You are here
A Classic Fiefdom and a Problem with Long-Term Municipal Representation
Friday, August 24th, 2012
Robert Wechsler
Update: Counsel for the Housing Authority informed me that it was the Authority board, through him, that originally notified HUD of problems, and that another counsel was involved in some of the relevant transactions. Therefore, I have made some changes to the original post.
An editorial in today's New Haven Register sets forth allegations about the West Haven (CT) Housing Authority that add up to a typical fiefdom (see the section on fiefdoms in my book Local Government Ethics Programs). This case is especially interesting to me, since I live in North Haven, not far away.
There appears to have been no effective local oversight of the housing authority staff, either by the housing authority commissioners, by the appointing authority (the mayor), by the council, or by anyone else in the government or the community.
One fact did seem to come out and be dealt with by the authority's commissioners: the executive director's gambling addiction, which led him to misuse an authority credit card to support his habit. This is not too unusual a problem, especially in areas not far from a casino (and there are two casinos not far away). If this were the only thing, it would only incidentally be a government ethics issue.
But gambling does not appear to have been the executive director's only problem. Ten days ago, the FBI raided the housing authority offices, and that got everyone focused on the larger problem. According to the editorial, the federal Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) (in a March 2012 report) had confirmed or discovered a number of problems that don't appear to have been dealt with by anyone:
But there are two other people who should have blown the whistle long ago and, it appears, did not. One is the council’s liaison to the housing authority, who told the paper that he’s unsure of the last housing authority meeting he attended and does not recall any problems being discussed. This is someone who, giving him the benefit of the doubt, clearly can't handle his job.
Long-Term Municipal Representation Can Be Addictive
And then there's the "longtime" housing authority counsel. It's not clear what his role in the problems here were, but there is often a question regarding who outside counsel represents. The surest sign of a fiefdom is when the counsel effectively represents the executive director rather than the government and the community.
A long relationship between counsel and agency head is often a bad thing. The firm's website says that it is "proud to continue to represent some of the same municipalities and businesses for decades." Most lawyers think they can handle the special relationship that is formed. But it's not all that different than believing one can handle one's gambling addiction. It's a lot harder than it sounds. And in both cases, you first have to recognize that it's a problem.
The editorial suggests that the counsel should resign. If it turns out that what HUD discovered did occur, he shouldn't just resign. He should use this as an occasion to explain to other municipal lawyers and to the public the mistakes one can make, including an insufficient lack of oversight and a failure to protect the public rather than one's human "client," when one becomes too close with an agency head. He should discuss the blind spots this creates and educate others, perhaps even trying to get the law changed to prevent such long-term representations of municipalities and agencies. As with auditors, counsel should not be allowed to get too close to a public client.
Robert Wechsler
Director of Research-Retired, City Ethics
---
An editorial in today's New Haven Register sets forth allegations about the West Haven (CT) Housing Authority that add up to a typical fiefdom (see the section on fiefdoms in my book Local Government Ethics Programs). This case is especially interesting to me, since I live in North Haven, not far away.
There appears to have been no effective local oversight of the housing authority staff, either by the housing authority commissioners, by the appointing authority (the mayor), by the council, or by anyone else in the government or the community.
One fact did seem to come out and be dealt with by the authority's commissioners: the executive director's gambling addiction, which led him to misuse an authority credit card to support his habit. This is not too unusual a problem, especially in areas not far from a casino (and there are two casinos not far away). If this were the only thing, it would only incidentally be a government ethics issue.
But gambling does not appear to have been the executive director's only problem. Ten days ago, the FBI raided the housing authority offices, and that got everyone focused on the larger problem. According to the editorial, the federal Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) (in a March 2012 report) had confirmed or discovered a number of problems that don't appear to have been dealt with by anyone:
A $665,430 deficit in the most recent fiscal yearThe executive director asked for retirement immediately after the FBI raid. The mayor asked the housing authority commissioners to resign (except possibly for the new tenant representative), and they did.
Twice as many employees as comparable housing authorities
No account for its tenants' security deposits
$57,000 paid to a consultant for a home ownership program that was never created
$68,000 paid to a consultant to assist the accounting staff
A commissioner related to the executive director
The commissioners' failure to exercise adequate managerial oversight, when all this was happening (it gave the
executive director a reprimand only for his misuse of the credit card)
But there are two other people who should have blown the whistle long ago and, it appears, did not. One is the council’s liaison to the housing authority, who told the paper that he’s unsure of the last housing authority meeting he attended and does not recall any problems being discussed. This is someone who, giving him the benefit of the doubt, clearly can't handle his job.
Long-Term Municipal Representation Can Be Addictive
And then there's the "longtime" housing authority counsel. It's not clear what his role in the problems here were, but there is often a question regarding who outside counsel represents. The surest sign of a fiefdom is when the counsel effectively represents the executive director rather than the government and the community.
A long relationship between counsel and agency head is often a bad thing. The firm's website says that it is "proud to continue to represent some of the same municipalities and businesses for decades." Most lawyers think they can handle the special relationship that is formed. But it's not all that different than believing one can handle one's gambling addiction. It's a lot harder than it sounds. And in both cases, you first have to recognize that it's a problem.
The editorial suggests that the counsel should resign. If it turns out that what HUD discovered did occur, he shouldn't just resign. He should use this as an occasion to explain to other municipal lawyers and to the public the mistakes one can make, including an insufficient lack of oversight and a failure to protect the public rather than one's human "client," when one becomes too close with an agency head. He should discuss the blind spots this creates and educate others, perhaps even trying to get the law changed to prevent such long-term representations of municipalities and agencies. As with auditors, counsel should not be allowed to get too close to a public client.
Robert Wechsler
Director of Research-Retired, City Ethics
---
Story Topics:
- Robert Wechsler's blog
- Log in or register to post comments