Oregon Agency Officials' Complaint Against Lois Starkey
In this Sept. 29 letter, Oregon state officials allege that Housing and Urban Development official Lois Starkey improperly shared confidential information with a manufactured housing trade group in their state.
me on Department of Consumer and Business Services Building Codes Division
1535 Edgewater St NW PO Box 14470
Salem, OR 97309-0404 503-373-4133 September 29. 2017 Fax: 503-373-2322
Kate Brown, Governor
Carson US. Department of Housing and Urban DeveIOpment 451 7th Street S.W., Rm. 10000
I Washington; DQZGAIO . Dear Secretary Carson:
For many years the State of Oregon has elected to participate in the federal manufactured home program. We are re-evaluating?whether we. can continue a relationshi with grind?UV --
our decision is the staff performance at HUD and its interaction with the state. Recently, HUD staff demonstrated a lack of judgement and sensitivity to ongoing discussions between the state and your department. Ihope that by bringing these concerns to your attention, Oregon will not experience retaliation.
On August 22, 2017, the OMHP and the State of Oregon held a teleconference, organized by the OMHP, to discuss potential solutions to concerns raised by OMHP. Participating in this teleconference ?-om the OMHP were Pamela Beck Danner (Administrator), Leo Huott, Teresa Payne, and Jason McJury. Participating from the State of Oregon were Mark Long (Administrator), Shane Sumption, and Mark Campion. The State of Oregon took the opportunity to communicate pending changes in the local program and offered to put those changes in Writing for review, by October 1, 2017.
Unbeknownst to the State of Oregon, Lois Starkey (Management Analyst) in the OMHP, shared sensitive
details and documents related to these discussions with members of Oregon?s manufactured housing
industry prior to Oregon ?nalizing it?s that decisionto? share sensitive government-to-govemment discuSsions with outside parties was simply a lack of judgement and not an attempt to in?uence our decision. As you will see from the attached email communication we received, HUD staff has communicated federal/state communications to an industry association. An cooperative approach would have been for your staff to review our written communication (as required by federal law) and proceed accordingly. It is our hope your of?ce concurs that this approach by HUD of?cials potentially damages our con?dence to maintain cooperative relations and open communications as contemplated by the federal act. My goal is for you to be aware of our concerns and to understand some, but not all of the background if we ultimately decide to discontinue our ?31311. cm d1 ip?