicate with tenants and tenant organizations at the housing authority concerning housing problems and potential solutions;
(3) Establish and maintain working relationships with organizations responsible for public housing development in the city;
(4) Perform such duties as may from time to time be requested by the commissioners of the housing authority.
This particularly begs the question, “Where was the Housing Advisory Commission?” These commissioners were appointed by the mayor. If they are not doing their job, they should be replaced. But instead of fixing the Housing Advisory Commission, the mayor inexplicably appointed three City Councilmembers, including herself, to take on the job of the Housing Advisory Commission.
Finally, I know we have problems at the Housing Authority, and I know that some of them that should have been fixed, like procurement, remain challenges. We clearly need to get to the bottom of this and do whatever we can to make it work better, but the events that took place on Tuesday were not the way to begin. I hope we can do better in the future.
One of the remedies cited by HUD for failure to achieve success in the Recovery Plan is “…contracting out of the Authority’s management operations to an alternate HUD approved management agent.” That might be a good solution. The City of Richmond makes no money operating public housing and in fact has had to subsidize it from the general fund, taking money away from other critical needs. We do it simply because providing subsidized housing to our low income residents is the right thing to do. We can still do that and let HUD run it and avoid all the problems of running an underfunded program that is invariably going to result in criticisms.
Want to receive TOM BUTT E-FORUM and other action alerts on Richmond political and community issues delivered to your email address? Email your name and email address and/or the names and email addresses of others who would like to be placed on the mailing list and the message "subscribe" to tom.butt@intres.com. Comments, arguments and corrections are welcome. Tom Butt is a member of the Richmond City Council when opinions and views expressed, without other attribution, in TOM BUTT E-FORUM, they are those of Tom Butt and do not reflect official views or positions of the City of Richmond or the Richmond City Council unless otherwise noted. Visit the Tom Butt website for additional information about Tom Butt's activities on the Richmond City Council: http://www.tombutt.com. Phone 510/236-7435 or 510/237-2084. Subscription to this service is at the personal discretion of the recipient and may be terminated by responding with “unsubscribe.” It may take a few days to remove addresses from the distribution list.
This site may contain copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available in our efforts to advance understanding of environmental, political, human rights, economic, democracy, scientific, and social justice issues, etc. We believe this constitutes a 'fair use' of any such copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law. In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, the material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. For more information go to: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml. If you wish to use copyrighted material from this site for purposes of your own that go beyond 'fair use', you must obtain permission from the copyright owner.
To the extent that content is excerpted under the fair use doctrine from other media, I urge readers to subscribe to the print versions of these media to help support professional journalism and the businesses that publish news, and I urge readers to log in to the online versions to access additional content, related content and unrelated news. I especially appreciate local sources of news that include the Contra Costa Times , the San Francisco Chronicle, Richmond Confidential and the East Bay Express.
|
