Bradenton Housing Authority is ‘abusive’ of residents. HUD review finds numerous violations

Residents living in low-income housing units run by the Bradenton Housing Authority have long complained of living in an environment of fear and intimidation since BHA Executive Director Ellis Mitchell Jr. took over the scandal-ridden agency in November 2014.

In a recent review of the BHA, U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development officials in Miami found that turmoil remains long after the departure of the agency’s former executive director, Wenston DeSue, who was sentenced to one year in federal prison for bilking the agency out of more than $270,000.

HUD’s review found multiple violations of federal guidelines and policies and raised concerns about the level of complaints from residents regarding “combative and abusive” behavior by Mitchell and other BHA staff members.

Mitchell declined to comment on most of HUD’s findings, but he did say BHA is preparing a response.

Resident and staff whistle blowers came forward to the Bradenton Herald in late 2018 about hostile working and living conditions. Employees said they were under constant threat of losing their jobs.

One employee was fired after speaking out about residents’ concerns at a BHA board meeting, which led to the former property manager being followed and photographed by Mitchell following her termination. The allegations were outlined in a Manatee County Sheriff’s Office report.

A letter listing 23 complaints about bullying and harassment was submitted to the board, whose members conducted independent interviews with other employees who the board said then changed their stories. The Bradenton Herald reached out to the HUD Miami office in 2018 and received no acknowledgment of complaints.

However, it appears HUD’s review was already underway. HUD’s recent review started in January of 2018 and was completed in November. In the review, the complaints are addressed.

HUD accuses the BHA of not following its own policies, as well as federal guidelines when it comes to evicting or terminating families from public housing. Residents in the past have complained that their low-income housing status has been threatened for a variety of reasons, most notably if they complain about Mitchell.

“A review of eviction documents show a strong use of adverse actions immediately for any perceived program infraction and use of local laws to justify actions with no mention of federal requirements,” the review states.

Furthermore, HUD notes Mitchell has terminated 94 residents since January of 2018, which is about 35% of the overall housing authority population.

“Additionally, the (Miami Field Office) receives an inordinate amount of complaints from (residents). The majority of complaints revolve around the tone of communications received from the administrative staff which is almost always perceived as staff being combative and abusive,” the report states.

HUD states that staff “use veiled threats of losing their housing assistance if they speak out regarding their rights as assisted participants.”

HUD confirmed many of the complaints made by residents and former staff members to the Bradenton Herald in 2018. They include staff entering units without appointments or permission, exaggerated maintenance costs, improper rent calculations, “and lastly, we are extremely concerned that adequate due process is not being afforded to program participants,” the report states.

HUD asked for BHA officials to respond to the complaints and was told that BHA resident complaints are not kept on file.

HUD is demanding that BHA review their own policies come into federal guideline compliance and develop an administrative grievance process, “to deal with resident complaints or concerns fairly.”

Mitchell himself was the only one who would address resident complaints personally as a self-proclaimed human resources director, but HUD is calling for the BHA to select an impartial hearing officer or panel to address resident complaints.

HUD also is insisting that BHA comply with record-keeping requirements, to include keeping a record of residents’ complaints.

Agency’s computer system attacked

HUD documents an $11,125 emergency expenditure made by the BHA at some point during the review period. Typically, any expenditures over $3,500 have to follow a formal bidding process.

HUD notes that the emergency payment was made to a company regarding a ransomware attack on the agency’s computers.

Mitchell was asked to elaborate on the attack and subsequent payment and did not respond. However, the agency’s attorney is advising the BHA not to discuss the attack at this time.

HUD said the expenditure was appropriate given the emergency situation.

In all, HUD found that the BHA violated policies or federal guidelines on 12 occasions. They include failing to verify income used for qualification purposes for public housing.

HUD indicates in its other findings that the BHA did not properly safeguard data, has not properly maintained or documented necessary data, and did not follow HUD protocols. The federal agency also found weaknesses in the agency’s internal controls over federal dollars.

HUD found that Mitchell used comp time valued at over $2,800, though he is a salaried employee and does not qualify for comp time.

“After being advised by the (housing authority’s) attorney to repay the funds, the (BHA board of directors) approved the payment as a bonus at a subsequent meeting,” HUD disclosed.

HUD is demanding the repayment of those dollars either by Mitchell or the board chair who approved the “bonus.”

HUD has provided a detailed and lengthy corrective action statement regarding the BHA’s violations of 12 federal regulations and has given the BHA 30 days to respond and 60 days to implement the corrective actions outlined on their review.

This story was originally published December 17, 2020 at 5:00 AM.