3rd Issue: Master Leasing Requirement – Partners Pardon (Part 2)

3^rd Issue:  Master Leasing Requirement – Partners Pardon (Part 2)

Because the violation came to light through our official compliance program, I brought the master leasing issue to the attention of management and then, through my normal reporting, to the Finance Committee of the Board.  After management failed to correct the problem for a couple of months, I approached my billing contacts at the County and HUD.  They were reluctant to judge the legality of our billings but were willing to tolerate them.  I did not disclose the violation through a whistleblower site until I complained to the OIG in December 2014.  By that time, the OIG and HUD had stopped responding to my complaints.

When we found we were overbilling the County, we accepted the County’s direction to stop overbilling them although we did not go so far as to repay the overbilled money.  When CCL identified the residential licensing violation, we complied with the CCL’s demand that we change procedures if we wanted not to become licensed.  But here, HUD and the County accepted violation by continuing to pay us.  Over the coming months, some clients were switched to master leases, and others were transferred to a different provider.  The violations eventually ceased although the ineligible reimbursements were not returned.

That three issues, which I considered contractual or legal violations, resulted in no disciplinary action against HomeFirst may argue that the violations either did not exist or they were not particularly serious.  Maybe there are so many corporate violations that it is impractical to deal out punishments for all of them. 

The range of wrongs reported by whistleblowers is enormous[1]:

·         Abusive behavior or behavior that creates a hostile work environment

·         Lying to employees

·         A conflict of interest that places an employee’s interests over the company’s interests

·         Discriminating against employees

·         Violating company policies related to Internet use

·         Falsifying time reports or hours worked

·         Lying to customers, vendors, or the public

·         Violations of health or safety regulations

·         Abusing substances, such as drugs or alcohol, at work

·         Delivery of substandard goods or services

·         Stealing or theft

·         Violating employee wage, overtime, or benefit rules

·         Breaching employee privacy

·         Improper hiring practices

·         Sexual harassment

·         Breaching customer or consumer privacy

·         Accepting inappropriate gifts or kickbacks from suppliers or vendors Falsifying expense reports

·         Misuse of company’s confidential information

·         Offering anything of value (e.g., cash, gifts, entertainment) to influence a potential/existing client or customer

·         Violating contract terms with customers or suppliers

·         Violation of environmental regulations

·         Falsifying and/or manipulating financial reporting information

·         Improper use of competitor’s proprietary information

·         Making improper political contributions to officials or organizations

·         Offering anything of value (e.g., cash, gifts, entertainment) to influence a public official

Surely many such acts could be rationalized by the actors involved as no big deal.  And that leads to one criticism of whistleblowers: the disgruntled, incompetent, malicious, or paranoid too often make groundless accusations in the name of whistleblowing[2].  HomeFirst’s legal brief described me in those terms.

A more whistleblower-supportive critic claims that this vast array of wrongs is exactly what companies do routinely.  A key mode of a company’s operation involves infringing on the rights of others so that it can succeed[3].  However understandable a company’s desire to overbill a customer may be or its willingness to violate a customer’s dictates, less obvious is why the customer would condone actions that appear to harm it. 

For nonprofit service providers like HomeFirst, the identity of the customer is unclear.  Clients who receive services are not customers in the traditional sense because they do not pay for the services and might not even choose their service provider.  Government agencies seem like customers who contract with nonprofits for the services they specify.  But they also act as intermediaries between the tax-paying public that wants certain services in its community and the service providers.  Taxpayers, while footing the bill, are seldom able to measure what is done with the money they have given up.  As a consequence, the whistleblower’s hope for accountability and justice is at risk.

Another lesson for the nonprofit whistleblower: the victim of wrongdoing may feel no inclination to support the whistleblower’s efforts.

---

[1] Ethics ResourceCenter. National Business Ethics Surveyof the U.S. Workforce. 2014

[2] Bok, Sissela.  “Whistleblowing and Professional Responsibilities.” In Ethics Teaching inHigher Education. Daniel Callahan and Sissela Bok (eds.).  New York and London: Plenum Press. 1980. 277-295

[3] Alford, C. Fred. Whistleblowers: Broken Lives and OrganizationalPower. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University. 2001