Santa Monica City Council
April 12, 2022

1 Vernice Hankins
From: OZ <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, April 12, 2022 4:11 AM
To: David White; Christine Parra; Oscar de la Torre; Lana Negrete; Phil Brock; Kristin McCowan; Gleam Davis; Sue Himmelrich; councilmtgitems
Subject: 3-I: OPPOSE PLANS, please send out notice of first SM RAB meeting

EXTERNAL
Dear Executive Director of SMHA, and SMHA Board:

I oppose the approval of the Plans as they have not gone through a legitimate RAB process… yet again.

As you might know by now, SMHA was in violation of the federal regulation that mandates the establishment of a Resident Advisory Board (RAB) for at least twelve years (or possibly decades).

Now we have a RAB on paper, i.e. SMHA sends out notices of the Administrative and Annual Plan’s public comment period to each voucher holder individually, and oddly considers that to be in lieu of RAB meetings.

Since there never was a functioning RAB here before, and voucher holders are uneducated about their rights as RAB members, about the Administrative Plan or the role and process of the RAB in regard to the Administrative Plan, a notice of a RAB meeting needs to be sent out as soon as possible to all voucher holders. The RAB needs to be able to hold their first meeting, but is unable to without staff sending out a notice of such a meeting. Advocates have been asking for this for over TWO YEARS now. We are not asking for the staff to participate in the meeting. We are only asking that an administrative employee schedule and notice a zoom meeting (with the option for people to to call in), and send out a notice of such a meeting to all voucher holders. There are volunteer RAB members willing to run the meeting without staff assistance.

Per HUD guidelines, it is the Housing Authority’s responsibility to make the means to communicate and a meeting space available to the RAB:
 PHAs should provide the RABs with reasonable means to carry out their functions such as making available a meeting place for discussing programs with the residents. RABs should also have access to any other communication tools such as a telephone, writing material, or computers that may facilitate their contacts with other resident households or to obtain further information on the programs.

Source: https://www.hud.gov/program_offices/public_indian_housing/pha/about/rab To date SMHA staff has refused to send out a notice of a meeting to RAB members, apparently in an effort to prevent the RAB from communicating and engaging in the deliberative process regarding the Administrative Plan. As you know, Santa Monica Housing Choice Voucher holders live in scattered units and have no way to find one another to communicate.

Item 3.I
04/12/22
1 of 102 Item 3.I
04/12/22
2 Here is a notice of the February 2022 meeting of the Norwalk RAB, where all the voucher holders are RAB members and yet they have an opportunity to have a designated meeting:
https://www.norwalk.org/home/showpublisheddocument/26305/637769919929900000 Inglewood, where all voucher holders are RAB members, also holds annual RAB meetings: https://inglewoodtoday.com/government/the-inglewood-housing-authoritys-annualplan-aims-to-expand-access-and-programs-for-the-upcoming-fiscal-year/ There are a variety of policymaking and advisory bodies in the City, e.g. the City Council, SMHA Board, Housing Commission and many other boards, commissions and task forces.

They all hold meetings. Staff does not just send individual notices to members of those bodies asking for their ideas or feedback. Those bodies meet and engage in a deliberative process.

The RAB has the right to do same, as engaging in a deliberative process is the best way to formulate feedback or come up with a policy.

If you have any doubts, the proof is in the pudding: at the most recent Housing Commission meeting staff claimed that they had received NO feedback from RAB members. Clearly, simply sending out a notice that asks each RAB member for individual feedback directly to SMHA does not work. I am sure you realize that RAB members in fact have a lot to say about how SMHA is run. They are not saying anything because they do not understand their role in the RAB process (which is brand new here and has never been utilized properly yet), and they often are afraid to individually communicate their feedback directly to SMHA or SMHA Board because they fear retaliation.

Please take care of this without further delay and direct the staff to send out a notice of the first ever, informational meeting of the Santa Monica RAB meeting. The purpose of this meeting will be for RAB members to learn more about the RAB process and to come up with a work plan for a deliberative process in order to most effectively submit feedback to the next Administrative Plan.

Such a meeting will put an end to the disenfranchising of Santa Monica subsidized housing tenants which has been going on for decades now, in a city that claims to care about affordable housing.

Thank you for adhering to the HUD guidelines, and providing an opportunity for RAB members to engage in a deliberative process and have a voice in the SMHA policymaking process.

Regards,
Olga Zurawska
——————–––
Item 3.I
04/12/22
2 of 102 Item 3.I
04/12/22
3 * Did You Know?
- The first RAB was established in Baltimore in 1968.
- The Philly RAB was established in 1969.
- The Santa Monica RAB might have been established circa 2020 but we can’t be sure as it was done by staff (not the policymakers), it is not codified anywhere, and to date the RAB has been prevented by staff from holding a meeting. So, does the SM RAB really exist? ৡৢৣ৤ Item 3.I
04/12/22
3 of 102 Item 3.I
04/12/22
Date: April 12, 2022
Subject: City of Santa Monica City Council Meeting April 12, 2022 Re: Agenda Item 3-I/Adoption of Fiscal Year 2022-2023 Santa Monica Public Housing Authority Annual Plan
Dear Santa Monica Housing Authority Board:

I am submitting this public comment as a Santa Monica Resident and RAB Member regarding Agenda Item 3. I - the Adoption of Fiscal Year 2022-2023 Santa Monica Public Housing Authority Annual Plan and recommended actions to 1. Adopt the FY2022-2023 Santa Monica Housing Authority Annual Plan; 2. Authorize the submission of the FY2021-2023 Annual Plan to the United States Department of Housing and Urban Development.

I object to the adoption of these plans for the following reasons:

1. The RAB has had no opportunity to meet and organize to respond collectively regarding the Annual and Administrative Plans, which do not include the voices of over 1,600 voucher holders in the City. The RAB has never been able to meet in more than 14 years.
a. After 14 years the RAB was finally created in May of 2021. Two RAB representatives were appointed by the Santa Monica City Council in June of 2021. I requested information on how to contact the RAB representatives in or about July 7, 2021, but email addresses were not created for the two RAB members until August 30, 2021. I requested several times via email that the Santa Monica Housing Authority (SMHA) assist with scheduling a Zoom meeting for all RAB members to meet with the newly appointed RAB Representatives, Donna Brown and Elizabeth Cochran, to discuss the upcoming Annual Plan, but the SMHA never responded to that request. I also emailed Donna Brown and Elizabeth Cochran several times requesting to speak with them but they never responded. The RAB only exists on paper and continues to be left out of the conversation with regard to making discretionary changes to the Annual, Administrative, and the Five Year Plans.
b. RAB members RAB should be able to meet quarterly to discuss the Annual and Administrative Plans coming up each year, and all housing issues, concerns, or changes recommended by the greater number of active RAB members should be Section 8/HCV holders or RAB
c. Even though email addresses were provided by the City of SM for the newly appointed RAB Representatives, Donna Brown, and Elizabeth Cochran, they have not responded to my emails requesting to speak with them about the Item 3.I
04/12/22
4 of 102 Item 3.I
04/12/22
Annual and Administrative Plan, and therefore request that the Annual and Administrative Plans are not approved before the 45 day review period conducted by HUD of the Annual Plan. (See attached emails regarding the RAB)

2. I request that SMHA Board does not approve the Annual and Administrative Plans until the RAB has had an opportunity to meet. I request that a meeting of the RAB take place within the next 30 days via Zoom or Bluejeans. The SMHA must provide reasonable means for the RAB to become informed on programs covered by the SMHA plan, to communicate in writing and by telephone with assisted families and hold meetings with those families, and to access information regarding covered programs on the internet, see 24 CFR 903.13(a)(2);"
Examples of urgent needs that need to be discussed with the RAB a. Disparity of treatment of all subsidized tenants preferential treatment as to who gets housing subsidized and/or housing, or who gets rehoused, slow turn around time for reasonable accommodations, and processing of RTA packets when Voucher Holder’s are attempting to “lease-up.”
b. Disparity in treatment of low-income, disabled persons and older females, who need to have a voice to speak about fair housing rights being violated, to advise the RAB to address within the Annual and Administrative Plans each year. c. No real informal review, appeal, or grievance process if SMHA program participants do not agree with a decision made by the SMHA regarding their participation in the program but is required by HUD to ensure due process for participants. d. Lack of transparency in AFF/Subsidized housing; etc. (preferential treatment who gets housing.) The SMHA need to make available a comprehensive list of all shelters, project based housing, deed-restricted/tax credit, and/or affordable housing units in the city. The City and County of San Diego publish such a list for public access. Santa Monica can easily publish a list like San Diego (See attached example of San Diego’s list of housing.)
Link to San Diego Housing List
https://www.sdhc.org/housing-opportunities/affordable-rentals/ e. The City of Santa Monica needs to publish waitlists for Section 8; CCSM; and AFF/Deed restricted; tax credit properties. The Cochise County Housing Authority in Arizona publishes such a list. (See attached example of Housing Waitlist in Cochise County) Item 3.I
04/12/22
5 of 102 Item 3.I
04/12/22
f. No landlord liaison: There are known problems with habitability issues, harassment of long-term tenants, and source of income discrimination against subsidized tenants when applying for rental units. There are numerous stories in the news documenting the harassment and uninhabitable conditions of entire buildings here in Santa Monica. The City is well aware of the problems but does not have funds to protect tenants, specifically the Consumer Protection Unit, overseen by attorney Gary Rhoades, reportedly has not responded to numerous complaints, the complaints that the Consumer Protection does respond to is limited to sending letters to landlords as it has been indicated that the City of Santa Monica does not have the funding to go after bad landlords. g. Legal Aid cannot take legal action against the landlord and will not represent subsidized tenants in any dispute or action needed regarding the SMHA. h. Due to lack of representation for low income and/or susidized tenants, their is a need for HUD experienced legal advisor(s)/advocate(s) to comprehensively advise them of their rights, and to guide/represent them in any informal review or state hearing as provided for in CFR 24
i. There is a need for an ADA Coordinator who does not have conflicts with tenants and is actively responding to complaints and requests for assistance. Reportedly, the current ADA Coordinator has been unresponsive to requests for assistance.

The above is not a complete list but is the most urgent of items that need to be addressed in an official meeting via Zoom, inviting all RAB members. Sadly, this is the same letter I submitted last year, and nothing has changed and continues to a seriously grave problem that is preventing subsidized tenants a right and opportunity to meaningfully participate in the drafting of the Annual, Administrative and Five Year Plans.

I have attached copies of HUD Guidelines and Regulations regarding Resident Advisory Boards and the role of the Santa Monica Housing Authority in ensuring that RAB members are able to have meaningful engagement and input on the very documents that directly impact Section 8/Housuing Choice Voucher and all subsidized SMHA Program Participants.

I have also attached copies of emails showing all the efforts I made to request an official meeting of the RAB
Item 3.I
04/12/22
6 of 102 Item 3.I
04/12/22
LII > Electronic Code of Federal Regulations (e-CFR)
> Title 24 - Housing and Urban Development
> Subtitle B - Regulations Relating to Housing and Urban Development > CHAPTER IX - OFFICE OF ASSISTANT SECRETARY FOR PUBLIC AND INDIAN HOUSING,

DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT
> PART 903 - PUBLIC HOUSING AGENCY PLANS
> Subpart B - PHA Plans and Fair Housing Requirements
> § 903.13 What is a Resident Advisory Board and what is its role in development of the Annual Plan?
24 CFR § 903.13 - What is a Resident Advisory Board
and what is its role in development of the Annual Plan? § 903.13 What is a Resident Advisory Board and what is
its role in development of the Annual Plan?
(a) A Resident Advisory Board refers to a board or boards, as provided in paragraph (b) of this section, whose membership consists of individuals who adequately reflect and represent the residents assisted by the PHA. (1) The role of the Resident Advisory Board (or Resident Advisory Boards) is to assist and make recommendations regarding the development of the PHA plan, and any significant amendment or modification to the PHA plan. (2) The PHA shall allocate reasonable resources to assure the effective functioning of Resident Advisory Boards. Reasonable resources for the Resident Advisory Boards must provide reasonable means for them to become informed on programs covered by the PHA Plan, to communicate in writing and by telephone with assisted families and hold meetings with those families, and to access information regarding covered programs on the internet, taking into account the size and resources of the PHA.

CFR State Regulations
Try the Purple® Mattress Purple Showroom - Santa Monica Place Item 3.I
04/12/22
7 of 102 Item 3.I
04/12/22
(b) Each PHA must establish one or more Resident Advisory Boards, as provided in paragraph (b) of this section.
(1) If a jurisdiction-wide resident council exists that complies with the tenant participation regulations in part 964 of this title, the PHA shall appoint the jurisdiction-wide resident council or the council's representatives as the Resident Advisory Board. If the PHA makes such appointment, the members of the jurisdiction-wide resident council or the council's representatives shall be added or another Resident Advisory Board formed to provide for reasonable representation of families receiving tenant-based assistance where such representation is required under paragraph (b)(2) of this section.
(2) If a jurisdiction-wide resident council does not exist but resident councils exist that comply with the tenant participation regulations, the PHA shall appoint such resident councils or their representatives to serve on one or more Resident Advisory Boards. If the PHA makes such appointment, the PHA may require that the resident councils choose a limited number of representatives.
(3) Where the PHA has a tenant-based assistance program of significant size (where tenant-based assistance is 20% or more of assisted households), the PHA shall assure that the Resident Advisory Board (or Boards) has reasonable representation of families receiving tenant-based assistance and that a reasonable process is undertaken to choose this representation.
(4) Where or to the extent that resident councils that comply with the tenant participation regulations do not exist, the PHA shall appoint Resident Advisory Boards or Board members as needed to adequately reflect and represent the interests of residents of such developments; provided that the PHA shall provide reasonable notice to such residents and urge that they form resident councils with the tenant participation regulations. (c) The PHA must consider the recommendations of the Resident Advisory Board or Boards in preparing the final Annual Plan, and any significant amendment or modification to the Annual Plan, as provided in § 903.21 of this title.
(1) In submitting the final plan to HUD for approval, or any significant amendment or modification to the plan to HUD for approval, the PHA must include a copy of the recommendations made by the Resident Advisory Board or Boards and a description of the manner in which the PHA addressed these recommendations. Try the Purple® Mattress Purple Showroom - Santa Monica Place Item 3.I
04/12/22
8 of 102 Item 3.I
04/12/22
(2) Notwithstanding the 75-day limitation on HUD review, in response to a written request from a Resident Advisory Board claiming that the PHA failed to provide adequate notice and opportunity for comment, HUD may make a finding of good cause during the required time period and require the PHA to remedy the failure before final approval of the plan.

Try The Purple Grid™ Near You
Purple Showroom - Santa Monica Place
CFR Toolbox
Law about... Articles from Wex
Table of Popular Names
Parallel Table of Authorities
Purple Showroom - Santa Monica Place
Purple Is In Your Neighborhood
Feel What Makes Purple Different at
Our Store Near You!
Store info Directions

11 Try the Purple® Mattress Purple Showroom - Santa Monica Place Item 3.I
04/12/22
9 of 102 Item 3.I
04/12/22
Purple Showroom - Santa Monica Place
Shop Now at Our Store Near You
Enjoy the Comfort of Your Mattress and
Wake Up Refreshed.

Store info Directions

ACCESSIBILITY

ABOUT LII

CONTACT US

ADVERTISE HERE
HELP

TERMS OF USE

PRIVACY
Try the Purple® Mattress Purple Showroom - Santa Monica Place Item 3.I
04/12/22
10 of 102 Item 3.I
04/12/22
466
§ 964.400 24 CFR Ch. IX (4–1–03 Edition)
Subpart E—Resident Board
Members
SOURCE: 64 FR 56879, Oct. 21, 1999, unless
otherwise noted.
§ 964.400 Purpose.

The purpose of this subpart is to implement section 2(b) of the United States Housing Act of 1937 (42 U.S.C.
1437).
§ 964.405 Applicability.
(a) General. Except as described in
paragraph (b) of this section, this subpart applies to any public housing agency that has a public housing annual contributions contract with HUD or administers tenant-based rental assistance under section 8 of the United States Housing Act of 1937 (42 U.S.C.
1437f).
(b) Exceptions. The requirements of
this subpart do not apply to a public
housing agency that is:
(1) Located in a State that requires
the members of a governing board to be
salaried and to serve on a full-time
basis; or
(2) Not governed by a governing
board.
§ 964.410 Additional definitions.

The following additional definitions
apply to this subpart only:

Directly assisted. Directly assisted
means a public housing resident or a
recipient of housing assistance in the
tenant-based section 8 program. Direct
assistance does not include any State
financed housing assistance or Section
8 project-based assistance.

Eligible resident. An eligible resident
is a person:
(1) Who is directly assisted by a public housing agency; (2) Whose name appears on the lease;
and
(3) Is eighteen years of age or older.

Governing board. Governing board
means the board of directors or similar
governing body of a public housing
agency.

Resident board member. A resident
board member is a member of the governing board who is directly assisted by that public housing agency.
§ 964.415 Resident board members.
(a) General. Except as provided in
§§964.405(b) and 964.425, the membership
of the governing board of each public
housing agency must contain not less
than one eligible resident board member.
(b) Resident board member no longer directly assisted. (1) A resident board member who ceases to be directly assisted by the public housing agency is no longer an ‘‘eligible resident’’ as defined in §964.410. (2) Such a board member may be removed from the PHA board for that cause, where such action is permitted
under State or local law.
(3) Alternatively, the board member
may be allowed to complete his/her
current term as a member of the governing board. However, the board member may not be re-appointed (or reelected) to the governing board for purposes of serving as the statutorily required resident board member. (c) Minimum qualifications for board
membership. Any generally applicable
qualifications for board membership
also apply to residents, unless the application of the requirements would result in the governing board not containing at least one eligible resident as a member. Further, PHAs and localities may not establish eligibility requirements for board membership that are solely applicable to residents.
§ 964.420 Resident board member may
be elected.
(a) General. Residents directly assisted by a public housing agency may elect a resident board member if provided for in the public housing agency plan, adopted in accordance with 24
CFR part 903.
(b) Notice to residents. The public
housing agency must provide residents
with at least 30 days advance notice for
nominations and elections. The notice
should include a description of the
election procedures, eligibility requirements, and dates of nominations and elections. Any election procedures devised by the public housing agency must facilitate fair elections.

VerDate Jan<31>2003 20:43 Apr 25, 2003 Jkt 200078 PO 00000 Frm 00466 Fmt 8010 Sfmt 8010 Y:\SGML\200078T.XXX 200078T Item 3.I
04/12/22
11 of 102 Item 3.I
04/12/22
467
Office of the Assistant Secretary, HUD Pt. 965
§ 964.425 Small public housing agencies.
(a) General. The requirements of this
subpart do not apply to any public
housing agency that:
(1) Has less than 300 public housing
units (or has no public housing units):
(2) Has provided reasonable notice to
the resident advisory board of the opportunity for residents to serve on the governing board;
(3) Has not been notified of the intention of any resident to participate on the governing board within a reasonable time (which shall not be less than 30 days) of the resident advisory board
receiving the notice described in paragraph (a)(3) of this section; and (4) Repeats the requirements of paragraphs (a)(2) and (a)(3) of this section at least once every year.
(b) Public housing agencies that only
administer Section 8 assistance. A public
housing agency that has no public
housing units, but administers Section
8 tenant-based assistance, is eligible
for the exception described in paragraph (a) of this section, regardless of the number of Section 8 vouchers it administers.
(c) Failure to meet requirements for exception. A public housing agency that is otherwise eligible for the exception described in paragraphs (a) and (b) of this section, but does not meet the three
conditions described in paragraphs
(a)(2) through (a)(4) of this section,
must comply with the requirements of
this subpart.
§ 964.430 Nondiscrimination.
(a) Membership status.—(1) General. A
resident board member is a full member of the governing board. (2) Resident participation must include
matters regarding Federal public housing
and Section 8 tenant-based assistance. A
resident board member must be allowed to take part in decisions related to the administration, operation, and
management of Federal public housing
programs and Section 8 tenant-based
rental assistance programs. This rule
does not extend to matters that:
(i) Exclusively relate to other types
of housing assistance (such as State financed housing assistance); or (ii) Do not involve housing assistance
(as may occur where the city or county
governing body also serves as the PHA
board).
(3) Public housing agency may expand
scope of resident participation. A public
housing agency may choose to expand
the scope of resident member involvement to matters not required under paragraph (a)(2) of this section.
(b) Residence status. A governing
board may not prohibit any person
from serving on the governing board
because that person is a resident of a
public housing project or is assisted
under section 8 of the United States
Housing Act of 1937 (42 U.S.C. 1437f).
(c) Conflict of interest. A governing
board may not exclude any resident
board member from participating in
any matter before the governing board
on the grounds that the resident board
member’s lease with the public housing
agency, or the resident board member’s
status as a public housing resident or
recipient of Section 8 tenant-based assistance, either results or may result in a conflict of interest, unless the
matter is clearly applicable to the resident board member only in a personal capacity and applies uniquely to that
member and not generally to residents
or to a subcategory of residents.

PART 965—PHA-OWNED OR
LEASED PROJECTS—GENERAL

PROVISIONS
Subpart A—Preemption of State Prevailing
Wage Requirements
Sec.
965.101 Preemption of State prevailing wage
requirements.

Subpart B—Required Insurance Coverage
965.201 Purpose and applicability.
965.205 Qualified PHA-owned insurance entity.
965.215 Lead-based paint liability insurance
coverage.

Subpart C—Energy Audits and Energy
Conservation Measures
965.301 Purpose and applicability.
965.302 Requirements for energy audits.
965.303 [Reserved].
965.304 Order of funding.
965.305 Funding.
965.306 Energy conservation equipment and
practices.
965.307 Compliance schedule.

VerDate Jan<31>2003 20:43 Apr 25, 2003 Jkt 200078 PO 00000 Frm 00467 Fmt 8010 Sfmt 8010 Y:\SGML\200078T.XXX 200078T Item 3.I
04/12/22
12 of 102 Item 3.I
04/12/22
(/) U.S. Department of
Housing and Urban
Development
Home (/) / Program Offices
(/program_offices) / Public and Indian
Housing
(/program_offices/public_indian_housing)
/ Public Housing Agency (PHA) Plans
(/program_offices/public_indian_housing/pha)
/ Public Housing Agency (PHA) Plans
(/program_offices/public_indian_housing/pha/about)
/ Resident Advisory Board - Public
Housing Agency (PHA) Plans

RESIDENT ADVISORY

BOARD - PHA PLANS
Forming the Resident Advisory
Board
What is required?
The Resident Advisory Board (RAB)
provides the PHA and the residents
with a forum for sharing information
about the Agency's Annual Plan.

Section 511 of the United States
Housing Act and the regulations in 24
CFR part 903 require that PHAs
establish one or more Resident
Advisory Board(s) (RAB) as part of the
PHA Plan process. RAB membership
is comprised of individuals who
reflect and represent the residents
assisted by the PHA. The role of the
RAB is to assist the PHA in developing
the PHA Plan and in making any
significant amendment or
modification to the Plan.

Item 3.I
04/12/22
13 of 102 Item 3.I
04/12/22
What is the role of the RAB?
The main role of the RAB is to make
recommendations in the development
of the PHA Plan. In order to facilitate
collaboration, PHAs should encourage
the RAB's participation from the
inception of the planning process.

PHAs are also required to request
input from the RAB for any significant
amendment or modification to the
PHA Plan.

When should the RAB be appointed?
The RAB should be appointed well in
advance of the date that the PHA Plan
is due to HUD to ensure effective
resident participation in the
development of the plan.

Who can participate on the RAB?
If a jurisdiction-wide resident council
is in place that complies with tenant
participation regulations at 24 CFR
Part 964, the PHA must appoint this
group or its representatives as the
Resident Advisory Board. If the PHA
does not have a jurisdiction-wide
resident council, then it should
appoint resident councils or their
representatives to serve as one or
more of the RABs. A PHA may require
that the resident councils choose a
limited number of representatives to
serve as RAB members.

Where there are no resident councils
that comply with the tenant
participation regulations, then the
PHA must appoint one or more RABs
or board members as needed to
adequately reflect and represent the
residents assisted by the PHA. The
Item 3.I
04/12/22
14 of 102 Item 3.I
04/12/22
PHA should give adequate notice of its
intentions to the residents and
encourage the residents to form
resident councils that comply with the
tenant participation regulations. PHAs
have discretion in determining the
method of appointment of RABs, as
long as a PHA ensures that its RAB or
RABs reflect and represent all the
residents assisted by the PHA.

What about Section 8 recipients?
Because Section 8 residents do not
have resident councils, PHAs with a
significant sized tenant based
assistance program must ensure that
Section 8 residents are adequately
represented or that reasonable efforts
are made to secure their participation
in the RAB. A significant sized tenant
based assistance program is one
where at least 20 percent of the total
PHA's households receive tenantbased assistance.

Section 8-only PHAs are not exempt
from the RAB requirement and must
also appoint one or more RABs that
adequately represent the population
served. Given that there are no
resident councils that comply with the
tenant-participation regulations
under the tenant-based assistance
program, Section 8-only PHAs have
discretion in the RAB appointment
process. Participation in a RAB is
limited to residents that are assisted
under federally assisted public
housing and the Section 8 tenantbased program.

Item 3.I
04/12/22
15 of 102 Item 3.I
04/12/22
How many RABs are required?
PHAs that do not have a jurisdictionwide RC have discretion to determine the number of RABs that they may
appoint. PHAs are required to
institute at least one RAB; the number
of RABs beyond that number will
depend on the size and the complexity
of the PHA or its developments. In
deciding the number of RABs to be
established, a PHA should consider
how adequate representation of its
entire resident population can be
provided.

How does the PHA fix the term of
service?
There is no fixed term for
membership on a RAB. A PHA has
discretion to establish its own policy
regarding the duration of the
appointments. In determining the
tenure to be adopted, PHAs may
consider the number of RABs and the
number of residents who volunteered
to serve. Greater RAB participation
may be realized by rotating residents'
tenure.

What if the PHA cannot establish a
RAB?
If, after making all possible endeavors,
a PHA is not successful in establishing
a RAB, it may appoint all of the
agency's assisted residents as
members of the RAB. The PHA must
notify all of its members that they
have been appointed as members and
inform them of their role and
responsibilities regarding the
development of the PHA Plan. The
PHA must also provide residents with
Item 3.I
04/12/22
16 of 102 Item 3.I
04/12/22
notification of meetings (at least 48
hours in advance) and provide copies
of any materials for review.

Encouraging Participation in
the RAB
Residents who volunteer to be part of
the RAB can be excellent partners to
the PHA during the development of
the PHA Plan. Although PHAs are
expected to make a significant effort
to ensure adequate resident
representation in the Resident
Advisory Boards, securing
participation by residents during the
planning process may pose a
challenge for some PHAs.

How can a PHA encourage residents to
take advantage of the RAB
opportunity?
Personal appeals are one strategy.

Executive Directors may be more
likely to get commitments from
residents if they personally request
their participation. Residents might
also be hesitant to volunteer to work
with a Resident Advisory Board if they
do not really understand their role as
a member of the RAB. The PHA
provide adequate information to all
residents regarding the RAB. The PHA
should inform residents of the
purpose and role of the RAB, as well as
practical information such as the time
commitment required. The PHA
should make clear to residents and
Section 8 participants that the
partnership between the residents
and the PHA is of benefit to both
parties. The residents are provided
Item 3.I
04/12/22
17 of 102 Item 3.I
04/12/22
with an opportunity to voice their
concerns so that their needs are
addressed and they can become
involved in the planning process. The
PHA also gains essential information
from the residents about the
improvements that need to be made at
the agency's developments and
residents' self-sufficiency needs. This
information helps the PHA to set
priorities for capital improvements
and advises resident services
programming.

PHA's Responsibility to the RAB
What are the PHAs' Responsibilities?
PHAs have the responsibility to
ensure that the RAB can adequately
serve its function including:

PHAs must give the RABs
sufficient time to review and
make recommendations on the
Plan. RABs will be able to
contribute best if they are
provided with adequate
information regarding the PHA's
programs and the policies
included in the Five-Year and
Annual PHA Plan.

The PHAs should give RABs
advance notice of meetings
scheduled to discuss areas of the
Plan (generally, at least 48 hours,
or more depending on the
meeting agenda).

RABs should also be provided
with any existing documents that
would assist them to make
Item 3.I
04/12/22
18 of 102 Item 3.I
04/12/22
productive recommendations
during the working meetings.

PHAs should provide the RABs
with reasonable means to carry
out their functions such as
making available a meeting place
for discussing programs with the
residents. RABs should also have
access to any other
communication tools such as a
telephone, writing material, or
computers that may facilitate
their contacts with other
resident households or to obtain
further information on the
programs.

At what stage in the planning process
must PHAs involve the RABs?
The role of the RABs is to assist and
make recommendations regarding the
development of the PHA Plan and any
significant amendments or
modifications to it. RABs should be
involved in the planning process as
soon as it is feasible and must be
given sufficient time to fully
participate in the process so that they
can carry out their proper role and
provide representation that is
meaningful and relevant to the
development of the Plan. The PHA and
the RAB should develop a reasonable
timetable to promote participation,
including adequate notice of
meetings. To facilitate productive
meetings, PHAs may do preliminary
work prior to involving the RABs, such
as gathering and compiling data and
materials to help residents participate
Item 3.I
04/12/22
19 of 102 Item 3.I
04/12/22
in the process, including some initial
recommendations. A PHA must
consider the recommendations of the
RABs and make revisions to drafts or
to the Plan which it deems
appropriate.

Public Notice and Comment
Period Requirements
The PHA governing body is required
to convene a public hearing to discuss
their Five-Year and/or Annual Plan
and to prompt comments from the
public regarding their proposed
activities. PHAs must consider, in
consultation with the RABs, all the
comments received at the public
hearing.

PHAs are required to carry out the
following steps at least forty-five (45)
days prior to the scheduled public
hearing:

Publish a notice indicating that a
public hearing to present the
Plan and further public
comments will be held including
time, date and location. The
notice should also indicate
where the Plan and pertaining
documents will be available for
their review. The documents
should be maintained at an
accessible place such as the
PHA's central office.

Conduct outreach activities to
promote comprehensive
participation in the public
hearing.

Item 3.I
04/12/22
20 of 102 Item 3.I
04/12/22
Any significant amendment or
modification to the plan is subject to
the public hearing and RABs'
assessment requirements.

Incorporating Comments into
the Plan
PHAs are required to consider the
RAB's recommendations to the Plan
but are not required to agree with
them. The recommendations received
must be submitted by the PHAs as a
required attachment to the Plan. PHAs
must also include a narrative
describing their analysis of the
recommendations and the decisions
made on these recommendations. It is
prudent for PHAs to acknowledge
those recommendations that conform
to the programs and the mission of the
PHA. If the RABs do not provide
recommendations to the Plan, the
PHA must document that in the
attached narrative.

Announcement of Membership
of the RAB
PHAs must provide an attachment to
the PHA Plan listing the members of
its Resident Advisory Board(s). If the
number of participants is too large to
reasonably list, then the attachment
should include a list of the
organizations represented on the RAB
or other description sufficient to
identify how members were chosen.

RAB Notification of Plan Process
To ensure that the RAB is fully
engaged in the full plan process, PHAs
are required to promptly provide a
Item 3.I
04/12/22
21 of 102 Item 3.I
04/12/22
copy of the HUD award letter
(identifying formula share allocations
for Capital Fund and Drug Elimination
Programs), plan approval letter and at
least one copy of the approved plan to
each RAB.

Jump to...

Forming the Resident Advisory
Board
Encouraging Participation in the
RAB
PHA's Responsibility to the RAB
Public Notice and Comment Period
Requirements
Incorporating Comments Into the
Plan
Announcement of Membership of
the RAB
RAB Notification of Plan Process
Related Information
PHA Plan Desk Guide
(/sites/documents/DOC_8904.pdf)
Public Housing Assessment System
(PHAS)
(/sites/documents/DOC_11732.html)
24 CFR 903.13 and 903.17
(https://www.govinfo.gov/app/details/CFR2002-title24-vol4/CFR-2002-title24- vol4-sec903-13)
Notice PIH 2000-36
(/sites/documents/DOC_8906.pdf)
Item 3.I
04/12/22
22 of 102 Item 3.I
04/12/22
Notice PIH 2001-4
(/sites/documents/DOC_8907.pdf)
Notice PIH 2001-26
(/sites/documents/DOC_8908.pdf)
Agency
Resources
U.S. Department of
Housing and Urban Development
451 7th Street, S.W., Washington, DC 20410
T: 202-708-1112
TTY: 202-708-1455
Find a HUD office near you (/localoffices)
Privacy Policy (/privacy_policy)  |  Web Policies
(/library/bookshelf11)  |  Accessibility (/accessibility)  | Sitemap (/siteindex)
Item 3.I
04/12/22
23 of 102 Item 3.I
04/12/22
ng fact sheet #2 public housing fact sheet #2 public housing fact sheet #2 public housing fact sheet #2 public housing fact sheet © 2004 by the National Housing Law Project. All rights reserved. public housing fact sheet #2: The Resident Advisory Board questions answered in this fact sheet:
• What is a Resident Advisory Board (RAB)?
• How can you get involved?
important terms:
• Resident Advisory Board (RAB): a group of residents that advises the housing authority on the PHA Plan. • Resident Council: a group of public housing residents in your development that meet and talk about issues important to all residents. Sometimes members of the Resident Council are also members of the RAB. • jurisdiction: the area that your housing authority serves. A jurisdiction may be your city, state, or county. For example, the jurisdiction of the New York City Housing Authority is all of New York City. The jurisdiction of the Delaware Housing Authority is the entire state of Delaware.

1. WHAT IS A RESIDENT ADVISORY BOARD (RAB)?
A Resident Advisory Board (RAB) is a group of residents that advises your housing authority about its Annual and 5-Year PHA Plans. That means that they look at the Plans and give the housing authority feedback. The law says that your housing authority has to have a RAB for the entire PHA Plan process.

The residents on the RAB should be similar to the residents living in public housing. If the public housing residents are very diverse, the RAB should also be very diverse. Housing authorities sometimes have more than one RAB.

2. WHAT ARE PHA PLANS AND WHAT IS THE PHA PLAN PROCESS? PHA Plans are developed by your housing authority. There is an Annual Plan, which is produced every year at the same time. There is also a 5-Year Plan, which talks about long-term goals. They contain a lot of information about your housing authority’s rules, including:
ü how tenants are admitted and evicted
ü decisions on collecting and raising rents
ü plans for resident programs, such as youth groups and job training seminars ü decisions about spending money on maintenance, repairs, security, and other programs The PHA Plan Process is a step-by-step process that your housing authority must follow each year to produce the annual PHA Plan. The housing authority must follow strict rules—and resident participation is important. The Resident Advisory Board is the key to effective resident participation.

For more information on PHA Plans, see “Public Housing Fact Sheet #1: PHA Annual and Five-Year Plans”.

Item 3.I
04/12/22
24 of 102 Item 3.I
04/12/22
ng fact sheet #2 public housing fact sheet #2 public housing fact sheet #2 public housing fact sheet #2 public housing fact sheet © 2004 by the National Housing Law Project. All rights reserved.

3. WHO BELONGS TO THE RAB?
The RAB is made up of public housing residents and resident leaders. The members should come from many different properties. Most housing authorities with a Section 8 voucher program have to choose voucher residents to serve on the RAB.

4. HOW IS A RAB CREATED?
In most cases, the housing authority creates the Resident Advisory Board. There are strict rules that the housing authority must follow in choosing members for the RAB. In some cases, there may be more than one RAB.

The Resident Council can play a very important role in creating the RAB. The Resident Council is different from the RAB. It is a group of public housing residents that gets together to talk about issues important to all residents.

Some Resident Councils are made up of members from just one property. Other Councils are made up of members from many properties—these Resident Councils are known as “jurisdiction-wide” councils.

If the Resident Council follows resident participation rules, then it has the right to select members for the RAB:

1. When the Resident Council is jurisdiction-wide: In this case, members of the Resident Council can become the RAB. This happens when the Resident Council is a jurisdic tion-wide council.

2. When there is more than one Resident Council from different properties: In this case, members from all of these Councils can become the RAB. The housing authority can also choose other public housing residents as additional members.

3. When there is no Resident Council: In this case, the housing authority can select all of the members for the RAB.

5. WHAT IS THE PURPOSE OF THE RAB? WHAT DOES IT DO?
The purpose of the RAB is to participate in the PHA Plan Process and to represent the views of the residents.

RAB members should find out what issues are important to residents and what issues the housing authority should know about.

Your RAB is responsible for:
• reviewing your housing authority’s PHA Plans
• making comments on the PHA Plans (what’s good, what’s bad, what should be changed) • meeting with housing authority staff to talk about the PHA Plans.

If it wants, the RAB can talk about the PHA Plan without the help of any housing authority staff. The RAB can also meet with residents to get information and pass information along.

Item 3.I
04/12/22
25 of 102 Item 3.I
04/12/22
ng fact sheet #2 public housing fact sheet #2 public housing fact sheet #2 public housing fact sheet #2 public housing fact sheet © 2004 by the National Housing Law Project. All rights reserved.

Throughout the PHA Plan Process, your housing authority has to consider and respond to the comments of your RAB. It is the law!

6. WHAT RESOURCES ARE AVAILABLE TO THE RAB?
By law, the housing authority has to provide resources to the RAB. Examples of resources include meeting space, computer access, supplies, and funds. The RAB needs resources in order to:
• understand housing authority policies and programs
• communicate with other residents
• hold resident meetings
• access the Internet
About Resident Participation Funds: In addition, “resident participation funds” may be available to work on the PHA Plan process. Each year, your housing authority receives $25 per apartment just for resident participation activities. If there is a Resident Council, then the Resident Council decides how to use this money.

If there is no Resident Council, then the RAB suggests how to spend it.

Residents might decide to use these funds to help pay for PHA Plan activities. Examples include training, organizing and meeting activities.

7. HOW CAN YOU GET INVOLVED WITH YOUR RAB?
• If there is a Resident Council:
· Talk to the Council members about becoming a RAB representative · Talk to the current RAB representative.
• If there is no Resident Council:
· Tell your housing authority that you want to be a member of the RAB · Think about forming a Resident Council. Talk to your neighbors about joining. • Talk with current RAB members to find out what’s going on. The housing authority should help you by giving you a list of members. A list of members should also be attached to the current PHA Plan. • Ask the RAB if you can attend RAB meetings.
• Find other partners to help you get involved. Examples of partners include local housing advocates, homeless advocates, church groups, unions, fair housing organizations.

Item 3.I
04/12/22
26 of 102 Item 3.I
04/12/22
ng fact sheet #2 public housing fact sheet #2 public housing fact sheet #2 public housing fact sheet #2 public housing fact sheet © 2004 by the National Housing Law Project. All rights reserved.

FOR MORE INFORMATION
• 42 U.S.C.A. § 1437c–1.
• 24 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 903 is available at www.access.gpo.gov/nara/cfr/cfr-table-search.html
• Public Housing Agency (PHA) Plan Desk Guide (Sept. 20, 2001), available at http://www.hud.gov/offices/pih/pha/
For additional information on the PHA Plan Process:
• Public Housing Fact Sheet #1: PHA Annual and Five-Year Plans • Residents’ Guide to the New Public Housing Authority Plans (Center for Community Change, June 1999) available at http://www.communitychange.org/publications/housingcommdev.htm (also available in Spanish) • HUD Housing Programs: Tenants’ Rights (National Housing Law Proje ct, March 2004), Chapter 12 _______________

ABOUT THIS FACT SHEET
Public Housing Fact Sheet #2 was developed by the National Housing Law Project. Public Housing residents, resident groups and nonprofit organizations may reprint this Fact Sheet freely, but must give credit to the National Housing Law Project. All others must request permission to reprint by contacting us at [email protected].

Item 3.I
04/12/22
27 of 102 Item 3.I
04/12/22
Theresa Marasco <[email protected]>
Response to Your Emails
9 messages
George S. Cardona <[email protected]> Thu, Sep 23, 2021 at 10:59 AM To: "[email protected]" <[email protected]>, OZ <[email protected]>, Ann Maggio <[email protected]>
Cc: Andy Agle <[email protected]>, James Kemper <[email protected]>, Denise AndersonWarren <[email protected]> Ms. Zurawska, Ms. Marasco, and Ms. Maggio:

I write in response to your September 14, September 17, September 19, and September 20, 2021 emails, copies of which are attached, and which raise several common issues.

Preliminarily, with respect to the makeup of the Santa Monica Housing Authority (“SMHA”) Resident Advisory Board (“RAB”) and Governing Board (“Board”), I note that the SMHA is a public housing agency that has no public housing units, but rather only administers Section 8 assistance.

Pursuant to the state Housing Authorities Law (Government Code Sections 34200, et seq.):

1. the City Council has appointed itself to serve as the SMHA Board, see Government Code Section 34290(a);

2. the City Council has established a Housing Commission, see Government Code Section 34292; and

3. both because the SMHA does not have tenants (but rather only administers Section 8 assistance) and because the SMHA has a Housing Commission to which tenant appointments are made, the Board is not required to have tenant members, see Government Code Section 34290(b), (c).

Pursuant to HUD regulations:

1. the SMHA must have a RAB, whose membership consists of individuals who adequately reflect and represent the residents assisted by the SMHA, see 24 CFR 903.13(a)(1);

2. the SMHA must provide reasonable means for the RAB to become informed on programs covered by the SMHA plan, to communicate in writing and by telephone with assisted families and hold meetings with those families, and to access information regarding covered programs on the internet, see 24 CFR 903.13(a)(2);

3. the SMHA must consider the recommendations of the RAB in preparing its final Annual Plan and any significant amendment or modification to the Annual Plan, see 24 CFR 903.13(c); and

4. unless the RAB is notified of the opportunity for residents to serve on the Board and no resident has indicated an interest in serving, the Board must include at least one eligible resident board member, that is, a member who is directly assisted by the SMHA, see 24 CFR 964.410, 415, 425.

In compliance with these HUD requirements: The SMHA currently has a RAB consisting of all residents assisted under the SMHA’s Section 8 tenant-based program, that is, all SMHA Housing Choice Voucher (“HCV”) participants. On May 5, 2021, the SMHA sent notices to all SMHA HCV participants advising them of the opportunity to serve on the Board and the process for indicating an interest in serving. Because more than two SMHA HCV participants expressed an interest in serving, on June 29, 2021, a lottery was conducted in public view to select from those who had expressed interest two SMHA HCV participants to serve on the Board. The two SMHA HCV participants selected were: Donna Brown and Elizabeth Cochran. These two Board members and the email addresses at which they can be contacted are included on the Board’s webpage: https://santamonica.gov/housing-hab. It is up to the two Board members to determine for themselves whether/how to respond to any inquiries directed to them.

Item 3.I
04/12/22
28 of 102 Item 3.I
04/12/22
On or about September 17, 2021, the SMHA circulated to all members of the RAB, that is, all SMHA HCV participants, and to all participants in the Continuum of Care and HOME voucher programs, letters advising that SMHA was proposing changes to its Administrative Plan and soliciting comments on those changes. Copies of the letters are attached for your reference. As set forth in the letters, all RAB members, as well as all participants in the Continuum of Care and HOME voucher programs, were advised:

1. the redline draft of the Administrative Plan showing the proposed changes, together with a summary of those changes, are available online at https://www.santamonica.gov/housing-news;

2. comments on the proposed changes can be submitted through October 31, 2021 by mail or by email to [email protected];

3. the draft Administrative Plan will be considered at the October 21, 2021 meeting of the Hosing Commission, and subsequently at the December 14 , 2021 meeting of the Board, at both of which public input on the proposed changes may be provided; and

4. the contact information for the two RAB members serving on the Board is listed at https://santamonica.gov/ housing-hab.

As these letters indicate, all RAB members, and all Continuum of Care and HOME voucher participants are being provided with opportunities to comment (whether in writing, through public comment at the Housing Commission or Council meetings, or both) on the proposed changes to the SMHA Administrative Plan. Because all HCV participants are members of the RAB and are invited to participate in the Housing Commission meetings where Administrative Plan changes are considered, the meetings provide an opportunity for RAB members to meet with other HCV participants as participating families regarding the Administrative Plan. In addition, in making its recommendations to the SMHA Board regarding the Administrative Plan, the Housing Commission considers written comments as well as oral comments provided by RAB members and other members of the public. Additionally, all written comments submitted by RAB members and other members of the public during the public comment period, as well as the recommendations of the Housing Commission, are provided to the SMHA Board in its consideration of the Administrative Plan. Finally, RAB members, as well as other members of the public, are able to provide oral comments prior to the SMHA Board’s consideration of the Administrative Plan.

Title 24 CFR Section 578.75 sets out general operational requirements for a Continuum of Care program. In particular, Section 578.75(g)(1), captioned “participation of homeless individuals,” provides as follows:

Each recipient and subrecipient must provide for the participation of not less than one homeless individual or formerly homeless individual on the board of directors or other equivalent policymaking entity of the recipient or subrecipient, to the extent that such entity considers and makes policies and decisions regarding any project, supportive services, or assistance provided under this part. This requirement is waived if a recipient or subrecipient is unable to meet such requirement and obtains HUD approval for a plan to otherwise consult with homeless or formerly homeless persons when considering and making policies and decisions.

The City of Santa Monica requires that at least one member of the Housing Commission be a homeless or formerly homeless individual. This requirement is designed to address the HUD requirement by giving the homeless or formerly homeless individual who is a Commission member an opportunity to participate in all aspects of local affordable housing policy, not solely SMHA matters. City staff has consulted with HUD staff regarding this approach, and HUD staff recommended that the City apply for a waiver to ensure express HUD approval of the City’s approach, which is intended to enable broader participation in housing matters. Accordingly, the City will be applying to HUD for a waiver of the requirement that a homeless or formerly homeless individual be on the SMHA Board, and will provide public notice as to whether or not HUD grants the requested waiver.

The Housing Commission conducts its regular meetings at 6:00 pm on the third Thursday of each month. For September, the regular meeting of the Housing Commission was scheduled for Thursday, September 16, 2021. That date, however, was Yom Kippur, which is considered the holiest day on the Jewish calendar and involves fasting, prayer, and repentance. The Housing Commission cancelled its regular meeting on that date, and a special meeting was scheduled one week later, at 6:00 pm September 23, 2021. The Chair and Vice-Chair retain broad discretion with respect to scheduling of Housing Commission meetings. It is not an abuse of that discretion to reschedule a meeting based on concern that one or more commissioners or a segment of the public will be unable to attend because of a particular religious holiday (whether or not that religious holiday is one the City recognizes as an official City holiday). Moreover, Item 3.I
04/12/22
29 of 102 Item 3.I
04/12/22
while the September 16 meeting would have been a general meeting at which general public input was required by the Brown Act, and the September 23 meeting is a special meeting at which general public input is not required by the Brown Act, a specific agenda item authorizing general public input has been added to the agenda for the September 23 special meeting.

On July 27, 2021, under Agenda Item 13L, Council voted to direct staff to return with revisions to Board/Commission/Task Force procedures to include a nepotism policy specifying that a person cannot serve on a city board/commission/task force if that person is a close family member (spouse/partner, siblings, children, or parents) of a seated Councilmember and specifying that this restriction would be effective immediately upon its adoption, rather than permitting a person affected to serve out their existing term. Staff has not yet returned to Council for adoption of the proposed policy, with the result that it is not yet in effect. Accordingly, though Council has clearly expressed its desire that such a nepotism policy be adopted, there is currently no adopted nepotism policy in place that would obligate a commissioner to step down from their position. I have copied Denise Andersen-Warren, who is overseeing the revision of Board/Commission/Task Force procedures, so she is aware of your complaint in this regard.

On July 13, 2021, under Agenda Item 13K, Council voted to direct staff to return with a proposed ordinance, similar to that in place in Beverly Hills, that (1) more precisely defines what constitutes a lobbyist/legislative advocate; (2) precludes any individual who in the prior two years has been acting as a lobbyist/legislative advocate from being appointed to a board, commission, or task force; and (3) precludes any member of a board, commission, or task force from simultaneously acting as a lobbyist/legislative advocate. Staff has not yet returned to Council with the requested proposed ordinance. As a result, there is no current ordinance defining precisely what constitutes a lobbyist/legislative advocate, or barring such a lobbyist/legislative advocate from serving on a board, commission, or task force. I have copied Denise Andersen-Warren, who is overseeing the revision of Board/Commission/Task Force procedures, so she is aware of your complaint in this regard.

George S. Cardona
Interim City Attorney (310) 458-8375
---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Theresa Marasco <[email protected]>
To: Andy Agle <[email protected]>, Anna Topolewski <[email protected]>, James Kemper <[email protected]>, Oscar de la Torre <[email protected]>, Christine Parra <[email protected]>, Phil Brock <[email protected]>, Kristin McCowan <[email protected]>, Gleam Davis <[email protected]>, Lana Negrete <[email protected]>, Sue Himmelrich <[email protected]>, Donna Brown <[email protected]>, Elizabeth Cochran <[email protected]>, John Jalili <[email protected]>
Cc: "Santa Monica City Manager's Office" <[email protected]>, "[email protected]" <[email protected]>, Ann Maggio <[email protected]>, oz <[email protected]>, "[email protected]" <[email protected]>, Richard Hilton <[email protected]>, Josh Hamilton <[email protected]>, Todd Flora <[email protected]>, "[email protected]" <[email protected]>, Leonora Camner <[email protected]>, Rene Buchanan <[email protected]>, "[email protected]" <[email protected]>, "George S.

Cardona" <[email protected]>
Item 3.I
04/12/22
30 of 102 Item 3.I
04/12/22
Bcc:

Date: Fri, 17 Sep 2021 23:55:29 +0000
Subject: Re: Please respond Re: Contact information for RAB appointees

EXTERNAL
Good afternoon John Jalili, Andy Agle, Anna Topolewski, James Kemper, the Santa Monica Housing Authority Board, and RAB Representatives:

As you all know, I have been actively trying to communicate and engage with the newly appointed RAB representatives since July 7, 2021, which was one week after the RAB representatives were appointed, in an effort to ensure that the RAB representatives give ALL Housing Choice Voucher (HCV) holders a voice in the drafting of revisions to the Annual and Administrative Plan (AP) process.

As of today, September 17, 2021, more than 3 months since I first contacted you all about engaging with the RAB representatives, I have not been able to communicate with either Donna Brown or Elizabeth Cochran, who are the current RAB representatives. The Santa Monica Housing Authority (SMHA) barely contacted me two weeks ago with the email addresses of the RAB representatives, Elizabeth Cochran and Donna Brown even though they were appointed on June 29, 2021.

Since receiving the RAB representative email addresses, I have copied them on the emails that I sent to everyone addressed in this email requesting that the SMHA and the Santa Monica Housing Authority Board (SMHAB} set up a Zoom meeting for the RAB to give all RAB members/HCV a chance to discuss the draft AP. Additionally, I have tried contacting each of the RAB representatives by email but they have been unresponsive as of the writing of this email.

To date, NONE of you have ever responded to my request to schedule a Zoom meeting and to notify all HCV holders about the meeting so everyone has a chance to ACTUALLY participate in a meaningful way and as is designed by HUD.

Even though a RAB has always been required per HUD regulations, the SMHA and the SMHAB have failed to meet this requirement since the time that the City of Santa Monica created a Housing Authority. If it had not been for the diligence and hard work of Olga Zurawska over the last two years to force the hand of the SMHA and the SMHAB to create the RAB, it would have never been done.

As pointed out in the email I received today from the SMHA regarding the comment period for the draft Administrative Plan, the SMHA officially, for the first time ever, notified HCV holders in March of this year that HCV holders are "automatically" RAB members.

The fact is, any resident of Santa Monica has the opportunity to attempt to participate in the drafting of the AP by submitting public comment. However, without having an official functional RAB, that is comprised solely of HCV holders to discuss and carry forward the policy reccomendations for the draft of the AP, it has been pointless to submit comments. It is a well-known fact that the SMHA and SMHAB never take any of the public comments into consideration. The comment period literally only serves as something the SMHA and SMHAB check off of their list as a requirement you all complied with. At the 4/27/21 SMHAB meeting James Kemper confirmed that the SMHAB’s role is merely to rubber stamp the AP that SMHA staff puts before them.

Today is the first day of the 45 day comment period regarding the Annual and Administrative Plans. Again, I am requesting a Zoom meeting be scheduled with the newly appointed RAB representatives and that ALL RAB members be notified. I am also requesting the SMHA and/or the SMHAB contact Elizabeth Cochran and Donna Brown to notify them that I am trying to contact them. Their sole purpose is to represent the recommendations of the entire RAB/ALL RAB members.

Additionally, It should be noted that RAB's have more function than to just review and agree or disagree with the SMHA's "redlined" revisions of the annual draft AP. RAB's can make policy change recommendations on any part of the more than 600 pages of the AP's. Below are the statements that were made in the email sent to me today from the SMHA regarding the comment period for the draft revisions of the AP:
"SMHA has proposed changes to its Administrative Plan, and the public comment period is open for Item 3.I
04/12/22
31 of 102 Item 3.I
04/12/22
feedback on those changes. As a member of the RAB, we welcome your thoughts on the proposed policy changes.

What’s Needed at This Time:

If you’d like to participate in the Administrative Plan process, please review the proposed policy revisions redlined in Chapters 17, 19, and 21 of the Administrative Plan, which is currently posted for public comment. Please provide your input by October 31, 2021. " Per HUD's regulations, RAB's can submit their own recommendations for policy revisions to the AP that are allowable, and are in compliance with HUD regulations (CFR Title 24) for the SMHA and SMHAB to take into consideration each year. Therefore, the statements made in the email sent to all RAB members are incorrect and misleading and is even more reason why the RAB needs to be an official board with Bylaws, its own elections, and the ability to meet regularly throughout the year to discuss possible revisions to be submitted annually.

The RAB is not to be influenced or controlled by either the SMHA or the SMHAB and should serve as a completely separate body to make recommendations for policy changes to the AP. SEE CFR Title 24 Section 903.13 below:
§ 903.13 What is a Resident Advisory Board and what is its role in development of the Annual Plan? (a) A Resident Advisory Board refers to a board or boards, as provided in paragraph (b) of this section, whose membership consists of individuals who adequately reflect and represent the residents assisted by the PHA.
(1) The role of the Resident Advisory Board (or Resident Advisory Boards) is to assist and make recommendations regarding the development of the PHA plan, and any significant amendment or modification to the PHA plan.
(2) The PHA shall allocate reasonable resources to assure the effective functioning of Resident Advisory Boards. Reasonable resources for the Resident Advisory Boards must provide reasonable means for them to become informed on programs covered by the PHA Plan, to communicate in writing and by telephone with assisted families and hold meetings with those families, and to access information regarding covered programs on the internet, taking into account the size and resources of the PHA. (b) Each PHA must establish one or more Resident Advisory Boards, as provided in paragraph (b) of this section.
(1) If a jurisdiction-wide resident council exists that complies with the tenant participation regulations in part 964 of this title, the PHA shall appoint the jurisdiction-wide resident council or the council's representatives as the Resident Advisory Board. If the PHA makes such appointment, the members of the jurisdiction-wide resident council or the council's representatives shall be added or another Resident Advisory Board formed to provide for reasonable representation of families receiving tenant-based assistance where such representation is required under paragraph (b)(2) of this section. (2) If a jurisdiction-wide resident council does not exist but resident councils exist that comply with the tenant participation regulations, the PHA shall appoint such resident councils or their representatives to serve on one or more Resident Advisory Boards. If the PHA makes such appointment, the PHA may require that the resident councils choose a limited number of representatives. (3) Where the PHA has a tenant-based assistance program of significant size (where tenant-based assistance is 20% or more of assisted households), the PHA shall assure that the Resident Advisory Board (or Boards) has reasonable representation of families receiving tenant-based assistance and that a reasonable process is undertaken to choose this representation. (4) Where or to the extent that resident councils that comply with the tenant participation regulations do not exist, the PHA shall appoint Resident Advisory Boards or Board members as needed to adequately reflect and represent the interests of residents of such developments; provided that the PHA shall provide reasonable notice to such residents and urge that they form resident councils with the tenant participation regulations.

Item 3.I
04/12/22
32 of 102 Item 3.I
04/12/22
(c) The PHA must consider the recommendations of the Resident Advisory Board or Boards in preparing the final Annual Plan, and any significant amendment or modification to the Annual Plan, as provided in § 903.21 of this title.
(1) In submitting the final plan to HUD for approval, or any significant amendment or modification to the plan to HUD for approval, the PHA must include a copy of the recommendations made by the Resident Advisory Board or Boards and a description of the manner in which the PHA addressed these recommendations. (2) Notwithstanding the 75-day limitation on HUD review, in response to a written request from a Resident Advisory Board claiming that the PHA failed to provide adequate notice and opportunity for comment, HUD may make a finding of good cause during the required time period and require the PHA to remedy the failure before final approval of the plan.

It is also the role of the SMHA to provide adequate training and outreach activities to ensure participation of the RAB members and how to make AP recommendations that comply with HUD regulations and guidelines. The SMHA and the SMHAB have not conducted the outreach or training and have not disseminated any materials to assist the RAB Representatives and members.

The SMHA and SMHAB have long held a closed-loop system subverting the voices of the population you all serve. The actions of the SMHA and the SMHAB could be considered non-compliance with the HUD contract and even discrimination. I suggest that the SMHA and the SMHAB begin to review HUD regulations regarding RAB's and Resident Councils (RC's) to ensure you are in compliance with the HUD contract, HUD regulations, and guidelines to avoid complaints being submitted to HUD and possibly a "finding" by HUD that "Notwithstanding the 75-day limitation on HUD review, in response to a written request from a Resident Advisory Board claiming that the PHA failed to provide adequate notice and opportunity for comment, HUD may make a finding of good cause during the required time period and require the PHA to remedy the failure before final approval of the plan."
I look forward to a complete response by one of the parties addressed in this email immediately. Please schedule the Zoom meeting for the RAB no later than next week and at a time that would be feasible for ALL RAB members to attend if they wish to participate. After the first meeting, the RAB representatives and members can agree on the scheduling of future meetings without assistance from the SMHA and the SMHAB.

Thanking you in advance for your immediate attention and response in this matter.

Very truly yours,
Theresa H. Marasco
(720) 226-4051
Powered by
cloudHQ
On Thu, Sep 9, 2021 at 5:02 PM Theresa Marasco <[email protected]> wrote:

Good afternoon Andy Agle, Anna Topolewski, James Kemper, and John Jalili:

Thank you Ann Topolewski for responding to the email that I sent to Andy Agle on August 26, 2021. I requested that Andy Agle respond no later than September 2, 2021. However, the response you sent to me on August 30, 2021, on behalf of Andy Agle, only provided me with the contact information for the newly appointed RAB members but you did not address the entirety of my request.

Andy Agle, Anna Topolewski, James Kemper, and John Jalili, beginning on August 6, 2021, I specifically requested the following:
"...I am calling for a Zoom meeting with the newly appointed RAB representatives to be scheduled as soon as conveniently possible and at least 30 days before the Administrative Plan is to be discussed by the Housing Authority Board. I am requesting that the Item 3.I
04/12/22
33 of 102 Item 3.I
04/12/22
SMHA provide the information about the Zoom meeting to all of the RAB members and/or Section 8 voucher holders once it is scheduled so everyone can have an opportunity to attend the meeting."
I have made this request several times yet NONE of you have ever responded to it. The fact that you all wield so much power to simply ignore the requests from subsidized tenants, requests that are a part of your mandates per your HUD contracts and HUD regulations, is very troubling. You are all paid a very handsome salary, with above average benefits, including a four day work week, so I do not understand why something so simple such as setting up a Zoom meeting with the RAB, to begin the process of discussing the proposed changes of the Annual and Administrative plans, and notifying all the Section 8 tenants about the meeting and providing them with a link to participate is so difficult.

September 16, 2021 is when the RAB/SMHAB will begin discussions about the above mentioned proposed changes. Please immediately schedule the requested Zoom meeting. Kindly schedule it at a time that will be convenient for the majority of Section 8 tenants to participate, preferably in the evening, and please notify ALL Section 8 tenants about the meeting, and encourage them to participate.

Again, the HUD guidelines below that I have included in my previous emails that mandates the SMHA and the SMHAB, comply with my request:
"PHA's Responsibility to the RAB
What are the PHAs' Responsibilities?
PHAs have the responsibility to ensure that the RAB can adequately serve its function including:

PHAs must give the RABs sufficient time to review and make recommendations on the Plan. RABs will be able to contribute best if they are provided with adequate information regarding the PHA's programs and the policies included in the Five-Year and Annual PHA Plan.

The PHAs should give RABs advance notice of meetings scheduled to discuss areas of the Plan (generally, at least 48 hours, or more depending on the meeting agenda).

RABs should also be provided with any existing documents that would assist them to make productive recommendations during the working meetings.

PHAs should provide the RABs with reasonable means to carry out their functions such as making available a meeting place for discussing programs with the residents. RABs should also have access to any other communication tools such as a telephone, writing material, or computers that may facilitate their contacts with other resident households or to obtain further information on the programs.

At what stage in the planning process must PHAs involve the RABs? The role of the RABs is to assist and make recommendations regarding the development of the PHA Plan and any significant amendments or modifications to it. RABs should be involved in the planning process as soon as it is feasible and must be given sufficient time to fully participate in the process so that they can carry out their proper role and provide representation that is meaningful and relevant to the development of the Plan. The PHA and the RAB should develop a reasonable timetable to promote participation, including adequate notice of meetings. To facilitate productive meetings, PHAs may do preliminary work prior to involving the RABs, such as gathering and compiling data and materials to help residents participate in the process, including some initial recommendations. A PHA must consider the recommendations of the RABs and make revisions to drafts or to the Plan which it deems appropriate." I have copied the newly appointed RAB/HAB members, Donna Brown and Elizabeth Cochran on this email thread so they may review the requests made, and the responses provided by the various City of SMHA staff, and the interim City Manager, John Jalili.

Thanking you in advance for your immediate attention and resolution to this matter.

Very truly yours,
Theresa H. Marasco
(720) 226-4051
Item 3.I
04/12/22
34 of 102 Item 3.I
04/12/22
Powered by
cloudHQ
On Mon, Aug 30, 2021, 3:40 PM Anna Topolewski <[email protected]> wrote:

Hi Theresa,
You can find information about the Housing Authority Board(HAB) members on the Housing Authority News & Notices page (link below). The most recent notice provides a link to the new HAB webpage. https://www.santamonica.gov/housing-news
Best,
Anna Topolewski
Senior Administrative Analyst
Santa Monica Housing Authority
Office: 310-458-8743 ext 2646 | Fax: 310-264-7757
A picture containing text, sign Description automatically generated From: Theresa Marasco <[email protected]>
Sent: Thursday, August 26, 2021 4:44 PM
To: Andy Agle <[email protected]>
Cc: Christopher J. Smith <[email protected]>; Setareh Yavari <Setareh.Yavari@santamonica. gov>; Denise Anderson-Warren <[email protected]>; Oscar de la Torre <[email protected]>; Santa Monica City Manager's Office <[email protected]>; [email protected]; Andy Agle <[email protected]>; James Kemper <[email protected]>; Ann Maggio <[email protected]>; oz <[email protected]>; Anna Topolewski <[email protected]>; [email protected]; Kristin McCowan <[email protected]>; Christine Parra <[email protected]>; Oscar de la Torre <[email protected]>; Phil Brock <[email protected]>; Gleam Davis <[email protected]>; Lana Negrete <[email protected]>; Richard Hilton <[email protected]>; Josh Hamilton <[email protected]>; Todd Flora <[email protected]>; [email protected]; Leonora Camner <Leonora.Camner@santamonica. gov>; Rene Buchanan <[email protected]>; Sue Himmelrich <suehimmelrich@suehimmelrich. net>; John Jalili <[email protected]>
Subject: Re: Please respond Re: Contact information for RAB appointees

EXTERNAL
Image removed by sender.

Good afternoon Andy Agle:

Item 3.I
04/12/22
35 of 102 Item 3.I
04/12/22
On August 17, 2021, you sent me an email in response to the email that I sent to City of SM interim City Manager, John Jalili, on August 6, 2021. I have copied and pasted the email I sent to John Jalili below and is highlighted in yellow. As you know and upon review of the copied and pasted email below to John Jalili, I have been requesting the contact information for the newly appointed RAB/HAB members, as well as a Zoom meeting that will allow all Section 8 voucher holders to participate in the first, official meeting with the newly appointed RAB/HAB members.

On Tuesday, August 17, 2021, 9 days ago, your response to me was the following:
"Staff has asked the Information Services Department to create City email addresses for the new HAB members. Once the addresses are established and the new members have been given instructions on accessing the email, their contact information will be posted on the City website." I sent an email to James Kemper on Wednesday, July 7, 2021 requesting contact information for the newly appointed RAB/HAB members. Mr. Kemper responded the same day stating the following:
"Regarding your question about the two tenant representatives appointed to the Housing Authority Board via lottery on June 29th, staff is still working out the logistics regarding the recent appointment of the two new Housing Authority Board members. We would appreciate your patience during this time.

I also wanted to note for your clarification that the Housing Authority Annual and Administrative Plans cycle occur in the winter/spring." As you can imagine I am baffled as to why there are so many people involved yet it is taking a very long time to set up simple emails and a Zoom conference call. It is becoming more than apparent that the more than 1,500 Section 8 voucher holders in this city are not a priority to the people who are paid to administer the program - the SMHA.

I have copied all of the SMHAB members/SMCC, the Housing Commission members and chair, James Kemper, and an array of City of Santa Monica staff, as well as several residents regarding the below requests. I am beyond frustrated and dismayed that all I have been provided are empty commitments, stonewalling, and no action. My requests are part of HUD's mandates. You and Mr. Kemper should be Item 3.I
04/12/22
36 of 102 Item 3.I
04/12/22
fully aware of that fact so I am not asking for anything outlandish, or unorthodox, or even difficult.

Please review my requests and information regarding HUD mandates below and kindly provide me with the information that I requested by September 2, 2021. 8/6/2021 email sent to City of SM interim City Manager, John Jalili below:

Good afternoon John Jalili:

I am writing to you in your position as the Interim Executive Director of the Santa Monica Housing Authority since Housing Program Manager James Kemper has not resolved this issue as the writing of this email.

I sent emails to James Kemper on July 2nd and July 7th regarding contact information for the Section 8 tenants representing the Resident Advisory Board (RAB) on the Santa Monica Housing Authority Board who were appointed through a lottery administered by Mr. Kemper on June 29, 2021. Mr. Kemper's response to me on July 7th was "staff is still working out the logistics regarding the recent appointment of the two new Housing Authority Board members." I have no idea what "logistics" the SMHA needs to work out in order to be able to notify the approximately 1,500 RAB members how they can contact the two individuals who are now representing them on the Santa Monica Housing Authority Board. The two people selected via the lottery are public officials now who volunteered and their names and contact info must be disclosed to the community they are supposed to represent, which is the RAB, and the general public.

For five weeks now the identity and contact information of the RAB representatives appointed to the Santa Monica Housing Authority Board via a lottery have been kept secret from the very community those individuals are supposed to represent.

Again, those individuals volunteered to become public officials. Their names must be disclosed to the general public as well, and the RAB must be able to communicate with them immediately.

Therefore, I am calling for a Zoom meeting with the newly appointed RAB representatives to be scheduled as soon as conveniently possible and at least 30 days before the Administrative Plan is to be discussed by the Housing Authority Board. I am requesting that the SMHA provide the information about the Zoom meeting to all of the RAB members and/or Section 8 voucher holders once it is scheduled so everyone can have an opportunity to attend the meeting.

The SMHA is required per HUD regulations to provide to the RAB the "space" to hold meetings. Due to Covid-19, I request that a Zoom meeting be arranged for with the possibility to listen in and participate on the Item 3.I
04/12/22
37 of 102 Item 3.I
04/12/22
phone for those who do not have access to the Internet.

It is the PHA's responsibility to facilitate the communication among RAB members in order for the RAB to be able to effectively discuss and provide feedback regarding the Administrative Plan. Additionally, since it is the first year the newly formed RAB has included all Section 8 tenants, the RAB must be given an opportunity to communicate in order to organize, e.g. come up with its bylaws, etc.

Please see excerpts from HUD below: (hyperlink to HUD mandate re: RAB) "Encouraging Participation in the RAB
The PHA provides adequate information to all residents regarding the RAB. The PHA should inform residents of the purpose and role of the RAB, as well as practical information such as the time commitment required. The PHA should make clear to residents and Section 8 participants that the partnership between the residents and the PHA is of benefit to both parties. The residents are provided with an opportunity to voice their concerns so that their needs are addressed and they can become involved in the planning process. The PHA also gains essential information from the residents about the improvements that need to be made at the agency's developments and residents' self-sufficiency needs. This information helps the PHA to set priorities for capital improvements and advises resident services programming.

PHA's Responsibility to the RAB
What are the PHAs' Responsibilities?
PHAs have the responsibility to ensure that the RAB can adequately serve its function including:

PHAs must give the RABs sufficient time to review and make recommendations on the Plan. RABs will be able to contribute best if they are provided with adequate information regarding the PHA's programs and the policies included in the FiveYear and Annual PHA Plan.

The PHAs should give RABs advance notice of meetings scheduled to discuss areas of the Plan (generally, at least 48 hours, or more depending on the meeting agenda).

RABs should also be provided with any existing documents that would assist them to make productive recommendations during the working meetings.

PHAs should provide the RABs with reasonable means to carry out their functions such as making available a meeting place for discussing programs with the residents. RABs should also have access to any other communication tools such as a telephone, writing material, or computers that may facilitate their contacts with other resident households or to obtain further information on the programs.

At what stage in the planning process must PHAs involve the RABs? The role of the RABs is to assist and make recommendations regarding the development of the PHA Plan and any significant amendments or modifications to it. RABs should be involved in the planning process as soon as it is feasible and must be given sufficient time to fully participate in the process so that they can carry out their proper role and provide representation that is meaningful and Item 3.I
04/12/22
38 of 102 Item 3.I
04/12/22
relevant to the development of the Plan. The PHA and the RAB should develop a reasonable timetable to promote participation, including adequate notice of meetings. To facilitate productive meetings, PHAs may do preliminary work prior to involving the RABs, such as gathering and compiling data and materials to help residents participate in the process, including some initial recommendations. A PHA must consider the recommendations of the RABs and make revisions to drafts or to the Plan which it deems appropriate.

Thanking you in advance for your immediate attention and response to this matter by next Thursday, September 2, 2021.

Very truly yours,
Theresa H. Marasco
(720) 226-4051
Image
removed
by
sender.
cloudHQ
Powered by
cloudHQ
On Tue, Aug 17, 2021 at 11:18 AM Andy Agle <[email protected]> wrote:

Staff has asked the Information Services Department to create City email addresses for the new HAB members.

Once the addresses are established and the new members have been given instructions on accessing the email, their contact information will be posted on the City website.

From: John Jalili <[email protected]>
Sent: Friday, August 13, 2021 5:46 PM
To: Theresa Marasco <[email protected]>
Cc: Andy Agle <[email protected]>; James Kemper <[email protected]>; Christopher J. Smith <[email protected]> Subject: RE: Please respond Re: Contact information for RAB appointees Dear Ms. Marasco,
You have reached me on a closed Friday and I am not able to reach out to Mr. Kemper and his supervisor, Andy Agle until next week. I have complete confidence in our staff and suggest you continue to work with them to resolve your issues. Thanks.

Item 3.I
04/12/22
39 of 102 Item 3.I
04/12/22
From: Theresa Marasco <[email protected]>
Sent: Friday, August 13, 2021 4:30 PM
To: John Jalili <[email protected]>; Santa Monica City Manager's Office <[email protected]>
Cc: Sue Himmelrich <[email protected]>; [email protected]; Andy Agle <[email protected]>; James Kemper <[email protected]>; Ann Maggio <[email protected]>; oz <[email protected]>; Anna Topolewski <Anna.Topolewski@santamonica. gov>; [email protected]; Kristin McCowan <[email protected]>; Christine Parra <[email protected]>; Oscar de la Torre <[email protected]>; Phil Brock <[email protected]>; Gleam Davis <[email protected]>; Lana Negrete <[email protected]>; Richard Hilton <[email protected]>; Josh Hamilton <[email protected]>; Todd Flora <[email protected]>; [email protected]; Leonora Camner <[email protected]>; Rene Buchanan <[email protected]> Subject: Re: Please respond Re: Contact information for RAB appointees

EXTERNAL
Good afternoon Mr. Jalili:

Please provide me with a material response to my email of 8/6/21 (enclosed).

When responding to that email on 8/6/21 you did not use "reply all,” which is why I have cut, pasted, and highlighted your insufficient response below:

Hello Ms. Marasco:

Thank you for alerting me about your concerns.

I was not "alerting" you, I was requesting that you provide me with the answers to my requests.

My email to you on 8/6/2021 specifically requested that SMHA organize a Zoom meeting for the RAB to be able to meet and communicate with the two individuals who are supposed to represent the RAB on the SMHA Board.

The whole reason for the RAB is to give Section 8 voucher holders a voice and to have RAB representatives on the SMHAB who can speak on our behalf during SMHAB meetings. How can the representatives on the SMHAB represent the RAB if the RAB is deprived of the opportunity to contact snd communicate with its own representatives?
I realize this is a new concept for the City of SM with regard to giving Section 8 voucher holders a voice even though it has been required by federal regulations for decades. It certainly doesn't take months to give the new appointees and the voucher holders a way to communicate and organize a Zoom meeting for them.

I requested that an answer be provided to me by 8/11/2021. Today is 8/13.2021. You are a public official and you have a duty to resolve issues such as the ones I have brought to your attention and requested assistance in Item 3.I
04/12/22
40 of 102 Item 3.I
04/12/22
resolving. I have asked you for your assistance in resolving this matter because the other public officials such as Mr. Kemper and others who have been copied on my emails, whose job it is to resolve this issue, have not done so as of the writing of this email even though I have requested the same of them.

Your position with the City is the Interim City Manager. You are also the Interim Executive Director of the SMHA. You are paid to assist residents in this city with the problems and issues we face. I do not get paid to send endless emails that seem to go nowhere in this city. I have complained about the lack of response by the SMHA and other departments in the city many times but still, no change has come about.

This is dysfunctional and unacceptable for the residents. As a resident I should not be put in a position where I have to consider contacting my senator or congressman to resolve a local issue regarding a federal program administered within the City of Santa Monica.

I await your material response to my 8/6/21 email. Please provide it at your earliest convenience.

Image removed by sender.

Very truly yours,
Theresa H. Marasco
(720) 226-4051
Image
removed
by
sender.
cloudHQ
Powered by
cloudHQ
On Fri, Aug 6, 2021 at 4:00 PM Theresa Marasco <[email protected]> wrote:

Error! Filename not specified.

Good afternoon John Jalili:

I am writing to you in your position as the Interim Executive Director of the Santa Monica Housing Authority since Housing Program Manager James Kemper has not resolved this issue as the writing of this email.

I sent emails to James Kemper on July 2nd and July 7th regarding contact information for the Section 8 tenants representing the Resident Advisory Board Item 3.I
04/12/22
41 of 102 Item 3.I
04/12/22
(RAB) on the Santa Monica Housing Authority Board who were appointed through a lottery administered by Mr. Kemper on June 29, 2021. Mr. Kemper's response to me on July 7th was "staff is still working out the logistics regarding the recent appointment of the two new Housing Authority Board members."
I have no idea what "logistics" the SMHA needs to work out in order to be able to notify the approximately 1,500 RAB members how they can contact the two individuals who are now representing them on the Santa Monica Housing Authority Board. The two people selected via the lottery are public officials now who volunteered and their names and contact info must be disclosed to the community they are supposed to represent, which is the RAB, and the general public.

For five weeks now the identity and contact information of the RAB representatives appointed to the Santa Monica Housing Authority Board via a lottery have been kept secret from the very community those individuals are supposed to represent. Again, those individuals volunteered to become public officials. Their names must be disclosed to the general public as well, and the RAB must be able to communicate with them immediately.

Therefore, I am calling for a Zoom meeting with the newly appointed RAB representatives to be scheduled as soon as conveniently possible and at least 30 days before the Administrative Plan is to be discussed by the Housing Authority Board. I am requesting that the SMHA provide the information about the Zoom meeting to all of the RAB members and/or Section 8 voucher holders once it is scheduled so everyone can have an opportunity to attend the meeting.

The SMHA is required per HUD regulations to provide to the RAB the "space" to hold meetings. Due to Covid-19, I request that a Zoom meeting be arranged for with the possibility to listen in and participate on the phone for those who do not have access to the Internet.

It is the PHA's responsibility to facilitate the communication among RAB members in order for the RAB to be able to effectively discuss and provide feedback regarding the Administrative Plan. Additionally, since it is the first year the newly formed RAB has included all Section 8 tenants, the RAB must be given an opportunity to communicate in order to organize, e.g. come up with its bylaws, etc.

Please see excerpts from HUD below:
"Encouraging Participation in the RAB
The PHA provide adequate information to all residents regarding the RAB. The PHA should inform residents of the purpose and role of the RAB, as well as practical information such as the time commitment required. The PHA should make clear to residents and Section 8 participants that the partnership between the residents and the PHA is of benefit to both parties. The residents are provided with an opportunity to voice their concerns so that their needs are Item 3.I
04/12/22
42 of 102 Item 3.I
04/12/22
addressed and they can become involved in the planning process. The PHA also gains essential information from the residents about the improvements that need to be made at the agency's developments and residents' self-sufficiency needs. This information helps the PHA to set priorities for capital improvements and advises resident services programming.

PHA's Responsibility to the RAB
What are the PHAs' Responsibilities?
PHAs have the responsibility to ensure that the RAB can adequately serve its function including:

PHAs must give the RABs sufficient time to review and make recommendations on the Plan. RABs will be able to contribute best if they are provided with adequate information regarding the PHA's programs and the policies included in the Five-Year and Annual PHA Plan.

The PHAs should give RABs advance notice of meetings scheduled to discuss areas of the Plan (generally, at least 48 hours, or more depending on the meeting agenda).

RABs should also be provided with any existing documents that would assist them to make productive recommendations during the working meetings.

PHAs should provide the RABs with reasonable means to carry out their functions such as making available a meeting place for discussing programs with the residents. RABs should also have access to any other communication tools such as a telephone, writing material, or computers that may facilitate their contacts with other resident households or to obtain further information on the programs.

At what stage in the planning process must PHAs involve the RABs? The role of the RABs is to assist and make recommendations regarding the development of the PHA Plan and any significant amendments or modifications to it. RABs should be involved in the planning process as soon as it is feasible and must be given sufficient time to fully participate in the process so that they can carry out their proper role and provide representation that is meaningful and relevant to the development of the Plan. The PHA and the RAB should develop a reasonable timetable to promote participation, including adequate notice of meetings. To facilitate productive meetings, PHAs may do preliminary work prior to involving the RABs, such as gathering and compiling data and materials to help residents participate in the process, including some initial recommendations. A PHA must consider the recommendations of the RABs and make revisions to drafts or to the Plan which it deems appropriate.

Please respond by 5 pm on Wednesday, August 11, 2021. I look forward to your reply.

Thank you.

Very truly yours,
Item 3.I
04/12/22
43 of 102 Item 3.I
04/12/22
Theresa H. Marasco
(720) 226-4051
Image
removed
by
sender.
cloudHQ
Powered by
...
[Message clipped] View entire message
6 attachments
Re: Please respond Re: Contact information for RAB appointees.eml 284K
item 14 - Fw: A California Bar complaint is about to be filed against you.eml 34K
Cease And Desist - Remove Lobbyists and Adhere to Nepotisim Ban for Commissions NOW.eml 24K
Legality of reason to reschedule HC meeting.eml
114K
Admin Plan Comment Period Notice to RAB.docx
64K
Admin Plan Comment Period Notice to Voucher Holders.docx 63K
Theresa Marasco <[email protected]> Thu, Sep 23, 2021 at 12:42 PM To: oz <[email protected]>, Ann Maggio <[email protected]> What is this BS??
[Quoted text hidden]
---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Theresa Marasco <[email protected]>
To: Andy Agle <[email protected]>, Anna Topolewski <[email protected]>, James Kemper <[email protected]>, Oscar de la Torre <[email protected]>, Christine Parra <[email protected]>, Phil Brock <[email protected]>, Kristin McCowan <[email protected]>, Gleam Davis <[email protected]>, Lana Negrete <[email protected]>, Sue Himmelrich <[email protected]>, Donna Brown <[email protected]>, Elizabeth Cochran <[email protected]>, John Jalili <[email protected]>
Cc: "Santa Monica City Manager's Office" <[email protected]>, "[email protected]" <[email protected]>, Ann Maggio <[email protected]>, oz <[email protected]>, "[email protected]" <[email protected]>, Richard Hilton <[email protected]>, Josh Hamilton <[email protected]>, Todd Flora <[email protected]>, "[email protected]" <[email protected]>, Leonora Camner <[email protected]>, Rene Buchanan <[email protected]>, "[email protected]" <[email protected]>, "George S.

Cardona" <[email protected]>
Bcc:

Date: Fri, 17 Sep 2021 23:55:29 +0000
Subject: Re: Please respond Re: Contact information for RAB appointees

EXTERNAL
Item 3.I
04/12/22
44 of 102 Item 3.I
04/12/22
Good afternoon John Jalili, Andy Agle, Anna Topolewski, James Kemper, the Santa Monica Housing Authority Board, and RAB Representatives:

As you all know, I have been actively trying to communicate and engage with the newly appointed RAB representatives since July 7, 2021, which was one week after the RAB representatives were appointed, in an effort to ensure that the RAB representatives give ALL Housing Choice Voucher (HCV) holders a voice in the drafting of revisions to the Annual and Administrative Plan (AP) process.

As of today, September 17, 2021, more than 3 months since I first contacted you all about engaging with the RAB representatives, I have not been able to communicate with either Donna Brown or Elizabeth Cochran, who are the current RAB representatives. The Santa Monica Housing Authority (SMHA) barely contacted me two weeks ago with the email addresses of the RAB representatives, Elizabeth Cochran and Donna Brown even though they were appointed on June 29, 2021.

Since receiving the RAB representative email addresses, I have copied them on the emails that I sent to everyone addressed in this email requesting that the SMHA and the Santa Monica Housing Authority Board (SMHAB} set up a Zoom meeting for the RAB to give all RAB members/HCV a chance to discuss the draft AP. Additionally, I have tried contacting each of the RAB representatives by email but they have been unresponsive as of the writing of this email.

To date, NONE of you have ever responded to my request to schedule a Zoom meeting and to notify all HCV holders about the meeting so everyone has a chance to ACTUALLY participate in a meaningful way and as is designed by HUD.

Even though a RAB has always been required per HUD regulations, the SMHA and the SMHAB have failed to meet this requirement since the time that the City of Santa Monica created a Housing Authority. If it had not been for the diligence and hard work of Olga Zurawska over the last two years to force the hand of the SMHA and the SMHAB to create the RAB, it would have never been done.

As pointed out in the email I received today from the SMHA regarding the comment period for the draft Administrative Plan, the SMHA officially, for the first time ever, notified HCV holders in March of this year that HCV holders are "automatically" RAB members.

The fact is, any resident of Santa Monica has the opportunity to attempt to participate in the drafting of the AP by submitting public comment. However, without having an official functional RAB, that is comprised solely of HCV holders to discuss and carry forward the policy reccomendations for the draft of the AP, it has been pointless to submit comments. It is a well-known fact that the SMHA and SMHAB never take any of the public comments into consideration. The comment period literally only serves as something the SMHA and SMHAB check off of their list as a requirement you all complied with. At the 4/27/21 SMHAB meeting James Kemper confirmed that the SMHAB’s role is merely to rubber stamp the AP that SMHA staff puts before them.

Today is the first day of the 45 day comment period regarding the Annual and Administrative Plans. Again, I am requesting a Zoom meeting be scheduled with the newly appointed RAB representatives and that ALL RAB members be notified. I am also requesting the SMHA and/or the SMHAB contact Elizabeth Cochran and Donna Brown to notify them that I am trying to contact them. Their sole purpose is to represent the recommendations of the entire RAB/ALL RAB members.

Additionally, It should be noted that RAB's have more function than to just review and agree or disagree with the SMHA's "redlined" revisions of the annual draft AP. RAB's can make policy change recommendations on any part of the more than 600 pages of the AP's. Below are the statements that were made in the email sent to me today from the SMHA regarding the comment period for the draft revisions of the AP:
"SMHA has proposed changes to its Administrative Plan, and the public comment period is open for feedback on those changes. As a member of the RAB, we welcome your thoughts on the proposed policy changes.

What’s Needed at This Time:

Item 3.I
04/12/22
45 of 102 Item 3.I
04/12/22
If you’d like to participate in the Administrative Plan process, please review the proposed policy revisions redlined in Chapters 17, 19, and 21 of the Administrative Plan, which is currently posted for public comment. Please provide your input by October 31, 2021. " Per HUD's regulations, RAB's can submit their own recommendations for policy revisions to the AP that are allowable, and are in compliance with HUD regulations (CFR Title 24) for the SMHA and SMHAB to take into consideration each year. Therefore, the statements made in the email sent to all RAB members are incorrect and misleading and is even more reason why the RAB needs to be an official board with Bylaws, its own elections, and the ability to meet regularly throughout the year to discuss possible revisions to be submitted annually.

The RAB is not to be influenced or controlled by either the SMHA or the SMHAB and should serve as a completely separate body to make recommendations for policy changes to the AP. SEE CFR Title 24 Section 903.13 below:
§ 903.13 What is a Resident Advisory Board and what is its role in development of the Annual Plan? (a) A Resident Advisory Board refers to a board or boards, as provided in paragraph (b) of this section, whose membership consists of individuals who adequately reflect and represent the residents assisted by the PHA.
(1) The role of the Resident Advisory Board (or Resident Advisory Boards) is to assist and make recommendations regarding the development of the PHA plan, and any significant amendment or modification to the PHA plan.
(2) The PHA shall allocate reasonable resources to assure the effective functioning of Resident Advisory Boards. Reasonable resources for the Resident Advisory Boards must provide reasonable means for them to become informed on programs covered by the PHA Plan, to communicate in writing and by telephone with assisted families and hold meetings with those families, and to access information regarding covered programs on the internet, taking into account the size and resources of the PHA. (b) Each PHA must establish one or more Resident Advisory Boards, as provided in paragraph (b) of this section.
(1) If a jurisdiction-wide resident council exists that complies with the tenant participation regulations in part 964 of this title, the PHA shall appoint the jurisdiction-wide resident council or the council's representatives as the Resident Advisory Board. If the PHA makes such appointment, the members of the jurisdiction-wide resident council or the council's representatives shall be added or another Resident Advisory Board formed to provide for reasonable representation of families receiving tenant-based assistance where such representation is required under paragraph (b)(2) of this section. (2) If a jurisdiction-wide resident council does not exist but resident councils exist that comply with the tenant participation regulations, the PHA shall appoint such resident councils or their representatives to serve on one or more Resident Advisory Boards. If the PHA makes such appointment, the PHA may require that the resident councils choose a limited number of representatives. (3) Where the PHA has a tenant-based assistance program of significant size (where tenant-based assistance is 20% or more of assisted households), the PHA shall assure that the Resident Advisory Board (or Boards) has reasonable representation of families receiving tenant-based assistance and that a reasonable process is undertaken to choose this representation. (4) Where or to the extent that resident councils that comply with the tenant participation regulations do not exist, the PHA shall appoint Resident Advisory Boards or Board members as needed to adequately reflect and represent the interests of residents of such developments; provided that the PHA shall provide reasonable notice to such residents and urge that they form resident councils with the tenant participation regulations.
(c) The PHA must consider the recommendations of the Resident Advisory Board or Boards in preparing the final Annual Plan, and any significant amendment or modification to the Annual Plan, as provided in § 903.21 of this title.
(1) In submitting the final plan to HUD for approval, or any significant amendment or Item 3.I
04/12/22
46 of 102 Item 3.I
04/12/22
modification to the plan to HUD for approval, the PHA must include a copy of the recommendations made by the Resident Advisory Board or Boards and a description of the manner in which the PHA addressed these recommendations. (2) Notwithstanding the 75-day limitation on HUD review, in response to a written request from a Resident Advisory Board claiming that the PHA failed to provide adequate notice and opportunity for comment, HUD may make a finding of good cause during the required time period and require the PHA to remedy the failure before final approval of the plan.

It is also the role of the SMHA to provide adequate training and outreach activities to ensure participation of the RAB members and how to make AP recommendations that comply with HUD regulations and guidelines. The SMHA and the SMHAB have not conducted the outreach or training and have not disseminated any materials to assist the RAB Representatives and members.

The SMHA and SMHAB have long held a closed-loop system subverting the voices of the population you all serve. The actions of the SMHA and the SMHAB could be considered non-compliance with the HUD contract and even discrimination. I suggest that the SMHA and the SMHAB begin to review HUD regulations regarding RAB's and Resident Councils (RC's) to ensure you are in compliance with the HUD contract, HUD regulations, and guidelines to avoid complaints being submitted to HUD and possibly a "finding" by HUD that "Notwithstanding the 75-day limitation on HUD review, in response to a written request from a Resident Advisory Board claiming that the PHA failed to provide adequate notice and opportunity for comment, HUD may make a finding of good cause during the required time period and require the PHA to remedy the failure before final approval of the plan."
I look forward to a complete response by one of the parties addressed in this email immediately. Please schedule the Zoom meeting for the RAB no later than next week and at a time that would be feasible for ALL RAB members to attend if they wish to participate. After the first meeting, the RAB representatives and members can agree on the scheduling of future meetings without assistance from the SMHA and the SMHAB.

Thanking you in advance for your immediate attention and response in this matter.

Very truly yours,
Theresa H. Marasco
(720) 226-4051
Powered by
cloudHQ
On Thu, Sep 9, 2021 at 5:02 PM Theresa Marasco <[email protected]> wrote:

Good afternoon Andy Agle, Anna Topolewski, James Kemper, and John Jalili:

Thank you Ann Topolewski for responding to the email that I sent to Andy Agle on August 26, 2021. I requested that Andy Agle respond no later than September 2, 2021. However, the response you sent to me on August 30, 2021, on behalf of Andy Agle, only provided me with the contact information for the newly appointed RAB members but you did not address the entirety of my request.

Andy Agle, Anna Topolewski, James Kemper, and John Jalili, beginning on August 6, 2021, I specifically requested the following:
"...I am calling for a Zoom meeting with the newly appointed RAB representatives to be scheduled as soon as conveniently possible and at least 30 days before the Administrative Plan is to be discussed by the Housing Authority Board. I am requesting that the SMHA provide the information about the Zoom meeting to all of the RAB members and/or Section 8 voucher holders once it is scheduled so everyone can have an opportunity to attend the meeting."
Item 3.I
04/12/22
47 of 102 Item 3.I
04/12/22
I have made this request several times yet NONE of you have ever responded to it. The fact that you all wield so much power to simply ignore the requests from subsidized tenants, requests that are a part of your mandates per your HUD contracts and HUD regulations, is very troubling. You are all paid a very handsome salary, with above average benefits, including a four day work week, so I do not understand why something so simple such as setting up a Zoom meeting with the RAB, to begin the process of discussing the proposed changes of the Annual and Administrative plans, and notifying all the Section 8 tenants about the meeting and providing them with a link to participate is so difficult.

September 16, 2021 is when the RAB/SMHAB will begin discussions about the above mentioned proposed changes. Please immediately schedule the requested Zoom meeting. Kindly schedule it at a time that will be convenient for the majority of Section 8 tenants to participate, preferably in the evening, and please notify ALL Section 8 tenants about the meeting, and encourage them to participate.

Again, the HUD guidelines below that I have included in my previous emails that mandates the SMHA and the SMHAB, comply with my request:
"PHA's Responsibility to the RAB
What are the PHAs' Responsibilities?
PHAs have the responsibility to ensure that the RAB can adequately serve its function including:

PHAs must give the RABs sufficient time to review and make recommendations on the Plan. RABs will be able to contribute best if they are provided with adequate information regarding the PHA's programs and the policies included in the Five-Year and Annual PHA Plan.

The PHAs should give RABs advance notice of meetings scheduled to discuss areas of the Plan (generally, at least 48 hours, or more depending on the meeting agenda).

RABs should also be provided with any existing documents that would assist them to make productive recommendations during the working meetings.

PHAs should provide the RABs with reasonable means to carry out their functions such as making available a meeting place for discussing programs with the residents. RABs should also have access to any other communication tools such as a telephone, writing material, or computers that may facilitate their contacts with other resident households or to obtain further information on the programs.

At what stage in the planning process must PHAs involve the RABs? The role of the RABs is to assist and make recommendations regarding the development of the PHA Plan and any significant amendments or modifications to it. RABs should be involved in the planning process as soon as it is feasible and must be given sufficient time to fully participate in the process so that they can carry out their proper role and provide representation that is meaningful and relevant to the development of the Plan. The PHA and the RAB should develop a reasonable timetable to promote participation, including adequate notice of meetings. To facilitate productive meetings, PHAs may do preliminary work prior to involving the RABs, such as gathering and compiling data and materials to help residents participate in the process, including some initial recommendations. A PHA must consider the recommendations of the RABs and make revisions to drafts or to the Plan which it deems appropriate." I have copied the newly appointed RAB/HAB members, Donna Brown and Elizabeth Cochran on this email thread so they may review the requests made, and the responses provided by the various City of SMHA staff, and the interim City Manager, John Jalili.

Thanking you in advance for your immediate attention and resolution to this matter.

Very truly yours,
Theresa H. Marasco
(720) 226-4051
Powered by
cloudHQ
Item 3.I
04/12/22
48 of 102 Item 3.I
04/12/22
On Mon, Aug 30, 2021, 3:40 PM Anna Topolewski <[email protected]> wrote:

Hi Theresa,
You can find information about the Housing Authority Board(HAB) members on the Housing Authority News & Notices page (link below). The most recent notice provides a link to the new HAB webpage. https://www.santamonica.gov/housing-news
Best,
Anna Topolewski
Senior Administrative Analyst
Santa Monica Housing Authority
Office: 310-458-8743 ext 2646 | Fax: 310-264-7757
A picture containing text, sign Description automatically generated From: Theresa Marasco <[email protected]>
Sent: Thursday, August 26, 2021 4:44 PM
To: Andy Agle <[email protected]>
Cc: Christopher J. Smith <[email protected]>; Setareh Yavari <Setareh.Yavari@santamonica. gov>; Denise Anderson-Warren <[email protected]>; Oscar de la Torre <[email protected]>; Santa Monica City Manager's Office <[email protected]>; [email protected]; Andy Agle <[email protected]>; James Kemper <[email protected]>; Ann Maggio <[email protected]>; oz <[email protected]>; Anna Topolewski <[email protected]>; [email protected]; Kristin McCowan <[email protected]>; Christine Parra <[email protected]>; Oscar de la Torre <[email protected]>; Phil Brock <[email protected]>; Gleam Davis <[email protected]>; Lana Negrete <[email protected]>; Richard Hilton <[email protected]>; Josh Hamilton <[email protected]>; Todd Flora <[email protected]>; [email protected]; Leonora Camner <Leonora.Camner@santamonica. gov>; Rene Buchanan <[email protected]>; Sue Himmelrich <suehimmelrich@suehimmelrich. net>; John Jalili <[email protected]>
Subject: Re: Please respond Re: Contact information for RAB appointees

EXTERNAL
Image removed by sender.

Good afternoon Andy Agle:

Item 3.I
04/12/22
49 of 102 Item 3.I
04/12/22
On August 17, 2021, you sent me an email in response to the email that I sent to City of SM interim City Manager, John Jalili, on August 6, 2021. I have copied and pasted the email I sent to John Jalili below and is highlighted in yellow. As you know and upon review of the copied and pasted email below to John Jalili, I have been requesting the contact information for the newly appointed RAB/HAB members, as well as a Zoom meeting that will allow all Section 8 voucher holders to participate in the first, official meeting with the newly appointed RAB/HAB members.

On Tuesday, August 17, 2021, 9 days ago, your response to me was the following:
"Staff has asked the Information Services Department to create City email addresses for the new HAB members. Once the addresses are established and the new members have been given instructions on accessing the email, their contact information will be posted on the City website." I sent an email to James Kemper on Wednesday, July 7, 2021 requesting contact information for the newly appointed RAB/HAB members. Mr. Kemper responded the same day stating the following:
"Regarding your question about the two tenant representatives appointed to the Housing Authority Board via lottery on June 29th, staff is still working out the logistics regarding the recent appointment of the two new Housing Authority Board members. We would appreciate your patience during this time.

I also wanted to note for your clarification that the Housing Authority Annual and Administrative Plans cycle occur in the winter/spring." As you can imagine I am baffled as to why there are so many people involved yet it is taking a very long time to set up simple emails and a Zoom conference call. It is becoming more than apparent that the more than 1,500 Section 8 voucher holders in this city are not a priority to the people who are paid to administer the program - the SMHA.

I have copied all of the SMHAB members/SMCC, the Housing Commission members and chair, James Kemper, and an array of City of Santa Monica staff, as well as several residents regarding the below requests. I am beyond frustrated and dismayed that all I have been provided are empty commitments, stonewalling, and no action. My requests are part of HUD's mandates. You and Mr. Kemper should be fully aware of that fact so I am not asking for anything outlandish, or unorthodox, or even difficult.

Item 3.I
04/12/22
50 of 102 Item 3.I
04/12/22
Please review my requests and information regarding HUD mandates below and kindly provide me with the information that I requested by September 2, 2021. 8/6/2021 email sent to City of SM interim City Manager, John Jalili below:

Good afternoon John Jalili:

I am writing to you in your position as the Interim Executive Director of the Santa Monica Housing Authority since Housing Program Manager James Kemper has not resolved this issue as the writing of this email.

I sent emails to James Kemper on July 2nd and July 7th regarding contact information for the Section 8 tenants representing the Resident Advisory Board (RAB) on the Santa Monica Housing Authority Board who were appointed through a lottery administered by Mr. Kemper on June 29, 2021. Mr. Kemper's response to me on July 7th was "staff is still working out the logistics regarding the recent appointment of the two new Housing Authority Board members." I have no idea what "logistics" the SMHA needs to work out in order to be able to notify the approximately 1,500 RAB members how they can contact the two individuals who are now representing them on the Santa Monica Housing Authority Board. The two people selected via the lottery are public officials now who volunteered and their names and contact info must be disclosed to the community they are supposed to represent, which is the RAB, and the general public.

For five weeks now the identity and contact information of the RAB representatives appointed to the Santa Monica Housing Authority Board via a lottery have been kept secret from the very community those individuals are supposed to represent.

Again, those individuals volunteered to become public officials. Their names must be disclosed to the general public as well, and the RAB must be able to communicate with them immediately.

Therefore, I am calling for a Zoom meeting with the newly appointed RAB representatives to be scheduled as soon as conveniently possible and at least 30 days before the Administrative Plan is to be discussed by the Housing Authority Board. I am requesting that the SMHA provide the information about the Zoom meeting to all of the RAB members and/or Section 8 voucher holders once it is scheduled so everyone can have an opportunity to attend the meeting.

The SMHA is required per HUD regulations to provide to the RAB the "space" to hold meetings. Due to Covid-19, I request that a Zoom meeting be arranged for with the possibility to listen in and participate on the phone for those who do not have access to the Internet.

It is the PHA's responsibility to facilitate the communication among RAB members Item 3.I
04/12/22
51 of 102 Item 3.I
04/12/22
in order for the RAB to be able to effectively discuss and provide feedback regarding the Administrative Plan. Additionally, since it is the first year the newly formed RAB has included all Section 8 tenants, the RAB must be given an opportunity to communicate in order to organize, e.g. come up with its bylaws, etc.

Please see excerpts from HUD below: (hyperlink to HUD mandate re: RAB) "Encouraging Participation in the RAB
The PHA provides adequate information to all residents regarding the RAB. The PHA should inform residents of the purpose and role of the RAB, as well as practical information such as the time commitment required. The PHA should make clear to residents and Section 8 participants that the partnership between the residents and the PHA is of benefit to both parties. The residents are provided with an opportunity to voice their concerns so that their needs are addressed and they can become involved in the planning process. The PHA also gains essential information from the residents about the improvements that need to be made at the agency's developments and residents' self-sufficiency needs. This information helps the PHA to set priorities for capital improvements and advises resident services programming.

PHA's Responsibility to the RAB
What are the PHAs' Responsibilities?
PHAs have the responsibility to ensure that the RAB can adequately serve its function including:

PHAs must give the RABs sufficient time to review and make recommendations on the Plan. RABs will be able to contribute best if they are provided with adequate information regarding the PHA's programs and the policies included in the FiveYear and Annual PHA Plan.

The PHAs should give RABs advance notice of meetings scheduled to discuss areas of the Plan (generally, at least 48 hours, or more depending on the meeting agenda).

RABs should also be provided with any existing documents that would assist them to make productive recommendations during the working meetings.

PHAs should provide the RABs with reasonable means to carry out their functions such as making available a meeting place for discussing programs with the residents. RABs should also have access to any other communication tools such as a telephone, writing material, or computers that may facilitate their contacts with other resident households or to obtain further information on the programs.

At what stage in the planning process must PHAs involve the RABs? The role of the RABs is to assist and make recommendations regarding the development of the PHA Plan and any significant amendments or modifications to it. RABs should be involved in the planning process as soon as it is feasible and must be given sufficient time to fully participate in the process so that they can carry out their proper role and provide representation that is meaningful and relevant to the development of the Plan. The PHA and the RAB should develop a reasonable timetable to promote participation, including adequate notice of meetings. To facilitate productive meetings, PHAs may do preliminary work prior to Item 3.I
04/12/22
52 of 102 Item 3.I
04/12/22
involving the RABs, such as gathering and compiling data and materials to help residents participate in the process, including some initial recommendations. A PHA must consider the recommendations of the RABs and make revisions to drafts or to the Plan which it deems appropriate.

Thanking you in ad
---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Theresa Marasco <[email protected]>
To: Andy Agle <[email protected]>, Anna Topolewski <[email protected]>, James Kemper <[email protected]>, Oscar de la Torre <[email protected]>, Christine Parra <[email protected]>, Phil Brock <[email protected]>, Kristin McCowan <[email protected]>, Gleam Davis <[email protected]>, Lana Negrete <[email protected]>, Sue Himmelrich <[email protected]>, Donna Brown <[email protected]>, Elizabeth Cochran <[email protected]>, John Jalili <[email protected]>
Cc: "Santa Monica City Manager's Office" <[email protected]>, "[email protected]" <[email protected]>, Ann Maggio <[email protected]>, oz <[email protected]>, "[email protected]" <[email protected]>, Richard Hilton <[email protected]>, Josh Hamilton <[email protected]>, Todd Flora <[email protected]>, "[email protected]" <[email protected]>, Leonora Camner <[email protected]>, Rene Buchanan <[email protected]>, "[email protected]" <[email protected]>, "George S.

Cardona" <[email protected]>
Bcc:

Date: Fri, 17 Sep 2021 23:55:29 +0000
Subject: Re: Please respond Re: Contact information for RAB appointees

EXTERNAL
Good afternoon John Jalili, Andy Agle, Anna Topolewski, James Kemper, the Santa Monica Housing Authority Board, and RAB Representatives:

As you all know, I have been actively trying to communicate and engage with the newly appointed RAB representatives since July 7, 2021, which was one week after the RAB representatives were appointed, in an effort to ensure that the RAB representatives give ALL Housing Choice Voucher (HCV) holders a voice in the drafting of revisions to the Annual and Administrative Plan (AP) process.

As of today, September 17, 2021, more than 3 months since I first contacted you all about engaging with the RAB representatives, I have not been able to communicate with either Donna Brown or Elizabeth Cochran, who are the current RAB representatives. The Santa Monica Housing Authority (SMHA) barely contacted me two weeks ago with the email addresses of the RAB representatives, Elizabeth Cochran and Donna Brown even though they were appointed on June 29, 2021.

Since receiving the RAB representative email addresses, I have copied them on the emails that I sent to everyone addressed in this email requesting that the SMHA and the Santa Monica Housing Authority Board (SMHAB} set up a Zoom meeting for the RAB to give all RAB members/HCV a chance to discuss the draft AP. Additionally, I have tried contacting each of the RAB representatives by email but they have been unresponsive as of the writing of this email.

To date, NONE of you have ever responded to my request to schedule a Zoom meeting and to notify all HCV holders about the meeting so everyone has a chance to ACTUALLY participate in a meaningful way and as is designed by HUD.

Even though a RAB has always been required per HUD regulations, the SMHA and the SMHAB have failed to meet this requirement since the time that the City of Santa Monica created a Housing Authority. If it had not been for the diligence and hard work of Olga Zurawska over the last two years to force the hand of the SMHA and the SMHAB to create the RAB, it would have never been done.

As pointed out in the email I received today from the SMHA regarding the comment period for the draft Administrative Plan, the SMHA officially, for the first time ever, notified HCV holders in March of this year Item 3.I
04/12/22
53 of 102 Item 3.I
04/12/22
that HCV holders are "automatically" RAB members.

The fact is, any resident of Santa Monica has the opportunity to attempt to participate in the drafting of the AP by submitting public comment. However, without having an official functional RAB, that is comprised solely of HCV holders to discuss and carry forward the policy reccomendations for the draft of the AP, it has been pointless to submit comments. It is a well-known fact that the SMHA and SMHAB never take any of the public comments into consideration. The comment period literally only serves as something the SMHA and SMHAB check off of their list as a requirement you all complied with. At the 4/27/21 SMHAB meeting James Kemper confirmed that the SMHAB’s role is merely to rubber stamp the AP that SMHA staff puts before them.

Today is the first day of the 45 day comment period regarding the Annual and Administrative Plans. Again, I am requesting a Zoom meeting be scheduled with the newly appointed RAB representatives and that ALL RAB members be notified. I am also requesting the SMHA and/or the SMHAB contact Elizabeth Cochran and Donna Brown to notify them that I am trying to contact them. Their sole purpose is to represent the recommendations of the entire RAB/ALL RAB members.

Additionally, It should be noted that RAB's have more function than to just review and agree or disagree with the SMHA's "redlined" revisions of the annual draft AP. RAB's can make policy change recommendations on any part of the more than 600 pages of the AP's. Below are the statements that were made in the email sent to me today from the SMHA regarding the comment period for the draft revisions of the AP:
"SMHA has proposed changes to its Administrative Plan, and the public comment period is open for feedback on those changes. As a member of the RAB, we welcome your thoughts on the proposed policy changes.

What’s Needed at This Time:

If you’d like to participate in the Administrative Plan process, please review the proposed policy revisions redlined in Chapters 17, 19, and 21 of the Administrative Plan, which is currently posted for public comment. Please provide your input by October 31, 2021. " Per HUD's regulations, RAB's can submit their own recommendations for policy revisions to the AP that are allowable, and are in compliance with HUD regulations (CFR Title 24) for the SMHA and SMHAB to take into consideration each year. Therefore, the statements made in the email sent to all RAB members are incorrect and misleading and is even more reason why the RAB needs to be an official board with Bylaws, its own elections, and the ability to meet regularly throughout the year to discuss possible revisions to be submitted annually.

The RAB is not to be influenced or controlled by either the SMHA or the SMHAB and should serve as a completely separate body to make recommendations for policy changes to the AP. SEE CFR Title 24 Section 903.13 below:
§ 903.13 What is a Resident Advisory Board and what is its role in development of the Annual Plan? (a) A Resident Advisory Board refers to a board or boards, as provided in paragraph (b) of this section, whose membership consists of individuals who adequately reflect and represent the residents assisted by the PHA.
(1) The role of the Resident Advisory Board (or Resident Advisory Boards) is to assist and make recommendations regarding the development of the PHA plan, and any significant amendment or modification to the PHA plan.
(2) The PHA shall allocate reasonable resources to assure the effective functioning of Resident Advisory Boards. Reasonable resources for the Resident Advisory Boards must provide reasonable means for them to become informed on programs covered by the PHA Plan, to communicate in writing and by telephone with assisted families and hold meetings with those families, and to access information regarding covered programs on the internet, taking into account the size and resources of the PHA. (b) Each PHA must establish one or more Resident Advisory Boards, as provided in paragraph (b) of this Item 3.I
04/12/22
54 of 102 Item 3.I
04/12/22
section.
(1) If a jurisdiction-wide resident council exists that complies with the tenant participation regulations in part 964 of this title, the PHA shall appoint the jurisdiction-wide resident council or the council's representatives as the Resident Advisory Board. If the PHA makes such appointment, the members of the jurisdiction-wide resident council or the council's representatives shall be added or another Resident Advisory Board formed to provide for reasonable representation of families receiving tenant-based assistance where such representation is required under paragraph (b)(2) of this section. (2) If a jurisdiction-wide resident council does not exist but resident councils exist that comply with the tenant participation regulations, the PHA shall appoint such resident councils or their representatives to serve on one or more Resident Advisory Boards. If the PHA makes such appointment, the PHA may require that the resident councils choose a limited number of representatives. (3) Where the PHA has a tenant-based assistance program of significant size (where tenant-based assistance is 20% or more of assisted households), the PHA shall assure that the Resident Advisory Board (or Boards) has reasonable representation of families receiving tenant-based assistance and that a reasonable process is undertaken to choose this representation. (4) Where or to the extent that resident councils that comply with the tenant participation regulations do not exist, the PHA shall appoint Resident Advisory Boards or Board members as needed to adequately reflect and represent the interests of residents of such developments; provided that the PHA shall provide reasonable notice to such residents and urge that they form resident councils with the tenant participation regulations.
(c) The PHA must consider the recommendations of the Resident Advisory Board or Boards in preparing the final Annual Plan, and any significant amendment or modification to the Annual Plan, as provided in § 903.21 of this title.
(1) In submitting the final plan to HUD for approval, or any significant amendment or modification to the plan to HUD for approval, the PHA must include a copy of the recommendations made by the Resident Advisory Board or Boards and a description of the manner in which the PHA addressed these recommendations. (2) Notwithstanding the 75-day limitation on HUD review, in response to a written request from a Resident Advisory Board claiming that the PHA failed to provide adequate notice and opportunity for comment, HUD may make a finding of good cause during the required time period and require the PHA to remedy the failure before final approval of the plan.

It is also the role of the SMHA to provide adequate training and outreach activities to ensure participation of the RAB members and how to make AP recommendations that comply with HUD regulations and guidelines. The SMHA and the SMHAB have not conducted the outreach or training and have not disseminated any materials to assist the RAB Representatives and members.

The SMHA and SMHAB have long held a closed-loop system subverting the voices of the population you all serve. The actions of the SMHA and the SMHAB could be considered non-compliance with the HUD contract and even discrimination. I suggest that the SMHA and the SMHAB begin to review HUD regulations regarding RAB's and Resident Councils (RC's) to ensure you are in compliance with the HUD contract, HUD regulations, and guidelines to avoid complaints being submitted to HUD and possibly a "finding" by HUD that "Notwithstanding the 75-day limitation on HUD review, in response to a written request from a Resident Advisory Board claiming that the PHA failed to provide adequate notice and opportunity for comment, HUD may make a finding of good cause during the required time period and require the PHA to remedy the failure before final approval of the plan."
I look forward to a complete response by one of the parties addressed in this email immediately. Please schedule the Zoom meeting for the RAB no later than next week and at a time that would be feasible for ALL RAB members to attend if they wish to participate. After the first meeting, the RAB representatives and members can agree on the scheduling of future meetings without assistance from the SMHA and the SMHAB.

Thanking you in advance for your immediate attention and response in this matter.

Item 3.I
04/12/22
55 of 102 Item 3.I
04/12/22
Very truly yours,
Theresa H. Marasco
(720) 226-4051
Powered by
cloudHQ
On Thu, Sep 9, 2021 at 5:02 PM Theresa Marasco <[email protected]> wrote:

Good afternoon Andy Agle, Anna Topolewski, James Kemper, and John Jalili:

Thank you Ann Topolewski for responding to the email that I sent to Andy Agle on August 26, 2021. I requested that Andy Agle respond no later than September 2, 2021. However, the response you sent to me on August 30, 2021, on behalf of Andy Agle, only provided me with the contact information for the newly appointed RAB members but you did not address the entirety of my request.

Andy Agle, Anna Topolewski, James Kemper, and John Jalili, beginning on August 6, 2021, I specifically requested the following:
"...I am calling for a Zoom meeting with the newly appointed RAB representatives to be scheduled as soon as conveniently possible and at least 30 days before the Administrative Plan is to be discussed by the Housing Authority Board. I am requesting that the SMHA provide the information about the Zoom meeting to all of the RAB members and/or Section 8 voucher holders once it is scheduled so everyone can have an opportunity to attend the meeting."
I have made this request several times yet NONE of you have ever responded to it. The fact that you all wield so much power to simply ignore the requests from subsidized tenants, requests that are a part of your mandates per your HUD contracts and HUD regulations, is very troubling. You are all paid a very handsome salary, with above average benefits, including a four day work week, so I do not understand why something so simple such as setting up a Zoom meeting with the RAB, to begin the process of discussing the proposed changes of the Annual and Administrative plans, and notifying all the Section 8 tenants about the meeting and providing them with a link to participate is so difficult.

September 16, 2021 is when the RAB/SMHAB will begin discussions about the above mentioned proposed changes. Please immediately schedule the requested Zoom meeting. Kindly schedule it at a time that will be convenient for the majority of Section 8 tenants to participate, preferably in the evening, and please notify ALL Section 8 tenants about the meeting, and encourage them to participate.

Again, the HUD guidelines below that I have included in my previous emails that mandates the SMHA and the SMHAB, comply with my request:
"PHA's Responsibility to the RAB
What are the PHAs' Responsibilities?
PHAs have the responsibility to ensure that the RAB can adequately serve its function including:

PHAs must give the RABs sufficient time to review and make recommendations on the Plan. RABs will be able to contribute best if they are provided with adequate information regarding the PHA's programs and the policies included in the Five-Year and Annual PHA Plan.

The PHAs should give RABs advance notice of meetings scheduled to discuss areas of the Plan (generally, at least 48 hours, or more depending on the meeting agenda).

RABs should also be provided with any existing documents that would assist them to make productive recommendations during the working meetings.

PHAs should provide the RABs with reasonable means to carry out their functions such as making available a meeting place for discussing programs with the residents. RABs should also have access to any other communication tools such as a telephone, writing material, or computers that may facilitate their contacts with other resident households or to obtain further information on the programs.

Item 3.I
04/12/22
56 of 102 Item 3.I
04/12/22
At what stage in the planning process must PHAs involve the RABs? The role of the RABs is to assist and make recommendations regarding the development of the PHA Plan and any significant amendments or modifications to it. RABs should be involved in the planning process as soon as it is feasible and must be given sufficient time to fully participate in the process so that they can carry out their proper role and provide representation that is meaningful and relevant to the development of the Plan. The PHA and the RAB should develop a reasonable timetable to promote participation, including adequate notice of meetings. To facilitate productive meetings, PHAs may do preliminary work prior to involving the RABs, such as gathering and compiling data and materials to help residents participate in the process, including some initial recommendations. A PHA must consider the recommendations of the RABs and make revisions to drafts or to the Plan which it deems appropriate." I have copied the newly appointed RAB/HAB members, Donna Brown and Elizabeth Cochran on this email thread so they may review the requests made, and the responses provided by the various City of SMHA staff, and the interim City Manager, John Jalili.

Thanking you in advance for your immediate attention and resolution to this matter.

Very truly yours,
Theresa H. Marasco
(720) 226-4051
Powered by
cloudHQ
On Mon, Aug 30, 2021, 3:40 PM Anna Topolewski <[email protected]> wrote:

Hi Theresa,
You can find information about the Housing Authority Board(HAB) members on the Housing Authority News & Notices page (link below). The most recent notice provides a link to the new HAB webpage. https://www.santamonica.gov/housing-news
Best,
Anna Topolewski
Senior Administrative Analyst
Santa Monica Housing Authority
Office: 310-458-8743 ext 2646 | Fax: 310-264-7757
A picture containing text, sign Description automatically generated Item 3.I
04/12/22
57 of 102 Item 3.I
04/12/22
From: Theresa Marasco <[email protected]>
Sent: Thursday, August 26, 2021 4:44 PM
To: Andy Agle <[email protected]>
Cc: Christopher J. Smith <[email protected]>; Setareh Yavari <Setareh.Yavari@santamonica. gov>; Denise Anderson-Warren <[email protected]>; Oscar de la Torre <[email protected]>; Santa Monica City Manager's Office <[email protected]>; [email protected]; Andy Agle <[email protected]>; James Kemper <[email protected]>; Ann Maggio <[email protected]>; oz <[email protected]>; Anna Topolewski <[email protected]>; [email protected]; Kristin McCowan <[email protected]>; Christine Parra <[email protected]>; Oscar de la Torre <[email protected]>; Phil Brock <[email protected]>; Gleam Davis <[email protected]>; Lana Negrete <[email protected]>; Richard Hilton <[email protected]>; Josh Hamilton <[email protected]>; Todd Flora <[email protected]>; [email protected]; Leonora Camner <Leonora.Camner@santamonica. gov>; Rene Buchanan <[email protected]>; Sue Himmelrich <suehimmelrich@suehimmelrich. net>; John Jalili <[email protected]>
Subject: Re: Please respond Re: Contact information for RAB appointees

EXTERNAL
Image removed by sender.

Good afternoon Andy Agle:

On August 17, 2021, you sent me an email in response to the email that I sent to City of SM interim City Manager, John Jalili, on August 6, 2021. I have copied and pasted the email I sent to John Jalili below and is highlighted in yellow. As you know and upon review of the copied and pasted email below to John Jalili, I have been requesting the contact information for the newly appointed RAB/HAB members, as well as a Zoom meeting that will allow all Section 8 voucher holders to participate in the first, official meeting with the newly appointed RAB/HAB members.

On Tuesday, August 17, 2021, 9 days ago, your response to me was the following:
"Staff has asked the Information Services Department to create City email addresses for the new HAB members. Once the addresses are established and the new members have been given instructions on accessing the email, their contact information will be posted on the City website." I sent an email to James Kemper on Wednesday, July 7, 2021 requesting contact information for the newly appointed RAB/HAB members. Mr. Kemper responded the same day stating the following:

Item 3.I
04/12/22
58 of 102 Item 3.I
04/12/22
"Regarding your question about the two tenant representatives appointed to the Housing Authority Board via lottery on June 29th, staff is still working out the logistics regarding the recent appointment of the two new Housing Authority Board members. We would appreciate your patience during this time.

I also wanted to note for your clarification that the Housing Authority Annual and Administrative Plans cycle occur in the winter/spring." As you can imagine I am baffled as to why there are so many people involved yet it is taking a very long time to set up simple emails and a Zoom conference call. It is becoming more than apparent that the more than 1,500 Section 8 voucher holders in this city are not a priority to the people who are paid to administer the program - the SMHA.

I have copied all of the SMHAB members/SMCC, the Housing Commission members and chair, James Kemper, and an array of City of Santa Monica staff, as well as several residents regarding the below requests. I am beyond frustrated and dismayed that all I have been provided are empty commitments, stonewalling, and no action. My requests are part of HUD's mandates. You and Mr. Kemper should be fully aware of that fact so I am not asking for anything outlandish, or unorthodox, or even difficult.

Please review my requests and information regarding HUD mandates below and kindly provide me with the information that I requested by September 2, 2021. 8/6/2021 email sent to City of SM interim City Manager, John Jalili below:

Good afternoon John Jalili:

I am writing to you in your position as the Interim Executive Director of the Santa Monica Housing Authority since Housing Program Manager James Kemper has not resolved this issue as the writing of this email.

I sent emails to James Kemper on July 2nd and July 7th regarding contact information for the Section 8 tenants representing the Resident Advisory Board (RAB) on the Santa Monica Housing Authority Board who were appointed through a lottery administered by Mr. Kemper on June 29, 2021. Mr. Kemper's response to me on July 7th was "staff is still working out the logistics regarding the recent appointment of the two new Housing Authority Board members." I have no idea what "logistics" the SMHA needs to work out in order to be able to notify the approximately 1,500 RAB members how they can contact the two Item 3.I
04/12/22
59 of 102 Item 3.I
04/12/22
individuals who are now representing them on the Santa Monica Housing Authority Board. The two people selected via the lottery are public officials now who volunteered and their names and contact info must be disclosed to the community they are supposed to represent, which is the RAB, and the general public.

For five weeks now the identity and contact information of the RAB representatives appointed to the Santa Monica Housing Authority Board via a lottery have been kept secret from the very community those individuals are supposed to represent.

Again, those individuals volunteered to become public officials. Their names must be disclosed to the general public as well, and the RAB must be able to communicate with them immediately.

Therefore, I am calling for a Zoom meeting with the newly appointed RAB representatives to be scheduled as soon as conveniently possible and at least 30 days before the Administrative Plan is to be discussed by the Housing Authority Board. I am requesting that the SMHA provide the information about the Zoom meeting to all of the RAB members and/or Section 8 voucher holders once it is scheduled so everyone can have an opportunity to attend the meeting.

The SMHA is required per HUD regulations to provide to the RAB the "space" to hold meetings. Due to Covid-19, I request that a Zoom meeting be arranged for with the possibility to listen in and participate on the phone for those who do not have access to the Internet.

It is the PHA's responsibility to facilitate the communication among RAB members in order for the RAB to be able to effectively discuss and provide feedback regarding the Administrative Plan. Additionally, since it is the first year the newly formed RAB has included all Section 8 tenants, the RAB must be given an opportunity to communicate in order to organize, e.g. come up with its bylaws, etc.

Please see excerpts from HUD below: (hyperlink to HUD mandate re: RAB) "Encouraging Participation in the RAB
The PHA provides adequate information to all residents regarding the RAB. The PHA should inform residents of the purpose and role of the RAB, as well as practical information such as the time commitment required. The PHA should make clear to residents and Section 8 participants that the partnership between the residents and the PHA is of benefit to both parties. The residents are provided with an opportunity to voice their concerns so that their needs are addressed and they can become involved in the planning process. The PHA also gains essential information from the residents about the improvements that need to be made at the agency's developments and residents' self-sufficiency needs. This information helps the PHA to set priorities for capital improvements and advises resident services programming.

PHA's Responsibility to the RAB
What are the PHAs' Responsibilities?
PHAs have the responsibility to ensure that the RAB can adequately serve its function including:

PHAs must give the RABs sufficient time to review and make recommendations on Item 3.I
04/12/22
60 of 102 Item 3.I
04/12/22
the Plan. RABs will be able to contribute best if they are provided with adequate information regarding the PHA's programs and the policies included in the FiveYear and Annual PHA Plan.

The PHAs should give RABs advance notice of meetings scheduled to discuss areas of the Plan (generally, at least 48 hours, or more depending on the meeting agenda).

RABs should also be provided with any existing documents that would assist them to make productive recommendations during the working meetings.

PHAs should provide the RABs with reasonable means to carry out their functions such as making available a meeting place for discussing programs with the residents. RABs should also have access to any other communication tools such as a telephone, writing material, or computers that may facilitate their contacts with other resident households or to obtain further information on the programs.

At what stage in the planning process must PHAs involve the RABs? The role of the RABs is to assist and make recommendations regarding the development of the PHA Plan and any significant amendments or modifications to it. RABs should be involved in the planning process as soon as it is feasible and must be given sufficient time to fully participate in the process so that they can carry out their proper role and provide representation that is meaningful and relevant to the development of the Plan. The PHA and the RAB should develop a reasonable timetable to promote participation, including adequate notice of meetings. To facilitate productive meetings, PHAs may do preliminary work prior to involving the RABs, such as gathering and compiling data and materials to help residents participate in the process, including some initial recommendations. A PHA must consider the recommendations of the RABs and make revisions to drafts or to the Plan which it deems appropriate.

Thanking you in advance for your immediate attention and response to this matter by next Thursday, September 2, 2021.

Very truly yours,
Theresa H. Marasco
(720) 226-4051
Image
removed
by
sender.
cloudHQ
Powered by
cloudHQ
On Tue, Aug 17, 2021 at 11:18 AM Andy Agle <[email protected]> wrote:

Item 3.I
04/12/22
61 of 102 Item 3.I
04/12/22
Staff has asked the Information Services Department to create City email addresses for the new HAB members.

Once the addresses are established and the new members have been given instructions on accessing the email, their contact information will be posted on the City website.

From: John Jalili <[email protected]>
Sent: Friday, August 13, 2021 5:46 PM
To: Theresa Marasco <[email protected]>
Cc: Andy Agle <[email protected]>; James Kemper <[email protected]>; Christopher J. Smith <[email protected]> Subject: RE: Please respond Re: Contact information for RAB appointees Dear Ms. Marasco,
You have reached me on a closed Friday and I am not able to reach out to Mr. Kemper and his supervisor, Andy Agle until next week. I have complete confidence in our staff and suggest you continue to work with them to resolve your issues. Thanks.

From: Theresa Marasco <[email protected]>
Sent: Friday, August 13, 2021 4:30 PM
To: John Jalili <[email protected]>; Santa Monica City Manager's Office <[email protected]>
Cc: Sue Himmelrich <[email protected]>; [email protected]; Andy Agle <[email protected]>; James Kemper <[email protected]>; Ann Maggio <[email protected]>; oz <[email protected]>; Anna Topolewski <Anna.Topolewski@santamonica. gov>; [email protected]; Kristin McCowan <[email protected]>; Christine Parra <[email protected]>; Oscar de la Torre <[email protected]>; Phil Brock <[email protected]>; Gleam Davis <[email protected]>; Lana Negrete <[email protected]>; Richard Hilton <[email protected]>; Josh Hamilton <[email protected]>; Todd Flora <[email protected]>; [email protected]; Leonora Camner <[email protected]>; Rene Buchanan <[email protected]> Subject: Re: Please respond Re: Contact information for RAB appointees

EXTERNAL
Good afternoon Mr. Jalili:

Please provide me with a material response to my email of 8/6/21 (enclosed).

When responding to that email on 8/6/21 you did not use "reply all,” which is why I have cut, pasted, and highlighted your insufficient response below:

Hello Ms. Marasco:

Thank you for alerting me about your concerns.

Item 3.I
04/12/22
62 of 102 Item 3.I
04/12/22
I was not "alerting" you, I was requesting that you provide me with the answers to my requests.

My email to you on 8/6/2021 specifically requested that SMHA organize a Zoom meeting for the RAB to be able to meet and communicate with the two individuals who are supposed to represent the RAB on the SMHA Board.

The whole reason for the RAB is to give Section 8 voucher holders a voice and to have RAB representatives on the SMHAB who can speak on our behalf during SMHAB meetings. How can the representatives on the SMHAB represent the RAB if the RAB is deprived of the opportunity to contact snd communicate with its own representatives?
I realize this is a new concept for the City of SM with regard to giving Section 8 voucher holders a voice even though it has been required by federal regulations for decades. It certainly doesn't take months to give the new appointees and the voucher holders a way to communicate and organize a Zoom meeting for them.

I requested that an answer be provided to me by 8/11/2021. Today is 8/13.2021. You are a public official and you have a duty to resolve issues such as the ones I have brought to your attention and requested assistance in resolving. I have asked you for your assistance in resolving this matter because the other public officials such as Mr. Kemper and others who have been copied on my emails, whose job it is to resolve this issue, have not done so as of the writing of this email even though I have requested the same of them.

Your position with the City is the Interim City Manager. You are also the Interim Executive Director of the SMHA. You are paid to assist residents in this city with the problems and issues we face. I do not get paid to send endless emails that seem to go nowhere in this city. I have complained about the lack of response by the SMHA and other departments in the city many times but still, no change has come about.

This is dysfunctional and unacceptable for the residents. As a resident I should not be put in a position where I have to consider contacting my senator or congressman to resolve a local issue regarding a federal program administered within the City of Santa Monica.

I await your material response to my 8/6/21 email. Please provide it at your earliest convenience.

Image removed by sender.

Very truly yours,
Theresa H. Marasco
(720) 226-4051
Item 3.I
04/12/22
63 of 102 Item 3.I
04/12/22
Image
removed
by
sender.
cloudHQ
Powered by
cloudHQ
On Fri, Aug 6, 2021 at 4:00 PM Theresa Marasco <[email protected]> wrote:

Error! Filename not specified.

Good afternoon John Jalili:

I am writing to you in your position as the Interim Executive Director of the Santa Monica Housing Authority since Housing Program Manager James Kemper has not resolved this issue as the writing of this email.

I sent emails to James Kemper on July 2nd and July 7th regarding contact information for the Section 8 tenants representing the Resident Advisory Board (RAB) on the Santa Monica Housing Authority Board who were appointed through a lottery administered by Mr. Kemper on June 29, 2021. Mr. Kemper's response to me on July 7th was "staff is still working out the logistics regarding the recent appointment of the two new Housing Authority Board members."
I have no idea what "logistics" the SMHA needs to work out in order to be able to notify the approximately 1,500 RAB members how they can contact the two individuals who are now representing them on the Santa Monica Housing Authority Board. The two people selected via the lottery are public officials now who volunteered and their names and contact info must be disclosed to the community they are supposed to represent, which is the RAB, and the general public.

For five weeks now the identity and contact information of the RAB representatives appointed to the Santa Monica Housing Authority Board via a lottery have been kept secret from the very community those individuals are supposed to represent. Again, those individuals volunteered to become public officials. Their names must be disclosed to the general public as well, and the RAB must be able to communicate with them immediately.

Therefore, I am calling for a Zoom meeting with the newly appointed RAB representatives to be scheduled as soon as conveniently possible and at least 30 days before the Administrative Plan is to be discussed by the Housing Authority Board. I am requesting that the SMHA provide the information about the Zoom meeting to all of the RAB members and/or Section 8 voucher holders once it is scheduled so everyone can have an opportunity to attend the meeting.

The SMHA is required per HUD regulations to provide to the RAB the "space" to Item 3.I
04/12/22
64 of 102 Item 3.I
04/12/22
hold meetings. Due to Covid-19, I request that a Zoom meeting be arranged for with the possibility to listen in and participate on the phone for those who do not have access to the Internet.

It is the PHA's responsibility to facilitate the communication among RAB members in order for the RAB to be able to effectively discuss and provide feedback regarding the Administrative Plan. Additionally, since it is the first year the newly formed RAB has included all Section 8 tenants, the RAB must be given an opportunity to communicate in order to organize, e.g. come up with its bylaws, etc.

Please see excerpts from HUD below:
"Encouraging Participation in the RAB
The PHA provide adequate information to all residents regarding the RAB. The PHA should inform residents of the purpose and role of the RAB, as well as practical information such as the time commitment required. The PHA should make clear to residents and Section 8 participants that the partnership between the residents and the PHA is of benefit to both parties. The residents are provided with an opportunity to voice their concerns so that their needs are addressed and they can become involved in the planning process. The PHA also gains essential information from the residents about the improvements that need to be made at the agency's developments and residents' self-sufficiency needs. This information helps the PHA to set priorities for capital improvements and advises resident services programming.

PHA's Responsibility to the RAB
What are the PHAs' Responsibilities?
PHAs have the responsibility to ensure that the RAB can adequately serve its function including:

PHAs must give the RABs sufficient time to review and make recommendations on the Plan. RABs will be able to contribute best if they are provided with adequate information regarding the PHA's programs and the policies included in the Five-Year and Annual PHA Plan.

The PHAs should give RABs advance notice of meetings scheduled to discuss areas of the Plan (generally, at least 48 hours, or more depending on the meeting agenda).

RABs should also be provided with any existing documents that would assist them to make productive recommendations during the working meetings.

PHAs should provide the RABs with reasonable means to carry out their functions such as making available a meeting place for discussing programs with the residents. RABs should also have access to any other communication tools such as a telephone, writing material, or computers that may facilitate their contacts with other resident households or to obtain further information on the programs.

At what stage in the planning process must PHAs involve the RABs? The role of the RABs is to assist and make recommendations regarding the development of the PHA Plan and any significant amendments or modifications to it. RABs should be involved in the planning process as soon as it is feasible Item 3.I
04/12/22
65 of 102 Item 3.I
04/12/22
and must be given sufficient time to fully participate in the process so that they can carry out their proper role and provide representation that is meaningful and relevant to the development of the Plan. The PHA and the RAB should develop a reasonable timetable to promote participation, including adequate notice of meetings. To facilitate productive meetings, PHAs may do preliminary work prior to involving the RABs, such as gathering and compiling data and materials to help residents participate in the process, including some initial recommendations. A PHA must consider the recommendations of the RABs and make revisions to drafts or to the Plan which it deems appropriate.

Please respond by 5 pm on Wednesday, August 11, 2021. I look forward to your reply.

Thank you.

Very truly yours,
Theresa H. Marasco
(720) 226-4051
Image
removed
by
sender.
cloudHQ
Powered by
...
[Message clipped] View entire message
9 attachments
image001.png
27K
image0.jpeg
69K
image001.png
Item 3.I
04/12/22
66 of 102 Item 3.I
04/12/22
27K
Re: Please respond Re: Contact information for RAB appointees.eml 284K
item 14 - Fw: A California Bar complaint is about to be filed against you.eml 34K
Cease And Desist - Remove Lobbyists and Adhere to Nepotisim Ban for Commissions NOW.eml 24K
Legality of reason to reschedule HC meeting.eml
114K
Admin Plan Comment Period Notice to RAB.docx
64K
Admin Plan Comment Period Notice to Voucher Holders.docx 63K
T
From: George S. Cardona <[email protected]> Date: Thu, Sep 23, 2021, 10:59 AM
Subject: Response to Your Emails
To: [email protected] <[email protected]>, OZ <[email protected]>, Ann Maggio <[email protected]>
Cc: Andy Agle <[email protected]>, James Kemper <[email protected]>, Denise AndersonWarren <[email protected]> Ms. Zurawska, Ms. Marasco, and Ms. Maggio:

I write in response to your September 14, September 17, September 19, and September 20, 2021 emails, copies of which are attached, and which raise several common issues.

Preliminarily, with respect to the makeup of the Santa Monica Housing Authority (“SMHA”) Resident Advisory Board (“RAB”) and Governing Board (“Board”), I note that the SMHA is a public housing agency that has no public housing units, but rather only administers Section 8 assistance.

Pursuant to the state Housing Authorities Law (Government Code Sections 34200, et seq.):

Item 3.I
04/12/22
67 of 102 Item 3.I
04/12/22

1. the City Council has appointed itself to serve as the SMHA Board, see Government Code Section 34290(a);

2. the City Council has established a Housing Commission, see Government Code Section 34292; and

3. both because the SMHA does not have tenants (but rather only administers Section 8 assistance) and because the SMHA has a Housing Commission to which tenant appointments are made, the Board is not required to have tenant members, see Government Code Section 34290(b), (c).

Pursuant to HUD regulations:

1. the SMHA must have a RAB, whose membership consists of individuals who adequately reflect and represent the residents assisted by the SMHA, see 24 CFR 903.13(a)(1);

2. the SMHA must provide reasonable means for the RAB to become informed on programs covered by the SMHA plan, to communicate in writing and by telephone with assisted families and hold meetings with those families, and to access information regarding covered programs on the internet, see 24 CFR 903.13(a)(2);

3. the SMHA must consider the recommendations of the RAB in preparing its final Annual Plan and any significant amendment or modification to the Annual Plan, see 24 CFR 903.13(c); and

4. unless the RAB is notified of the opportunity for residents to serve on the Board and no resident has indicated an interest in serving, the Board must include at least one eligible resident board member, that is, a member who is directly assisted by the SMHA, see 24 CFR 964.410, 415, 425.

In compliance with these HUD requirements: The SMHA currently has a RAB consisting of all residents assisted under the SMHA’s Section 8 tenant-based program, that is, all SMHA Housing Choice Voucher (“HCV”) participants. On May 5, 2021, the SMHA sent notices to all SMHA HCV participants advising them of the opportunity to serve on the Board and the process for indicating an interest in serving. Because more than two SMHA HCV participants expressed an interest in serving, on June 29, 2021, a lottery was conducted in public view to select from those who had expressed interest two SMHA HCV participants to serve on the Board. The two SMHA HCV participants selected were: Donna Brown and Elizabeth Cochran. These two Board members and the email addresses at which they can be contacted are included on the Board’s webpage: https://santamonica.gov/housing-hab. It is up to the two Board members to determine for themselves whether/how to respond to any inquiries directed to them.

On or about September 17, 2021, the SMHA circulated to all members of the RAB, that is, all SMHA HCV participants, and to all participants in the Continuum of Care and HOME voucher programs, letters advising that SMHA was proposing changes to its Administrative Plan and soliciting comments on those changes. Copies of the letters are attached for your reference. As set forth in the letters, all RAB members, as well as all participants in the Continuum of Care and HOME voucher programs, were advised:

1. the redline draft of the Administrative Plan showing the proposed changes, together with a summary of those changes, are available online at https://www.santamonica.gov/housing-news;

2. comments on the proposed changes can be submitted through October 31, 2021 by mail or by email to [email protected];

3. the draft Administrative Plan will be considered at the October 21, 2021 meeting of the Hosing Commission, and subsequently at the December 14 , 2021 meeting of the Board, at both of which public input on the proposed changes may be provided; and

4. the contact information for the two RAB members serving on the Board is listed at https://santamonica.gov/ housing-hab.

As these letters indicate, all RAB members, and all Continuum of Care and HOME voucher participants are being provided with opportunities to comment (whether in writing, through public comment at the Housing Commission or Council meetings, or both) on the proposed changes to the SMHA Administrative Plan. Because all HCV participants are members of the RAB and are invited to participate in the Housing Commission meetings where Administrative Plan changes are considered, the meetings provide an opportunity for RAB members to meet with other HCV participants as participating families regarding the Administrative Plan. In addition, in making its recommendations to the SMHA Board regarding the Administrative Plan, the Housing Commission considers written comments as well as oral comments provided by RAB members and other members of the public. Additionally, all written comments submitted by RAB members and other members of the public during the public comment period, as well as the recommendations of the Housing Commission, are provided to the SMHA Board in its consideration of the Administrative Plan. Finally, RAB members, as well as other members of the public, are able to provide oral comments prior to the SMHA Board’s consideration of the Administrative Plan.

Item 3.I
04/12/22
68 of 102 Item 3.I
04/12/22
Title 24 CFR Section 578.75 sets out general operational requirements for a Continuum of Care program. In particular, Section 578.75(g)(1), captioned “participation of homeless individuals,” provides as follows:

Each recipient and subrecipient must provide for the participation of not less than one homeless individual or formerly homeless individual on the board of directors or other equivalent policymaking entity of the recipient or subrecipient, to the extent that such entity considers and makes policies and decisions regarding any project, supportive services, or assistance provided under this part. This requirement is waived if a recipient or subrecipient is unable to meet such requirement and obtains HUD approval for a plan to otherwise consult with homeless or formerly homeless persons when considering and making policies and decisions.

The City of Santa Monica requires that at least one member of the Housing Commission be a homeless or formerly homeless individual. This requirement is designed to address the HUD requirement by giving the homeless or formerly homeless individual who is a Commission member an opportunity to participate in all aspects of local affordable housing policy, not solely SMHA matters. City staff has consulted with HUD staff regarding this approach, and HUD staff recommended that the City apply for a waiver to ensure express HUD approval of the City’s approach, which is intended to enable broader participation in housing matters. Accordingly, the City will be applying to HUD for a waiver of the requirement that a homeless or formerly homeless individual be on the SMHA Board, and will provide public notice as to whether or not HUD grants the requested waiver.

The Housing Commission conducts its regular meetings at 6:00 pm on the third Thursday of each month. For September, the regular meeting of the Housing Commission was scheduled for Thursday, September 16, 2021. That date, however, was Yom Kippur, which is considered the holiest day on the Jewish calendar and involves fasting, prayer, and repentance. The Housing Commission cancelled its regular meeting on that date, and a special meeting was scheduled one week later, at 6:00 pm September 23, 2021. The Chair and Vice-Chair retain broad discretion with respect to scheduling of Housing Commission meetings. It is not an abuse of that discretion to reschedule a meeting based on concern that one or more commissioners or a segment of the public will be unable to attend because of a particular religious holiday (whether or not that religious holiday is one the City recognizes as an official City holiday). Moreover, while the September 16 meeting would have been a general meeting at which general public input was required by the Brown Act, and the September 23 meeting is a special meeting at which general public input is not required by the Brown Act, a specific agenda item authorizing general public input has been added to the agenda for the September 23 special meeting.

On July 27, 2021, under Agenda Item 13L, Council voted to direct staff to return with revisions to Board/Commission/Task Force procedures to include a nepotism policy specifying that a person cannot serve on a city board/commission/task force if that person is a close family member (spouse/partner, siblings, children, or parents) of a seated Councilmember and specifying that this restriction would be effective immediately upon its adoption, rather than permitting a person affected to serve out their existing term. Staff has not yet returned to Council for adoption of the proposed policy, with the result that it is not yet in effect. Accordingly, though Council has clearly expressed its desire that such a nepotism policy be adopted, there is currently no adopted nepotism policy in place that would obligate a commissioner to step down from their position. I have copied Denise Andersen-Warren, who is overseeing the revision of Board/Commission/Task Force procedures, so she is aware of your complaint in this regard.

On July 13, 2021, under Agenda Item 13K, Council voted to direct staff to return with a proposed ordinance, similar to that in place in Beverly Hills, that (1) more precisely defines what constitutes a lobbyist/legislative advocate; (2) precludes any individual who in the prior two years has been acting as a lobbyist/legislative advocate from being appointed to a board, commission, or task force; and (3) precludes any member of a board, commission, or task force from simultaneously acting as a lobbyist/legislative advocate. Staff has not yet returned to Council with the requested proposed ordinance. As a result, there is no current ordinance defining precisely what constitutes a lobbyist/legislative advocate, or barring such a lobbyist/legislative advocate from serving on a board, commission, or task force. I have copied Denise Andersen-Warren, who is overseeing the revision of Board/Commission/Task Force procedures, so she is aware of your complaint in this regard.

Item 3.I
04/12/22
69 of 102 Item 3.I
04/12/22
George S. Cardona
Interim City Attorney (310) 458-8375
---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Theresa Marasco <[email protected]>
To: Andy Agle <[email protected]>, Anna Topolewski <[email protected]>, James Kemper <[email protected]>, Oscar de la Torre <[email protected]>, Christine Parra <[email protected]>, Phil Brock <[email protected]>, Kristin McCowan <[email protected]>, Gleam Davis <[email protected]>, Lana Negrete <[email protected]>, Sue Himmelrich <[email protected]>, Donna Brown <[email protected]>, Elizabeth Cochran <[email protected]>, John Jalili <[email protected]>
Cc: "Santa Monica City Manager's Office" <[email protected]>, "[email protected]" <[email protected]>, Ann Maggio <[email protected]>, oz <[email protected]>, "[email protected]" <[email protected]>, Richard Hilton <[email protected]>, Josh Hamilton <[email protected]>, Todd Flora <[email protected]>, "[email protected]" <[email protected]>, Leonora Camner <[email protected]>, Rene Buchanan <[email protected]>, "[email protected]" <[email protected]>, "George S.

Cardona" <[email protected]>
Bcc:

Date: Fri, 17 Sep 2021 23:55:29 +0000
Subject: Re: Please respond Re: Contact information for RAB appointees

EXTERNAL
Good afternoon John Jalili, Andy Agle, Anna Topolewski, James Kemper, the Santa Monica Housing Authority Board, and RAB Representatives:

As you all know, I have been actively trying to communicate and engage with the newly appointed RAB representatives since July 7, 2021, which was one week after the RAB representatives were appointed, in an effort to ensure that the RAB representatives give ALL Housing Choice Voucher (HCV) holders a voice in the drafting of revisions to the Annual and Administrative Plan (AP) process.

As of today, September 17, 2021, more than 3 months since I first contacted you all about engaging with the RAB representatives, I have not been able to communicate with either Donna Brown or Elizabeth Cochran, who are the current RAB representatives. The Santa Monica Housing Authority (SMHA) barely contacted me two weeks ago with the email addresses of the RAB representatives, Elizabeth Cochran and Donna Brown even though they were appointed on June 29, 2021.

Since receiving the RAB representative email addresses, I have copied them on the emails that I sent to everyone addressed in this email requesting that the SMHA and the Santa Monica Housing Authority Board (SMHAB} set up a Zoom meeting for the RAB to give all RAB members/HCV a chance to discuss the draft AP. Additionally, I have tried contacting each of the RAB representatives by email but they have been unresponsive as of the writing of this email.

To date, NONE of you have ever responded to my request to schedule a Zoom meeting and to notify all HCV holders about the meeting so everyone has a chance to ACTUALLY participate in a meaningful way and as is designed by HUD.

Even though a RAB has always been required per HUD regulations, the SMHA and the SMHAB have failed to meet this requirement since the time that the City of Santa Monica created a Housing Authority. If it had not been for the diligence and hard work of Olga Zurawska over the last two years to force the hand Item 3.I
04/12/22
70 of 102 Item 3.I
04/12/22
of the SMHA and the SMHAB to create the RAB, it would have never been done.

As pointed out in the email I received today from the SMHA regarding the comment period for the draft Administrative Plan, the SMHA officially, for the first time ever, notified HCV holders in March of this year that HCV holders are "automatically" RAB members.

The fact is, any resident of Santa Monica has the opportunity to attempt to participate in the drafting of the AP by submitting public comment. However, without having an official functional RAB, that is comprised solely of HCV holders to discuss and carry forward the policy reccomendations for the draft of the AP, it has been pointless to submit comments. It is a well-known fact that the SMHA and SMHAB never take any of the public comments into consideration. The comment period literally only serves as something the SMHA and SMHAB check off of their list as a requirement you all complied with. At the 4/27/21 SMHAB meeting James Kemper confirmed that the SMHAB’s role is merely to rubber stamp the AP that SMHA staff puts before them.

Today is the first day of the 45 day comment period regarding the Annual and Administrative Plans. Again, I am requesting a Zoom meeting be scheduled with the newly appointed RAB representatives and that ALL RAB members be notified. I am also requesting the SMHA and/or the SMHAB contact Elizabeth Cochran and Donna Brown to notify them that I am trying to contact them. Their sole purpose is to represent the recommendations of the entire RAB/ALL RAB members.

Additionally, It should be noted that RAB's have more function than to just review and agree or disagree with the SMHA's "redlined" revisions of the annual draft AP. RAB's can make policy change recommendations on any part of the more than 600 pages of the AP's. Below are the statements that were made in the email sent to me today from the SMHA regarding the comment period for the draft revisions of the AP:
"SMHA has proposed changes to its Administrative Plan, and the public comment period is open for feedback on those changes. As a member of the RAB, we welcome your thoughts on the proposed policy changes.

What’s Needed at This Time:

If you’d like to participate in the Administrative Plan process, please review the proposed policy revisions redlined in Chapters 17, 19, and 21 of the Administrative Plan, which is currently posted for public comment. Please provide your input by October 31, 2021. " Per HUD's regulations, RAB's can submit their own recommendations for policy revisions to the AP that are allowable, and are in compliance with HUD regulations (CFR Title 24) for the SMHA and SMHAB to take into consideration each year. Therefore, the statements made in the email sent to all RAB members are incorrect and misleading and is even more reason why the RAB needs to be an official board with Bylaws, its own elections, and the ability to meet regularly throughout the year to discuss possible revisions to be submitted annually.

The RAB is not to be influenced or controlled by either the SMHA or the SMHAB and should serve as a completely separate body to make recommendations for policy changes to the AP. SEE CFR Title 24 Section 903.13 below:
§ 903.13 What is a Resident Advisory Board and what is its role in development of the Annual Plan? (a) A Resident Advisory Board refers to a board or boards, as provided in paragraph (b) of this section, whose membership consists of individuals who adequately reflect and represent the residents assisted by the PHA.
(1) The role of the Resident Advisory Board (or Resident Advisory Boards) is to assist and make recommendations regarding the development of the PHA plan, and any significant amendment or modification to the PHA plan.
(2) The PHA shall allocate reasonable resources to assure the effective functioning of Resident Advisory Boards. Reasonable resources for the Resident Advisory Boards must provide reasonable means for them to become informed on programs covered by the PHA Plan, to communicate in writing and by telephone Item 3.I
04/12/22
71 of 102 Item 3.I
04/12/22
with assisted families and hold meetings with those families, and to access information regarding covered programs on the internet, taking into account the size and resources of the PHA. (b) Each PHA must establish one or more Resident Advisory Boards, as provided in paragraph (b) of this section.
(1) If a jurisdiction-wide resident council exists that complies with the tenant participation regulations in part 964 of this title, the PHA shall appoint the jurisdiction-wide resident council or the council's representatives as the Resident Advisory Board. If the PHA makes such appointment, the members of the jurisdiction-wide resident council or the council's representatives shall be added or another Resident Advisory Board formed to provide for reasonable representation of families receiving tenant-based assistance where such representation is required under paragraph (b)(2) of this section. (2) If a jurisdiction-wide resident council does not exist but resident councils exist that comply with the tenant participation regulations, the PHA shall appoint such resident councils or their representatives to serve on one or more Resident Advisory Boards. If the PHA makes such appointment, the PHA may require that the resident councils choose a limited number of representatives. (3) Where the PHA has a tenant-based assistance program of significant size (where tenant-based assistance is 20% or more of assisted households), the PHA shall assure that the Resident Advisory Board (or Boards) has reasonable representation of families receiving tenant-based assistance and that a reasonable process is undertaken to choose this representation. (4) Where or to the extent that resident councils that comply with the tenant participation regulations do not exist, the PHA shall appoint Resident Advisory Boards or Board members as needed to adequately reflect and represent the interests of residents of such developments; provided that the PHA shall provide reasonable notice to such residents and urge that they form resident councils with the tenant participation regulations.
(c) The PHA must consider the recommendations of the Resident Advisory Board or Boards in preparing the final Annual Plan, and any significant amendment or modification to the Annual Plan, as provided in § 903.21 of this title.
(1) In submitting the final plan to HUD for approval, or any significant amendment or modification to the plan to HUD for approval, the PHA must include a copy of the recommendations made by the Resident Advisory Board or Boards and a description of the manner in which the PHA addressed these recommendations. (2) Notwithstanding the 75-day limitation on HUD review, in response to a written request from a Resident Advisory Board claiming that the PHA failed to provide adequate notice and opportunity for comment, HUD may make a finding of good cause during the required time period and require the PHA to remedy the failure before final approval of the plan.

It is also the role of the SMHA to provide adequate training and outreach activities to ensure participation of the RAB members and how to make AP recommendations that comply with HUD regulations and guidelines. The SMHA and the SMHAB have not conducted the outreach or training and have not disseminated any materials to assist the RAB Representatives and members.

The SMHA and SMHAB have long held a closed-loop system subverting the voices of the population you all serve. The actions of the SMHA and the SMHAB could be considered non-compliance with the HUD contract and even discrimination. I suggest that the SMHA and the SMHAB begin to review HUD regulations regarding RAB's and Resident Councils (RC's) to ensure you are in compliance with the HUD contract, HUD regulations, and guidelines to avoid complaints being submitted to HUD and possibly a "finding" by HUD that "Notwithstanding the 75-day limitation on HUD review, in response to a written request from a Resident Advisory Board claiming that the PHA failed to provide adequate notice and opportunity for comment, HUD may make a finding of good cause during the required time period and require the PHA to remedy the failure before final approval of the plan."
I look forward to a complete response by one of the parties addressed in this email immediately. Please schedule the Zoom meeting for the RAB no later than next week and at a time that would be feasible for ALL RAB members to attend if they wish to participate. After the Item 3.I
04/12/22
72 of 102 Item 3.I
04/12/22
first meeting, the RAB representatives and members can agree on the scheduling of future meetings without assistance from the SMHA and the SMHAB.

Thanking you in advance for your immediate attention and response in this matter.

Very truly yours,
Theresa H. Marasco
(720) 226-4051
Powered by
cloudHQ
On Thu, Sep 9, 2021 at 5:02 PM Theresa Marasco <[email protected]> wrote:

Good afternoon Andy Agle, Anna Topolewski, James Kemper, and John Jalili:

Thank you Ann Topolewski for responding to the email that I sent to Andy Agle on August 26, 2021. I requested that Andy Agle respond no later than September 2, 2021. However, the response you sent to me on August 30, 2021, on behalf of Andy Agle, only provided me with the contact information for the newly appointed RAB members but you did not address the entirety of my request.

Andy Agle, Anna Topolewski, James Kemper, and John Jalili, beginning on August 6, 2021, I specifically requested the following:
"...I am calling for a Zoom meeting with the newly appointed RAB representatives to be scheduled as soon as conveniently possible and at least 30 days before the Administrative Plan is to be discussed by the Housing Authority Board. I am requesting that the SMHA provide the information about the Zoom meeting to all of the RAB members and/or Section 8 voucher holders once it is scheduled so everyone can have an opportunity to attend the meeting."
I have made this request several times yet NONE of you have ever responded to it. The fact that you all wield so much power to simply ignore the requests from subsidized tenants, requests that are a part of your mandates per your HUD contracts and HUD regulations, is very troubling. You are all paid a very handsome salary, with above average benefits, including a four day work week, so I do not understand why something so simple such as setting up a Zoom meeting with the RAB, to begin the process of discussing the proposed changes of the Annual and Administrative plans, and notifying all the Section 8 tenants about the meeting and providing them with a link to participate is so difficult.

September 16, 2021 is when the RAB/SMHAB will begin discussions about the above mentioned proposed changes. Please immediately schedule the requested Zoom meeting. Kindly schedule it at a time that will be convenient for the majority of Section 8 tenants to participate, preferably in the evening, and please notify ALL Section 8 tenants about the meeting, and encourage them to participate.

Again, the HUD guidelines below that I have included in my previous emails that mandates the SMHA and the SMHAB, comply with my request:
"PHA's Responsibility to the RAB
What are the PHAs' Responsibilities?
PHAs have the responsibility to ensure that the RAB can adequately serve its function including:

PHAs must give the RABs sufficient time to review and make recommendations on the Plan. RABs will be able to contribute best if they are provided with adequate information regarding the PHA's programs and the policies included in the Five-Year and Annual PHA Plan.

The PHAs should give RABs advance notice of meetings scheduled to discuss areas of the Plan (generally, at least 48 hours, or more depending on the meeting agenda).

RABs should also be provided with any existing documents that would assist them to make productive recommendations during the working meetings.

Item 3.I
04/12/22
73 of 102 Item 3.I
04/12/22
PHAs should provide the RABs with reasonable means to carry out their functions such as making available a meeting place for discussing programs with the residents. RABs should also have access to any other communication tools such as a telephone, writing material, or computers that may facilitate their contacts with other resident households or to obtain further information on the programs.

At what stage in the planning process must PHAs involve the RABs? The role of the RABs is to assist and make recommendations regarding the development of the PHA Plan and any significant amendments or modifications to it. RABs should be involved in the planning process as soon as it is feasible and must be given sufficient time to fully participate in the process so that they can carry out their proper role and provide representation that is meaningful and relevant to the development of the Plan. The PHA and the RAB should develop a reasonable timetable to promote participation, including adequate notice of meetings. To facilitate productive meetings, PHAs may do preliminary work prior to involving the RABs, such as gathering and compiling data and materials to help residents participate in the process, including some initial recommendations. A PHA must consider the recommendations of the RABs and make revisions to drafts or to the Plan which it deems appropriate." I have copied the newly appointed RAB/HAB members, Donna Brown and Elizabeth Cochran on this email thread so they may review the requests made, and the responses provided by the various City of SMHA staff, and the interim City Manager, John Jalili.

Thanking you in advance for your immediate attention and resolution to this matter.

Very truly yours,
Theresa H. Marasco
(720) 226-4051
Powered by
cloudHQ
On Mon, Aug 30, 2021, 3:40 PM Anna Topolewski <[email protected]> wrote:

Hi Theresa,
You can find information about the Housing Authority Board(HAB) members on the Housing Authority News & Notices page (link below). The most recent notice provides a link to the new HAB webpage. https://www.santamonica.gov/housing-news
Best,
Anna Topolewski
Senior Administrative Analyst
Santa Monica Housing Authority
Office: 310-458-8743 ext 2646 | Fax: 310-264-7757
Item 3.I
04/12/22
74 of 102 Item 3.I
04/12/22
From: Theresa Marasco <[email protected]>
Sent: Thursday, August 26, 2021 4:44 PM
To: Andy Agle <[email protected]>
Cc: Christopher J. Smith <[email protected]>; Setareh Yavari <Setareh.Yavari@santamonica. gov>; Denise Anderson-Warren <[email protected]>; Oscar de la Torre <[email protected]>; Santa Monica City Manager's Office <[email protected]>; [email protected]; Andy Agle <[email protected]>; James Kemper <[email protected]>; Ann Maggio <[email protected]>; oz <[email protected]>; Anna Topolewski <[email protected]>; [email protected]; Kristin McCowan <[email protected]>; Christine Parra <[email protected]>; Oscar de la Torre <[email protected]>; Phil Brock <[email protected]>; Gleam Davis <[email protected]>; Lana Negrete <[email protected]>; Richard Hilton <[email protected]>; Josh Hamilton <[email protected]>; Todd Flora <[email protected]>; [email protected]; Leonora Camner <Leonora.Camner@santamonica. gov>; Rene Buchanan <[email protected]>; Sue Himmelrich <suehimmelrich@suehimmelrich. net>; John Jalili <[email protected]>
Subject: Re: Please respond Re: Contact information for RAB appointees

EXTERNAL
Image
removed
by
sender.

Good afternoon Andy Agle:

On August 17, 2021, you sent me an email in response to the email that I sent to City of SM interim City Manager, John Jalili, on August 6, 2021. I have copied and pasted the email I sent to John Jalili below and is highlighted in yellow. As you know and upon review of the copied and pasted email below to John Jalili, I have been requesting the contact information for the newly appointed RAB/HAB members, as well as a Zoom meeting that will allow all Section 8 voucher holders to participate in the first, official meeting with the newly appointed RAB/HAB members.

On Tuesday, August 17, 2021, 9 days ago, your response to me was the following:
"Staff has asked the Information Services Department to create City email addresses for the new HAB members. Once the addresses are established and the new members have been given instructions on accessing the email, their contact information will be posted on the City website." Item 3.I
04/12/22
75 of 102 Item 3.I
04/12/22
I sent an email to James Kemper on Wednesday, July 7, 2021 requesting contact information for the newly appointed RAB/HAB members. Mr. Kemper responded the same day stating the following:
"Regarding your question about the two tenant representatives appointed to the Housing Authority Board via lottery on June 29th, staff is still working out the logistics regarding the recent appointment of the two new Housing Authority Board members. We would appreciate your patience during this time.

I also wanted to note for your clarification that the Housing Authority Annual and Administrative Plans cycle occur in the winter/spring." As you can imagine I am baffled as to why there are so many people involved yet it is taking a very long time to set up simple emails and a Zoom conference call. It is becoming more than apparent that the more than 1,500 Section 8 voucher holders in this city are not a priority to the people who are paid to administer the program - the SMHA.

I have copied all of the SMHAB members/SMCC, the Housing Commission members and chair, James Kemper, and an array of City of Santa Monica staff, as well as several residents regarding the below requests. I am beyond frustrated and dismayed that all I have been provided are empty commitments, stonewalling, and no action. My requests are part of HUD's mandates. You and Mr. Kemper should be fully aware of that fact so I am not asking for anything outlandish, or unorthodox, or even difficult.

Please review my requests and information regarding HUD mandates below and kindly provide me with the information that I requested by September 2, 2021. 8/6/2021 email sent to City of SM interim City Manager, John Jalili below:

Good afternoon John Jalili:

I am writing to you in your position as the Interim Executive Director of the Santa Monica Housing Authority since Housing Program Manager James Kemper has not resolved this issue as the writing of this email.

I sent emails to James Kemper on July 2nd and July 7th regarding contact information for the Section 8 tenants representing the Resident Advisory Board (RAB) on the Santa Monica Housing Authority Board who were appointed through a Item 3.I
04/12/22
76 of 102 Item 3.I
04/12/22
lottery administered by Mr. Kemper on June 29, 2021. Mr. Kemper's response to me on July 7th was "staff is still working out the logistics regarding the recent appointment of the two new Housing Authority Board members." I have no idea what "logistics" the SMHA needs to work out in order to be able to notify the approximately 1,500 RAB members how they can contact the two individuals who are now representing them on the Santa Monica Housing Authority Board. The two people selected via the lottery are public officials now who volunteered and their names and contact info must be disclosed to the community they are supposed to represent, which is the RAB, and the general public.

For five weeks now the identity and contact information of the RAB representatives appointed to the Santa Monica Housing Authority Board via a lottery have been kept secret from the very community those individuals are supposed to represent.

Again, those individuals volunteered to become public officials. Their names must be disclosed to the general public as well, and the RAB must be able to communicate with them immediately.

Therefore, I am calling for a Zoom meeting with the newly appointed RAB representatives to be scheduled as soon as conveniently possible and at least 30 days before the Administrative Plan is to be discussed by the Housing Authority Board. I am requesting that the SMHA provide the information about the Zoom meeting to all of the RAB members and/or Section 8 voucher holders once it is scheduled so everyone can have an opportunity to attend the meeting.

The SMHA is required per HUD regulations to provide to the RAB the "space" to hold meetings. Due to Covid-19, I request that a Zoom meeting be arranged for with the possibility to listen in and participate on the phone for those who do not have access to the Internet.

It is the PHA's responsibility to facilitate the communication among RAB members in order for the RAB to be able to effectively discuss and provide feedback regarding the Administrative Plan. Additionally, since it is the first year the newly formed RAB has included all Section 8 tenants, the RAB must be given an opportunity to communicate in order to organize, e.g. come up with its bylaws, etc.

Please see excerpts from HUD below: (hyperlink to HUD mandate re: RAB) "Encouraging Participation in the RAB
The PHA provides adequate information to all residents regarding the RAB. The PHA should inform residents of the purpose and role of the RAB, as well as practical information such as the time commitment required. The PHA should make clear to residents and Section 8 participants that the partnership between the residents and the PHA is of benefit to both parties. The residents are provided with an opportunity to voice their concerns so that their needs are addressed and they can become involved in the planning process. The PHA also gains essential information from the residents about the improvements that need to be made at the agency's developments and residents' self-sufficiency needs. This information helps the PHA to set priorities for capital improvements and advises resident services programming.

Item 3.I
04/12/22
77 of 102 Item 3.I
04/12/22
PHA's Responsibility to the RAB
What are the PHAs' Responsibilities?
PHAs have the responsibility to ensure that the RAB can adequately serve its function including:

PHAs must give the RABs sufficient time to review and make recommendations on the Plan. RABs will be able to contribute best if they are provided with adequate information regarding the PHA's programs and the policies included in the FiveYear and Annual PHA Plan.

The PHAs should give RABs advance notice of meetings scheduled to discuss areas of the Plan (generally, at least 48 hours, or more depending on the meeting agenda).

RABs should also be provided with any existing documents that would assist them to make productive recommendations during the working meetings.

PHAs should provide the RABs with reasonable means to carry out their functions such as making available a meeting place for discussing programs with the residents. RABs should also have access to any other communication tools such as a telephone, writing material, or computers that may facilitate their contacts with other resident households or to obtain further information on the programs.

At what stage in the planning process must PHAs involve the RABs? The role of the RABs is to assist and make recommendations regarding the development of the PHA Plan and any significant amendments or modifications to it. RABs should be involved in the planning process as soon as it is feasible and must be given sufficient time to fully participate in the process so that they can carry out their proper role and provide representation that is meaningful and relevant to the development of the Plan. The PHA and the RAB should develop a reasonable timetable to promote participation, including adequate notice of meetings. To facilitate productive meetings, PHAs may do preliminary work prior to involving the RABs, such as gathering and compiling data and materials to help residents participate in the process, including some initial recommendations. A PHA must consider the recommendations of the RABs and make revisions to drafts or to the Plan which it deems appropriate.

Thanking you in ad

EXTERNAL
Good afternoon John Jalili, Andy Agle, Anna Topolewski, James Kemper, the Santa Monica Housing Authority Board, and RAB Representatives:

As you all know, I have been actively trying to communicate and engage with the newly appointed RAB representatives since July 7, 2021, which was one week after the RAB representatives were appointed, in an effort to ensure that the RAB representatives give ALL Housing Choice Voucher (HCV) holders a voice in the drafting of revisions to the Annual and Administrative Plan (AP) process.

As of today, September 17, 2021, more than 3 months since I first contacted you all about engaging with the RAB representatives, I have not been able to communicate with either Donna Brown or Elizabeth Cochran, who are the current RAB representatives. The Santa Monica Housing Authority (SMHA) barely contacted me two weeks ago with the email addresses of the RAB representatives, Elizabeth Cochran and Donna Brown even though they were appointed on June 29, 2021.

Item 3.I
04/12/22
78 of 102 Item 3.I
04/12/22
Since receiving the RAB representative email addresses, I have copied them on the emails that I sent to everyone addressed in this email requesting that the SMHA and the Santa Monica Housing Authority Board (SMHAB} set up a Zoom meeting for the RAB to give all RAB members/HCV a chance to discuss the draft AP. Additionally, I have tried contacting each of the RAB representatives by email but they have been unresponsive as of the writing of this email.

To date, NONE of you have ever responded to my request to schedule a Zoom meeting and to notify all HCV holders about the meeting so everyone has a chance to ACTUALLY participate in a meaningful way and as is designed by HUD.

Even though a RAB has always been required per HUD regulations, the SMHA and the SMHAB have failed to meet this requirement since the time that the City of Santa Monica created a Housing Authority. If it had not been for the diligence and hard work of Olga Zurawska over the last two years to force the hand of the SMHA and the SMHAB to create the RAB, it would have never been done.

As pointed out in the email I received today from the SMHA regarding the comment period for the draft Administrative Plan, the SMHA officially, for the first time ever, notified HCV holders in March of this year that HCV holders are "automatically" RAB members.

The fact is, any resident of Santa Monica has the opportunity to attempt to participate in the drafting of the AP by submitting public comment. However, without having an official functional RAB, that is comprised solely of HCV holders to discuss and carry forward the policy reccomendations for the draft of the AP, it has been pointless to submit comments. It is a well-known fact that the SMHA and SMHAB never take any of the public comments into consideration. The comment period literally only serves as something the SMHA and SMHAB check off of their list as a requirement you all complied with. At the 4/27/21 SMHAB meeting James Kemper confirmed that the SMHAB’s role is merely to rubber stamp the AP that SMHA staff puts before them.

Today is the first day of the 45 day comment period regarding the Annual and Administrative Plans. Again, I am requesting a Zoom meeting be scheduled with the newly appointed RAB representatives and that ALL RAB members be notified. I am also requesting the SMHA and/or the SMHAB contact Elizabeth Cochran and Donna Brown to notify them that I am trying to contact them. Their sole purpose is to represent the recommendations of the entire RAB/ALL RAB members.

Additionally, It should be noted that RAB's have more function than to just review and agree or disagree with the SMHA's "redlined" revisions of the annual draft AP. RAB's can make policy change recommendations on any part of the more than 600 pages of the AP's. Below are the statements that were made in the email sent to me today from the SMHA regarding the comment period for the draft revisions of the AP:
"SMHA has proposed changes to its Administrative Plan, and the public comment period is open for feedback on those changes. As a member of the RAB, we welcome your thoughts on the proposed policy changes.

What’s Needed at This Time:

If you’d like to participate in the Administrative Plan process, please review the proposed policy revisions redlined in Chapters 17, 19, and 21 of the Administrative Plan, which is currently posted for public comment. Please provide your input by October 31, 2021. " Per HUD's regulations, RAB's can submit their own recommendations for policy revisions to the AP that are allowable, and are in compliance with HUD regulations (CFR Title 24) for the SMHA and SMHAB to take into consideration each year. Therefore, the statements made in the email sent to all RAB members are incorrect and misleading and is even more reason why the RAB needs to be an official board with Bylaws, its own elections, and the ability to meet regularly throughout the year to discuss possible revisions to be submitted annually.

The RAB is not to be influenced or controlled by either the SMHA or the SMHAB and should serve as a completely separate body to make recommendations for policy changes to the AP. SEE CFR Title 24 Section 903.13 below:

Item 3.I
04/12/22
79 of 102 Item 3.I
04/12/22
§ 903.13 What is a Resident Advisory Board and what is its role in development of the Annual Plan? (a) A Resident Advisory Board refers to a board or boards, as provided in paragraph (b) of this section, whose membership consists of individuals who adequately reflect and represent the residents assisted by the PHA.
(1) The role of the Resident Advisory Board (or Resident Advisory Boards) is to assist and make recommendations regarding the development of the PHA plan, and any significant amendment or modification to the PHA plan.
(2) The PHA shall allocate reasonable resources to assure the effective functioning of Resident Advisory Boards. Reasonable resources for the Resident Advisory Boards must provide reasonable means for them to become informed on programs covered by the PHA Plan, to communicate in writing and by telephone with assisted families and hold meetings with those families, and to access information regarding covered programs on the internet, taking into account the size and resources of the PHA. (b) Each PHA must establish one or more Resident Advisory Boards, as provided in paragraph (b) of this section.
(1) If a jurisdiction-wide resident council exists that complies with the tenant participation regulations in part 964 of this title, the PHA shall appoint the jurisdiction-wide resident council or the council's representatives as the Resident Advisory Board. If the PHA makes such appointment, the members of the jurisdiction-wide resident council or the council's representatives shall be added or another Resident Advisory Board formed to provide for reasonable representation of families receiving tenant-based assistance where such representation is required under paragraph (b)(2) of this section. (2) If a jurisdiction-wide resident council does not exist but resident councils exist that comply with the tenant participation regulations, the PHA shall appoint such resident councils or their representatives to serve on one or more Resident Advisory Boards. If the PHA makes such appointment, the PHA may require that the resident councils choose a limited number of representatives. (3) Where the PHA has a tenant-based assistance program of significant size (where tenant-based assistance is 20% or more of assisted households), the PHA shall assure that the Resident Advisory Board (or Boards) has reasonable representation of families receiving tenant-based assistance and that a reasonable process is undertaken to choose this representation. (4) Where or to the extent that resident councils that comply with the tenant participation regulations do not exist, the PHA shall appoint Resident Advisory Boards or Board members as needed to adequately reflect and represent the interests of residents of such developments; provided that the PHA shall provide reasonable notice to such residents and urge that they form resident councils with the tenant participation regulations.
(c) The PHA must consider the recommendations of the Resident Advisory Board or Boards in preparing the final Annual Plan, and any significant amendment or modification to the Annual Plan, as provided in § 903.21 of this title.
(1) In submitting the final plan to HUD for approval, or any significant amendment or modification to the plan to HUD for approval, the PHA must include a copy of the recommendations made by the Resident Advisory Board or Boards and a description of the manner in which the PHA addressed these recommendations. (2) Notwithstanding the 75-day limitation on HUD review, in response to a written request from a Resident Advisory Board claiming that the PHA failed to provide adequate notice and opportunity for comment, HUD may make a finding of good cause during the required time period and require the PHA to remedy the failure before final approval of the plan.

It is also the role of the SMHA to provide adequate training and outreach activities to ensure participation of the RAB members and how to make AP recommendations that comply with HUD regulations and guidelines. The SMHA and the SMHAB have not conducted the outreach or training and have not disseminated any materials to assist the RAB Representatives and members.

Item 3.I
04/12/22
80 of 102 Item 3.I
04/12/22
The SMHA and SMHAB have long held a closed-loop system subverting the voices of the population you all serve. The actions of the SMHA and the SMHAB could be considered non-compliance with the HUD contract and even discrimination. I suggest that the SMHA and the SMHAB begin to review HUD regulations regarding RAB's and Resident Councils (RC's) to ensure you are in compliance with the HUD contract, HUD regulations, and guidelines to avoid complaints being submitted to HUD and possibly a "finding" by HUD that "Notwithstanding the 75-day limitation on HUD review, in response to a written request from a Resident Advisory Board claiming that the PHA failed to provide adequate notice and opportunity for comment, HUD may make a finding of good cause during the required time period and require the PHA to remedy the failure before final approval of the plan."
I look forward to a complete response by one of the parties addressed in this email immediately. Please schedule the Zoom meeting for the RAB no later than next week and at a time that would be feasible for ALL RAB members to attend if they wish to participate. After the first meeting, the RAB representatives and members can agree on the scheduling of future meetings without assistance from the SMHA and the SMHAB.

Thanking you in advance for your immediate attention and response in this matter.

Very truly yours,
Theresa H. Marasco
(720) 226-4051
Powered by
cloudHQ
On Thu, Sep 9, 2021 at 5:02 PM Theresa Marasco <[email protected]> wrote:

Good afternoon Andy Agle, Anna Topolewski, James Kemper, and John Jalili:

Thank you Ann Topolewski for responding to the email that I sent to Andy Agle on August 26, 2021. I requested that Andy Agle respond no later than September 2, 2021. However, the response you sent to me on August 30, 2021, on behalf of Andy Agle, only provided me with the contact information for the newly appointed RAB members but you did not address the entirety of my request.

Andy Agle, Anna Topolewski, James Kemper, and John Jalili, beginning on August 6, 2021, I specifically requested the following:
"...I am calling for a Zoom meeting with the newly appointed RAB representatives to be scheduled as soon as conveniently possible and at least 30 days before the Administrative Plan is to be discussed by the Housing Authority Board. I am requesting that the SMHA provide the information about the Zoom meeting to all of the RAB members and/or Section 8 voucher holders once it is scheduled so everyone can have an opportunity to attend the meeting."
I have made this request several times yet NONE of you have ever responded to it. The fact that you all wield so much power to simply ignore the requests from subsidized tenants, requests that are a part of your mandates per your HUD contracts and HUD regulations, is very troubling. You are all paid a very handsome salary, with above average benefits, including a four day work week, so I do not understand why something so simple such as setting up a Zoom meeting with the RAB, to begin the process of discussing the proposed changes of the Annual and Administrative plans, and notifying all the Section 8 tenants about the meeting and providing them with a link to participate is so difficult.

September 16, 2021 is when the RAB/SMHAB will begin discussions about the above mentioned proposed changes. Please immediately schedule the requested Zoom meeting. Kindly schedule it at a time that will be convenient for the majority of Section 8 tenants to participate, preferably in the evening, and please notify ALL Section 8 tenants about the meeting, and encourage them to participate.

Item 3.I
04/12/22
81 of 102 Item 3.I
04/12/22
Again, the HUD guidelines below that I have included in my previous emails that mandates the SMHA and the SMHAB, comply with my request:
"PHA's Responsibility to the RAB
What are the PHAs' Responsibilities?
PHAs have the responsibility to ensure that the RAB can adequately serve its function including:

PHAs must give the RABs sufficient time to review and make recommendations on the Plan. RABs will be able to contribute best if they are provided with adequate information regarding the PHA's programs and the policies included in the Five-Year and Annual PHA Plan.

The PHAs should give RABs advance notice of meetings scheduled to discuss areas of the Plan (generally, at least 48 hours, or more depending on the meeting agenda).

RABs should also be provided with any existing documents that would assist them to make productive recommendations during the working meetings.

PHAs should provide the RABs with reasonable means to carry out their functions such as making available a meeting place for discussing programs with the residents. RABs should also have access to any other communication tools such as a telephone, writing material, or computers that may facilitate their contacts with other resident households or to obtain further information on the programs.

At what stage in the planning process must PHAs involve the RABs? The role of the RABs is to assist and make recommendations regarding the development of the PHA Plan and any significant amendments or modifications to it. RABs should be involved in the planning process as soon as it is feasible and must be given sufficient time to fully participate in the process so that they can carry out their proper role and provide representation that is meaningful and relevant to the development of the Plan. The PHA and the RAB should develop a reasonable timetable to promote participation, including adequate notice of meetings. To facilitate productive meetings, PHAs may do preliminary work prior to involving the RABs, such as gathering and compiling data and materials to help residents participate in the process, including some initial recommendations. A PHA must consider the recommendations of the RABs and make revisions to drafts or to the Plan which it deems appropriate." I have copied the newly appointed RAB/HAB members, Donna Brown and Elizabeth Cochran on this email thread so they may review the requests made, and the responses provided by the various City of SMHA staff, and the interim City Manager, John Jalili.

Thanking you in advance for your immediate attention and resolution to this matter.

Very truly yours,
Theresa H. Marasco
(720) 226-4051
Powered by
cloudHQ
On Mon, Aug 30, 2021, 3:40 PM Anna Topolewski <[email protected]> wrote:

Hi Theresa,
You can find information about the Housing Authority Board(HAB) members on the Housing Authority News & Notices page (link below). The most recent notice provides a link to the new HAB webpage. https://www.santamonica.gov/housing-news
Item 3.I
04/12/22
82 of 102 Item 3.I
04/12/22
Best,
Anna Topolewski
Senior Administrative Analyst
Santa Monica Housing Authority
Office: 310-458-8743 ext 2646 | Fax: 310-264-7757
From: Theresa Marasco <[email protected]>
Sent: Thursday, August 26, 2021 4:44 PM
To: Andy Agle <[email protected]>
Cc: Christopher J. Smith <[email protected]>; Setareh Yavari <Setareh.Yavari@santamonica. gov>; Denise Anderson-Warren <[email protected]>; Oscar de la Torre <[email protected]>; Santa Monica City Manager's Office <[email protected]>; [email protected]; Andy Agle <[email protected]>; James Kemper <[email protected]>; Ann Maggio <[email protected]>; oz <[email protected]>; Anna Topolewski <[email protected]>; [email protected]; Kristin McCowan <[email protected]>; Christine Parra <[email protected]>; Oscar de la Torre <[email protected]>; Phil Brock <[email protected]>; Gleam Davis <[email protected]>; Lana Negrete <[email protected]>; Richard Hilton <[email protected]>; Josh Hamilton <[email protected]>; Todd Flora <[email protected]>; [email protected]; Leonora Camner <Leonora.Camner@santamonica. gov>; Rene Buchanan <[email protected]>; Sue Himmelrich <suehimmelrich@suehimmelrich. net>; John Jalili <[email protected]>
Subject: Re: Please respond Re: Contact information for RAB appointees

EXTERNAL
Image
removed
by
sender.

Good afternoon Andy Agle:

On August 17, 2021, you sent me an email in response to the email that I sent to City of SM interim City Manager, John Jalili, on August 6, 2021. I have copied and pasted the email I sent to John Jalili below and is highlighted in yellow. As you know and upon review of the copied and pasted email below to John Jalili, I have been requesting the contact information for the newly appointed RAB/HAB members, as well as a Zoom meeting that will allow all Section 8 voucher holders to participate in the first, official meeting with the newly appointed RAB/HAB members.

Item 3.I
04/12/22
83 of 102 Item 3.I
04/12/22
On Tuesday, August 17, 2021, 9 days ago, your response to me was the following:
"Staff has asked the Information Services Department to create City email addresses for the new HAB members. Once the addresses are established and the new members have been given instructions on accessing the email, their contact information will be posted on the City website." I sent an email to James Kemper on Wednesday, July 7, 2021 requesting contact information for the newly appointed RAB/HAB members. Mr. Kemper responded the same day stating the following:
"Regarding your question about the two tenant representatives appointed to the Housing Authority Board via lottery on June 29th, staff is still working out the logistics regarding the recent appointment of the two new Housing Authority Board members. We would appreciate your patience during this time.

I also wanted to note for your clarification that the Housing Authority Annual and Administrative Plans cycle occur in the winter/spring." As you can imagine I am baffled as to why there are so many people involved yet it is taking a very long time to set up simple emails and a Zoom conference call. It is becoming more than apparent that the more than 1,500 Section 8 voucher holders in this city are not a priority to the people who are paid to administer the program - the SMHA.

I have copied all of the SMHAB members/SMCC, the Housing Commission members and chair, James Kemper, and an array of City of Santa Monica staff, as well as several residents regarding the below requests. I am beyond frustrated and dismayed that all I have been provided are empty commitments, stonewalling, and no action. My requests are part of HUD's mandates. You and Mr. Kemper should be fully aware of that fact so I am not asking for anything outlandish, or unorthodox, or even difficult.

Please review my requests and information regarding HUD mandates below and kindly provide me with the information that I requested by September 2, 2021. 8/6/2021 email sent to City of SM interim City Manager, John Jalili below:

Item 3.I
04/12/22
84 of 102 Item 3.I
04/12/22
Good afternoon John Jalili:

I am writing to you in your position as the Interim Executive Director of the Santa Monica Housing Authority since Housing Program Manager James Kemper has not resolved this issue as the writing of this email.

I sent emails to James Kemper on July 2nd and July 7th regarding contact information for the Section 8 tenants representing the Resident Advisory Board (RAB) on the Santa Monica Housing Authority Board who were appointed through a lottery administered by Mr. Kemper on June 29, 2021. Mr. Kemper's response to me on July 7th was "staff is still working out the logistics regarding the recent appointment of the two new Housing Authority Board members." I have no idea what "logistics" the SMHA needs to work out in order to be able to notify the approximately 1,500 RAB members how they can contact the two individuals who are now representing them on the Santa Monica Housing Authority Board. The two people selected via the lottery are public officials now who volunteered and their names and contact info must be disclosed to the community they are supposed to represent, which is the RAB, and the general public.

For five weeks now the identity and contact information of the RAB representatives appointed to the Santa Monica Housing Authority Board via a lottery have been kept secret from the very community those individuals are supposed to represent.

Again, those individuals volunteered to become public officials. Their names must be disclosed to the general public as well, and the RAB must be able to communicate with them immediately.

Therefore, I am calling for a Zoom meeting with the newly appointed RAB representatives to be scheduled as soon as conveniently possible and at least 30 days before the Administrative Plan is to be discussed by the Housing Authority Board. I am requesting that the SMHA provide the information about the Zoom meeting to all of the RAB members and/or Section 8 voucher holders once it is scheduled so everyone can have an opportunity to attend the meeting.

The SMHA is required per HUD regulations to provide to the RAB the "space" to hold meetings. Due to Covid-19, I request that a Zoom meeting be arranged for with the possibility to listen in and participate on the phone for those who do not have access to the Internet.

It is the PHA's responsibility to facilitate the communication among RAB members in order for the RAB to be able to effectively discuss and provide feedback regarding the Administrative Plan. Additionally, since it is the first year the newly formed RAB has included all Section 8 tenants, the RAB must be given an opportunity to communicate in order to organize, e.g. come up with its bylaws, etc.

Please see excerpts from HUD below: (hyperlink to HUD mandate re: RAB) "Encouraging Participation in the RAB
The PHA provides adequate information to all residents regarding the RAB. The PHA should inform residents of the purpose and role of the RAB, as well as Item 3.I
04/12/22
85 of 102 Item 3.I
04/12/22
practical information such as the time commitment required. The PHA should make clear to residents and Section 8 participants that the partnership between the residents and the PHA is of benefit to both parties. The residents are provided with an opportunity to voice their concerns so that their needs are addressed and they can become involved in the planning process. The PHA also gains essential information from the residents about the improvements that need to be made at the agency's developments and residents' self-sufficiency needs. This information helps the PHA to set priorities for capital improvements and advises resident services programming.

PHA's Responsibility to the RAB
What are the PHAs' Responsibilities?
PHAs have the responsibility to ensure that the RAB can adequately serve its function including:

PHAs must give the RABs sufficient time to review and make recommendations on the Plan. RABs will be able to contribute best if they are provided with adequate information regarding the PHA's programs and the policies included in the FiveYear and Annual PHA Plan.

The PHAs should give RABs advance notice of meetings scheduled to discuss areas of the Plan (generally, at least 48 hours, or more depending on the meeting agenda).

RABs should also be provided with any existing documents that would assist them to make productive recommendations during the working meetings.

PHAs should provide the RABs with reasonable means to carry out their functions such as making available a meeting place for discussing programs with the residents. RABs should also have access to any other communication tools such as a telephone, writing material, or computers that may facilitate their contacts with other resident households or to obtain further information on the programs.

At what stage in the planning process must PHAs involve the RABs? The role of the RABs is to assist and make recommendations regarding the development of the PHA Plan and any significant amendments or modifications to it. RABs should be involved in the planning process as soon as it is feasible and must be given sufficient time to fully participate in the process so that they can carry out their proper role and provide representation that is meaningful and relevant to the development of the Plan. The PHA and the RAB should develop a reasonable timetable to promote participation, including adequate notice of meetings. To facilitate productive meetings, PHAs may do preliminary work prior to involving the RABs, such as gathering and compiling data and materials to help residents participate in the process, including some initial recommendations. A PHA must consider the recommendations of the RABs and make revisions to drafts or to the Plan which it deems appropriate.

Thanking you in advance for your immediate attention and response to this matter by next Thursday, September 2, 2021.

Very truly yours,
Item 3.I
04/12/22
86 of 102 Item 3.I
04/12/22
Theresa H. Marasco
(720) 226-4051
Image
removed
by
sender.
cloudHQ
Powered by
cloudHQ
On Tue, Aug 17, 2021 at 11:18 AM Andy Agle <[email protected]> wrote:

Staff has asked the Information Services Department to create City email addresses for the new HAB members.

Once the addresses are established and the new members have been given instructions on accessing the email, their contact information will be posted on the City website.

From: John Jalili <[email protected]>
Sent: Friday, August 13, 2021 5:46 PM
To: Theresa Marasco <[email protected]>
Cc: Andy Agle <[email protected]>; James Kemper <[email protected]>; Christopher J. Smith <[email protected]> Subject: RE: Please respond Re: Contact information for RAB appointees Dear Ms. Marasco,
You have reached me on a closed Friday and I am not able to reach out to Mr. Kemper and his supervisor, Andy Agle until next week. I have complete confidence in our staff and suggest you continue to work with them to resolve your issues. Thanks.

From: Theresa Marasco <[email protected]>
Sent: Friday, August 13, 2021 4:30 PM
To: John Jalili <[email protected]>; Santa Monica City Manager's Office <[email protected]>
Cc: Sue Himmelrich <[email protected]>; [email protected]; Andy Agle <[email protected]>; James Kemper <[email protected]>; Ann Maggio <[email protected]>; oz <[email protected]>; Anna Topolewski <Anna.Topolewski@santamonica. gov>; [email protected]; Kristin McCowan <[email protected]>; Christine Parra <[email protected]>; Oscar de la Torre <[email protected]>; Phil Brock <[email protected]>; Gleam Davis <[email protected]>; Lana Negrete <[email protected]>; Richard Hilton <[email protected]>; Josh Hamilton <[email protected]>; Todd Flora <[email protected]>; [email protected]; Leonora Camner <[email protected]>; Rene Buchanan <[email protected]> Subject: Re: Please respond Re: Contact information for RAB appointees Item 3.I
04/12/22
87 of 102 Item 3.I
04/12/22

EXTERNAL
Good afternoon Mr. Jalili:

Please provide me with a material response to my email of 8/6/21 (enclosed).

When responding to that email on 8/6/21 you did not use "reply all,” which is why I have cut, pasted, and highlighted your insufficient response below:

Hello Ms. Marasco:

Thank you for alerting me about your concerns.

I was not "alerting" you, I was requesting that you provide me with the answers to my requests.

My email to you on 8/6/2021 specifically requested that SMHA organize a Zoom meeting for the RAB to be able to meet and communicate with the two individuals who are supposed to represent the RAB on the SMHA Board.

The whole reason for the RAB is to give Section 8 voucher holders a voice and to have RAB representatives on the SMHAB who can speak on our behalf during SMHAB meetings. How can the representatives on the SMHAB represent the RAB if the RAB is deprived of the opportunity to contact snd communicate with its own representatives?
I realize this is a new concept for the City of SM with regard to giving Section 8 voucher holders a voice even though it has been required by federal regulations for decades. It certainly doesn't take months to give the new appointees and the voucher holders a way to communicate and organize a Zoom meeting for them.

I requested that an answer be provided to me by 8/11/2021. Today is 8/13.2021. You are a public official and you have a duty to resolve issues such as the ones I have brought to your attention and requested assistance in resolving. I have asked you for your assistance in resolving this matter because the other public officials such as Mr. Kemper and others who have been copied on my emails, whose job it is to resolve this issue, have not done so as of the writing of this email even though I have requested the same of them.

Your position with the City is the Interim City Manager. You are also the Interim Executive Director of the SMHA. You are paid to assist residents in this city with the problems and issues we face. I do not get paid to send endless emails that seem to go nowhere in this city. I have complained about the lack of response by the SMHA and other departments in the city many times but still, no change has come about.

This is dysfunctional and unacceptable for the residents. As a resident I should not be put in a position where I have to consider contacting my senator or Item 3.I
04/12/22
88 of 102 Item 3.I
04/12/22
congressman to resolve a local issue regarding a federal program administered within the City of Santa Monica.

I await your material response to my 8/6/21 email. Please provide it at your earliest convenience.

Image
removed
by
sender.

Very truly yours,
Theresa H. Marasco
(720) 226-4051
Image
removed
by
sender.
cloudHQ
Powered by
cloudHQ
On Fri, Aug 6, 2021 at 4:00 PM Theresa Marasco <[email protected]> wrote:

Error! Filename not specified.

Good afternoon John Jalili:

I am writing to you in your position as the Interim Executive Director of the Santa Monica Housing Authority since Housing Program Manager James Kemper has not resolved this issue as the writing of this email.

I sent emails to James Kemper on July 2nd and July 7th regarding contact information for the Section 8 tenants representing the Resident Advisory Board (RAB) on the Santa Monica Housing Authority Board who were appointed through a lottery administered by Mr. Kemper on June 29, 2021. Mr. Kemper's response to me on July 7th was "staff is still working out the logistics regarding the recent appointment of the two new Housing Authority Board members."
I have no idea what "logistics" the SMHA needs to work out in order to be able to notify the approximately 1,500 RAB members how they can contact the two individuals who are now representing them on the Santa Monica Housing Authority Board. The two people selected via the lottery are public officials now who volunteered and their names and contact info must be disclosed to the community they are supposed to represent, which is the RAB, and the general Item 3.I
04/12/22
89 of 102 Item 3.I
04/12/22
public.

For five weeks now the identity and contact information of the RAB representatives appointed to the Santa Monica Housing Authority Board via a lottery have been kept secret from the very community those individuals are supposed to represent. Again, those individuals volunteered to become public officials. Their names must be disclosed to the general public as well, and the RAB must be able to communicate with them immediately.

Therefore, I am calling for a Zoom meeting with the newly appointed RAB representatives to be scheduled as soon as conveniently possible and at least 30 days before the Administrative Plan is to be discussed by the Housing Authority Board. I am requesting that the SMHA provide the information about the Zoom meeting to all of the RAB members and/or Section 8 voucher holders once it is scheduled so everyone can have an opportunity to attend the meeting.

The SMHA is required per HUD regulations to provide to the RAB the "space" to hold meetings. Due to Covid-19, I request that a Zoom meeting be arranged for with the possibility to listen in and participate on the phone for those who do not have access to the Internet.

It is the PHA's responsibility to facilitate the communication among RAB members in order for the RAB to be able to effectively discuss and provide feedback regarding the Administrative Plan. Additionally, since it is the first year the newly formed RAB has included all Section 8 tenants, the RAB must be given an opportunity to communicate in order to organize, e.g. come up with its bylaws, etc.

Please see excerpts from HUD below:
"Encouraging Participation in the RAB
The PHA provide adequate information to all residents regarding the RAB. The PHA should inform residents of the purpose and role of the RAB, as well as practical information such as the time commitment required. The PHA should make clear to residents and Section 8 participants that the partnership between the residents and the PHA is of benefit to both parties. The residents are provided with an opportunity to voice their concerns so that their needs are addressed and they can become involved in the planning process. The PHA also gains essential information from the residents about the improvements that need to be made at the agency's developments and residents' self-sufficiency needs. This information helps the PHA to set priorities for capital improvements and advises resident services programming.

PHA's Responsibility to the RAB
What are the PHAs' Responsibilities?
PHAs have the responsibility to ensure that the RAB can adequately serve its function including:

PHAs must give the RABs sufficient time to review and make recommendations on the Plan. RABs will be able to contribute best if they are provided with Item 3.I
04/12/22
90 of 102 Item 3.I
04/12/22
adequate information regarding the PHA's programs and the policies included in the Five-Year and Annual PHA Plan.

The PHAs should give RABs advance notice of meetings scheduled to discuss areas of the Plan (generally, at least 48 hours, or more depending on the meeting agenda).

RABs should also be provided with any existing documents that would assist them to make productive recommendations during the working meetings.

PHAs should provide the RABs with reasonable means to carry out their functions such as making available a meeting place for discussing programs with the residents. RABs should also have access to any other communication tools such as a telephone, writing material, or computers that may facilitate their contacts with other resident households or to obtain further information on the programs.

At what stage in the planning process must PHAs involve the RABs? The role of the RABs is to assist and make recommendations regarding the development of the PHA Plan and any significant amendments or modifications to it. RABs should be involved in the planning process as soon as it is feasible and must be given sufficient time to fully participate in the process so that they can carry out their proper role and provide representation that is meaningful and relevant to the development of the Plan. The PHA and the RAB should develop a reasonable timetable to promote participation, including adequate notice of meetings. To facilitate productive meetings, PHAs may do preliminary work prior to involving the RABs, such as gathering and compiling data and materials to help residents participate in the process, including some initial recommendations. A PHA must consider the recommendations of the RABs and make revisions to drafts or to the Plan which it deems appropriate.

Please respond by 5 pm on Wednesday, August 11, 2021. I look forward to your reply.

Thank you.

Very truly yours,
Theresa H. Marasco
(720) 226-4051
Image
removed
by
sender.
cloudHQ
Powered by
cloudHQ
Item 3.I
04/12/22
91 of 102 Item 3.I
04/12/22
On Wed, Jul 7, 2021 at 1:38 PM James Kemper <[email protected]> wrote:

Good Afternoon Miss Marasco,
City offices were closed on Friday, when you sent your original email, as well as Monday, for the holiday.

Regarding your question about he two tenant representatives appointed to the Housing Authority Board via lottery on June 29th, staff is still working out the logistics regarding the recent appointment of the two new Housing Authority Board members. We would appreciate your patience during this time.

I also wanted to note for your clarification that the Housing Authority Annual and Administrative Plans cycle occur in the winter/spring.

Jim Kemper (he/him)
Housing Program Manager
310-434-2647
santamonica.gov
Facebook | Twitter | Instagram
Subscribe to City of Santa Monica Email Updates
From: Theresa Marasco <[email protected]>
Sent: Wednesday, July 7, 2021 8:27 AM
To: James Kemper <[email protected]>
Cc: Andy Agle <[email protected]>; [email protected]; Ann Maggio <[email protected]>; oz <[email protected]>; Anna Topolewski <[email protected]>; Sue Himmelrich <[email protected]> Subject: Please respond Re: Contact information for RAB appointees

EXTERNAL
Good morning James Kemper:

Item 3.I
04/12/22
92 of 102 Item 3.I
04/12/22
I sent you the below email last week but you did not respond. It is upsetting and disturbing that the Housing Division/Santa Monica Housing Authority does not feel they are obligated to respond to my emails. Ms. Topolewski completely ignores my emails and she is the supervisor. As a client and a longtime voucher holder I find this to be very problematic and is the reason a RAB should have been in place 20 years ago. Section 8 voucher holders need representation and someone to go to when those who get paid fail to respond to important questions or concerns. With that being said, please see the email I sent last week below and respond - it only takes a minute.

I am a Section 8 voucher holder. I submitted my name for the RAB lottery, but unfortunately, my name was not chosen. However, I am still interested in being actively involved, and everyone who is a RAB member, who wants to be involved, should have the ability to do so. With that being said, I would like to know how to contact the newly chosen RAB appointees.

Will they be given official email addresses for RAB members to contact them and will that information be provided to all Section 8 voucher holders? We are coming up on a new cycle to provide input on the Annual and Administrative Plans for the SMHA. There are several of us RAB members that want to work directly with the appointees.

Please advise upon receipt of this email as to how I can contact the new RAB appointees.

Thank you.

Image
removed
by
sender.

Very truly yours,
Theresa H. Marasco
(720) 226-4051

EXTERNAL
Please see the enclosed email of 9/13/2021.

Again, I request that Continuum of Care (CoC) representation be immediately established on the Santa Monica Housing Authority Board as mandated by 24 CFR 578.75(g)(1).

There are CoC program participants ready to volunteer to serve on the SMHA Board.

Item 3.I
04/12/22
93 of 102 Item 3.I
04/12/22
SMHA's refusal to follow the federal law in this case is reminiscent of their refusal to establish the federally mandated representation of Section 8 tenants on the SMHA Board. It took me almost two years to force the SMHA to finally comply with the federal law: https://www.smobserved.com/story/2020/10/12/opinion/ liberal-city-of-santa-monica-disenfranchises-section-8-tenants/4959.html In a city with two practicing attorneys on the City Council/Housing Authority Board, and where slogans of "equity" and "inclusion" are constantly being thrown around, this is unacceptable.

Unless the equity and inclusion is meant only for people who are NOT low-income or formerly homeless? Ms. Sue Himmelrich, Mayor of Santa Monica and Chair of the SMHA Board, who apparently works for the Western Center on Law & Poverty, should be embarrassed. WCLP Executive Director and staff are copied on this email – perhaps it will be helpful in their policy work.

Regards,
Olga Zurawska
----- Forwarded Message -----
From: OZ <[email protected]>
To: Sue Himmelrich <[email protected]>; [email protected] <[email protected]>; George S. Cardona <[email protected]> Cc: Kristin McCowan <[email protected]>; Phil Brock <[email protected]>; oscar.delarorre <[email protected]>; Christine Parra <[email protected]>; Lana Negrete <[email protected]>; John Jalili <[email protected]>; James Kemper <[email protected]>; Anna Topolewski <[email protected]>; Michael Soloff <[email protected]>; Josh Hamilton <[email protected]>; Todd Flora <[email protected]>; Carl Hansen <[email protected]>; [email protected] <[email protected]>; Leonora Camner <[email protected]>; Rene Buchanan <[email protected]>; [email protected] <[email protected]>; Jorge Casuso <[email protected]>; Santa Monica Observer <[email protected]>; [email protected] <[email protected]>; Catanzaro Sam <[email protected]> Sent: Monday, September 13, 2021, 03:25:03 PM PDT
Subject: A California Bar complaint is about to be filed against you Santa Monica Housing Authority Board Chair Himmelrich, Santa Monica Housing Authority Board Member Davis and Interim City Attorney Cardona,
Please be advised that a California State Bar complaint will be filed against each of you if you continue allowing the violation of 24 CFR 578.75(g)(1) in Santa Monica.

The above HUD regulation mandates Continuum of Care (CoC) representation on the policymaking entity of the recipient or subrecipient of CoC funding, i.e. the Santa Monica Housing Authority Board.

You have been on notice of the lack of the mandatory CoC representation on the SMHA Board for over a year now, but have neglected to take any steps to remedy the violation.

Such willful negligence is unethical, and therefore unacceptable of city officials and licensed attorneys.

It is also in stark contrast to your stated commitment to advancing equity and inclusion in Santa Monica.

I request to be notified by 5pm on September 17, 2021 that steps are being taken to establish the federally mandated CoC representation in time for the SMHA Board's consideration of the next Item 3.I
04/12/22
94 of 102 Item 3.I
04/12/22
SMHA Administrative Plan.

Regards,
Olga Zurawska
Sent
from
Mailspring

EXTERNAL
Dear Santa Monica Interim City Manager Jalili, Interim City Attorney Cardona, Mayor Himmelrich, City Council Representatives, Housing Commission Chair Buchanan and Housing Commissioner Hamilton, The City Council voted to ban lobbyists from appointed positions on 7/13/21. On 7/27/21 the City Council voted to ban nepotism, effective immediately, for appointees to our city government comittees, commissions, and task forces. The spirit of these actions were intended to eliminate service by potential opportunists and/or those otherwise favored by Council from representing Santa Monicans and our City. Two months have passed and members that fall under the bans are still seated. This letter asks that the City Cease and Desist from engaging in practices that violate the will of the City Council. It is unacceptable for City leadership to turn a blind eye to righteous policy as interpreted and understood by the people of Santa Monica. The City must immediately remove appointees who no longer meet the city criteria for these appointments.

The City Council was supposed to have voted on new appointments to commission/boards/task forces by June 30th. Six City Council meetings later and still the Mayor and City Manager have failed to make an agenda that includes appointments for many vacant seats. It is neither appropriate nor acceptable for so much inaction for such a lenthy period of time and it gives the appearance that the prolonged delay continues in order facilitate recruitment opportunities by elected officials and/or appointed members. Therefore, Mayor Himmelrich and City Manager Jalili, I respectfully ask that you call a Special Meeting of the City Council and complete these appointments without delay. Should this not happen, I'll be asking my representatives to add two ITEM 13's to the next Council agenda. One Item would be to vote on a motion that would send a letter to those seated who no longer fit the council criteria for service, respectfully asking that they immediately resign from their posts. The other Item would be a request for council to swiftly establish a timely deadline to bring appointments to the Council Agenda so these bodies with many holes in them can be filled.

Additionally, it should be noted with great concern that the public has not had a VOICE at a Housing Commission Meeting since JULY 15th! Given the dire situations folks may find themselves in as the Eviction Moratorium is set to expire , this is 100% unacceptable! The Housing Commission Meeting that was supposed to happen last week was cancelled with 48 hrs notice due to the Jewish holiday. This meeting was replaced by SPECIAL Meeting to be held on Sept. 23. SPECIAL MEETINGS prevent GENERAL PUBLIC COMMENTS according to the commission rules!. Will this meeting include two members who refuse to step down as a result of the July bans? The Housing Commission is no longer a body for the people so any vote taken by this body without first removing the people who no longer qualify to serve can not be acted upon.

The City must follow the will of the city council who were voted in to represent the people.

Please provide a favorable response to my request by 5 pm tomorrow or an explaination as to why you do not believe I am correct in making this request.

Sincerely,
Ann Maggio Thanawalla
"Unthinking respect for authority is the greatest enemy of truth." - Albert Einstein

EXTERNAL
Hello Ms. Anderson-Warren and Mr. Cardona,
Item 3.I
04/12/22
95 of 102 Item 3.I
04/12/22
I am writing to inquire as to the legality of the reason for the rescheduling of the regular meeting of the Housing Commission from September 16, 2021 to September 23, 2021 when the meeting will be a “special” meeting, i.e. one that does not allow for general public input.

The reason for the rescheduling, as stated in an email from the Housing Department, appears to be a religious holiday (see the screenshot):

However, upon consulting with the Santa Monica City Hall Calendar, I found no notice of any holiday observed by the municipal government on September 16, 2021 (see the screenshot):

Please provide me with an explanation as to the legality of citing a religious holiday as a reason for the cancellation and postponement of the Housing Commission meeting in light of the fact that the City of Santa Monica does not celebrate any holiday on September 16, 2021.

This request is warranted due to concerns that the cancellation of the September 16, 2021 meeting at the last moment at about 2pm on September 14, 2021 took the community by surprise and deprived it of the opportunity to participate in a long-awaited meeting. Additionally, the postponement to a “special” meeting on September 23, 2021 deprives the public of the opportunity to offer general public input.

Item 3.I
04/12/22
96 of 102 Item 3.I
04/12/22
As you may know, there has been a lot of controversy surrounding the Housing Commission in recent months, from concerns about a paid Executive Director of a legislative advocacy organization serving on it, to concerns about Mayor Himmelrich’s husband serving on it, to concerns about the apparent coup that Mayor Himmelrich’s husband performed in order to prematurely install new commission leadership prior to the new commissioner appointments having been made by the Council.

Some community members believe that the above are examples of abuse of power, and attempts to hold on to the political control that is slipping away from Mayor Himmelrich and her husband, and from the special interests they represent in Santa Monica’s municipal government.

I am looking forward to your response.

Regards,
Olga Zurawska
image0.jpeg
69K
Item 3.I
04/12/22
97 of 102 Item 3.I
04/12/22

1. the SMHA must provide reasonable means for the RAB to become informed on programs covered by the SMHA plan, to communicate in writing and by telephone with assisted families and hold meetings with those families, and to access information regarding covered programs on the internet, see 24 CFR 903.13(a)(2);"
[Quoted text hidden]
Ann Maggio Thanawalla
"Unthinking respect for authority is the greatest enemy of truth." - Albert Einstein ---------- Forwarded message ---------
From: Ann Maggio <[email protected]>
Date: Wed, Oct 6, 2021 at 12:27 PM
Subject: Re: Response to Your Emails
To: <[email protected]>
Cc: Phil Brock <[email protected]>, Oscar de la Torre <[email protected]>, Christine Parra <[email protected]>, Ann Maggio Thanawalla <[email protected]> Dear Interim City Attorney,
I am writing to you in response to former Interim City Attorney George Cardona's email to me sent on September 23rd.

I believe Mr. Cardona had taken a position on whether or not Housing Commissioner Camner qualified as a lobbyist based on Camner's own insufficient response from the FPPC since she failed to provide the necessary documentation to make a properly informed decision on the matter.

Please provide any and all documentation of Mr. Cardona's position on this matter. It has been three months now since the City Council agreed to eliminate lobbyists from serving in appointed positions yet staff has not bothered to return with an ordinance for council to approve.

Thank you,
Ann Maggio Thanawalla
"Unthinking respect for authority is the greatest enemy of truth." - Albert Einstein Item 3.I
04/12/22
98 of 102 Item 3.I
04/12/22
[Quoted text hidden]
Item 3.I
04/12/22
99 of 102 Item 3.I
04/12/22
1 Vernice Hankins
From: Theresa Marasco <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, April 12, 2022 11:54 AM
To: Gleam Davis; Sue Himmelrich; Oscar de la Torre; Christine Parra; Phil Brock; Kristin McCowan; Lana Negrete; councilmtgitems; David White
Subject: Public Comment Agenda Item 3. 1
Attachments: 2022-04-12_TMARASCO - PUBLIC INPUT-CITY COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM 3. 1..pdf

EXTERNAL
Date: April 12, 2022

Subject: City of Santa Monica City Council Meeting April 12, 2022

Re: Agenda Item 3-I/Adoption of Fiscal Year 2022-2023 Santa Monica Public Housing Authority Annual Plan

Dear Santa Monica Housing Authority Board and City Council Members:

I am submitting this public comment as a Santa Monica Resident and RAB Member and not as the Vice Chair of the Housing Commission, regarding Agenda Item 3. I - the Adoption of Fiscal Year 2022-2023 Santa Monica Public Housing Authority Annual Plan and recommended actions to 1. Adopt the FY2022-2023 Santa Monica Housing Authority Annual Plan; 2. Authorize the submission of the FY2021-2023 Annual Plan to the United States Department of Housing and Urban Development.

I object to the adoption of these plans for the following reasons:

1. The RAB has had no opportunity to meet and organize to respond collectively regarding the Annual and Administrative Plans, which do not include the voices of over 1,600 voucher holders in the City. The RAB has never been able to meet in more than 14 years. a. After 14 years the RAB was finally created in May of 2021. Two RAB representatives were appointed by the Santa Monica City Council in June of 2021. I requested information on how to contact the RAB representatives in or about July 7, 2021, but email addresses were not created for the two RAB members until August 30, 2021. I requested several times via email that the Santa Monica Housing Authority (SMHA) assist with scheduling a Zoom meeting for all RAB members to meet with the newly appointed RAB Representatives, Donna Brown and Elizabeth Cochran, to discuss the upcoming Annual Plan, but the SMHA never responded to that request. I also emailed Donna Brown and Elizabeth Cochran several times requesting to speak with them but they never responded. The RAB only exists on paper and continues to be left out of the conversation with regard to making discretionary changes to the Annual, Administrative, and the Five Year Plans.
b. RAB members RAB should be able to meet quarterly to discuss the Annual and Administrative Plans coming up each year, and all housing issues, concerns, or changes recommended by the greater number of active RAB members should be Section 8/HCV holders or RAB c. Even though email addresses were provided by the City of SM for the newly appointed RAB Representatives, Donna Brown, and Elizabeth Cochran, they have not responded to my emails requesting to speak with them about the Annual and Administrative Plan, and therefore request Item 3.I
04/12/22
100 of 102 Item 3.I
04/12/22
2 that the Annual and Administrative Plans are not approved before the 45 day review period conducted by HUD of the Annual Plan. (See attached emails regarding the RAB)

2. I request that SMHA Board does not approve the Annual and Administrative Plans until the RAB has had an opportunity to meet. I request that a meeting of the RAB take place within the next 30 days via Zoom or Bluejeans. The SMHA must provide reasonable means for the RAB to become informed on programs covered by the SMHA plan, to communicate in writing and by telephone with assisted families and hold meetings with those families, and to access information regarding covered programs on the internet, see 24 CFR 903.13(a)(2);"
Examples of urgent needs that need to be discussed with the RAB a. Disparity of treatment of all subsidized tenants preferential treatment as to who gets housing subsidized and/or housing, or who gets rehoused, slow turn around time for reasonable accommodations, and processing of RTA packets when Voucher Holder’s are attempting to “lease-up.” b. Disparity in treatment of low-income, disabled persons and older females, who need to have a voice to speak about fair housing rights being violated, to advise the RAB to address within the Annual and Administrative Plans each year.
c. No real informal review, appeal, or grievance process if SMHA program participants do not agree with a decision made by the SMHA regarding their participation in the program but is required by HUD to ensure due process for participants.
d. Lack of transparency in AFF/Subsidized housing; etc. (preferential treatment who gets housing.) The SMHA need to make available a comprehensive list of all shelters, project based housing, deedrestricted/tax credit, and/or affordable housing units in the city. The City and County of San Diego publish such a list for public access. Santa Monica can easily publish a list like San Diego (See attached example of San Diego’s list of housing.)
Link to San Diego Housing List https://www.sdhc.org/housing-opportunities/affordable-rentals/ e. The City of Santa Monica needs to publish waitlists for Section 8; CCSM; and AFF/Deed restricted; tax credit properties. The Cochise County Housing Authority in Arizona publishes such a list. (See attached example of Housing Waitlist in Cochise County) f. No landlord liaison: There are known problems with habitability issues, harassment of long-term tenants, and source of income discrimination against subsidized tenants when applying for rental units.

There are numerous stories in the news documenting the harassment and uninhabitable conditions of entire buildings here in Santa Monica. The City is well aware of the problems but does not have funds to protect tenants, specifically the Consumer Protection Unit, overseen by attorney Gary Rhoades, reportedly has not responded to numerous complaints, the complaints that the Consumer Protection does respond to is limited to sending letters to landlords as it has been indicated that the City of Santa Monica does not have the funding to go after bad landlords. g. Legal Aid cannot take legal action against the landlord and will not represent subsidized tenants in any dispute or action needed regarding the SMHA.
h. Due to lack of representation for low income and/or susidized tenants, their is a need for HUD experienced legal advisor(s)/advocate(s) to comprehensively advise them of their rights, and to guide/represent them in any informal review or state hearing as provided for in CFR 24 Item 3.I
04/12/22
101 of 102 Item 3.I
04/12/22
3 i. There is a need for an ADA Coordinator who does not have conflicts with tenants and is actively responding to complaints and requests for assistance. Reportedly, the current ADA Coordinator has been unresponsive to requests for assistance.

The above is not a complete list but is the most urgent of items that need to be addressed in an official meeting via Zoom, inviting all RAB members. Sadly, this is the same letter I submitted last year, and nothing has changed and continues to a seriously grave problem that is preventing subsidized tenants a right and opportunity to meaningfully participate in the drafting of the Annual, Administrative and Five Year Plans.

I have attached copies of HUD Guidelines and Regulations regarding Resident Advisory Boards and the role of the Santa Monica Housing Authority in ensuring that RAB members are able to have meaningful engagement and input on the very documents that directly impact Section 8/Housing Choice Voucher and all subsidized SMHA Program Participants.

I have also attached copies of emails showing all the efforts I made to request an official meeting of the RAB.

Thank you.

To help protect your
privacy, Micro so ft Office
prevented automatic
download of this picture
from the Internet.

Very truly yours,
Theresa H. Marasco
(720) 226-4051
Powered by
cloudHQ
Item 3.I
04/12/22
102 of 102 Item 3.I
04/12/22