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

bcd.oregon.gov

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?

.H-