|
|
| NEWS HOME | HOME | CITIZENS | VISITORS | BUSINESS | DEPARTMENTS |
 |
Office of Communications Gwen Campbell Media, Community & Education Relations Tel. 318.673.5062 / Fax: 318.673.5087 gwen.campbell@shreveportla.gov | ||
Employees: |
• The arrested employees have been placed on leave with pay pending further review. At this time in accordance with the city’s rules and regulations, pre-disciplinary conferences or PDC’s are being scheduled to properly discipline or hold them accountable. A PDC requires 24-hour notice and we anticipate these happening on Thursday, September 3, 2009. The arrested employees have been relieved of all duties and responsibilities and city access has been denied.
| Aggrieved Homeowners:
| • We are securing the services of certified housing inspectors to review the work of not only those we know have been identified by the Sheriff, but all work done by these contractors and all work inspected by the arrested inspectors. Initial discussions with the Department of Housing and Urban Development have indicated a need to properly and completely repair the homes before any civil or legal proceedings are initiated against these individuals. To that end we are bringing in outside certified inspectors.
| In addition to the hotline for concerns and questions all participants in the program have been notified in writing, via letter of the status of the program and the intention to restore their homes as soon as possible. Beyond the four contractors that are implicated, there are eight contractors that are in good standing with the program.
| Because there is pending work on other properties with these contractors, we are working as quickly as possible allow those projects to proceed. We are also looking of ways to allow those remaining contractors in good standing to complete work that was underway.
| Community Development:
| • In addition to the ongoing investigation by the Sheriff and the District Attorney, I have requested the City Council’s internal audit staff to conduct an Administrative Audit of the programs within the Department of Community Development.
| We were already in discussion with HUD for technical assistance for the Department of Community Development even before these findings were revealed. As of today we have asked HUD to accelerate the provision of this technical assistance. Also note that this additional support is separate and apart from the Inspector General review referred to by the Sheriff.
| It is also important to note that as information was revealed through individual interviews of potential problems identified by the Sheriffs department an administrative review and adjustments had begun.
| For example, in mid-summer when during the course of an interview with Mrs. Moore, when questions were raised regarding the pulling of permits she immediately initiated an internal review, identified the projects that were not compliant and immediately notified those contractors to strictly adhere to the city’s requirements.
| While this is not the basis for the criminal charges, it is indicitative of the administrative adjustments we have been making throughout this process.
| It is also important to note that HUD’s Neighborhood Revitalization Program does not require all contractors to be licensed however the program specifies that they adhere to the requirements of the state licensing board. Ten of the twelve contractors in the Limited Repair Program are fully licensed. After the change in state law, one of the remaining two secured a license and the other contractor was suspended from the program.
| Taking further steps to correct the situation and prior to the Sheriff’s investigation, Mrs. Moore sent each contractor participating in the Limited Repair Program a warning letter that put them on notice regarding poor workmanship and any impropriety.
| It has been stated that the four identified contractors have been paid $1.6 million over the past 18 months under this program. For clarification that number includes all payments received by the identified contractors for any and all completed work, regardless of the program, during the past 18 months.
| As for this specific program which has been identified as the basis of these charges, contractors have completed and been compensated for 25 projects with an approximate value of $315 thousand dollars. While this is still a significant number we do not want to unfairly characterize the extent of what has actually being alleged to be fraudulent.
| Our further investigation will determine the true extent of the alleged fraud. However that investigation is ongoing and is not compete at this time.
| Cooperation:
| • We received the first public records request from the Sheriff’s Office in February of this year, the approximate time the Sheriff’s investigation began.
| Because the information requested contained the personal information of private individuals, we are obligated to release that information only pursuant to a public records request or a district attorney’s subpoena.
| Additionally, city ordinance establishes a fee for costs associated with providing this information. One such information request resulted in over 1,600 pages of documents that were provided to the investigators.
| Of the $468.99 invoiced … our records indicate a payment of $21 dollars.
| Because I appreciate that these costs may be viewed as an impediment to an investigation, we have drafted and are submitting to the city council an ordinance that will allow us to wave these costs under these types of circumstances.
| It is my understanding that employees including Mrs. Moore were interviewed on numerous occasions throughout this process and as previously indicated our documents show over fifteen public records requests from February through July 2009.
| Housing Hotline:
| As of today September 2, 2009 the Hotline for concerns, questions or information is (318) 673.7503.
| ###
|
|
|
|