Table of Contents
This essay discusses the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) misappropriation of public funds. HUD is a council of the united state of America, which is charged with responsibility of ensuring that there is a good system for the city and development. HUD assists people of low and middle level incomes to secure loans to buy houses. There are cases of fraudulent deals and misappropriation of taxpayer dollars.
HUD Fraudulent and misappropriation
In the recent past, HUD has been associated and investigated for miss use of fund. It has been associated with scam cases, larcenies, cons, corruptions, and frauds, these cases range from petty to grand. HUD chose Housing Authority of the city of Bremerton in Washington as the contact administrator of council house in Seattle. HUD and Bremerton become active partners; however, HUD delegated a lot of responsibility to Bremerton without putting control mechanism (Trummel, 2005). It becomes very instrumental in liaising with management and owners agents for activities previously performed by Alaska and Seattle HUD.
There were cases of contracting fraud, housing fraud, procurement fraud, misappropriation and embezzlement of government finances, misuse of government grants, and million of dollars lost through mismaagement. These cases were reported, unfortunately, HUD never took any action and chose to ignore federal laws that deal with misappropriation and theft of public fund. The fraud cases were well covered from the public awareness and investigation enable the truth to be discovered. If HUD and the government had good plans of safeguarding the public funds from being squandered by officials, these cases would have been avoided.
The policies, which the HUD used to run the organization, were prone to manipulation by the officials to enable them commit these crimes without being realized. HUD Seattle, Bremerton, and HUD Alaska could have avoided two casualties and four incarcerations if they could have complied with HUD requirement. However, Nelson tried to cover up the malpractices by colluding with council House administrator, Stephen A. Mitchell, then assaulted the messenger and took documents. Officials neglected to act on complaints resulting in more abuse and alleged homicides. In an effort to alleviate, John Meyers, Regional Director, US (HUD), commanded Johnson Paul O., HUD Washington State Office, FOIA Liaison Officer to attempt to rectify the outright handling of the public report by his predecessor.
The company did not put a mechanism in place to help control the situations because most of the culprits were the seniors or directoors who could manipulate data or records to facilitate the mismanagement. Auditors manage to put the records in order and discovered the malpractices that were being practiced. Availability of freedom of Information Act has permitted the public to find unstated government reports that officials would not otherwise release. These reports support reliable allegations of senior mistreatment against Council House administrators, demonstrate the function that the directors deed in disregarding that abuse, and expose the neglect of oversight bureaus to act on information provided to them. These practices could have been kept at bay if officials were considerate and mindful of the victims.
HUD misappropriations were very many, and if it were not for the act of the auditors, none could have been discovered and this could have affected the housing system very much. The misappropriation and fraudulent actions cost taxpayers a lot of money and without having to benefit from the services. Poor policy can be considered as a factor that allowed these practices to go for long without being identified and dealt with in due time. Proper review of the policies and management structure of the HUD is essential to ensure such malpractices are never committed, and public fund is protected from unscrupulous individuals.