|
| Author
|
Post |
 
|
|
untanglingwebs
El Supremo
|
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Issue Date: September 28, 2009
Audit Memorandum No: 2009-BO-1803
File Size: 282.49KB
Title: The City of Brockton, Massachusetts, Recipient, Building a Better Brockton, Inc., Lacked Sufficient Capacity to Effectively Administer Its Neighborhood Stabilization Program
We conducted a capacity review of the operations of the City of Brockton's (City) grantee, Building a Better Brockton, Inc. (recipient), which has responsibility for administering the City's NSP. Our objective was to determine whether the City and/or its recipient had the capacity to effectively and efficiently administer its NSP under the provisions of the Housing and Economic Recovery Act of 2008 (HERA) and the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (Recovery Act).
Our review determined that the recipient did not have the capacity to effectively and efficiently administer its NSP. Specifically, the recipient lacked adequate internal controls over the areas of financial reporting and procurement and adequate staffing to administer the program effectively. In addition, we found potential conflict-of-interest issues among the recipient, its board members, and several of the subrecipients that would receive NSP funding. We are concerned about the recipient's ability to administer potential NSP-2 funding until such time as it can satisfactorily address and demonstrate adequate controls over the areas of financial reporting, procurement, and staffing and the conflicts of interest.
|
|
|
Sun Jan 23, 2011 11:40 am |
|
|
untanglingwebs
El Supremo
|
There are hundreds more audit reports of ineligible CHDO's
Issue Date: August 19, 2009
Audit Report No: 2009-BO-1011
File Size: 677.09KB
Title: The City of Boston ’s Department of Neighborhood Development in Boston, Massachusetts, Did Not Administer Its HOME Program in Compliance with HUD Requirements
We audited the HOME Investment Partnerships Program (HOME) administered by the City of Boston's (City) Department of Neighborhood Development (Department) as part of our annual audit plan. Our objective was to determine whether the Department administered its HOME program in compliance with HUD requirements. Specifically, we wanted to determine whether the Department used community housing development organization (CHDO) qualification requirements in designating its CHDOs and spent CHDO operating expenses on eligible activities. In addition, we wanted to determine if the Department complied with U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) procurement policies and procedures. We also wanted to determine if the Department's method of allocating salaries was adequate and supported.
The Department awarded CHDO set-aside funding totaling more than $4.7 million to 18 organizations that did not meet all legal and organizational characteristics of CHDOs or did not have the required capacity to operate as CHDOs. Additionally, the Department provided more than $2.1 million in CHDO operating funds to the 18 ineligible organizations. The Department also did not ensure that proper, fair, and equitable procurement practices were followed for more than $5.1 million in HOME funding expended on construction and development work. Contractors were selected without solicitation of bids, bids were not formally (publicly) advertised, independent cost analyses were not performed before the bidding process, and supporting documentation related to the history of procurement actions was not maintained.
In addition, the Department could not ensure that payroll costs of more than $1.7 million charged to the HOME program for fiscal years 2007 and 2008 were accurate because it did not have a reliable system/method to record the actual time spent on its various programs. The Department did not maintain a cost allocation plan and used an allocation method based, for the most part, on estimates or past experience. As a result, some of its programs may have incurred a disproportionate share of staffing costs, while some local City programs were not charged.
We recommend that the Director of the Office of Community Planning and Development require the Department to cease spending set-aside and operating expense funding until it can be determined whether the organizations can achieve CHDO status in accordance with HUD regulations. The Department should be required to assist the organizations in achieving CHDO status as deemed necessary. We also recommend that the City: (1) deobligate unexpended set-aside funding of more than $3.9 million and provide funding to organizations that are eligible to receive the funding or reimburse funds to the HOME program, (2) reimburse approximately $800,000 expended from set-aside funds from nonfederal funds to the HOME program. (3) deobligate unexpended operating funds of approximately $1 million and reimburse these funds to the HOME program, and (4) reimburse expended operating funds of more than $1 million from nonfederal funds to the HOME program.
In addition, we recommend that the Director of the Office of Community Planning and Development require the Department to conduct an independent cost analysis for each of the procurements to ensure that more than $5.1 million in HOME program expenditures were reasonable and supported. For amounts not supported, the Department should reimburse the HOME program from nonfederal funds. Also, the Department must monitor and provide technical assistance to ensure that developers follow HUD procurement regulations, including ensuring that (1) independent cost analyses are performed before bids are received, (2) bids are formally (publicly) advertised, (3) bids are solicited from an adequate number of contractors and awards are made to the lowest responsive bidder, and (4) supporting documentation is maintained for each procurement. Finally, we recommend that the Director of the Office of Community Planning and Development require the Department to implement a cost allocation plan which adequately describes the process for personnel who work on multiple programs. The Department must also revise its job descriptions so that they are consistent with the allocation plan. We also recommend that the Department provide supporting documentation for payroll costs of more than $1.7 million charged to the HOME program in fiscal years 2007 and 2008 and submit documentation to the HUD Office of Community Planning and Development for approval. If proper supporting documentation is not provided, the Department should reimburse the HOME program from nonfederal funds.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Issue Date: May 14, 2009
Audit Report No: 2009-BO-1008
File Size: 265.98KB
Title: The Office of Community Development, City of Holyoke, Massachusetts, Did Not Award HOME Set-Aside Funds to a Qualified Community Housing Development Organization
We initiated an audit of the City of Holyoke, Massachusetts, Office of Community Development's (City) award and use of HOME Investment Partnerships (HOME) program set-aside funds as part of our annual audit plan. Our objective was to determine whether the City ensured that Contemporary Apartments, Inc. (Contemporary Apartments), met community development housing organization (CHDO) qualification requirements and whether the related CHDO project activities carried out by Contemporary Apartments and Olde Holyoke Development Corporation met the HUD eligibility requirements for CHDOs.
This is the first of two planned audit reports on the City's HOME program and other housing related activities.
The City awarded more than $1.7 million in HOME program CHDO set-aside funds to Contemporary Apartments, which was not eligible to receive set-aside funds. This occurred because the City did not ensure that Contemporary Apartments was qualified to be designated as a CHDO or that the related CHDO projects met key requirements for this designation and project eligibility. Despite these deficiencies, the City certified Contemporary Apartments as a CHDO, and provided set-aside funds for three homeownership projects.
.
As a result, the City significantly overstated the HOME set-aside funds recorded in HUD's financial reporting systems for fiscal years 2006, 2007, and 2008. Also, due to the overstatement of reserved and expended set-aside funds, the City (through its partnership in a Regional Consortium) will not meet the statutory 15 percent spending requirement, totaling $501,000, for set-aside funds unless other qualifying projects can be identified and funded.
We recommend that the Director of the Office of Community Planning and Development in Boston require the City to (1) deobligate the $1,768,071 in HOME set-aside funds awarded to Contemporary Apartments for the three ineligible projects, and reduce the amount of set-aside funds reported in HUD financial systems accordingly, (2) ensure that the Consortium, of which the City of Holyoke is a member, has designated development projects for fiscal years 2006 through 2008 sufficient to meet the statutory requirement of $500,754 in HOME set-aside funds for CHDOs, and (3) develop and implement controls to ensure that only eligible entities as certified as CHDOs and related HOME set-aside spending amounts are appropriately awarded and reported in the future. |
|
|
|
Sun Jan 23, 2011 11:48 am |
|
|
untanglingwebs
El Supremo
|
If you have Comcast and missed the City Council committee meeting from last Wednesday, it will be repeated on Monday night @10:30 pm on Comcast 17.
Greg Eason told council the OIG was investigating the city over the Operation Unification contract. He placed the entire onus for contracts on the Flint City Council. His reorganized staff had the obligation of not allowing an ineligible entity to receive a contract.
Nancy Jurkiewicz-Rich always informed council they could not make certain changes in contracts when an agency was ineligible.
Eason and Walling have placed Wendy Johnson into a voting board position on the Flint Area Enterprise Committee. This should be considered a conflict of interest as she is in control of the department that funds the FAEC. The FAEC might have to shut down as eason is allegedly making a power play to name a new director for FAEC and has been withholding their funding to accomplish his goals. |
|
|
|
Sun Jan 23, 2011 5:41 pm |
|
|
untanglingwebs
El Supremo
|
Michigan Incompatible Offices Act PA 566 of 1978 prohibits a public employee from servicing in a nother public capacity if one position is subordinate to the other.
Section 15.181
linkable
printable
INCOMPATIBLE PUBLIC OFFICES (EXCERPT)
Act 566 of 1978
15.181 Definitions.
Sec. 1.
As used in this act:
(a) “Governing board” means a board of regents, board of trustees, board of governors, board of control, or other governing body of an institution of higher education.
(
b) “Incompatible offices” means public offices held by a public official which, when the official is performing the duties of any of the public offices held by the official, results in any of the following with respect to those offices held:
(i) The subordination of 1 public office to another.
(ii) The supervision of 1 public office by another.
(iii) A breach of duty of public office.
(c) “Institution of higher education” means a college, university, community college, or junior college described in section 4, 5, or 6 of article 8 of the state constitution of 1963 or established under section 7 of article 8 of the state constitution of 1963.
(d) “Public employee” means an employee of this state, an employee of a city, village, township, or county of this state, or an employee of a department, board, agency, institution, commission, authority, division, council, college, university, school district, intermediate school district, special district, or other public entity of this state or of a city, village, township, or county in this state, but does not include a person whose employment results from election or appointment.
(e) “Public officer” means a person who is elected or appointed to any of the following:
(i) An office established by the state constitution of 1963.
(ii) A public office of a city, village, township, or county in this state.
(iii) A department, board, agency, institution, commission, authority, division, council, college, university, school district, intermediate school district, special district, or other public entity of this state or a city, village, township, or county in this state.
History: 1978, Act 566, Imd. Eff. Dec. 29, 1978
© 2009 Legislative Council, State of Michigan |
|
|
|
Wed Jan 26, 2011 8:24 pm |
|
|
untanglingwebs
El Supremo
|
Wendy Johnson
Director of Depatment of Community and Economic Development, the department that controls the federal HUD grants'
Is it appropriate for her to:
* be a board member of Salem Housing when they receive HUD funding
* be a board member of the Flint Area Enterprise Community, which depends on HUD funding for staffing, etc.
* be a co-chair of the Metawauneenee Hills group that has become a priority for funding since she assumed her position. |
|
|
|
Thu Jan 27, 2011 6:59 pm |
|
|
Dave Starr
F L I N T O I D
|
Appropriate? Absolutely not.
Will anything be done about it? Absolutely not. |
_________________
I used to care, but I take a pill for that now.
Pushing buttons sure can be fun.
When a lion wants to go somewhere, he doesn’t worry about how many hyenas are in the way.
Paddle faster, I hear banjos. |
|
|
Fri Jan 28, 2011 9:00 am |
|
|
untanglingwebs
El Supremo
|
Eason defends his new hires and yet he asked HUD Community Planning and Development (CPD) representative Steven Spencer to come to Flint on Thursday. Seems he wants training for the staff. Watch for unbudgeted training expenses. Eason told council at the last council committee meeting that he would fight to keep trained staff out and he did not care how many times they sued or how many grievances were filed.
Of course not as the city pays for the lawsuits.
Last edited by untanglingwebs on Sun Jan 30, 2011 5:48 am; edited 2 times in total |
|
|
|
Sat Jan 29, 2011 8:12 am |
|
|
untanglingwebs
El Supremo
|
Conflict-of-Interest Requirements - Regulations
When implementing their HOME programs, PJs, state recipients and subrecipients must adhere to the following Conflict-of-Interest regulations:
24 CFR Part 92.356: HOME Conflict-of-Interest Provisions
These are the Conflict-of-Interest regulations that govern financial Conflict-of-Interest provisions for HOME PJs. The HOME regulations state that no person:
Who exercises or has exercised any functions or responsibilities with HOME activities or
Who is in a position to participate in decisions or gain inside information may obtain financial interest or benefit from a HOME activity or have an interest in any contract, subcontract, or agreement for themselves or
For person with business or family ties.
24 CFR Part 85.36: Procurement
In the procurement of property and services by PJs, state recipients, and subrecipients, the Conflict-of-Interest provisions of 24 CFR Part 85.36 apply. These regulations require PJs and subrecipients to maintain written standards governing the performance of their employees engaged in awarding and administering contracts. For more general information about procurement requirements, see the Contracting and Procurement subject area within this training module's Employment and Contracting topic.
24 CFR Part 84.42: Codes of Conduct
Part 84.42 mandates that recipients of Federal funds maintain written standards of conduct that govern employee actions as they relate to awarding and administering contracts. Essentially, these standards should state that no employee shall participate in the selection, award, or administration of a contract if there is any real or apparent Conflict-of-Interest involved.
Specific Conflict-of-Interest requirements and guidance for the HOME Program include:
24 CFR Part 92.356(f)
This section of the rule addresses the HOME Conflict-of-Interest provisions that apply to State recipients, subrecipients, CHDOs, and other owners/developers that receive HOME funds for the development of HOME units. While 24 CFR 92.356 covers financial Conflict-of-Interest provisions that apply specifically to PJs, this cite discusses situations in which there is an appearance or actual instance of conflict or preferential treatment for other recipients of HOME funds.
HOMEfires Volume 2, Number 2
HOMEfires is the official HOME policy newsletter published by HUD. This issue of the newsletter addresses the HOME Conflict-of-Interest provisions that apply to people serving on CHDO boards and the boards of other nonprofit organizations that receive HOME funds. While 24 CFR 92.356 covers financial Conflict-of-Interest provisions, this volume of HOMEfires discusses situations in which there is an appearance of conflict or preferential treatment for CHDOs on whose boards PJ staff may serve.
Content current as of 9 March 2010 Back to top
FOIA Privacy Web Policies and Important Links Home
U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development
451 7th Street S.W., Washington, DC 20410
Telephone: (202) 708-1112 TTY: (202) 708-1455
Find the address of a HUD office near you |
|
|
|
Sat Jan 29, 2011 8:20 am |
|
|
untanglingwebs
El Supremo
|
Conflict-of-Interest Requirements - Exceptions
Upon written request, exceptions to the HOME-specific Conflict-of-Interest provisions may be granted on a case-by-case basis. Let's take a closer look at these exception requirements.
Exceptions to the HOME Conflict-of-Interest Provisions Applying to Employees, Officials, Consultants, Agents, etc., of PJs, State Recipients or Subrecipients Receiving HOME Funds (§ 92.356(a-e)):
HUD can grant exceptions only after the PJ has:
Disclosed the full nature of the conflict and submitted proof that the disclosure has been made public, and
Provided a legal opinion stating that there would be no violation of state or local law if it granted the exception.
Exceptions to HOME Conflict-of-Interest Provisions Applying to Employees, Officials, Consultants, Agents, etc., of Owners/Sponsors/Developers of HOME Housing Projects (§ 92.356(f)):
PJs can grant exceptions based on the following factors, as set forth in the regulations:
If the person receiving the benefit belongs to the group of low-income persons intended to be the beneficiaries of assisted housing, and the exception will permit him or her to receive generally the same interests or benefits as are being made available or provided to the group as a whole;
If the person has withdrawn from his or her functions, responsibilities, or the decision-making process with respect to the specific assisted housing in question;
If the tenant protection requirements of 24 CFR 92.253 (prohibited lease terms, termination of tenancy, and tenant selection) are being observed;
If affirmative marketing requirements are being observed and followed; and
If any other factors relevant to the PJ's determination are met, including the timing of the requested exception.
Content current as of 5 March 2010 Back to top
FOIA Privacy Web Policies and Important Links Home
U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development
451 7th Street S.W., Washington, DC 20410
Telephone: (202) 708-1112 TTY: (202) 708-1455
Find the address of a HUD office near you |
|
|
|
Sat Jan 29, 2011 8:24 am |
|
|
untanglingwebs
El Supremo
|
OIG Special Report: A Guide to Grant Oversight and Best Practices ...
The Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) OIG regularly conducts outreach to ... possible conflicts of interest, and weak internal controls. ...
http://www.justice.gov/oig/special/s0902a/index.htm - 41k - Cached - Similar pages
A Guide to Grant Oversight and Best Practices for Combating Grant Fraud
Special Report
February 2009
Office of the Inspector General
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Introduction
The National Procurement Fraud Task Force (NPFTF) was created on October 10, 2006, to promote the prevention, early detection, and prosecution of procurement fraud. The NPFTF recognizes that a large part of government dollars lost to fraud, waste, and abuse includes dollars lost to grant fraud. As a result, the NPFTF includes preventing, detecting and prosecuting grant fraud as part of its focus. The NPFTF includes 58 prosecutorial and investigative agencies, including 35 Offices of Inspectors General (OIG). Chaired by the Department of Justice’s (DOJ) Assistant Attorney General of the Criminal Division, the NPFTF’s goal is to detect, investigate, and prosecute procurement fraud, grant fraud, and associated corruption.
The NPFTF has established the following objectives:
Increase coordination and strengthen partnerships among Inspectors General, law enforcement agencies, and DOJ to more effectively address procurement fraud;
Assess existing government-wide efforts to combat procurement fraud and work with audit and contracting staff both inside and outside of government to detect and report fraud;
Increase civil and criminal prosecutions and administrative actions to recover ill-gotten gains resulting from procurement fraud;
Educate and inform the public about procurement fraud;
Identify and remove barriers to preventing, detecting, and prosecuting procurement fraud;
Encourage greater private-sector participation in the prevention and detection of procurement fraud; and
Evaluate and measure the performance of the NPFTF to ensure accountability.
The Grant Fraud Committee
The NPFTF has established several committees to pursue these objectives. Because one of the areas of special concern identified by the NPFTF is the significant amount of federal dollars lost each year to grant fraud, one of the committees the NPFTF has established is the Grant Fraud Committee.1
The Grant Fraud Committee focuses on the following three areas to help improve the federal government’s ability to prevent, detect, investigate, and prosecute grant fraud:
Examining ways to enhance information sharing related to grant fraud;
Coordinating efforts among agencies to provide training to auditors, agents, and prosecutors on detecting, investigating, and prosecuting grant fraud; and
Conducting outreach to agency program managers who oversee federal grant programs and grantees to coordinate prevention, detection, and investigation of grant fraud and to communicate best practices in these areas.
This White Paper is written in support of the Grant Fraud Committee’s outreach efforts.2 Its goal is to provide recommendations for enhancing the grant oversight process and identifying best practices for combating grant fraud.
To develop this White Paper, the Grant Fraud Committee conducted a survey of NPFTF members to identify effective methods for detecting and preventing grant fraud. |
|
|
|
Sat Jan 29, 2011 11:21 am |
|
|
untanglingwebs
El Supremo
|
continued: (edited for brevity entire article cited above)
Recommendations
Based on input from members of the Grant Fraud Committee, this White Paper discusses recommendations for agencies to consider in preventing and detecting fraud, waste, and abuse in grants they administer. These recommendations include enhanced certifications, increased training, improved communications with grant recipients, increased information sharing concerning potential fraud, and rigorous oversight of how grant dollars are spent after they are awarded. While the details of each recommendation may not be applicable to all federal agencies, the areas of concern are relevant for many federal agencies that award grants.
Certifications for Federal Grant Recipients
As a condition of receiving a grant, an awarding agency may require the grantee to certify that the statements it makes in the grant application are true and correct and that it understands that any false statements made as part of these certifications can be prosecuted. While regulations require the use of this type of certification in some situations, agencies that do not already use this type of certification for all awards should consider adding it as a requirement.
A significant number of Grant Committee members stated that they regard the signing of certifications by grantees as among the most effective tool for educating the grantee on the terms and conditions of the grants, for preventing grant fraud from occurring, and for prosecuting grant fraud when it occurs.
In addition, they suggested that it is important that individual certifications address the specific needs of particular agencies or program areas. Some survey respondents stated that agencies too often rely solely on generic certifications, which are of limited usefulness in either educating the grantee of its obligations to comply with grant requirements or when relying on the certification as evidence of intent when a grantee engages in fraudulent activity. Several survey respondents recommended that grantees should be required to certify to specific activities or requirements so that the agency would have evidence that the grantee had knowledge of the grant requirement and indicated its intent to comply with those requirements. For example, the grant awarding agency can fashion a certification statement for the grantee to sign in which the grantee acknowledges its awareness of a governing provision in the Code of Federal Regulation or in an Office of Management and Budget Circular and promises under penalty of perjury to comply with the provision. In addition, when grantees are required to submit data related to grant activities, the certification should also require the grantee to certify that the information submitted is complete and accurate.......
Some respondents to our survey also suggested there is a benefit in requiring continuing certifications throughout the award period, particularly when supplemental funds are awarded. If fraudulent conduct or misuse of funds occurs later in the award period, there may be no concurrent certification that the grantee was aware of applicable laws, rules, terms, and conditions and that it intended to comply with the terms of the grant.
Training
Survey respondents emphasized the importance of training in preventing and detecting grant fraud. As discussed below, it is important for training to be provided to three target audiences: grant recipients, awarding agencies, and oversight agencies.
Training Grant Recipients
The majority of survey respondents stated that workshops and training programs for grantees that specifically focus on grant fraud are useful for preventing fraud and for encouraging grantees to report fraud when they become aware of it. Many of the Task Force agencies who responded to our survey conduct fraud awareness briefings for grant recipients. They believe that both awarding agencies and oversight entities can perform a valuable service by increasing the training they provide to grant recipients.
The Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) OIG regularly conducts outreach to grantees, subgrantees, and industry groups on grant fraud. One of the primary outreach goals of the HUD OIG is to identify fraud indicators and provide information on who to contact if fraud is suspected. In addition, the HUD OIG participates in Department-sponsored training programs for many grant fund recipients.
The Department of Justice OIG Fraud Detection Office has presented grant fraud awareness training to many grantees that receive DOJ funds through the Office of Justice Programs and Office of Violence Against Women. This training alerts the grantees to fraud indicators, possible conflicts of interest, and weak internal controls. For example, the training stresses to grantees that possible risk factors for fraud within their own organizations can include a compressed timeline for performance, known financial strain, a lack of qualified employees to perform the work called for in the grant, or a failure to separate financial duties among staff.
Training Grant Administrators
Training for grant administrators in the agencies awarding grants and for their oversight entities is also important. This training can address the benefits of specific certification requirements, the necessity of providing adequate oversight after the grant money is awarded, and the types of grant fraud indicators that administrators should be alert to finding.
The Department of Justice OIG regularly provides training to DOJ grant monitors to alert them to look for specific grant fraud indicators. Examples of these indicators include an unusually large number of awards to one grantee, employees of the grantee who appear to be living beyond their means, costs charged to multiple grants, or an unusual pattern in the draw-down of grant funds. |
|
|
|
Sat Jan 29, 2011 11:26 am |
|
|
untanglingwebs
El Supremo
|
TITLE 24 - HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT
SUBTITLE A - OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT
PART 92 - HOME INVESTMENT PARTNERSHIPS PROGRAM
subpart h - OTHER FEDERAL REQUIREMENTS
92.356 - Conflict of interest.
(a) Applicability. In the procurement of property and services by participating jurisdictions, State recipients, and subrecipients, the conflict of interest provisions in 24 CFR 85.36 and 24 CFR 84.42, respectively, apply. In all cases not governed by 24 CFR 85.36 and 24 CFR 84.42, the provisions of this section apply.
(b) Conflicts prohibited. No persons described in paragraph (c) of this section who exercise or have exercised any functions or responsibilities with respect to activities assisted with HOME funds or who are in a position to participate in a decisionmaking process or gain inside information with regard to these activities, may obtain a financial interest or benefit from a HOME-assisted activity, or have an interest in any contract, subcontract or agreement with respect thereto, or the proceeds thereunder, either for themselves or those with whom they have family or business ties, during their tenure or for one year thereafter.
(c) Persons covered. The conflict of interest provisions of paragraph (b) of this section apply to any person who is an employee, agent, consultant, officer, or elected official or appointed official of the participating jurisdiction, State recipient, or subrecipient which are receiving HOME funds.
(d) Exceptions: Threshold requirements. Upon the written request of the participating jurisdiction, HUD may grant an exception to the provisions of paragraph (b) of this section on a case-by-case basis when it determines that the exception will serve to further the purposes of the HOME Investment Partnerships Program and the effective and efficient administration of the participating jurisdiction's program or project.
An exception may be considered only after the participating jurisdiction has provided the following: (1) A disclosure of the nature of the conflict, accompanied by an assurance that there has been public disclosure of the conflict and a description of how the public disclosure was made; and (2) An opinion of the participating jurisdiction's or State recipient's attorney that the interest for which the exception is sought would not violate State or local law.
(e) Factors to be considered for exceptions. In determining whether to grant a requested exception after the participating jurisdiction has satisfactorily met the requirements of paragraph (d) of this section, HUD will consider the cumulative effect of the following factors, where applicable: (1) Whether the exception would provide a significant cost benefit or an essential degree of expertise to the program or project which would otherwise not be available; (2) Whether the person affected is a member of a group or class of low-income persons intended to be the beneficiaries of the assisted activity, and the exception will permit such person to receive generally the same interests or benefits as are being made available or provided to the group or class; (3) Whether the affected person has withdrawn from his or her functions or responsibilities, or the decisionmaking process with respect to the specific assisted activity in question; (4) Whether the interest or benefit was present before the affected person was in a position as described in paragraph (c) of this section; (5) Whether undue hardship will result either to the participating jurisdiction or the person affected when weighed against the public interest served by avoiding the prohibited conflict; and (6) Any other relevant considerations.
(f) Owners and Developers. (1) No owner, developer or sponsor of a project assisted with HOME funds (or officer, employee, agent, elected or appointed official or consultant of the owner, developer or sponsor) whether private, for-profit or non-profit (including a community housing development organization (CHDO) when acting as an owner, developer or sponsor) may occupy a HOME-assisted affordable housing unit in a project. This provision does not apply to an individual who receives HOME funds to acquire or rehabilitate his or her principal residence or to an employee or agent of the owner or developer of a rental housing project who occupies a housing unit as the project manager or maintenance worker.
(2) Exceptions. Upon written request of a housing owner or developer, the participating jurisdiction (or State recipient, if authorized by the State participating jurisdiction) may grant an exception to the provisions of paragraph (f)(1) of this section on a case-by-case basis when it determines that the exception will serve to further the purposes of the HOME program and the effective and efficient administration of the owner's or developer's HOME-assisted project. In determining whether to grant a requested exception, the participating jurisdiction shall consider the following factors: (i) Whether the person receiving the benefit is a member of a group or class of low-income persons intended to be the beneficiaries of the assisted housing, and the exception will permit such person to receive generally the same interests or benefits as are being made available or provided to the group or class; (ii) Whether the person has withdrawn from his or her functions or responsibilities, or the decisionmaking process with respect to the specific assisted housing in question; (iii) Whether the tenant protection requirements of 92.253 are being observed; (iv) Whether the affirmative marketing requirements of 92.351 are being observed and followed; and (v) Any other factor relevant to the participating jurisdiction's determination, including the timing of the requested exception.
[61 FR 48750, Sept. 16, 1996, as amended at 62 FR 28930, May 28, 1997] |
|
|
|
Sat Jan 29, 2011 5:04 pm |
|
|
untanglingwebs
El Supremo
|
HOMEfires - Vol. 2 No. 2, April 1999
Occasionally members of PJ, State recipient and subrecipient staffs serve as board members of CHDOs and other nonprofit organizations that receive HOME funding for the provision of low-income housing.
Q: What are the HOME conflict of interest provisions that apply to persons serving on these boards?
A: Questions frequently arise from the involvement of board members serving in various capacities that cause HUD Field Offices, PJs, State recipients, subrecipients and their staffs to question whether a conflict of interest exists when there is no financial benefit or personal financial interest. The conflict of interest provisions in the HOME final rule at 24 CFR 92.356 cover only financial conflicts of interest. While the rule covers only financial conflicts of interest, PJ staff need to be cognizant of the appearance of conflict or preferential treatment of nonprofits or CHDOs on whose boards they serve. This issue of HOMEfires discusses and provides guidance on both financial conflicts as well as appearances of conflicts.
The conflict of interest provisions apply to an employee, agent, consultant, officer or elected or appointed official of the PJ, State recipient or subrecipient that is receiving HOME funds in which that individual could obtain a financial interest or benefit from a HOME-assisted activity, or have an interest in a contract, subcontract or agreement or receive proceeds, either for himself or herself or those with whom he or she has family or business ties during the individual's tenure and for one year after employment. HUD CPD Notice 98-09 delineates the application of conflict of interest provisions when a financial interest or benefit exists.
Although an individual may have direct knowledge of or a responsibility for HOME program activities in his or her capacity as a local government official or staff person, unless the individual receives a financial benefit or gain for himself or herself or those with whom they have family or business ties from a HOME-funded activity, there would be no conflict of interest in serving as a board member of a nonprofit recipient. Likewise, an individual may be a board member of a nonprofit that receives HOME funding and also serve as an officer or board member of a lending institution that is involved in the development of low-income housing with the nonprofit. Again, unless there is a financial benefit or gain to that individual or someone with whom they have family or business ties, there would be no conflict of interest in serving in both capacities. Similarly, there would be no conflict of interest if a person serves on an advisory committee to a CHDO and is a board member of a nonprofit that is also a subrecipient, unless the board member receives a financial benefit from a HOME funded activity.
While the standard to determine a conflict of interest is predicated on receiving a financial benefit or having a personal financial interest, participating jurisdiction staff who serve on nonprofit or CHDO boards of directors should be sensitive to the perception that the organization, on whose board they serve, has a favored or preferential status when the organization receives HOME funds as either a subrecipient or as an owner, sponsor or developer. The appearance of one organization having a favored status in accessing HOME funds can be countered in many ways, including a free and open solicitation process inviting all eligible, qualified organizations to submit in response to a well-developed scope of work or project proposal, which includes clearly enunciated selection criteria. PJ staff could mitigate the appearance of a conflict by choosing to absent themselves from the review or selection process when a proposal or program is being competed, as well as publicly disclosing board relationships. Awareness of public perception will inform State or local PJ staff about how best to involve themselves and minimize adverse or negative consequences, which may impede the ultimate goal of the program, i.e. the development of affordable housing in an efficient, cost effective, and timely manner.
The Department removed the reference to "personal" conflicts of interest in the CDBG interim rule issued on June 17, 1992, thereby limiting the prohibition to situations that provide a financial interest or benefit. The preamble to the interim rule stated, "Many grantees make a practice of designating some of their elected or appointed officials to serve on the boards of non-profit organizations that operate in areas they consider to be in the public interest...HUD believes that this kind of public participation often is beneficial and should not be discouraged." The preamble to the CDBG final rule issued on November 9, 1995, which incorporated the change in the interim rule further reiterated that "HUD believes the conflict rules should be limited to the prohibition of situations that provide a financial interest or benefit." While an important purpose of the conflict of interest rule is to protect the reputation of the program from the appearance of providing special treatment or serving special interests, the Department has not issued policy on non-financial conflicts of interest because of the difficulty in identifying clear criteria that would serve to distinguish the kinds of personal interest or benefits that should be prohibited in such cases. In addition, the Department would not want to have a chilling effect on the many strong collaborative efforts among State and local governments, private organizations and community representatives so integral to affordable housing and community development.
There may be situations similar to these stated here. Each situation should be viewed independent of each other. In all instances, PJs, State recipients, and subrecipients have responsibility under Parts 84 and 85, as applicable, and 24 CFR 92.356 to ensure that no conflicts of interest exist in the administration of their HOME programs.
Content current as of 27 August 2001 Back to top
FOIA Privacy Web Policies and Important Links Home
U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development
451 7th Street S.W., Washington, DC 20410
Telephone: (202) 708-1112 TTY: (202) 708-1455
Find the address of a HUD office near you |
|
|
|
Sun Jan 30, 2011 5:58 am |
|
|
untanglingwebs
El Supremo
|
quote:
untanglingwebs schreef:
If you have Comcast and missed the City Council committee meeting from last Wednesday, it will be repeated on Monday night @10:30 pm on Comcast 17.
Greg Eason told council the OIG was investigating the city over the Operation Unification contract. He placed the entire onus for contracts on the Flint City Council. His reorganized staff had the obligation of not allowing an ineligible entity to receive a contract.
Nancy Jurkiewicz-Rich always informed council they could not make certain changes in contracts when an agency was ineligible.
Eason and Walling have placed Wendy Johnson into a voting board position on the Flint Area Enterprise Committee. This should be considered a conflict of interest as she is in control of the department that funds the FAEC. The FAEC might have to shut down as eason is allegedly making a power play to name a new director for FAEC and has been withholding their funding to accomplish his goals.
Candace Burns
More: Bio, E-mail, News Team
FLINT (WJRT) -- (03/24/11) -- A north side Flint neighborhood is in the middle of a large makeover.
Operation Unification is working to rehab 10 homes near West Ruth St. Today the non-profit organization welcomed the first family into its new home.
Operation Unification has been operating in Flint since 2005. The goal of the organization is to revitalize the city. They say that starts with home ownership and jobs.
Over the years, O-U has rehabbed dozens of structures across Genesee County, and a ribbon-cutting ceremony today was held for a local family that will live in the newly-remodeled home on West Ruth St.
The property was once considered a part of the city's blight. It took four months for O-U to complete the renovation.
The organization says all of the work was done by contractors who live in the community, most of whom were trained at Mott Community College.
The home presented today is one of 10 properties that are slated to be renovated, all of them are within a two-block radius.
Money for this project comes from grants and through a partnership with the city's Neighborhood Stabilization Project.
O-U says the goal is to improve social and economic conditions in Flint, and change the landscape of distressed communities.
"This project actually empowers. It unifies and it tells everybody in the community that we can, despite what the situation looks like, we can achieve, and we can change and transform our communities," said Lela McGee from Operation Unification.
The renovated properties are open to anyone who is employed. Those chosen to occupy the homes are responsible for paying the bills, including the mortgage.
Helen Mitchner will get this house. With a snip of the scissors, Mitchner became the proud owner of this newly-remodeled property on Flint's north side. It's a place she and her two foster daughters will call home.
The structure once considered an eyesore is now regarded as a blessing. "When I seen it, it looked just like one of the houses I grew up in with a porch. They call it a deck now. When I came into the home, I looked at the wood floor. I grew up on a wood floor," Mitchner said.
The house is just one of the properties Operation Unification has improved. If you take a look across the street, you'll see they are working on two homes there.
"This means a lot in Flint because we are creating jobs and we are providing great housing," McGee said.
It's a generous gift that Mitchner and her two children are thankful for. "God works in mysteries ways. I just thank God. There is a God somewhere"
Follow us on Facebook | Follow us on Twitter
(Copyright ©2011 WJRT-TV/DT. All Rights Reserved.) |
|
|
|
Wed Mar 30, 2011 6:24 am |
|
|
untanglingwebs
El Supremo
|
Is this the same Helen Mitchner? Probably not as this woman is supposed to be aged 71. But look at how much her property lost in less than 8 years.
Instrument: 200811100075760 Volume Page:
Recorded: 11/10/2008 10:59:36 AM Prepared: 11/04/08 Mailed: 01/08/2009 Pages: 1
Document Type: DISCHARGES Interest: Consideration:
Grantor: FIRST COLLATERAL SERVICES INC
Grantee: MITCHNER, HELEN
Notes:
Legal Description: St: 765 YORK AVE E, FLINT, MI , City Code: 0
Marginal: Bkwd I 200310240142867 (MORTGAGES)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Instrument: 200604200039761 Volume Page:
Recorded: 4/20/2006 9:55:14 AM Prepared: 03/21/06 Mailed: Pages: 1
Document Type: NOTICE OF LIENS ETAL Interest: Consideration: 2243.74
Grantor: CAPITAL ONE BANK
Grantee: MITCHNER, HELEN R
Notes:
Legal Description:
Marginal:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Instrument: 200502010010947 Volume Page:
Recorded: 2/1/2005 11:07:29 AM Prepared: 01/19/05 Mailed: Pages: 15
Document Type: MORTGAGES Interest: Consideration:
40000
Grantor: MITCHNER, HELEN R
Grantee: MORTGAGE ELECTRONIC REGISTRATION SYSTEMS INC
Notes:
Legal Description: Sub: BELLEVIEW, Lt: 469, PrpId: 4730102032, St: 765 YORK AVE E, FLINT, MI 48505, City Code: 54
Marginal:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Instrument: 200310240142867 Volume Page:
Recorded: 10/24/2003 9:49:18 AM Prepared: 10/13/03 Mailed: Pages: 15
Document Type: MORTGAGES Interest: Consideration: 30400
Grantor: MITCHNER, HELEN
Grantee: MORTGAGE ELECTRONIC REGISTRATION SYSTEMS INC
Notes:
Legal Description: Sub: BELLEVIEW, Lt: 469, PrpId: 4730102032, St: 765 YORK AVE E, FLINT, MI 48505, City Code: 54
Marginal: Fwd 200811100075760 (DISCH)
Parcel #:
47-30-102-032
Address:
765 E YORK AVE
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Parcel #:
47-30-102-032
Address:
765 E YORK AVE
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Owner:
MITCHNER, HELEN R
HARRIS, PAM
765 E YORK AVE
FLINT, MI 48505
Classification:
Residential Improved
Zoning District:
A-2
Lot Size:
Front: 40 Depth: 130
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------Current Year (2010)
Previous Year (2009)
State Equalized Value
3900 4600
Parcel #:
47-30-102-032
Address:
765 E YORK AVE |
|
|
|
Wed Mar 30, 2011 6:34 am |
|
|
|
Forum Rules:
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
|
|
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Register
Profile
FlintTalk.com Forum Index
> Political Talk
