They Only "Discovered" the $500k Payment Issues When I Found It By Accident
How Months of Fighting Metro's Information Blockade Exposed $500k in Backdated Invoices, Alarming Financial Bypasses, and a Government That Charges Citizens $4,500 to Read Its Laws
At last night Metro Council Budget & Finance meeting, some stuff was put on the record that confirmed what I’ve been saying for months. The money is weird over at OHS, Metro’s Office of Homeless Services. And as I’ve been pointing out since literally my first Substack ever, the Metro Finance Department is not performing its most basic functions, as defined in the Metro Charter.
That first article I ever posted, which made me thoroughly unemployable ever again at Metro Nashville — I went pretty hard on then finance Director Kevin Crumbo for passing the buck on overseeing how Metro spends its money.
You might say that this very point is my whole problem with Metro in a nutshell and I might go away if they just fixed it. It seems very easy, to me at least, to build transparency and accountability into a digital finance system designed by Oracle. One of y’all has Larry Ellison’s cell phone number, just call him! Ask if we can get an upgrade, or at least like a discount code.
I can’t imagine what the difficulty could be with being more transparent. You’re already doing your jobs properly and everything’s above board — just throw a widget on it that lets the public see it. What’s so complicated?
Clarification
When this article refers to 'backdated' invoices, it means invoices that attributed services to expired contract periods (specifically, invoices submitted in 2025 that referenced September 2024 contract dates for services actually rendered in 2025). Metro Finance has indicated that the submission dates on these invoices accurately reflect when they were filed with Metro. The issue raised in this article is not about when invoices were submitted, but about the contract periods and dates referenced within them for services rendered months after the cited contract had expired.
Aug 24, 3:24 pm CT
Anyways…
Here’s what happened last night.
Last night, Metro Council's Budget and Finance Committee voted 10-0 to renew a contract with DePaul USA for operations at Strobel Strobel House. What notable is that DePaul’s old contract expired in September 2024, but they’ve been operating the facility for the past 10 months, paying employees and everything, with no contract. How were they getting paid with public money without a contract? These invoices should have been flagged, you can’t pay someone with public funds without a contract, without authorized funds. If you could, you could just like, hire your sister to cater your events — we have to have rules for these things.
Well regardless, there were payments to DePaul despite not having a contract, something I discovered through months of fighting for a wide swath of public records that OHS didn't want to release.
To be honest, I’m ambivalent on the contract being renewed right now — the one thing I know is the operator of Strobel House needs a contract ASAP. I hope someday soon it can be run by a trusted local organization. There are service complaints about DePaul, their former employees don’t rave about them. But there is not an alternative in the immediate future I’m aware of. Until then, we just need someone with insurance who is under contract while this all gets sorted out.
Oh but yeah, they shouldn’t be barred from talking to the media — more on that later.
How This Investigation Started
About three months ago, I began investigating OHS finances after hearing about an attack at Strobel House that nearly killed one resident and landed the other on trial. I wanted to know who was contracted to provide support services and security there. What should have been a simple question turned into a months-long battle against a system dead set on not answering this simple question.
Folks, y’all gotta learn this lesson: when you tell someone like me with ADHD that you’re not going to show me something that I have the right to see, it makes me very, very interested to see it. And if you are a piece of information that wants to remain concealed, to paraphrase Dr. Bruce Banner…
I searched Metro's contract database for DePaul USA - nothing. Then I realized none of OHS's contracts were searchable. I had to specifically ask the Metro Clerk to add them as a category, which they politely did that same day.
The Wall of Silence
After submitting public records requests to OHS, I waited. And waited. Over a month passed with no response from Demetrius Cheney at OHS who, I was told, was the person to deal with these requests. Meanwhile, I published what I did know, and Director Calvin called me "fake news" at the Homelessness Symposium but wouldn't provide a single correction to anything I'd posted.
It was only after more than a month of silence on my public records requests that I researched the legal remedies for non-compliance with Tennessee Public Records laws: chancery court or the state comptroller's office. I notified Metro Legal, Metro Finance, and the Office of Internal Auditor that I would pursue these options if my requests weren't fulfilled.
Suddenly, OHS wanted to talk - always with their Metro Legal representative copied. After a genuinely cordial phone call with an OHS rep and Metro Legal, and only one more threat of legal action, the records finally arrived.
What the Records Revealed
The documents confirmed my worst assumptions: there was no valid contract with DePaul after September 30, 2024. But worse, I discovered invoices that had been backdated. Unless we are to believe that DePaul "forgot" to bill for services during the dates of their initial contract (for the full amount of their original contract again), then they submitted invoices in at least January to May 2025 backdated to make it appear services fell within the expired contract period.
That was very surprising to me. No one had indicated that this was going on, that these services were being billed for in this clearly… non-accurate way.
Multiple invoices, hundreds of thousands of dollars, backdated across at least five months of submission. And OHS officials, Director Calvin herself if I took in last night Budget and Finance Committee meeting correctly, approved these payments.
Hm.
See the invoices here.
October 4, 2024: The Liability Nightmare
During the period when DePaul had no valid contract, a serious stabbing occurred between two residents at Strobel House. I obtained the arrest warrants and court proceedings audio. This incident was never reported as happening at Strobel House. It doesn't appear in data.nashville.gov police reports. OHS never informed the homelessness community.
I was the first person to ever report publicly that it even took place there. Media coverage from that night did not specify it took place at Strobel or involved residents, something OHS reps celebrated in text messages, according to public records I acquired through records requests. When I asked OHS directly about the incident, they neither confirmed nor denied that it took place.
Director Calvin was apparently on-site shortly after the stabbing, according to text messages obtained through public records. Tours for new residents resumed three days later.
The main concern for OHS as documented in their communications:
Preparing comment for if the media became aware of the incident
Evicting the accused as soon as possible
Tours of the facility for new residents resumed that week, likely someone taking the room of the alleged assailant.
Metro's liability for this incident - occurring when no authorized vendor was managing the facility - remains unclear.
I published my findings on these matters and more on this website.
Director Calvin promptly submitted a rebuttal (without me copied) to all members of the Metro Council. I published her rebuttal in full, not finding any passages that contradicted what I had said — and it was there that she confirmed for the first time that DePaul did not have an existing contract.
Last Night's Admissions
Director April Calvin admitted to the committee:
"It wasn't brought to our attention until after the staff, our grants coordinator transition... And so as soon as that happened, we started working with Metro Legal to move forward with this resolution. And that's been about three months ago."
Three months ago - exactly when I first submitted public records requests for this transaction data and began contacting people at DePaul asking about their contract. They "discovered" the problem precisely when I started looking for it. What a co-inky-dink.
How Did This Happen? Calvin's Four Excuses
Director Calvin offered four explanations for how OHS paid over $500k without a valid contract:
"We're in this situation currently because of four main reasons. One of the complexity of the problem, like this one, the complexity of the project. This was a one of a kind for Metro, the first of its kind for our Office of Homeless Services."
"Second is coordination and negotiation between multiple departments, along with Metro Legal items and, DePaul, the vendor that we're currently working with."
"Then also there was a mix of multiple funding streams for this with different resolutions."
"And then fourth was the unexpected challenges that things like staff change and turnover."
Make of that what you will. None of that addresses why invoices were backdated and billed so as to not flag Finance oversight processes.
But then she admitted the real issue:
"One of those creative solutions was, identifying the funding stream alongside of identifying and creating the long term service agreement for for this project... I think one of the things to note is there was some staffing turnover and probably a little bit of confusion on was that a resolution for the funding stream, or was that a resolution for bringing on the vendor?"
Always good to use the word “creative” when explaining potential financial malfeasance.
How the Payment System Was Deliberately Bypassed
Mary Jo Wiggins from Finance explained exactly how OHS circumvented financial controls:
"What happened in this case is that payments were being made to DePaul through a direct voucher system. The direct voucher payment does not connect to a contract, and finance does not approve those direct vouchers. Those are all approved at the department level."
She continued:
"Had a purchase order been used? Finances purchase orders. Those are connected to contracts that would prevent an overrun of a contract or payment on an expired contract. Because we were [not] using a purchase order in this case, it goes undetected."
Did OHS choose to use direct vouchers specifically because they bypass Finance oversight? Or was this a weird coincidence that they submitted it via the only way to pay a vendor without a contract. What the records indicate is that this wasn’t how they were paid before their inital contract was expired. Only for the extra monies were they paid in this way.
Hm.
Wiggins added:
"There's some other safety nets that if, our Office of Management and Budget OMB does monthly reviews on financial line items for every department... If it ran over a total on a financial line item would catch that. There are safety nets. But those, again are going to be after the fact. They're not going to be in real time unless we're using POs."
I go back to the point from my first ever Substack, the Charter says the Director of Finance shall: Audit before payment all bills, invoices, payrolls and other claims, demands or charges against the metropolitan government and approve the same only if proper, legal and correct, and duly authorized by appropriations or allotments of appropriations.
You’ll note it doesn’t make a distinction between purchase orders and direct vouchers. The founding law of our County-City says all demands or charges against the city. All this CPA jargon is non-sense and doesn’t matter — public money is not to be spent without proper authorization and the buck stops first at the Director of Finance and then at the Mayor. End of story. Finance can renounce its responsibility as much as it wants, but they either need to change the Charter or change their policy. But this way of doing things: it ain’t working.
What's Being Done About It?
Director Calvin listed four "corrective actions":
"Immediate remedy is working with central Finance, Metro Legal"
"Received approval to hire a contract administrator instead of a grants coordinator"
"Our admin team and our finance team has began... certified county finance officer training"
"Realignment"
Hm.
Those “Hms” are said in Miss Piggy’s voice in my head for some reason, you know the noise I’m talking about? Her arms are folded, and she just goes “Hm!”
Anyway, here's what's really being done to stop this systemically - Metro Finance announced they're implementing a new system:
Mary Jo Wiggans: "We are working on a new... Oracle product. We are going to be Oracle Cloud in the new year... With our new Oracle Cloud, we can go back... and if we have contracts that have been engaged through Metro through an actual contract, they will now be identified as PO only. And so a department will not be able to pay that vendor using a direct voucher."
So the solution is: sometime next year, a new computer system might prevent this.
Rad.
Steve Rider, in public comment, highlighted the core issue:
"My problem is that this council approved $500,000 for the start up for the Strobel house. And, Mike Lacy has reported that essentially, as of a couple of months ago, there's more than $1 million that has been billed for this operation... Mike Lacy had to work really hard. Public records, request and everything else to try to get it. And he still hasn't gotten all the information."
That’s very nice, Steve! You are my public comment inspo. Steve also pointed out something disturbing in the new contract they were approving:
"There is a section here that talks about media, interaction. It's in section D, and I really have a problem with this. It basically says that any media events or news releases connected with this or contemplating or performed wrote to this grand contract must be coordinated through the Office of Homeless Services. And DePaul can't even talk with anybody. They can't even talk to the media."
And he highlighted a fundamental governance problem:
"The Office of Homeless Services has no board or commission that reports to none. Zero. No accountability that I'm aware of. I know I ask questions all the time and it's like, oh, we'll get around to it."
Think about that: Not only did they operate without a contract and use backdated invoices, but OHS has no oversight board, and the new contract includes a gag order preventing DePaul from speaking to media or the public about their work at Strobel House without OHS permission. After being caught misusing funds, their solution includes making it harder for the public to find out what's happening. Chill.
The Broader Pattern of Obstruction
This isn't just about Strobel House. When I told Metro Finance I plan to request all transaction data starting July 1, 2025 (not to find past mistakes but to start this FY off on the right foot), I was told in no uncertain terms my request would be rejected. I haven’t submitted my formal request yet, I’m hoping Metro just publishes the data transparency advocates are asking for.
My review of case law on the topic doesn’t look good for Metro’s ability to withhold this information. Much of the case law is actually appellate or TN Supreme Court cases ruling against Metro Nashville going back decades. Those disappointed in Metro’s current closedness should be comforted that this administration is merely carrying on a long tradition of being highly conservative as to what qualifies as “public information.” Unless someone was expecting some sort of progressive data transparency from the current administration, it seems like this is just old school, closed door Nashville being Nashville.
Metro Put the Law Behind a $4,500 Paywall
When I recently requested copies of all resolutions and ordinances passed by Metro Council - literally the laws that govern Nashville - I was told it would cost $4,500 because an "outside vendor" would need to extract the content from Metro's servers.
Let that sink in: Metro Nashville has put the law itself behind a paywall.
In America, we have a principle: ignorance of the law is no excuse. You're expected to follow every law on the books. But in Nashville, if you want to actually read those laws you're required to follow? That'll be $4,500.
This isn't about complex records or investigative documents that need to be redacted. These are the basic laws of our city - the rules every citizen and business must follow, the ordinances you can be fined or arrested for violating. Metro is essentially saying: "You must obey all our laws, but we won't tell you what they are unless you pay us thousands of dollars."
Instead of providing free public access, they directed me to a barely functional site where you can only search pre-2020 legislation by keyword. You can't browse. You can't see everything. You can only search if you already know what you're looking for. The advice I received? Search for "2018" and hope relevant laws have that year in the title. This is their official solution for citizens trying to understand their legal obligations.
Cool. Cool Cool Cool.
But here's where it gets worse: the site they pointed me seems to only goes back to 1995. Any Metro law passed before 1995? I guess it's behind that public records paywall with no alternative access. Maybe they have a copy at the downtown library (but where am I going to park???) For what it’s worth, their response did not indicate that they were just charging me for the transfer of a file, it was implied that this would take some seriously complex work to pull together the legislation from 1963 to 2020. I do get that putting together lots of records like that can be difficult.
But I’m also kind of confused as to why that’s not like, easy to get? What if someone in Metro like, needs to know the law? As we just learned with the ordinance on the budget approval process for The Central Business Improvement District from 1998, older ordinances matter, and are, in fact, still laws.
These are laws that could still be in effect, that you could be prosecuted under, but Metro won't tell you what they are unless you pay up.
If you're wondering whether this is compliant with Tennessee's Open Records Act — LAWL, no. It's absolutely not. The Open Records Act requires governments to provide public records at reasonable cost. Charging $4,500 for basic access to the law is not, what I’d call, reasonable. Having no searchable database of current laws is not reasonable. Putting the law behind a paywall while still requiring citizens to follow it is fundamentally incompatible with democracy.
I really am not complaining about any particular people I’ve dealt with — more this vibe we all seem to have of being okay with this. Now, in all times of times, to clutch so closely what is the very definition of public data, public knowledge. I’m not attacking anyone when asking for access to these things. People running these departments take it quite personally when we ask for public information, as if it’s an assault on them — when really I’m not doing a bit, I truly think better things come when we are transparent in how we operate.
But the thing about democracy though is that even if I was out to “get somebody” using public information, I’m still entitled to the public information that would support that case, just as someone’s supporters are entitled to public information to defend them. We don’t live under a dictatorship yet. Our surest path to keeping it that way is to operate in ways that are counter to authoritarian practices — and that starts (and likely ends) with being open and honest about how we use our shared public resources.
Oh by the way — I found an unlisted Metro website that lists legislation from 1995-2018 in a somewhat more convenient format. I added it to Archive.org “WayBackMachine” so it can’t be deleted. I downloaded all of it and am making it publicly available - because citizens shouldn't need $4,500 to know what laws they're required to follow.
So if you want to know what resolutions and ordinance exist in Nashville between 1995 and 2018 and don’t already know what you’re looking for, here you go:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1ATY53CiIqN8acxY7amK7GwZjnIiK1Yk9/view?usp=drive_link
2018 to 2020? That’s going to require some manually downloading, unfortunately. 1963 to 1995? You’re SOL. Hopefully nothing important was decided during those years.
Wrap up: What Happened Last Night
But I digress — despite all of this - the backdated invoices, the admission they only "discovered" the problem when I started investigating, the complete bypass of financial controls, the potential liability from the October stabbing - the committee voted 10-0 to retroactively bless these violations.
The resolution now moves to the full Council for final approval. I don’t think it’s terribly helpful to sandbag this legislation and keep having no vendor operating Strobel House legally. But I do hope people pay attention to what it highlights, and how it’s about much more than OHS.
This Wasn't a Mistake - It Was a System
Let's be clear about what the evidence shows:
OHS deliberately used direct vouchers instead of purchase orders — the only payment method that bypasses Finance oversight
DePaul submitted invoices backdated by months — weird things to happen by accident month after month after month
OHS approved these obviously backdated invoices — are they not reading them or are they reading them? I’m not sure which is worse.
The "discovery" of the problem coincided exactly with my investigation — happy to be of service.
The new contract includes a media gag order — well I’m “fake news” according to the Department Director, not media, so they’ll be fine talking to me.
It needs to be clear. This doesn’t look like a “we goofed up paperwork.” It needs to be investigated seriously if this meets the definition of fraud.
The Pattern Is Clear
Let’s just review it again for the record.
Metro allowed a vendor to operate a $35M facility serving 90 of its most vulnerable residents without a proper contract
Either the vendor or the department back dated invoices to align with their prior contract, billing over $500k more than the total initial contract
Financial controls were bypassed using direct vouchers
Public records were withheld until legal action was threatened
Department employees are receiving extra training
The system worked exactly as designed - to operate in darkness until someone forces the light on. And until the evidence is overwhelming, call them “fake news” or “disgruntled former employees” until it all goes away.
Progressivism in action, folks.