📋
Extracted from Consolidated Report

This investigation was originally published as part of a larger consolidated report containing multiple investigations. View the consolidated PDF for the complete document.

San Joaquin County Grand Jury • 2008-2009

The Housing Authority of the County of San Joaquin

5 pages
View PDF View Full Original

Findings 14 findings

F1 Page 77
The Board of Commissioners failed to comply with recommendations made in two audit reports. These audits are conducted by the Office of Inspector General (OIG), U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) for the purpose of ensuring that the Housing Authority has proper oversight and is held accountable for its spending of taxpayer funds. Section 2.07 of the Housing Authority By-Laws establishes that one responsibility of the Board Commissioners is to ensure, through independent reviews and audits that the Authority operates within the law and according to Housing and Urban Development (HUD) regulations. Several board members were unaware of the results of the recent 2008 Audit Report or the results of a 2004 Audit Report.
F2 Page 77
The 2004 OIG Audit Report recommended the termination and restructuring of the contract for legal services on the basis that the Authority disregarded HUD requirements that limit the length of service contracts and omitted required Federal provisions in the attorney’s contract as required by Section 4.06.2 of Housing Authority By-Laws.
F3 Page 77
The OIG Audit Report stated, “The attorney’s failure to effectively perform contracted services and reviews added to the problem of the Authority improperly awarding over $3.3 million in contracts for goods and services and the resulting unnecessary financial and legal risks.”
F4 Page 77
Contracts have been authorized and executed by the Commissioners and staff without referral for legal counsel review. The lack of quality legal review puts the Authority at risk of litigation and loss of federal funds. 56
F5 Page 78
The 2008/2009 Chairperson (originally appointed Dec. 15, 1998) has made racial remarks in the presence of Authority employees and in public meetings. This behavior puts the Authority at risk of discrimination lawsuits, and cannot be tolerated. Section 3.0 of the Housing Authority Code of Ethics and Standards of Conduct establishes standards for employee and commissioner conduct that will assure the highest level of public service and it identifies those acts or omissions of acts that could be deemed injurious to the general mission of the Authority. The Chair dismisses the remarks as “colorful language”. The Chair’s conduct in public forum is unprofessional. There have been outbursts and accusations that hinder the Board’s ability to be effective in doing the work of the Authority.
F6 Page 78
A Tenant Commissioner (originally appointed May 20, 2006) has a documented history of violations for repeatedly behaving in an abusive manner toward Housing Authority employees and contractors. She is also in violation of Residency Certification regarding income-reporting and criminal-background standards.
F7 Page 78
A number of the Commissioners assert that their only responsibility is to “set policy”. Section 2.06 of the Housing Authority By-Laws provides that a commissioner’s responsibility is setting policies governing operations, and to prevent fraud, abuse, mismanagement and discrimination; to ensure that the authority acts legally and with integrity in its daily operations. The Director is responsible for managing the daily operations of the Authority. The Commissioners have abdicated responsibility to provide leadership, stewardship and proper oversight.
F8 Page 78
A Commissioner (originally appointed Mar. 29, 2008) has refused to receive the training offered by the Authority. Training is offered to commissioners in order to give them an understanding of federal regulations, the operations and mission of the Authority.
F9 Page 78
The 2003/2004 Grand Jury recommended that the Board of Commissioners adopt and enforce a Code of Ethics for the Housing Authority. Section 7.0 of the Housing Authority Code of Ethics and Standards of Conduct states, “There shall be established an Ethics Review Committee of the Authority of the County of San Joaquin. The purpose of the Committee shall be to review and render decisions on any matters involving ethical conduct, or breach of ethical conduct, by employees, vendors, or commissioners.” However, a Code of Ethics was not adopted until 2006. This document provided for an Ethics Review Committee to be established within 90 days. An Ethics Review Committee was not established until April 2009.
F10 Page 78
In 2007, the Commissioners eliminated the position of deputy director. In 2008, the Executive Director resigned from the Authority. Since there was no Deputy Director to fill the void, the employees did not have effective leadership during the past year.
F11 Page 78
The Grand Jury found the Board of Commissioners inadequate in dealing with and in understanding its full responsibility and stewardship. 57
F12 Page 79
The Housing Authority attorney’s actions on notices of tenant eviction often result in a stipulated settlement agreement in lieu of court-ordered eviction of non-compliant tenants. The Grand Jury understands the effectiveness of stipulated settlements when used appropriately. However, evicting non-compliant tenants will provide housing for more deserving families.
F13 Page 79
Although the Housing Authority has an employee Grievance Procedure in place, grievances are not handled in a timely manner and are often ignored when filed.
F14 Page 79
In 2008 the Authority received a favorable Public Housing Assessment (PHA) score on the physical condition of its properties.

Recommendations 11