OHS Response

A response to the publication of this site was sent to Council on July 11. Below is the content of that response, and beneath it is a reply to this response, addressing their points.

From: Calvin, April (Office of Homeless Services) <April.Calvin@nashville.gov>

Sent: Friday, July 11, 2025 12:32 PM

To: Chaney, Demetris L. (OHS) <Demetris.Chaney2@nashville.gov>; Marsh, Joseph K. (OHS) <Joseph.Marsh@nashville.gov>; Whitfield, Antonia (Office of Homeless Services) <Antonia.Whitfield@nashville.gov>

Subject: Office of Homeless Services

Greetings Metro Council Members:

This week, you may have received a message linking to a webpage called "OHS Community Audit" containing misleading information. While we certainly appreciate productive engagement with our community, even when we disagree, it is unfortunate to see public data used in a way that is misleading or misunderstood which can erode trust in our work to serve the most vulnerable.

With that in mind, the Office of Homeless Services (OHS) would like to offer the following clarifications:

Capacity Building and Federal Grant Use

As the Collaborative Applicant, it is incumbent upon us to not only engage in ongoing education for our staff and service providers, but also to proactively disseminate knowledge throughout the community regarding nationally recognized best practices, which necessitates consistent participation in federally endorsed training opportunities. These activities are appropriately supported through dedicated federal grant allocations specifically intended for such capacity-building efforts.

Temporary Staffing and Civil Service Exemptions

Due to the nature of grant-funded roles, which fall outside the traditional Civil Service structure, the use of temporary staffing solutions was both appropriate and necessary. To ensure efficient scaling and rapid onboarding of essential personnel, OHS engaged a Metro-approved vendor, adhering fully to established procurement protocols. This approach enabled timely staffing in alignment with the immediate demands of new programs.

The Office of Human Resources (OHS) reviewed this approach and confirmed it was consistent with Metro’s policies and operational goals.  Additionally, staff operating costs were categorized under program operating costs, which allowed for the hiring of additional personnel to meet grant-related deliverables.

Grant-Funded Employee Designation

Grant Funded: "This designation applies to employees working in programs funded by federal, state, or private grants with defined end dates, or in non-locally funded, specialized programs requiring skills not directly transferable to other Metro positions." This classification was reviewed and approved by OHS in accordance with Civil Service guidelines.

Financial and Operational Transition

As a newly created department, OHS inherited object accounts (OAs) that had previously been submitted on our behalf. These were temporary funding mechanisms—not intended as long-term budget allocations. Since that time, leadership along Metro Finance has undertaken a thorough review and reconciliation of all inherited accounts to ensure financial accuracy and accountability.

Procurement and Contracting- Strobel House

The original procurement process began as a Request for Proposals (RFP), which later transitioned into a sole source application managed by MDHA. Operational responsibility subsequently shifted from MDHA to the Office of Homeless Services. OHS established both a formal agreement and a funding resolution to cover the associated costs and is now finalizing a contract for submission to Metro Council.

 As OHS is unwavering in our commitment to continuing the drive towards addressing, reducing, and ending homelessness here in Nashville for our unhoused Nashville neighbors, we must address distractions like that blog.  Your support is crucial in this mission, and we appreciate your unwavering commitment. We look forward to continuing to end the suffering and trauma imposed on folks when experiencing homelessness.

We are stronger together!

AC

April Calvin, Director

Metro Office of Homeless Services

Office: 615.862.6401

Mike Lacy's Reply to their Response
Sent to all Metro Council Members and the same officials from OHS copied.

Mike Lacy <michael.t.lacy@gmail.com>

Fri, Jul 11, 2025 at 4:39 PM

To: "Chaney, Demetris L. (OHS)" <Demetris.Chaney2@nashville.gov>, Joseph.Marsh@nashville.gov, Antonia Whitfield <Antonia.Whitfield@nashville.gov>, director.calvin@nashville.gov
BCC: [all Metro Council Members copied via BCC as they are not allowed to reply to emails if other Council members are copied as per Open Meetings Act Laws]

Good afternoon Council Members & OHS Officials, (bcc'ing Council Members so you're allowed to res[p]ond)

I was forwarded an email regarding some of my recent posts regarding OHS.

Whenever I post articles about an organization, I try to copy their representatives on my email list so they can be aware of what I’m saying in the event that they want to provide comment and engage in dialogue.

So I’ve copied them here in case they have feedback to my response. I did like seeing what the response [was]. It was the most substantive reaction to any criticism I’ve seen posed to them. I think that is real progress towards transparency and accountability.

I found it interesting that what I published was described as “misleading,” but their rebuttal did not, from how I read it, contradict anything of substance that I had posted. In several cases, OHS actually confirmed things I had been asking about but could not get an answer to. 

To name one, and please, Director Calvin, correct me immediately if I’m wrong, but it seems like DePaul USA does not have a current, executed contract for operating the Strobel House? And there has never had a formal extension beyond the initial $500k they were approved for? 

I've been bringing this up because they have received $1,068,923.86, over $500k of that back billing for dates they already received full compensation for. I understand that money was allocated to OHS for Strobel House, but it seems like only $500,000 was authorized via Council Approved contract for DePaul USA.

Am I missing something?

Let me give feedback on some points. Anyone from OHS, respond if you are able.

1. The blog is misleading and erodes trust.
   Verbatim:
   “It is unfortunate to see public data used in a way that is misleading or misunderstood which can erode trust in our work to serve the most vulnerable.”

In everything I posted I indicated that I’m not a financial expert by any means, and made a point to refrain from stating things I didn’t have documentation for. And I made the underlying data extremely easy to access. It’s here if you’d like it.

The platform I made prefaces issues that people may want to look into with this language: “These are some topics which community members may want answers about regarding OHS expenditures. There may be satisfactory answers to some of these observations, but taxpayers are entitled to transparency on how their funds are used.”

I submitted questions on these various things multiple times to OHS, and had an interview cancelled at the last minute with the director, and never received a substantive response to anything I asked about.

I must admit it is frustrating to be criticized for my use of public data when OHS would not even respond to my Tennessee Open Records Act Request, or that of a Council Member, until I indicated to Metro Legal and The Metro Internal Audit Department that I was willing to pursue the matter, as TN statue dictates, with the TN Comptroller and/or in Chancery Court.

I understand that it is very important to not misconstrue what financial data says, and that’s why I refrained from drawing any conclusions that aren’t supported by documents I can point to. But it’s hard to take serious claims about obscuring the truth of public data when I had to burn a lot of social capital to even get this information which all Tennesseans are by law entitled to. 

2. Temporary staffing was appropriate and necessary.
   Verbatim:
   “Due to the nature of grant-funded roles, which fall outside the traditional Civil Service structure, the use of temporary staffing solutions was both appropriate and necessary.”

Yeah what I find concerning is that so many of these temp staff became full-time staff paid by grants, and then it seems like Metro had to move them from grant money to Metro money. The net result, which was pretty predictable, is that OHS got to expand its FTEs far beyond what they were originally allocated. If everyone’s fine with that, including Council, HR, SEIU, and other departments, then I don’t have an objection. It just seems like not the way Metro is supposed to do things, but not ultimately for me to decide. Not huge on my list.

3. OHS used a Metro-approved vendor and followed procurement protocols.
   Verbatim:
   “OHS engaged a Metro-approved vendor, adhering fully to established procurement protocols.”
   
   Randstad is used by many departments, I never considered that a red flag. They’re one of the vendors you’re supposed to work with to get temporary staff, and they have a standing contract. All good there.

4. The Office of Human Resources approved this staffing approach.
   Verbatim:
   “The Office of Human Resources (OHS)[sic] reviewed this approach and confirmed it was consistent with Metro’s policies and operational goals.”
   
   My question is whether HR was under the impression these people would be converted to actual employees, and then transfer from grant funding to Metro funding?

If I had a bee in my bonnet about this. I’d try to understand how these temp hires were presented to HR when this plan was approved. Maybe it was all fine and everyone consented to what eventually happened. Again, not a big deal for me, but it seems like the kind of thing some people care a lot about.

5. Staff costs were correctly classified as program operating costs.
   Verbatim:
   “Staff operating costs were categorized under program operating costs, which allowed for the hiring of additional personnel to meet grant-related deliverables.”
   
   Yeah not sure what this is referring to. My big thing with temp staff is what business unit they were billed to, which have specific Council authorizations for specific things. It looks like at least 9 people were billed for “Landlord Engagement” and a former employee with a leadership role on that team says none of them provided those services.
   
   Seems like an important thing to prove/disprove.
   
   I asked OHS to confirm if those people did landlord engagement tasks on Jun 25, 2025. Their PIO told me I would have to file a Tennessee Open Records Act Request to get that information. I asked her what type of document I should request to see that, since their actual task loads don’t appear on their invoices from Randstad. She did not provide a response.
   
   

6. Federal training and capacity-building efforts are valid and necessary.
   Verbatim:
   “These activities are appropriately supported through dedicated federal grant allocations specifically intended for such capacity-building efforts.”
   
   Yeah I think training is good and cool, I never criticized this. Maybe that was someone else’s blog. Is there something I should be concerned about here?
   
   

7. The ‘grant-funded’ employee classification was used properly.
   Verbatim:
   “‘Grant Funded’: This designation applies to employees working in programs funded by federal, state, or private grants with defined end dates, or in non-locally funded, specialized programs requiring skills not directly transferable to other Metro positions.”
   “This classification was reviewed and approved by OHS in accordance with Civil Service guidelines.”
   
   Yeah but I think these aren’t supposed to obligate the city for more FTEs, if the money dries up the position goes away. But the reality is OHS got the budget for it for FY26 it seems, so they convinced somebody this was necessary. This is the kind of thing where I feel like the response is referencing someone else’s observations? Maybe I’m the vessel for all criticism? I guess I can play that role.
   
   

8. OHS inherited temporary object accounts and is not responsible for their origin.
   Verbatim:
   “OHS inherited object accounts (OAs) that had previously been submitted on our behalf. These were temporary funding mechanisms—not intended as long-term budget allocations.”
   
   I don’t know what “inheriting object accounts” means, but this feels like a “It’s Judy’s fault” kind of defense. What’s weird is my data only goes back to the beginning of FY24, so I’m not sure how the way they set up the system when it was under Metro Social Services would still affect things? At some point you have to take accountability for what you do in the accounting software. But maybe there is an argument there, would like to hear more.
   
   The important thing I noted about “objects” (which is how each line item is identified as what type of expense it is) is that they’re classified weird.
   
   If you go here you’ll see $11,727.48 for temporary service. At first was like “how in the WORLD did they hire that much temporary staff?” And it turns out that they just classified all types of things as Temporary Service. I don’t know why. Would love an answer.
   
   Like here’s one, $254,562.84 to the Salvation Army on 2/29/2024 billed to ARP Interim Gap Housing classified as “Temporary Service.” Maybe they just used it as a catch all? But there is an object for “Care of Persons” that they used a lot, and makes way more sense. Were there concerns about limited budget lines for certain things? I dunno, it just seems weird to me, which is why my post says basically: “someone should look into this.”

9. OHS and Metro Finance have conducted a thorough financial review.
   Verbatim:
   “Leadership along Metro Finance has undertaken a thorough review and reconciliation of all inherited accounts to ensure financial accuracy and accountability.”
   
   Not to be glib, but thank you for confirming that this does need a review and reconciliation. Not sure why I am being “misleading” asking questions about your finances if you are confirming that that Metro Finance is performing a financial review…

There's also this focus again on “inherited accounts”, but I’m not talking about old numbers or activities, I’m talking about things from July 2023 to June 2025.

10. The Strobel House procurement followed a legitimate (if evolving) process.
    Verbatim:
    “The original procurement process began as a Request for Proposals (RFP), which later transitioned into a sole source application managed by MDHA.”
    “Operational responsibility subsequently shifted from MDHA to the Office of Homeless Services.”
    
    Yeah, never said their original contract was problematic.
    
    

11. OHS has formalized the Strobel House arrangement through agreements and a funding resolution.
    Verbatim:
    “OHS established both a formal agreement and a funding resolution to cover the associated costs and is now finalizing a contract for submission to Metro Council.”
    
    So yeah, this is actually kinda crazy. This is the first confirmation I’ve gotten from Metro that Depaul USA does not have an active contract for the work it is currently doing at Strobel House, and has been since Oct 2024. I don’t know what a “formal agreement” means, but my public records requests didn’t even turn up an MOU. This is what a document search and public information requests led me to believe, and on Monday I did ask Metro Officials if they could confirm this, and I got no response.
    
    It seems like this very much confirms what I stated here:
    https://sites.google.com/d/1U8YS9YXP91wsOq46naO4N6iohzwVpkOW/p/14qIGGTdnGGdIRvC2xbHjcbQef-baY8bT/
    
    That Strobel House has submitted for invoices in excess of their current contract, has been back-billing dates to when they did have a contract, and have received $500,068,923.86 more than Metro Council ever approved them for.
    
    If I’m getting this wrong, someone please tell me how. Why isn’t this a huge deal? You can’t just pay people over half a million dollars without a contract.
    
    I get that OHS was allocated to use these funds for Strobel House activities, no one is arguing that.
    
    But you also have to have those funds authorized for particular use, especially if they are this very large amount. Wasn’t this what Finance was accusing Daniel Singh of doing, but at a much smaller scale? And isn’t this exactly what the deal with FUSUS was? Where they had one valid contract, but then expanded it beyond a threshold without Council Approval, and Council’s Legal noticed it and it was a whole scandal?
    
    

12. Criticism like the blog is a distraction from important work.
    Verbatim:
    “We must address distractions like that blog. Your support is crucial in this mission…”
    
    Up to y’all to decide if this sort of open dialogue is a distraction or not. I think sunlight and discourse is great for improving collaboration, enhancing our processes, using funds more effectively, building community trust, and giving us a firm foundation for when times are hard. It does require that leaders aren’t perceived as beyond criticism, and that authority needs to be shared, with no one perspective getting to define what the truth is. 

Let me know if I missed any salient points. Please send a response to my feedback if you'd like, OHS officials. I won't make a whole email post about this, but I'll post this to the mini-site I made so it can be preserved. I’ve sent you all more than enough content this week.

I hope you all have a pleasant weekend. I appreciate each of you greatly, even the ones who dread seeing my name in your inbox.

Thank you and take care,

Mike Lacy