Audit Report
District Inspector General for Audit
Northwest/Alaska District
HOUSING ACTIVITIES
ADMINISTERED BY
LUMMI INDIAN BUSINESS COUNCIL
BELLINGHAM, WASHINGTON
2000-SE-207-1001
September 29, 2000
U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development
District Inspector General for Audit
Federal Office Building, Suite 125
909 First Avenue
Seattle, WA 98104-1000
Management Memorandum
(This page intentionally left blank)
2000-SE-207-1001 ii
Executive Summary
In response to complaints from Lummi tribal members, we performed an audit of the Lummi Nation's
housing program operation in which we addressed some of the many tribal members’ allegations of
program mismanagement, misuse and abuse at the Lummi Indian Business Council (LIBC). LIBC is the
management organization of the Lummi Nation. The overall objective of the audit was to determine if
LIBC has the administrative capacity to carry out eligible housing activities in accordance with the
requirements and objectives of the Native American Housing Assistance and Self-Determination Act of
1996 (NAHASDA) and other applicable laws.
LIBC has not demonstrated the managerial expertise, knowledge of program requirements, or
administrative capacity to properly administer affordable housing activities effectively,
making LIBC vulnerable to waste, fraud, and mismanagement. LIBC does not have an
adequate internal control system to provide reasonable assurance regarding (a) the reliability
of financial reporting, (b) the effectiveness and efficiency of operations, and (c) compliance
with applicable laws and regulations. Therefore, LIBC must take immediate and effective
measures to become administratively capable as defined in NAHASDA regulations, including
implementing an adequate system of internal control.
Additionally, although a Lummi Nation resolution indicates the tribe will operate its
housing program as a separate Tribally Designated Housing Entity (TDHE), in practice the
tribe operates the housing program as a division of LIBC and not as a TDHE. The Lummi
Nation should decide whether to operate its housing program as a TDHE or as a division of
LIBC, and fully implement its decision. (See Finding 1)
As a result of its lack of administrative capacity Lummi Indian Business Council:
• did not ensure that low-income Lummi families live in safe and healthy housing conditions. LIBC
needs to maintain its housing stock, including abandoned houses, in a safe and healthy environment.
(See Finding 2)
• overstated its housing stock, resulting in overfunding of its NAHASDA grants. HUD should require
LIBC to remove 95 units from its formula current assisted stock and repay $1,279,768 of HUD
overfunding. (See Finding 3)
• misspent, mischarged, and wasted federal funds when it:
§ improperly charged other federal programs $14,606 for use of equipment purchased with HUD
funds. LIBC should repay from non federal sources $4,669 to the Bureau of Indian Affairs and
$9,937 to Health and Human Services for fees it inappropriately charged for rental of
equipment purchased with HUD funds. (See Finding 4)
iii 2000-SE-207-1001
Executive Summary
§ did not properly account for program income generated by equipment purchased with HUD
funds. LIBC should reimburse its housing program, from non-federal sources, $5,964 for
program income generated by renting equipment purchased with HUD funds. (See Finding 4)
§ did not maintain adequate documentation to support expenses charged to its grants. LIBC
needs to provide adequate documentation or repay, from non-federal sources, $25,382 for
unsupported costs charged to the Indian Community Development Block Grant. (See Finding
5) and
§ did not accurately record, adequately support or correctly charge labor costs to federal grants.
We recommend HUD require LIBC to immediately implement an adequate time keeping
system that ensures accurate labor charging and repay $18,814 for labor unrelated to its HOPE
I grant. (See Finding 7)
• did not adequately safeguard assets by not tracking materials inventory. LIBC must immediately
implement an inventory system that accounts for materials received, used, and stored and provides
for periodic monitoring and reconciliation. (See Finding 6)
• did not maintain adequate procurement records. LIBC should implement procedures and a system
of internal controls that ensures that procurements are made in accordance with federal regulations.
(See Finding 8)
• may have admitted ineligible families into its housing program because it does not always verify
family income. LIBC needs to implement an adequate system of internal control ensuring that it
verifies all sources of an applicant's family income. (See Finding 9)
• excluded eligible applicants when it combined its waiting lists. LIBC should review all open
applications and ensure the waiting list is complete and appropriately ranks all applicants. It should
also implement controls and procedures to ensure that the application process is complete and
accurate. (See Finding 10)
• thwarted the purpose of the Mutual Help Homeownership program by allowing improper subleases.
LIBC should terminate two improperly approved subleases, review the three unapproved
subleases, and recertify and begin receiving payments from the homebuyers for all existing
subleases. (see Finding 11)
We discussed the findings with Lummi Indian Business Council officials during the course of our audit
and at an exit conference on September 11, 2000. On September 1, 2000, we provided LIBC with
draft findings, and received LIBC’s written response to the draft findings on September 22, 2000. The
Findings section of this report summarizes and evaluates LIBC’s comments. LIBC agreed with several
of the findings, but disagreed with our overall conclusion that it lacks the administrative capacity to
manage federal grants. A copy of LIBC’s full response, without attachments, is included in Appendix
B. The attachments included with the written comments are available upon request. In addition, the
HUD Northwest Office of Native American Programs (NwONAP) also provided written comments on
the draft findings. NwONAP generally agreed with the findings (see Appendix C).
2000-SE-207-1001 iv
Table of Contents
Management Memorandum i
Executive Summary iii
Introduction 1
Findings
1 Lummi Indian Business Council Lacks Administrative
Capacity to Manage Federal Grants 7
2 Low-Income Lummi Families Live in Unsafe and Unhealthy Housing
Conditions 13
3 Lummi’s Overstated Housing Stock Results in $1.2 Million in HUD
Overfunding 27
4 Lummi Indian Business Council Misused Equipment Purchased with
HUD Funds 33
5 Lummi Indian Business Council Does Not Maintain Adequate Records to
Support Grant Expenditures 41
6 Lummi Indian Business Council Does Not Keep Track of Materials
Inventory 45
7 Lummi’s Inadequate Labor and Timekeeping Systems Result in
Inequitable Charges to HUD-Funded Activities 47
8 Lummi Indian Business Council Does Not Maintain Adequate
Procurement Records 55
9 Housing Division Did Not Always Verify Family Income 59
10 Revised Waiting List Excludes Applicants 63
11 Improper Subleases Thwart the Purpose of Homeownership Program 67
v 2000-SE-207-1001
Table of Contents
Management Controls 71
Issues Needing Further Consideration 73
Appendices
A Schedule of Questioned Costs 75
B Auditee Comments 77
C HUD Comments 89
D Housing Quality Standards (HQS) Violations 91
E Labor and Timekeeping Discrepancies and Weaknesses 93
F Distribution 95
Abbreviations
CDBG Community Development Block Grant
CFR Code of Federal Regulations
CIAP Comprehensive Improvement Assistance Program
FY Fiscal Year
HOPE Home Ownership for People Everywhere
HQS Housing Quality Standards
HUD Department of Housing and Urban Development
IHBG Indian Housing Block Grant
LIBC Lummi Indian Business Council
MEPA Monthly Equity Payments Accounts
MHOA Mutual Help and Occupancy Agreement
NAHASDA Native American Housing Assistance and Self-Determination Act of 1996
NWIC Northwest Indian College
NwONAP HUD Northwest Office of Native American Programs
OIG Office of Inspector General
TDHE Tribally Designated Housing Entity
2000-SE-207-1001 vi
Introduction
Congress enacted Public Law 104-330, The Native American
Background Housing Assistance and Self-Determination Act of 1996
(NAHASDA) to provide federal assistance for Indian tribes in a
manner that recognizes the right of tribal self-governance. An
objective of NAHASDA is to develop, maintain, and operate
affordable housing in safe and healthy environments on Indian
reservations and other Indian areas for occupancy by low-
income Indian families.
The Lummi Nation
The Lummi Indian reservation, where we conducted our audit
field work, is located seven miles northwest of Bellingham,
Washington and encompasses approximately 12,000 acres. The
Lummi Indian Business Council (LIBC) is the governing body of
the Lummi tribe. It is comprised of eleven elected members who
approve laws and policies and coordinate the overall direction of
the Lummi Nation. The seven-member Lummi Nation Housing
Board is an appointed body that advises LIBC on housing
matters. Prior to NAHASDA, the Lummi Indian Housing
Authority operated the Lummi Nation’s housing program. Since
the enactment of NAHASDA, the Lummi Nation has not
decided if it will structure its housing program as a separate
Tribally Designated Housing Entity (TDHE) or as a division of
the tribe. Since the Lummi Nation currently operates its housing
program as a division of the Lummi Planning Department, in
conducting our audit we treated the housing function as a division
of the tribe. This organizational issue is discussed in Finding 1.
The mission of the Lummi Nation Housing Program is to provide
safe, sanitary, and affordable housing for members of the Lummi
Nation who are not financially capable of providing for their
housing needs without assistance. It is the policy of the Lummi
Nation to provide appropriate housing assistance services to all
members consistent with their income level and their need for
housing.
LIBC maintains grant documents, accounting and housing-related
records in its offices on Kwina Road in Bellingham, Washington.
1 2000-SE-207-1001
Introduction
Lummi Nation’s pre-1997 financial records are not available in
electronic format.
At the time of the audit, LIBC reported that its housing stock
consisted of 309 units, including:
• 95 older Turnkey III and older Mutual Help houses where
low-income tribal members entered into lease-purchase
agreements with LIBC. The audit disclosed that LIBC
conveyed these units and should have removed them from
the housing stock. This issue is discussed further in
Finding 2.
• 119 newer Mutual Help houses where low-income tribal
members entered into lease-purchase agreements with
LIBC.
• 95 rental units, 60 of which have been or are being
converted to home ownership houses under the HOPE I
program.
HUD funding
For fiscal years 1993 to 1999, HUD approved grants totaling
$14,441,158 to the Lummi Nation through Home Ownership for
People Everywhere (HOPE) grants, Community Development
Block Grants (CDBG), Indian Housing Block Grants (IHBG)
under NAHASDA, Operating Subsidy grants, Comprehensive
Improvement Assistance Program (CIAP) grants, and Project
Development grants. Table 1 summarizes the grants.
2000-SE-207-1001 2
Introduction
TABLE 1
HUD GRANTS TO THE LUMMI NATION
GRANT
NUMBER FISCAL YEAR GRANT TYPE AMOUNT
WA02800494S 1993 Operating Subsidy $ 131,729
WA97B028909 1993 CIAP $ 474,000
WA97HI10280194 1994 HOPE 1 $ 1,228,800
B94SR530011 1994 CDBG $ 270,000
WA02800495S 1994 Operating Subsidy $ 130,883
WA97B028910 1994 CIAP $ 500,000
WA02800496S 1995 Operating Subsidy $ 159,660
WA02801196S 1995 Operating Subsidy $ 81,044
WA97B028912 1995 CIAP $ 226,970
WA97B028911 1995 CIAP $ 16,030
B96SR530020 1996 CDBG $ 155,117
WA02800497S 1996 Operating Subsidy $ 201,266
WA02801197S 1996 Operating Subsidy $ 65,780
WA97B028914 1996 CIAP $ 695,102
WA97B028913 1996 CIAP $ 144,000
B97SR530001 1997 CDBG $ 107,883
WA02800498S 1997 Operating Subsidy $ 188,164
WA02801198S 1997 Operating Subsidy $ 54,270
WA97B028915 1997 CIAP $ 398,420
WA97B028023 1997 Development Project $ 655,325
98IH5308420 1998 IHBG $ 4,316,547
99IH5308420 1999 IHBG $ 4,240,168
TOTAL $14,441,158
In response to complaints from Lummi tribal members, we
Audit Objectives, Scope, audited HUD grants made to the Lummi Nation. The complaints
and Methodology alleged that the Lummi Nation (1) misused HUD funds, and (2)
violated federal and housing authority requirements concerning
occupancy, title conveyance, maintenance, and procurement.
Based on our preliminary review of the Lummi Nation Housing
Program and interviews with confidential complainants, we set as
our overall audit objective an assessment of LIBC's
administrative capacity and its system of internal control over
operations and financial systems. The number of complaints we
received made it impractical to specifically address each
3 2000-SE-207-1001
Introduction
complaint. Therefore, we performed an audit of LIBC's
operations to determine whether LIBC:
(1) had adequate financial, operational, and management
systems to ensure grant costs were allocable, allowable, and
reasonable;
(2) had a clearly defined organizational structure for its housing
program;
(3) maintained its housing units in safe and healthy environments;
(4) conveyed titles to homeowners in accordance with program
requirements;
(5) properly used government-purchased equipment;
(6) maintained adequate records for its grant expenditures;
(7) safeguarded its assets;
(8) had adequate labor and timekeeping systems; and
(9) followed its policies and procedures, and/or program
requirements when (a) procuring goods and services,
(b) verifying family income; (c) managing housing program
waiting lists; and (d) allowing homebuyers to sublease their
homes.
In conducting the audit, we:
• interviewed complainants to obtain the details of their
allegations.
• reviewed applicable laws to gain an understanding of
program requirements.
• inspected 90 of the 309 housing units at the Lummi Nation to
determine the validity of complaints regarding maintenance of
housing units.
• interviewed appropriate LIBC officials, management, and
staff (previous and current) to obtain an understanding of
LIBC's operation and management of the housing program
and HUD grant activities.
• reviewed available LIBC documents and other records for
testing.
• interviewed HUD officials to obtain an understanding of their
processes for review and approval of the Lummi Nation’s
HUD grants.
• reviewed HUD’s records related to Lummi including grant
documents and waiting lists.
Generally, the audit covered the period January 1, 1993 through
December 31, 1999. We modified our review period as
2000-SE-207-1001 4
Introduction
necessary to fully respond to the audit objectives. We
performed audit fieldwork at LIBC and the Housing Division’s
offices from October 1999 to February 2000.
We conducted the audit in accordance with generally accepted
government auditing standards.
5 2000-SE-207-1001
Introduction
(This page intentionally left blank)
2000-SE-207-1001 6
Finding 1
Lummi Indian Business Council Lacks
Administrative Capacity to Manage Federal Grants
Lummi Indian Business Council (LIBC) does not have the administrative capacity to manage
federal grants. LIBC does not have financial management or managerial and operational
systems that meet the standards of the Indian Housing Block Grant (IHBG) program. In
addition, LIBC has no clearly defined organizational structure for its housing activities, which
contributes to its internal control weaknesses. As a result, LIBC subjected its HUD grants and
activities to potential fraud, waste, and mismanagement.
Native American Housing Assistance and Self-Determination
NAHASDA requires Act of 1996 (NAHASDA) regulations (24 CFR 1000.6) require
grantees to have Indian Housing Block Grant recipients to "have the administrative
administrative capacity capacity to undertake the affordable housing activities proposed.
This capacity includes the existence of adequate systems of
internal control necessary to administer these activities effectively
without waste, fraud, or mismanagement."
LIBC does not have the ability to effectively undertake the
Audit results show that affordable housing activities in its Indian Housing Plan in
LIBC does not have accordance with NAHASDA requirements. The audit disclosed
administrative capacity evidence of waste, mismanagement, and related internal control
weaknesses as discussed in our findings and summarized below:
Families live in unsafe housing and unhealthy environments
(Finding 2)
Mismanagement and a lack of adequate internal control and
monitoring of the maintenance program contributed to:
• unsafe and unhealthy housing conditions;
• inadequate inspections;
• extensive and costly rework; and
• waste of valuable HUD resources.
7 2000-SE-207-1001
Finding 1
Housing stock overstatement results in $1.2 million in HUD
overfunding (Finding 3)
Mismanagement of the title conveyance process resulted in
a significant misallocation of NAHASDA funds.
Misuse of government-purchased equipment (Finding 4)
Mismanagement of and a lack of internal control over
equipment purchased with HUD funds resulted in:
• increased cost to federal programs;
• loss of revenue due to diversion of program income;
and
• unfair competition with the local business community.
Inadequate records to support grant expenditures
(Finding 5)
Inadequate grant records resulted in unsupported costs and
provided no assurance funds were used for intended
purposes.
Lack of material inventory system (Finding 6)
Mismanagement of assets and a lack of inventory controls
caused waste and possible theft of construction materials
intended for use in building and improving low-income
housing.
Inadequate labor and timekeeping systems (Finding 7)
Mismanagement and inadequate internal control of labor
resources provided no assurance that grant expenditures
benefited low-income families.
Inadequate procurement records (Finding 8)
LIBC’s internal control system provided no assurance funds
were expended for goods and services and not subjected to
waste.
2000-SE-207-1001 8
Finding 1
Lack of income verification (Finding 9)
Inadequate documentation and monitoring provided no
assurance that only eligible families received housing
assistance.
Inadequate waiting list procedures (Finding 10)
Inadequate internal control and monitoring provided no
assurance that selection of occupants was fair.
Improper sublease procedures (Finding 11)
Program mismanagement resulted in owners subletting units
for ineligible reasons, such as a felon subletting during his
incarceration.
In addition to the above findings disclosing a lack of
Organizational structure not administrative capability, LIBC has no clearly defined
clearly defined organizational structure. Proper structure is important to the
operation of any organization because it defines the
relationships, responsibilities, and authorities of the positions in
the organization. The Lummi Nation has not decided if it will
structure its housing program as a Tribally Designated Housing
Entity (TDHE) or as a division of the tribe. According to
NAHASDA, a TDHE "is not an Indian tribe for the purposes of
this act." A TDHE is a separate organization from the tribe,
whose executive director reports to the housing entities board
of directors. A Housing Division of a tribe is part of the
organizational structure of the tribe and its executive director
reports to tribal management.
The Lummi Nation's current housing program has elements of
both structures.
Elements that indicate LIBC's housing program is a division of
the tribe:
• On the organizational chart, Housing is a division of the tribe
under the Planning Department of the tribe.
• The Housing Board of Directors has only advisory power.
• The Executive Director reports to the Director of the
Planning Department.
9 2000-SE-207-1001
Finding 1
Elements that indicate LIBC’s housing program is a TDHE:
• The Lummi Nation passed a resolution declaring that
Housing would operate as a TDHE.
• LIBC and Housing policies and procedures indicate
Housing is a separate Housing Authority.
• Housing accounting year-end is September 30, while
LIBC's is December 31.
In our opinion, LIBC's practices indicate more that the housing
program is a division of the tribe. Therefore, in this report we
refer to the housing program management as the “Housing
Division” of LIBC.
Auditee Comments and OIG Evaluation
Lummi Indian Business Council disagrees with the draft report’s
LIBC claims it has assertion that LIBC lacks administrative capacity:
administrative capacity
• The Lummi Nation has demonstrated its capacity to
administer federal grants to other federal agencies. During
the past year, LIBC has had extensive program reviews by
other federal agencies. The judgement reflected in HUD-
OIG’s draft report is not supported by reviews from other
agencies.
• The results of independent audits have not identified a lack
of administrative capacity, although reportable conditions
have been identified that were not considered to be material
weaknesses.
• The accounting issues reported exist in large part due to the
unique relationship between the Housing and Adminstrative
Divisions of LIBC. No other program area maintains
separate accounting, purchasing, or payroll systems
separate from LIBC as does Housing. Therefore, it is
inappropriate to generalize from this unique situation to non-
HUD grants.
During the audit, OIG staff requested copies of reviews
OIG evaluation completed by other agencies; however, LIBC did not provide
copies of any prior reviews. Also, discussions with Department
of Interior, Health and Human Services, and Environmental
2000-SE-207-1001 10
Finding 1
Protection Agency auditors indicate these agencies had not
performed administrative capacity reviews at the Lummi Nation.
If LIBC now contends that in the past year other agencies
reviewed its financial systems and/or administrative capacity, it
should provide copies of those audits to the program staff at
HUD for further review. However, the audit results detailed in
this report clearly show that LIBC does not have the
administrative capacity to properly manage federal grants.
The auditors disagree with the independent public auditor's
determination that none of the weaknesses identified were
material. The audit findings related to financial systems,
accuracy and completeness of transactions, and monitoring and
compliance with federal regulations indicate a lack of adequate
systems of internal control. Several audit findings have been
outstanding for multiple years. Due to the significance of its
audit findings, LIBC currently is not authorized to invest HUD
funds.
LIBC indicates its administrative problems are due to the unique
relationship between its Housing Division and its Administrative
Division. However, it is LIBC's, not its Housing Division's, lack
adequate financial systems including adequate systems of
internal control that gave rise to this finding. The audit found the
Housing Division’s accounting system to be adequate. The
procurement, labor, and inventory systems controlled by LIBC
are not adequate for recording costs on any government grant.
This is not unique to housing projects and should be a concern
to all agencies.
Lummi Indian Business Council agrees that Housing currently
Lummi will decide soon operates as a division of the LIBC, not as a separate Tribally
whether it will have Housing Designated Housing Entity (TDHE). Many months ago, the
separate or as part of LIBC Business Council initiated a comprehensive evaluation of the
benefits and detriments of establishing a more independent
TDHE for housing purposes. That evaluation is nearing
completion and it is anticipated that the Council will make a
decision in the near future whether to maintain housing as a
division of the LIBC or to create a TDHE. In either case, the
LIBC recognizes the Tribe is ultimately responsible for
compliance with the requirements of NAHASDA.
11 2000-SE-207-1001
Finding 1
LIBC’s determination of its organizational structure is an
OIG evaluation important step in attaining administrative capacity. HUD
program staff should monitor this process to ensure that LIBC
fully implements its decision.
Recommendations:
We recommend that HUD:
1A. Require LIBC to take immediate and effective measures to become administratively
capable as defined in NAHASDA regulations. As part of these measures, LIBC should
implement the recommendations in the 11 findings of this audit report.
1B. Require LIBC to decide whether it will operate its housing program as a division of the
tribe or as a separate Tribally Designated Housing Entity and to fully implement this
decision.
1C. Conduct a follow-up review within one year to ensure that LIBC and the Housing
Division have taken the necessary measures to become administratively capable.
2000-SE-207-1001 12
Finding 2
Low-Income Lummi Families Live in Unsafe and
Unhealthy Housing Conditions
Lummi Indian Business Council (LIBC) does not adequately maintain its housing stock. Audit
inspections, interviews, and reviews of records found that LIBC did not:
• require homebuyers to adequately maintain their houses;
• adequately supervise and train its construction and maintenance workers;
• have a maintenance work order system that tracks requests or correctly charges
tenants for repair costs;
• conduct adequate annual inspections of housing units;
• have accounting records to support why Comprehensive Improvement Assistance
Program (CIAP) funds for asbestos removal were not spent as planned; and
• provide adequate home maintenance training to homeowners.
As a result, LIBC does not provide low-income Lummi families with affordable housing in a
safe and healthy environment. This occurred because LIBC lacks the administrative capacity
to manage its federal grants (see Finding 1).
The Native American Housing Assistance and Self-
NAHASDA and LIBC Determination Act of 1996 (NAHASDA) requires assistance
policies and procedures recipients to maintain and operate affordable housing in safe and
require safe and healthy healthy environments.
environments
LIBC’s Indian Housing Plan objectives include the preservation
and improvement of the physical condition of existing units and
maintenance of the tribal housing stock in decent, safe, and
sanitary condition. LIBC planned to (1) perform regular
inspections of rental and homeownership units to determine
maintenance needs; (2) conduct regular maintenance, repair,
and major rehabilitation of current housing stock; (3) ensure
adequate staffing to carry out the operations of the housing
program; and (4) provide training and educational opportunities
for staff at all levels.
LIBC's policies and procedures specify that the Housing
Division:
• will operate its maintenance program under HUD “Section
8 Program Housing Quality Standards."
13 2000-SE-207-1001
Finding 2
• will assume the ultimate responsibility for maintenance of all
units in its HUD-assisted programs. However, specific
responsibilities of LIBC and unit occupants are outlined in
agreements signed by the two parties.
§ Rental leases hold the Housing Division
responsible for regular inspections, and making
improvements and repairs. The tenant is
obligated to maintain the dwelling unit in good
condition and appearance through proper
housekeeping and ensuring continuous service
of utilities.
§ Homeownership agreements hold homeowners
responsible for all routine and non-routine
maintenance. Failure to maintain a unit is
grounds for termination of the agreement.
LIBC must conduct annual inspections and
notify homebuyers of maintenance items that
require their attention.
• is responsible for developing and providing a training course
in home maintenance for current and prospective residents
to ensure that the tenant/homebuyer maintains house and
grounds.
• will monitor its "maintenance progress in order to develop
empirical data, which can be used to monitor the
effectiveness of the entire maintenance effort."
Between September and December 1999, a HUD Office of
LIBC does not maintain its Inspector General Appraiser/Construction Analyst (OIG
housing units in a safe and Inspector) inspected 90 of LIBC’s 309 housing units, including
healthy environment 70 homeownership and 20 rental units, for compliance with
Section 8 Housing Quality Standards.
The OIG Inspector found that Housing Quality Standards
(HQS) violations were:
Frequent:
• 97% of the units had at least one violation;
• 59% had five or more violations; and
• 16% had twenty or more violations.
2000-SE-207-1001 14
Finding 2
Related to a safe and healthy environment:
• 91% had electrical hazards;
• 66% had security violations; and
• 60% had general health and safety violations.
(See Appendix D for a complete table of HQS violations.)
During our inspections, we interviewed unit occupants and
observed:
• exposed electrical wires;
• deteriorating and damaged flooring;
• holes in walls;
• broken appliances;
• broken lighting fixtures;
• missing smoke detectors;
• broken windows;
• missing and damaged cabinets;
• mounds of trash with reports of rodent infestations, and
abandoned vehicles often used as trash containers;
• a house design that does not provide for heat in the
bathrooms;
• severely damaged units where LIBC had not taken action
to remove the occupant or repair the unit;
• units where LIBC installed electric baseboard heaters that
residents report are so expensive to operate they often
leave their units unheated or use wood as their only heat
source; and
• units where LIBC workers did not repair or removed and
did not replace existing heating units, leaving the occupants
with wood as their only heat source. The OIG Inspector
stated wood heat is not adequate as an exclusive heat
source.
15 2000-SE-207-1001
Finding 2
Additionally, LIBC does not adequately maintain abandoned
houses. Audit staff inspected an abandoned unit on which
LIBC recently expended significant CIAP funds. There was
food on the ceilings and walls, the entrance door was standing
open, and the house had trash inside and out. LIBC personnel
said workers refuse to enter the house because of rats. LIBC
personnel also stated they were afraid to repossess the property
because of the violent nature of the family involved. The Health
Department would not condemn the property for the same
reason. LIBC personnel reported that despite repeated
requests the Tribal Police would not take action.
2000-SE-207-1001 16
Finding 2
Illustrations of deficiencies at the units inspected that are representative of conditions of the housing
stock and the neighborhood.
Hole in wall creates safety and
electrical hazards.
Gap between wall and ceiling creates
health hazard.
17 2000-SE-207-1001
Finding 2
Cars and trash in the yard create an
unsafe and unhealthy environment.
Greasy range hood is a fire hazard. The
exposed fan and wiring are electrical
hazards.
2000-SE-207-1001 18
Finding 2
LIBC does not require homebuyers to adequately maintain their
LIBC does not require units. LIBC could, but has not, enforced the terms of its Mutual
homebuyers to maintain Help and Occupancy Agreement by terminating agreements and
their units evicting homebuyers who fail to perform maintenance
obligations. By not requiring maintenance of its housing units,
LIBC has allowed its housing stock to deteriorate, resulting in
low-income Lummi families living in unsafe and unhealthy
environments.
The OIG Inspector stated LIBC's supervisors do not have the
LIBC does not adequately necessary qualifications and its workers lack adequate training
supervise and train its and supervision to ensure acceptable construction and
construction and rehabilitation of units. He said LIBC's projects require
maintenance workers extensive rework as a result of inferior work and deficient
supervision, significantly increasing costs and wasting HUD
funds.
Residents reported many instances of poor quality work done
by LIBC personnel. Also, during the inspections, OIG staff
observed evidence of deficient workmanship, such as:
• a home where the faucet was incorrectly installed,
preventing the hot water from being turned off;
• improperly installed appliances;
• heating systems located in closets because of poor design;
• missing exterior siding;
• improperly sealed bathtubs;
• cracks in newly built or repaired ceilings and walls;
• missing closet rods and closet shelves;
• closet rods installed only 30 inches from the floor;
• thermostats installed without a corresponding heating unit;
• improperly installed doors allowing heat to escape
and weather elements to enter the home;
• inadequate foundations;
• recently completed HOPE units needing extensive rework;
and
• landscaping with 2 to 4 foot swells where LIBC has located
elderly and handicapped residents including a blind woman.
The CIAP supervisor indicated that he could not grade the
yards because of the expense of renting equipment from
LIBC. LIBC purchased the equipment with HUD funds,
19 2000-SE-207-1001
Finding 2
which precludes charging any federal program a fee for its
use (see additional discussion of this issue in Finding 4 of
this report).
LIBC's Indian Housing Plan states that it will "provide training
and educational opportunities for staff at all levels." LIBC has
not met this goal or implemented a plan to attain it.
The Housing Division needs a better work order system for
The Housing Division needs maintenance of rental units to ensure that (1) requests for
to improve its maintenance maintenance are tracked, to ensure prompt and efficient
work order system response, and (2) tenants are correctly charged for maintenance
costs.
The Housing Division does not track work order requests to
ensure maintenance services are provided in a timely and
efficient manner
The Housing Division’s work order system does not track
requests for maintenance, respond timely to maintenance
requests, or adequately supervise its maintenance personnel.
As a result, the system does not correct deficiencies in a timely
manner, potentially causing collateral damage, additional
expense, and allowing units to become substandard.
According to its policies and procedures, the Housing Division
shall perform all required maintenance by an approved work
order. Tenants shall request a work order either in person or
by phone. The Resident Counselor will write up the work
order, route it to the Housing Director for approval, and then
give it to the maintenance staff for action. However, upon the
return of the work order documents from the maintenance
technician, the Housing Division simply records tenant charges
and files the work orders. It does not maintain a work order
log, track requests, or review the quality and completeness of
maintenance work.
A review of 17 work order requests found 6 cases where
maintenance was not performed timely, or possibly not
performed at all. In 3 of the 6 cases, it took maintenance staff
6, 17, and 22 days to respond to the request. The request that
took 6 days involved a toilet that would not flush. For 3 other
cases, there is no evidence that any action was ever taken.
2000-SE-207-1001 20
Finding 2
These work order requests, dated November 1997, April
1999, and July 1999, were simply filed in the resident folders,
with no indication that any action was ever taken. Other tenants
called repeatedly before LIBC responded to their requests.
The maintenance technician has neither an assistant to help him
nor a supervisor to oversee his work. He stated LIBC assigned
him to maintain 59 rental units, which is more work than he can
accomplish and causes maintenance delays.
The Housing Division does not always correctly charge
tenants for maintenance costs
The Housing Division's policies and procedures indicate it will
charge for all work orders that are determined to be the fault of
the tenants of rental units. However, the maintenance
technician, who admits to being overworked and unsupervised,
solely determines whether or not to charge tenants. This
procedure is subject to abuse and relies entirely on one
employee to correctly calculate the cost of repair and fill out the
corresponding paperwork.
A review of 17 randomly selected work order requests showed
8 requests where the maintenance technician indicated the
Housing Division should charge tenants for maintenance repairs.
However, accounting records show that the Housing Division
charged only two tenants and did not charge five tenants. The
Housing Division could not provide us with the eighth tenant’s
accounting records. The Housing Division's inconsistent
charging practices do not hold tenants accountable for negligent
or intentional damage, and result in loss of program income.
The maintenance technician did not adequately complete the
work orders we reviewed. He did not specify labor, materials,
or other costs on seven of the eight requests where he thought
tenants should be charged. None of the requests showed how
labor costs were calculated, nor included a list of materials
used. Further, five of eight requests did not describe the details
of work performed, and none of the requests included a reason
for charging the tenants.
21 2000-SE-207-1001
Finding 2
The maintenance technician routes work orders with tenant
charges to the Housing Division accounting department for
processing. Maintenance gives work orders without tenant
charges to a Resident Counselor for filing. The Housing
Division does not have procedures (1) to review the reasons for
repair charges or (2) to verify that charges are accurately
computed and recorded.
We discussed the maintenance and work order system with the
Housing Division Director. She agreed to develop a better
work order system by requiring maintenance of a work order
log and procedures to track requests and review the quality and
completeness of maintenance work. She will redesign the work
order form to allow documentation of hours worked, a
description of the repair service, and reasons for any charges to
the occupant. She indicated she would develop a review
process to ensure that the Housing Division accurately records
repair charges in the accounting system. However, the new
system does not provide for supervision of the maintenance
staff, which would be needed for the system to be adequate.
Section 8 Housing Program Quality Standards provide
LIBC does not conduct guidelines for thorough inspections that serve as a basic record
adequate annual inspections to corroborate decisions and recommendations regarding each
unit. The Housing Division’s lack of adequate annual
inspections is a control deficiency and a contributing factor in
many of the units not meeting NAHASDA requirements for a
safe and healthy environment.
We reviewed records of 23 out of the 186 inspections the
Housing Division completed within the last 12 months (although
its policies and procedures require annual inspections, we found
the Housing Division conducted inspections 13 to 20 months
from previous inspection dates). The Housing Division
personnel did not conduct thorough and accurate inspections of
these 23 units. Inspection forms did not show the inspector’s
assessment of deficiencies as required by the Section 8 Housing
Program Quality Standards. Resident Counselors/Inspectors
were not familiar with the required inspection standards, and
instead used personal judgment to evaluate the condition of
each unit. The OIG Appraiser/Construction Analyst
determined the Housing Division had not adequately trained its
inspection personnel. Because the Housing Division lacks an
2000-SE-207-1001 22
Finding 2
adequate inspection system, its does not identify all deficiencies
during its inspections and they remain uncorrected, resulting in
low-income families living in unsafe and unhealthy environments.
In January 2000, the Housing Division responded to this finding
regarding inspector training by sending its inspectors to the
Housing and Building Inspection program at the University of
Wisconsin. If as discussed, LIBC's Housing Division
implements a training plan that provides initial training for new
inspectors and ongoing training for all inspectors, its actions
would resolve the training issue.
In a Fiscal Year (FY) 1994 CIAP grant, LIBC received
Comprehensive $500,000 for asbestos removal from units in projects 28-2, and
Improvement Assistance 28-3. While LIBC expended all of the funds, it has not
Program (CIAP) funds not removed asbestos from 23 of the 75 units. LIBC contends that
expended as planned asbestos removal costs significantly exceeded its estimate but
did not provide accounting records to support that claim.
According to the Housing Division Director, some of the
families who were relocated during the asbestos work did
extensive damage to the motel rooms where they were staying.
Payment for these damages was billed to the Housing Division
and significantly increased grant expenses.
Homeowners and tenants reported they had little or no home
LIBC does not provide maintenance training before and none subsequent to moving into
adequate training to their units. Occupants had no knowledge of the proper
homeowners operation and maintenance of: (1) smoke detectors, (2)
appliances, (3) heating systems, and (4) non-standard lighting
fixtures. The Housing Division has not coordinated with the
Northwest Indian College to develop a program for
homebuyers and tenants, as planned. In response to
discussions on this issue, the Housing Division management
agreed to begin training homeowners in home maintenance, and
provided a course outline of its proposed class. If fully
implemented with homeowner participation, the Housing
Division's plan should resolve this finding.
23 2000-SE-207-1001
Finding 2
Based on the results of inspections, interviews, and reviews of
Conclusion tenant records, in our opinion LIBC does not adequately
maintain its housing units in accordance with its Maintenance
Policies and Procedures, HUD Section 8 Housing Program
Quality Standards, and NAHASDA requirements. As a result,
low-income Lummi families are living in unsafe and unhealthy
housing conditions.
Auditee Comments and OIG Evaluation
LIBC has applied for and dedicated HUD CIAP funds to
Auditee comments address problems with its housing stock. A backlog of
problems developed until the Tribe was able to secure such
funding. Since 1996, CIAP funds have been used to address
the kinds of problems noted by the OIG inspectors. Prior to
1996, CIAP funds were primarily used for asbestos removal.
LIBC needs additional funding to address the maintenance
problems identified in the draft report.
The Housing Division:
1. has hired three additional full time maintenance workers,
2. has hired a Project Administrator with required experience
in cost accounting and construction management to provide
high quality supervision of construction, rehabilitation, and
maintenance work.
3. will develop a training plan for maintenance staff,
4. has revised its work order procedures,
5. will provide additional staff training to ensure quality annual
inspections,
6. will develop and provide on-going home maintenance
training and require attendance of tenants and homebuyers
based on their annual inspections,
7. has developed due process procedures for evictions and
termination of homebuyer agreements for appropriate
cause.
LIBC’s statement that it needs additional funds to bring these
OIG evaluation homes up to standards is not reasonable. LIBC has received
an average of $16,653 for each of the 95 older units over the
past few years to bring the older homes into compliance. The
OIG Inspector stated that this amount should have rehabilitated
all 95 of LIBC's older units, including asbestos removal. The
2000-SE-207-1001 24
Finding 2
primary problem was that LIBC did not require homebuyers to
maintain their homes. We observed homes where occupants
had adequately maintained the units and these older homes
were in standard condition.
The Housing Division’s corrective actions regarding its
maintenance and work order systems, if adequately
implemented, should resolve the maintenance systems issues.
However, since HUD has already provided adequate funding
for rehabilitation of the older units, LIBC should use non federal
funds to bring these units up to standard condition.
Recommendations:
We recommend you require LIBC to:
2A. Take appropriate measures, including (but not limited to) the recommendations below,
to bring its housing stock, to safe and healthy conditions.
2B. Institute a process requiring homeowners to correct all deficiencies, including due dates
for corrections and provisions for re-inspection. As required by its policies and
procedures, LIBC should terminate the homeowner agreements of homeowners not
correcting deficiencies in a timely manner.
2C. Hire qualified supervisors to oversee its construction and rehabilitation projects, and
ensure that construction and maintenance workers receive adequate training and
supervision to perform acceptable construction and rehabilitation of housing units.
2D. Implement a work order system that effectively tracks work requests, ensures repair
work is timely completed, and provides for reviews of the quality and completeness of
the maintenance work.
2E. Implement a work order system that ensures tenants are correctly and equitably
charged for maintenance work.
2F. Conduct timely and adequate annual inspections of housing units in accordance with
Section 8 Housing Program Quality Standards and NAHASDA requirements.
25 2000-SE-207-1001
Finding 2
2G. Provide documentation supporting their claims that asbestos costs paid with FY 1994
Comprehensive Improvement Assistance Program (CIAP) funds significantly exceeded
their estimate. Repay from non-federal funds any unallowable and unsupported grant
expenditures.
2H. Provide written evidence that its plans for providing homeowners with adequate home
maintenance training has been fully implemented.
2000-SE-207-1001 26
Finding 3
Lummi’s Overstated Housing Stock Results in
$1.2 Million in HUD Overfunding
The Housing Division incorrectly included in housing formula calculations up to 95
homeownership units that had been paid off and/or conveyed. Under Native American
Housing Assistance and Self-Determination Act of 1996 (NAHASDA) regulations, these units
should no longer have been considered Formula Current Assisted Stock. As a result, HUD
overfunded the Lummi Nation’s Indian Housing Block Grants by as much as $1,279,768. This
occurred because LIBC is not administratively capable of managing its federal grants
(see Finding 1).
NAHASDA regulations (24 CFR 1000.318) state:
Regulations require removal
of conveyed and paid off “Mutual Help and Turnkey III units shall no longer
units be considered Formula Current Assisted Stock
when the Indian Tribe, TDHE, or IHA no longer
has the legal right to own, operate, or maintain the
unit, whether such right is lost by conveyance,
demolition, or otherwise, provided that:
(1) Conveyance of each Mutual Help or
Turnkey III units occurs as soon as
practicable after the unit becomes eligible
for conveyance by the terms of the MHOA;
and
(2) The Indian Tribe, TDHE, or IHA actively
enforce strict compliance by the homebuyer
with the terms and conditions of the
MHOA, including the requirements for full
and timely payment.”
The Mutual Help and Occupancy Agreement (MHOA), Article
X, states:
• "…in accordance with this agreement, the IHA shall
convey title to the homebuyer when the balance of
the purchase price can be covered from the two
equity accounts….The homebuyer may supplement
27 2000-SE-207-1001
Finding 3
the amount in the equity accounts with reserves or
other funds of the homebuyer.
• …a home shall not be conveyed until the
homebuyer has met all the obligations under this
Agreement, except as agreed upon by parties. On
the settlement date, the homebuyer shall receive the
documents necessary to convey to the homebuyer
the IHA’s right, title and interest to the home….
• …when a home has been conveyed to the
homebuyer, whether or not with IHA financing, the
unit is removed from the IHA’s Mutual Help
project.
• …if a homebuyer has delinquency at the end of the
amortization period, the unit is no longer available
for assistance from HUD or the IHA, even though
unit has not been conveyed.”
To determine whether the Housing Division has followed
Housing Division executes program requirements for conveyance, we interviewed the
Bills of Sale Housing Division staff and reviewed the 95 homeowner files of
projects 28-1 (20 units), 28-2 (40 units), and 28-3 (35 units).
The Housing Division Director and a Resident Counselor said
that the 20 project 28-1 homeowners paid off their units in the
early 90's and are no longer making monthly payments. A
review of the project 28-1 homebuyer files confirms this. All
20 files had a Bill of Sale and Assignment document that
released both parties from further obligations under the Mutual
Help and Occupancy Agreement:
“…in consideration of the payment in full of all
monies and other obligations required to be
paid by (homebuyer's name here) as the
participant, under the terms of the Mutual Help
and Occupancy Agreement between the
Authority and the participant, which is hereby
acknowledged, …does hereby grant, sell,
convey and assign to (homebuyer's name here)
all the rights, titles and interest of the
Authority…,” in which the Housing Authority
2000-SE-207-1001 28
Finding 3
"granted, sold, conveyed and assigned to
homeowners all of its rights, titles and interest."
In the early 1990s, when HUD forgave the debt of all its Indian
Housing Authorities, the Housing Board decided to forgive the
debts of the 75 homeowners in projects 28-2 and 28-3. In
1993, LIBC stopped charging these homebuyers monthly
payments even though the amortization periods had not yet
ended. LIBC conveyed titles to the 75 homeowners by
executing Bills of Sale and Assignment.
LIBC contends that it did not properly convey the units because
the former Housing Director signed the agreements without the
authority to do so. However, LIBC’s Planning Department
Director said that the former management made a decision to
keep the units on the Housing Division’s books in order to
increase HUD funding. Regardless, the 95 units, should have
been removed from the current housing stock because the units
were paid off, as evidenced by the homebuyers ceasing to
make monthly payments.
For Fiscal Years (FY) 1998 to 2000, HUD allocated
Lummi’s overstated housing $12,415,279 to the Lummi Nation Indian Housing Block
stock results in significant Grants (IHBG) under NAHASDA. As a result of including the
HUD overfunding 95 paid off and/or conveyed units in the current assisted stock
figures, HUD over-funded the Lummi Nation’s IHBGs by
$1,279,748 for FYs 1998 through 2000:
Original IHBG Adjusted IHBG
Fiscal Year Allocation Allocation Overfunding
1998 $ 4,316,547 $ 3,912,176 $ 404,371
1999 $ 4,240,168 $ 3,808,445 $ 431,723
2000 $ 3,858,564 $ 3,414,910 $ 443,654
Totals $12,415,279 $11,135,531 $1,279,748
29 2000-SE-207-1001
Finding 3
Auditee and HUD Comments and OIG Evaluation
The LIBC disagrees with Finding #3 and believes that
Auditee comments maintaining the old Turnkey III and Mutual Help homes as part
of Lummi’s housing stock will allow Lummi to complete its goal
of bringing these 95 homes up to HUD standards prior to
conveyance. A substantial number of the housing deficiencies
noted in Finding #2 relate to conditions in these older homes
that this finding says have been or should have been conveyed.
Review of the “Bill of Sale” documents referenced in this finding
revealed discrepancies with the way they were drawn up and
executed. Prior to correcting these conveyance problems,
Lummi Housing believed it appropriate, indeed believed it was
their duty, to bring these houses up to HUD standards before
final conveyance. In 1996, CIAP funding began to be used to
do the needed work on these homes. In prior years, CIAP
funding was primarily used for asbestos removal, which
consumed a far greater portion of the available funding than
originally estimated. Removal of these homes from Lummi
housing stock and a reduction of funding for addressing housing
stock problems will only exacerbate the unsafe and unhealthy
conditions noted by the OIG Inspector in Finding #2.
Most of the 95 homes at issue were built on individually owned
trust lands leased to the former Lummi Housing Authority. The
leases provide that when they are terminated, the improvements
will revert to the landowners. Approximately 20 of these
homes involve individual homebuyers who appear to own the
underlying land. This means that when the leases expire on the
individual trust lands where at least 75 of these homes were
built, the ownership of the homes will revert to the underlying
landowners. Litigation has already been initiated regarding
several of these homes, with the landowners claiming ownership
and attempting to evict the homebuyer.
Lummi is doing its best to disentangle these complex problems
inherited from HUD-designed housing programs that were not
particularly well suited to Indian country. Lummi Housing
believes that properly authorized and executed conveyances to
the correct parties will best protect the diverse interests of both
homebuyers and trust landowners and will help to avoid
unnecessary and divisive litigation.
2000-SE-207-1001 30
Finding 3
LIBD contends its duty is to bring the 95 units up to standard.
OIG evaluation The OIG believes it was their duty to maintain the units in
standard condition. Nevertheless, from 1994 through 1996,
HUD provided $1,582,102 for rehabilitation of LIBC's 95
older homes, including asbestos removal. Therefore, each of
the 95 units had $16,654 available for rehabilitation and
asbestos removal. The condition of these units does not
support LIBC's expenditure of these funds, but instead indicates
waste of government funds and a lack of administrative capacity
at LIBC.
It is not reasonable for LIBC to expect HUD to provide
additional rehabilitation funds or to continue to provide funding
for houses that have been paid for in full by the home owners.
Because the homeowners had no further financial obligation on
the homes, LIBC should have removed the units from its
formula current assisted stock regardless of its understanding of
the status of the title conveyance.
HUD’s Northwest Office of Native American Programs
HUD comments (NwONAP) stated that Lummi may be able to provide
adequate information and documentation that could result in an
adjustment to the unit count and dollar amount associated with
this finding (see Appendix C).
The recommendations were revised to allow for adjustment in
OIG evaluation the number of houses and the amount of questioned costs.
31 2000-SE-207-1001
Finding 3
Recommendations:
We recommend that you:
3A. Require LIBC to remove houses that have been conveyed to homeowners (up to 95
units) from its formula current assisted stock.
3B. Recover, due to Lummi including in its Formula Current Assisted Stock houses that had
been conveyed to home owners, up to $1,279,748 in overfunding by making the
necessary adjustments to the Lummi Nation’s future Indian Housing Block Grants.
2000-SE-207-1001 32
Finding 4
Lummi Indian Business Council Misused Equipment
Purchased with HUD Funds
Lummi Indian Business Council (LIBC) did not follow federal requirements for the use of
equipment purchased with HUD funds. Specifically, LIBC: (1) inappropriately charged
federally funded programs for the use of equipment purchased with federal funds; (2) did not
return program income, generated by renting the equipment, to the Housing Division
programs, as required; and (3) charged equipment rental fees that unfairly competed with
private local companies. As a result, federal funds were not used for their intended purpose,
program income was not used for affordable housing activities, and local firms may have been
deprived of income. This occurred because LIBC lacks the administrative capacity to manage
its federal grants (see Finding 1).
Section 1000.26(a)(8) of the Native American Housing
HUD requirements Assistance and Self-Determination Act of 1996 (NAHASDA)
regarding equipment use, regulations requires NAHASDA assistance recipients to
safeguarding of assets, and comply with the following sections of grantee administrative
program income requirements (24 CFR 85):
24 CFR 85.32(c) (Equipment) states:
• "Equipment shall be used by the grantee or
subgrantee in the program or project for which
it was acquired as long as needed, whether or
not the project or program continues to be
supported by federal funds.”
• “The grantee or subgrantee shall also make
equipment available for use on projects or
programs currently or previously supported by
the Federal Government, providing such use
will not interfere with work on the projects or
program for which it was originally acquired.”
• “User fees should be considered if appropriate.”
• “Notwithstanding the encouragement in Sec. 85.25(a)
to earn program income, the grantee or subgrantee must
not use the equipment acquired with grant funds to
provide services for a fee to compete unfairly with
private companies that provide equivalent services…."
33 2000-SE-207-1001
Finding 4
Section 1000.62 of the NAHASDA regulations states:
“Program income includes income from fees for
services performed from the use of real or
rental of real or personal property acquired with
grant funds …” and “Any program income can
be retained by a recipient provided it is used for
affordable housing activities….”
In September 1995, the LIBC entered into rental purchase
Lummi purchases agreements to buy an excavator and a backhoe. Using funds
construction equipment provided by HUD, the Housing Division made payments on the
using federal funds excavator until February 1998 and on the backhoe until March
1998. LIBC made the final payment on the (1) excavator by
obtaining a loan using the excavator as collateral and
(2) backhoe using Indian Health Services (IHS) funds provided
by the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS).
In May 1997, LIBC entered into a lease/purchase agreement to
buy a dump truck. Lummi Housing paid for the truck using
HUD funds. The following discussion refers to the excavator,
backhoe, and dump truck collectively as "equipment."
Invoices show that from January through December 1999
LIBC charged rental fees LIBC collected rental fees (program income) of $28,238 for
for use of equipment paid the use of the equipment, including $20,050 from federally
for with federal funds funded projects and $8,187 from non-federal sources:
Rental Invoice
Fund Code Fund Source Amount Project Name
200.2960 Bureau of Indian Affairs $ 200.00 Habitat Restoration
200.9201 Bureau of Indian Affairs $ 1,075.00 Water Rights
200.9715 Bureau of Indian Affairs $ 1,308.60 Emergency Repairs
282.1551 Bureau of Indian Affairs $ 300.00 Lummi Shore Road
282.1556 Bureau of Indian Affairs $ 3,525.80 Lummi Shore Road
385.5830 Health & Human Services $ 1,007.00 Exercise Building
404.5810 Health & Human Services $ 12,633.80 Assisted Living Facility
Federal $ 20,050.20
Northwest Indian College $ 5,725.00
Individuals $ 2,462.35
Non-federal $ 8,187.35
Total $ 28,237.55
2000-SE-207-1001 34
Finding 4
LIBC did not follow federal requirements for the use of
LIBC inappropriately equipment purchased with federal funds. It inappropriately
charged federal programs charged federally funded programs for the use of an excavator,
for equipment use backhoe, and dump truck purchased primarily with HUD and
other federal funds.
HUD allows grantees to charge user fees (fees to cover
operating expenses) for projects or programs supported by the
federal government. However, LIBC charged federal agencies
rental fees that exceeded equipment operating costs by
$20,571 (discussed below).
LIBC did not provide the Housing Division with the program
LIBC did not properly use income generated by renting that equipment, to use for
program income affordable housing activities.
LIBC has a Lease Revenue account, which it uses to account
for rental income. LIBC increases (credits) the account when it
receives income, such as equipment rental fees, and decreases
the account when it uses the income.
According to its accounting records, LIBC paid $32,264.69
from the Lease Revenue account for the following expenditures:
Expenditure Amount
Supplies $ 481.00
Repairs and Maintenance 3,614.56
Fuel 1,773.18
In House Labor/Equipment 1,797.79
Salaries and Wages 6,314.49
Accrued Annual Leave 110.70
Fringe Benefits 1,007.25
Professional Fees 35.42
Dues, Subscriptions, & Fees 2,884.25
Principal Payment – Equipment Loan 10,118.46
Operating Interest 2,823.59
Cleanup/Trash Removal 714.00
Equipment Rental 590.00
Total $32,264.69
Of the $32,264.69, $7,666.53 are valid equipment operating
costs that could be charged as user fees ($481.00 supplies;
$3,614.56 repairs & maintenance; $1,773.18 fuel; and
35 2000-SE-207-1001
Finding 4
$1,797.79 in-house labor/equipment). However, the Housing
Division records do not show that any of the remaining
$24,598.16 expenditures relate to affordable housing activities.
Also, note that the $32,264.69 in expenditures exceeds the
$28,237.55 in program income generated by equipment rental
fees (per the previous table). Apparently, LIBC simply charged
the account $4,027.14 more than the revenues it credited to the
account.
LIBC should repay projects funded by the Bureau of Indian
Lummi should repay federal Affairs and Health & Human Services for the improperly
programs for the charged equipment rental fees. LIBC should also reimburse the
inappropriate rental fees and Housing Division programs for program income it did not use
program income usage for affordable housing activities.
Rental Fees Less: Operating
Fund Source (program income) Costs (user fees) Refund Amount
Bureau of Indian Affairs $ 6,409.40 $ 1,740.16 $ 4,669.24
Health & Human Services $13,640.80 $ 3,703.49 $ 9,937.31
Non-federal $ 8,187.35 $ 2,222.88 $ 5,964.47
Totals $28,237.55 $ 7,666.53 $20,571.02
We calculated each account’s pro-rated share of the user fees
by multiplying each account's percentage of the total rental
charges ($28,237.55) by the allowable user fees ($7,666.53).
We subtracted the pro-rated share from each account's rental
charges to determine the appropriate refund amount for each
federal agency.
Example: Bureau of Indian Affairs:
(1) $6,409.40 rental fees
$28,237.55 total rental fees = 22.69814%
(2) 22.69814% X $7,666.53 total user fees =
$1,740.16 pro-rata share of user fees
(3) $6,409.40 rental fees less $1,740.16 user fees =
$4,669.24 excess charges (refund amount)
2000-SE-207-1001 36
Finding 4
As a result of its equipment rental practices, LIBC
inappropriately charged Bureau of Indian Affairs and Indian
Health Services projects $4,669.24 and $9,937.31,
respectively, for use of equipment purchased with federal funds
(nor did LIBC use these program income funds for affordable
housing activities). Additionally, LIBC did not properly use for
affordable housing activities $5,964.47 of program income
generated renting HUD purchased equipment to non-federal
entities.
LIBC unfairly competed with local companies by renting
LIBC unfairly competed equipment purchased with federal funds at a rate lower than the
with local firms local rate. According to HUD requirements: "Equipment
acquired with grant funds may not be used to provide services
for a fee to compete unfairly with private companies that
provide equivalent services, unless specifically permitted or
contemplated by Federal statute.” (24 CFR 85.32(c)(3)) A
comparison of LIBC's schedule for equipment rental per
interviews with LIBC Planning Department personnel, and a
review of invoices and quotes on rental charges for similar
equipment obtained from rental firms in the local reservation
area, showed some significant differences:
Excavator Backhoe Truck
Company 1 $390/day $190/day
Company 2 $375/day $190/day
Company 3 $360/day $180/day
Company 4 $95/day + .34/mile
Average Local Price $375/day $187/day
LIBC $300/day $175/day $100/day
While the LIBC charges comparable rates for the truck, the
LIBC excavator rate is $75/day below the average local price
and the backhoe is $12/day below the average local price. As
a result, LIBC unfairly competed in the local marketplace and
may have unfairly deprived local companies of business income.
37 2000-SE-207-1001
Finding 4
Auditee Comments and OIG Evaluation
The usage of the equipment in question did not interfere with
Auditee comments HUD programs or projects. The primary issues raised by this
finding are the classification of costs to determine operating
income, the use of this operating income, and the setting of
charge-out rates. Lummi Accounting believes the following
classifications are the appropriate way to resolve this matter.
• Reimburse LIBC for the cost of the loan ($37,000) to
acquire the equipment and transfer administrative control to
the Housing Division pending liquidation of the equipment
and crediting of the Housing Division as per federal
guidelines.
• Record all legitimate operating costs in the determination of
program income on the rental of equipment and, after
repayment of the loan, use this income for affordable
housing activities only. This results in the calculation of
program income presented in the finding to be restated as
follows:
Revenue and Costs Actual HUD Finding
Rental Revenue $32,119 $28,238
Operating Costs Shown in Finding:
Supplies 481 481
Repairs and Maintenance 3,615 3,615
Fuel 1,773 1,773
In House Labor/Equipment 1,798 1,798
Additional Valid Operating Costs:
Maintenance Salaries 456
Systems Development Salaries 2,400
Fringe Benefits 463
Licensing 644
Transportation/Maintenance 590
Depreciation 7,439
Interest 2,824
Costs incurred during NWIC House Removal:
Salaries 1,058
Benefits 251
Disposal of debris 2,954
[subtotal - costs] $26,746 $ 7,667
Amount to be Applied to Debt Service $ 5,373 $20,571
2000-SE-207-1001 38
Finding 4
LIBC did restrict the use of the equipment on housing projects.
OIG evaluation The Comprehensive Improvement Assistance Program (CIAP)
foreman stated that he did not grade the yards of several elderly
and handicapped individuals, including a blind woman, because
the CIAP program could not afford to rent the equipment from
LIBC. The photo below shows the very uneven and dangerous
terrain where these individuals reside. Additionally, when asked
about grading for drainage because of standing water in crawl
spaces, the construction foreman gave the same response.
LIBC's practices interfered in quality completion of housing
projects.
LIBC did not pay $37,000 for the equipment. It obtained a
loan using the equipment as collateral. LIBC used housing
program income to make the loan payments. LIBC should not
request reimbursement for funds it did not expend. This would
constitute a false claim.
In LIBC's list of additional operating costs, it appears the only
additional expense that might be allowable is the cost of
licensing. However, LIBC did not provide support for this
figure so we were unable to determine the validity of the
expense. LIBC did not provide any support for the costs in its
response. Loan payments are a cost of ownership not an
operating cost. Program income could be used to pay valid
loan payments.
39 2000-SE-207-1001
Finding 4
Office of Management and Budget (OMB) Circular A-87
states depreciation will exclude any portion of the cost of
equipment borne by or donated by the federal government
irrespective of where title was originally vested or where it
presently resides. Therefore, since LIBC did not contribute to
the cost of the equipment it cannot charge for depreciation. The
equipment was the collateral for the loan and program income
was used to make the loan payments.
The costs incurred during NWIC House removal were invoiced
to Northwest Indian College (NWIC) and are not a part of
affordable housing activities.
Recommendations:
We recommend you require LIBC to:
4A. Repay, from non-federal sources, $4,669 and $9,937 to Bureau of Indian Affairs and
Health & Human Services projects, respectively, for fees that LIBC inappropriately
charged to federal programs for rental of equipment purchased with federal funds, and
did not use the program income for affordable housing activities.
4B. Reimburse the Housing Division’s program income account $5,964 from non-federal
sources, for the program income generated by renting equipment purchased with HUD
funds that the Housing Division did not use for affordable housing activities.
4C. Adjust its equipment rental rates to preclude unfair competition with local companies.
2000-SE-207-1001 40
Finding 5
Lummi Indian Business Council Does Not Maintain
Adequate Records to Support Grant Expenditures
Lummi Indian Business Council (LIBC) does not keep adequate records to support its grant
expenditures. LIBC could not provide documentation to support $25,382 of $263,000 in
Imminent Threat grants awarded under the Indian Community Development Block Grant
program. As a result, HUD has no assurance that LIBC used these funds for the intended
purpose. This occurred because LIBC lacks the administrative capacity to manage its federal
grants (see Finding 1).
The Imminent Threat Grant section of the regulations for
HUD requires grantees to Community Development Block Grants (CDBG) for Indian
maintain adequate records Tribes and Alaska Native Villages (24 CFR 953.501), requires
grantees to comply with Standards for Financial Management
Systems at 24 CFR 85.20.
The Standards for Financial Management Systems,
Administrative Requirements for Grants and Cooperative
Agreements to State, Local, and Federally Recognized Indian
Tribal Governments (24 CFR 85.20(b)(2)), states:
“Grantees and subgrantees must maintain
records which adequately identify the source
and application of funds provided for
financially-assisted activities.”
The exceptionally heavy rain and snow experienced during the
HUD awards Lummi grants winter of 1996-1997 caused three sewage pumping stations on
to alleviate severe drainage the Lummi reservation to fail. Raw sewage was pumped onto
problems the ground and into drainage ditches, contaminating surface and
ground water. In January 1997, in order to obtain funds to
undertake action to correct this "imminent threat to the health
and safety of the Lummi Indian Nation," LIBC requested an
Imminent Threat Grant under the Indian CDBG program.
The purpose of the grant was to (1) retrofit the pump stations to
increase operational capacity to current load demands, and (2)
construct storm water drains to divert storm water run-off from
the pump stations, reducing the strain on these facilities.
41 2000-SE-207-1001
Finding 5
HUD awarded the Lummi Tribe a total of $263,000 under
grants B97SR530001 ($107,883) and B96SR530020
($155,117).
LIBC stated in its Final Performance and Evaluation Report for
LIBC unable to support all the Imminent Threat grants, that the project goals had been
Imminent Threat grant achieved and that $263,000 of costs "...have been incurred and
expenditures paid out. Responsibilities of the Lummi Nation under the grant
agreement and applicable laws and regulations appeared to
have been carried out satisfactorily."
The audit disclosed that HUD disbursed $263,000 to LIBC
under the two Imminent Threat grants. However, LIBC was
only able to provide invoices to support total grant expenditures
of $237,618. Because LIBC did not maintain adequate
records for the Imminent Threat grants, it was unable to provide
documentation for the remaining $25,382 of grant expenditures.
As a result, these grant funds may have been wasted or
misused.
Auditee Comments and OIG Evaluation
The LIBC disagrees with Finding #5. With regard to the
Auditee comments “missing” documents referenced in this finding, the LIBC has,
and always had, access to them simply by requesting copies
from the sub-grantee of the Imminent Threat Grant funds.
Enclosed is complete documentation to support the
expenditures for the entire $263,000 Imminent Threat Block
Grant, including the $25,382 questioned costs.
LIBC acknowledges that in some instances backup documents
have been mis-filed and therefore are not immediately available.
Given the volume of transactions processed by the Accounting
Department, the number of mis-filed documents is not
inordinately high and is not indicative of a lack of administrative
capacity.
During the audit OIG staff repeatedly requested supporting
OIG evaluation documentation for the missing documents. LIBC staff did not
provide the documentation, nor mention that the documentation
was available. LIBC does not maintain adequate records of its
procurement, labor, inventory, or accounting transactions.
2000-SE-207-1001 42
Finding 5
Relative to comparable organizations, the lack of documentation
is inordinately high. LIBC perception of the situation’s severity
indicates a lack of understanding of the necessity and value of
maintaining adequate documentation and is a contributing factor
to LIBC's lack of administrative capability.
The OIG is currently reviewing the information provided by
LIBC and will assist the program staff in resolving this issue.
Recommendations:
We recommend you require LIBC to:
5A. Provide adequate documentation for the unsupported costs or repay the Indian
Community Development Block Grant program $25,382 from non-federal funds.
5B. Implement procedures to maintain adequate documentation for costs incurred on all
grants.
43 2000-SE-207-1001
Finding 5
(This page intentionally left blank)
2000-SE-207-1001 44
Finding 6
Lummi Indian Business Council Does Not Keep
Track of Materials Inventory
Lummi Indian Business Council's (LIBC’s) Planning Department does not adequately record,
track, or conduct inventory verifications of the purchased and stored materials used in its
construction and renovation projects. Without an adequate inventory system for construction
materials, LIBC cannot ensure it safeguards assets purchased with federal funds by
protecting them from theft and waste. This occurred because LIBC lacks the administrative
capacity to manage its federal grants (see Finding 1).
HUD regulations (24 CFR 85.20(b)(3)) state:
Regulations require tribes to
account for and safeguard “effective control and accountability must be
assets maintained for…personal property, and other
assets. Grantees and subgrantees must
adequately safeguard all such property and
must assure that it is used solely for authorized
purposes.”
LIBC's Planning Department is responsible for overseeing
Inventory controls lacking housing activities on the Lummi reservation, including new
construction, routine maintenance of rental units, and substantial
rehabilitation. These activities require a significant amount of
material to accomplish program goals. Comprehensive
Improvement Assistance Program (CIAP) rehabilitation grants
from Fiscal Years 1995 through 1997 total $1,480,522.
According to Housing Division records, a rough estimate of the
cost of materials for these grants is over $536,000.
We requested information on LIBC's materials inventory
system. LIBC Planning Department supervisors reported that
LIBC does not record, track, or reconcile its materials
inventory. As a result, LIBC cannot identify materials
delivered, used, missing, or wasted. To illustrate, the audit
found one case where someone removed an installed window
from a home that was under construction. There is no record of
the theft in LIBC's accounting records.
A review of Housing Division records revealed two invoices for
roofing materials delivered to the same address. The Housing
Division paid two invoices, each totaling exactly $1,071.72. A
45 2000-SE-207-1001
Finding 6
notation on one of the invoices said that the vendor delivered
the original load to the wrong house. In an interview, an LIBC
supervisor stated that usually when a vendor delivers materials
to the wrong address, LIBC's crew moves the material to the
correct address. The supervisor confirmed that there are no
records showing if or where LIBC used the two loads of
roofing materials.
As a result of its inadequate inventory system, LIBC cannot
accurately track its material use to ensure that materials are not
subject to waste, fraud and abuse. Additionally, the system
does not provide sufficient cost data for management to make
informed material acquisition decisions. LIBC cannot confirm it
used all the material for authorized purposes and that it
safeguards assets purchased with HUD funds.
Auditee Comments and OIG Evaluation
The Lummi Indian Business Council maintains a property and
Auditee comments inventory control system for its general operations. However,
an inventory control system for construction materials was not
maintained. That problem is being addressed and
implementation of an inventory control system is underway.
The OIG reviewed LIBC’s construction inventory system only.
OIG evaluation However, LIBC’s independent public auditor reported that
LIBC had not conducted a review of its fixed asset inventory in
the past two years. If properly implemented LIBC’s corrective
action plan should resolve this issue for its construction
inventory.
Recommendations:
We recommend that you require LIBC to:
6A. Implement an inventory system that accounts for materials received, used, and stored
and provides for periodic monitoring and reconciliation of its materials inventory.
2000-SE-207-1001 46
Finding 7
Lummi’s Inadequate Labor and Timekeeping
Systems Result in Inequitable Charges to
HUD-Funded Activities
Lummi Indian Business Council (LIBC) does not have an adequate labor timekeeping system
and related internal control policies and procedures. LIBC does not accurately record,
adequately support, or correctly charge labor costs to federal grants. As a result, LIBC:
• improperly charged the HOPE I grant $18,814 for labor unrelated to the grant;
• does not have accurate accounting records that tie to source documents;
• charged budgeted labor hours rather than actual hours worked; and
• mischarged fringe benefits.
This occurred because LIBC lacks the administrative capacity to manage its federal grants
(see Finding 1).
Regulations require grantees to Native American Housing Assistance and Self-Determination
implement standards for Act of 1996 (NAHASDA) regulations (24 CFR 1000.26(a))
timekeeping systems require recipients to comply with certain sections of 24 CFR
Part 85 “Uniform Administrative Requirements for Grants and
Cooperative Agreements to State and Local Governments,”
and with the standards of Office of Management and Budget
(OMB) Circular No. A-87, "Principles for Determining Costs
Applicable to Grants and Contracts with State, Local and
Federally recognized Indian Tribal Governments."
• 24 CFR 85.20(b) Standards for Financial Management
Systems, states:
(1) “accurate, current, and complete disclosure of the
financial results of financially assisted activities must be
made in accordance with the financial reporting
requirements of the grant or subgrant.”
(6) “accounting records must be supported by such source
documentation as canceled checks, paid bills, time and
attendance records, contract and subgrant award
documents, etc.”
47 2000-SE-207-1001
Finding 7
• Per OMB Circular A-87:
• Attachment A,C.3. states:
“A cost is allocable to a particular cost
objective if the goods or services
involved are chargeable or assignable to
such cost objective in accordance with
relative benefits received.”
• Attachment B,11.h.(5) states:
"Personnel activity reports or equivalent
documentation must meet the following
standards:
• They must reflect an after-the-fact
distribution of the actual activity of
each employee,
• They must account for the total
activity for which each employee is
compensated,
• They must be prepared at least
monthly and must coincide with one
or more pay periods,
• They must be signed by the
employee, and
• Budget estimates or other
distribution percentages determined
before the services are performed
do not qualify as support for
charges to Federal awards…."
HOPE I grant mischarged LIBC used HOPE I funds to pay an employee for work done
$18,814 on activities unrelated to the grant. Accounting records show
LIBC charged the HOPE I Implementation grant $47,035 for
the salary and fringe benefits of the Gaming Policy Coordinator
between January 1997 and January 1998. A LIBC Financial
Administration Form indicated the Coordinator’s entire salary
was to be paid from HOPE I funds.
The Coordinator is no longer an employee of LIBC; however,
the HOPE I Director and the Coordinator’s former supervisor
jointly estimated the Coordinator spent about 60 percent of his
time on HOPE I projects. As a result, LIBC charged the
2000-SE-207-1001 48
Finding 7
HOPE I grant approximately $18,814 (40% of $47,035) of the
Coordinator's salary for time worked on other projects.
Lummi’s method for recording LIBC accounting personnel and the Housing Division
and charging labor bookkeeper explained LIBC's method of charging labor to
housing projects as follows:
LIBC's Planning Division employees submit timecards to the
Planning Secretary every two weeks. The Construction
Department employees submit timecards to the Housing
Division every two weeks. Personnel in the Planning and
Housing Divisions:
• prepare a Payroll Detail Report from the employee
timecards, showing each employee's total labor by project;
and
• retain copies and send the original Payroll Detail Report and
timecards to LIBC's Accounting Department for payroll
processing. Planning provides a copy of its Payroll Detail
Report to the Housing Department.
LIBC's Accounting Department:
• charges all of an employee's hours to the Housing Division
if the employee worked on a housing activity for any hours
during the two weeks;
• sends a labor distribution report showing all current project
hours to the Housing Division for payment; and
• shows the total Housing Department labor amount as a
receivable.
The Housing Division Accounting Department:
• reconciles the labor distribution report to the Payroll Detail
Report and identifies all labor not related to housing
activities;
• prepares a voucher for the adjusted payroll, including only
the wages spent on housing activities;
• prepares adjusting journal entries for LIBC's accounting
department to remove non-housing related labor from
LIBC's receivable records;
• prepares a separate Housing Division labor distribution
report including only the housing related labor; and
49 2000-SE-207-1001
Finding 7
• records the labor cost in the Housing Division's accounting
system.
LIBC's labor system allows the recording of inaccurate labor
data, does not identify and correct labor errors, and its labor
accounting records do not tie to its source documents. As a
result, labor charges on government grants are not accurate.
LIBC’s labor system does not ensure accurate labor
recording.
According to the Housing Division personnel, LIBC's
Accounting Department does not record the adjusting entries on
a timely basis. As a result, LIBC's accounting system labor
records do not reconcile to the Housing Division labor records.
The Housing Division bookkeeper and an LIBC accounting
employee each spent six months reconciling the records for
1998. The 1999 records do not agree and they are currently
working on reconciliation. As of March 2000, the Fiscal Year
(FY) 2000 accounts are out of balance.
Additionally, any labor not identified by the Housing Division
personnel as unrelated to housing remains on HUD grants.
Since the Housing Division does not supervise LIBC's
workforce and because the timecards are not reliable (see next
section), there is no assurance that the Housing Division
correctly identifies labor related to housing.
The labor reports and supporting documentation do not
reconcile
A review of the pay period ending June 12, 1999, disclosed
discrepancies among the timecards, LIBC's Payroll and the
Housing Division accounting records. We multiplied hours by
the employee's rate of pay to determine the labor cost for the
timecards and the Payroll Detail Report and compared the
figures to the Housing Division accounting records. The
following illustrates the discrepancies the comparison disclosed:
2000-SE-207-1001 50
Finding 7
Timecard LIBC Report Housing
Project (Hrs x Rate) (Hrs x Rate) Records
HOPE I $ 482 $642
28-4 $ 160 $0
Employee 1 $ 642 $642
CIAP 403 $ 476 $0
28-916A $0 $532
Employee 2 $ 476 $532
28-15 $570 $ 608 $973
CIAP 403 $342 $ 342 $0
Other $0 $ 532 $0
419 $ 38 $0 $0
Employee 3 $950 $1,482 $973
The timecard boxes for employees 1 and 2 are blank because
Lummi staff could not locate the timecards.
These three examples illustrate the potential for error in a
system without reliable controls. Labor reports are not
consistent and do not tie to source documents and therefore,
cannot be relied upon:
• Employee 1 - LIBC's Payroll Detail Report does not tie to
Housing Division' accounting records. The total wage ties
but charges to individual projects do not tie.
• Employee 2 - LIBC's Payroll Detail Report does not tie to
Housing Division' accounting records. The wage total and
the individual project amounts do not tie.
• LIBC's Payroll Detail Report, the timecards, and the
Housing Division' accounting records are all different. The
wage totals and individual project amounts are all different.
Labor charged by budget rather LIBC charged labor costs to Housing Division programs using
than actual hours worked budget estimates. OMB Circular A-87 (Attachment B,
11.h.(5)) states that (1) personnel activities reports must reflect
an after-the-fact distribution of the actual activity of each
employee, and (2) budget estimates or other distribution
percentages determined before the services are performed do
not qualify as support for charges to federal awards.
51 2000-SE-207-1001
Finding 7
A review of timecards for seven LIBC employees from three
different pay periods showed that the seven employees charged
the same number of hours to the same activities every day
during the pay period. As an illustration of the potential for
mischarging to grants, LIBC charged 88 percent of one
Planning Department employee’s hours to the Housing Division.
However, the employee’s work documentation showed only
36 percent of the employee’s time was spent on housing
activities. LIBC provided no documentation justifying the hours
charged.
As a result of the practice of charging labor by budget, LIBC
charged HUD for work unrelated to its grants. Additionally,
LIBC cannot accurately compare its budget estimates with its
actual costs as required by 24 CFR 85.20, Standards for
Financial Management Systems, which states:
"Actual expenditures or outlays must be
compared with budgeted amounts for each
grant or subgrant."
Employee (fringe) benefits LIBC does not allocate employee benefits equitably. federal
mischarged regulations require that goods and services be charged to
benefiting projects according to the relative benefits received.
LIBC charged one (of seven reviewed) employee’s annual
leave solely to housing projects instead of being equitably
allocated to all the projects the employee worked during the
pay period. As a result, HUD grants were overcharged for the
employee’s benefits.
We concluded that grant labor The audit found that LIBC's original source documents
costs are not reliable (timecards), its accounting records, and the associated labor
reports are not reliable. LIBC's Independent Public Auditor
concurred in our opinion, in the audit report for FY 1998 that
noted "the potential exists for employees to be paid the
incorrect wage or to be paid for hours not worked. Also, lack
of supporting documentation could result in expenditures being
charged to the incorrect program or department." LIBC's labor
system does not have the fundamental requirements of an
adequate labor system, such as reliable source documents and
the necessary internal control to ensure that labor charges are
accurately recorded to cost objectives. Therefore, it should not
be relied upon to correctly charge labor costs to federal grants.
2000-SE-207-1001 52
Finding 7
Because LIBC's source documents and its accounting records
are not reliable, we were unable to determine what the correct
labor expenditures on HUD grants should have been.
However, HUD paid for approximately $1.5 million of LIBC’s
labor costs from 1997 to 1999. Therefore, it is imperative that
LIBC implement a labor system that accurately records,
adequately supports, and correctly charges labor costs to HUD
grants.
Labor system not adequate for We concluded that LIBC's labor system does not accurately
charging to government grants identify and record all valid transactions. The audit disclosed:
1. Labor accounting record discrepancies;
2. Timecard (source documentation) discrepancies; and
3. Internal control weaknesses.
(See Appendix E for a complete list of discrepancies and
weaknesses.)
As a result, LIBC does not have an adequate labor system for
recording costs on federal grants.
Auditee Comments and OIG Evaluation
LIBC recognized many of the points raised in this finding prior
Auditee comments to receiving the draft report, and in the past two years has taken
steps to address problems within the Payroll Department.
Since January 1999, a new financial software package has been
installed, the staff of the Payroll Department has been replaced
with more competent personnel, and procedures have been
reviewed for internal control weaknesses and are in the process
of being revised where necessary. While this has led to
substantial improvements in the operations of the Payroll
Department, further action is also planned.
In response to the finding that in 1997 HOPE I funding
compensated a Gaming Policy Coordinator, LIBC personnel
records document that the employee in question has not been a
Gaming Policy Coordinator since 1995. In 1997, his job title
was Logistics and Operations Coordinator for the Economic
Development Department.
53 2000-SE-207-1001
Finding 7
A review of the employment activities of this employee will be
made. Any of his job activities not belonging to HOPE I will be
adjusted accordingly.
OIG evaluation The OIG conducted its labor system review in February and
March 2000. LIBC’s records and interviews with its
accounting personnel do not support LIBC’s claim that the
labor system improved in January 1999.
LIBC’s corrective action plan includes many positive measures;
however, it is unclear whether the measures address all the
points included in the recommendations (for example, charging
actual rather than budgeted hours). LIBC and HUD should
ensure that the corrective measures address all items included in
the recommendations.
Recommendations:
We recommend you:
7A. Require the Lummi Nation to repay from non-federal funds, the $18,814, charged to
HOPE I for the Coordinator's salary, and for time spent on other projects in 1997 and
1998, unless Lummi can provide documentation to support the charges.
7B. Disallow payment for all labor costs until LIBC implements an adequate time keeping
system that ensures accurate labor charging, including:
• adequate written and implemented policies and procedures;
• records of actual hours as they are worked;
• time cards that for each pay period accurately record project numbers, dates, job
descriptions, and total hours;
• records that identify the number of hours worked by job;
• supervisory review and certification for all hours worked;
• accurate computation and charging of labor costs, including employee benefits, to
projects;
• on-going formal training for all employees in timekeeping practices; and
• monitoring of the overall integrity of the timekeeping system, including testing labor
charges for accuracy and performance of unannounced floorchecks.
7C. Require the Lummi Nation to reconcile the labor between LIBC and its
Housing Division and implement procedures to ensure the two systems balance on a
monthly basis.
2000-SE-207-1001 54
Finding 8
Lummi Indian Business Council Does Not Maintain
Adequate Procurement Records
Lummi Indian Business Council (LIBC) does not maintain adequate records to show that it
complies with HUD procurement requirements. As a result, HUD has no assurance LIBC
purchased goods and services that were the most advantageous to its housing programs or
that free and open competition exists in its procurement process. This occurred because
LIBC lacks the administrative capacity to manage its federal grants (see Finding 1).
HUD procurement regulations HUD procurement requirements at 24 CFR 85.36 state:
• “Grantees and subgrantees will maintain records
sufficient to detail the significant history of a
procurement. These records will include, but are
not necessarily limited to the following: rationale for
the method of procurement, selection of contract
type, contractor selection or rejection, and the basis
for the contract price.” (para (b)(9))
• “Grantees will have written selection procedures for
procurement transactions. These procedures will
ensure that all solicitations: … (i) Incorporate a
clear and accurate description of the technical
requirements for the material, product, or service to
be procured.” (para (c)(3))
• “Cost analysis, i.e., verifying the proposed
cost data, the projections of the data, and the
evaluation of the specific elements of costs and
profits, is required for procurement by non-
competitive proposal.” (para (d)(4)(ii))
• “Requests for proposals will be publicized and
identify all evaluation factors and their relative
importance” for competitive proposal
procurements. (para (d)(3)(i))
LIBC does not maintain We reviewed 16 of LIBC's procurement files to determine if
adequate or complete records they contain the required supporting documentation. The
of procurement actions procurement files contained documents related to 12 small
purchase procurements, 3 non-competitive procurements, and
1 procurement by competitive proposal.
55 2000-SE-207-1001
Finding 8
The review disclosed that:
• seven (58%) of the twelve small purchase
procurements had no document stating which firm
was awarded the contract.
• nine (75%) of the twelve small purchase
procurements had no technical specifications for the
material or service.
• None of the three non-competitive procurements
had the required cost analysis.
• The procurement by competitive proposal did not
have a copy of the Request for Proposal. Also, the
file did not contain the rationale for the method of
procurement.
LIBC procurement files do not LIBC performs the procurement function for housing programs,
tie to the Housing Division and then invoices the Housing Division for purchases made. A
accounting records comparison of LIBC's procurement file records to the Housing
Division's accounting payment records for three contractors
showed significant unaccounted for differences:
Project Contractor LIBC Housing Difference
28-15 Solomon Drywall None $ 85,843 ($ 85,843)
CIAP 915 Solomon Drywall None $ 24,180 ($ 24,180)
Not Identified Solomon Drywall $ 4,603 None $ 4,603
Solomon Drywall $ 4,603 $110,023 ($105,420)
28-15 Sherwin Williams $ 38,588 $ 59,310 ($ 20,722)
28-13 JK Leppala & Sons $151,708 $ 22,398 $ 129,310
28-15 JK Leppala & Sons $ 49,333 $ 70,658 ($ 21,325)
28-23 JK Leppala & Sons $ 17,619 $ 25,884 ($ 8,265)
CIAP 913 JK Leppala & Sons $ 95,000 $ 6,267 $ 88,733
JK Leppala & Sons $313,660 $125,207 $188,453
LIBC's procurement files do not contain records of the amounts
actually paid on specific contracts and the Housing Division
accounting system does not identify payments to a specific
contract award. From the available information, we could not
determine if: (1) the contractors were paid correctly; (2) there
were change orders; (3) the scope of work was complete; or
2000-SE-207-1001 56
Finding 8
(4) the amounts in the accounting records relate to the contract
award.
LIBC’s written policies and LIBC has incomplete written procurement policies and
procedures do not ensure procedures that do not include important HUD regulatory
procurements conform to requirements. The incomplete policies and procedures are a
federal standards contributing factor to its inadequate procurement
documentation.
LIBC's written contracting procedures:
• Contain no provision for obtaining price or rate
quotations from an adequate number of sources
when purchasing material as required by 24 CFR
85.36(d).
• Do not include the non-competitive procurement
procedures requirement of 24 CFR 85.36(d)(4)(B)
that “the public exigency or emergency for the
requirement will not permit a delay resulting from
competitive solicitation.”
• Have no written code of standards of conduct
governing the performance of the employees
engaged in the award and administration of
contracts as required by 24 CFR 85.36(b)(3).
LIBC's procurement procedures and practices do not comply
with HUD procurement regulations at 24 CFR 85.36. The
procurement files are incomplete, and do not contain contracts
that approximate the project amounts recorded by the Housing
Division. Also, its written policies and procedures do not
comply with HUD regulations. As a result, there is no
assurance that LIBC bought the goods and services that were
the most advantageous to HUD programs or that free and open
competition exists in the procurement process.
Auditee Comments and OIG Evaluation
Auditee comments The Lummi Indian Business Council has established policies and
procedures for procurement which we are currently reviewing
for compliance with federal regulations. The 16 procurement
57 2000-SE-207-1001
Finding 8
files reviewed by the OIG Inspector were Housing and
Construction files, not LIBC Accounting Department files.
This finding highlights the need for improved coordination and
application of consistent procurement policies throughout the
LIBC organization.
OIG evaluation The OIG review addresses only LIBC’s construction
department procurement files. LIBC’s corrective action plan
substantially addresses the concerns reported in this finding.
However, the corrective action plan should also ensure that
LIBC’s procurement files reconcile to the Housing Division’s
accounting records.
Recommendations:
We recommend you require LIBC to:
8A. Incorporate written procedures and implement a system of internal control that
will ensure procurements are made in accordance with federal regulations.
8B. Track its contracts and change orders to ensure that (1) it pays contractors
correctly; (2) the contract scope of work is complete, and (3) LIBC procurement
records reconcile to the Housing Division’s accounting records.
2000-SE-207-1001 58
Finding 9
Housing Division Did Not Always Verify Family
Income
Lummi Indian Business Council’s (LIBC’s) Housing Division did not always verify family
income as required by its policies and procedures and program requirements. As a result,
HUD has no assurance that the Housing Division only admitted eligible families into its
housing programs. This occurred because LIBC lacks the administrative capacity to manage
its federal grants (see Finding 1).
NAHASDA and Lummi Section 1000.128 of the Final Rule of the Native American
guidance require adequate Housing Assistance and Self-Determination Act of 1996
documentation of eligibility (NAHASDA) requires recipients of NAHASDA grants to:
“...verify that the family is income eligible based
on anticipated annual income…maintain the
documentation on which the determination of
eligibility is based.”
The Housing Division Admissions and Occupancy Policies and
Procedures state “income is the most important factor in
determining a family’s eligibility for housing and among the most
likely to be subject to misrepresentation or error.” It also states
“all verification forms utilized for third party verification should
permit accurate determination of eligibility and placement.…” It
requires that the Housing Division:
• “establish adequate methods of verifying income
which include third-party written verification through
an employer or public agency; or review of
documentation provided by the family such as
benefits checks, canceled checks, etc.
• staff determine the annual family income for
admission on the basis of verification of income at
the time of initial application;
• staff verify and certify a selected family’s
composition, income and earnings prior to initial
occupancy;
59 2000-SE-207-1001
Finding 9
• staff verify and certify a selected family’s
composition, income and earnings prior to initial
occupancy;
• shall require execution of appropriate release and
consent form which will authorize the verification of
applicant/resident information by any depository,
private source of income, and Federal, State or
local agency;
• resident file should include a memorandum issued
by the counselor where third party verification is not
available.”
Family income was not always Audit staff selected and reviewed (1) 28 of 75 applicant files
verified listed in the combined waiting list to determine if the Housing
Division verified their income at initial admission, and (2) all 76
current resident files, selected for housing from February 11,
1998 to August 30, 1999, to determine if the Housing Division
verified their income prior to occupancy.
The review found that the Housing Division did not verify the
income of:
• six out of 28 applicants at initial admission
• six out of 76 residents prior to occupancy
These applicant and resident files contained no documentation
from applicants or third parties to support the income disclosed
on their application or memoranda issued by Resident
Counselors that third party verification was not available.
Additionally, the Housing Division was not able to provide
documentation of any review or monitoring of its income
verification process. As a result, HUD has no assurance that
the Housing Division only admitted eligible families into its
housing programs.
2000-SE-207-1001 60
Finding 9
Auditee Comments and OIG Evaluation
Auditee comments The Lummi Housing Division has always obtained family income
information to assure the eligibility of its housing occupants.
Lummi Housing will focus more staff resources to assure that
third party verification is obtained where possible and that all
files are fully documented.
OIG evaluation As part of its focusing additional staff resources on income
verification, the Housing Division also needs management
controls over this process to ensure compliance with its plan. If
properly implemented with adequate controls, these changes
should resolve the finding.
Recommendations:
We recommend you require LIBC’s Housing Division to:
9A. Implement a system of internal control, including adequate supporting
documentation and management oversight, to ensure that it properly verifies
family income for all applications.
61 2000-SE-207-1001
Finding 9
(This page intentionally left blank)
2000-SE-207-1001 62
Finding 10
Revised Waiting List Excludes Applicants
Lummi Indian Business Council’s (LIBC’s) Housing Division did not follow its waiting list
policies and procedures or the program requirements. Specifically, the Housing Division
(1) excluded eligible applicants when it combined its waiting lists, (2) did not retain waiting lists
used when selecting applicants, so that we could not determine if it appropriately selected
homebuyers and tenants, and (3) did not maintain adequate applicant documentation. As a
result, the Housing Division did not provide all eligible applicants an equal opportunity to
receive HUD-assisted housing. This occurred because LIBC lacks the administrative
capacity to manage its federal grants (see Finding 1).
NAHASDA regulations and According to Section 207 Native American Housing Assistance
Lummi policies require and Self-Determination Act of 1996 (NAHASDA)
adequate selection procedures requirements:
“The owners or manager of affordable rental
housing assisted with grant amounts under this
Act shall adopt and utilize written tenant
selection policies and criteria that…provide
for…the selection of tenants from a waiting list
in accordance with the policies and goals set
forth in the Indian housing plan for the tribe.…”
The Housing Division’s 1996 Admissions and Occupancy
policies and procedures state:
“It is the policy of the Lummi Nation Housing
program to review all applications received for
potential eligibility on all housing programs
offered by the program, regardless of the
housing program identified by the applicant.…It
is the intention of the Housing program to fully
and accurately identify all Lummi Nation
members who are in need of housing."
"A waiting list will be maintained for each of the
Housing Programs offered by the Lummi
Nation Housing program. Waiting Lists will be
reviewed every six months by staff. Applicants
who no longer need housing for whatever
reason will be
63 2000-SE-207-1001
Finding 10
removed. Each applicant who has not already
updated his/her file will be contacted and asked
to supply current information about their
income, family size and housing needs."
"Failure to provide the information requested will not
result in the removal of the family from the waiting list.
Failure to provide the information requested will result
in an appropriate notation being made on their
application and the family will not be selected for
participation in any housing program … until all the
requested information is provided."
"After determining eligibility, a waiting
list of potential renters and another for
homebuyer applicants will be maintained
according to the time and date of application
and other pertinent factors…. These waiting
lists will be used by staff in selecting tenants and
homebuyers."
Applicants excluded from In January 1999, a Housing Division Resident Counselor
combined waiting list decided to combine the Mutual Help and the Rental waiting
lists. She included on the combined list only those applicants
who had updated their applications within the last six months.
The Counselor excluded all other applicants, placing their
applications in an inactive status file. According to its waiting
list policies and procedures, the Housing Division is required to
make an appropriate notation on applications when the
applicant does not provide the information requested, but
should not remove the family from the waiting lists. The
Housing Division Resident Counselor told us that she did not
notify the applicants of their exclusions from the new waiting list.
When the Housing Division decided to combine its two
separate waiting lists, it did not ensure that all eligible applicants
were included on the new list. The process for combining the
waiting lists excluded potentially eligible applicants, who might
have been ranked higher than applicants that were not
excluded. As a result, the Housing Division may have denied
eligible low-income families affordable housing assistance.
2000-SE-207-1001 64
Finding 10
Selection documentation not The Housing Division does not retain the waiting lists used when
adequate selecting applicants for housing. Audit staff requested copies of
the two lists used to develop the new combined list. The
Resident Counselor was unable to provide these lists or any lists
from the relevant time frame.
The Resident Counselor provided a list of 512 applicants
whose applications she placed in an inactive file and excluded
from the new list. However, since the Resident Counselor did
not retain a copy of the original waiting lists used in the
combination, we could not validate the accuracy of her selection
process. Also, the Housing Division Director did not review the
new list or approve removal of the inactive applicants.
The Housing Division does not retain the waiting lists used when
selecting applicants for housing. Therefore, it cannot provide
HUD with assurance that it selected homebuyers and renters in
accordance with program requirements and its policies and
procedures. As a result, the Housing Division may not have
provided all applicants an equitable opportunity for housing
assistance.
Application documentation not The Housing Division does not maintain adequate application
adequate documentation. Our review disclosed applications without all
required signatures, and without evidence that it verified annual
income. As a result, the Housing Division may have provided
housing assistance to ineligible applicants.
Auditee Comments and OIG Evaluation
Auditee comments Lummi disagrees that it has excluded anyone from its waiting
list. In an attempt to update its waiting list, Lummi Housing
created a list of applicants who had provided updated
information within the past six months. However, no one on the
old waiting lists was excluded from any list. Notices were
posted and letters sent requesting updated information. When
updated information was received, the individual’s name was
transferred to the updated list. No list was destroyed and no
one was removed.
65 2000-SE-207-1001
Finding 10
OIG evaluation The Lummi Housing Division provided the OIG with the names
of 512 applicants who were on the two original waiting lists but
not on the combined lists. Lummi states it sent letters requesting
updated information. However, the counselor said she only
sent letters to applicants who had provided information within
the past six months. Also, the counselor stated she did not
keep the two waiting lists she used to develop the new
combined list. Because the original lists were not maintained,
there is no way to determine for certain if an eligible applicant
was eliminated; however, the number of applicants eliminated
raises serious concerns about the process used to combine the
lists. LIBC and HUD should ensure that the corrective
measures adequately address concerns regarding removal of
eligible applicants from the waiting lists (Recommendation 10B.)
and maintaining waiting list documentation (Recommendation
10C.).
Recommendations:
We recommend you require LIBC’s Housing Division to:
10A. Review all open applications and ensure the waiting list is complete and
appropriately ranks all applicants.
10B. Implement controls to prevent the removal of eligible applicants from the
waiting lists.
10C. Maintain documentation of the waiting list used for each selection.
10D. Implement controls and procedures to ensure that application
documentation is complete and accurate, including required signatures
and evidence of income verification.
2000-SE-207-1001 66
Finding 11
Improper Subleases Thwart the Purpose of
Homeownership Program
By not enforcing its own sublease policies and allowing improper subleases, Lummi Indian
Business Council’s (LIBC’s) Housing Division thwarts the intent of the Mutual Help
Homeownership Opportunity Program to provide homes for homebuyers who will occupy and
maintain their own homes. The Housing Division actively participated in the improper
subleases by receiving monthly payments from and re-certifying income of tenants who
subleased the homes, instead of the homebuyers. Basing monthly payments on the tenant’s
income results in the Housing Division misstating the homebuyer’s Monthly Equity Payments
Accounts. This occurred because LIBC lacks the administrative capacity to manage its
federal grants (see Finding 1).
The purpose of the Mutual According to the Mutual Help and Occupancy Agreement
Help program is to help Native (MHOA), the Mutual Help Homeownership Opportunity
Americans achieve home Program “…will give the homebuyer an opportunity to achieve
ownership ownership of a home in the project in return for fulfilling the
homebuyer’s obligations to make a contribution to the
development of the project, to make monthly payments based
on income, to provide all maintenance of the home, and to
satisfy all other requirements including an annual certification of
income and family composition.”
The Mutual Help and Occupancy Agreement also states that:
• each homebuyer is required to make a monthly payment.
• after the initial determination of the homebuyer's monthly
payment, the Indian Housing Authority shall increase or
decrease the homebuyer's monthly payment in accordance
with HUD regulations and reflect changes in adjusted
income pursuant to a reexamination or re-verification by the
Housing Division.
• the homebuyer shall not, without the approval of the Indian
Housing Authority and HUD, assign or pledge any right in
this Agreement.
67 2000-SE-207-1001
Finding 11
• the Indian Housing Authority is responsible for taking
appropriate action with respect to any noncompliance with
this Agreement by the homebuyer.
The Housing Division's Mutual Help sublease policy enables
LIBC’s policies allow Mutual
homebuyers to temporarily sublease their homes in the following
Help participants to sublease
situations:
their homes under special
circumstances
1. Education: When the homebuyer wants to attend school to
obtain a degree or certification.
2. Employment: Seasonal employment, or a homebuyer who
takes a full time job out of the geographic area of his/her
home, not-to-exceed one year of four years within any five
year period.
3. Medical care: The homebuyer needs to leave the unit for
medical reasons.
4. Military: Temporary duty assignment.
The Housing Division’s sublease policies also require:
• the homebuyer to obtain prior written approval from the
Housing Division.
• that tenants make rental payments directly to the
homebuyer. The homebuyer is still responsible for making
required monthly payments under the Mutual Help program
to the Lummi Nation Housing program.
• the homebuyer to be re-certified for continued occupancy
on an annual basis. All of the rental income will be taken
into account during re-certification, which may result in a
change to the required monthly payments.
The Housing Division does not According to the Housing Division Director, five Mutual Help
enforce its sublease homebuyers are subleasing their units to third parties. A review
requirements of the files of these five homebuyers found that the Housing
Division did not enforce its sublease policies and the Mutual
Help and Occupancy Agreement’s sublease provisions when it:
• did not require three of the five homebuyers to obtain the
Housing Division’s approval to sublease their homes, nor
did the Housing Division maintain any documentation of the
reasons for allowing the three homebuyers to sublease their
homes.
2000-SE-207-1001 68
Finding 11
• allowed two homebuyers who did submit requests to sublet
for ineligible reasons:
I. One homebuyer was allowed to sublease
because the homebuyer was unable to make the
monthly payments.
II. One homebuyer was a convicted felon who
was incarcerated.
• required the tenants and not the homebuyers to make
monthly payments.
• recertified the income and expenses of the five tenants
instead of the homebuyers, and used those calculations to
determine the monthly payment on the unit.
The Mutual Help program is intended to provide
Improper subleases thwart the
homeownership opportunities to Native American families who
intent of the Mutual Help
will reside in and maintain their homes. By approving improper
program
subleases and allowing homebuyers to sublease their homes
without obtaining prior approval, LIBC’s Housing Division
thwarts the purpose of the Mutual Help program.
The Housing Division lends credibility to, and becomes an
Housing Division compounds
active participant in these improper subleases by collecting
improper subleases by dealing
monthly payments from tenants instead of homebuyers, and by
with tenants instead of
annually recertifying tenants instead of homebuyers. By using
homebuyers
the tenant's income to determine the monthly payment, the
Housing Division may have misstated the associated Monthly
Equity Payments Accounts (MEPA) of the homebuyers.
However, since the Housing Division did not obtain from the
homebuyers the income and expense information that would be
necessary to calculate the correct monthly payments, we were
not able to determine any misstated amounts.
Auditee Comments and OIG Evaluation
Auditee comments Currently, there are approximately 116 homes in the new
Mutual Help Homeownership Program. Only 5 have subleases.
These subleases generally complied with Lummi Housing
69 2000-SE-207-1001
Finding 11
Policies at their inception, although file documentation may not
have been complete. In the case of the lease alleged to have
been improperly approved on the basis that the homebuyer
could not make the monthly payments, the homebuyer was
entering a health institution deemed eligible as medical care.
OIG evaluation The OIG believes the Lummi Housing Division’s corrective
action plan, if properly implemented, will resolve this deficiency.
Recommendations:
We recommend you require LIBC’s Housing Division to:
11A. Comply with its policies and procedures and Mutual Help and Occupancy
Agreement provisions regarding subleases to ensure they are properly executed
and enforced.
11B. Terminate the two improperly approved subleases.
11C. Review the three unapproved subleases for legitimacy and approve or
terminate as appropriate. Maintain complete documentation.
11D. For existing subleases, immediately begin recertifying and receiving
payments from the homebuyers. Also, determine misstatements to Monthly
Equity Payments Accounts and make appropriate adjustments.
2000-SE-207-1001 70
Management Controls
In planning and performing our audit, we obtained an understanding of the management
controls that were relevant to our audit. Management is responsible for establishing effective
management controls. Management controls, in the broadest sense, include plan of
organization, methods, and procedures adopted by management to ensure that its goals are
met. Management controls include the processes for planning, organizing, directing, and
controlling program operations. They include the systems for measuring, reporting, and
monitoring program performance.
Significant Controls
We determined controls over the following were relevant to our audit objectives:
• Accounting system
• Construction and maintenance
• Equipment management system
• Labor system
• Inventory system
• Procurement system
• Estimating system
• Screening, admission, and selection of residents
We assessed the relevant controls identified above.
Significant Weaknesses
It is a significant weakness if internal controls do not give reasonable assurance that resource use is
consistent with laws, regulations, and policies; that resources are safeguarded against waste, loss, and
misuse; and that reliable data are obtained, maintained, and fairly disclosed in reports. Based on our
review, we believe the following items are significant weaknesses.
LIBC lacks the internal controls necessary to ensure that it:
• manages federal grants effectively without waste, fraud, or mismanagement. (Finding 1)
• provides safe and healthy housing conditions, adequate inspections, quality work products and
safeguarding of valuable HUD resources. (Finding 2)
• carries out grant requirements. (Finding 3)
• properly records and uses program income, and makes federally purchased equipment available
for use on federal projects. (Finding 4)
• accurately records and maintains records to support grant expenditures. (Finding 5)
• accurately tracks, records and verifies materials to ensure proper accounting of grant costs and
the safeguarding of assets. (Finding 6)
71 2000-SE-207-1001
Management Controls
• accurately and completely identifies and records all valid labor transactions. (Finding 7)
• complies with procurement regulations, properly accounts for contract costs, and purchases
goods and services that are the most advantageous to the government. (Finding 8)
• properly screens applicants and admits only eligible families into its housing program. (Finding 9)
• does not exclude eligible applicants from its housing program. (Finding 10)
• implements sublease practices that do not thwart the purpose of federal programs. (Finding 11)
2000-SE-207-1001 72
Issues Needing Further Consideration
In addition to the findings, the audit identified issues needing further consideration. Although important,
we did not think these issues warranted being reported as audit findings. However, these issues could
become significant if not timely addressed.
LIBC should use a modular home for the benefit of tribal members
In 1996, the Housing Division sold a 5-bedroom modular home that was purchased with HUD funds to
LIBC’s Family Services Division. LIBC intended to use the unit as temporary shelter for children
whom the Tribal Court removed from their homes. However, at the time of our field work, LIBC had
never used the home as a shelter. Consequently, since 1996 LIBC in effect has denied housing to a
low-income family housing with no benefit to its Family Services clients. LIBC should take action to use
the modular home for the benefit of low income tribal members.
LIBC cannot apply its indirect cost rate to housing grants
LIBC currently does not apply its indirect cost rate to HUD grants. However, during the audit LIBC
indicated it intended to apply its rate to the FY1999 and all future grants. We reviewed the indirect cost
rate proposal and determined that LIBC's rate calculation did not include housing grants in the base and
therefore LIBC cannot apply the rate to housing grants. Also, LIBC does not (1) have an accounting
system with adequate internal controls to ensure that it excludes unallowable costs from the pool, or (2)
provide training or guidance on allowability, allocability, or reasonableness of costs to employees
responsible for classifying costs.
Lummi Housing could save money by not screening applicants so frequently
LIBC's Housing Division screens applicants during initial application, every six months thereafter, and
prior to occupancy. The Housing Division could save resources by only screening applicants during
initial application and again prior to occupancy.
Home ownership houses built on leased land causes problems
LIBC's Housing Division built Mutual Help and Turnkey III homes on leased land, so that the owners of
these homes do not own the land. Succession problems arise when the leases expire. In two cases we
reviewed, landowners took the issue of home ownership to Tribal Court. The Tribal Court found that
the houses belonged to the owners of the land. Lummi Housing should determine the home ownership
status of the Turnkey III and Mutual Help houses that were built on leased land, and should not build
any other home ownership houses on leased land.
73 2000-SE-207-1001
Issues Needing Further Consideration
Lummi Housing needs to improve its admission and selection processes
Lummi Housing did not always adequately document its basis for admitting applicants into the housing
program. In addition, Lummi Housing did not always select from its waiting list the most eligible
applicants to receive housing assistance. Lummi Housing should maintain adequate documentation and
follow its policies and procedures as well as program requirements when admitting and selecting
prospective residents.
2000-SE-207-1001 74
Appendix A
Schedule of Questioned Costs
Recommendation Number Ineligible Costs Unsupported
3B $1,279,748
4A $ 4,669
4A $ 9,937
4B $ 5,964
5A $ 25,382
7A ______ $ 18,814
Total $20,570 $1,323,944
Ineligible costs are costs that are clearly not allowed by law, contract, or HUD regulations or
requirements.
Unsupported amounts are not clearly eligible or ineligible, but warrant being contested for various
reasons, such as the lack of satisfactory documentation to support eligibility.
75 2000-SE-207-1001
Appendix A
(This page intentionally left blank)
2000-SE-207-1001 76
Appendix B
LUMMI INDIAN BUSINESS COUNCIL
2616 Kwina Road
Bellingham, Washington 98226-9298 (360) 384-1489
September 22, 2000
Frank E. Baca
District Inspector General for Audit
U.S. Dept. of Housing and Urban Development
909 First Avenue, Suite 125
Seattle, WA 98104-1000
Re: Lummi Response to HUD IG Draft Report
Dear Mr. Baca:
Enclosed you will find the Lummi Indian Business Council (LIBC) response to the HUD Inspector
General Draft Report received by the Lummi Nation on September 8, 2000. I welcome this
opportunity to work with your office and HUD program staff to improve the delivery of housing services
to our people. I hope the LIBC staff extended to you and your staff complete cooperation throughout
the investigative process. It is the LIBC's goal to provide the best housing services in Indian Country. I
believe your constructive recommendations will help us accomplish this lofty goal.
I understand our response is due in your office within 10 working days of receipt of the Draft Report.
After the exit interview, held at our offices on September 11, 2000, the Council has made it a top
priority to prepare an in-depth response to your Draft Report. We are also making it a priority to
develop a responsive housing complaint resolution process to handle future complaints from our
members as they arise.
We understand the next step in your audit process is that your office will issue a final report by the first
week of October 2000. At that time, the final report and the Lummi response to the Draft Report will
become public information and will be available on-line. After that date, HUD program staff will be
responsible for meeting with our staff to prepare a Management Letter, due to your office 120 days
after release of the final report, addressing resolution of the problems identified in the final report.
Please clarify this process if we are in error.
I am looking forward to guiding our Nation through the completion of this process. We will work
diligently and cooperatively with HUD program staff towards a favorable Management Letter. In the
future, please feel free to contact me directly on issues regarding our delivery of housing services to the
Lummi Nation.
Sincerely
/s/
William Jones, Chairman
77 2000-SE-207-1001
Appendix B
LUMMI INDIAN BUSINESS COUNCIL
2616 Kwina Road
Bellingham, Washington 98226-9298 (360) 384-1489
RESPONSE TO HUD INSPECTOR GENERAL DRAFT REPORT
September 22, 2000
FINDING 1: Lummi Indian Business Council Lacks Administrative Capacity to Manage
Federal Grants
Lummi Response to Finding #1
The Lummi Indian Business Council does not agree with Finding #1. The Lummi Nation, a
leader in Tribal Self-Governance, has consistently demonstrated its capacity to administer
federal grants from numerous federal agencies. Problems unique to the administration and
delivery of HUD housing services should not be generalized to non-HUD grants. We do not
believe Finding #1 is a fair evaluation of the LIBC's administrative capacity to manage
federal grants and it should be removed from the report.
The Lummi Indian Business Council (LIBC) is dedicated to providing safe, healthy, and affordable
housing for Lummi Tribal Members. The Business Council and its Housing Division have worked
cooperatively with HUD over a number of years to meet this goal. Relationships between Lummi and
HUD have been constructive and positive. In this context, it is important to note that the Lummi Nation
has been endeavoring to address many complex problems and issues that historically derive from HUD
designed housing programs that have failed in many parts of the country, and were never well suited to
Indian country. In light of this history and our mutual goals to provide the best quality affordable housing
to Tribal Members, the LIBC and the Lummi Housing Division welcome the constructive
recommendations provided during the HUD IG audit process, many of which have been implemented
or are in the process of being implemented.
The Lummi Indian Business Council does not agree with every finding in the HUD IG Draft Report.
Specifically, the LIBC does not agree that it lacks the administrative capacity to manage federal grants.
LIBC has demonstrated its administrative capacity as a Self-Governance Tribe to manage federal
programs with the following agencies:
Department of the Interior
Department of Transportation
Department of Health and Human Services
Department of Justice
Federal Emergency Management Agency
Department of Labor
Department of Agriculture
Environmental Protection Agency
Department of Education
Department of Commerce
2000-SE-207-1001 78
Appendix B
As a recipient of major federal grants, LIBC has undergone numerous audits by grantors over the past
years to ensure program integrity, administrative capacity, financial accountability and appropriate
internal controls. During the past year, LIBC has had extensive program reviews by HUD, USDA,
DOL and DOJ which included review of financial records, systems, and program compliance. The
USDA, DOL, and DOJ did not reach the same conclusion as Finding #1 in the HUD IG Draft Report
regarding the LIBC's administrative capacity to manage federal grants. The determination of
administrative capacity is based upon judgment. The judgment reflected in the Draft Report is not
supported by other independent professional auditors.
In addition, the activities of LIBC have been audited by independent certified public accountants in
accordance with generally accepted auditing standards, Government Auditing Standards as issued by
the Comptroller General of the United States, and as required by the U.S. Office of Management and
Budget Circular A-133, Audits of States, Local Governments and Non-Profit Organizations. The
results of independent audits have not identified a lack of administrative capacity or material weaknesses
in internal controls over financial reporting or over major programs. However, reportable conditions
have been identified as "findings" that were not considered to be material weaknesses. As a
demonstration of our administrative capacity, LIBC has evaluated the condition and cause of each
finding and developed and implemented corrective action plans to improve our internal controls and
delivery of program services.
The accounting issues referred to by the HUD IG Draft Report as a basis for asserting that LIBC lacks
administrative capacity exist in large part due to the unique relationship between the Housing and
Administrative Divisions of LIBC. The problems caused by this relationship do not extend to other
grants managed by LIBC. No other program area maintains a separate accounting system requiring
reconciliation. No other program area produces its own purchase orders requiring a procurement
system separate from LIBC. No other program maintains separate payroll data requiring a
reconciliation process prior to reimbursement. It is inappropriate, therefore, to generalize from this
unique situation to all federal grants.
Our more detailed responses to Findings 2-11 illustrate that some of the problems noted in the draft
report do not exist, or do not exist to the extent reported. In some instances, LIBC and/or Lummi
Housing had adequate policies but lacked certain internal controls or staff training to implement them
consistently. The HUD IG audit has been helpful in highlighting these problems and Lummi staff
members have already put into place controls or training plans to address the concerns raised. We are
confident that we can demonstrate to HUD program staff that the recommendations following each
finding will have been implemented prior to the time the HUD Management Letter is completed.
The Lummi Indian Business Council agrees that Housing currently operates as a division of the LIBC,
not as a separate TDHE. Many months ago, the Business Council initiated a comprehensive evaluation
of the benefits and detriments of establishing a more independent TDHE for housing purposes. That
evaluation is nearing completion and it is anticipated that the Council will make a decision in the near
79 2000-SE-207-1001
Appendix B
future whether to maintain housing as a division of the LIBC or to create a TDHE. In either case, the
LIBC recognizes the Tribe is ultimately responsible for compliance with the requirements of
NAHASDA.
FINDING 2: Low-Income Lummi Families Live in Unsafe and Unhealthy Housing Conditions
Lummi Response to Finding #2
LIBC has recognized the importance of providing safe and healthy housing to its members and has
applied for and dedicated HUD CIAP funds to address problems with its housing stock. A backlog of
problems developed until the Tribe was able to secure such funding. Since 1996, CIAP funds have
been used to address the kinds of problems noted by the IG inspectors. (Prior to 1996, CIAP funds
were primarily used for asbestos removal.) A substantial number of the problems noted in the draft
report affect older homes, built in the 1970’s as part of Turnkey III and old Mutual Help programs.
Unfortunately, these are the very homes that the IG concludes should be removed from the Lummi
housing stock. See Finding #3. With adequate funding, LIBC and Lummi Housing desire to address the
problems identified in the Draft Report, but the impact of Finding #3 will result in the reduction of funds
available to bring these older homes up to a safe and healthy standard.
Demonstrating its commitment to provide safe and healthy housing for Tribal members, the Housing
Division has already hired three additional full time maintenance workers and an experienced Project
Administrator to oversee their work.
Documentation supporting asbestos removal costs paid with FY 1994 CIAP funds is enclosed as
Appendix A.
Specific Improvement Actions
2-1. The Housing Division has hired a Project Administrator with required experience in cost
accounting and construction management to provide high quality supervision of construction,
rehabilitation, and maintenance work. The Project Administrator will be responsible for
assuring that workers have adequate training; complicated high-end construction will be sub-
contracted. Currently inspections are being conducted to address past problems.
2-2. A training plan for staff is under development. Lummi Housing is currently working with the
National American Indian Housing Council (NAIHC) to develop a training plan that will be
targeting areas of concern, including procurement and contract administration, Davis-Bacon
requirements, and housing inspection requirements.
2000-SE-207-1001 80
Appendix B
2-3. The Project Administrator oversees all work orders. Work orders are prepared following
annual inspections or when a tenant reports a problem. Work orders are assigned to
maintenance staff and are turned in at the end of each day for evaluation by the Administrator.
Additional maintenance staff has been hired to deal with the backlog of work orders. The
Administrator determines whether a tenant will be charged for a needed repair. The
Administrator and the Housing Director determine the amount to be charged a tenant, in
accordance with the work order report which documents labor, materials, and other costs. The
Housing Accountant will oversee collection and the record will be kept in the tenant file.
2-4. Annual inspections have been done regularly at Lummi, with occasional inspections occurring
beyond the annual inspection date. Lummi Housing will be hiring additional resident counselors
to ensure that house inspections are completed in a timely manner. Scheduled staff training will
ensure quality inspection reports. The Project Administrator will review all inspection reports to
ensure that appropriate work orders are prepared and the necessary work done in a timely
manner.
2-5. New Homebuyers and rental tenants have always been provided home maintenance training.
Additional on-going home maintenance training will be developed and required of tenants and
Homebuyers based on their annual inspections. Deficiencies in home maintenance will be
identified in the annual inspection report. Housing Counselors will set due dates for correcting
problems and schedule timely re-inspections. The Lummi staff attorney recently hired to work
with the Housing Division has developed due process procedures for evictions and termination
of homebuyer agreements for appropriate cause. Unless the eviction or termination is mutually
agreed upon, the staff attorney will pursue the appropriate action in the Lummi Tribal Court.
FINDING 3: Lummi’s Overstated Housing Stock Results in $1.2 Million in HUD
Overfunding
Lummi Response to Finding #3
The LIBC disagrees with Finding #3 and believes that maintaining the old Turnkey III and Mutual Help
homes as part of Lummi's housing stock will allow Lummi to complete its goal of bringing these 95
homes up to HUD standards prior to conveyance. A substantial number of the housing deficiencies
noted in Finding #2 relate to conditions in these older homes that this finding says have been or should
have been conveyed. Review of the “Bill of Sale” documents referenced in this finding revealed
discrepancies with the way they were drawn up and executed. Prior to correcting these conveyance
problems, Lummi Housing believed it appropriate, indeed believed it was their duty, to bring these
houses up to HUD standards before final conveyance. In 1996, CIAP funding began to be used to do
the needed work on these homes. In prior years, CIAP funding was primarily used for asbestos
removal, which consumed a far greater portion of the available funding than originally estimated.
Removal of these homes from Lummi housing stock and a reduction of funding for addressing housing
stock problems will only exacerbate the unsafe and unhealthy conditions noted by the OIG Inspector in
Finding #2.
81 2000-SE-207-1001
Appendix B
Most of the 95 homes at issue were built on individually owned trust lands leased to the former Lummi
Housing Authority. The leases provide that when they are terminated, the improvements will revert to
the landowners. Approximately 20 of these homes involve individual homebuyers who appear to own
the underlying land. This means that when the leases expire on the individual trust lands where at least
75 of these homes were built, the ownership of the homes will revert to the underlying landowners.
Litigation has already been initiated regarding several of these homes, with the landowners claiming
ownership and attempting to evict the homebuyer. The Lummi Housing Division has had to step in to
inform the Lummi Tribal Court or the BIA Administrative Law Probate Judge about the terms of the
leases and homebuyer agreements, in order to protect the legal rights of all involved. In one case, the
lease expired after 25 years and was not renewed. In that case, proper conveyance of the home is to
the landowners. This case illustrated that the Lummi Housing Division cannot rely on the presumption
that all of the 25/25 year leases run for the full 50 years.
A proper conveyance of Lummi's interest in these homes and these leases to the homebuyers, many of
whom are not the original homebuyer, requires accurate up-to-date information about the current
homebuyers, landowners, and the status of the 25/25 year leases. Title Status Reports have been
requested of all these leased properties from the Portland Title Plant of the Bureau of Indian Affairs
(BIA). Due to a back-log in up-dating their records, the BIA has not been able to issue the Reports as
requested. Thus, the Housing Division has not been able to accurately determine who the current
owners of the property are, whether the leases are still in effect, and when they are due to terminate.
Lummi is doing its best to disentangle these complex problems inherited from HUD-designed housing
programs that were not particularly well suited to Indian country. Lummi Housing believes that properly
authorized and executed conveyances to the correct parties will best protect the diverse interests of
both homebuyers and trust landowners and will help to avoid unnecessary and divisive litigation.
FINDING 4: Lummi Indian Business Council Misused Equipment Purchased with HUD
Funds
Lummi Response to Finding #4
The usage of the equipment in question did not interfere with HUD programs or projects. The primary
issues raised by this finding are the classification of costs to determine operating income, the use of this
operating income, and the setting of charge-out rates. Lummi Accounting believes the following
classifications are the appropriate way to resolve this matter.
• Reimburse LIBC for the cost of the loan ($37,000) to acquire the equipment and transfer
administrative control to the Housing Division pending liquidation of the equipment and
crediting of the Housing Division as per Federal Guidelines.
• Record all legitimate operating costs in the determination of program income on the rental of
equipment and, after repayment of the loan, use this income for affordable housing activities
only. This results in the calculation of program income presented in the finding to be
restated as follows:
2000-SE-207-1001 82
Appendix B
Actual HUD Finding
Rental Revenue $ 32,119 28,238
Operating Costs Shown in Finding:
Supplies 481 481
Repairs and Maintenance 3,615 3,615
Fuel 1,773 1,773
In House Labor/Equipment 1,798 1,798
Additional Valid Operating Costs:
Maintenance Salaries 456
Systems Development Salaries 2,400
Fringe Benefits 463
Licensing 644
Transportation/Maintenance 590
Depreciation 7,439
Interest 2,824
Costs incurred during NWIC House Removal:
Salaries 1,058
Benefits 251
Disposal of debris 2,954
______ ______
Amount to be Applied to Debt Service $5,373 $20,571
FINDING 5: Lummi Indian Business Council Does Not Maintain Adequate Records to
Support Grant Expenditures
Lummi Response to Finding #5
The LIBC disagrees with Finding #5. With regard to the "missing" documents referenced in this finding,
the LIBC has, and always had, access to them simply by requesting copies from the sub-grantee of the
Imminent Threat Block Grant funds. Complete documentation to support the expenditures for the entire
$263,000 Imminent Threat Block Grant, including the $25,382 questioned costs, is enclosed as
Appendix B.
LIBC acknowledges that in some instances backup documents have been mis-filed and therefore are
not immediately available. Given the volume of transactions processed by the Accounting Department,
the number of mis-filed documents is not inordinately high and is not indicative of a lack of administrative
capacity.
Specific Improvement Action
5-1. LIBC’s Archivist will review filing procedures within the Accounting Department and will
develop and implement any necessary improvements to ensure that supporting documents for
grant expenditures are readily available.
83 2000-SE-207-1001
Appendix B
FINDING 6: Lummi Indian Business Council Does Not Keep Track of Materials Inventory
Lummi Response to Finding #6
The Lummi Indian Business Council maintains a property and inventory control system for its general
operations. However, an inventory control system for construction materials was not maintained. That
problem is being addressed and implementation of an inventory control system is underway.
Specific Improvement Actions
6-1. The Lummi Housing Division Staff Accountant will implement and maintain a FIFO inventory
control system for maintenance and construction projects. The Project Administrator initiates all
purchases, with review by the Lummi Housing Director. The Staff Accountant will sign off and
cross-reference bills of lading of delivered items. This will be done on a per project basis for
construction with reconciliation at the end of each project. Maintenance will be reconciled at
the end of each year.
6-2. This system will account for materials ordered, delivered, stored, and used with periodic
monitoring and quarterly reconciliation of the materials inventory.
FINDING 7: Lummi's Inadequate Labor and Timekeeping Systems Result in Inequitable
Charges to HUD-Funded Activities
Lummi Response to Finding #7
LIBC recognized many of the points raised in this finding prior to receiving the Draft Report and in the
past two years has taken steps to address problems within the Payroll Department. Since January
1999, a new financial software package has been installed, the staff of the Payroll Department has been
replaced with more competent personnel, and procedures have been reviewed for internal control
weaknesses and are in the process of being revised where necessary. While this has led to substantial
improvements in the operations of the Payroll Department, further action is also planned.
In response to the finding that in 1997 HOPE I funding compensated a Gaming Policy Coordinator,
LIBC personnel records document that the employee in question has not been a Gaming Policy
Coordinator since 1995. In 1997, his job title was Logistics and Operations Coordinator for the
Economic Development Department. A review of the employment activities of this employee will be
made. Any of his job activities not belonging to HOPE I will be adjusted accordingly.
2000-SE-207-1001 84
Appendix B
Specific Improvement Actions
7-1. Payroll procedures identified as deficient will be strengthened and should be formally
adopted by LIBC
Many of the points raised in this finding with regards to payroll procedures were previously
identified by the LIBC and have been addressed. Improved payroll procedures are currently
being developed and will correct the remaining weaknesses brought forth in this finding. These
new procedures will be written and recommended for formal adoption into the LIBC policy
manual.
7-2. A training program for departmental timekeeping personnel will be developed and
provided
Training will be provided to the departmental timekeepers and signing authorities. This training
will reflect the new procedures described above. Written documentation will be developed and
distributed to support the training program.
7-3. An adequate staffing level in the Payroll Department must be maintained
In response to clearly apparent procedural problems within the Payroll Department, a second
payroll clerk was added in July of 1999. This additional clerical support will continue to be
necessary to provide the on-going scrutiny of timecards, record-keeping, and reconciliation
activities required to ensure compliance with NAHASDA’s administrative requirements.
7-4. Training for Payroll Department personnel must be funded
In order to comply with regulations, Payroll Department staff must be aware of them and
receive training. It will be proposed during the 2001 budget process that funding for training of
Payroll Department staff be provided.
7-5. Reconciliation between LIBC and Housing Division
The Housing Division currently receives payroll reports within two weeks of the completion of
the payroll process. This allows a timely reconciliation to occur between LIBC and the Housing
Division. LIBC is committed to the continuation of this process.
7-6. Charging of Fringe Benefits
The issue with regards to fringe benefits referenced in this finding relates to the charging of
accrued annual leave to projects. The LIBC payroll financial software automatically charges
benefits to the program where the employee’s hours are recorded. The situation in this finding
occurred because the Housing Division currently records annual leave on a cash basis. The
85 2000-SE-207-1001
Appendix B
method for recording accrued annual leave for the Housing Division will be changed to an
accrual basis and will result in an equitable allocation of this cost to HUD grants.
FINDING 8: Lummi Indian Business Council Does Not Maintain Adequate Procurement
Records
Lummi Response to Finding #8
The Lummi Indian Business Council has established policies and procedures for procurement which we
are currently reviewing for compliance with federal regulations. The 16 procurement files reviewed by
the IG inspector were Housing and Construction files, not LIBC Accounting Department files. This
finding highlights the need for improved coordination and application of consistent procurement policies
throughout the LIBC organization.
Specific Improvement Actions
8-1. LIBC procurement policies will be up-dated to the extent required to satisfy federal regulations,
and appropriate training will be provided to staff involved in procurement activities.
8-2. As stated in our response to Finding #2, the Lummi Housing Division has hired a Project
Administrator who, in coordination with the Housing Accountant, will verify that proper
procurement policies are followed, contractors are paid correctly, the contract scope of work is
complete, and procurement files are properly maintained.
8-3. LIBC and Housing staff attended procurement training on September 19, 2000.
FINDING 9: Housing Division Did Not Always Verify Family Income
Lummi Response to Finding #9
The Lummi Housing Division has always obtained family income information to assure the eligibility of its
housing occupants. Lummi Housing will focus more staff resources to assure that third party verification
is obtained where possible and that all files are fully documented.
Specific Improvement Action
9-1. To enhance third party verification, where possible, and to assure that all documentation is in
every file, Lummi Housing has hired an Intake Specialist whose primary job will be to ensure
that all necessary documentation is provided prior to evaluating an applicant’s eligibility at initial
admission and prior to occupancy. All documentation will be maintained in each applicant’s file.
2000-SE-207-1001 86
Appendix B
FINDING 10: Revised Waiting List Excludes Applicants
Lummi Response to Finding #10
Lummi disagrees that it has excluded anyone from its waiting list. In an attempt to up-date its waiting
list, Lummi Housing created a list of applicants who had provided up-dated information within the past
six months. However, no one on the old waiting lists was excluded from any list. Notices were posted
and letters sent requesting up-dated information. When up-dated information was received, the
individual’s name was transferred to the up-dated list. No list was destroyed and no one was removed.
Specific Improvement Action
10-1. Lummi Housing Division is adopting a new waiting list policy that will clarify how up-dating of
the waiting list occurs. The Intake Specialist will review all open applications and ensure that
the waiting list is complete and appropriately ranks all applicants. All application documentation
and evidence of income verification will be reviewed by the Intake Specialist and maintained in
each applicant’s file. See Response to Finding #9 above.
FINDING 11: Improper Subleases Thwart the Purpose of Homeownership Program
Lummi Response to Finding #11
Currently, there are approximately 116 homes in the new Mutual Help Homeownership Program. Only
5 have subleases. These subleases generally complied with Lummi Housing Policies at their inception,
although file documentation may not have been complete. In the case of the lease alleged to have been
improperly approved on the basis that the homebuyer could not make the monthly payments, the
homebuyer was entering a health institution deemed eligible as medical care.
Specific Improvement Actions
11-1. A review is underway to determine which subleases satisfy Lummi Housing sublease policies.
Subleases that are out of compliance will be terminated. These homebuyers will be given the
option of returning to their homes or terminating their homebuyer agreements. If there is good
cause to terminate a homebuyer agreement, that action will be pursued. All subleases will be
reviewed and approved by the Lummi Housing Board to assure compliance with Lummi
Housing sublease policies.
11-2. All homebuyers have been informed that they are responsible for the monthly payments that are
based on the homebuyer’s family income. All re-certifications are complete at this time. Staff
members are reviewing Monthly Equity Payments Accounts for possible misstatements and will
make appropriate adjustments.
87 2000-SE-207-1001
Appendix B
(This page intentionally left blank)
2000-SE-207-1001 88
Appendix C
U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development
Federal Office Building
Northwest Office of Native American Programs
909 First Avenue, Suite 300, 0API
Seattle, WA 98104-1000
September 22, 2000
MEMORANDUM FOR: Frank E. Baca, District Inspector General for Audit, 0AGA
ORIGINAL SIGNED
FROM: Ken Bowring, Administrator
Northwest office of Native American Programs, 0API
SUBJECT: Draft findings
Lummi Indian Business Council and
Lummi Indian Housing Authority
This memorandum is in response to the September 1, 2000, request to review the draft findings
contained in the subject report on the Lummi Indian Business Council and Lummi Indian Housing
Authority. In response to the request, the Northwest Office of Native American Programs (NwONAP)
has reviewed the draft findings and related recommendations. Based on this evaluation, no comments
or recommendations are being provided. The subject findings are well written, thoroughly documented,
and consistent with the regulations and outstanding guidance in the Indian Housing Block Grant (IHBG)
program. In addition, the recommendations provide a useful framework within which NwONAP can
develop specific corrective actions with the Tribe to address the identified deficiencies. However, the
following clarification is provided for your information and use in preparing the final report:
Recommendations 3A and 3B – The National Program Office of ONAP has already been in
contact with the Tribe regarding finding number 3 on the overstatement of the Tribe’s formula
current assisted stock (FCAS). During the process of evaluating this issue, the Tribe may be
able to provide adequate information and documentation that could result in an adjustment to
the unit count and dollar amount associated with this finding.
If there are any questions or if any additional information is desired, please contact Dan Gough,
Acting Director, Grants Evaluation Division, at (206) 220-5270.
89 2000-SE-207-1001
Appendix C
(This page intentionally left blank)
2000-SE-207-1001 90
Appendix D
Percentages of Housing Quality Standards (HQS) violations, based on
inspections of 90 homeownership and rental units (see Finding 2)
Frequency HQS Violations
12% Living room electrical hazards (1.3)
32% Living room security (1.4)
6% Living room window condition (1.5)
3% Living room wall condition (1.7)
14% Living room floor condition (1.8)
6% Living room smoke detector (1.10)
32% Kitchen electrical hazards (2.3)
4% Kitchen wall condition (2.7)
20% Kitchen floor condition (2.8)
3% Kitchen lead paint (2.9)
11% Stove or range with oven (2.10)
9% Refrigerator (2.11)
6% Kitchen sink (2.12)
36% Food storage, preparation, and serving space (2.13)
21% Bathroom electrical hazards (3.3)
19% Bathroom security (3.4)
3% Bathroom ceiling condition (3.6)
3% Bathroom wall condition (3.7)
19% Bathroom floor condition (3.8)
3% Bathroom lead paint (3.9)
3% Flush toilet in enclosed room (3.10)
4% Fixed wash basin in lavatory (3.11)
2% Tub or shower (3.12)
7% Ventilation (3.13)
83% Electrical hazards in other rooms used for living and halls (4.3)
48% Security in other rooms used for living and halls (4.4)
2% Window condition in other rooms used for living and halls (4.5)
8% Ceiling condition in other rooms for living and halls (4.6)
16% Wall condition in other rooms used for living and halls (4.7)
21% Floor condition in other rooms used for living and halls (4.8)
43% Smoke detector in other rooms used for living and halls (4.10)
1% Security in rooms not used for living (5.2)
3% Electrical hazards in rooms not used for living (5.3)
9% Foundation (6.1)
4% Stairs, rails, and porches (6.2)
18% Roof and gutter (6.3)
28% Exterior surface condition (6.4)
1% Chimney (6.5)
1% Exterior lead paint (6.6)
3% Adequacy of heating equipment (7.1)
6% Safety of heating equipment (7.2)
4% Water heater (7.4)
2% Plumbing (7.6)
19% Garbage and debris (8.4)
24% Refuse disposal (8.5)
1% Interior stairs and common halls (8.6)
14% Other interior hazards (8.7)
16% Site and neighborhood conditions (8.10)
91 2000-SE-207-1001
Appendix D
(This page intentionally left blank)
2000-SE-207-1001 92
Appendix E
Labor and Timekeeping Discrepancies and Weaknesses
(see Finding 7)
1. Labor accounting record discrepancies:
• Labor mischarged.
• Time recorded by budget rather than actual hours worked.
• Fringe benefits not allocated equitably.
• Documentation inadequate. LIBC could not provide all labor distribution forms or timecards
requested.
• LIBC labor records do not tie to the Housing Division labor records.
2. Timecard (source documentation) discrepancies:
• Altered without evidence of authorization or approval.
• Missing employee and supervisor signatures.
• Undated.
• Incorrect total hours.
• Pen and ink completed timecards in an electronic time clock system without evidence of
approval.
• No employee number.
• No job description or inadequate job descriptions.
• Signed by the employee before the end of the pay period.
• Completed prior to the start of the workday.
• Safety training charged to projects worked the day of training.
3. Internal control weaknesses:
• Changes to timecards with no evidence of appropriate authorization or approval.
• Supervisors approved employee timecards prior to completion of the workweek.
• LIBC does not distribute its labor distribution form to its supervisors on a timely basis.
• Supervisors do not review labor hours charged to their projects on a regular basis.
• LIBC does not conduct floor checks or other reviews of its labor system.
• LIBC employees were not aware of written procedures for completing timecards.
• LIBC employees do know their employee numbers.
• LIBC does not provide adequate training in timekeeping procedures.
93 2000-SE-207-1001
Appendix E
(This page intentionally left blank)
2000-SE-207-1001 94
Appendix F
Distribution
Ken Bowring, Administrator, Northwest Office of Native American Programs, 0API
Secretary
Secretary’s Representative, 0AS
Deputy Secretary
Chief of Staff
Office of Public Affairs
DAS for Administrative Services, Office of the Executive Secretariat
DAS for Intergovernmental Relations
DAS, Office of Native American Programs
Audit Coordinator - ONAP
Administrator, Northwest - Seattle
Deputy Chief of Staff for Policy
Deputy Chief of Staff for Programs
Special Counsel to the Secretary
Special Assistant to the Deputy Secretary for Project Management
Acting Assistant Secretary for Administration
Assistant Secretary for Congressional and Intergovernmental Relations
Senior Advisor to the Secretary, Office of Public Affairs
Deputy Chief of Staff
Deputy Chief of Staff for Operations
Deputy Chief of Staff for Programs & Policy
Acting, Chief of Staff
A/S for Public Affairs
Special Assistant for Inter-Faith Community Outreach
Executive Officer for Administrative Operations and Management
Senior Advisor to the Secretary
General Counsel
Assistant Secretary for Housing/Federal Housing Commissioner
Assistant Secretary for Policy Development and Research
Assistant Secretary for Community Planning and Development
Office of Administration
Assistant Secretary for Fair Housing and Equal Opportunity
Chief Procurement Officer
Assistant Secretary for Public & Indian Housing
Chief Information Officer
Director, Office of Departmental Operations and Coordination
Acting Director, Real Estate Assessment Center
Director, Office of Multifamily Assistance Restructuring
Assistant Deputy Secretary for Field Policy & Management
95 2000-SE-207-1001
Appendix F
Director, Office of Budget
Acquisitions Librarian, Library
The Honorable William Jones, Chairman, Lummi Indian Business Council, 2616 Kwina
Bellingham, WA 98226
Armando Falcon, Director, Office of Federal Housing Enterprise Oversight, 1700 G Street
NW, Room 4011, Washington, DC 20552
Frank Edrington, Deputy Staff, Director, Counsel, Subcommittee on Criminal Justice, Drug Policy
& Human Resources, B373 Rayburn House Office Building, Washington, DC 20515
Cindy Fogleman, Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations, Room 212, O’Neil House Office
Building, Washington, DC 20515
Judy England-Joseph, Director, Housing and Community Development Issue Area, United States
General Accounting Office, 441 G Street, NW, Room 2474, Washington, DC 20548
Steve Redburn, Chief Housing Branch, Office of Management and Budget, 725 17th Street, NW,
Room 9226, New Executive Office Building, Washington, DC 20503
The Honorable Fred Thompson, Chairman, Committee on Governmental Affairs, 340 Dirksen
Senate Office Building, United States Senate, Washington, DC 20510
The Honorable Joseph Lieberman, Ranking Member, Committee on Government Affairs,
706 Hart Senate Office Building, United States Senate, Washington, DC 20510
The Honorable Dan Burton, Chairman, Committee on Government Reform, 2185 Rayburn
Building., House of Representatives, Washington, DC 20515
The Honorable Henry A. Waxman, Ranking Member, Committee on Government Reform,
2204 Rayburn Building, House of Representatives, Washington, DC 20515
Deputy Assistant CFO for Financial Management
Director, Audit Coordination and Management Division
Director, Risk Management Division
CFO Audit Liaison Officer
Primary Audit Liaison Officer - Fort Worth
Office of Government National Mortgage Association
Assistant Secretary for Fair Housing and Equal Opportunity
Director, Office of Departmental Equal Employment Opportunity
Office of the Chief Financial Officer
Director, Enforcement Center
2000-SE-207-1001 96
Housing Activities Administered by Lummi Indian Business Council, Bellingham, WA
Published by the Department of Housing and Urban Development, Office of Inspector General on 2000-09-29.
Below is a raw (and likely hideous) rendition of the original report. (PDF)