Springfield Housing Authority

This is a Massachusetts State Auditor performance audit of certain Springfield Housing Authority activities during January 1, 2006 through December 31, 2009.

“This report details the audit objectives, scope, methodology, findings, and recommendations for the audit period, January 1, 2006 through December 31, 2009.”

The State Auditor opened the audit because it received allegations that something improper may have happened at the Authority under a former executive director.

“OSA initiated an audit that covered the time period in question (January 1, 2006 through December 31, 2009) to assess the validity of the allegations.”

The Authority manages public housing programs and public money, so weak contract and purchasing controls can affect how public resources are used.

“Its $33 million annual budget is derived from rental income and funding from DHCD and HUD.”

If you are a taxpayer, tenant, or Springfield resident, the report matters because it pushes the Authority to document purchases, approve contracts properly, and show that payments are justified.

“In the future, the Authority should ensure that contracts that it awards for services contain all the necessary language to protect all the Authority’s interests, including specific tasks/deliverables.”

Auditors found that some contracts and purchases were not handled with the controls required by Authority policies, and one computer purchase allegation could not be fully checked because records were missing.

“As noted in our audit findings, we noted deficiencies in internal control with respect to the control environment, as top management bypassed existing procedures.”

The Auditor recommended that the Authority tighten contract approvals, document software purchases and payments, and keep procurement records as required.

“In the future, the Authority should ensure that it maintains records to document all its procurements in accordance with the state’s record-retention requirements.”

The report is significant because it found problems involving tens of thousands of dollars in contracts and purchases, including a $35,467 consultant contract, a $78,000-per-year legal counsel contract, and a $13,274 software purchase.

“The Authority entered into a five-year employment contract with an annual cost of $78,000 plus benefits with its former In-House Legal Counsel; the contract was not approved by the Authority’s board of commissioners as required by Authority policy.”

A “sole-source procurement” means buying from one vendor without normal competition; the audit says the Authority needed to keep required paperwork showing why that was allowed and why the price made sense.

“For sole-source procurements, the Authority should follow its established procedure of performing and retaining a cost analysis of the purchase and using the forms stipulated in its procedures.”