By Amy Silverman
By Olivia LaVecchia
By Monica Alonzo and Stephen Lemons
By Chris Parker
By Michael Lacey
By Weston Phippen
"In the investigator's reasonable judgment, Doug Lingner was not being completely truthful during his interview," Baker concludes. "Based upon the facts gathered from various witnesses which conflict with Lingner's version of events, the investigator found Lingner to lack credibility."
Baker's report is fascinating, and not just because of its level of damning detail. The sequence of events it describes is also noteworthy.
As Baker makes clear, it's only after Schreiber warned Lingner about the anonymous packet that he arranged for his son's "temp" position. He knew people were talking, yet pushed the hire anyway.
Lingner himself admitted to Baker that the New Times story was "devastating" and something the housing authority should be concerned about. But it's clear from Baker's summary that Lingner never takes responsibility for a single problem that anyone has identified with his management.
He'd rather blame Chao, blame Schreiber, blame Belfield, and blame the media. That's easier than admitting his tenure was disastrous for the housing authority — and easier than admitting he completely screwed up.
I completely agree that Doug Linger should never have gotten severance and should have instead been brought up on criminal charges. He pillfered the housing agency and walked around like a king in his little kingdom while he was doing it. People don't understand exactly how miserable he made everyone when he was director. He didn't just take money from the housing agency, he also took the self-respect from those employees who did stand up to him. They were put on admin leave, ridiculed, threatened, and their reputations were shredded all in the name of Lingner's greed. The cocky little bany rooster may appear to be gone, but the rumor is that he visits regularly. I guess it's true that criminals always return to the scene of their crimes. Here's hoping for justice...or at the very least, an end to the mayham.
Three months severence??? He should be charged with stealing, fraud,etc. And he could not have done all he did without the board being aware. How did he really get hired? Much more investigation is needed to get to the roots of obvious curruption in this agency
What is disturbing is the seemingly lack of interest in the part of the Board and of the interim Director, Karen Mofford, to Laura Schreiber's role in Brandon Lingner's hiring through Goodwill. If staff is disciplined without any basis, then how can Schreiber be allowed to continue to work as HR Director when her credibility and trustworthiness are non existent? Her actions were damaging to the Agency and, ultimately, contributed to Doug Lingner's downfall. A message to Mofford - for once, do the right thing and fire Schreiber.
Wizard, I am expecting that if HUD conducts a complete and comprehensive examination of the Phoenix shop they will find fault with Lingner, as well as others still employed there, or as members of the board.
Lingner could not have been getting away with abuses without the collusion of others, voluntarily or not. I'm sure there is plenty of singing happening now, and it ain't from the choir pit.
Sarah, another very accurate and comprehensive piece. Great tenacity. Too bad this story has been overshadowed by SB1070 and the county attorney changes. Yes, the are important, but from what I can tell in your reporting, Lingner is nothing more than a junior member of MCSO command. He learned well from the Flaccid Fool and appears to have used many of the same 'processes' to his advantage. Fortunately, he didn't have the layers of protection that MCSO affords the Flaccid Fool.
Again, nicely done.