Much like hunting seasons that occur during winter months, public housing conferences appear to follow a predictable pattern—they consistently take place when Chelsea experiences its harshest weather, and the destination is nearly always Florida.
This pattern emerges from expense records submitted by the Chelsea Housing Authority (CHA) for various public housing initiatives, which are now under scrutiny by the federal Housing and Urban Development (HUD) administration.
The federal agency is examining substantial travel expenditures attributed to Michael McLaughlin, the former CHA director, and Linda Thibodeau, his frequent travel companion and reported girlfriend who previously served as CHA director of housing management. The review covers the years 2005 through 2012.
In correspondence dated May 22nd sent to the CHA—initially reported by the Boston Globe and subsequently obtained by the Record—HUD identified problematic spending from the Housing Voucher Choice (HVC) program, flagging $49,371 in clearly disallowable expenses alongside $103,772 in expenses lacking adequate documentation or support.
The HVC program, commonly known as Section 8, provides rental assistance to low-income families seeking housing in the private rental market.
Beyond this specific program, HUD raised concerns about $711,392 in questionable expenditures across all CHA housing programs.
“Appropriated funds were spent for disallowable costs of $49,371 and for questionable and/or unsupported costs of $103,772 for the HCV program only,” the letter stated. “The total amount of disallowable, unsupported, and additional potentially disallowable costs for all programs and projects operated by CHA for which Department funds are granted is $711,392.”
The agency also demanded immediate repayment of approximately $219,000—funds the CHA currently lacks. In a separate matter, HUD is pursuing recovery of $7 million or more designated between 2002 and 2009 for apartment improvements but redirected elsewhere, including toward employee compensation.
Travel costs and reimbursements receive particular attention in the HUD letter.
An accompanying exhibit documents questionable expenses for McLaughlin and Thibodeau dating back to 2005, though some travel by current staff members—including Executive Director Al Ewing and Assistant Executive Director Diane Cohen—also drew scrutiny.
McLaughlin and Thibodeau, however, appear to be the primary focus of the investigation.
A sampling of travel expenses spanning several years includes:
•Jan. 2010 – unidentified travel
•April 2010 – Hyannis Resort and Conference Center
•October 2010 – Phoenix Sheraton
•Dec. 2010 – Downtown Miami Hilton and Sheraton Sand Key Resort
•Dec. 2010 – Sanibel Harbor Resort and Spa
•Feb. 2011 – Sheraton Sand Key Resort
•April 2011 – Hyannis Resort and Conference Center
•May 2011 – Royal Sonestra Hotel
•July 2011 – Hyatt Regency Capitol Hill (Washington, D.C.)
“Contrary to regulatory and statutory requirements, the CHA spent funds for many items that were not reasonable or necessary and that did not support the CHA mission,” the letter read. “Inappropriate items include expenditures for excessive travel, various entertainment expenses, excessive salaries and unsupported reimbursements to employees…These expenditures demonstrate the former executive director’s and board’s waste and abuse of funds and their apparent disregard for internal controls.”
According to the Boston Globe’s coverage of this matter, an unnamed CHA employee or former employee suggested that McLaughlin and Thibodeau rarely returned from their frequent conference trips with substantive new information to share.
The same source reported to the Globe that the pair once attended a computer software conference despite neither possessing proficient computer skills.
HUD concluded its comprehensive findings—which addressed numerous issues beyond travel expenses—by emphasizing that such spending directly harmed residents, particularly those representing society’s most economically disadvantaged populations.
“Misuse of…funds prevents the public housing authority from assisting as many families as possible with the funds made available for this purpose,” the letter stated. “These conditions occurred because the CHA management and Board failed to exercise fiduciary responsibility and did not act in the best interest of the public housing authority or those it served.”
A HUD representative declined to provide additional comment regarding the letter or the expense investigation.