OFFICE OF AUDIT
7
REGION 1
BOSTON, MA
Chelsea, MA, Housing Authority
Review of Cost Allocation and Reasonableness of
Salaries
2014-BO-1002 April 30, 2014
Issue Date: April 30, 2014
Audit Report Number: 2014-BO-1002
TO: Robert P. Cwieka,
Acting Director, Office of Public and Indian Housing, 1APH
//SIGNED//
FROM: Edgar Moore
Regional Inspector General for Audit, Boston Region, 1AGA
SUBJECT: Chelsea, MA, Housing Authority, Review of Cost Allocations and
Reasonableness of Salaries
Attached is the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD), Office of
Inspector General (OIG), final results of our review of the Chelsea Housing Authority regarding
its cost allocations, and reasonableness of salaries.
HUD Handbook 2000.06, REV-4, sets specific timeframes for management decisions on
recommended corrective actions. For each recommendation without a management decision,
please respond and provide status reports in accordance with the HUD Handbook. Please furnish
us copies of any correspondence or directives issued because of the audit.
The Inspector General Act, Title 5 United States Code, section 8M, requires that OIG
post its publicly available reports on the OIG Web site. Accordingly, this report will be posted at
http://www.hudoig.gov.
If you have any questions or comments about this report, please do not hesitate to call me
at 212-264-4174.
April 30, 2014
Chelsea, MA, Housing Authority, Review of Cost
Allocations and Reasonableness of Salaries.
Highlights
Audit Report 2014-BO-1002
What We Audited and Why What We Found
We audited the Chelsea, MA, Housing Authority officials did not design their cost
Authority based on a request from the U.S. allocation plans appropriately and did not assign
Department of Housing and Urban expenses properly. This condition occurred
Development (HUD), Boston Office of because former Authority officials used
Public and Indian Housing, which was inappropriate cost categories, made the plans
concerned about financial controls at the unnecessarily complex, and did not consistently
Authority. Our audit objectives were to apply expenses in accordance with the plans. As
determine whether Authority officials a result, the improper allocations obscured the
properly implemented financial controls over true cost of the Authority’s programs, and
the allocation of costs, and reasonableness of decision makers did not have proper financial
salaries. information. Additionally, Authority officials
could not assure HUD and other regulatory
What We Recommend agencies that $6.7 million in salaries and $2.7
million in expenses were appropriately assigned
to the programs that benefited from those
We recommend that the Director of HUD’s expenses.
Boston Office of Public and Indian Housing
instruct Authority officials to develop an The Authority also paid unreasonable wages of
acceptable methodology to correctly allocate $697,471. These higher wages stemmed from
the 2010, 2011 and 2012 expenditures; the absence of wage rate ceilings, officials’
allocate the more than $9.4 million in misunderstanding of State wage rate
expenses to the benefiting programs; repay requirements, and the former board of
any ineligible, unsupported, and commissioners’ approving the former executive
unreasonable expenses to the appropriate director’s high salary. Therefore, these funds
Federal programs; and implement a policy to were not available to further the objectives of
annually review the cost allocation plan with the Authority’s programs.
the Authority’s board of commissioners. In
addition, reimburse its programs $697,471
for unreasonable salary expenditures;
examine its job descriptions to ensure that
each job description reflects all of the work
that each employee performs; define a pay
scale for each job; ensure that each employee
has a signed and dated job description; and
update these job descriptions regularly.
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Background and Objectives 3
Results of Audit
Finding 1: Authority Officials Did Not Properly Allocate Expenses to the 5
Programs Benefiting From Those Expenses
Finding 2: The Authority Paid Unreasonable Wages 8
Scope and Methodology 13
Internal Controls 15
Appendixes
A. Schedule of Questioned Costs and Funds To Be Put to Better Use 17
B. Salaries at the Authority Compared With the Mean Average Salary for That 18
Position in the Boston Metropolitan Area
C. Auditee Comments and OIG’s Evaluation 19
2
BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES
The United States Housing Act of 1937 established the Federal framework for local government-
owned affordable housing. The United States Congress established public housing to promote
the general welfare of the United States by assisting cities, such as Chelsea, MA, in providing
decent and safe dwellings for low-income families. The U.S. Department of Housing and Urban
Development (HUD) disperses operating subsidies and capital funds to public housing agencies
under annual contributions contracts to provide funding for housing assistance for eligible low-
income families. The Act was amended by the Quality Housing and Work Responsibility Act of
1998 to create the Housing Choice Voucher program. HUD provides funding to the Chelsea
Housing Authority, which, in turn, pays subsidies directly to housing owners on behalf of
assisted families.
Under the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 20091, Congress made available
additional funding to carry out capital and management activities for public housing agencies
such as the Authority. This law included formula grants awarded by the HUD Secretary and
competitive grants for priority investments. It specifically stated that funding provided under
this heading could not be used for operating or rental assistance activities. HUD provided the
Authority with both formula and competitive grants under the Public Housing Capital Fund
provisions of the Recovery Act. HUD provided $1.1 million through a 2009 ARRA Capital
Fund Formula Grant and $445 thousand through a 2009 ARRA Capital Fund Competitive Grant.
Between 2010 and 2012, HUD provided more than $25.3 million in funding to the Authority
through five programs.
Program 2010 2011 2012 Total
Housing Choice Voucher
1 $5,717,519 $5,921,427 $5,562,993 $17,201,939
program
Low-income operating
2 $1,880,732 $1,793,617 $1,819,491 $5,493,840
subsidies
3 Public Housing Capital Fund $861,837 $716,082 $659,677 $2,237,596
Resident Opportunities and
4 $240,000 $- $69,000 $309,000
Self-Sufficiency grants
Family Self-Sufficiency
5 $32,779 $32,779 $64,909 $130,467
Service Coordinator
Totals $8,732,867 $8,463,905 $8,176,070 $25,372,842
1
Public Law 111-5, the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009
3
The Authority is an autonomous local government subdivision, which owns, manages, and
maintains subsidized public housing developments and subsidized leased housing programs
within Chelsea, MA. In addition to the Federal funding from HUD, the Authority received
funding from the Commonwealth of Massachusetts (State). It administers Federal public
housing, State public housing, the Federal Housing Choice Voucher program, the Massachusetts
Rental Voucher Program, a Federal Public Housing Capital Fund program, a State modernization
grant, and four Federal grants. The Authority is overseen by a five-member board of
commissioners and an executive director, who is responsible for the Authority’s day-to-day
operations.
The prior executive director announced his retirement in September 2011, stating that his ending
date would be February 10, 2012. The former board of commissioners immediately began a
search for a new executive director. The board hired a new executive director in November
2011; however, he was to start on January 1, 2012. The former executive director abruptly
retired in November 2011, concurrent with a media outcry about his excessive salary. The entire
board of commissioners also resigned in November and December 2011. The State forced the
Authority into receivership in November 2011. The receiver began working at the Authority in
November 2011. New commissioners were brought on board in March 2012, with the first
meeting of the new board of commissioners in March 2012. In July 2012 the Authority hired a
new fee accountant and along with the new board began implementing new policies and controls.
On February 19, 2013, the former executive director pled guilty to four counts of falsifying a
record within the jurisdiction of a Federal agency. On July 18, 2013, the former executive
director was sentenced to 36 months in prison, followed by 2 years of supervised release. He
was also fined $4,000. On October 30, 2013, the former executive director was indicted2 on
different charges for allegedly impeding Federal inspections to ensure that public housing units
at the Chelsea Housing Authority would pass.
The objectives of the audit were to determine whether Authority officials properly implemented
financial controls over the allocation of costs, and reasonableness of salaries.
2
The court case for this indictment is working through the court system and the final outcome of this has not been
determined at the date of this report.
4
RESULTS OF AUDIT
Finding 1: Authority Officials Did Not Properly Allocate Expenses to
the Programs Benefiting From Those Expenses
Authority officials did not properly assign expenses to the benefiting programs. These
deficiencies occurred because the Authority’s cost allocation plans were not designed
appropriately, cost allocation plans were not updated when the Authority accepted new grants or
when existing grants ended, and the Authority did not allocate expenses in accordance with its
plans. As a result, the improper allocation of expenses obscured the true cost of the Authority’s
programs, and HUD and Authority officials did not have proper information to make informed
decisions. Additionally, Authority officials could not assure HUD that more than $9.4 million3
in expenses was appropriately assigned to the programs that benefited from those expenses on a
reasonable and consistent basis.
Centralized Expenses Should
Be Assigned to the Benefiting
Programs
Cost allocation is a process whereby centralized expenses can be identified and
assigned to the activities that benefit from these expenses on a reasonable and
consistent basis. All data used to distribute the costs included in the cost
allocation plan should be backed by records that support the propriety of the costs
assigned to Federal awards. Housing authority activities include programs and
grants. During the 3-year audit period, the Authority operated a federally funded
low-income housing program, a Federal Public Housing Capital Fund program, a
Housing Choice Voucher program, a State low-income program, a Massachusetts
Rental Voucher Program, a State modernization program, and five grants4.
Each year, Authority officials developed a different cost allocation plan at the
beginning of that fiscal year to assign expenses to the programs and grants. Each
of these allocation plans for the Authority’s 11 programs and grants included 18
separate methodologies. Each methodology had a basis. Different methodologies
used different bases including the number of units, time, or bedroom size.
Different methodologies for the same fiscal year using bedrooms as a basis would
list different quantities of bedrooms. These methodologies were overly complex
and not appropriate. Authority officials allocated approximately $9.4 million in
3
This $9.4 million consists of $6.7 million in salaries and $2.7 million in administrative expenses that the Authority
reported to HUD through financial statements.
4
The Authority received four types of Federal grants and one type of State grant.
5
expenses and salaries during the audit period. We reviewed a sample of 188
expenses totaling $886,572 of more than $6.5 million5 in expenses. In 75 percent
of the sample (141 expenses), the actual allocation did not match the planned
allocation. For 55 of the 188 expenses, the invoices did not provide sufficient
information to determine whether the allocation was proper. Additionally, the
Authority could not support how it allocated more than $6.7 million in salaries for
2010, 2011, and 2012.
Allocation Plans Were Not
Properly Designed, Updated,
Used, or Supported
Each year, Authority officials developed an allocation plan that did not adequately
allocate costs to all programs impacted. For example, Authority officials did not
allocate certain types of expenses to a State program, the Massachusetts Rental
Voucher program, although this program benefited from these expenses.
Additionally, the Authority treated the accounts of Federal security or payments
in lieu of taxes (PILOT) as separate programs and allocated expenses to these
accounts. It also inappropriately treated portability, which it called mobility, as a
separate program. Portability is a part of the Housing Choice Voucher program.
In addition, as new grants were accepted or removed from the Authority’s
portfolio, the Authority did not adjust its allocation plans for these changes. We
also were not able to trace the allocation of expenses to the methodologies listed
in the allocation plans. Therefore, the plans were not consistently used. Creating
these artificial cost centers for security, PILOT, and mobility artificially lowered
the amount of expenses allocated to the Authority’s remaining programs and
obscured the true cost of all of the Authority’s programs.
Conclusion
Authority officials could not assure HUD that the approximately $9.4 million in
expenses was appropriately assigned to the programs that benefited from those
expenses on a reasonable and consistent basis. We attribute this deficiency to
Authority officials’ improper development of allocation plans and not properly
updating, using, or supporting their allocations.
5
This $6.5 million is the total of the categories labeled as administrative expenses on the Authority’s cost allocation
plans. The cost allocation plans mislabeled some expenses as administrative expenses.
6
Recommendations
We recommend that the Director of HUD’s Boston Office of Public and Indian
Housing instruct Authority officials to
1A. Develop an acceptable methodology to correctly allocate the 2010, 2011,
and 2012 expenditures to ensure that expenses are properly assigned to the
appropriate programs benefiting from those expenditures.
1B. Using the allocation method approved by HUD, allocate the $8,770,2746
in expenses to the benefiting programs
1C. After implementing the HUD-approved allocation method, repay any
ineligible, unsupported, and unreasonable expenditure to the appropriate
Federal programs from non-Federal funds.
1D. Implement a policy to annually review the cost allocation with the
Authority’s board of commissioners and have the board certify that the
plan is in accordance with HUD regulations. A resolution should also be
filed when the board approves the cost allocation plan.
6
The total of expenses paid in 2010, 2011, and 2012 was $9,467,745, but the salary amount in finding 2 includes
$697,471 of this amount in unreasonable salaries. Therefore, we reduced the amount cited in this recommendation.
7
Finding 2: The Authority Paid Unreasonable Wages
The Authority paid unreasonable wages to its employees. Specifically, Authority officials paid
wages that were higher than the mean wages for similar positions in the Boston metropolitan
area. This condition occurred because retroactive increases to employee contracts were allowed
and job titles and pay did not correlate to the job duties for those positions. We also attribute
these higher wages to several factors, including the absence of wage rate ceilings and Authority
officials’ misunderstanding of State wage rate requirements. As a result, $697,471 in Authority
funds was not available to further the Authority’s programs.
Authority Officials Paid Wages
That Were Higher Than Local
Area Wages
The wages in question were provided to the Authority’s employees during 2010,
2011, and 2012. Federal regulations require compensation to be reasonable7.
Compensation for employees engaged in work on Federal programs is reasonable
when that compensation is consistent with the wage rates paid in the local labor
market. To identify reasonable wage rates in the local labor market, we obtained
the mean annual wage rates compiled by the Bureau of Labor Statistics8 for the
Boston-Cambridge-Quincy metropolitan statistical area for each job description at
the Authority. These data showed the wages paid in the Authority’s local labor
market by job title. We compared the wages paid by the Authority with the
mean annual wages, and found that the Authority paid select employees’ wages
that were more than $10,000 per year higher than the mean annual wages paid
that year for the same type of work. Appendix B details the differences.
We considered unreasonable wages to be the amount that the Authority paid to its
employees that exceeded the mean annual wage for that same type of position in
the Boston metropolitan area. In this case, we calculated that $697,471 in wages
paid was unreasonable. In addition to being unreasonable, some of these salaries
were questioned further as discussed in the following sections.
7
Office of Management and Budget (OMB) Circular A-87, codified at 2 CFR (Code of Federal Regulations) Part
225, Cost Principles for State, Local, and Indian Tribal Governments; Attachment B, Selected Items of Costs;
paragraph 8, Compensation for personnel services.
8
The Bureau of Labor Statistics of the U.S. Department of Labor is the principal Federal agency responsible for
measuring labor market activity, working conditions, and price changes in the economy. This agency produces
employment and wage estimates annually for more than 800 occupations. This information is publicly available.
The Bureau of Labor statistics updated its data each May in 2010, 2011, and 2012.
8
The Board of Commissioners
Approved High Wages for the
Executive Director
A majority of the unreasonable wages identified were paid to the former executive
director. He received $546,154 in wages, which exceeded the mean annual wages
for all chief executives in the Boston metropolitan area.
Wages 2010 2011 Total
Former executive director $337,276 $424,938 $762,214
Mean annual $106,620 $109,440 $216,060
Unreasonable $230,656 $315,498 $546,154
Authority officials signed a new contract with the former executive director in
2006. On June 10, 2009, the former chairman of the board, with buy-in from the
former executive director, retroactively amended this contract to change the term
from a term ending January 1, 2013, to a term ending January 31, 2014; increase
the salary beginning January 1, 2009, by 3 percent over the 2008 salary; and
increase the salary beginning January 1, 2010, by 3 percent over the 2009 salary.
The 2009 contractual salary was $267,199 before the 2009 amendment. With the
retroactive 3 percent increase, the 2009 salary became $275,215. That
amendment provided another 3 percent increase for 2010, which increased the
contractual salary to $283,471. Each of these contracts and each retroactive
amendment to the contracts were signed by at least one member of the board of
commissioners, usually the chairman.
The Authority reported to the Internal Revenue Service that the former executive
director received $337,276 in 2010 and $424,938 in 2011. The paychecks did not
differentiate payments for the retroactive increases from the payments for the
current year’s salary. Thus, not only did the former executive director receive
payments that exceeded the mean annual wages for all chief executives in the
Boston metropolitan area, his wages also exceeded the salary amounts under his
contracts. As a result, we considered this salary to be unreasonable.
It should be noted that the former executive director retired from the Authority
abruptly in November 2011. In addition, the former chairman and entire board of
commissioners resigned in November and December 2011.
Job Titles Did Not Correlate to
Job Duties
The Authority had job descriptions for each employee that identified the job’s title
and the duties associated with that job. The Bureau of Labor Statistics classifies
each job into a specific classification, which includes a description of that job’s
9
duties. When we compared the Authority’s job descriptions with the Bureau of
Labor Statistics classifications, we found that the Authority’s job titles did not
correlate to the duties that the employees performed. For example, one position
was titled assistant executive director of public housing; however, the job
description better matched the duties of a property real estate manager than those
of the executive categories. The Authority had 7 assistant executive directors and
1 executive director for 41 employees in 2010 and 43 employees in 2011.
Another position was titled senior accountant, while the associated job description
better matched the duties of bookkeeper than those of accountant. As part of their
2012 reorganization, Authority officials reexamined and updated job descriptions
and eliminated a number of higher level positions. However, this issue persisted
after the Authority updated its job descriptions. To avoid a recurrence of this
issue, Authority officials should have each supervisor and employee go through
each employee’s job description periodically to ensure that it is complete and up
to date.
Other Factors Contributed to
the Higher Wages
Other factors contributed to the higher wages, including the absence of wage
ceilings for individual jobs and a misunderstanding of State requirements that
established minimum wage rates. The Authority had two unions: Firemen &
Oilers and Service Employees International Union, a division of Teamsters. Each
union had a separate contract with the Authority. Neither of these union contracts
had wage ceilings on individual jobs; therefore, incremental increases to union
members’ salaries contributed to raising the Authority’s total salaries. The
contract between the Authority and Service Employees International Union
provided for 2.5 percent increases each year over the wages from appendix A of
the contract. However, Authority officials were not able to provide appendix A
for review.
The State published minimum wage rates for specific types of jobs, including
carpenters, custodians, electricians, groundskeepers, mechanics, painters, and
plumbers. All of the Authority employees enrolled in the Firemen & Oilers
Union were in one of these positions. As required by their contract with the
Firemen & Oilers union, Authority officials used these State wage rates to
determine compensation for all employees in these positions. The 2011 State
wage rates for some positions were lower than the 2010 rates that the Authority
paid for the same positions; however the contract between Firemen & Oilers and
the Authority also included a provision that an employee's compensation will not
be reduced if the current year’s State wage rate is lower than the previous year's
rate.
These State wage rates also exceeded the mean annual wages published by the
Bureau of Labor Statistics. Authority officials believed that these State wage
10
rates were the minimum wages required by law9. However, State law provides
that the rates apply to State-funded projects but do not apply to federally funded
projects. The Authority paid all of its employees in these classifications using the
State wage rates. The Authority then allocated these employees’ salaries to both
the Federal projects and the State projects.
These State laws also required that payments by employers to health and welfare
plans, pension plans, and supplementary unemployment benefit plans under
collective bargaining agreements or understandings between organized labor and
employers be included in the total wage amount for the purpose of establishing
the minimum wage rates10. However, the Authority compensated its employees at
the State wage rate and provided employee benefits separately, further increasing
the compensation paid. Authority officials stated that they were not aware that
the wage rate schedule did not apply to federally aided projects or that the State
rates included benefits.
The Authority Experienced
Staffing Changes
In November and December 2011, the former executive director abruptly retired
from the Authority, and the entire former board of commissioners resigned after
selecting a new executive director. The departure of the former executive
director reduced the amount of unreasonable salaries paid by the Authority. In
November 2011, the State appointed a receiver, who began work at the Authority
in January 2012 and oversaw operations until a new board was put in place. The
new board of commissioners was in place in March 2012. In the spring of 2012,
the Authority was reorganized, and a number of personnel were dismissed. Some
of these personnel received salaries that were higher than the mean annual wages
for their job descriptions. This process reduced but did not eliminate the quantity
of unreasonable salaries paid by the Authority. Appendix B identifies instances
in which the Authority paid wages that were more than $10,000 per year higher
than the mean annual wages paid that year for the same type of work.
Conclusion
The Authority paid unreasonable wages of $697,471 to employees in 2010, 2011,
and 2012. Several factors contributed to the higher wages, including the absence
of wage rate ceilings, a misunderstanding of State wage rate requirements, a
mismatch between job titles and job duties, and the former board of
commissioners’ inappropriate approval of high wages for the former executive
director. As a result, these funds were not available to further the Authority’s
programs.
9
This provision is in Massachusetts General Law, chapter 121B, section 29.
10
This provision is in Massachusetts General Law, chapter 149, section 26. Massachusetts General Law, chapter
121B, section 29, states that chapter 149, section 26, also applies to these wage rates.
11
Recommendations
We recommend that the Director of HUD’s Boston Office of Public and Indian
Housing require Authority officials to
2A. Reimburse the Authority’s programs from non-Federal funds for more
than $697,471 in unreasonable salary expenditures11.
2B. Examine and update, when necessary, job descriptions to ensure that they
reflect all of the work that each employee performs and any specialty
licenses required or recommended for an employee.
2C. Define a pay scale for each job description that includes a defined upper
limit or wage ceiling.
2D. Ensure that each employee has a job description signed and dated by the
employee and his or her direct supervisor. These job descriptions and
signatures should be updated periodically as duties and responsibilities
change.
11
Recommendation 1B and 2A are linked.
12
SCOPE AND METHODOLOGY
We conducted the audit between January and September 2013. Our fieldwork was completed
at the Authority’s main office located at 54 Locke Street, Chelsea, MA. The audit generally
covered the period January 1, 2010, to December 31, 2012, and was extended when necessary to
meet our objectives. To accomplish our audit objectives, we
Reviewed applicable laws, regulations, HUD handbooks and guidebooks, HUD public
housing notices, annual contributions contracts , and the Authority’s policies and
procedures.
Conducted discussions with Authority officials to gain an understanding of the Authority’s
operations, financial structure, cost allocation, internal controls, and job descriptions.
Reviewed independent public auditors’ reports as part of our testing for control
weaknesses.
Reviewed recent Real Estate Assessment Center inspections and walked through the
projects on February 19, 2013, to determine the general physical condition of the Federal
properties.
Evaluated internal controls and conducted sufficient tests to determine whether the
controls functioned as intended. This process included obtaining an understanding of the
computer systems used at the Authority and the controls used to ensure the accuracy of
the data. Our assessment of the reliability of the computer system was limited to the data
sampled; therefore, we did not rely solely on the computerized data; instead, we
performed a minimal level of testing and found the data to be adequate for our purposes.
Reviewed Authority board minutes and media articles about the Authority to identify
information relevant to the Authority’s programs and personnel.
Selected and reviewed a sample of expenditures to determine whether they were properly
allocated to programs. We selected a sample of 188 expenses for review. The 188
expenses totaled $886,572 of more than $6.5 million in expenses paid by the Authority
between January 1, 2010, and December 31, 2012.
Reviewed job descriptions, employment contracts, Bureau of Labor Statistics mean
annual wages for the Boston metropolitan area, employee timesheets, overtime requests,
and weekly time reports to determine the reasonableness of salaries.
Examined bank statements and general depository agreements to determine the propriety
of banking fees.
We conducted the audit in accordance with generally accepted government auditing standards.
Those standards require that we plan and perform the audit to obtain sufficient, appropriate
13
evidence to provide a reasonable basis for our findings and conclusions based on our audit
objective(s). We believe that the evidence obtained provides a reasonable basis for our findings
and conclusions based on our audit objectives.
14
INTERNAL CONTROLS
Internal control is a process adopted by those charged with governance and management,
designed to provide reasonable assurance about the achievement of the organization’s mission,
goals, and objectives with regard to
Effectiveness and efficiency of operations,
Reliability of financial reporting, and
Compliance with applicable laws and regulations.
Internal controls comprise the plans, policies, methods, and procedures used to meet the
organization’s mission, goals, and objectives. Internal controls include the processes and
procedures for planning, organizing, directing, and controlling program operations, as well as the
systems for measuring, reporting, and monitoring program performance.
Relevant Internal Controls
We determined that the following internal controls were relevant to our audit
objectives:
Program operations – Policies and procedures that management has
implemented to reasonably ensure that a program meets its objectives.
Reliability of data – Policies and procedures that management has implemented
to reasonably ensure that valid and reliable data are obtained, maintained, and
fairly disclosed in reports.
Laws and regulations – Policies and procedures that management has
implemented to reasonably ensure that resource use is consistent with laws and
regulations.
Safeguarding of resources – Policies and procedures that management has
implemented to reasonably ensure that resources are safeguarded against waste,
loss, and misuse.
We assessed the relevant controls identified above.
A deficiency in internal control exists when the design or operation of a control does
not allow management or employees, in the normal course of performing their
assigned functions, the reasonable opportunity to prevent, detect, or correct (1)
impairments to effectiveness or efficiency of operations, (2) misstatements in
financial or performance information, or (3) violations of laws and regulations on a
timely basis.
15
Significant Deficiencies
Based on our review, we believe that the following items are significant deficiencies:
The Authority did not have adequate controls over program operations,
relevance of information, and compliance with laws and regulations as
officials did not design cost allocation plans to only include appropriate
categories that would ensure that expenses were properly allocated to the
programs benefiting from the expenses (see finding 1).
The Authority did not have adequate controls to safeguard assets and
resources as officials did not properly allocate administrative expenses and
paid unreasonable wages (see findings 1 and 2).
16
APPENDIXES
Appendix A
SCHEDULE OF QUESTIONED COSTS
AND FUNDS TO BE PUT TO BETTER USE
Unreasonable
Recommendation number Unsupported 1/
or unnecessary 2/
1B $8,770,27412
2A $697,471
1/ Unsupported costs are those costs charged to a HUD-financed or HUD-insured program
or activity when we cannot determine eligibility at the time of the audit. Unsupported
costs require a decision by HUD program officials. This decision, in addition to
obtaining supporting documentation, might involve a legal interpretation or clarification
of departmental policies and procedures.
2/ Unreasonable or unnecessary costs are those costs not generally recognized as ordinary,
prudent, relevant, or necessary within established practices. Unreasonable costs exceed
the costs that would be incurred by a prudent person in conducting a competitive
business.
12
This figure is net of the $9,467,745 in expenses minus the $697,471 in unreasonable salaries in recommendation
2A.
17
Appendix B
SALARIES AT THE AUTHORITY COMPARED WITH THE
MEAN AVERAGE SALARY FOR THAT POSITION IN THE
BOSTON METROPOLITAN AREA
2010 mean annual
Unreasonable
Employee 2010 wages - reasonable wage
difference
for that type of job
24 $ 337,276 $106,620 $230,656
35 $ 90,524 $ 62,540 $ 27,984
25 $ 56,107 $ 36,470 $ 19,637
26 $ 58,698 $ 44,860 $ 13,838
3 $ 82,707 $ 72,200 $ 10,507
17 $ 65,614 $ 55,480 $ 10,134
Subtotal $ 690,926 $378,170 $312,756
2011 mean annual
Employee 2011 wages - reasonable wage Unreasonable
for that type of job
24 $424,938 $109,440 $315,498
35 $ 91,588 $ 64,570 $ 27,018
25 $ 57,000 $ 36,120 $ 20,880
3 $ 84,755 $ 74,270 $ 10,485
Subtotal $ 658,281 $284,400 $373,881
2012 mean annual
Employee 2012 wages - reasonable wage Unreasonable
for that type of job
6 $ 48,034 $37,200 $ 10,834
Subtotal $ 48,034 $37,200 $ 10,834
Grand total $697,471
18
Appendix C
AUDITEE COMMENTS AND OIG’S EVALUATION
Ref to OIG Evaluation Auditee Comments
19
Ref to OIG Evaluation Auditee Comments
Comment 1
Comment 2
Comment 3
Comment 4
Comment 5
20
Ref to OIG Evaluation Auditee Comments
Comment 5
Comment 6
21
Ref to OIG Evaluation Auditee Comments
Comment 6
Comment 7
Comment 8
Comment 7
Comment 9
22
Ref to OIG Evaluation Auditee Comments
Comment 8
Comment 10
Comment 11
Comment 12
23
Ref to OIG Evaluation Auditee Comments
Comment 12
Comment 13
24
OIG Evaluation of Auditee Comments
Comment 1 Authority officials’ plan to work with the Boston Office of Public and Indian
Housing to develop an acceptable methodology is responsive to our
recommendation.
Comment 2 Authority officials stated that they have developed an acceptable allocation
methodology with the Department of Housing and Community Development
(DHCD), which is part of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts (State). During
the exit conference, HUD agreed that Authority officials had developed an
acceptable methodology to allocate the 2013 and 2014 expenditures. However;
during the audit resolution process, this plan should be provided to HUD-OIG for
concurrence.
Comment 3 Authority officials’ plan to allocate the 2010, 2011, and 2012 expenditures to the
benefitting programs is responsive to our recommendation. The composition of
the $2.7 million in administrative expenses came from the Authority’s audited
financial statements and we will provide a table showing the $2.7 million in
administrative expenses by category to HUD for use during the audit resolution
process with the Authority.
Comment 4 Authority officials’ plan to discuss with the Boston Office of Public and Indian
Housing how to properly and equitably treat ineligible, unsupported and
unreasonable expenditures is partially responsive to our recommendation.
Authority officials also need to implement a policy to annually review the cost
allocation with the Authority’s board of commissioners and have the board certify
that the plan is in accordance with HUD regulations.
Comment 5 Officials believe that the HUD-OIG computed reasonable mean salary for the
former executive director is less than the salary in the budget that they submitted
to DHCD. DHCD approved this budget. Officials are using the salary approved
by DHCD in their litigation to obtain reimbursement from the former executive
director. As such, they believe that HUD-OIG’s use of a lower average salary
penalizes them twice, once from paying the executive director and once for
repaying HUD. Note that HUD did not previously require the Authority to submit
a budget identifying all salaries for approval. Also, DHCD and State rules do not
supersede HUD regulations. When an Authority accepts funding from multiple
government sources, the Authority must abide by the rules of the government
sources. In this instance, the Authority’s absence of adequate internal controls
allowed the excessive payments to the former executive director. While these
payments occurred in a former administration, the current administration has
inherited all the benefits and problems of the former administration. Further,
enforcement of HUD regulations to repay the HUD programs for the
unreasonable expenses is not a penalty for the Authority's absence of internal
controls; instead, this is a requirement of the Authority's annual contributions
25
contracts with HUD. Nevertheless, officials can negotiate with HUD during the
audit resolution process as to what they consider to be reasonable.
Comment 6 Authority officials disagree that the unreasonable wages occurred because of
officials misunderstanding of State wage regulations. They also state that HUD-
OIG did not consider that the State wages do not include fringe benefits.
Therefore, they believe that the wages they paid to union employees were within
the state wage rates and should not be questioned. Further, they believe it is
impractical to require different rates for maintenance employees who work on
both state and federal projects. However, HUD-OIG’s review of Massachusetts
General Law13 found that payments by employers (such as the Authority) to
health and welfare, pension, and supplementary unemployment benefit plans
under collective bargaining agreements shall be included for the purpose of
establishing minimum wage rates. Since the Authority provided a letter from the
State Agency that contradicts OIG’s review of Massachusetts General Law, HUD
may wish to have its attorneys evaluate the cited Massachusetts General Law and
the State Agency’s letter during the audit resolution process. Additionally, the
existence of collective bargaining does not eliminate the requirement on the
Authority that the salaries paid must be reasonable in price for the duties
performed. As such, Authority officials cannot charge the Federal programs for
compensation that is not reasonable in price. Thus, this is another issue that needs
to be negotiated during the audit resolution process with HUD.
Comment 7 Authority officials advise that DHCD approved the 2010 and 2011 salary
amounts. Although DHCD approved the 2010 and 2011 salary amount for this
employee, if the approved amount is not reasonable in price, it should not have
been charged (See above comment 6). In addition, the Authority's elimination of
the position and the departure of the employee may prevent recurrence; but it does
not address the unreasonable salary paid during 2010 and 2011.
Comment 8 The Authority disagrees that Employee 25's salary in 2010 and 2011 was
unreasonable because the employee was performing the functions of two separate
positions. Each employee needs to have a job description that describes the duties
and responsibilities of the position, not two separate job descriptions, in this case,
Senior Accountant and Purchasing Agent. Each of these job descriptions
describes a full time position, yet according to our review of timecards for this
employee, this employee was not working two full time positions. When a person
is fulfilling multiple tasks within a single full time position, the Authority needs to
develop a single job description that addresses those multiple tasks. Without
such, it is difficult to determine whether the salary charges are reasonable.
Comment 9 The Authority disagrees that the 2012 wages for Employee 6 were unreasonable
because Employee 6 assumed additional responsibilities after the departure of
another employee and Employee 6 is a union member whose pay increases were
approved by DHCD. The employee's job description should be updated to reflect
13
This provision is in Massachusetts General law Chapter 149, Section 26.
26
all of the duties performed by the employee. Also, as mentioned in comment 2,
DHCD and State rules do not supersede HUD regulations. When an Authority
accepts funding from multiple government sources, the Authority must abide by
the rules of the government sources.
Comment 10 Authority officials contend that the HUD-OIG’s emphasis on a wage rate ceiling
is inappropriate. While the Authority needs to adhere to its union contracts, we
believe that wage rate ceilings are appropriate, and the Authority should
implement wage rates and a wage ceiling concurrent with a union contract cycle.
Nevertheless, the authority’s planned actions to implement wage rates with
nonunion employees are partially responsive to our recommendation.
Comment 11 Authority officials believe that unionized employees are not permitted to sign and
agree to their individual job description because that is a conflict with State law14.
Our review of the cited law does not confirm this belief. While we do not agree
that a signed job description would interfere with unionized employees being
represented by their union; we agree that Authority officials should consult with
their labor counsel and determine the legality of this issue during the audit
resolution process with HUD.
Comment 12 Authority officials objected to the finding on bank fees because the Authority
began the process of challenging and removing the unreasonable bank fees prior
to any inquiry by HUD-OIG. Based on the information provided by Authority
officials and their written comments, we eliminated the finding on bank fees and
have revised the report accordingly.
Comment 13 This audit report clearly mentions (in the scope section) that the audit period was
from January 1, 2010 to December 31, 2012. In addition, the report background
section gives a chronology of how the former executive director and board left the
Authority and when the new executive director and board started their term and
began implementing new procedures and controls. As such, the report delineates
the two administrations at the Authority and needs no clarification.
14
The Authority cited Massachusetts General Law Chapter 150E
27
Chelsea, MA, Housing Authority Review of Cost Allocation and Reasonableness of Salaries
Published by the Department of Housing and Urban Development, Office of Inspector General on 2014-04-30.
Below is a raw (and likely hideous) rendition of the original report. (PDF)