5-minute read
Nearly three months after Lakeland City Commissioner Guy LaLonde Jr. publicly called for an independent third-party investigation into complaints about the Lakeland Housing Authority, the dispute between him and LHA Executive Director Ben Stevenson shows no signs of cooling.
Instead, the conflict has widened — drawing in questions about transparency, Florida’s Sunshine Law and what kind of oversight the housing authority is receiving.
If the board declined an audit, when did that happen?
In an Oct. 15 letter to LaLonde, Stevenson said the LHA Board “declined to spend taxpayers’ dollars on the ‘independent third-party audit or investigation’ that you requested.”
But that raised a new question from LaLonde: How did board members discuss or reach a consensus outside of public meetings?
Under Florida’s Sunshine Law, all decisions and deliberations by public boards must take place in the open. But since the request was made, the issue has not appeared on a Lakeland Housing Authority board agenda, been discussed or been voted on at any publicly noticed meeting.
LaLonde warned that if board members reached a decision in private conversations or a “daisy chain” of one-on-one discussions, it could violate state open meeting laws.
Stevenson: Annual audits are thorough and sufficient
Stevenson and Board Chairman David Samples have said no additional review is necessary. Both point to annual audits required by the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD), which are performed by outside CPA firms.
Stevenson has repeatedly said those audits — which are posted at the bottom of the home page of the LHA’s website — show the housing authority is operating legally and ethically.
Samples, in a Sept. 4 email to city commissioners, praised Stevenson’s 13-year tenure and said LHA has become “a nationally recognized organization” that has never failed an audit during his leadership.
LaLonde: HUD audits don’t address the complaints being raised
LaLonde disputes that reasoning. He agrees that the LHA’s annual audits are independent, but says they are financial and compliance reviews — not investigations into how tenants, applicants or whistleblowers are treated, and not examinations of how the board conducts its business.
LHA’s most recent public audit, performed by Rubino & Company, notes that auditors do not evaluate the effectiveness of internal controls beyond what is required for financial reporting.
The 2024 audit focuses on:
- Whether LHA’s financial statements are accurate
- Compliance with major federal funding programs
- Internal controls related to financial reporting
The audit does not review:
- How waitlists are managed
- How non-renewals and voucher terminations are handled
- Whether staff or residents have experienced retaliation
- Whether Sunshine Law requirements were followed
- Whether decision-making is transparent
LaLonde says that gap is exactly why he — and a number of current and former residents and employees — have called for a forensic or investigative audit, which would look at decision-making, internal communications and resident treatment.
Who sets the agenda — and who gets to decide?
LHA Legal Counsel Ricardo Gilmore said any housing authority board member can request that an item be added to a meeting agenda. The first action at each meeting is a motion to approve the agenda.
But in practice, agenda packets are assembled by staff under Stevenson’s direction, and board members have largely followed staff’s lead on which topics come forward.
That dynamic has deepened concerns among some residents and officials about whether the board is asserting its own authority.
Both LaLonde and community activist Harlem Turner argue that Stevenson — who would be among the subjects of a forensic investigation — has a conflict of interest and should not be the person deciding whether a forensic audit occurs or whether it appears on an agenda.
Turner says leaving that decision to the executive director “defeats the purpose” of independent oversight. LaLonde has raised similar concerns in multiple letters. They say the board should make that call, not the administrator whose leadership is under scrutiny.
A dispute that has become personal and public
Recent weeks have seen a steady exchange of letters between Stevenson and LaLonde, reflecting a deteriorating working relationship.
- Stevenson has accused LaLonde of trespassing, intimidating residents and abusing his authority as a commissioner.
- LaLonde calls those accounts “demonstrably false,” saying Stevenson has misrepresented their interactions and provided incorrect information about his visit to LHA properties.
Meanwhile, LHA residents and former employees have spoken at every housing authority board and City Commission meeting for months, bringing forward allegations of inconsistent enforcement of rules and difficulty getting answers from the agency. Some say they experienced retaliation after raising concerns; others describe lease non-renewals or the termination of Section 8 vouchers they believe were unfairly imposed.
Stevenson has refuted those claims, arguing that each action taken by LHA was justified under federal regulations and supported by documentation.
What comes next?
Despite the intensifying rhetoric, neither side has taken any formal action to resolve the dispute.
- The Lakeland Housing Authority Board has not placed the audit request on an agenda.
- Board members have not publicly discussed whether to authorize a forensic review.
- The City Commission does not have direct authority over LHA operations. However, the mayor appoints and the commission confirms LHA board members. The commission can also remove LHA board members, which Turner has asked it to do. Mayor Bill Mutz, who leaves office on Jan. 5, has declined to pursue the matter.
Residents continue to request a public forum to address their concerns.
latest news
Something went wrong. Please refresh the page and/or try again.