A former top official of the Federal Emergency Management  Agency will plead guilty to a  felony conflict of interest charge for helping arrange millions of dollars in contracts to the Gallup Organization at the same time he was negotiating a $175,000 job with the polling firm.

A nine-page “criminal information” document filed by federal prosecutors in Washington, D.C., this week charges that Timothy Cannon, 64, who served as the director of FEMA’s “human capital division” between 2007 and 2009, “knowingly and willfully” participated in the award of contracts to Gallup while he was arranging to accept employment  with the firm.

Lawyers familiar with the matter say the new case against Cannon is noteworthy because it provides an unusual window into the world of federal contracts – complete with explicit email exchanges among Cannon and Gallup executives, including the firm’s chief executive officer, James Clifton. 

“Ah, yes, I got another 500k put on the contract. Cool huh?” Cannon emailed one unidentified Gallup employee on Jan. 6, 2009, just six days before a job interview with the firm in which he discussed salary terms, according to the criminal complaint.

“Tim has had a distinguished career in the military and as a federal employee,” his lawyer, David Schertler, said Thursday. “To get this matter behind him, he’s agreed to plead guilty to one felony count.” He added that his client “has accepted responsibility for his conduct.”

The filing by prosecutors is the latest development in a widening federal probe into Gallup—perhaps the world’s most venerable and best known polling firm --  prompted by a whistleblower lawsuit filed by Michael Lindley, who previously served as its director of client services. The Justice Department last summer joined the lawsuit, accusing Gallup of bilking the government –  including routinely inflating bills by  tens of millions of dollars for polling for FEMA, the U.S. Mint and the U.S. Passport Agency.

Gallup said in a statement at the time that the charges in the Justice Department civil suit were based “on the false allegations of a former disgruntled employee.” 

The criminal complaint against Cannon does not identify Gallup by name, referring only to a “Company A.” But three legal sources familiar with the case, who spoke with NBC News on condition of anonymity, said that the company in question is Gallup and that the CEO quoted in the emails is the polling firm’s top executive, Clifton. In addition, the same conduct outlined in the criminal information has already been publicly described in the amended Justice Department civil suit that identifies both Gallup and Clifton by name. 

Asked about the charges, Gallup emailed a statement from William E. Kruse, its vice president for law, stating:  “Today’s filing was not against Gallup, but rather DOJ’s allegations against a former FEMA employee. As such, there is nothing Gallup can comment on in regards to this development.”

The complaint alleges that Cannon first had discussions with Gallup officials in 2007 about the firm providing services for a FEMA project called the “BEST Workforce Initiative.” The following summer, Gallup, was awarded the contract – originally valued at about $6 million over five years --  to poll FEMA employees and provide training to FEMA managers.

By then, Cannon had already had multiple discussions with Gallup about a job and his interest had come to the attention of Clifton, the firm’s CEO.

“If (Cannon)  gets us a big deal at FEMA… i (sic) think we should hire him … because he will be a ‘client’ hire … which might be good,” the Gallup CEO wrote in an April 25, 2008 email. Later in the same email chain, Clifton asked, “Is the ink dry yet on our deal with fema (sic)?”

Then, on or about Nov. 18, 2008, another Gallup employee wrote in an email to Clifton: “I talked to Tim today. He asked for a job.”

Clifton  replied: “What about ethics… are we okay with all of that … he is a significant client … am sure you know rules …  gee he seems like a winner to me … I don’t think these guys are as expensive as one might think … and he has a military background.” (Cannon served for 15 years in the U.S. Army, retiring in in 2001 as a colonel, according to Schertler, his lawyer.)

The criminal complaint charges that, during a two week period between Jan. 21 and Feb. 3, 2009, Cannon signed five separate forms expanding Gallup’s work with FEMA and giving the firm an additional $1.6 million in business. Gallup then sent Cannon a letter dated Feb. 5 offering him a post as "partner" in its government division. “I am very excited about joining (Gallup) and I look forward to working with you,” he wrote in an email to the firm that same day.

But  the job offer quickly ran into problems. Cannon retired from FEMA on Feb. 27, 2009, after signing a form on which he checked the “none” box in response to a question asking if he had any agreement for future employment, according to the complaint.  That same day, he asked Gallup to provide him with a new job offer letter dated Feb. 27 — to replace the one he had already received on Feb. 5. Gallup responded by sending him a new letter dated March 2, 2009, it said.

At that point, Gallup executives started to have concerns: In one email exchange detailed in the complaint, a Gallup employee stated he was “getting more red flags about Tim Cannon” and there was speculation among his co-workers at FEMA “that this is improper. They are pretty mad.  This may get in the way of future business with FEMA.” 

On March 26, 2009, Gallup withdrew the job offer, according to the complaint. In September, CEO Clifton forwarded an email about Cannon to company employees stating: “This is a guy that was our sponsor at FEMA. When he was applying we broke some of the rules of the US Gov on the ‘how’ we do it ... so we had to let him go.” 

Michael Isikoff is NBC News' national investigative correspondent.

More from Open Channel:

• Potential heir to $300 million Clark copper fortune found dead, homeless
• At 1989 parole hearing, Spengler wondered if he might kill again
• After buyout, union workers get a lesson in modern economics
• A buyout, a reorganization and the new face of job security
• Critical EPA report highlighting chemical dangers to kids is sidetracked
• Despite warnings, aging firefighting aircraft still flying -- and crashing
• Kitchen calamity: Reports of shattering cookware are on the rise
• Authorities establish timeline of gun purchases in Conn. school shooting
• Paula Broadwell won't face cyberstalking charges in Petraeus scandal

             Follow Open Channel from NBCNews.com on Twitter and Facebook 

David Friedman / NBC News

File photo shows a FEMA trailer park near Highway 90 in Bay St. Louis, Miss., in 2007.

More than six years after Gulf Coast victims of Hurricane Katrina began experiencing adverse health effects while living in travel trailers provided by the federal government for temporary housing, a federal judge in New Orleans has given his final approval to a $42.6 million settlement of a class-action lawsuit alleging that the units emitted hazardous levels of the toxic chemical formaldehyde.

U.S. District Judge Kurt Engelhardt approved the deal Thursday after hearing from attorneys who brokered the agreement between the plaintiffs and more than two dozen manufacturers of mobile homes provided by the Federal Emergency Management Agency in the wake of Hurricanes Katrina and Rita.

Roughly 55,000 residents of Louisiana, Mississippi, Alabama and Texas will be eligible for shares of $37.5 million paid by more than two dozen manufacturers, the Associated Press reported. They also can get shares of a separate $5.1 million settlement with FEMA contractors that installed and maintained the units.

Dan Balhoff, a court-appointed special master, will determine the plaintiffs' awards, the AP said. Up to 48 percent of the total settlement money – or approximately $20,5 million -- will be deducted for attorneys' fees and costs, it said. Assuming the remainder is divided equally among 55,000 plaintiffs, the plaintiffs would receive about $4,020 apiece.

Payments are expected to go out late this year or early next year, the AP said.

Engelhardt presided over three trials for claims against FEMA trailer manufacturers and installers after he was picked in 2007 to oversee hundreds of consolidated lawsuits. The juries in all three trials sided with the companies and didn't award any damages.

As msnbc.com (now NBCNews.com) first reported in July 2006, residents of the trailers began complaining of headaches, nosebleeds and breathing difficulty shortly after moving into the trailers, which were trucked to the Gulf Coast by the tens of thousands after Katrina and Rita devastated the area in rapid succession in 2005.

Air quality tests of 44 FEMA trailers in early 2006 conducted by the Sierra Club found formaldehyde concentrations as high as 0.34 parts per million – a level nearly equal to what a professional embalmer would be exposed to on the job, according to one study of the chemical’s workplace effects.

And government tests on hundreds of trailers in Louisiana and Mississippi announced in 2008 found formaldehyde levels that were, on average, about five times what people are exposed to in most modern homes. 

FEMA, which isn't a party to the settlements, had long downplayed the health risks from formaldehyde exposure before those test results were announced.

It eventually began auctioning off the units as “scrap” — meaning they should not be used for human habitation — in October 2008, but some unscrupulous buyers apparently were able to dodge regulations and return them to the housing pool. 

Formaldehyde gas -- the airborne form of a chemical used in a wide variety of products, including composite wood and plywood panels in the travel trailers that FEMA purchased to house hurricane victims -- is considered a human carcinogen, or cancer-causing substance, by the International Agency for Research on Cancer and a probable human carcinogen by the EPA.

Gerald Meunier, a lead plaintiffs' attorney, told the AP that the deal provides residents with "somewhat modest" compensation but allows both sides to avoid the expense and risks of protracted litigation.

"Dollar amounts alone do not determine whether a settlement is fair and reasonable," he said.

Jim Percy, a lawyer for the trailer makers, said Engelhardt would have had to try cases individually or transfer suits to other jurisdictions if the settlement wasn't reached.

"It was not going to end quickly, and it was going to be even more monumental for all the parties concerned," he said.

But that doesn't mean the deal isn't a disappointment for many residents who blame their illnesses on the cramped trailers they occupied for months on end.

"We were told not to look for much," said Anthony Dixon, a New Orleans resident who says he developed asthma while living in a FEMA trailer for two years.

Dixon, 58, attended the hearing with his wife and mother to learn more about the deal.

"We're glad to get it over with," he added.

Engelhardt noted he received a letter from a woman whose 66-year-old mother, Agnes Mauldin, of Mississippi, died of leukemia in 2008 after living in a FEMA trailer. Mauldin's daughter, Lydia Greenlees, said the settlement offers "very little" for what her family considers to be a wrongful death case.

"I am saddened about the settlement in that I feel like it makes a mockery of my mother's life," Greenlees wrote. "I don't want anyone to think for one second that I view this settlement as a fair trade for my mother's life. I do not."

A group of companies that includes Gulf Stream Coach Inc., Forest River Inc., Vanguard LLC and Monaco Coach Corp. will pay $20 million of the $37.5 million settlement with the trailer makers.

Shaw Environmental Inc., Bechtel Corp., Fluor Enterprises Inc. and CH2M Hill Constructors Inc. are among the FEMA contractors that agreed to pay shares of the separate $5.1 million settlement.

Only a handful of formaldehyde-related claims are still pending, including some against FEMA by a group of Texas residents.

Mike Brunker is the projects editor for NBCNews.com; the Associated Press contributed to this article.

More from Open Channel:

• RNC cuts ties with firm over voter registration allegations
• Big GOP donor among 2 indicted in Dominican resort scam
• Black youths exposed to more alcohol advertising, study finds
• Judge rejects ex-Penn State officials' bid to dismiss perjury charges
• How prosecutorial turf wars complicated money-laundering probe of bank
• Blind sheik terrorist will stay in US prison, White House says
• The real vote-fraud opportunity has arrived: casting your ballot by mail
• Solar panel startup to get $197 million from Uncle Sam
• Washington Post debunks claim that Obama skips security briefings
• Trillion-gallon loophole: lax rules for drillers who inject pollutants into Earth

Follow Open Channel from NBCNews.com on Twitter and Facebook

Bob Sullivan / msnbc.com

Giselle Sedano looks over flood-related paperwork at a coffee shop near her midtown Manhattan office.

Giselle and Zenayda Sedano of Cranford, N.J., never had a chance of keeping the rampaging waters of the Rahway River out of their home when Hurricane Irene roared through northern New Jersey in August. Now they are wondering if they ever had a chance to get any of the $21 million that the Federal Emergency Management Agency sent to help New Jersey’s flood victims.

We first met the Sedano sisters a day after the hurricane hit on Aug. 28, causing the Rahway River to breach containment and wreak havoc in their suburb of Cranford, where about one in five homes were damaged. They were picking through all of their worldly belongings and looking for something, anything, that wasn’t completely waterlogged. 

Now, more than eight months later, they are wondering why they didn’t receive any federal disaster aid to flood-proof their home, which is only about 100 feet from the river, while some of their neighbors who live farther from the water are getting nearly $200,000. Other Cranford residents are asking similar questions.

“There are homes in plain sight of mine that were selected which I will have to witness get elevated. But I'm right next to the river. I just don't understand," Giselle Sedano said. "It’s so hard waking up every day not knowing what’s going on."

The controversy highlights the challenges that FEMA and local officials face as they try to plan ahead and minimize future flood disasters.

Msnbc.com profiled the Sedano sisters in August when writing about the towns hit hardest by Irene. Giselle is a hedge-fund analyst and Cornell graduate; Zenayda works in the pharmaceutical business and is a Rutgers graduate. The two successful 20-somethings pooled their resources to buy a home in 2009, soon after they graduated from college, so they could move with their parents to Cranford.

Their parents came from Peru in the 1980s with nothing other than the clothes in their suitcase. Irene left the entire family in a similar fate; mom, dad, and the two sisters had little left outside the clothes they took when fleeing to a nearby hotel right before the Irene hit.

Nearly six months to the day after the storm, New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie announced that FEMA had awarded the state $21.6 million through its Hazard Mitigation Grant program. The money was promised to seven municipalities hit hard by the storm; Cranford received $3.1 million for "the elevation of select dwellings."  At around the same time, some Cranford residents began receiving phone calls saying they'd been selected for elevation grants. Others, including the Sedanos, heard nothing.

Like dozens of other Cranford residents, the Sedanos had responded to a notice last fall from the township indicating they'd like to participate in the elevation grant program. It's not cheap; even with the grant money, residents have to pay 25 percent of the cost.

Neighbor Kristen Wolansky also requested elevation aid, but she said the township never even acknowledged receipt of the request.

"There was no confirmation that your name was received. The information was just submitted into a void," she said.

The list of lucky homeowners isn't public -- "winners" were notified only by phone call, said Wolansky. But she and another frustrated Cranford resident, Steve Gorski, have pieced together a map based on conversations with neighbors. While unofficial, it shows several homes around the Sedanos' house receiving aid.

It makes sense for FEMA to flood-proof homes that are subject to repeated disasters. Like most flood victims, the Sedanos paid to participate in the National Flood Insurance program – in their case, the premiums were $2,015 annually. Elevating homes -- or purchasing them outright and making them into parkland -- is cheaper in the long run than continuing to pay pricey settlements every 10 or 20 years.

But there's not nearly enough money to buy out or elevate every home in danger -- only about 1 in 10 homes statewide in risky areas will receive funds from the $21 million FEMA grant, New Jersey state officials say. That means there's always a lot of disappointment when flood relief grants are doled out.

But the process for picking winners and losers raises questions. Ultimately, local officials decide which residents get the aid. There are complex considerations, such as preserving the character of neighborhoods, which are best left to local officials. But that also leaves them open to criticism and accusations of political patronage.

Compounding the problem are privacy requirements surrounding the process. Because participation is optional, and residents can decline the aid, the list of selected homeowners remains a secret until contracts are signed to begin work. That also means families like the Sedanos have no real avenue for appeal.

Bob Sullivan / msnbc.com

Giselle and Zenayda Sedano in August 2011.

FEMA’s Hazard Mitigation Program has benefitted communities around the country. The state of Vermont received post-Irene buyout and elevation grants of $19.8 million, for example.  But the program also has a spotty history. More than $1 billion was set aside for land acquisitions and home elevations after Hurricane Katrina in Louisiana, but arguments over how to implement the program delayed the awarding of any grants for two years – and by 2008 – three years after the monster storm -- only 14 grants were paid out. Claims of contractor fraud also complicated that awards process.

By that measure, the post-Irene grant process is moving swiftly in New Jersey. Still, the Cranford secret has been kept for a while -- the homes picked by Cranford officials had to be included in the town's initial application for aid, which was filed sometime in the fall, according to state officials.

FEMA directed questions about the New Jersey grant process to state officials; the governor's office directed questions to the state’s Office of Emergency Management.

Mary Goepfert, spokeswoman for that agency, explained the process to msnbc.com.

"The homeowners have to stay private because if they don't participate, and their name is on a list … their home would be severely devalued," she said.

Goepfert said local officials must show that the choice of winners is "financially advantageous" -- that is, a buyout or elevation project must be cheaper than expected future insurance payouts. But otherwise, home selection is entirely up to municipalities, she said.

"For instance, it might make more sense to buy out three, four, five or six houses in the same neighborhood than it would to buy a house here and a house there,” she said.

But what if a resident who wasn't selected feels the process was unfair?

"That's a question for the municipality," she said.

Cranford Mayor David Robinson said he understands why some residents might be frustrated, but said the municipality initially tried to get enough money to elevate about 50 homes and was told by federal and state authorities to tone down its application.  Right now, 18 homes are slated to get elevation aid, and another five are selected as alternates in case others back out.

"We're going to go neighborhood by neighborhood and try to get all of them elevated," he said. "It's just a matter of which homes get first priority. That's what we really focused on." The town plans to apply for additional elevation grants in the future, he said.

This time, municipal officials looked at prior loss history, past flood claims and other data when picking the homes, he said, admitting that some of that data is incomplete.

"We've also found instances where people may have had private flood insurance, and we discover that's a blind spot not included in (our) loss data," he said. "We're working hard to fix that. ... (This time) we focused on homes closest to the river and going neighborhood by neighborhood with the loss data that we had." 

While the 18 "winning" homeowners and 5 alternates have been informed, he said there is no process to tell disappointed homeowners that they weren't picked, or why.

And how should a homeowner like Sedano feel if they feel left out, while neighbors benefit?

"If it's a next-door neighbor, maybe the explanation was that their loss data didn't fit into the cost-benefit analysis that was being worked on at that point," he said. 

The "losers" must simply trust that the selection was fair. The data -- and the reason for the selections -- remains private.

There is one public curiosity about Cranford's aid grant. The other six cities that were promised post-Irene grants all elected property buyouts; Cranford was the only municipality to pick home elevation.  That can be far less disruptive for homeowners, of course, because they don’t have to move. Elevation benefits the town's tax coffers, too, Goepfert said.

"With a buyout, those properties are written off from the tax ratable base," she said.  "But why Cranford chose elevation, you'd have to ask them."

Bob Sullivan / msnbc.com

The Sedano sisters pick through the belongs outside their flooded Cranford home in August 2011.

Mayor Robinson said no one in the town expressed interest in a buyout.

All this mystery might be over soon. Goepfert said post-Irene aid was fast-tracked, and she hoped contracts for construction and buyouts would be signed within a month. Then, the list of winners and losers will be made public, she said.

For now, the Sedanos are slowing putting their lives, and their home, back in order. Most of the basic reconstruction of their home has been completed, and the family has moved back in, albeit with sparse furniture. They celebrated Easter Sunday at home this past weekend, their first meal in their rebuilt dining room since the flood.

"There were a few tears during dinner," Giselle said.

But the view of the river out their window, which once brought a sense of tranquility, now only brings trepidation. And until the list of to-be-elevated homes is published, the Sedanos are forced to wait and wonder why they weren't chosen.

"We find it totally unfair. Our home is directly in front of the river," Zedayna said.