As Annapolis Residents Raise Concerns, Pennrose Court Records Offer Historical Context
As Report Annapolis News continues its investigative reporting into conditions reported by residents at Pennrose-managed housing properties in Annapolis, a review of historical court records is adding new context to broader questions of accountability emerging from the investigation.
Residents have reported concerns involving water intrusion, flooding, apparent mold, maintenance and repairs, along with questions about management's response to those concerns.
Those present-day allegations remain the focus of the Report Annapolis News investigation.
However, as part of examining the broader issue of accountability, Report Annapolis News reviewed historical court records involving Pennrose Management Company. That review identified a federal court opinion documenting separate allegations involving services associated with Pennrose-managed low-income housing properties, including a property in Baltimore.
The historical allegations do not involve mold, flooding or habitability, and they should not be interpreted as proof of the complaints currently being investigated in Annapolis.
Instead, they add historical context to a question that has become increasingly important throughout Report Annapolis News' continuing coverage: What happens when residents, employees or others raise concerns about whether Pennrose is fulfilling its responsibilities?
Federal Court Record Details Allegations Involving Maryland Housing
In 2010, the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey issued an opinion in Carol Bangura v. Pennrose Management Company, Tiffany Holden and Stefany Jones.
Bangura, a former Pennrose employee, brought claims involving the federal False Claims Act and New Jersey's Conscientious Employee Protection Act.
According to the court opinion, Bangura worked for Pennrose from July 2008 until May 12, 2009, as a Supportive Services Coordinator for Pennrose's low-income housing units, first in Baltimore and later in New Jersey.
The opinion states that Pennrose received federal Low Income Housing Tax Credits for developing low-income housing units at its Maryland and New Jersey properties. According to the allegations described in the opinion, money was allocated at each site for the salary of a Supportive Services Coordinator and for services provided at the property.
Bangura alleged that she did not receive funds budgeted for the sites and that she repeatedly raised concerns about the situation with supervisors.
Baltimore Tenant Complained About Lack of Services
The Maryland portion of the case provides the closest connection to the broader questions being examined in the current Report Annapolis News investigation.
After Bangura transferred from Pennrose's Maryland sites to New Jersey in April 2009, the opinion states that she continued commuting to Baltimore for approximately two weeks.
During that period, according to the court record, a tenant at Pennrose's Orchard Ridge property in Baltimore complained that supportive services were not being provided.
The opinion states that during an April 21, 2009 telephone conversation, Bangura told a supervisor that she believed Pennrose was committing fraud by not providing funds for supportive services.
Bangura further alleged that she was required to continue working at Maryland properties in retaliation for reporting what she characterized as fraud, the lack of services and for threatening to file a complaint.
After beginning work in New Jersey, Bangura alleged that supportive services were also not being provided at Pennrose properties there and that she again raised concerns.
Employee Was Later Terminated
According to the federal opinion, which can be read here, Bangura was directed to attend a May 12, 2009 meeting at Pennrose's regional headquarters in Philadelphia.
During that meeting, she was asked to restate her accusations of fraud and retaliation and discuss an earlier telephone conversation with her supervisor.
The opinion states that Bangura offered to provide the details in writing, at which point Pennrose's Director of Human Resources informed her that she was being terminated for insubordination during the earlier telephone conversation.
Bangura later received a letter stating that she had been terminated for insubordination and poor performance.
Those allegations should not be confused with findings by the court.
The federal opinion primarily addressed whether the New Jersey court had personal jurisdiction over two individual Pennrose employees. The court ultimately determined that the necessary jurisdictional requirements had not been established and granted their motions to dismiss.
The opinion therefore should not be interpreted as a judicial finding that Pennrose committed fraud, improperly withheld supportive-services funding or retaliated against Bangura.
Pennrose Court Dispute Dates Back to 1991
The federal litigation was not the earliest court dispute involving Pennrose identified during the Report Annapolis News review.
In the 1991 case City of Philadelphia v. Pennrose Management Company, which can be reviewed here, the City of Philadelphia alleged that Pennrose failed to pay $47,539.99 in wage taxes owed to Philadelphia and instead incorrectly paid those tax monies to a collection agency authorized to collect taxes for the Municipality of Kingston, Pennsylvania.
The City sought recovery of the allegedly owed taxes, along with attorney fees, court costs, collection fees, interest and penalties.
The Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania decision largely addressed procedural issues surrounding portions of Philadelphia's lawsuit. The court affirmed the striking of one count and remanded another so the City could pursue an equitable claim separately.
The 1991 case did not involve tenants, housing conditions, mold, maintenance or habitability.
Report Annapolis News is including it as part of the historical record reviewed during this investigation, not as evidence supporting the current allegations in Annapolis.
Different Complaints, A Continuing Question About Accountability
The distinctions are important.
The 1991 litigation involved a municipal tax dispute.
The allegations documented in the 2010 federal opinion involved funding and supportive services associated with low-income housing.
The current Report Annapolis News investigation involves residents reporting concerns about the physical conditions of their homes and how those concerns have been addressed.
They are not allegations of the same conduct.
But the historical records add context to a broader issue emerging from the continuing investigation: accountability when concerns are raised.
More than 15 years ago, a federal court opinion documented that a tenant at a Pennrose-managed Baltimore property complained that supportive services were not being provided. The same opinion documented allegations from an employee who said she raised concerns about resources and services associated with those properties.
Today, Annapolis residents are raising entirely different concerns, this time involving the conditions of the places they call home.
That does not establish a pattern of mold, flooding or habitability violations by Pennrose.
It does, however, reinforce the importance of examining what systems are in place when concerns are reported, how complaints move through management, what oversight exists, and ultimately who is responsible for ensuring that problems affecting residents are addressed.
The Investigation Continues.
Report Annapolis News will continue examining resident accounts, available records and responses from the entities responsible for Pennrose-managed properties in Annapolis while carefully distinguishing allegations from established facts.
Historical allegations will not be presented as proof of current complaints, and unrelated litigation will not be characterized as evidence of housing violations.
The focus remains on the residents, the conditions they report experiencing, how their concerns have been addressed and whether the systems intended to protect residents are working as they should.
As this investigation continues, one fundamental question remains:
When residents say something is wrong with the place they call home, who makes sure their concerns are heard, and who makes sure the problem is actually addressed?
Comments
Post a Comment