Aug 4, 2002 By Paul Sunyak 6 min read

The Fayette County Housing Authority board member who requested a federal review of the public agency’s questionable business dealings involving the authority’s executive director said she took that step to prevent future abuses. Angela M. Zimmerlink, who often forms a one-person minority on the five-member board, said it was evident to her as far back as March that Executive Director Thomas L. Harkless had violated authority policy by the way business was conducted with two firms employing his relatives.

The U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development’s Pittsburgh program office reached that same conclusion after looking into the matter at Zimmerlink’s request. HUD basically found that the authority violated its own procurement policy, as well as federal regulations, in awarding nearly $100,000 worth of computer and telephone system work to firms employing Harkless’ relatives through marriage.

In what is called a “monitoring letter,” HUD has given the authority 30 days to respond to its concerns over how that money – $15,270 to Niche Networks Inc. and $83,000 to Chestnut Ridge Communications Inc. – was awarded.

Zimmerlink has also contacted HUD’s Office of Inspector General about the violations, but it is unknown what action, if any, that separate branch of HUD has taken. As the auditing and criminal investigative wing of HUD, OIG operates separately from the federal agency’s program offices and its work is largely secretive.

But Zimmerlink said her appeal to federal authorities was borne out of frustration and a concern that other members of the board were ignoring the seriousness of the matter.

“Normally, their heads are going up and down, agreeing with everything that’s going on. But this time the board members stuck their heads in the sand,” said Zimmerlink. “Back in March, whenever we discussed this (in executive session), rather than the board taking the approach they should have taken, they took a passive approach.

“It should have been something more than simply saying, ‘Don’t do this again.'”

Zimmerlink said that too often, her fellow board members fall in line with Harkless’ explanations of everything, deferring to his status as executive director instead of performing the oversight role they are charged with as unpaid board members.

“They’re in too much of a hurry to go through these meetings and pass resolutions too quickly, without reviewing the documents,” said Zimmerlink. “The response that I get back from the board members is, ‘Hey, I rely on the executive director. If he tells me that it’s OK, then it’s OK.’ But I think that our responsibility goes a little further than that, especially when you get double-talk. And that’s what I get.”

After the March executive session where the board discussed Harkless’ business dealings with the firms that employed his brother-in-law and his wife’s niece, Zimmerlink said she sent a memorandum to her fellow board members, Harkless and solicitor John M. “Jack” Purcell, requesting a second meeting to further discuss the issue.

That memo was completely ignored, said Zimmerlink, who added that after waiting six weeks for a response she decided that the matter would die on the proverbial vine unless presented to HUD.

Zimmerlink said she took that action in order to prevent a continuance of procurement policy violations, which she feared largely because of the attitude of her peers and the authority’s legal counsel.

“I thought there was a propensity for it to happen again,” said Zimmerlink. “When I hear an executive director say, ‘I didn’t do anything wrong,’ and I hear board members say, ‘Just don’t do it again’ and I hear a solicitor waffling on (with), ‘Well, it could be a conflict, it might be a conflict,’ I’m not convinced that future violations aren’t going to happen.

“I had to do something. I don’t want the violations to continue.”

Zimmerlink said she is basically satisfied that HUD took her concerns seriously. But she said the matter shouldn’t have had to go that far, as anyone willing to read the authority’s procurement policy and the applicable HUD regulations could tell that policies weren’t followed.

“I read the (federal and HUD) regulations, and I read our own procurement policy. Based on that, I thought there were clear violations. It was black and white,” said Zimmerlink. “I think HUD did what I asked them to do. I asked them to look into it and I told them what I thought, and I asked them to confirm what I believed.”

In a larger sense, Zimmerlink said the other members of the board should take HUD’s findings as a wake-up call that all is not well and good simply because the top administrator repeatedly says so. She said the board needs to toughen its oversight stance.

“(The board) sets a tone … for what they accept and won’t accept. And for the five years that I’ve been on the board, most of that (tone) is that they accept everything,” said Zimmerlink. “The tone that they set is a lax tone. All of the (other) board members will always say that it’s not a big deal.

“They didn’t think that this procurement policy and the violations of it was a big deal. Why do you think I had to go beyond them and contact HUD? Because of the attitude that they take.”

Board member Nancy Sutton, the only other board member who could be contacted for comment, said her response to HUD’s findings confirmed a situation she did not like regarding Harkless.

“They’re right, because he did do it. He owned (up) to it when we talked to him (in executive session),” said Sutton. “I don’t think it was right. When you work with a company (like the housing authority), you do not deal with your relatives … I don’t believe in it myself. That’s about all I can say.”

Sutton also said that she doesn’t think the board thoroughly examined Harkless before he was hired in the fall of 1999. “They didn’t look enough when they hired him. I said that before and I’ll say it again,” said Sutton.

Board Chairman Kenneth L. Johnson and board members the Rev. Howard E. Dantzler Sr. and Beverly Beal either could not be reached for comment or did not return telephone calls seeking comment.

Zimmerlink also said that she was surprised to find out from the press Friday that the vacationing Harkless had cancelled this week’s scheduled board meeting, especially since it was her understanding that much important business needed to be discussed and approved.

“Are you serious? Well, that’s par for the course,” said Zimmerlink. “I thought it was important to have that meeting. I recall from prior meetings that we were going to be very busy, because there are important things that the board had to vote on.

“One might wonder why the upcoming meeting is canceled.”