Are the ethics of a landlord 'our' business?
Posted at 10:09 AM on January 11, 2012
by Bob Collins
(20 Comments)
Filed under: Economy, Politics
Question (Note: This is not a rhetorical question): Should an employee of the House of Representatives be held to a higher standard in private business dealings? Is the recent inspection of legislators' private lives more or less serious than an employee of the Legislature owning a couple of buildings that would earn most anyone else the slumlord epithet?
I've seen firsthand the problems at the Westminster Court apartments in Saint Paul when I dropped in to interview this couple a few years ago. Squalor is the perfect word for the "problem property" that every housing expert in Saint Paul has known about for years.
"Your clients paid a lot of money and let the buildings go to heck," a judge told the landlords at a hearing taking place at this hour (the Pioneer Press' Fred Melo is tweeting it).
MPR's Curtis Gilbert got an up-close view of the place for his story today:
The radiators in the unit are unreliable, James said. And that's just one of the problems. She opens a cupboard, and little brown beetles go scurrying.
"Look. Crawling all out everywhere."
She charges into the bathroom. The toilet doesn't flush.
"I gotta flush it like this," James said, reaching her hand into the toilet tank to pull the drain plug.
The sink is clogged. Cloudy water fills the basin.
"Won't even go down, this water. It's been like that for the longest."
James said she's reported all these problems to her landlord, but nothing's been fixed. Late last year, city inspections found some 600 code violations between this building and the one next door.
The families, many of whom spend their days on the edge of homelessness anyway, face eviction because the landlord stopped paying the mortgage and the buildings are in foreclosure.
The "she" in this story is Peggy Chun, who told the Star Tribune that Saint Paul's housing code "has caused landlords and low-income tenants hardship for many years."
"She takes the money from the government and she doesn't do anything," tenant Adade Kuegah said of Mrs. Chun.
But it's the he in the story who gives it a different twist, as revealed by the newspaper:
Randall Chun earns $99,400 as a researcher in the state House of Representatives. Neither he nor his wife returned several calls to home and office.
Based on the House Research website, Chun's area of expertise in his research is services for low-income Minnesotans.
Does it make a difference that he's an employee of the House of Representatives? Should his side businesses be held to a higher standard? Or is it none of the people's business?
Comments (20)
I don't think that his employment at the House means that we have to hold him up to higher standards as a landlord. His "occupation" as a property owner and landlord is what requires us to hold him to high standards.
And that is something we (in the form of city government) have failed to do. There is no ethical way that these folks (the Chuns) can continue to accept rent payments from these tenants and fail to maintain a basic minimal level of human occupancy conditions.
It's not our business that he's a researcher for the House. It's our business that he holds whatever licensing is necessary to rent property in Saint Paul. Such licenses are granted conditionally, and from what I have read & heard, those conditions have not been fulfilled.
I think a judge should stop by there today and immediately sign rent escrow agreements for every single tenant of those two structures. Only when the code inspections pass will the escrow conditions be met and the owners receive their payments.
And this sort of rental escrow condition should become automatic in the future when building regularly fail to meet code. Either that, or the owners should be forced to move into these structures themselves. Okay, that's not an either/or. That should be a both.
There appears to be no empathy towards the tenants from the owners (how else could you expect people to live in such conditions when you have some control over those conditions?). Given the lack of empathy, the situation requires some other means to get their compliance.
Hit 'em in the pocketbook (automatic rent escrow actions), hit 'em in their own comfort (require them to move into the unit), and hit 'em in the public eye (get their names all over the news as is being done now -- maybe they won't be able to show their face to their friends).
While I think there is a small difference between working for the legislature and civil service, I don't see why we would hold a State employee to a higher standard, except for elected officials. What this guy and his wife have done is unethical and wrong. Hopefully they will find a way to punish him. But, that should have no bearing on his employment nor should his employment have any bearing on punishment against him.
BUT, he is an employee of the legislative branch, so he is not covered under a union contract and therefore could be fired. He must be a Republican or he would have been fired already.
Are the ethics of a landlord 'our' business?
Am I my brothers keeper?
In addition, Randall Chun should be fired and prosecuted for defrauding the taxpayers.
Although people of his ilk tend to be shameless, perhaps it's worth a try:
Phone: 651-296-8639
E-mail: Randall.Chun@house.mn
(Is this permissible Bob? If not, why not?)
If you are on the govt payroll and your area of expertise is low income services, being a slumlord is a legitimate news story. And, if the landlord does receive federal funds in the course of these rentals (as alleged by a tenant) that adds another angle to look at.
If Chun worked for an insurance company or auto dealership this story is not told. There are some bad landlords out there and publicity would bring the welcome shaming. Also, where is the city in this case? How bad does this have to be to take action for stories not on radio or in the newspaper?
His expertise, based on what was linked to, is not really "low income services" but the Minnesota Health Care Programs, which also serves Minnesotan's well above the poverty line. I don't know how that has anything to do with what he is done.
Mainly health care but also housing services, in regards to federal reimbursement rules, programs, and eligibility.
"poverty line" and "low income" are not at all interchangeable words. As I think you know given your position.
I agree with davidz.
He should not be held to a higher standard, but simply the standard of the law.
If he is accepting rent from tennants, he is likely doing so under a contract which requires him to maitain the rental property in exchange for collecting rent; so he should maintain the property.
If he is accepting government funds that are allocated to him to fix poor living conditions in his property, then he should use it to fix the poor conditions.
These aren't higher standards, they are the standards required by law, which should be applied equally to everyone, regardless of his employment with the legislature.
Aside from a landlord's '9 to 5' job, it seems that we should hold a landlord to the standards we've created for landlords, which already exists in city and state statutes and laws. Which means these landlords are falling woefully short.
An aside, as a former tenant of one of Minneapolis' most notorious slumlords, I also think especially awful landlords should rot in their own special beetle and poo-infested circle of hell, but that's really neither here nor there...
Devil's advocate time: If an employee of the House has a consensual -- and not illegal -- relationship with another employee, where is the origin of the standard that should be applied there?
Actually I think the state as the employer should hold employees to a higher standard spelled out in a Code of Ethics regarding non-employment activities, and non-employment related income should also be disclosed. Maybe a cut-off at some job classification level.
Regardless, I have no problem with the press publicizing Mr. Chun's employment. It's significant that a legislative specialist in services for low-income people is taking tax subsidized rent money yet not paying the mortgage for the building, let alone being such an irresponsible landlord. I hope that's grounds for some kind of fraud charge.
To answer the devil aka Bob, I think it's pretty standard in private corporations to "forbid" relationships with anyone in a defined reporting structure. Relationships with direct reports are clearly out but sometimes it extends further down the chain. I think this is done to guard against financial liability in sexual harassment claims and to ensure a more productive work environment. It's a policy in an employee handbook. Not sure what standards the House has as an employer.
Raise your hand if you think there will be any negative consequences for this slumlord.
Nobody?
To be clear, some of the Minnesota Health Care Program cover WEALTHY people. Like, people making $100k more a year. There are two programs without income limits. So, they are not just for people in poverty or even just low income. And 275% Federal Poverty Guideline, which is what MinnesotaCare and some MA programs have caps at, are not really low income by anyone's standards.
The only justification I can see for applying a different standrad is if there is a conflict of interest.
As for the Devil's Advocate question, I believe it is the party and not the state that is applying punishment for inappropriate relationships.
Is there any time when the behavior of an employee in off hours reflects poorly on the employer? In other words, in your private life, do you have a responsibility to behave in a particular fashion?
I'm not talking a responsibility as conveyed via statute. I'm talking about one conveyed via ethics.
As an example, in McCleod County, MN, HUD, for its purposes, defines low-income as about $46,000 for a family of two (effectie 12/1/11). I believe that would about $6,000 more than 275% of federal poverty guidelines.
Re: your devil's advocacy. I wouldn't hold employees of the House (or Senate) or any other governmental body to a higher standard than I would hold employees of any other organization of similar size & makeup.
That said, I'd hold those other organizations to a high bar of ethics.
To the specifics of co-workers engaging in consensual relations, without any supervisory conflict or other specific conflict of interest, it's not any of my purview. Note those caveats.
I've worked in a couple of places where my boss ended up sleeping with her boss, one where they were up-front about things and neither were married, and one where it was "secret" (yeah, right) and both were married to others. The former worked okay, because we were aware and they were aware that we were aware of things. The company changed the review structures to remove some of the conflicts of interest, and the hierarchy informed all of us about this. Transparency worked quite well in this situation.
The latter situation created a miserable nightmare in the office, as so much politicking was going on. The entire workplace was on edge. Things calmed down notably after both of them were canned (yes, due to violating the non-fraternization rules regarding supervisory relationships).
Again, transparency was the difference that made all the difference. When everyone can be up front about what's going on, we could all get our jobs done. Less so when we're tip-toeing around the boss because she's completely wigged out about what people would do if they found out (as if we didn't already know).
I do however reserve the right to hold elected officials to a higher standard of ethics than I would employees. For example, since Congress has managed to exempt itself from many employee rights laws, any member of Congress that violates the spirit of those laws should be held up in the light of day.
Their election signifies that they represent the public, and the rights of the public should never be trampled by the elected official.
You are right, but HUD usually uses median income to determine eligibility levels. So in Fairfax County, Virginia, $56,000 is used as "low income" for a family of two in the HUD calculation. But in Buffalo County, South Dakota, the poorest in the nation, "low income" is calculated at $36,100 for a family of two. So, HUD is not an appropriate tool for determining "low income" as it is based on the income of the population and not on actual poverty.
Nobody's probably reading this anymore, but I'll throw this in: I think that the state and many other employers have policies about employees not doing anything that will reflect poorly on the employer, including during their non-work time, with possible consequences up to termination.
| January 2012 | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| S | M | T | W | T | F | S |
| 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 |
| 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 |
| 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 | 20 | 21 |
| 22 | 23 | 24 | 25 | 26 | 27 | 28 |
| 29 | 30 | 31 | ||||
Master Archive
Recent Entries
- Let's be careful out there!
- What 'civic leadership really is'
- Math we can't do
- Foreclosures: Better but still not great
- Minnesota kid falls short in Geographic Bee, still a winner
- The best bee
- When the high school prank isn't so bad
- How to kill a wolf
- Is your appetite killing the ocean?
- Getting the Busy Signal
Categories
- Add category
- Art or Eyesore?
- Arts
- Aviation
- Bridges and roads
- Coffeeshop Chronicles
- Crime and Justice
- Disasters
- Economy
- Energy
- Five by 8
- Floods
- Floods 2011
- Fresh Eye on the Radio (with Mary Lucia)
- Health
- History
- Icons
- Life
- Marketing and advertising
- Media
- Music
- News
- News Cut on Campus
- Northwest Airlines
- People doing good
- Politics
- Race
- Regional history
- Religion
- Schools
- Science
- Sports
- Surveys and trivia
- Tech
- The jobs we do
- The political conventions
- The Quiz
- The Unemployed series
- Things that are puzzling
- War
- Weather
- What's the Story Here?
- When people do good
- wildlife
- You Should Meet...
Services
In The Spotlight
-
Sound Learning
Looking for ways to ensure your students are doing quality research from credible sources? Sound Learning is a launching point to Minnesota Public Radio's content on the Web. -
The Current Music Blog
Your daily note for good music, news and pop culture. With attempted jokes.
- Become a Member
- Member Connect Accounts
- Leadership Circle
- Sustaining Members
- Member Discounts
- Become a Sponsor
- Tax Information
- Planned Giving
- Vehicle Donation
- Donate Stock