Armed with 12 search warrants, investigators with the Santa Barbara District Attorney’s Office seized 30 boxes of financial records and at least one computer from the former director of the recently bankrupt Lompoc Housing and Community Development Corporation (LHCDC) and its agents on September 12 and 13. Assistant DA Kelly Scott of Santa Maria obtained search warrants against Sue Ehrlich, the embattled ex-director of what for years had been Lompoc’s biggest provider of affordable housing, and several accounting firms that worked with Lompoc Housing after persuading Judge James Iwasko that there was credible evidence embezzlement might have occurred.
Scott explained she took action after being contacted by County Auditor Bob Geis, who complained Ehrlich and other officers of Lompoc Housing had repeatedly refused to provide him the financial records needed to perform a forensic audit, as the County Board of Supervisors had instructed him to do. Geis lacks the legal authority to subpoena documents. Scott explained the term “embezzlement” has many legal meanings, not all of which relate to personal enrichment.
The county, she noted, had given Lompoc Housing $50,000 to get its notoriously unkempt financial books in order, but Geis complained that Ehrlich had improperly used that money to pay down mounting debts instead. For the record, sources with Lompoc Housing insist county officials were notified at the time how that $50,000 would be spent and, in addition, that they gave Geis all of the nonprofit agency’s old checkbooks. Geis’s second-in-command, Theo Fallati, explained that’s not enough to conduct the audit requested. When his office told Ehrlich that, he said she would reply, “We’ve given you everything that we have.” He added that none of the seized documents have been turned over to his office yet, and it’s premature to say whether the boxes of records will fill in the gaps.
When Lompoc Housing shut down its two homeless shelters earlier this year and lost possession of its 255 units of affordable housing (due to foreclosure and default) secured over the years with nearly $6 million in public funds, Santa Barbara’s Grand Jury reported it was a train wreck that many saw coming but few did anything about. For years, Lompoc Housing had repeatedly failed to submit the financial reports and records required of nonprofit agencies operating with public monies despite numerous requests; its properties, run-down by prolonged deferred maintenance, were poorly managed.
“I’m concerned about the probable political motivation behind some of the actions thus far, and we are investigating the matter.” - Bob Sanger
The problems preceded the stock market crash and the recent recession, and began when Ehrlich branched out of affordable-housing development and into commercial revitalization projects in downtown Lompoc. Critics have long speculated that the organization was insulated from critical oversight because Supervisor Joni Gray’s husband, George Wittenberg, served as the group’s legal counsel for years and that Gray’s longtime administrative assistant Sue Warnstrom — who has since resigned — served as the group’s president. Those concerns were very much on the mind of noted criminal defense attorney Bob Sanger, who’s been retained by the Lompoc Housing, when he said, “I’m concerned about the probable political motivation behind some of the actions thus far, and we are investigating the matter.”
Most of the millions in public funds lost by Lompoc Housing originated with the federal Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD), and was first funneled to the county Housing and Community Development department or the City of Lompoc, and then to various nonprofit entities known as Community Housing Development Organizations, or CHDOs.
In the wake of Lompoc Housing’s collapse, HUD was strangely silent, even as county supervisors wrung their hands and Lompoc city councilmembers demanded answers. Late this August, officials with HUD’s Los Angeles offices initiated an audit of how the county’s Housing and Community Development managed its funds and cast an extremely critical look at three of the county’s four CHDOs, all of which have managed to weather the recession in relatively good financial condition.
Strikingly, the one agency it did not audit was Lompoc Housing. The other three — Santa Maria’s Good Samaritan, Peoples’ Self-Help Housing, and Surf Development, an adjunct of the county Housing Authority — were deemed to have been improperly certified as CHDOs. Pending resolution of this dispute, HUD has announced that all further funding to these agencies would be cut off. How long the resolution will take remains anybody’s guess.
But for Sylvia Bernard, director of Good Samaritan, the cut threatens her agency with economic ruin. “We’re right in the middle of building a 16-unit affordable-housing project in Santa Maria,” she said. “We have $500,000 in outstanding bills that we are expecting the county to cover with HUD funds. If we don’t pay our contractors and our subcontractors, we could get slapped with stop-work orders as early as next week.”
While most affected officials are extremely reluctant to say much of anything pending resolution of the conflict, Fred Lamont of the County Housing Authority was extremely outspoken while addressing the Lompoc City Council last week. When asked why he thought Lompoc Housing was excluded from the audit, Lamont said he thought it might be because Ehrlich and HUD auditor Cynthia Blatt were close personal friends. Blatt was out of her office until later this week and not available for comment, and the coworker to whom she referred calls in her absence did not return calls for comment.



Print friendly
E-mail story
Tip Us Off
Comments
Share Article
Myspace





Previous Month



Comments
Humpty Dumpty sat on the wall…
Jimbo and Theo
Chums year in, year out
At the Coffee Cat was routine
Then came the LHCDC
And came back, again and again, the LHCDC
And it came to past, Chums, Coffee and Career
If the audit trail leads to the County Assessors Office, can the public have the confidence that an audit has independence, or does the engagement pose a conflict of interest?
The stakes are many, Bob Geis will be retiring, Theo likely has the aspirations to fill the vacancy. How will Theo get Jimbo to cooperate in the criminal investigation and the forensic audit?
Theo and Jimbo have a close personal and professional working relationship. Jimbo is also retiring from the County Assessors Office. Has Jimbo been employed by the Auditor-Controller Office? Lets not forget that a conflict of interest is the essence of this fiasco.
As is the case when the non profit status is revoked, would it be logical for the County Assessors Office to impose and pursue the collections of property taxes that are now due the county?
Will Theo be tough on crimes of the politically connected? Will he be elected to the Office of Auditor-Controller?
...Humpty Dumpty sat on the Wall
Humpty Dumpty had a great Fall
All the kings horses and all the kings men
Couldn’t put Humpty Dumpty together, again
TheTruthLiesInTheContradiction (anonymous profile)
September 27, 2012 at 9:56 a.m. (Suggest removal)
And, Fourth District county supervisor Joni Gray is up for reelection next month.
A spectator sport indeed.
John_Adams (anonymous profile)
September 27, 2012 at 11:19 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Can we can this "politically motivated"?
BeachFan (anonymous profile)
September 27, 2012 at 4:26 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Our country needs the following or something similar to better protect citizens and their property rights:
“Whoever, with intent to obtain property knowingly participates in changing, without lawful authority, a contract attached to Real Property of another person with the intent to commit, or to aid or abet, or in connection with, any unlawful activity that constitutes a violation of Federal law, or that constitutes a felony or fraud under any applicable State or Local Law, shall face fines or imprisonment for … “
Similar to Identity Theft property owners should be afforded the same legal avenues to pursue when a contract is taken behind their back, without knowledge, without consent, depriving them of the use and benefit affecting the marketability of millions of dollars in property. Sorry We the People are supposed to have guaranteed the Constitutional Right to Protect Property and our government or any of its program grantees have zero right implementing any program to violate the People.
Currently citizens such as legally disabled ones if the violator does not just do the legally, morally or ethically right thing must choose between paying lawsuit legal fees vs. medical needs. Having a potential law would then give the same rights in protecting property whereby they can file theft charges. Sorry it does not seem right that you can steal a cheap car and face charges, but if you deprive an owner and negatively affect property by potentially $100,000+ there are not similar consequences.
You are potentially asking why …
You can consider this past news article as an example of property right violations:
http://thebusinesstimes.com/public-fu...
Per this article the owner put $384,000 into their house and after their Property Rights were violated sold instead of staying for the planned 10 years. Per the County Records "Sales and Conveyance Information” on 12/06/2010 they sold their home for $245,000 dollars (bottom of this page: http://www.imap.mesacounty.us/assesso...).
Now while the market may have fallen slightly in 2010 do you really think it affected the value by a difference of $139,000 for a home at that time? That was a huge financial LOSS most likely due to the actions of an entity who violated governing documents and state laws backed by our various federal, state, city, etc. tax dollars! The “marketability” of a home was affected because an entity purchased with the intent to take from consumers who themselves had prior VESTED property rights and also Consumer Protection rights. Problem is in fighting the battle the question becomes who has deeper pockets … an entity violating rights to implement a Federal USDA Mutual Self Help Program or a Citizen of the United States of America who just spent hundreds of thousands of dollars on a new home for their family.
PowerOfChoice (anonymous profile)
September 27, 2012 at 9:28 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Housing & Community Development Departments should be renamed "Development without Community Zoning Departments". The community is the last thing on these Departments agenda.
You watch. The forced housing scam will continue business as usual. Joni Gray will be reelected and this whole mess will just blow away and be forgotten.
Georgy (anonymous profile)
September 28, 2012 at 2:48 p.m. (Suggest removal)
https://www.bsa.ca.gov/hotline
The California Whistleblower Protection Act authorizes the California State Auditor to receive complaints from state employees and members of the public who wish to report an improper governmental activity. An "improper governmental activity" is defined as any action that violates the law, is economically wasteful, or involves gross misconduct, incompetency, or inefficiency. The complaints received by the State Auditor shall remain confidential, and the identity of the complainant may not be revealed without the permission of the complainant, except to an appropriate law enforcement agency conducting a criminal investigation.
TheTruthLiesInTheContradiction (anonymous profile)
October 9, 2012 at 10:25 a.m. (Suggest removal)