Letters

Posted on 21 July 2011 by LeslieM

Why every Deerfield resident should care about what is happening at the DBHA

To the Editor:

The Deerfield Beach Housing Authority (DBHA) was legally chartered by the city to address the affordable housing needs of the city.

The distant and imbalanced relationship that has developed between the DBHA and the city of Deerfield Beach should be troubling to all residents. Such a relationship inhibits true collaborations that ultimately lead to not addressing critical housing needs throughout the city.

Over the past several years, the DBHA has been the recipient of the city’s generous support through [Community Development Block Grant] CDBG funds, $500,000 in HOME funds, $100,000 in permit fee waivers, decades of free garbage service up until 2003, donation of city land for the Executive Office, numerous in-kind services for their residents. DBHA has even most recently asked for $500,000 in reallocated City Disaster Recovery funds.

Given this generous support, it should be an affront to all residents that those at the helm of the DBHA, for whatever their reasoning, chose not to open their doors to the city’s internal control review. It should also be an affront that the DBHA Board instead chose a costly course of action that included defiance, delay, and an obstruction to transparency.

In January 2010, the DBHA received its first real Public Records Request. Information concerning procurement irregularities became public. In February 2010, Executive Director Pamela Davis presented a Corrective Action Plan to the Board concerning the procurement irregularities. Minutes from that meeting show few questions were asked. Board commissioners were unable, due to the longevity of their relationship with those in charge, to be objective. A mentality of ‘don’t rock the boat’ and ‘let’s just move on’ was, and still is, prevalent.

In the spring of 2010, the city commission voted for a closer examination of the agency, hired Kessler International to complete an internal control review, and requested various documents be available for Kessler’s review. Given the DBHA’s initial defiant stance, the city had to resort to a Public Records Request to obtain documents. This also meant that Davis did not have to answer questions directly from Kessler.

At a June Special Board Meeting, Davis presented a $350,000 estimated charge for duplicated records. It should be noted that Kessler International asked to have access to the documents, not be copied.  Kessler also asked to have electronic copies whenever possible. In fact, as all DBHA copiers scan to e-mail, there was no need to waste a single piece of paper.

In response to an utterly ridiculous $350,000 invoice, the city narrowed its records request.

What followed over the next several months was a concerted campaign by Davis (who lives in Sunrise), her personal defense attorney Tom Connick (Coral Springs), Chairman Keith Emery (Boca Raton) and DBHA attorney Bill Crawford (Ft. Lauderdale) to delay, hinder and avoid the Kessler review. The Authority Board directed Crawford, who closely collaborated with Connick, to draft four letters to the city. The letters focused on the city’s lack of authority to audit the DBHA, discrediting Kessler International, the act of bad faith by requesting the Executive Director’s e-mails, and the tremendous financial burden the audit would place on the DBHA.

In 2010, Crawford was compensated in excess of $50,000 in public funds for his efforts to avoid transparency. His billing provides a play-by-play snapshot of their tactics.

In October 2010, the city sent a final terse request for documents.

When the documents arrived, they were found significantly lacking. Kessler concluded that the lack of documentation significantly hampered his ability to conduct a thorough and accurate review.

Included in the missing documents are the files that pertain directly to the complaints I fielded with the OIG and FBI, numerous bank statements, no information at all for two accounts, no information at all on the over $2 million in DBHA investment accounts, deposit slips for all accounts, several unbid contracts over the $25,000 threshold and an extensive amount of missing quotes/proposals and invoices. In addition, the DBHA submitted a total of 13 e-mails for the Executive Director for the entire year of 2010.

It is clear that the current DBHA Board and management chose not to acknowledge Kessler’s Report. For anyone at the DBHA to state “ … We thought we gave the city of Deerfield Beach everything” is either outright dishonesty or an admission that they did not read the Kessler Report. Being good stewards of public funds, shouldn’t they have had an interest in reading that report?

Not satisfied with the results of HUD’s two limited procurement reviews, I reached out to Congressman Allen West for his assistance. On July 5, 2011, West wrote to the Acting Secretary of the HUD Office of Inspector General calling for “a complete investigation of the Deerfield Beach Housing Authority” due to his concerns over “misuse of taxpayer money” and possible “criminal issues [involving] nepotism, bid rigging and procurement violations.”

The DBHA is not an island in the city and does not belong to those at the helm, regardless of their length of employment or service.  The Authority was chartered for a distinct purpose. Now is the time to appoint a new board, which will bring the agency back to the city. Now is the time for transparency. Now is the time to explore true collaborations between the DBHA, the city and community partners. The scope of a PHA in a community can go so much more beyond managing low-income properties. Now is the time to create best practices within our city that could be a model for other areas in addressing affordable housing issues.

Chaz Stevens,

former commissioner,

Deerfield Beach Housing Authority Board

Deerfield Beach Housing Authority

 

RE: Utility tax

Dear Editor:

The Rescind Unfair Taxes Committee leased the city-owned Constitution Park building at 2841 W. Hillsboro Blvd. for a petition-signing session on July 16 from 1 to 9 p.m. We paid $322, with the provision that $100 would be refunded to us, provided the facility was left in good order.

On Friday, July 15, we learned of a rumor that the city had printed on city stationery approximately 5,000 flyers in opposition to the position our group had taken. Their flyer  in my opinion was a divisive missive that pitted the haves against the have nots.

That evening, I called my commissioner, Joe Miller, and told him I was not happy with the city’s attempt to rain on our parade. I told him we wanted to be sure that we would avoid any confrontations.  When we arrived at 1 p.m. to do our set-ups, we realized that the city had posted the opposition circulars throughout the city — including the room we were using to collect signatures for our referendum issue. The female city employee who was monitoring our activities told us we did not have the right to remove the opposition material from the room we had leased.

Had we known of this regulation, we never would have leased that building. Since we refused to give back the offending flyers, the employee called her supervisor, Amy Hanson, who, in turn, called her husband Burgess Hanson, the city manager of Deerfield Beach.

He, in turn, called Mayor Noland and District 4 commissioner Ganz, whose decision it was to call BSO. BSO deputies were dispatched to the site to arrest us for vandalizing city property.

When they discovered that there obviously was no city vandalism, they called their superiors to say that no criminal act had been perpetrated. We agreed to give back the flyers we had confiscated in exchange for an agreement that our security deposit of $100 would be returned. Previously, we had been told that it would not be refunded because of our supposed vandalism.

We feel as though the presence of police deterred the voters from entering Constitution Park to sign our petitions. The flyers they posted and distributed made us look like criminals, a portrayal we did not appreciate.

The people in Deerfield should be made aware of the cheap shot the city took in order to stymie our continued success with our petition drive.

Steve Krevoy

Deerfield Beach

 

Editor’s note: According to spokesperson for the city of Deerfield Beach Rami Altherr-Musto, the city wanted to get information into the hands of residents to educate them. “We’ve distributed to all our facilities – last Tuesday or Wednesday. This is one portion of public service tax [utility tax] that we’re addressing at this time.”

 

RE: Detox facility

Dear Editor:

On July 7, The Cove Neighborhood showed up in force at the P&Z Board meeting to attempt to stop approval for the Florida House Medical Detoxification Center, looking to occupy 504 S. Federal Hwy. The board voted unanimously to deny the Detoxification Center, based on lack of compatibility to the adjoining zone for single family residences. The Cove neighborhood’s concern is for proper placement of such a facility.

Approval of this facility in the B2 zoning district, with no specific regulation regarding placement, would open the door for other like-facilities to occupy the B2 zoning throughout our city. No other city in South Florida, successfully integrating these facilities, does so without a buffer between residences and schools.

The State of Florida says that these facilities cannot lock their doors to keep non-compliant patients in. This means voluntary denial of help, that they can leave by the front or back door at will, any time of day, despite their contractual agreement with the Florida House.

We already see this happening in our neighborhood. Additionally, we see drug deals occurring flagrantly in front of our homes. We see substance abuse rehabilitation and halfway house clients who skirt their curfew, climb over the fences of adjoining residential properties to escape detection. They throw their liquor bottles over the fences into residential yards.

We need to stop the improper placement of the proposed Florida House Medical Detoxification facility and take a good hard look at our community to find proper zoning for these facilities.

The city’s inability to correctly place this facility is not just detrimental to the residential community, but also to the patients of this facility, as well as the business owner.  It is not just one-sided.

Gretchen Thomas

Deerfield Beach

Comments are closed.

Advertise Here
Advertise Here