Alexander County Housing Authority
Overview of Results and Determinations from PHARS Review

In summary The Alexander County Housing Authority (ACHA) is not compliant with a
number of HUD regulations, Fair Housing and Federal Equal Opportunity laws. It is a hostile
place in which to live and work and residents and maintenance employees likely have very low
satisfaction in the management. There is no culture of customer service and we witnessed how
tenants were poorly treated by management in a condescending and disrespectful manner.
Management appears to be focused on their own financial interests as demonstrated by their total
disregard for addressing various con?icts of interest which have been identified and are in
violation of HUD regulations and the ACHA nepotism policy. There is little if any direct
interaction between the Housing Authority Management and the tenants as well as other
community and social service agencies that serve or could be serving ACHA residents. The
Housing Authority has not maintained a fair and open hiring practice and as a result may now be
unable to find qualified individuals to fill open positions.

The ACHA operates in contrast to standard industry practice in Illinois and we expect it to
become PHAS troubled or near troubled due to mismanagement specifically in Physical
conditions of units. Our office believes that only a change in management and governance can
improve conditions at the ACHA. The Housing Authority management claims their operating
situation is difficult due to cuts in HUD funding, however it appears instead to be largely due to
mismanagement. Other Housing Authorities in Illinois have demonstrated an ability to operate
and upgrade their portfolio of properties with the same level of funding over the past decade.

If the County Board Chair does not understand the immediate need to change the Board and
subsequently the management, it may demonstrate that this political jurisdiction is unable and

unwilling to manage their own Housing Authority in accordance with Federal regulations and
laws.

Governance The Board of the ACHA has numerous con?icts of interest and should be
replaced with new members who have no current or past business affiliation with the ACHA or
the previous Executive Director James Wilson. One Board member John Price is an officer of
Laborers local 773, who is the bargaining unit for PHA employees. Mr. Price has been told to
resign due to a conflict of interest, more than twice and has refused to do so. He has voted to
approve and possibly participated in negotiating the current labor contract. There is no way he
can recuse himself from all personnel and budget issues and properly function as a Board

member. Based on his past actions, he has demonstrated an inability to identify and handle
potential con?icts.

Previous Executive Director The previous Executive Director, James Wilson is continuing to
exert influence on the operation of the ACHA and may even be running the Housing Authority
by proxy through the current Executive Director and Board. He was a paid consultant after his

retirement, but is no longer paid by the Housing Authority since HUD required that his contract
be voided because it was illegally procured. During the onsite review last September, the
former Executive Director made several racist statements during an interview with HUD staff
regarding his perceived inability for minority tenants and individuals to participate and manage
resident councils and hold management positions in a Public Housing Agency. He also claimed
to find and steer individuals he selected to the County Board Chair for appointment to the
Board. Mr. Wilson is a former Mayor of Cairo and is politically connected as demonstrated
by his ability to obtain a letter from Congressman Enyart IL 12th making false statements
about HUD staff professionalism and behavior during the onsite review last September.

Executive Director The current Executive Director, Ms. Martha Franklin was placed in the
position by the previous Executive Director, Mr. James Wilson without a competitive hiring
process and was given a three year contract, for which a year has passed. The decision to place
Ms. Franklin in the position of current Executive Director may have been in?uenced by a
personal relationship with the previous Executive Director, Mr. Wilson. The current Executive
Director is not operating the Housing Authority is accordance with HUD regulations. There are
and appear to be numerous violations of HUD regulations and fair labor laws. The Executive
Director has had no procurement training by her own admission. The Housing Authority is not

operated based on asset management and there is no effort to move to this structure or Operate in
this manner.

Nepotism- There are several cases of nepotism at the Housing Authority; one involving the son
in law of the Executive Director. This person, Mr. James Renfro is a direct report to the
Executive Director and since our September onsite visit was elected shop steward for local 773.
The election may not have been properly managed due to employees being suspended or out on
temporary disability leave. This presents a clear conflict of interest. We were also told that the
Executive Director is a also member of local 773 which is the collective bargaining unit, another
conflict of interest. The person responsible for leasing (Assistant Executive Director or similar
position) Donna Holman is married to a maintenance person.

EEOC We have been told by ACHA staff that the Housing Authority has been a party to

several EEOC complaints about unfair labor practices. Unfair labor practices which we became
aware of include:

1) Failure to allow an open application for the Executive Director position which did deny
minority applicants an opportunity to compete for the position.

2) Assignment of Housing Authority maintenance staff to various PHA properties based on
race. This practice has also resulted in disparate work load because of inequity in the
number of dwelling units on properties, types of housing and age of dwelling units,
family verses senior.

3) Inequities in compensation based on work load, tenure which may result in race based
discrimination.

4)
5)

6)

7)

There are no African Americans in management positions in the Housing Authority.
HUD was informed of an incident with employees where there was eavesdropping by the
Executive Director through a security system in the main office building on the
conversation of those employees. Employees were disciplined and terminated as a result
of this incident. All of the effected employees were African American. The details of
this incident have not been corroborated by HUD, however, we were informed that
EEOC complaints were filed as a result.

The Housing Authority offered retirement buyouts and employment contracts to some
employees. There was no documentation of this program in terms of qualifications, a
standard formula based on tenure or specified time when this was program was offered.
Consequently there is no evidence to document that this buyout was fairly offered to all
employees and discrimination based on race or gender may have occurred as a result.
Management structure is arbitrary and capricious, there have been no positions identified

as open for maintenance staff to apply for in which they would have supervisory
responsibilities.

The Housing Authority is being placed at significant financial risk as a result of potential
penalties paid by the Housing Authority to compensate Employees who have been discriminated
against. There also may be a pattern of discrimination by management. PIH staff does not
participate in the adjudication or review of EEOC claims. We are aware some of these have
been filed based on general information from employees, but have not been involved beyond
finding out that basic information.

Fair Housing 

1)

2)

3)

4)

It appears that housing properties are segregated and the PHA is making no effort to
address this condition.

The Housing Authority cancelled a Section 3 site mowing and maintenance program and
assigned the contract to an outside vendor in gross violation of procurement regulations.
The Housing Authority has made ridiculous claims that no contract exists when there is
in fact paid fee for service.

There is disparity in the condition of different types of housing and location of housing at
the ACHA. Family properties with primarily African American tenants are not in as
good condition as properties containing white tenant populations. The senior buildings
appear to have been better maintained and modernized. The Executive Offices are in the
senior building. It appears management and the board did not reasonably plan for or
budget for replacement of family properties during the tenure of the previous Executive
Director.

We were informed by ACHA when we were on site that there was at least one individual
who may have engaged in an inappropriate sexual relationship with tenants as part of a
?quid pro quo? type of circumstance. Our office was not able to interview any victims
and this situation is subject to corroboration through further investigation.

5) The Housing Authority may not be fully Section 504 complaint.

6) The ACHA is not enforcing the HUD mandated public service requirements of tenants
who would qualify and need to perform this activity.

7) There is no active Residents Councils at all properties or dedicated staff person to work
with and promote the efforts of residents councils.

8) The Housing Authority is unwilling to manage Section 8 HCV vouchers from other
jurisdictions or within their own jurisdiction.

Prevailing Wage

1) The Housing Authority consolidated its job descriptions and pay scale into a single
scale for all maintenance employees. It appears the job descriptions submitted do not
re?ect the different skill set required by ACHA maintenance staff to perform certain
maintenance and modernization activities. Consequently, some employees may be
over paid and others may be underpaid.

2) There are retirement/part time work contracts in place for some maintenance
employees which may create unequal compensation for same or similar work. There
is no Davis Bacon wage rate determination for these contract employees who are
possibly inappropriately classified as independent contractors.