Loose Lips: The executive director of

Coup? What? Where? When?

In a deposition, DCHA Director Tyrone Garrett says he fired his deputy because she plotted to overthrow him. Chelsea Andrews, the former deputy who is now suing DCHA, says that’s ridiculous.

Tyrone Garrett

By Mitch Ryals

@MitchRyals LL has an idea for the cash-strapped D.C. Housing Authority: Bring in some bright lights, mic up the staff, and let the cameras roll. The District’s biggest landlord could certainly use the extra revenue that an unscripted DCHA drama is sure to rake in, considering its derelict properties and waning federal support.

There’s even a frame for the pilot episode: DCHA Director Tyrone Garrett’s sworn deposition in a whistleblower lawsuit his former second in command, Chelsea Andrews, filed last year. Andrews claims she was fired after raising concerns about the procurement and authenticity of masks bought to protect DCHA employees during the pandemic. Garrett claims he had lost trust in Andrews and that she openly mocked his vision in front of subordinates.

During his six-and-a-half hour testimony, delivered on Jan. 14, Garrett accuses Andrews of “berating” a DCHA board commissioner into changing a vote, he tussles with Andrews’ attorney, Carla Brown, over Andrews’ efforts to empower women in the agency, and he describes seemingly innocuous interactions with Andrews over office space, tickets to Michelle Obama’s book tour, mistakenly sent selfies from a night out, and his support (or lack thereof, depending on your perspective) for Andrews’ internal leadership initiative.

All of it, in Garrett’s mind, was evidence of a plot by Andrews and two former members of his senior staff, deputy general counsel Ed Kane and chief development officer Darrell Davis, to stage a coup.

In his deposition, Garrett says his human resources director, Natasha Campbell, told him about a conversation where Davis “referenced two teams at the organization: the Chelsea team and the Tyrone Garrett team.” According to Garrett, Davis told Campbell that he, Kane, and Andrews were “ready and prepared” to take over DCHA.

Garrett acknowledges that he never talked with any of them about Campbell’s disclosure. All three deny they plotted to overthrow Garrett’s reign over public housing in D.C.

In a statement to LL, Kane writes that “the appropriate place to address and/or publicly adjudicate the specific, patently false, and frankly absurd claims and mischaracterizations made about me is in the ongoing litigation.” But, he adds, “I categorically deny any knowledge of, or participation in, any purported coup or other attempt to usurp or undermine the executive director’s authority.”

Davis writes in an email to LL that to buy into Garrett’s characterization, “one would have to believe that I would be dumb enough to plan a coup and then go to HR to discuss it.” He writes that anyone familiar with DCHA, “knows that [DCHA Board Chairman] Neil Albert controls the DCHA Board and Tyrone’s fate. The day Chairman Albert gets tired of Tyrone’s antics he will be packing his bags. If I were interested in planning a ‘coup’ I would have been talking to the Chairman, not Chelsea.”

Davis acknowledges he spoke with Campbell on multiple occasions about dysfunctionality within DCHA and about factions within the agency.

“I told her that for us to accomplish anything, we first had to come together as a team,” he says via email. “We had the talent to accomplish big things but DCHA was a toxic work environment, and no one trusted anyone.”

That his conversations with Campbell were “twisted into some sordid tale about an attempted coup is a perfect example of the toxicity at DCHA,” he adds.

Andrews, for her part, calls Garrett’s accusations defamatory and said in an interview last week that they amount to further retaliation against her.

“I don’t even understand what that means,” Andrews told LL at the time. “I have no idea how you stage a coup or overthrow the executive director who is appointed by a board. It sounds ridiculous. And it goes without saying, but let me say it: It is completely false and without merit and ridiculous.”

In Garrett’s telling, Andrews’ attempts to undermine him and her alleged attempted overthrow started showing about a year into his tenure at DCHA.

In November 2018, former first lady Michelle Obama brought the tour for her memoir, Becoming, to Capital One Arena. Andrews told Garrett ahead of the event that she’d received tickets through a friend and planned to invite DCHA’s female employees. She recalls Garrett suggesting that male agency employees might also want to attend. Garrett says in his deposition that Andrews believed women in the agency needed to be empowered.

“What’s wrong with that?” Brown, Andrews’ attorney, asks in the deposition.

“Nothing, but I believe the whole entire agency needed to be empowered, men and women,” Garrett responds.

“Right, all lives matter?” Brown prompts.

“No ma’am, don’t — no. We are talking about two different things,” Garrett says. “We’re talking about me running an agency and trying to keep a cohesive team right? And what was being said and what was being touted was that there was going to be division between men and women within my organization. You cannot function when you have that type of divisiveness.”

Andrews ultimately used the tickets as she intended. She adds that Garrett purchased copies of Becoming for all the attendees and included a handwritten note in each one.

“This was around the #MeToo movement, I’m the No. 2 leader at the agency, and I’m a woman,” Andrews says of her thinking. “And it dawned on me that this was a great opportunity to lift up the women and hear a very inspirational speaker, the first lady.”

Garrett also attended the event. In his deposition, Garrett says he and Larry Williams, senior VP for property management and a main character in Andrews’ lawsuit, bought their own tickets, though he says they did not attend the event together.

Garrett denies Brown’s assertion in the deposition that he does not believe women at DCHA need to be empowered.

washingtoncitypaper.com march 2021 5

“Did I tell Ms. Andrews she was incorrect evening when several colleagues took her out different question,” Andrews says. “Like votfor attempting to empower women? No,” he after she finalized her divorce. She meant to ing ‘yes’ meant ‘no’ before, so it was kind of says. “I did not say that, and I would never text the photos to the group to thank them for confusing. I was informing the board what say that because I don’t believe that. But I do the support, but she accidentally sent it to a the outcome of their votes would be, and I believe when you’re a leader of an organiza- group chat that included Garrett. Andrews did that in a professional manner, and had tion, you have to empower everyone.” denies she sent the selfies as a warning that no stake in the outcome of that vote except to

Another example Garrett gives of Andrews’ she was gathering support for an alleged coup. ensure that it was clear so that we would not alleged attempts to undermine his author- “It wasn’t about him at all,” she says. “It have to have another special board meeting to ity involves office space. Andrews asked to was about me, and the message that I sent clarify if someone knew what they were votswitch offices soon after Garrett named her literally started with ‘ladies,’ so it was thank- ing on at the time they were voting.” general counsel in 2019. At first, he denied her ing them for the support they were providing The motion to rescind failed, 3-3. request to move her team to a larger space that to me.” Garrett points to a leadership initiative DCHA’s Office of Administrative Services Garrett acknowledges in his deposition that Andrews began as a final example of her occupied at the time. In his deposition, that he has no evidence that the women who alleged betrayal. He says Andrews created Garrett says OAS appeared in selfies the program “not for leadership of the orgaDirector Lorry Bonds complained to him about Andrews’ “Ms. Andrews was … coordinating this whole with Andrews were attempting to overthrow him, nor did he nization, but I believe it was to create dissension … within the agency, to create teams, so to speak. Your team, my team, and whatever attempts “to take over space in another effort and this program speak with Andrews about his concerns, other team was out there.” During one of the program’s monthly sesdepartment and move itself where I was put in according to his sions, Garrett describes how he was made to the department to another area, which basically what we would testimony. In Garrett’s fourth sit in the middle of a circle while Kane, the former deputy counsel, “berated” and critiwas not condoned by me, not supported by me.” call a bullpen and openly critiqued, where people example of Andrews’ alleged takeover, he falsely states that cized his leadership style. Kane declined to comment beyond his written statement saying Garrett mischaracterized the event. Garrett says he offered to build out were given the authority Andrews “badgered” a DCHA board com“Ms. Andrews was … coordinating this whole effort and this program itself where I Andrews’ office as a or emboldened to openly missioner to change was put in basically what we would call a bullcompromise, an offer she says she declined. critique my leadership of her vote. A transcript of the meeting does pen and openly critiqued, where people were given the authority or emboldened to openly Garrett says the discussion is an example of how Andrews the organization in front of everyone.” not support Garrett’s characterization. The board narcritique my leadership of the organization in front of everyone,” Garrett says. Andrews says she started the program to undermined his rowly approved a develop DCHA employees’ leadership skills, authority because “even after I stated that plan in December 2019 to redevelop its not attack Garrett. The program featured varthat was not going to take place or should not headquarters at 1133 North Capitol St. NE. ious guest speakers that Garrett signed off on, take place, the discussion continued.” Commissioners then called an emergency she says. The monthly events included a talk

Andrews says she made the relocation meeting in January 2020 to ask more ques- on emotional intelligence, one on how to be a request because the general counsel’s office tions and possibly reverse their approval change agent, a tour of public housing propwas not big enough to comfortably accommo- of the plan. In his deposition, Garrett says erties, and a visit from a former Washington date her staff. Brown, Andrew’s attorney, says Andrews tried to strongarm Commissioner Football Team player. The program required a Bonds, in her own deposition for Andrews’ Aquarius Vann-Ghasri into changing her budget that Garrett had to approve, Andrews lawsuit, disputed Garrett’s characteriza- vote after voting, which would have killed says. “He was seemtion. According to Brown, Bonds testified the redevelopment plan Garrett put forward. ingly supportive that Garrett approached her about Andrews’ “I don’t want to say she berated her, but she of it,” she adds. relocation request, not the other way around. continued to ask her the same question repeat- “Financed it and Andrews and her staff ultimately stayed put, edly,” Garrett claims in his deposition. “After participated.” she says. Ms. Vann-Ghasri had already voted, affirmed She says she was

Garrett’s third example of Andrews’ her vote, Ms. Andrews continued to … I’ll use unaware of Garrett’s alleged plans to take over DCHA involves ‘badgered,’ her to, you know, change her vote, feelings about the photos from September 2019. In his depo- basically push her in a position where she would program until his sition, Garrett says he received selfies from have changed her vote publicly.” deposition. According Andrews of her and other DCHA staff mem- He also says that another DCHA attorney, to Andrews, every bers hanging out at a restaurant after work, Ken Slaughter, told him that Andrews “had employee took turns which were mistakenly sent to him. a sidebar” with Vann-Ghasri. sitting in the cir-

Asked in his deposition how the selfies indi- Andrews denies having a side conversation cle and receiving cated an attempted takeover, Garrett says he or trying to coerce Vann-Ghasri to change her feedback. just had a feeling. vote. She says her role as general counsel was “We were all mov-

“Again, it goes back to the creation of divi- to ensure the commissioners understood ing toward ‘let’s let sion of the organization based on, you know, what they were voting on. At one point dur- bygones be bygones,’” my experience with various personalities,” ing the emergency meeting, Garrett asked Andrews says. “The he says. “And, again, the concept and idea of Andrews to explain the motion before the facilitator even gave this whole story about passive-aggressive approaches to leadership board voted. how ‘sometimes you just have to get it all out so and styles that I was sent this picture to show Vann-Ghasri voted against the redevelop- you can start anew.’ She was really just trying that ‘I have the women supporting me in this ment plan in December 2019. But she contra- to do what any facilitator who is doing a teamorganization.’ That’s based on my opinion.” dicted herself during the emergency meeting building activity would do.”

He adds: “I believe it was a form of recruit- by voting “no” on a motion to rescind the ment, ma’am. To push back against me.” board’s approval of the deal.

Andrews says the selfies are from an “The question that was being asked was a thing was a miscommunication with Campbell, his HR director. Garrett claims that he intended to let Andrews’ contract expire at the end of September 2020 and instructed Campbell to give Andrews’ a 60-day non-renewal notice, as her contract required. Andrews questions that interpretation and points out the 60-day notice wouldn’t have kicked in until July, two months after she was fired. Her contract allows for her to hand off her duties and responsibilities to ensure a seamless transition, she says, and instead, her phone and email were abruptly disconnected and she was escorted out of the building. She began raising concerns about the sole source procurement and authenticity of masks that DCHA purchased in April. She describes in her lawsuit how her poking around angered Williams, the senior vice president for property management, and Bandele McQueen, Garrett’s chief of staff. Garrett recruited both men to work for him at DCHA. He says in his deposition that he considers Williams a personal friend, and he attended college at the University of Virginia with McQueen. (He says he and McQueen were not roommates, as LL previously reported.) DCHA procured the masks through an acquaintance McQueen knew from his time working on Capitol Hill, according to Garrett’s deposition. Andrews believes she was fired because she raised concerns about the masks, to Williams’ and McQueen’s frustration. Garrett claims his issues with Andrews had been percolating for some time before that and that he began looking for a new general counsel in January 2020, months before Andrews was fired in late May. The case is inching toward trial. D.C. Superior Court Judge Hiram Puig-Lugo dismissed three of the five claims in Andrews’ lawsuit, includ“We were all moving ing the count under toward ‘let’s let bygones the Whistleblower Protection Act, in be bygones. The facilitator even gave this whole story November. None of the cur rent DCHA employ about how ‘sometimes you ees mentioned in Garrett’s deposijust have to get it all out so tion responded to you can start anew.’ She LL’s emails seeking comment. Instead, was really just trying to do what any facilitator who DCHA spokesperson Tony Robinson sent an emailed stateis doing a team-building ment that notes PuigLugo’s dismissal of activity would do.” Andrews’ whistleblower claim and other claims directed against Garrett as an individual. Andrews filed a motion for reconsideration last month and is waiting on a decision from Puig-Lugo. Garrett has since hired a new general counsel and, in the meantime, is moving Garrett never intended to fire forward with his 20-year plan to transform Andrews, he says in his deposition. The whole DCHA and its public housing properties.