DATE: Friday, September 26, 1997            TAG: 9709260008

SECTION: LOCAL                   PAGE: B10  EDITION: FINAL 

TYPE: Editorial 

                                            LENGTH:   94 lines

CHESAPEAKE HOUSING AUTHORITY: CONTROVERSY IS THE NORM THE CITY SHOULD STRAIGHTEN OUT THEE AUTHORITY BEFORE PROGRESS IS LOST

A history of the Chesapeake Redevelopment and Housing Authority reads like a textbook in bad government.

For the past two years, the authority, which provides subsidized housing for about 2,100 city residents, had been rebounding from a string of failing grades from the federal Department of Housing and Urban Development.

But this month the authority returned to its more natural state of controversy.

Last week, the authority's executive director, Douglas Falkner, was subjected to hours of criticism from his employees, in a bizarre session in front of the authority's board of commissioners. This week, the board, behind closed doors, fired Falkner after he refused to resign. The vote was close - 5-4. Some civic leaders objected strongly.

More on all that in a moment. First some history.

Four years ago this month, the City Council, which appoints authority board members, fired all the commissioners, some of whom had served more than 17 years. The firing followed a bitter and unprecedented 11-day hearing before the council, with charges flying back and forth.

The commissioners had secretly voted to pay themselves for serving on corporations and partnerships in which the authorty held an interest. They had appointed one of their members to head the agency at $58,000 a year, despite a HUD ruling that the appointment would constitute a conflict of interest, even if the person resigned from the board before taking the new post. Over the previous 2 1/2 years, the commissioners had spent more money traveling than all other Hampton Roads housing authorities combined. They failed to prosecute an employee accused of stealing $1,200.

At the time of the firing, several council members said they wanted the next board of commissioners to immediately fire both the authority's attorney and the interim executive director who had been a commissioner.

The new commission did neither immediately. The executive director resigned the following March. In October 1994, two council members threatened to do away with the entire housing authority after it voted in secret to renew its lawyer's contract. The lawyer, John E. Zydron, finally was voted out in May 1995.

That same year, a former employee of the authority pleaded guilty to embezzling nearly $122,000 in federal funds from the agency.

Things seemed to settle down, but longtime observers of the agency could feel something coming when it was revealed in The Virginian-Pilot last April that Falkner, who had become the authority director the previous month, had misrepresented his education and work experience to previous employers. He claimed a college degree he didn't have.

It also was revealed in the same article that when Falkner headed the Peoria, Ill., housing authority, a HUD review and an independent audit showed deficiencies in the authority's finances, personnel, travel expenses and procurement records.

The commissioners, in their search for a director, had overlooked those problems. They stood behind Falkner five more months, then fired him.

Falkner said this week he was a victim of a ``palace coup'' by at least three of his top managers. They scheduled a board meeting while Falkner was vacationing out of state.

Falkner said the board confronted him with specific allegations by staff members of sexual harassment or inappropriate comments. Falkner said he was innocent.

After the commissioners fired Falkner, Gene Waters, president of the Chesapeake Council of Civic Organizations, called on the City Council to reverse the decision, though that seems unlikely at this point.

From the outside, we don't know if Falkner should have been fired, but three things are clear:

1. Greater care should have preceded his hiring.

2. He was fired in the wrong way, maybe even illegally.

3. The agency is in crisis.

Regarding the second point, nothing was gained from subjecting Falkner to his employees' criticism in front of the board. The board could simply have called employees in to talk. Many of them, incidentally, support Falkner.

The actually [sic] firing was accomplished by taking a private ``straw vote,'' which was 5-4, and then by voting in public to affirm the supposed ``consensus'' reached in private. The commission is a public agency, and voters have a right to know where each commissioner stands. After the meeting, board Chairman Roland L. Thornton told how the different commissioners had voted in private, but they should have voted for the record in public. Reportedly some commissioners were peeved that their position on the firing was divulged.

Falkner has said that his firing was illegal. He refused a settlement and said he will sue the board.

As for the crisis afflicting the authority: The staff is divided. Many supported Falkner. Obviously, the board, too, is divided. And the public can't help but lack confidence in the authority and city management of it. The authority board has scheduled a meeting tonight to discuss personnel matters.

The authority does important public work. Its budget last year was more than $7 million. More than 2,000 people depend on it for housing. With projects pending, the authority needs direction.

The city must concentrate on straightening out the authority, once and for all, before progress made during the past two years is lost. The authority needs a competent, noncontroversial staff to move beyond the most recent turmoil.

Send Suggestions or Comments to webmaster@scholar.lib.vt.edu