Three months after residents of Guttenberg’s subsidized public housing were given mysterious letters by the management saying their personal information might have been compromised, they have not been able to learn anything more about the potential identity theft. And now four residents have gone to the local police.
In August, tenants of the federally subsidized Guttenberg Housing Authority buildings received letters from the GHA stating that an “unauthorized individual” had accessed their private information, sometimes including their Social Security numbers. The letter said the GHA did not know if the information was used fraudulently or not, that federal and state officials had been notified, and that the GHA was investigating the matter.
Some individuals who were also on the housing waiting list also were sent the notification.
It is unclear if this identity theft was directly related to the GHA alleged breach.
________
Originally, GHA officials declined to comment when the Reporter asked them questions about the incident. The Newark office of the federal department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD), which oversees the GHA, also declined to comment on the matter, releasing a statement that “It is HUD’s policy to refrain from commenting on matters in which litigation is pending or threatened to avoid prejudicing the position of the parties.”
It is unclear what the mention of “litigation” refers to.
This past Nov. 16, the Hudson Reporter asked GHA Executive Director Barbara Criscione if there was any progress in the investigation. The Reporter also requested public documents related to the investigation, citing the state’s Open Public Records Act. Among the information requested was any written correspondence to the police or other government authorities on the investigation.
Criscione responded last week by saying that she had no comment and that residents could directly contact the GHA office for additional questions. She said that the GHA was denying the OPRA request for documents related to the investigation because it was “overly broad and unclear.” She also denied the request for “written notification to police or other government authorities” because it “…is related to an ongoing investigation of this agency, and disclosure of such information would be adverse to the public interest.”
But residents have contacted this publication and stated that they have been unable to find out from the GHA what happened.
The GHA’s reticence is nothing new; they have been tight-lipped about other actions of theirs in the past (see sidebar).
Several residents have now filed police complaints – and the police say the GHA has been equally unhelpful with them.
Four investigation reports filed with the police
Since August, four GHA residents have filed reports with the Guttenberg Police Department about the potential identity theft.
When the residents received the letter in August, it included a telephone number to call. People who called the number heard a recording and were eventually told to leave their name and number and were supposed to receive a return phone call on the matter.
According to Police Capt. Joel Magenheimer, the Guttenberg Police Department was not notified of the breach until residents contacted them. He said that soon after the news broke out, the department sent a police officer to the GHA, but the GHA administrators “weren’t cooperative.”
One Guttenberg resident filed a police report on Sept. 24 after a New Jersey Department of Community Affairs background screening, which looked into whether or not her identity was compromised, reported that a female living in Palm Beach, Fla. was using the victim’s Social Security number. It is unclear if this identity theft was directly related to the alleged GHA breach, but according to police files, the victim was indeed among those who got the letter in August.
Police said that the three other residents filed reports just based on the GHA letter.
GHA inquiry line disconnected
Carol Durrant, a West New York resident who was on the GHA waiting list, contacted the Hudson Reporter after she received the letter but couldn’t get any more information about it.
According to Durrant, she called the inquiry number listed in the letter on Oct. 27 and found out that it had been disconnected.
The letter, as well as a sign that was posted on several doors of an affordable housing building at 6900 Broadway, told residents and housing applicants to contact the “GHA Inquiries line” at 1(877) 402-0972 between the hours of 9 a.m. to 5 p.m., from Monday to Friday.
When Durrant visited the GHA, asking for information on how to file a tort claim in case her identity theft causes her financial harm, “[A housing investigator] told me there was no breach, and they blatantly refused to give me [more information].”
GHA Board Chairperson Joanne Martin would not comment on the alleged security breach last week, but that she would be able to “hopefully” comment soon.
“I really don’t know that much, truthfully,” she said.
The board consists of seven unpaid volunteers who oversee the GHA’s paid managers.
Martin said that the inquiry number was to a company the GHA hired to conduct an investigation into the matter. She said that the number was cut off because fewer and fewer people were calling.
Tricia Tirella may be reached at TriciaT@hudsonreporter.com.
Sidebar
HUD: Still looking into attorney expenses
The federal department of Housing and Urban Development said last week that they are still looking into the legal fees of Joseph Manfredi, a second attorney who began appearing at Guttenberg Housing Authority board earlier this year. The appearance was unusual because the GHA already had an attorney, and they declined to explain to the Reporter why a second one was hired. Documentation revealed that he was hired because three GHA administrators “felt compelled” to hire him due to the “unfounded allegations made against them.”
The three employees – Executive Director Barbara Criscione, former Assistant Director Maryann Morro, and Assistant Director Fatima S. Becerril – were cited in Reporter stories for allegedly having purchased a shore house together, even though at least one of them lived in affordable housing, and two of them were in subordinate positions to Criscione.
Manfriedi’s $22,894.77 bill was paid through GHA funds after a resolution was passed by the Board of Commissioners.
At first, when HUD was contacted about the hire, a HUD spokesperson said that they understood that “no housing authority funds have been used to retain” a personal attorney.
However, after being notified of the resolutions in reference to Manfredi, the spokesman said that HUD was still looking into the GHA’s legal expenses. He could not comment any further.
He also said that their investigation into Criscione, Morro, and Becerril’s names being on a deed for a Monmouth Beach, NJ home, while Morro and Becerril allegedly lived in public housing, found no violations according to HUD regulations. – T.T.