There are systemic weaknesses in the oversight of public housing authorities in Massachusetts, starting with erratic controls by the US Department of Housing and Urban Development and sloppy state audits, which give too much cover to unethical housing directors and insular local boards. While many authorities function well and provide safe, decent housing for low-income populations, too many others are prone to inefficiencies and outright corruption.
In the wake of recent scandals, both HUD and the Patrick administration should be exploring ways to improve supervision of the 242 authorities, some quite small, which are dotted throughout the state. And lawmakers on Beacon Hill should create new incentives for housing authorities to merge and consolidate services, which would allow for cheaper, more efficient management, with less temptation toward local corruption.
Comments
since when did the words ACCOUNTABLE or ACCOUNTABILITY ever apply to the blithering nitwit bafman mayor of boston? ma
Just the headline of this editorial sends shivers down my spine. Linking any Chelsea function to Boston would be ths start of a slippery slope to defacto annexation. The only people who would love the idea would be the Chelsea municipal unions. Boston taxpayers should fight any linkage to Chelsea for any reason. This is a matter for the Commonwealth to address, not Boston.
"The systemic weaknesses in the oversight of public" departments and agencies stems from the influence of Democratic politicians and their appointments.
Its refreshing for the Globe to (finally) admit that there are at least SOME part of government that are both incompetent and corrupt. How many other agencies are similarly disfunctional, similarly easy to "game" and ripe for corrupt, nepotistic, mismanagement? How many more agencies that "serve" the poor actually serve the interests of public employees first, last and always? This is why as many functions as possible should be farmed out to the private sector. The government can oversee private contractors, hold them accountable and put the services out to bid, routinely, in order to keep the contractors honest. As these stories show, even the most important functions of government (the drug testing lab, the probation department) are now clearly susceptible to gross mismanagement. And what happens, most of the time, to those who abuse their positions in government? Little to nothing. Heck, most retire with outrageous pensions. These examples only prove that, over time, government monopolization of "services" is no different than private sector monopolies in that they increasingly are organized for the benefit of those in control of the enterprise with little regard to the "service" they are supposed to provide. At least you can fire a private company and expect the government to be HAPPY to expose any abuse or corruption by a vendor. Now, does anyone expect the goverment to vigorously oversee (much less prosecute) corrupt practices of public employees? They don't prosecute because it sheds a bad light on goverment in general and/or they don't want to prosecute someone who's "connected" to influential political pals.
Outstanding! Can you run for Governor please?
Please do a similar investigation of the terrible corruption crisis in the Worcester City Housing Program. More than one high official has been forced out or fired. At least one is being sentenced this month. And according to local tv, the FBI is investigating this organization. Please help Worcesterites who fear being ignored and fear a cover-up.
"Similar solutions should be considered in every authority where directors have run amok." How about just doing it because it's the right thing to do? In the private sector these types of inefficiencies take care of themselves with companies that serve no purpose, or overlap with others, going out of business. There's too much "welfare" in the public sector where suspect jobs and agencies are created to give political supporters jobs. We have an underfunded crime lab with lax management that put innocent people in jail and will now cause violent felons to be let loose to wreak havoc on the public. The public sector appears incapable of prioritizing critical services and more often than not continues to fund agencies that have little or no purpose. People wouldn't be so averse to paying taxes if they knew that their money was being spent on the right things.
The public sector in Massachusetts is essentially a jobs program for Democrats.
Incredible1, it takes money to get elected, people who give money to a candidate more often than not expect to get something back, sometimes in the form of a job. As long as money is key in the political process there will be abuse and corruption. Jjag hit the nail on the head when he/she said to privatize current government services and let government oversee, rather than manage, similar to a board of directors. Those currently employed by the state could work for private companies, if they were qualified, and those private companies would compete against one another leading to better services being provided for the money. But then what would those that don't want to do an honest day's work do?
I'd like to know the composition of the "special study panel." Let's get real here. Two hundred forty-two authorities provide a wonderful opportunity for Democrat jobs - lots of jobs - at very good wages. Public sector corruption is a Democrat specialty, they're brilliant at it, and of course nothing will change until the pathetic Republicans are able to mount some meaningful opposition. The problem is that there are so many people is Massachusetts, which is probably the most corrupt state in the country, who benefit from the corruption, that elections don't matter any more.
The Globe should remember that it was 30 years ago that the BHA was SO mismanaged that there was a Court-ordered receiver, Harry Spence, hired to clean it up. Mike McLaughlin was a thief. We are waiting for the indictment. There is no doubt that the CHA was poorly managed and that integrity was not a hallmark of the upper management. But is the answer to eliminate the smaller housing authorities in the smaller communities? Do those who support affordable housing think that Medway is going to build more housing, or serve its needy residents, if the housing authority there is gone, or if it's run by a big state agency. Didn't we do that with welfare 40 years ago --eliminate local management-- only to see that program explode in cost? The Chelsea situation was aided and abetted by HUD and DHCD, who have had their budgets cut to the bone, eliminating the kind of oversight and assistance that most housing authorities need, and want. Where was the State Auditor, or the federal auditor, looking at McLaughlin's salary and CHA expeditures?
Bad people rob banks every day. We don't close the banks; we put the crooks in jail.