Front Page  »  

Homeless director accused of pocketing donations

March 18, 2013

Dee Torres-Hill

KEEPING THEM HOMELESS

By KAREN VELIE, JOSH FRIEDMAN and DANIEL BLACKBURN

(Editor’s note: This is part of an ongoing series about San Luis Obispo County Homeless Services and the nonprofits managing the program.)

Homeless Services Coordinator Dee Torres routinely took gift cards intended for the needy and homeless for her own use, a number of former homeless service employees and ex-boyfriends say.

Torres kept the gift cards in her purse to use for family outings, gas, restaurants and Christmas presents for her friends, Ralph Almirol, the father of Torres’ middle child, said. Almirol said they especially enjoyed gift cards from Tom’s Toys on Higuera Street.

“We would give them to the kids,” Almirol said. “She used them like they were hers.”

Torres’ Homeless Services program comes under the umbrella of Community Action Partnership of San Luis Obispo (CAPSLO). Employees of both the Prado Day Center and the Maxine Lewis Shelter say that every Christmas, the homeless are remembered by the public with thousands of dollars in gift cards being donated for gas, groceries, restaurants and retail stores. All such donations are to be given to the homeless.

Almirol asked Torres about the cards and the homeless who were supposed to receive them, he said.

“People would give a lot of gift cards,” Almirol said. “I asked her once if she could get in trouble, she said there was no accounting for what is given, and most of them don’t deserve it.”

Other former boyfriends confirmed the allegations, though they wanted to remain unnamed because they are afraid that Torres or government officials will retaliate. Torres is engaged to San Luis Obispo County Supervisor Adam Hill. At least one of Torres’ former husbands relied on his marriage to her to obtain legal resident status, CAPSLO staffers and Almirol said.

Friends of Prado President Roy Rawlings and Torres did not respond to comment requests.

Workers at the homeless shelters said that apart from the rare occasion when a client would do chores such as painting an office, the cards were not provided to the homeless.

“We never saw the gift cards given out,” said Kathy Marti, a former three-year employee of CAPSLO. “Once the gift cards came in she would take them.”

Marti said she quit in 2010 after battling for better treatment of the homeless.

“I was so disillusioned because I never saw any progress,” Marti said. “When I first started working there I loved it, I felt I could move heaven and earth.”

More than a dozen former and current employees of CAPSLO said that Torres refused to give donated goods to the homeless unless they would do chores for her.

“There was so much stuff coming in,” said Carina Salazar, a former CAPSLO employee. “There was all kinds of stuff donated. A lot of stuff got tossed. We went over to the (CAPSLO) main office to complain, but no one would listen.”

Almirol said Torres would divvy up the best donations for family and friends.

“We would go through the donations and pick out the best toys for our kids,” Almirol said. “She would give other stuff to her friends.”

Employees and clients also question CAPSLO’s rule that homeless individuals must provide 50 to 70 percent of their income to CAPSLO in order to guarantee a bed at the shelter.

Richard Walker and his family turned to CAPSLO after they became homeless. CAPSLO required the Walkers, who were on welfare, to pay about $500 a month in cash to the family’s case manager, Walker said.

Despite paying CAPSLO approximately $500 a month, the Walkers still struggled to get necessities, such as baby diapers, from Torres, he said.

“We had to fight with them to buy things for our baby like diapers or rash cream,” Walker said. “We told Dee (Torres) we needed diapers. She told us to get diapers through them, but she would only give us three at a time and then she would get angry when we asked for more.”

After spending about a year and a half in the shelter on case management, the family decided to cancel so they would have enough money to purchase diapers and other necessities, Walker said. But Walker said his family did not receive all of the money they had signed over to case management.

“She gave us most of our money back in a check. She kept the $25 a month they charged us for holding on to it,” he said.

By opting out of case management, the family chose to take their chances on getting beds each night at the Maxine Lewis Homeless Shelter.

CAPSLO requires clients at the Maxine Lewis Homeless Shelter to be waiting outside by 5 p.m. though they may not enter the shelter until 6 p.m. Homeless clients not on case management draw a ticket out of a bucket for a chance to stay the night.

One night, the Walkers drew the right number, but CAPSLO staff told them they still could not stay at the shelter because their eight-month-old had pink eye, Walker said. They asked Torres to provide them a motel voucher. But Torres told the family they could not stay in a motel because they had a car in which to sleep.

“She said ‘no hotel, you have a car,’” Walker said. “Then she gave a hotel room to a man who had just had Lasik surgery.”

Joette Sunshine, a four-year employee of CAPSLO who has left her job, said she was working that night and witnessed the events. Sunshine said she was distressed that a family of four with a sick child was not provided a hotel room, while a man who could afford an expensive eye procedure was.

“Part of the deal not to be able to get a hotel room was if you had a vehicle and a certain income,” Sunshine said. “This man had more than $1,200 a month in income and a van. The motel money was there for people who needed it, yet the Walkers were denied a hotel room.”

Several years ago, the Walkers got into housing on their own, though they said that CAPSLO lists them as one of their housing “success” stories.

 

Keeping Them Homeless, the series.


Loading...
Subjects:             
Related:


391 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments

I just want to comment about the people who have a knee jerk reaction of discrediting everything said by former employees. It is a non-issue whether they have been fired or not. Prosecutors often use one criminal co-conspirator in a trial to prove evidence and to overall prove a criminal charge beyond a reasonable doubt. Someone who has been fired may or may not have an “axe to grind” but it does not mean that all fired employees are “disgruntled” or incapable of telling the truth. If the witness is involved in a case or has a bias against a defendant, that is up to the defense attorney to present to the judge or jury. The judge or jury then must weigh the credibility and veracity of the witness as well as the testimony. The judge or jury might well believe the co-conspirator’s testimony or the former employee’s testimony despite the possible bias because it has been corroborated or otherwise is reliable testimony. Maybe it rings true compared with all other testimony in the case?


Another street myth is that if there are only two people present it might be a “he said, she said” and it can’t be proven. Again that is false. Does the fact that there might be only one witness mean no crime was committed? No. The judge or jury might have to decide which person is telling the truth, but there are many ways to do that.


When a observes something or hears something they don’t have the responsibility to prove it other than with what they know. They don’t need a video cam or receipts. They don’t need to worry about having only heard it from someone else. That information may lead to another person and another. Each person might add more to the picture so that when the investigation has many pieces, the investigators can forward a case for prosecution. That’s usually the way it happens. Rarely does one person have the whole story.


0

It was mentioned on Congalton’s show today that the CAPSLO Board of Directors has a meeting on Thursday at their office at either 5:00 or 5:30PM.

Perhaps those who have contributed in the past to homeless services should attend to demand an independent review/audit of these funds. This Board will be derelict, in my opinion if they do not take action at this time. Perhaps the public outcry will get their ear.


0

JQ Public, I could not agree more.


When people hear about the source for negative information about a prior employer’s illegal or wrongful activities, the first thought of many is “disgruntled employee.” For those who have actually worked in local government agency (or contractor for a LAG), the first thought of many is “disgruntled employer led to ex-employee status.”


Often people become ex-employees because they refuse their employer’s orders to do something illegal or unethical. Indeed, that is exactly the situation most employees of local area agencies face: either do what their manager orders, even if it is illegal or goes against the agency’s regulations, or face the slow employability death of wrongful termination, complete with kangaroo-court “hearings.”


I was sorely tempted to call Congalton but couldn’t due to a prior engagement’s time conflict) when he was “interviewing” Karen Velie, and agreeing that unless Velie’s sources would testify under oath to what they said that Velie’s information was not credible.


Never, EVER in media publishing history, has there been a standard anything close to what Congalton and his CAPSLO supporters demand of CCN. It is a ludicrously-high bar placed for Congalton and his callers to place for CCN, and CCN only.


Just TRY to place that bar of credibility around the neck of the Tribune, or even the LATimes, and you would be laughed out of the newsroom.


I can just see Woodward and Bernstein being told that the information from their source, Deep Throat, would only be credible enough for publishing if Deep Throat agreed to testify under oath as to its validity.


Velie handled it expertly, of course, but it just galled me to listen to the badgering “interview.” Congalton was out of line.


0

Please, enlighten us on your knowledge of “media publishing history.”


0

If this is true, Dee Torres is worse that Kelly Gearhart. Robbing from the poor, disadvantage and mentally ill is unforgiveable.


0

No not robbing, more like skiming a bit of everything that passses by.


Yes service fees, that’s what we will call it like a bank or…


0

“Paradise Lost”, the story of Adam and Dee, their temptation and fall from grace from the Garden of Homeless. Sure to be a best seller


0

To all those clamoring for the DA to investigate and wondering why he is not. You need to understand that the DA is the prosecuting agency. It would create a complication if they were both the investigator and prosecutor.


There is a simple solution. A victim, any victim i.e. a person who should have received benefits, any benefits and was denied needs to go over to SLOPD and file a report.


Another solution is for a victim to retain a lawyer and file a civil suit. But understand that once a civil is filed, criminal rarely follows unless the prize is huge, and I don’t think there is enough money involved at this point.


0

The District Attorney does have its own investigation unit.

http://www.slocounty.ca.gov/DA/Investigations.htm


The District Attorney also receives and reviews cases initially investigated by any of the city police departments or the county sheriff’s office.


http://www.slocity.org/police/index.asp

http://www.slosheriff.org/


Anyone with information about a crime can report to any of these three agencies.


Only a victim or a legal representative of a victim can be a plaintiff of a civil suit.


The existence of a civil suit does not have any precedence, priority or impact over the District Attorney’s authority to file a criminal case. The District Attorney pursues criminal cases in the name of the People of the State of California and not for any particular victim. It is a myth that a victim “presses charges.” The District Attorney alone decides whether the facts support a case and when weighing resources and the public need for prosecution, which cases to charge.


The amount of money is not a deciding factor in whether or not to pursue criminal charges. It may be a factor in which crime to charge.


0

One does not have to be a victim in order to report a crime. ANYONE with information can report a crime. The above mentioned agencies are local agencies. The State of California Attorney General’s Office also prosecutes crimes, as does the United States Attorney. The Office of Social Security Administration is an administrative agency and is not prosecuting a criminal case. SSA can investigate and prosecute an administrative case with administrative hearings. If the SSA seeks criminal prosecution that action will be forwarded to the United States Attorney.


0

JQ – suggest you change your moniker to Polly Anna. You must be new to SLO.


0

No one here has NOOOOOO idea!!! If only I could have gotten a camera in there. No one would believe all the things I have heard and seen!


The corruption, the lies, the stealing, the cover-ups…..I just couldn’t get the proof. I only know what I have seen and heard!


It’s disgusting.


0

Someone who sees and hears is a witness. Witnesses do not need to prove up a case in order to report what they know to law enforcement. Even a victim is just a witness when it comes down to prosecuting a criminal case.


0

Just one question. No sarcasm, just a simple question. There is an alleged crime. Eyewitnesses. Did anyone report this to any law enforcement agency? It’s a yes/no question, so please no, “What good would that do?” answers. Thanks.


0

Seriously, can anyone answer this pretty basic question?


0

Homer, the situation between Torres v. her workers and clients is drastically imbalanced, with Torres having the vast majority of power.


In such a power differential, even in a situation where the homeless were not the clients, employees likely were afraid of losing their jobs and benefits if they opposed Torres in any way. Often employees simply quit, lose their seniority, and move on rather than try to take on their boss in such a heavily imbalanced power ratio between employee and boss.


I imagine it might have been even more of a leap for the employees for an employer who ran a homeless services organization. The employees are constantly confronted with people who, through no “fault” of their own, are homeless, especially the way the economy has been in the last several years.


Some of the CAPSLO web of employees did approach Steinberg, who, by reports, did nothing and ignored the problem.


I would still like to know why Biz Steinberg is getting a free pass on the CAPSLO crimes. There’s an old saying, common in many cultures, which goes something like this:


The fish rots from the head first.


Steinberg knew and she did nothing. She had far more power than any of the employees, yet she did nothing to stop Torres.


0

So, I’ll assume your answer to the question is, “I don’t know.” Did someone ask the ex-boyfriend (or anyone else sourced anonymously), “Did you report this to someone in law enforcement?” Either the answer was, “Yes,” or “No.” If yes, then the next question would be, “Which agency?” If the answer was “no,” then the next question would be “Why not?” Maybe the subject would respond, “I didn’t think anyone would do anything about it.” Or, “I don’t know, I guess I just didn’t think about reporting it.” Or any number of responses that should be in this story. But unasked questions never get answered.


0

QUOTING HOMER: “So, I’ll assume your answer to the question is, “I don’t know.’ ”


You would be wrong, if that was your assumption.


It is not my job to ask those questions, or to answer them. That is the job of CCN reporting staff and its editor.


You are asking the wrong people questions it is not their business to answer. We are discussing an article written by CCN, not one of our own articles.


0

So…you know the answer, but you’re just shy. Let me make it a bit more clear: Why aren’t you asking these same questions? Aren’t you curious if the people who knew about these alleged crimes reported them to a law enforcement agency? I certainly expect any reporter writing this story to have already asked these questions. It certainly seems like people commenting on this story believe it’s “their business” to comment on everything else in this article. Why not this?


0

I have spent the night in this homeless shelter and it is bad. I went to ECHO shelter it was managed better now anyway. Although, to be honest it was a 10 year back. I had a problem with my stuff being taken. At first, I thought it was the other residents. But when they took my keys and I locked stuff in my trunk of my car.and things still came up missing. Needless to say I figured it out and took my car keys off my ring and hed them under my pillow. But a lot of stuff was already gone. CAPSLO or EOC as it use to be called was managing the shelter at the time. The reason I tell you this is I believe it is been going on for years and it pretty wide spread. I never knew what they did with the stuff that they got or who got it but I reported to the Atascadero Police but nothing ever happen. I assume they thought I was crazy. Well . . . anyway I got a place to live finally and things started looking up. But that experience was frustrating.


0

Where is Else Mai Curry in all this? Check her out at Maxine Lewis, She is either an integral part of it or

too cowardly to speak up.


0

Sounds like many are afraid to speak out. I’m sure speaking out by any employee against the princess of homelessness would cost them their job! I’m sure they have all been threatened! People need to work and no one wants to end up having to be part of her kingdom!


0

MaryMalone, you seem to misunderstand what has been going on here. The stories that came before this one unveiled truthful aspects of how the CAPSLO, Family Ties, homeless program works. These are facts, and it’s up to the readers to decide whether they are how things should be done or if they are unfair and should be changed..

If the government, Social Security, etc… investigate and find wrongdoing, that too is fact. And I suspect will be the time when the Tribune, KSBY and others will jump on the story.

Here, CCN is acusing Dee Torres of stealing from the program. That’s far different than exposing the workings of the program no matter how upsetting they might be.

This story is basically calling her a thief, and if that isn’t true, then a libel lawsuit is possible.

Adam Hill could also sue if Karen were calling him a thief. It doesn’t matter how much of a POS you think he might be (and I agree, he is), he’s not been called a thief, the way this story does to Torres.

Libel is only defensible if it is true.

If it is a lie, if it is fabricated, then there is no defense, not even in teh case of a public figure.

One could also argue that Torres isn’t a true public figure. She runs a homeless program. She isn’t an elected official, not a celebrity either, in recent years, several celebrities HAVE sued for libel and won.

Condeming the way the program is run is one thing, but calling someone a thief is entirely different.

And again, I reiterate, if these allegations are NOT true, then Torres could have a case.

And if she doesn’t sue, I believe it is an unstated admission of guilt, but that’s also MY opinion.

As for why the Tribune isn’t all over this story, I would say it’s probably because they would have to admit that CCN scooped them, and that its criticism of CCN’s reporting was just plain wrong.

This is CCN’s story to run with. They should be proud that no one else is trying to steal their thunder.

I don’t believe the Tribune DOESN’T do investigative reporting, they just have too large of an ego to be the second banana on a story like this.

Karen, Josh and Dan will likely have to continue on with what they are doing and not hope for vindication through having other outlets pick up the story.Again, they shold be proud of their work here and not worry about others.


0

IMO A lot of important people in the Tribune know a lot of important people and don’t want to rock the boat on this story…


0

Actually, as has been said before the Trib got scooped and now can only report on actual events. if they did anything else it would look bad for them.


Actually, on the face of it, the real mover behind this story turns out to be Adam Hill. Were it not for him picking a fight with CCN, they wouldn’t have started digging into his relationships. As an English teacher he should have paid heed to a well known advice known as Greener’s Law – “Never pick a fight with a person who buys ink by the barrel.” He did and now he and his associates are paying the consequences.


0

Torres is clearly a public figure, even if only a “limited public figure” (legal term) in the arena of homelessness in SLO County. It is possible to become a public figure without volition simply by being thrust into the media. Sandra Fluke is a prime example of this. However, Torres testifies at public meetings on behalf of CAPSLO, and is clearly a public figure of her own accord and involvement. If there exists any defamation, it would fall on the untruthful and/or negligent party. If someone lied to CCN, then litigation would fall on the liar alone as long as CCN relied upon that person believing in good faith they are credible and truthful.


0

You can’t become a “limited public figure” because a newspaper or website writes a bunch of stories about you. You are thinking of someone who “thrusts themselves” into the public eye on a specific issue. Being the homeless director and making comments at a few public meetings doesn’t meet that standard.


0

And before you cite Sandra Fluke again (which in itself is a close call), she was a college student who agreed to testify before Congress on an issue of national interest. Torres, in her role as homeless director, had an obligation to speak at City Council meetings. The only reason anyone knows Torres’ name is because of this website’s stories. If they’re true, CCN has nothing to worry about. If they’re not, the bar is much lower than “limited public figure.”


0

You can put your thumb up or down all you want. Facts are facts. Do you have something to suggest what I said isn’t true?


0

Niles Q, reference my post at : tinyurl.com/cwupyzh


and JQ Public’s post, page five, at 03/18/2013 at 9:41 pm


Also, you have to get over the deal with FACTS when you are talking about everything published by a media source up to and including the outcome of a trial…and even then the outcome of a trial may not actually represent the FACTS at all. Media publishers do research and publish when they think the information gathered reflects the truth as they see it.


If you demand the FACTS before believing anything reported in a news publication, then you best quit reading or listening to news publications.


CCN is reporting what they gleaned from their sources, who have indicated Dee Torres was taking gift cards intended for use by the homeless for her own use, as well as her family members. This is what CCN reported, and the type of activity said to be done by Torres with the gift cards is theft, or “stealing.”


This is no different than much of what CCN has published before. The behavior of Family Ties ALSO is based in part on what CCN’s sources have revealed to CCN. For much of Cliff Anderson’s allegations, it is what Anderson, his friends and his attorney have said as sources to CCN. Anderson’s friends and his attorney are not the Baby Jesus, and are not granted special anointing as always speaking nothing but the pure truth.


Indeed, EVERY human source is going to have an angle, whether it is obvious or not, and whether the human even knows they have an angle. That’s because we all come forward with our own perceptions of what is right and wrong, and even whether being homeless is right, wrong, or simply a state of not having the kind of home the government declares qualifies as a home.


I don’t know why you are trying to differentiate between what CCN published before (much of which were not FACTS proven to the majority of posters here) the gift-card article, and the gift-card article.


You and I have two different opinions about the Tribune. I believe your opinion that the Tribune doesn’t publish on big stories like Lisa Solomon, SSLOCSD and CAPSLO is naive. They suffer far more embarassment, IMO, from simply not covering a major story than from being the second news publication to publish on the story. To simply not cover a major story makes them look incompetent, out-of-touch and, to some, corrupt.


I believe the Tribune doesn’t publish on certain major stories because they depend on funding from advertising and other funding provided by the county, local cities and businesses. The Trib has to make money to pay the costs of operating, and if they make their advertising and funding benefactors uncomfortable by publishing the uncomfortable truth, then they may lose the support of some of their major clients.


Perhaps you have forgotten how Adam Hill has retaliated against CCN. Here’s a link to a CCN article about it: http://tinyurl.com/cpfqqfa


If Adam Hill is so vindictive as to blatantly use his county email account to drive away from CCN their business advertisers and supporters, surely it cannot be unlikely that Hill would do the same with the Tribune.


0

The ethics of Mr Hill have a lot to be desired! He needs to be out of his office as much as Ms Torres does. I would think Mr Hill would be smart enough to know when he needs to cut his losses! But if not, I wonder what will happen to the relationship when neither one is in the position to do something for the other? My guess, the Prince of SLO and The Princess of Homelessness will have one short marriage!


0

I take your points and agree with them mostly. I do however, think that the way Karen goes about her reporting is somewhat reckless.

I am personally uncomfortable with some of the things she does, like saying things like “several sources” or “numerous people” have told CCN… The use of unnamed sources has always been a slippery slope to walk, even though it seems to be getting used more and more these days. Used to be that in the White House press corps, “Unnamed sources close to the White House” was actually one reporter asking another reporter and then using the information as an unnamed source. Highly unethical, even downright lazy but not uncommon.

If a hundred people all said the sky was purple, that doesn’t make it a fact. And in cases of libel fact is the only thing that saves a reporter.

It also wouldn’t be libel if you reported the sky was purple based on the 100 people who told you that, even though it is clearly false.

But if you used the hundred people who say the sky is purple to then call a scientist (or anyone really) a “liar” because he says it’s really blue, that could be libelous. And if you did this without actually giving the person you are calling a liar a clear chance to refute the allegations, it doesn’t bode well for your case.

In this story, Torres is being called a thief (even though the actual word doesn’t appear) and Karen sent a couple of E-mails to ask for a response? Is that enough of an effort to give the person who is being called a thief a chance to respond before you print? Maybe, maybe not.

At the least she should have E-mailed, left voice mail messages and even presented herself in person and asked for an interview, if for no other reason than to cover her ass.

I guess my No. 1 complaint is that CCN uses far too many unnamed sources and makes claims of numerous unnamed sources confirming other unnamed sources’ allegations. It seems to me if you’ve got dozens of sources there is zero chance that not one of them would go on the record.

But again, if this story doesn’t prompt a legal action, it would be an unstated admission of guilt, but that’s my opinion, it isn’t fact.

And to Karen’s credit her record of having her stories ultimately be proven true by the actions of law enforcement (Gearhart, the Yagudas) is pretty impressive. My hat’s off to CCN.


0

People have this misconception that reporters can simply regurgitate what someone else tells them and be immune from a libel suit. You throw out “the reporter shows negligence” like that’s no big deal. If someone told a reporter you’re a thief, then they published it without even finding out if that person reported the theft to a law enforcement agency (let alone that you’ve never been charged with theft), you’d have a darn good libel case. It doesn’t matter if the reporter believed the source was telling the truth.


0
1 … 3 4 5 6 7 … 11