U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development Wanamaker Building, Suite 1005 100 Penn Square East Philadelphia, PA 19107-3380 District Inspector General for Audit March 26, 2002 Audit Memorandum No. 2002-PH-1803 MEMORANDUM FOR: Malinda Roberts, Director, Office of Public Housing, 3APH FROM: Daniel G. Temme, District Inspector General for Audit, Mid-Atlantic, 3AGA SUBJECT: Philadelphia Housing Authority Limited Personnel Review In response to an anonymous complaint, we performed a review at the Philadelphia Housing Authority (Authority). The complaint alleged the Executive Director of the Authority was unfairly recruiting and promoting individuals he was affiliated with, rather than allow for open and fair competition. Also, the complaint alleged the Executive Director’s management style was causing many executive level personnel to leave the Authority. We found the allegation relating to the Executive Director’s unfair hiring practices at the Authority had merit. However, as for the second allegation, although there was a general consensus the Executive Director was a demanding supervisor and a number of executive personnel left for this reason, we did not find his management style violated any Federal or State laws. In addition, we noted the Authority violated the conflict of interest provision of its Consolidated Annual Contributions Contract (ACC) with HUD when it hired the daughter of a member of the Authority’s Board of Commissioners for a senior management position for which she was not qualified. Further, we questioned the circumstances relating to the Authority obtaining the services of the human resource consultant, who drafted the Authority’s personnel policy that exempted the Executive Director from following the Authority’s prescribed personnel policies and procedures. The details of our review and recommendations are discussed under the “Results of Our Review” section of this audit memorandum. BACKGROUND The Philadelphia Housing Authority is the fourth largest housing authority in the United States. According to the Authority’s Annual Plan for fiscal year 2001, it received more than $526 million in financial resources to fund its operations, of which HUD provided more than $345 million. The Authority houses approximately 70,000 residents in 20,000 units and an additional Visit the Office of Inspector General’s World Wide Web site at http://www.hud.gov/oig/oigindex.html 12,500 families are provided housing through the Authority’s Section 8 Program. Mr. Carl R. Greene has been the Executive Director of the Authority since April 1998. At the time of our review the Authority had approximately 2,600 employees. The selection and promotion of employees of the Authority were defined under the 1995 Supervisors Manual of Personnel Policies (1995 Personnel Manual). Based upon the recommendations noted in a review completed by a legal consulting firm, the Authority updated the 1995 Personnel Manual in December 1999 and issued the Revised Philadelphia Housing Authority Human Resources Manual of Policies and Procedures (1999 Personnel Manual). Generally, the Authority states its personnel policy is to select the person with the strongest combination of qualifications based on merit without regard to race, color, religion, sex, national origin, age, marital status, etc. OBJECTIVE, SCOPE AND METHODOLOGY The primary objective of our review was to determine if the complaint had merit. To accomplish our objective, we selected 46 Authority employees, including 30 employees selected at random, eight high level executives mentioned in the complaint who allegedly left the Authority due to the Executive Director’s management style, two of which were in our original sample, and 10 employees who were referred to us during the course of the audit or received rapid promotions contrary to standard Authority procedures. We reviewed the personnel files for these employees; interviewed HUD Office of Public Housing staff, both present and past Authority employees, the Executive Director, members of the current Board of Commissioners, and the outside legal counsel hired by the Authority. Further, we reviewed the database of the personnel records to obtain financial information, minutes of the Board of Commissioners meetings, and other relevant data. During our review, the Authority obtained the assistance of outside legal counsel to obtain and provide the records requested by the OIG and act as the audit liaison. The Authority claimed it needed this special assistance because the personnel files at the Authority were disorganized and scattered. However, as the audit progressed, it became apparent the Authority’s outside legal counsel involvement extended well beyond obtaining personnel records. The Authority’s outside legal counsel insisted on being present at the majority of our interviews with current and former Authority staff, and the majority of our questions for the Authority’s managers and their responses were routed through the outside legal counsel. Further, the outside legal counsel restricted our access to the Authority’s Board of Commissioners. Thus, we did not have full and free access to all records and Authority staff during our review. In a sense, we conducted our review through the Authority’s outside legal counsel. These actions prolonged the audit and often frustrated the auditors in their efforts to complete a thorough review. The audit generally covered the period of April 1998 through February 2001, but was expanded when necessary to include other periods. The audit work was conducted from February 2001 to November 2001 in accordance with Generally Accepted Government Auditing Standards. We conducted an exit conference with the Board of Commissioners and their outside legal counsel on March 1, 2002. 2 RESULTS OF OUR REVIEW A. Discretionary Hiring Authority of the Executive Director The Executive Director did not adhere to the Authority’s established written personnel policies and procedures in hiring and recruiting staff from April 1998 to December 1999 In April 1998, when the Executive Director assumed his role within the Authority the 1995 Personnel Manual was the policy approved by Board of Commissioners (Board) for hiring and promoting employees. The Authority policy was to select the individuals with the strongest combination of qualifications for each job without regard to race, color, religion, sex, national origin, age, physical or mental disability, etc. Further, all employees were to be hired, assigned, transferred, promoted, upgraded, and compensated to the greatest extent possible based on the concept of merit. The 1995 Personnel Manual did not provide an exemption for the Executive Director to deviate from the Authority’s prescribed policies and procedures in recruiting and hiring Authority staff. Our review found the Executive Director did not adhere to the established written personnel policies and procedures from April 1998 to December 1999. Specifically, the Executive Director hired and promoted staff without providing for open and fair competition. In fact, our review found there was little to no documentation to support the justification for several staff hires and promotions. In our review of 46 employees, we identified eight that were either hired or promoted contrary to the 1995 Personnel Manual. When we discussed the discretionary hiring authority with the Authority management, via their outside legal counsel, it was explained that the Executive Director was just following the standard operating procedures from prior administrations. Thus, in their opinion, the Executive Director did not violate the Authority’s Personnel Policies and Procedures. Authority revises 1995 Personnel Manual to give the Executive Director discretionary hiring authority without Board of Commissioners approval In 1998, the Authority followed the advice from a legal consulting firm, and updated the 1995 Personnel Manual. To accomplish this, the Authority hired two consultants to work with Authority staff. The first was the legal consulting firm that made the original recommendation and the second was a former employee of the Executive Director from the Detroit Housing Commission. The former employee was the primary author of the new manual and was later hired by the Authority to become the General Manager of Human Resources. When we questioned the Executive Director and other representatives of the Authority as to why the former employee of the Executive Director was selected as an outside consultant, neither the Executive Director nor the other Authority representatives would provide any details as to how the consultant was identified or selected to perform the task. (See See Section SectionE)E Overall we noted the 1999 Personnel Manual had incorporated many positive changes with it sighting specific goals, objectives and standards in the recruitment and promotion of personnel. Further, the Authority’s personnel policy was more clearly defined. However, we noted the Return to Page 16 3 1999 Personnel Manual also included several key provisions that exempted the Executive Director from all of the personnel policies and procedures defined under the new manual. Specifically, the 1999 Personnel Manual states, “This is the policy and procedure to follow when filling regular vacant positions within the Authority. This policy does not apply to the Executive and Department Head Roster positions.” Under the 1999 Personnel Manual, Executive level is defined as the Executive Director, Executive Deputy Director, Deputy Director, General Counsel, Chief of Staff, Chief of Police, Inspector General, Directing Counsel, Executive General Manager, and the Department Heads and their assistants. However, the policy can also be expanded to include any other positions designated by the Executive Director. Further, the manual is silent on the procedures to follow when selecting an employee for one of these Head Roster positions. Thus, under the 1999 Personnel Manual the Executive Director can recruit and promote individuals at his discretion with no accountability and can change the make-up of the Head Roster without any checks and balances. Since these policy changes were not defined under the 1995 Personnel Manual, and the Executive Director was already recruiting and promoting staff at his discretion before the 1995 Personnel Manual was revised in December 1999, it appears the new more liberal policies were added either to legitimize or formalize the practice the Executive Director was already following. In addition, the Board of Commissioners did not approve the 1999 Personnel Manual; instead, the Executive Director approved the revised Manual for implementation on December 2, 1999. A copy of the policy was provided to the Board of Commissioners as an “Informational Memorandum” on December 16, 1999. The Authority’s Board of Commissioners did not formally approve or affirm these policy changes until the OIG questioned them in November 2001. Authority response to OIG’s questions regarding discretionary hiring authority afforded the Executive Director When we questioned the Authority’s outside legal counsel on the provision in the revised manual that exempts the Executive Director from following the prescribed personnel policies and procedures, we were initially told the 1999 Personnel Manual just puts into writing the policies and procedures that were already being used at the Authority. Further, the Authority’s outside legal counsel compared the hiring practices of the Executive Office of the Authority to Schedule C Federal Government appointees under Office of Personnel Management (OPM), Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Title 5, 213.3301 and 213.3302, and to 4 PA Code 91.4(b)(2)(i), (b)(2)(iii), and (b)(2)(iv) for Pennsylvania State Civil Service Commission (SCSC) hires. Title 5 CFR 213.3301 and 213.3302 provide for Schedule C categorization of specified positions that are policy determining or which involve a close and confidential working relationship with the head of an agency. Appointments to these positions are exempted from the competitive service. However, 5 CFR 213.3301 identifies clear and specific requirements for Schedule C hires, and requires specific authorization from the OPM, approval in advance and certification from the agency on the purpose of the Schedule C position. These hires are extremely controlled and the hires are transparent. In comparison, the discretionary hires of the Authority do not require or allow for this control and transparency. In fact, the Authority’s outside legal counsel 4 told the OIG’s office that the Executive Director does not have to document or justify his reasons for hiring and promoting within the Executive and Department Head Roster positions. Under 4 PA Code 91.4(b)(2)(i), (b)(2)(iii), and (b)(2)(iv) for Pennsylvania State Civil Service Commission (SCSC) hires, certain positions, such as department heads, deputy department heads and their personal aides, are exempt from requiring approval from the SCSC. However, for positions not specifically identified, the regulation identifies specific requirements to request exemptions in writing including specific reasons why the position should be exempt from the classified service. In comparison, the 1999 Personnel Manual gives the Executive Director the authority to hire and promote any position without any requirement for prior approval, justification for, or documentation to support the exemption. The Authority’s outside legal counsel also referred to the “Kroll Report” to support the hiring discretion of the Executive Director. In August 2001, the Authority hired an outside consulting firm to conduct a review and assessment of the Human Resources Business Unit Division. Generally, we found the report, dated September 27, 2001, to be fairly comprehensive in its review of the overall personnel function of the Authority. However, the Kroll Report was relatively silent as to the discretionary hiring of Executive and Department Head Roster positions. The report simply stated the Authority’s policy was consistent with Federal and State laws and regulations, such as 5 CFR 213.3301 and 3302, and 4 PA Code 91.4. Authority of Administrative Board to change Personnel Policy questionable The OIG challenged the Authority’s outside legal counsel on their reference to OPM Schedule C appointments and 4 PA Code 91 hires as support for the discretionary hiring authority of the Executive Director. In addition, OIG questioned why the Board of Commissioners never approved the revised policy through a formal resolution, as was the usual practice of the Authority. We were then told the 1995 Personnel Manual had a provision that allowed for an Administrative Board, which had the authority to develop, review and approve the revised personnel policies and procedures without the Board of Commissioners approval. However, based on the Authority’s own guidelines for the Administrative Board in the 1995 Personnel Manual, we questioned the Authority’s outside legal counsel on the assertion the Administrative Board had the authority to develop, review, and approve the Authority’s 1999 Personnel Manual without the approval of the Board of Commissioners. As we discuss in detail below, there was no credible evidence to support the claim that an Administrative Board was appropriately used to revise and approve the new policies. Further, information provided by the Authority on the Administrative Board, and the Authority’s own 1995 Personnel Manual that define the purpose, board make-up, authority and role of the Administrative Board contradicted the Authority’s assertion that the Administrative Board was a legitimate and appropriate tool for changing the policies. A detailed discussion of the purpose, board make-up, authority and role of the Administrative Board, as defined under the 1995 Personnel Manual follows. 5 Purpose of the Administrative Board Section 19.1 of the Authority’s 1995 Personnel Manual states: “The Administrative Board is established to provide the mechanism for the Authority to establish and maintain procedures and practices to effectively and efficiently implement and support the Personnel Policies.” This provision does not provide the Administrative Board the authority to change the personnel policy. Rather, its purpose is to develop and maintain procedures that implement and support the Authority’s personnel policies. We believe the provision in the 1999 Personnel Manual that exempts the Executive Director from following the Authority’s personnel policies is clearly a change in policy that falls outside the purview of the Administrative Board. Make-up and Authority of the Administrative Board Section 19.2 of the 1995 Personnel Manual states: “The Administrative Board will be comprised of at least three members which will be the Executive Director, Deputy Executive Director for Operations and Deputy Executive Director for Administration. From time to time, the Executive Director may appoint executive management personnel who may act as designees for any of the Board’s membership.” We found the make-up and authority of the Administrative Board did not meet this requirement. First, the make-up of the Administrative Board violated Section 19.2 of the 1995 Personnel Manual. The Authority identified five individuals who served on the Administrative Board. Two of the members were outside consultants, the former employee of the Executive Director, hired as an outside Human Resources consultant, and an attorney from an outside legal consulting firm. The other three were Authority employees, including the General Manager and Assistant General Manager of Human Resources, and the Authority’s General Counsel. The only member of the Administrative Board that complied with the Section 19.2 requirements was the Authority’s General Counsel. Further, Section 19.3 states: “The Board will review the procedures developed by the functional management of the Human Resources organization to support the Authority’s Personnel Policies and authorize their operational application. The Board will establish its own operating procedures.” We found that four of the five members the Authority identified as serving on the Administrative Board were the same individuals who were assigned the responsibility for developing the new policies and procedures. We made numerous attempts to contact each of the Authority identified Administrative Board members to determine what their involvement was in reviewing and approving the Authority’s personnel policies and procedures. The results of our efforts are summarized below. 1. The Human Resources Consultant, a former employee of the Executive Director at the Detroit Housing Commission, drafted the policy. This individual refused to speak with OIG. In addition, the Executive Director asserted he had no involvement in bringing this individual to the Authority for the purpose of updating the 1995 Personnel Policy. (See Section E)E Section 6 2. The General Manager of Human Resources acknowledged membership on the Administrative Board and assisted in updating the personnel policy. However, she explained the Administrative Board never held meetings or approved the 1999 Personnel Policy by vote. It was assumed that if the Administrative Board accepted the latest version of the draft policy, then the policy was approved. Further, when we asked the General Manager about the Board of Commissioners and their responsibility in approving the personnel policy, she would not address the issue. 3. The lawyer from the legal consulting firm, who was hired to review the Employment Policies and Practices of the Authority, did assist members of the Authority’s Human Resource Department in updating the personnel policy. However, he did not know he was a member of an Administrative Board until the Authority’s outside legal counsel explained it to him. He claimed his approval of the policy was his firms’ acceptance of its legality. 4. The Authority’s General Counsel did not return our calls. 5. In an attempt to locate the former Assistant General Manager of Human Resources we obtained the last known number from the Authority; however, that number was incorrect. In addition, we completed a search on Lexis/Nexis and forwarded letters to two separate addresses; however, we were unsuccessful in our search. Role of the Administrative Board Section 19.4 of the 1995 Personnel Manual states: “In addition to reviewing and authorizing operational procedures, the Board may request the development of new personnel policies, practices and supporting processes, expand or contract their application and otherwise ensure that these policies, procedures and practices provide the best utility to the Authority, its employees, residents and other stakeholders.” Although the provision allows for the Administrative Board to request the development of new personnel policies, it does not provide it the authority to create and approve new personnel policies. In addition, under the Authority’s Resolution No. 9302, dated December 21, 1994, the Board of Commissioners affirmed that a Commissioner’s resolution was needed in order to authorize the updated Personnel Policies (1995 Manual) to become operationally effective. No resolutions have been passed since that removes this requirement. Further, there was no record of any Administrative Board meetings or that the Administrative Board actually approved the new policy and procedures manual. The Authority’s outside legal counsel stated that the Administrative Board’s approval of the new Manual was simply their acceptance of the latest version, and that Authority procedures did not require the Administrative Board to maintain a written record of their activities. The only formal record that does exist relating to the authorization of the Authority’s personnel policies and procedures is the cover memorandum signed by the Executive Director on December 2, 1999 that approved the implementation of the revised 1999 Personnel Manual. 7 Two years after the 1999 Personnel Manual was implemented by the Executive Director, the Board of Commissioners affirms the approval of the 1999 Personnel Manual On October 5, 2001, OIG requested a meeting with the Chairman of the Board of Commissioners to discuss the issues we had identified during our review. Specifically, we wanted to determine if the Board of Commissioners was aware of the circumstances surrounding the revision of the Authority’s personnel policy as it related to exempting the Executive Director from following those policies and procedures. On October 18, 2001, the Authority’s outside legal counsel agreed to meet with the OIG to discuss in more specific detail the issues we wanted to present to the Board of Commissioners. However, at the same time we were conducting the meeting, the Board of Commissioners passed Resolution 10732 that affirmed its approval of the Authority’s 1995 Personnel Manual as restated and re-codified in the 1999 Personnel Manual, dated December 2, 1999, nearly two years after it was implemented. In fact, although the Authority’s outside legal counsel had actually presented the resolution to the Board of Commissioners just hours before attending our meeting, he never disclosed this important development to us during the meeting. Under the resolution, the Board of Commissioners affirmed that an Administrative Board, as defined under the 1995 Personnel Manual, had the authority to revise and approve the provisions of the Manual without the Board of Commissioners’ approval and formal resolution. Further, the Board instructed the Executive Director to continue operations under the revised 1999 Personnel Manual. Unfortunately, we believe the Board of Commissioners’ decision to pass the resolution was based on incomplete information. As we discussed in detail above, the role, purpose, authority, and make-up of the Administrative Board did not comply with any of the provisions of the 1995 Personnel Manual. Further, the Authority was not able to provide us any credible evidence that an Administrative Board was actually created and used to review and approve the new policies and procedures. Thus, it appears the claim by the Authority that the Administrative Board was the means by which the Authority legitimately revised the Authority’s personnel policies and procedures was merely another attempt to justify the Executive Director’s actions and/or lack of oversight by the Authority’s Board of Commissioners. Through the Authority’s outside legal council, we continued to stress the urgency in meeting with the Board of Commissioners to discuss our concerns on the discretionary hiring authority of the Executive Director and the authority of the Administrative Board to make policy changes. We believe many of the facts on which the Board of Commissioners passed the resolution were incorrect. In addition, we wanted to discuss two apparent conflict of interest violations of the ACC that involved one of the members of the Board of Commissioners and the hiring of her daughter for a top management position in the Authority. (See Section D) See Section D On November 6, 2001, the Chairman of the Board of Commissioners, one additional Board member, and the Authority’s outside legal counsel agreed to meet with us. In the meeting, the Chairman of the Board of Commissioners stated when the Executive Director was hired in April 1998, it was the Board’s intent to give the Executive Director broad discretion in running the Authority, including personnel issues. However, neither the Chairman nor the other Board member would confirm they were aware of the circumstances as to how the 1999 8 Personnel Manual was revised, or of the content of the provision that exempted the Executive Director from following the Authority’s Personnel policies and procedures. Further, since the Board of Commissioners never approved the revised policy by resolution, we cannot assume the Chairman of the Board of Commissioners is speaking for the full Board of Commissioners, especially in light of the fact the present Board of Commissioners’ membership is different from that in December 1999. On March 1, 2002, the Chairman of the Board presented us with a letter that further clarified the statements he made in our November 6, 2001 meeting. In the memo, the Chairman reiterates, that the Board of Commissioners directed Mr. Greene to exercise discretion in making executive level personnel decisions with the intention to give Mr. Greene a broad mandate to take the steps necessary – consistent with applicable laws and regulations – to implement significant change at the Authority. As previously stated, the first time the OIG was informed of the Board’s verbal instructions to the Executive Director was in the November 6, 2001 meeting, a full 10 months after the start of our review. Up to that point, the Authority’s justification for the hiring practices used by the Executive Director, as presented by their outside legal counsel, was an evolving series of explanations that continually changed as we questioned each theory. In fact, when we questioned the Executive Director in September 2001 concerning the hires and promotions at the Authority, he never claimed his authority stemmed from instructions he received from the Board of Commissioners. Rather, the Executive Director consistently responded that the 1999 Personnel Policy allowed him to hire and promote individuals at his discretion. Thus, it appears the Executive Director’s justification contradicts the statements made by the Chairman of the Board and, as such, we cannot rely on either statement. B. Effects of Discretionary Hiring Authority at the Authority Executive Director hired and promoted individuals contrary to the Authority’s written personnel policies and procedures We reviewed 46 personnel files from more than 300 individuals hired between April 1, 1998 and February 14, 2001 and found in 11 of the 46 cases, the Executive Director deviated from the Authority’s standard written personnel policies and procedures to hire and/or promote these individuals. We also noted many of the Executive Director’s personnel actions took place prior to the implementation of the 1999 Personnel Manual, which allowed for discretionary hiring authority and the waiving of the educational and experience requirements. Our review showed 10 of the 46 employees received promotions and/or pay raises increasing their salaries from 4 percent to 65 percent in as little as three weeks to eight months after starting at the Authority. The promotions were offered to the employee without competition or the position was “reclassified” to a higher position with a pay increase. For the eleventh employee we had serious concerns regarding her hire as a consultant and then later as a full time Authority employee. See(See Section Section E)E For employees hired under the 1995 Personnel Manual a three-month probationary period is required before they become regular full time employees and thus eligible for promotion. 9 Further, the 1999 Personnel Manual requires a six-month probationary period prior to being eligible for promotion. However, we found 7 of the 11 employees received their promotions or pay raises in violation of the timeframes dictated by the applicable Personnel Policy. Attachment BB illustrates the promotions that occurred without fair and open competition, the timeframe the promotion was received, and the percentage of salary increase. The following are more detailed examples of questionable hires and/or promotions that have resulted from the discretionary hiring practices of the Executive Director: · In August 1999, the Executive Director waived the educational and experience requirements to hire the daughter of a member of the Board of Commissioners. (See Section D) See Section D The employee hired did not meet the minimum educational requirements as listed on the job announcement and her prior experience is also questionable. Within three weeks, the employee received a $7,000 annual pay increase. This employee was hired under the 1995 policy that did not allow the Executive Director to waive educational and experience requirements. When we discussed this hire and promotion with the Executive Director, he stated that he felt this individual was qualified for the position and the hire was consistent with policy. · In December 1998, the Executive Director waived the educational requirements to hire an Administrative Assistant in the Executive Office. The employee was referred to the Executive Director through a mutual acquaintance of both the Executive Director and the employee. The Authority personnel qualifications for this position required an individual to have a Bachelors Degree; however, the employee did not have a degree and the Executive Director waived the requirement. Within seven months this individual was promoted to Administrative Officer, an even higher-level position that also required a Bachelors degree. Once again this employee was hired and promoted under the 1995 policy that did not allow the Executive Director to waive educational and experience requirements. When we discussed this hire and promotion with the Executive Director, he stated that he felt this individual was qualified for the position and the hire and promotion were consistent with policy. · In May 1998, the Executive Director exercised discretionary hiring authority when he promoted the Media Specialist to the position of Executive Media Specialist. This promotion included a $20,000 pay raise and occurred within two months of the employee starting at the Authority. This employee was hired and promoted under the 1995 policy that required a three-month probationary period prior to being promoted. When we discussed this promotion with the Executive Director, he stated the position was “reclassified” so there was no need for competition or for the employee to interview for the promotion. · In January 2001, after only seven weeks at the Authority, the General Manager of Contract Administration received a promotion to Executive General Manager of Contract Administration and a $7,500 raise. In addition, the employee received two additional raises increasing her salary by a total of $17,850 within six months of being hired. This employee was hired and promoted under the 1999 policy that requires a six-month probationary period 10 prior to being promoted. We questioned the Authority’s outside legal counsel concerning these promotions. He stated that the initial promotion was due to additional duties assumed by the employee and the raises were to put her salary inline with other comparable Executive General Managers. The promotion was offered without competition. · The Executive Director hired an Administrative Officer (assigned to the Executive Office) that was previously employed at the Detroit Housing Commission as a typist. The Authority more than doubled the Administrative Officer’s salary from $22,000 in Detroit to $47,900 at the Authority and within two months of her hire, the Executive Director promoted her to Relocation Manager with a $2,400 salary increase. The employee was appointed to the position non-competitively. After several months it was determined the employee was “not the right fit” for the position and was returned to the original position, without a change in salary. Further, the Authority paid $4,266 in relocation expenses to relocate her from Detroit to Philadelphia. Although the 1995 Personnel Manual is silent on the matter relating to an employee’s relocation expenditures, this type of expense is typically reserved for Executive level staff. We found no documentation to show who authorized the relocation expenses. Considering the Administrative Officer position is a fairly standard position that would normally be filled from a local source, we questioned the Authority’s outside legal counsel and Human Resource staff as to the circumstances related to the Authority’s decision to recruit this individual from Detroit. The Authority’s outside legal counsel stated a top manager at the Authority, who also came from the Detroit Housing Commission, recruited this individual. However, the manager did not corroborate the legal counsel’s assertion and simply stated she provided the individual a good reference. No other individual at the Authority could explain how this individual was hired nor provide documentation to support her hire and justify her associated recruitment costs. Further, when we interviewed the individual in question, she told us she sent her resume to the Authority because she had heard the Executive Director wanted to hire Detroit employees. Although this individual worked in the Executive Office of the Detroit Housing Commission where the Executive Director served in the same capacity prior to coming to the Philadelphia Housing Authority, the Executive Director stated he did not know this individual and she did not work directly for him while at Detroit. Further, the Executive Director stated he did not interview this individual for the position at the Authority and had no knowledge of the Authority paying for the individual’s relocation expenses. In the end, we received no definitive explanation on how and why this individual was hired and promoted. When we asked for documentation to support these hires and promotions, the Authority’s outside legal counsel stated that the Executive Director does not maintain any type of records to support his decisions and the 1999 Personnel Manual does not require him to do so. Without providing some documentation to support the decisions made, the Authority and the Board of Commissioners cannot be assured that the best-qualified candidates were chosen. 11 Authority had a difficult time quantifying the number of Executive Hires On October 18, 2001, we requested the Authority’s outside legal counsel provide a complete listing of employees hired and promoted using the discretionary hiring authority of the Executive Director. We were told that this would be a difficult task for a number of reasons. According to the Authority’s outside legal counsel, the Executive Director used his discretionary hiring authority for a variety of different circumstances. For example, the Executive Director may waive the educational requirement for one employee, in another case he may eliminate the need to advertise the position, or he may eliminate the standard waiting period for promotions. According to the outside legal counsel, these various applications of the discretionary hiring authority made it difficult to quantify the number of employees who were hired or promoted under this authority. In addition, the Executive Director can forward this authority to any staff member he sees fit, thus, making it virtually impossible to know how many staff were hired or promoted under the discretionary hiring authority. Another aspect that makes it difficult to quantify the number of hires or promotions under the discretionary hiring authority is the fact that the Authority’s personnel records and promotional files were unorganized, incomplete and not centrally located. Original personnel records are scattered throughout boxes in warehouses and obtaining these documents was time consuming and in some cases fruitless. The Authority’s outside legal counsel had a difficult time in reviewing and organizing Authority personnel files and still could not always provide complete files for the OIG to review. Further, although the 1999 Personnel Manual requires the Authority to maintain records such as rating sheets, interview notes, the final recommendation memo, and copies of all correspondence and miscellaneous items in the position-recruiting file, the manual exempts the Executive and Department Head Roster positions from this policy. When questioned, the outside legal counsel told us the Executive Director did not feel he needed to maintain any records or documentation to support his decisions to hire and promote using the discretionary hiring authority. On December 7, 2001, the Authority’s outside legal counsel provided us a list of employees believed to be hired or promoted using the discretionary hiring authority. The list we received included 54 employees hired since April 1998, 37 of which were hired prior to the implementation of the 1999 Personnel Manual. Although we were provided a list, we cannot be sure this list is all-inclusive given the obstacles noted above. Currently, the Authority is implementing a new Human Resource software program to improve its record keeping process. Unfortunately, because the records are in such disarray, we believe data input into the new system will be incomplete at the start. In summary, we found the Executive Director did not adhere to the Authority’s 1995 Personnel Manual from April 1998 to December 1999, when he hired and promoted individuals at his discretion. In December 1999, the Executive Director approved the 1999 Personnel Manual, which included provisions to exempt the Executive Director from the established Authority personnel policies and procedures. We raised serious questions relating to the circumstances surrounding how and who revised the Personnel Manual, and the Board of Commissioners lack 12 of oversight in the matter. For many of the employees we reviewed, there was little question as to whether they were hired or promoted contrary to the standard Authority personnel policies and procedures before and after the 1995 Personnel Manual was revised. The Authority and its outside legal counsel responded by stating the Executive Director had the authority to hire and promote outside of the policies and procedures as stated under the 1999 Personnel Manual. We believe these uncontrolled and undocumented recruitment and promotion practices by the Executive Director lacks accountability and does not offer the Executive Director any defense against the allegations of favoritism or improper influence. C. Executive Director’s Management Style Did Not Violate Federal or State Laws The second allegation in the complaint alleged that many executive level personnel had resigned from the Authority because of the Executive Director’s management style. We took into consideration during the review of this allegation that one’s opinion of another’s management style is much more subjective than trying to determine if a policy or procedure was violated. However, we reviewed this allegation to determine if the Executive Director violated any Federal or State laws along with the Authority’s policies. The complaint specifically names eight executive level personnel. The positions ranged from Executive Assistant of the Executive Director to the Deputy Director of the Authority with salaries ranging from $63,000 to $117,500. We noted that six of the eight were employed by the Authority for two years or less and the remaining two were employed just over two years. We reviewed the personnel files of these eight individuals and attempted to contact each of them. We were successful in speaking with three employees. All three employees felt the Executive Director was a tough and demanding boss; however, that was not the reason they left the Authority. We also selected nine current and former employees to obtain their opinions on the management style of the Executive Director. These individuals ranged from executive level to administrative staff. The majority informed us that the work environment at the Authority was extremely stressful and several of the former employees cited the Executive Director as the reason they left the Authority. As stated above, we understand that obtaining a person’s opinion on another’s management style is very subjective, so in order to draw a conclusion we have to determine what rules were violated. While the Executive Director may have been a tough and demanding manager, we found no evidence that he violated any relevant Federal or State laws. D. Authority Violated Section 19 of its Consolidated Annual Contributions Contract With HUD During our review of the allegations of the complaint, we identified an incident in which the Authority violated the Conflict of Interest provision under Section 19 (B) of its Consolidated Annual Contributions Contract (ACC) with HUD. Specifically, in August 1999, the Authority hired the daughter of one of the members of the Board of Commissioners as the General Manager for its scattered site program. Besides not receiving the proper waiver for the hiring, we have serious concerns whether the employee even meets the minimum qualifications for the position. Return to Page 8 Return to Page 10 13 Conflict of Interest Section 19 of the ACC Section 19 (B)(1) of the ACC states: “The housing authority may not hire an employee in connection with a project under this ACC if the prospective employee is an immediate family member of any person belonging to one of the following classes:” including “(i) any present or former member or officer of the governing body of the housing authority.” This prohibition shall remain in effect throughout the class member’s tenure and for one year thereafter. However, the ACC does allow the Board of Commissioners the opportunity to waive the requirement of subsection B for good cause provided that State and Local law permit such a waiver. However, we found the Board of Commissioners did not waive the ACC requirement prior to hiring the Commissioner’s daughter. The Authority’s outside legal counsel stated that since the Board of Commissioners were aware of the hiring, they in a sense offered their approval by not speaking out against it. In fact, the outside legal counsel provided several newspaper articles to support the fact that the hiring was well publicized. Although the hiring of a member of the Board of Commissioner’s family was publicized, it does not negate the fact that the Board of Commissioners and the Authority violated the ACC contract and that the hiring was not properly authorized. In addition to the ACC conflict of interest violation, the employee in question did not meet the educational and/or experience requirements normally required for this position. Specifically, the position required a college degree and at least 10 years experience in senior management. We attempted to review the employee’s personnel file to determine if the basic requirements were met; however, we never obtained this file. In fact, we were told by the Authority’s outside legal counsel that the personnel file was missing. The only document the outside legal counsel could provide was the employee’s job application. Upon review of the employee’s application, we noted no evidence of a college degree and question if a high school diploma was ever received. In addition, we found no documented evidence to support that the employee had any career experience that would support this position. When we discussed the educational background with the employee, she stated she did not have a college degree, but she did graduate from high school. During the discussion, she agreed to sign a statement stating she had obtained a high school diploma. However, later when we presented the statement, the Authority’s outside legal counsel informed us that she would not sign the statement. The Authority’s outside legal counsel referenced the provision in the 1999 Personnel Manual that exempted the Executive Director from following the standard personnel policies as the justification for hiring the employee, even though she lacked the educational qualifications for the position. However, we noted the employee was hired in August of 1999, and the 1999 Personnel Manual was not approved until December of 1999. The 1995 Personnel Manual does not allow for the waiving of education or career experience in order to hire an employee; consequently, the Executive Director violated existing Authority personnel policies to hire this individual. In addition, the employee was hired with a starting salary of $80,000 per year and within three weeks the salary was increased by $7,000. Since this employee was hired under the 1995 14 Personnel Manual, a probation period of three months was required to be met before a promotion or pay raise could be received. Nine months later the employee received an additional $3,000 raise and a large retroactive pay adjustment that effectively put the starting salary at $90,045. Chairman of the Board acknowledged he was unaware of key ACC provisions in which the Authority violated its ACC with HUD On November 6, 2001, we questioned two members of the current Board of Commissioners, which included the Chairman of the Board, on the apparent conflict of interest violation of the ACC. Generally, the two Board members stated they supported the hiring of the Board member’s daughter and the Chairman acknowledged he was not aware of the proper protocol needed to waive the ACC requirements. Further, the Chairman of the Board suggested the Board entertain the idea of passing a resolution authorizing the waiver of the ACC requirements for this hire at the next Board of Commissioners meeting. With limited discussion, on November 15, 2001 the Board of Commissioners passed a formal resolution that waived the requirements of section 19 (B) of the ACC. In November 2001 the Board of Commissioners affirmed the 1999 Personnel Manual it just passed at the October 2001 Board of Commissioners Meeting In our meeting with the two current Board members on November 6, 2001, the OIG expressed concern over the fact that when the Board of Commissioners approved the 1999 Personnel Manual on October 18, 2001 by resolution, the three Board members’ voting included the member whose daughter directly benefited from this new policy. In fact, this Board member was the decisive vote in ensuring the resolution was passed, and as such constituted a conflict of interest. In response to this concern, on November 15, 2001 the Board of Commissioners presented and passed the resolution again without the vote of the Commissioner whose daughter was hired by the Authority. E. Questionable Circumstances Related to Recruitment of Human Resources Consultant to Revise the Personnel Manual During our personnel review, we found the Authority hired a Human Resource consultant to update the 1995 Personnel Manual. Although we did not question the Authority’s decision to hire a consultant to assist them in revising the manual, there were a number of questionable circumstances as to the hiring and costs associated with the employment. Specifically, we had questions relating to how and why the consultant was selected for the task, later hired as the Authority’s Human Resources General Manager, and the costs (salary, relocation, temporary quarters, etc.) associated with her employment. When the Authority decided to update its 1995 Personnel Manual it was determined that they lacked the expertise “in house” so a Human Resource consultant was hired. We noted the consultant selected was a former employee of the Executive Director where he served in the same capacity at the Detroit Housing Commission prior to his appointment in Philadelphia. Further, the consultant was hired under an existing Authority contract for temporary services in Return to Page 3 Return to Page 6 15 Return to Page 9 the Information Systems Management (ISM) department. We reviewed the contract file, but found no evidence of a change order to allow the contract to cover the services provided by the Human Resources consultant. In addition, the fees charged for this individual were twice as much as the highest rate listed on the ISM contract. Specifically, the Authority paid $105 per hour for the services of the Human Resource Consultant. By comparison, the highest rate listed on the ISM contract was $52.06. In addition, the Authority paid $12,600 for three weeks vacation and $33,508 in overtime at $157.50 per hour. In total, the Authority incurred $191,848 for the nine months of services provided by the Human Resource Consultant. The costs of this contract were not only excessive, but it also violated 24 CFR 85.36(b)(2) which requires contractors to perform in accordance with the terms, conditions, and specifications of their contracts. Further, the terms of this contract do not allow for overtime or vacation for any position under this contract. In questioning the Executive Director concerning the hire and costs associated with this individual, he stated he had no knowledge of how the consultant was selected, hired or paid. In fact, he stated he had no role in updating the personnel policy. We find this lack of knowledge and denial of involvement on the part of the Executive Director troubling and contradictory to the information provided by the Authority during our review of the Administrative Board. (See Section SectionA) A As discussed in Section A, under the 1995 Personnel Policy section on the Administrative Board, the policy states that only the Executive Director had the authority to appoint additional members to the Administrative Board. In which case, the Executive Director must have been involved in hiring this individual and assigning them to the Administrative Board for the purpose of updating the personnel manual. In fact, a letter dated September 20, 2001 sent to our office from the Authority’s outside legal counsel states: “Pursuant to the 1995 policies and procedures, the Administrative Board requested that the PHA’s Human Resources Department develop new personnel policies to improve upon those already in place. The Executive Director was charged with putting together a group to meet this goal. To this end, the PHA hired an experienced consultant with over twenty five years experience in the employment and human resources fields to assist the General Manager of the Human Resources department.” “The Administrative Board carried out its charge of the 1995 policies and procedures, and the current PHA policies and procedures are the result of the tireless efforts of the group that the Executive Director put together.” The Executive Director was charged with putting together the Administrative Board and, in fact, was the only person who could designate members. When we asked the Authority for a listing of Administrative Board members, the Human Resource Consultant was among them. On one hand the Executive Director stated he played no role in bringing anyone, including the Human Resource Consultant, in to update the Authority’s Personnel Policies; yet, the Authority’s procedures and outside legal counsel acknowledge that the Executive Director was responsible for putting the Administrative Board together. In addition, during several discussions with the Authority’s outside legal counsel, we were told the Executive Director knew the consultant and wanted to bring this individual to the Authority. Since the Executive Director stated he had no knowledge of how this consultant was hired, we also questioned the former Contracting Officer, former Human Resource manager, and the 16 Temporary Services firm. Both the former Contracting Officer and Human Resource manager had no knowledge of how this individual was selected or from which contract she was paid. The former Human Resource manager stated that the hiring of the consultant would have been handled in the Contracting Department. When we spoke to the Temporary Services firm, we were told that they were directed by the Authority to seek out and hire this particular individual for the Human Resource Consultant position. However, the Temporary Services firm said they did not remember who at the Authority instructed them to do so. Further, after we initially contacted the Human Resource Consultant, the consultant declined to speak to us without the Authority’s outside legal counsel being present. We agreed, but when we attempted to contact the consultant to set up the interview, the consultant did not return the OIG phone calls. Thus, the interview never took place. Based upon our review and questions relating to the hiring of this consultant, the Authority’s outside legal counsel completed a full review of the hiring of the consultant. From that review, the outside legal counsel recommended the Temporary Services firm pay back a portion of the contract, while the Authority pay from non-Federal funds the remainder. The Temporary Services firm paid $76,025 and the Authority paid $115,823 out of the Section 8 Earned Administrative Reserve, thus $191,848 was paid back to HUD. Consultant appointed as the General Manager of Human Resources Three months after the consulting contract was complete, in October 1999, the Authority hired the consultant as its full time General Manager of Human Resources. Even though the Executive Director did not approve the 1999 Personnel Policy until December 1999, the employee was hired using the policy within the 1999 Personnel Manual that allows the Executive Director discretionary hiring authority. In addition, as the General Manager of Human Resources, this individual was in charge of implementing the 1999 Personnel Policy. This makes the individual the author, beneficiary, and manager of the 1999 Personnel Policy. The consultant was hired as a full time employee with a starting salary of $95,000. During May 2000, after only eight months as an Authority employee, the Authority paid to move the employee back to Detroit. After this date, the employee received an individual pay raise of $3,325, an Executive Incentive Bonus of $2,850 and a retroactive pay adjustment totaling $2,237. According to the 1999 Personnel Manual, the Authority can only allow for one annual pay increase a year. All three pay changes occurred after the Authority was fully aware of the employee’s intention to resign from the Authority. In addition, when the employee formally resigned on August 1, 2000 she continued to receive seven paychecks until the end of September 2000. All seven were explained as vacation time accumulated. Upon review of the 1999 Personnel Manual, we determined that the Authority paid for two extra weeks of vacation for this employee totaling $3,780. As part of the Offer of Employment, the Authority paid $205 for a house hunting trip and $4,118 for two months of temporary housing costs until the employee could establish Philadelphia residency. However, in May 2000 the Authority paid $2,163 to move the employee back to the Detroit area. The employee remained in her official capacity as the General Manager of Human 17 Resources until August 2000. During the months of June and July, the Authority paid additional temporary housing costs of $3,031 and at various times during the 10 months of employment the Authority paid over $329 in airfare for travel between Detroit and Philadelphia. We questioned the Executive Director and outside legal counsel as to why the Authority paid for the relocation back to Detroit, the temporary housing, and airfare for a full time Authority employee. The Executive Director explained that since the Authority did not pay for the employee to move to Philadelphia, it paid for the move back to Detroit. However, according to the Authority’s outside legal counsel, the employee only intended to remain at the Authority on a temporary basis until a permanent replacement could be found, thus the intention was never to relocate to the Philadelphia area in the first place. This violates both the 1995 and 1999 Personnel Manuals, which have a residency clause for all Authority employees. In fact, the 1999 Personnel Manual states: “All applicants for employment are required to be residents of the City of Philadelphia or must establish residency prior to the extension of an offer of employment.” We received no explanation for the temporary housing costs paid in June and July or the airfare. The 1999 Personnel Manual, relocation policy, allows for the transporting of household goods to a residence in Philadelphia - not Detroit; temporary housing costs up to 60 days beginning with the first day of employment - not at the end of employment; and travel expenses for one house hunting trip after acceptance of employment - not travel expenses for the benefit of the employee. We questioned the Authority staff whether this employee had an employment contract that may have allowed for this deviation from normal Authority policy or a special waiver to allow for the added benefits. We were told there was no such contract or anything in writing to justify these added expenditures. In fact, the Authority’s outside legal counsel informed us the Authority’s policies and procedures require no explanation or special authorization for such expenditures. In summary, the circumstances surrounding the hire of this individual are questionable; especially in light of the fact the employee was a former employee of the Executive Director from the Detroit Housing Commission and the primary author of the 1999 Personnel Manual that directly benefited the Executive Director. In addition, while a consultant and full time employee, the individual received questionable payments in salary and benefits that go beyond those afforded to a normal employee. Further, the Executive Director’s contradictions over his involvement in hiring this individual only add to the questionable circumstances. We presented the draft report to the Office of Public and Indian Housing, the Authority Board of Commissioners, and the outside legal counsel on February 13, 2002. We received the Authority’s response from their outside legal counsel on February 28, 2002, and the exit conference was held on March 1, 2002. Auditee Comments The Authority’s response to our audit memorandum was prepared and submitted by its outside legal counsel. Altogether, the response was 276 pages, including a 45 page narrative section and 46 attachments totaling over 230 pages. Except for our conclusion that we did not find the Executive Director’s management style violated any Federal or State law, the Authority’s outside legal counsel objected to the audit memorandum in its entirety and requested that it be 18 withdrawn. Specifically, the outside legal counsel asserted the OIG did not have jurisdiction to report on matters addressed in the audit memorandum. Further, the outside legal counsel questioned the OIG’s motive, approach, scope, methodology, and auditors experience in completing the audit, and with few exceptions, refuted the facts and conclusions presented in the memorandum as being inaccurate, misleading and unfair. A redacted version of the narrative portion of the outside legal counsel’s response is attached in Attachment C.C However, due to the overall volume of the outside legal counsel’s response, the Attachment attachments were not included in this audit memorandum. The attachments will be made available upon request. OIG Evaluation of Auditee Comments Except for our concurrence that we did not find the Executive Director’s management style violated any Federal or State law, we adamantly disagree with the outside legal counsel’s characterization of the issues, facts and conclusions. Rather than discussing the specific facts related to the serious issues presented in the memorandum, the outside legal counsel used his response as a forum to unfairly criticize the OIG for completing the audit and attempted to discredit the report and the OIG audit staff. We believe this was done to detract from the true issues in the Audit Memorandum, with the ultimate goal to prevent the issuance of the Audit Memorandum. In spite of this approach, we objectively evaluated the response to determine if any changes should be made to the draft memorandum and, as appropriate, modified the report. A primary issue addressed by the Authority’s outside legal counsel was that the OIG did not have jurisdiction to report on matters relating to the issues addressed in the Audit Memorandum. We disagree with this position. The OIG Act of 1978 provides us authorization to conduct audits, investigations and related activities in connection with the enforcement and administration of all laws, regulations, orders, contracts, and programs in which the Department of Housing and Urban Development is a party. With the Authority receiving more than $345 million dollars a year in HUD funds, we have an obligation to ensure the Authority conducts its business in an efficient and effective manner and Federal funds are used appropriately. Further, we never questioned the Board’s authority to establish policy nor have we made any attempt to dictate personnel policy. In our review, we used the Authority’s own policies and procedures as the benchmark for our evaluation. Exit Conference On March 1, 2002, we conducted an exit conference with the Authority’s Board of Commissioners and their outside legal counsel. With the exception of the Chairman of the Board, four of the five Board members attended the meeting. The purpose of an exit conference is to discuss the findings, conclusions and audit recommendations of the audit, as well as any points of disagreement and the auditee’s reasons for disagreeing. Since the Authority’s legal counsel prepared the Authority’s response, and we wanted to ensure the Board members actually read the response and supported the matters that were presented, we asked the Board members at the start of the conference if they read the response and fully supported it. The spokesperson for the 19 Board, (Ms. Wilkerson) admitted to reading only part of the response and relied instead, on a briefing provided by the Authority’s outside legal counsel. When the OIG questioned the remaining three Board members, the Authority’s outside legal counsel advised them not to answer, invoking the attorney-client privilege, and instead stated all we needed to know was that he briefed the Board on the issues. By accepting the outside legal counsel’s advice to not respond to our question, we were left with the impression that no one on the Board read the Authority’s response and thus, an informed discussion could not take place as we would have preferred. In our opinion, the Board’s total reliance on outside legal counsel indicates the Board was disingenuous in addressing the matters in the report and appeared to be more preoccupied with justifying what had happened rather than accepting their oversight role and responsibilities. Recommendations We recommend the Office of Public and Indian Housing: 1A. Evaluate whether the conflict of interest constitutes an actionable breach of the Consolidated Annual Contributions Contract, and if so, consider and implement appropriate action to remedy the breach. 1B. Ensure the Authority repay, with non-Federal funds, relocation expenses of $2,163, temporary housing costs of $3,031, and airfare costs of $329, in ineligible costs, paid to or on the behalf of an Authority employee. 1C. Ensure the Authority repay, with non-Federal funds unsupported retroactive pay adjustments of $2,237 and salary overpayments of $3,780 for the two unsupported paychecks received after the employee left the Authority. Also we recommend the Office of Public and Indian Housing require the Board of Commissioners to: 1D. Objectively assess whether the actions taken by the Executive Director, as are defined in this report, warrant disciplinary action. Specifically, his role in recruiting and use of outside consultants, development of Authority personnel policies, violation of 1995 Personnel Policies and failure to provide auditors with full and free access to authority records, files, and personnel as required by the ACC. 1E. Update its 1999 Personnel Manual to clearly define all directions and mandates granted to the Executive Director and other Executive Managers on their discretionary hiring authority. Also, update the policy to include adequate safeguards to identify, track and monitor all discretionary hires. 20 1F. Attend mandatory training to obtain a better understanding of the differences in the roles and responsibilities of the Board and the Executive Director, along with obtaining training on the provisions and requirements of their Consolidated Annual Contributions Contract with HUD. ***** In addition to this audit memorandum, HUD’s Inspector General issued a separate letter on March 26, 2002 to the Philadelphia Housing Authority’s Chairman of the Board of Commissioners. The letter expresses the OIG’s concerns over the use of scarce PHA financial resources to engage consultants to oversee our audit activities, and to contract for services that are already covered by our ongoing audit work. Further, the letter instructs the Chairman to ensure that henceforth, the PHA avoids the purchase of unnecessary services and fully cooperate with audit activities. 21 Attachment A Schedule Of Questioned Costs Section Number Ineligible 1/ Unsupported 2/ Recovered Costs 3/ E $191,848 E $2,163 E $3,031 E $ 329 E $2,237 E $3,780 Totals $5,523 $6,017 $191,848 1/ Ineligible costs are costs charged to a HUD program or activity that the auditor believes are not allowable by law, contract, or Federal, State, or local policies or regulations. 2/ Unsupported costs are costs charged to a HUD program or activity that the auditor cannot find documentation to support the expense. 3/ Recovered costs paid back during the course of the review, based upon questions raised by the auditor during the review. 22 Attachment B Questionable Hires and Promotions Under 1995 Personnel Manual Original Starting Promoted Promoted % Of Timeframe Comments Position Salary Position Salary Increase Media Specialist $43,630 Executive Media $63,138 45% 2 months Position Reclassified/no Specialist competition for promotion. Policy requires 3 months prior to promotion. Admin Asst. 2 $43,630 Senior $60,000 38% 7 months Lacks education required Administrative for either position. Officer Exec Asst. to $61,000 Senior Counsel $72,778 19% 8 months No competition for Exec Director promotion. Deputy General $97,000 General Counsel $110,000 13% 4 months No competition for Counsel promotion. Executive $74,654 No change $83,000 11% 1 ½ months Policy requires 3 months Assistant prior to promotion. General $80,307 No change $87,000 8% 3 weeks Lacks education & Manager of experience required for Housing the position. Policy Operations requires 3 months prior to promotion. Admin $47,900 Relocation $50,344 5% 2 months. No competition for Officer Manager promotion. Policy requires 3 months prior to promotion. Human $95,000 No change $98,325 4% 8 months No competition for hire. Resource Manager Questionable Hires and Promotions Under 1999 Personnel Manual Original Starting Promoted Promoted % Of Timeframe Comments Position Salary Position Salary Increase Technical Aide $25,269 Assistant to the $41,704 65% 4 months. No competition for Executive promotion. Policy calls Director for 6 months to be eligible for promotions. Program $60,216 Supervisory $66,642 11% 5 months No competition for Manager Program promotion. Requires 6 Manager months to be eligible for promotions. General $96,000 Exec GM of $103,500 8% 6 weeks. No competition for Manager of Contracts promotion. Policy calls Contract Administration for 6 months to be eligible Administration for promotions. The tables show whether the hire/promotion occurred before or after the 1999 Revised HR policy was signed by the Executive Director, the change from the original position and salary to the promoted position (if applicable) and salary, the percentage of salary increase, the elapsed time between hire and promotion and comments identifying the questions related to the hire/promotion. Return to Page 10 23 Attachment C Auditee Comments 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 Return to Page 19 72 Attachment D Distribution Honorable Edward G. Rendall, Esq., 123 South Broad Street, Suite 1827, Philadelphia, PA 19102 Mr. James Eisenhower, III, Ballard Spahr Andrews & Ingersoll, LLP, 1735 Market Street, 51st Floor, Philadelphia, PA 19103-7599 Director, Office of Public Housing, Mid-Atlantic, 3APH Secretary’s Representatives Audit Liaison Officer, 3AFI Acquisitions Librarian Library, AS (Room 8141) OIG Key Principal Staff Listing HUD Key Principal Staff Listing The Honorable Fred Thompson, Chairman, Committee on Governmental Affairs, 340 Dirksen Senate Office Building, US Senate, Washington, DC 20510 The Honorable Joseph Lieberman, Ranking Member, Committee on Governmental Affairs, 706 Hart Senate Office Building, US Senate, Washington, DC 20515 Ms. Cindy Fogleman, Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations, Room 212, O’Neil House Office Building, Washington, DC 20515 Director, Housing and Community Development Issue Area, US GAO, 441 G Street, N.W., Room 2474, Washington, DC 20548, Attn: Stanley Czerwinski The Honorable Dan Burton, Chairman, Committee on Government Reform, 2185 Rayburn Building, House of Representatives, Washington, DC 20515 The Honorable Henry Waxman, Ranking Member, Committee on Government Reform, 2204 Rayburn Building, House of Representatives, Washington, DC 20515 Ms. Sharon Pinkerton, Deputy Staff Dir, Counsel, Subcommittee on Criminal Justice, Drug Policy and Human Resources, B373 Rayburn House Office Building, Wash, DC 20515 Mr. Steve Redburn, Chief, Housing Branch, Office of Management & Budget, 725 17th Street, N.W., Room 9226, New Executive Office Building, Washington, DC 20503 Mr. Andrew R. Cochran, Senior Counsel, Committee on Financial Services, U.S. House of Representatives, 2129 Rayburn House Office Building, Washington, DC 20515 Mr. Armando Falcon, Director, Office of Federal Housing Enterprise Oversight, 1700 G Street, N.W., Room 4011, Washington, DC 20552 Honorable John Street, City of Philadelphia, Office of Mayor, Room 215, Philadelphia, PA 19107 Jonathan A. Saidel, City Controller, Office of City Controller, 1401 JFK Boulevard, 12th Floor, S-1230, Philadelphia, PA 19102-1679 73
Philadelphia Housing Authority Limited Personnel Review
Published by the Department of Housing and Urban Development, Office of Inspector General on 2002-03-26.
Below is a raw (and likely hideous) rendition of the original report. (PDF)