* Santa Cruz retaliates against Human Rights advocate John Colby [link]
* Human Rights abuse in itty-bitty Santa Cruz [link]
2013-03-06 "CPRA request for information about organization administering the 180/180 program"
message from John Colby to Christine Sippl, MPH, Senior Health Services Manager for Santa Cruz Health Services Agency Homeless Persons Health Project (HPHP) [831.454.5176] [csippl@co.santa-cruz.ca.us]:
cc: homes4everyone@yahoo.com
Dear Ms. Sippl:
In the course of my representation/advocacy for about six disabled homeless individuals regarding the Homeless Person's Health Project (HPHP) — an agency of the County of Santa Cruz — you helped me gain housing program descriptions related to HPHP. I believe all of these disabled homeless individuals whom I represent should be prime candidates for the 180/180 program.
I would like to understand what organization is administering the 180/180 program and the nature of this organization.
To this end, I am submitting a California Public Records Act (CPRA) request pursuant to California Gov't Code Section 6250 et seq. — I ask for copies of:
* the most current, comprehensive 180/180 program descriptions which describe its administration.
* the incorporation documents of the organization which administers the 180/180 program.
* the most current description of the 180/180 program organization's governing board and its officers.
If these records are available in an electronic format such as Portable Document Format (PDF), eXtensible Style Language (XLS), MS Word Document (DOC), Rich Text Format (RTF), plain electronic text (TXT) or native email formats — like AOL for Windows, Apple Mail, Claris Emailer, Compuserve, EML, Entourage, Eudora, Maldir, MBOX File, Mulberry, Neoplanet, Outlook, Outlook Express, Outspring, Powertalk, Quickmail Pro, Thunderbird, Windows Mail, Windows Live Mail and Yahoo Archive! — or as links to the Internet then I ask that they provided to me in one of those forms, preferably in their native format.
I am willing to pay a fee of up to $35 for this request. If you estimate the cost of completing this request will exceed that amount, please contact me first before completing it with a fee estimate. If this request would entail special searches which would incur search fees to me, please contact me first with a fee estimate.
Note that pursuant to the CPRA I cannot be charged for normal search costs.
Thank you for your assistance in fulfilling my CPRA request to help me assist disabled homeless people in exercising their civil rights.
Sincerely yours,
John E. Colby, Ph.D.
2013-04-18 "RE: CPRA request for information about organization administering the 180/180 program"
message from Christine Sippl [csippl@health.co.santa-cruz.ca.us] to John Colby
Dear Mr. Colby,
I am providing the attached document in response to your request for copies of:
2013-07-16 "FREEDOM OF INFORMATION REQUEST for HUD authorizing documents and communications"
message from John Colby to U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development
ATTN: Deborah R. Snowden, Chief [Deborah.r.snowden@hud.gov]; Freedom of Information Act Office
Dear Ms. Snowden:
I ask you to inspect the attached Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) provided to me by Executive Director Ken Cole of the Housing Authority of the County of Santa Cruz between his agency and the County of Santa Cruz Homeless Person's Health Project (HPHP) to provide Section 8 Housing Choice Vouchers for the 180/180 Housing First Project operated under the nonprofit charter of the Homeless Services Center of Santa Cruz.
In a previous communication, HPHP Senior Health Services Manager Christine Sippl denied her agency was administering the 180/180 project. Please see her copied email below.
This leads me to question the legality of this MOU. Consequently I am submitting the following FREEDOM OF INFORMATION REQUEST under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA).
I ask for:
* all HUD documents authorizing the subject MOU between the Housing Authority of the County of Santa Cruz and HPHP.
* all electronic and non–electronic written communications between HUD, the Housing Authority of the County of Santa Cruz and HPHP about the subject MOU.
I am willing to pay fees up to $40. If you estimate that the fees will exceed this limit, please inform me first.
However, I request a waiver of all fees for this request. I believe disclosure of the requested information to me is in the public interest because it will likely contribute significantly to public understanding of the operations or activities of the government and is not primarily in my commercial interest.
Specifically, I intend to share this material with federal investigators, Congress, the news media to whom I have carbon copied this FREEDOM OF INFORMATION REQUEST, nonprofit (legal) advocacy organizations for their dissemination of information — and to learn how they may better serve their constituents/clients — about the legality of these kinds of MOUs to fund supportive housing efforts like the 180/180 project by local agencies and local nonprofits. Moreover, I intend to post the requested materials on the Internet for other academic, legal and political researchers to view, so that they may better understand the aforementioned subjects. These documents will be posted on the following Facebook groups:
[https://www.facebook.com/groups/OpenTransparentAccountableGovernment/]
[https://www.facebook.com/groups/SantaCruzWhistleBlowers/]
I ask that if the requested materials are electronically available in Portable Document Format (PDF), MS Word Document (DOC), Hypertext Markup (HTM), eXtensible Style Language (XLS), Rich Text Format (RTF), native email formats — like AOL for Windows, Apple Mail, Claris Emailer, Compuserve, EML, Entourage, Eudora, Maildir, MBOX File, Mulberry, Neoplanet, Outlook, Outlook Express, Outspring, Powertalk, Quickmail Pro, Thunderbird, Windows Mail, Windows Live Mail, Yahoo Archive! — or as hyperlinks to the Internet that they be provided to me in those forms, preferably in their native form.
Thank you for your consideration of this request.
Respectfully yours, John E. Colby, Ph.D.
attached: 180/180 project fact sheet — http://tinyurl.com/mfg2ycc
attached: MOU Limited Local Waiting List Preference for Disabled and Medically Vulnerable Homeless Persons — http://tinyurl.com/lwyk7m9
"RE: CPRA request for information about organization administering the 180/180 program"
2013-04-18 message from Christine Sippl, MPH, Senior Health Services Manager, Santa Cruz County Homeless Persons' Health Project [csippl@health.co.santa-cruz.ca.us] to John E. Colby:
Dear Mr. Colby,
I am providing the attached document in response to your request for copies of:
* the most current, comprehensive 180/180 program descriptions which describe its administration.
* the incorporation documents of the organization which administers the 180/180 program.
* the most current description of the 180/180 program organization's governing board and its officers.
There are no incorporation documents for the organization that administers the 180/180 program, as it is a multi-agency campaign and coordinated effort, and is not part of any individual organization. Therefore, there are no governing board or officers.
There are many local organizations and individual volunteers that have been active in the campaign's ongoing effort to survey homeless individuals, identify those who are medically vulnerable according the Vulnerability Index adopted from the national 100,000 Homes Campaign by the 180/180 Campaign and to prioritize these individuals and assist them to access any housing programs for which they may be eligible.
You may also find information available through the 180/180 website to be helpful in your efforts. The URL is: 180santacruz.org
Thank you once again for your advocacy efforts.
"CPRA request for budgets, audits, financial reports, member/organization/agency rosters for 180/180"
2013-04-27 message from John E. Colby [colby@docktorcat.com] to Julie Conway, Housing Development Manager at Santa Cruz County Planning Department [701 Ocean Street, 4th Floor
Santa Cruz, CA 95060]:
Dear Ms. Conway,
From Senior Health Service's Manager Christine Sippl's response copied below to my California Public Records Act (CPRA) request, it has come to my attention that the 180/180 (Housing First) program is a charitable project operating under the tax–exempt status of the Homeless Services Center of Santa Cruz (as the nonprofit fiscal sponsor).
As an advocate representing several disabled homeless people — individuals using wheelchairs and walkers having serious medical conditions making them vulnerable to robbery, (sexual) assault and the elements — who I believe are prime candidates for permanent housing, I am submitting a CPRA request. Specifically, I ask for the following:
* the most current budgets for the 180/180 project.
* the most current audits for the 180/180 project.
* the most current financial reports, not included in the two items above, for the 180/180 project.
* the most current agreements between the County of Santa Cruz and the Homeless Services Center of Santa Cruz about the 180/180 project.
* the most current records listing the members, organizations and agencies affiliated with the 180/180 program.
If these records are available in an electronic format such as Portable Document Format (PDF), eXtensible Style Language (XLS), MS Word Document (DOC), Rich Text Format (RTF), plain electronic text (TXT) or native email formats — like AOL for Windows, Apple Mail, Claris Emailer, Compuserve, EML, Entourage, Eudora, Maldir, MBOX File, Mulberry, Neoplanet, Outlook, Outlook Express, Outspring, Powertalk, Quickmail Pro, Thunderbird, Windows Mail, Windows Live Mail and Yahoo Archive! — or as links to the Internet then I ask that they provided to me in one of those forms, preferably in their native format.
Recently the Santa Cruz County Office of the District Attorney tried to charge me retrieval and redaction fees for my CPRA request to learn why the District Attorney refused to prosecute (violent) felon Nebosia Freeman — who endangered residents of my government subsidized housing complex — while prosecuting a man (who was later exonerated) for allegedly stealing flowers from a memorial. I still await District Attorney Bob Lee's response to my request for a fee waiver.
I pointed out to District Attorney Bob Lee that the County Board of Supervisor's ordinance charging fees for normal search and redaction costs is not based on legal precedent, but is grounded in what Freedom of Information advocates informed me are conflicting California statutes. Thus I ask that you waive any search, retrieval and redaction fees in the public interest, since I intend to share the responsive records with the government and the news media.
I am willing to pay a fee of up to $30 for this request. If you estimate the cost of completing this request will exceed that amount, please contact me first before completing it with a fee estimate.
Thank you for fulfilling my CPRA request to help me assist disabled homeless people gain permanent housing.
Sincerely yours, John E. Colby, Ph.D.
"RE: CPRA request for budgets, audits, financial reports, member/organization/agency rosters for 180/180"
2013-04-29 message from Julie Conway, Housing Development Manager at Santa Cruz County Planning Department [PLN168@co.santa-cruz.ca.us] to John E. Colby [colby@docktorcat.com]:
Dr. Colby,
My office is not involved in the administration of the 180/180 project and is therefore not in possession of any of the records you have requested.
"Please refer me to county employee involved in the administration of the 180/180 project"
2013-04-29 message from John E. Colby [colby@docktorcat.com] to Julie Conway, Housing Development Manager at Santa Cruz County Planning Department [PLN168@co.santa-cruz.ca.us]:
Dear Ms. Conway:
Thank you for replying to my California Public Records Act (CPRA) request so quickly. As per the mandates of the CPRA, you are required by law to refer me to the county office which is involved in the administration of the 180/180 project. Surely as the county housing programs manager, you know what office that is.
Consequently under rights granted me by the CPRA, I ask you to provide me the contact information for the Santa Cruz County employee involved in the administration of the 180/180 project who can respond to the CPRA request I emailed you. Specifically I ask for:
* their email address
* their snail mail address
* their fax number
* their telephone number
Thank you for fulfilling your obligations under the CPRA by directing me to the appropriate county employee.
Sincerely yours, John E. Colby, Ph.D.
"RE: Please refer me to county employee involved in the administration of the 180/180 project"
2013-04-30 message from Julie Conway, Housing Development Manager at Santa Cruz County Planning Department [PLN168@co.santa-cruz.ca.us] to John E. Colby [colby@docktorcat.com]:
Dr. Colby, to my knowledge no County of Santa Cruz employees are involved in administration of the 180/180 Campaign. As I understand it, this effort is a distinct private non-profit activity with a range of participants representing public and private organizations as well as volunteers.
"CPRA request for information about funding, administering and operating the 180/180 project"
2013-06-08 message from John E. Colby [colby@docktorcat.com] to Ken Cole, Executive Director and Board Secretary for the Housing Authority of the County of Santa Cruz [kcole@hacosantacruz.org]:
Dear Director Cole,
Currently I represent about six disabled homeless people who require immediate, permanent housing.
The following Sentinel News article is leading me to renew my efforts to gain information about the 180/180 project: [http://www.santacruzsentinel.com/localnews/ci_23415547/180-180-santa-cruz-effort-house-homeless-people].
I would like to understand what organization is funding, administering and operating the 180/180 project and the nature of this organization. Previous efforts to gain this information from the City and County of Santa Cruz were met with evasion.
To this end, I am submitting a California Public Records Act (CPRA) request pursuant to California Gov't Code Section 6250 et seq. — I ask for copies of:
* the most current, comprehensive funding documents for the 180/180 project
* the most current, comprehensive operation documents for the 180/180 project
* the most current, comprehensive 180/180 project descriptions which describe its administration and operation
* the incorporation documents of the organization which administers the 180/180 project
* the most current description of the 180/180 project organization's governing board and its officers
If these records are available in an electronic format such as Portable Document Format (PDF), eXtensible Style Language (XLS), MS Word Document (DOC), Rich Text Format (RTF), plain electronic text (TXT) or native email formats — like AOL for Windows, Apple Mail, Claris Emailer, Compuserve, EML, Entourage, Eudora, Maldir, MBOX File, Mulberry, Neoplanet, Outlook, Outlook Express, Outspring, Powertalk, Quickmail Pro, Thunderbird, Windows Mail, Windows Live Mail and Yahoo Archive! — or as links to the Internet then I ask that they provided to me in one of those forms, preferably in their native format.
I am willing to pay a fee of up to $50 for this request. If you estimate the cost of completing this request will exceed that amount, please contact me first before completing it with a fee estimate. If this request would entail special searches which would incur search fees to me, please contact me first with a fee estimate.
Note that pursuant to the CPRA I cannot be charged for normal search costs. In the public interest, I ask you to waive all applicable exemptions and applicable fees (for search, retrieval, redaction and duplication). Please have your staff confirm receipt of this CPRA request via email, fax or telephone voicemail.
Thank you for your assistance in fulfilling my CPRA request to help me assist disabled homeless people in exercising their civil rights.
Sincerely yours, John E. Colby, Ph.D.
"RE: CPRA request for information about organization funding, administering and operating the 180/180 project"
2013-06-11 from Cecilia Jauregui of the Administration Department of Housing Authority of the County of Santa Cruz to John E. Colby [colby@docktorcat.com], Cc: Ken Cole:
Dear Mr. Colby,
This email serves as confirmation that we are in receipt of your CPRA request for information regarding the 180/180 project.
Thank you.
"FW: CPRA request for information about organization funding, administering and operating the 180/180 project"
2013-06-17 from Cecilia Jauregui of the Administration Department of Housing Authority of the County of Santa Cruz to John E. Colby [colby@docktorcat.com], Cc: Ken Cole:
Dear Mr. Colby,
You recently made a request for information from our agency under the California Public Records Act. In your email you described the documents you are seeking as follows:
* the most current, comprehensive funding documents for the 180/180 project
* the most current, comprehensive operation documents for the 180/180 project
* the most current, comprehensive 180/180 project descriptions which describe its administration and operation
* the incorporation documents of the organization which administers the 180/180 project
* the most current description of the 180/180 project organization's governing board and its officers
This email is written to reply to your request and to inform you that the Housing Authority of the County of Santa Cruz has no formal relationship with the 180/180 project and we do not have copies of any of the documents that you are requesting. The 180/180 project is a community wide campaign to help identify and house medically vulnerable and chronically homeless individuals in Santa Cruz County. The Housing Authority does not administer or monitor this campaign. It is our understanding that the fiscal agent for the 180/180 project is the Homeless Services Center. The campaign website is www.180santacruz.org .
"CPRA request to establish legal and regulatory basis for diverting Section 8 vouchers"
2013-11-17 message from John E. Colby [colby@docktorcat.com] to Ken Cole, Executive Director and Board Secretary for the Housing Authority of the County of Santa Cruz [kcole@hacosantacruz.org]:
Dear Director Cole:
When I first inquired about the 180/180 housing first project with the County of Santa Cruz and your agency — the Housing Authority of the County of Santa Cruz — you all denied any formal involvement in this project. After I confronted you with news articles about your agency diverting Section 8 vouchers from an already highly impacted waiting list to 180/180 applicants, you provided me a memorandum of understanding (MOU) between your agency and the Homeless Persons Health Project (operated by the County of Santa Cruz which previously denied any formal involvement in 180/180) to divert Section 8 vouchers to "disabled and medically vulnerable homeless persons".
While I laud the goals of this diversion, I question its legality in light of how long other legitimate applicants — some families with children — have been languishing on your housing authority's voucher waiting list. Moreover, I believe this has brought to light a practice which will be of interest to Congress, the FBI and HUD's Office of Inspector General (OIG) because I don't believe Congress approved large scale diversion of impacted Section 8 vouchers from other, just as worthy, Section 8 Housing Choice Voucher assistance program applicants.
Point: Moreover, I believe the 180/180 project is the local arm of a much larger campaign by national lobbying groups who are fraudlently profiting from advocating for supportive housing.
Please review a recent Good Times Weekly blog detailing the scale of the 180/180 program: [http://www.gtweekly.com/index.php/santa-cruz-blogs-commentary/santa-cruz-news-ticker/5120-halfway-there.html].
To provide information to Congress, the FBI and HUD's OIG, I am submitting a CPRA request pursuant to California Gov't Code Section 6250 et seq. — I ask for:
* the administrative plan referred to in the MOU you provided me.
* the affirmative marketing plan referred to in the MOU you provided me.
all HUD documents your agency maintains authorizing the subject MOU between the Housing Authority of * the County of Santa Cruz and HPHP.
all electronic and non–electronic written communications between HUD, the Housing Authority of the County of Santa Cruz and HPHP about the subject MOU.
* the latest report showing how many applicants are waiting for Section 8 vouchers from your housing authority.
If these records are available in an electronic format such as Portable Document Format (PDF), eXtensible Stylesheet Language (XLS), MS Word Document (DOC), Rich Text Format (RTF), plain electronic text (TXT) or native email formats — like AOL for Windows, Apple Mail, Claris Emailer, Compuserve, EML, Entourage, Eudora, Maldir, MBOX File, Mulberry, Neoplanet, Outlook, Outlook Express, Outspring, Powertalk, Quickmail Pro, Thunderbird, Windows Mail, Windows Live Mail and Yahoo Archive! — or as links to the Internet then I ask that they provided to me in one of those forms, preferably in their native format.
I am willing to pay a fee of up to $25 for this request. If you estimate the cost of completing this request will exceed that amount, please contact me first before completing it with a fee estimate. If this request would entail special searches which would incur search fees to me, please contact me first with a fee estimate.
In the public interest — because I plan to provide these records to the news media and the federal government as well as posting them on the Facebook groups https://www.facebook.com/groups/OpenTransparentAccountableGovernment/ and https://www.facebook.com/groups/SantaCruzWhistleBlowers/ I ask you to waive all applicable exemptions and applicable fees (for search, retrieval, redaction and duplication).
Please have your staff confirm receipt of this CPRA request via email.
Thank you for fulfilling my CPRA request to determine the legality and ramifications of your housing authority diverting so many Section 8 vouchers to the 180/180 project while many, many other applicants have languished on your voucher waiting list for years.
Sincerely yours, John E. Colby, Ph.D.
attached: MOU Limited Local Waiting List Preference for Disabled and Medically Vulnerable Homeless Persons — http://tinyurl.com/lwyk7m9
attached: 180/180 project fact sheet — http://tinyurl.com/mfg2ycc
"Local preferences for 180/180 project connected to alleged fake charity in New York City"
2013-11-20 message from John E. Colby [colby@docktorcat.com] to Ken Cole, Executive Director and Board Secretary for the Housing Authority of the County of Santa Cruz [kcole@hacosantacruz.org]:
Dear Executive Director Cole,
Thank you for responding so quickly to my Freedom of Information (FOI) request for records about the diversion of Section 8 vouchers from the highly impacted voucher waiting list for your agency — the Housing Authority of the County of Santa Cruz (HACOSC) — to "disabled and medically vulnerable homeless" (DMV) people who are applicants of the 180/180 Project.
Note:
* The 180/180 Project is a campaign allegedly administered under the nonprofit status of the Homeless Services Center of Santa Cruz while apparently being operated by the County of Santa Cruz's Homeless Persons Health Project (HPHP). Santa Cruz County Housing Programs Manager Julie Conway denied to me that any County staff were involved in the operation of the 180/180 project. Why?
* The 100,000 Homes Campaign (100khomes.org) — which the 180/180 project is allegedly part of — appears to be an illegal charitable enterprise operated by an allegedly fake nonprofit based in New York City called Community Solutions (http://cmtysolutions.org/).
* Homeless people have complained to me that HPHP staff practice favoritism and are abusive to them. Federal grant records I obtained under the California Public Records Act (CPRA) indicate that HPHP has not performed the activities they promised in their applications for federal funding.
* I filed a discrimination complaint with the U.S. Department of Justice (USDOJ) against HPHP and the County of Santa Cruz after several disabled homeless people I was advocating for and representing were discriminated against by them.
That said, I would like to point out that you wrote me there are currently 13,151 applicants waiting on your Section 8 Housing Choice Voucher list.
I appreciate your offer to answer questions raised by your provision of the attached documents to me. I would like to make the following points and ask the following questions.
* You wrote me that you did not possess any HUD documents authorizing your MOU with HPHP to divert vouchers to 180/180 program applicants but that the federal regulations at 24 CFR 982.207 authorize housing authorities to establish waiting list preferences. Those regulations are referenced here (http://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/24/982.207). I would like to point out to Congress, the USDOJ and HUD's Office of Inspector General (OIG) that these regulations seem overly broad — they are ripe for abuse by housing authorities who may create arbitrary preferences, apply them arbitrarily, and in the case of your MOU with HPHP, outsource parts of the Section 8 voucher application process to a social service provider which has an alleged track record of discriminating against its clients and defrauding the federal government.
* What oversight of your establishment and application of local preferences does HUD conduct, if any?
* According to your administrative plan, your housing authority has established a limited waiting list preference for "disabled and medically vulnerable homeless applicants" based upon a criteria established by the Santa Cruz Homeless Action Partnership. It says that currently a maximum of 120 households may be assisted with vouchers under this program and at most 15% of new vouchers will be dedicated to applicants using this preference.
* How many disabled applicants participating in this preference program have received vouchers since it was instituted and how many disabled applicants not served under this preference program have received vouchers since this preference program was instituted?
* What percentage of new vouchers have been given under this preference program since it was instituted?
* How many disabled applicants not meeting the criteria of this preference program are currently on your agency's voucher waiting list (out of the current 13,151 households waiting)?.
* Are disabled applicants not meeting the criteria of this preference program made to wait without any preferences?
* How many families headed by single mothers are currently on your agency's voucher waiting list? Are they given any preferences?
* The 180/180 project seeks to house 180 disabled homeless people. Yet your administrative plan maxes out at 120 for this preference program. How can the objectives of the 180/180 project be met by your agency?
Finally I would like to submit a request under the CPRA. I ask for:
All program descriptions, statements, declarations, reports, memoranda and summaries about, pertaining to or referring to the alleged fake charitable enterprise called the 100,000 Homes Campaign and the alleged fake charity called Community Solutions which claims it is based in New York City. Moreover, I ask for all electronic and non-electronic written communications maintained by your agency which are from, to, or have been (blind) carbon copied to representatives, officials, employees, volunteers and agents of the 100,000 Homes Campaign and Community Solutions.
If these records are available in an electronic format such as Portable Document Format (PDF), eXtensible Stylesheet Language (XLS), MS Word Document (DOC), Rich Text Format (RTF), plain electronic text (TXT) or native email formats — like AOL for Windows, Apple Mail, Claris Emailer, Compuserve, EML, Entourage, Eudora, Maldir, MBOX File, Mulberry, Neoplanet, Outlook, Outlook Express, Outspring, Powertalk, Quickmail Pro, Thunderbird, Windows Mail, Windows Live Mail and Yahoo Archive! — or as links to the Internet then I ask that they provided to me in one of those forms, preferably in their native format.
I am willing to pay a fee of up to $25 for this request. If you estimate the cost of completing this request will exceed that amount, please contact me first before completing it with a fee estimate. If this request would entail special searches which would incur search fees to me, please contact me first with a fee estimate.In the public interest — because I plan to provide these records to Congress, the news media, the federal government and the California and New York state governments as well as posting them on the Facebook groups https://www.facebook.com/groups/OpenTransparentAccountableGovernment/ and https://www.facebook.com/groups/SantaCruzWhistleBlowers/ I ask you to waive all applicable exemptions and applicable fees (for search, retrieval, redaction and duplication).
Please have your staff confirm receipt of this CPRA request via email.
Thank you for fulfilling my CPRA request to gain information about the alleged illegal entities called the 100,000 Homes Campaign and Community Solutions, but also to determine the legality and ramifications of HUD allowing housing authorities to create arbitrary local preferences (apparently with no oversight).
Sincerely yours, John E. Colby, Ph.D.
attached: MOU Limited Local Waiting List Preference for Disabled and Medically Vulnerable Homeless Persons — http://tinyurl.com/lwyk7m9
attached: 180/180 project fact sheet — http://tinyurl.com/mfg2ycc
attached: Ken Cole's cover letter in response to FOI request about voucher diversion — http://tinyurl.com/lmzy6ww
attached: Housing Authority of County of Santa Cruz (HACOSC) Administrative Plan — http://tinyurl.com/lma2k2n
attached: HACOSC Affirmative Marketing Plan for diversion of vouchers to disabled and medically vulnerable homeless — http://tinyurl.com/m9nrcdq
attached: MOU communications between HACOSC and HPHP — http://tinyurl.com/m4mjty3
"Complaint against fake charity Community Solutions and fake charitable enterprise the 100,000 Homes Campaign"
2013-11-22 message from John E. Colby [colby@docktorcat.com] to Lourdes DeSoto, Complaint Intake Supervisor for the Charities Bureau [http://www.charitiesnys.com]:
Dear Ms. De Soto,
I am writing to file a complaint with your agency against the fake charity called Community Solutions which operates a fake charitable enterprise called the 100,000 Homes campaign. The following USA Today news article provides some context for the fraud I allege: [http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2013/11/21/homeless-decrease-hud-2013/3651795/].
As per the attached Community Solutions About page, this fake charity claims it is a newly formed nonprofit based in New York City, where it claims its headquarters are. As per the Community Solutions Contact Us page, Community Solutions claims it has satellite offices in Brooklyn (New York), Los Angeles (California), Hartford (Connecticut) and in Washington DC.
Please note the following evidence:
* An entity called Community Solutions, Inc. filed with the New York Secretary of State on April 11, 1994 with DOS ID# 1811171 and address 740 East 6th Street New York, NY 10009. This entity filed as a domestic not–for–profit corporation. Its filing status is active.
* The fake Community Solutions' New York City address is 125 Maiden Lane, Suite 16C, New York, NY 10038.
* Your agency's charities database has a listing for an entity called Community Solutions Inc. with federal EIN 133966379 and NY State Reg. No. 06–13–96. The address for this entity is listed as PO BOX 20340, New York, NY 10009–6922. Your database indicates that this entity has not submitted an annual filing since 12/31/2008.
* The Foundation Center's IRS 990 form database — http://foundationcenter.org/findfunders/990finder/ — shows the last time an entity called Community Solutions based in New York City filed an IRS 990 form was in 2008. Note that the address listed on this IRS 990 form is PO BOX 20340 New York, NY 10009. Moreover the officers of this nonprofit are completely different than those of the fake Community Solutions.
* The Contribute page for the fake charity Community Solutions does not state what kind of non-profit corporation it is nor does it state that donations to it are tax deductible.
* The fake charity called Community Solutions operates a fake nonprofit enterprise called the 100,000 Homes Campaign. The 100,000 Homes Campaign website claims their major sponsors include Bank of America, Chase Bank, the Conrad Hilton Foundation, the Home Depot Foundation, the Langeloth Foundation and the Oak Foundation.
* The 100,000 Homes Campaign website claims their other sponsors include the Cisco Foundation, the Cleaning Authority, the Empower Network, the Foundation for Louisiana, KNO Clothing, the Ittleson Foundation, the National Alliance to End Homelessness, Spartan Direct, STRAIGHTLINE, the United Way of Greater Los Angeles, and the Weingart Foundation.
* The 100,000 Homes Campaign website claims their partners include 121 Giving, the Boston Health Care for the Homeless Program, Catholic Charities USA, the Center for Social Innovation, the Center for Urban Community Services, the Edgewood Management Corporation, Enterprise, Funders Together to End Homelessness, Give An Hour, Give Us Your Poor, Groupon, Health Care for the Homeless, HAC, the Institute for Healthcare Improvement, International Downtown Association, Invisible People, Iraq and Afghanistan Veterans of America, LeSar Development Consultants, Mental Health America, the National Alliance on Mental Illness, the National Association of Community Health Centers, NAHRO, National Association of Public Hospitals and Health Systems, the National Center for Family Homelessness, the National Healthcare for the Homeless Council, the National Law Center on Homelessness & Poverty, the National League of Cities, Operation Gratitude, Operation Homefront, OrgCode Consulting, Pathways to Housing, Points of Light, the Rapid Results Institute, Schaffer Consulting, Springwire, the William S. Abell Foundation, the United Methodist Church Baltimore–Washington Conference, United Way and Vanguard Health Systems.
* The 100,000 Homes Campaign website claims — this should be investigated by Congress, the U.S. Department of Justice (USDOJ), the FBI, HUD's Office of Inspector General (OIG) and the Department of Defense's OIG — that its allies include HUD and the Department of Veterans Affairs in addition to the Alara Advocacy Foundation, Downtown NOLA, the Fuller Center for Housing, Rebuilding Together, the San Diego Community Housing Corporation, the Texas Homeless Network and Wounded Warrior Homes.
* What should also be investigated by Congress, the USDOJ, the FBI, HUD's OIG and DOD's OIG is the 100,000 Homes Campaign website claims that currently 229 communities are participating in this illegal enterprise. How many local government agencies and local social service providers funded by the federal government are involved in the 100,000 Homes Campaign?
* San Francisco Regional HUD Director Ophelia Basgal tried to obstruct my Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request for information about HUD's involvement with a 100,000 Homes Campaign participant located in Santa Cruz called the 180/180 project. On August 13, 2013 Ms. Basgal initially denied my request for a fee waiver and then required me to justify my qualifications for a fee waiver in minute detail. On August 19, 2013 I replied to Ms. Basgal with my detailed demonstration of qualifications for a FOIA fee waiver. My FOIA request was ignored until just yesterday, when Ms. Basgal responded with an emailed letter, claiming HUD has no responsive records to my FOIA request.
Background:
I became suspicious of the 180/180 project, a participant in the 100,000 Homes Campaign, when local journalist and homeless activist Robert Norse inquired with 180/180 project manager Phil Kramer about the identity of the 180/180 board members. Because I was representing and advocating for several disabled homeless people — chronically ill people using wheelchairs and walkers — who were being ignored by the 180/180 Project, I became interested in who was funding, operating and administering this project.
In short, I wanted to know who could be held accountable for choosing not to house my clients. To this end, I submitted public records requests to Christine Sippl who manages the Homeless Persons Health Project (HPHP) for the County of Santa Cruz, Santa Cruz County Housing Programs Manager Julie Conway and finally Santa Cruz Housing Authority Executive Director Ken Cole. All of them denied any formal involvement in the 180/180 project and parroted the same vague statements about the 180/180 project being a privately run nonprofit campaign involving various community partners who they declined to name. Please review the copied emails below.
Finally I confronted Director Cole with a news article describing how his housing authority was diverting Section 8 vouchers to 180/180 Project applicants. This not only disturbed me because I had been lied to, but also because many applicants for Section 8 vouchers in Santa Cruz have languished on the waiting list for many, many years. Although I laud the goal of the diversion of these vouchers, I believed it was illegal and not properly authorized by HUD.
Consequently I confronted Director Cole with a news article about his agency's diversion of vouchers. He turned around 180 degrees, providing me a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) between his housing authority and HPHP for diverting Section 8 vouchers to 180/180 Project applicants. This disturbed me even more because many homeless people had complained to me about being abused by HPHP staff (in addition to being mistreated by the Homeless Services Center of Santa Cruz and three homeless shelters on the Homeless Services Center campus). My interviews with homeless people and subsequent advocacy revealed illegal discrimination by HPHP, the Homeless Services Center, these three homeless shelters as well as by the City and County of Santa Cruz. Moreover, through public records requests I obtained the federal grant award applications and reports for their programs. These documents revealed that local government and these homeless service providers they have been channeling federal funding to have not been fulfilling the promises they made to obtain these federal grants. Subsequently, I filed a discrimination complaint against these homeless service providers and the City/County of Santa Cruz with the USDOJ. For information about some of the discrimination my efforts revealed please read the articles on Santa Cruz Indymedia linked to below:
[http://www.indybay.org/newsitems/2012/06/11/18715157.php]
[http://www.indybay.org/newsitems/2012/07/17/18717656.php]
[http://www.indybay.org/newsitems/2012/09/02/18720869.php]
My most recent correspondence with Mr. Cole contains a public records request about the fake charity Community Solutions and its illegal enterprise the 100,000 Homes Campaign is copied below.
My questions:
* I can only imagine that one would employ a fake charity in an illegal enterprise on a national scale for ill gotten profit. Who has been illegally profiting from this perfidious fraud and how much?
* How many government agencies and social service providers have been fraudulently profiting from the American people's laudable compassion for the homeless, especially for homeless veterans?
* Why did foundations, companies and banks sponsor the 100,000 Homes Campaign? Did they illegally profit from this too?
* How deeply have compassionate communities been hoodwinked by the 100,000 Homes Campaign?
I ask your agency — the Charities Bureau of the New York Attorney General's Office — to investigate the fake charity Community Solutions and its fraudulent enterprise the 100,000 Homes Campaign. I ask you to conduct your investigation in coordination with Congress, the USDOJ, the FBI, HUD's OIG, DOD's OIG and other state attorney generals like Kamala Harris in California (where the fake Community Solutions claims they have a branch office in Los Angeles and where they collaborated with the County of Santa Cruz, Santa Cruz social service providers and the Housing Authority of the County of Santa Cruz).
Thank you for a prompt response (by email) informing me what action you plan to take with regards to this complaint.
Respectfully yours, John E. Colby, Ph.D.
attached: Community Solutions About page — http://tinyurl.com/l9omps3
attached: Community Solutions Board of Directors page — http://tinyurl.com/l74yal4
attached: Community Solutions Contact us page — http://tinyurl.com/kztp6u4
attached: Community Solutions Contribute page — http://tinyurl.com/lho5tx4
attached: Community Solutions Homelessness and Healthcare Projects page — http://tinyurl.com/l6nency
attached: Community Solutions Los Angeles Project 50 page — http://tinyurl.com/macxeqg
attached: Community Solutions Leadership Team page — http://tinyurl.com/k5o9ptk
attached: Community Solutions Partners page — http://tinyurl.com/l8r9pse
attached: Community Solutions Services page — http://tinyurl.com/k2ga7ev
attached: Community Solutions 100,000 Homes Project page — http://tinyurl.com/pqylwxr
attached: Filing with New York State Secretary of State for an entity called Community Solutions Inc. — http://tinyurl.com/l2rqtut
attached: New York Attorney General's Charity Registry filing for an entity called Community Solutions Inc. — http://tinyurl.com/md9w2qs
attached: 2008 IRS 990 form for an entity called Community Solutions Inc. — http://tinyurl.com/lbznpjf
attached: 100,000 Homes Contact page — http://tinyurl.com/loogkde
attached: 100,000 Homes Sponsors, Partners and Allies page — http://tinyurl.com/km89fsu
attached: Youtube video of Santa Cruz County Homeless Persons Health (HPHP) Project Supervisor Christine Sippl describing HPHP's involvement in the 180/180 Project and the 100,000 Homes Campaign — http://youtu.be/HMt2N5aqWsE
attached: Youtube video prepared for 2012 Santa Cruz Homeless Summit promoting the 180/180 Project — http://youtu.be/k42x2XIdyHs
attached: Youtube video promoting the 100,000 Homes Campaign — http://youtu.be/0Ov11AIvQTg
attached: San Francisco Regional HUD Director's November 21, 2013 response to my FOIA request about HUD's authorizing diversion of vouchers to the 180/180 project — http://tinyurl.com/kn8ytjw
"Complaint against VA and HUD VASH collaborating with alleged fake charity operating 100K Homes Campaign"
2013-11-26 message from John E. Colby [colby@docktorcat.com] to VA Inspector General Hotline (53E) [vaoighotline@va.gov]:
Dear VA OIG Hotline Staff,
I ask you to inspect the copied complaint below which alleges fraud, program abuse and potential Department of Veteran's Affairs (VA) and HUD VASH official misconduct. I allege that the 100,000 Homes Campaign has been operated by a fake charity calling itself "Community Solutions" while falsely claiming it is a nonprofit based in New York City. Please closely inspect the communications between Community Solutions and the Housing Authority of the County of Santa Cruz (HACOSC) which its executive director provided me yesterday. They can be viewed using the following link: [http://tinyurl.com/k7yruyu]
Please note the communications between the alleged fake charity Community Solutions and officials in the VA, as well as with HUD officials administering the Veterans Affairs Supportive Housing (VASH) program.
Thank you for processing this complaint. Please contact me to inform me what actions you plan to take and what further information I can provide your investigators.
Respectfully yours, John E. Colby, Ph.D.
"VA OIG Hotline 2014-2988"
2013-11-26 message from VA Inspector General Hotline (53E) to John E. Colby [colby@docktorcat.com]:
Good morning,
The U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs Office of Inspector General (OIG) Hotline received your complaint dated November 26, 2013. The VA OIG’s mission is to detect and prevent fraud, waste, and abuse within VA programs. The Hotline accepts tips or complaints that, on a select basis, result in reviews of:
--VA-related criminal activity.
--Systemic patient safety issues.
--Gross mismanagement.
--Misconduct by senior VA officials.
Because we receive more complaints than the OIG has resources to review in depth, we limit investigative efforts to issues that have the most serious potential risk to Veterans and VA operations. The Hotline does not accept complaints that are unrelated to VA or are addressed in another legal or administrative forum. Additional information concerning the types of complaints the OIG accepts for review may be found at: [http://www.va.gov/oig/hotline/default.asp].
Our staff examined your complaint, but we did not select it for formal review as an OIG case. We determined that the issues you raised are addressable within other existing legal or administrative forums. We suggest you contact the following office for assistance in addressing your concerns: Federal Bureau of Investigation [601 4th Street NW, Washington, DC 20535]
There is no appeal process on the disposition of a Hotline complaint. This is our final response on this issue. Thank you.
Jim, Hotline Analyst, VA OIG
"FBI Complaint against VA and HUD collaborating with alleged fake charity operating 100K Homes Campaign"
2013-11-26 message from John E. Colby [colby@docktorcat.com] to [washington.field@ic.fbi.gov]
Dear Asst. Director in Charge Parlave,
I ask you to inspect the copied complaint below which alleges fraud, program abuse and potential Department of Veteran's Affairs (VA) and HUD official misconduct.
I submitted this complaint to the VA OIG Hotline this morning — see their response below. As shown, they referred this matter to your office as the appropriate authority to investigate it.
I allege that the 100,000 Homes Campaign has been operated by a fake charity calling itself "Community Solutions" while falsely claiming it is a nonprofit based in New York City. Please closely inspect the communications between Community Solutions and the Housing Authority of the County of Santa Cruz (HACOSC) which its executive director provided me yesterday and then more today. They can be viewed using the following links:
[http://tinyurl.com/k7yruyu]
[http://tinyurl.com/ppymcs3]
Please note the communications between the alleged fake charity Community Solutions and officials in the VA, as well as with HUD officials.
Thank you for processing this complaint. Please contact me to inform me what actions you plan to take and what further information I can provide your investigators.
Respectfully yours, John E. Colby, Ph.D.
No comments:
Post a Comment