Two Big Things (The Short Version)
Here’s what we heard at the June 17 meeting of the board of directors of the Salem Housing Authority (Video), the agency that oversees public housing developments and vouchers in Salem. We could go on for ages, but for this post we’re focusing on two big themes—with a few musical detours along the way. Think less “Free Bird” guitar solo, more focused playlist.
Not Lovin’ the Elevator: In May, the board approved a new three-year elevator maintenance and repair contract. By June 11, board members were hearing—in detail—about tenants’ long-standing frustration with out-of-service elevators at a special meeting organized by the Charter Street Tenants Association. The Salem News and WGBH covered that meeting, and the fallout continued at the June 17 board meeting. For elderly and disabled residents who rely on elevators, “You Can’t Always Get What You Want” is not an acceptable housing policy.
We Don’t Need No Mediation: In 2024, five SHA staff members filed “hostile workplace” complaints against the tenant representative on the board, largely over her oversight style and perceived lack of support for the executive director and staff. After an investigation did not support treating the complaints as hostile-workplace claims, the board contracted for mediation. But after one mediation session in August 2025 between the executive director and the tenant representative commissioner, the executive director recommended moving on. On June 17, two of the five staff complainants said they were not interested in mediation. We might see at the next meeting, scheduled for July 8, whether the board brings in professional help to clarify the proper roles of board members and staff—or whether this record keeps skipping.
Bottom line: The quality of SHA board oversight remains an open question. More people—tenants and non-tenants alike—need to attend SHA board meetings, learn the issues, and speak up for tenants’ rights and responsible management of public assets.
The Elevator Saga (Extended Play Version)
27 Charter Street is a 12-story building in downtown Salem with about 110 apartments for elderly and/or disabled residents. The Charter Street Tenants Association (CSTA) organized the June 11 meeting about elevator problems—a reminder that tenant organizations matter, especially when basic access is on the line.
Based on publicly available records and reporting, here’s what we know about the history of the elevator contract(s):
SHA issued invitations for bids (IFBs) for three-year contracts in 2023 and 2026 for maintenance and repairs of nine elevators in seven locations. Because SHA included major repairs in the scope of work, these contracts fall under Massachusetts public construction bidding rules, which generally require award to the lowest responsible bidder. That makes the “summary of work” crucial: it is the document that sets the standards the winning contractor can later be held to. In other words, the contract is the sheet music for a very important song.
Delta Beckwith was the only bidder in 2023, bidding $98,820 on a contract SHA anticipated to cost $125,000. Delta Beckwith got the contract.
In February 2024, SHA’s board approved a change order adding $188,400 for major upgrades to the two elevators at 27 Charter Street to bring them up to the 2024 elevator code. In April 2025, the board approved another $24,000 change order to install new brake monitoring switches in both elevators.
Oddly, news coverage appears to suggest that the major Charter Street elevator upgrades authorized in February 2024 did not begin until December 2025 or January 2026. That timeline raises questions and deserves more digging.
SHA appears to have reused the 2023 summary of work in its 2026 IFB, which seems to have been a missed opportunity to add tighter requirements for response times, out-of-service limits, and parts availability. (And why SHA asked for a three-year contract—not a one-year contract with an option to renew—is another nagging question.)
On May 13, the board—with four of five members present—unanimously approved another three-year elevator maintenance and repair contract with Delta Beckwith, again the lowest bidder. SHA had anticipated a cost of $175,000; the three bids came in at $126,900, $162,972, and $180,144.
Here’s what stood out: on May 13 (Video), when Commissioner Patti Morsillo asked about Delta Beckwith, the SHA executive director and director of operations said they were very happy with the company’s service, which they said had improved over the years. They mentioned only two delays, which were seemingly unavoidable: a month-long wait for an elevator part from Germany and a serious breakdown caused by snow on the roof. But by June 11, after CSTA presented tenants’ history of dissatisfaction, SHA leadership was also discussing power surges, “vandalism,” and abuse or misuse of the elevators by tenants and moving company staff. That is a notable change in tune.
At the May 13 meeting (Video), during the discussion of the elevator contract, one tenant raised the issue of elevator breakdowns in their building (possibly not Charter Street) but the board did not engage with the tenant in any meaningful way. The tenant representative commissioner was absent because of a school committee conflict. Based on what we’ve seen of the current board, however, it is not clear that her presence and advocacy would have persuaded the other four commissioners to delay the vote for more due diligence. Sometimes the backing vocals matter; sometimes the lead track was already set.
Please read the Salem News and WGBH articles for full coverage of the June 11 meeting, including how both Charter Street elevators had been out of service on May 12 because of a power surge, right before the board inked a three-year contract. At the June 17 board meeting, the commissioners’ follow-ups to the June 11 meeting with tenants broke down roughly this way:
Chairman Paternoster, the labor representative, said he believed staff were doing everything humanly possible. (Video 2:16:14)
Vice Chair Ullman suggested an education campaign for tenants, with “something yummy” as a reward if tenants reduce the number of outages (allegedly) caused by tenant behavior. (Video 48:12) We appreciate snacks as much as anyone, but we don’t have “love in our tummy” for the framing of that comment.
Commissioner Morsillo asked for elevator down-time data going forward. (Video 43:41) Kudos for that! But the addition of historical data for the last year would be music to our ears. We do question the idea of seeking legislation regulating vendor response times. That might leave tenants humming “The Waiting Is the Hardest Part.” The current contract expires in 2029; perhaps the board can plan ahead to ask for and pay for better response times next time around. (The last IFB’s Summary of Work can be found here. It includes the response times that SHA specified and voluntarily agreed to.)
Commissioner Kidd said nothing about the elevators, unless we missed it.
Commissioner Miranda, the tenant representative, asked that the word “vandalism” not be used without strong proof. Her point was important: blaming tenants without evidence can create fear and make residents less likely to report problems or ask questions. (Video 2:13:02)
If anyone in reader-land wants to help us obtain and analyze the elevator data, please contact us at lwvsalem@gmail.com.
Mediation Canceled – For Now (Extended Play Version)
Those who followed SHA in 2024 will remember that five SHA employees filed “hostile workplace” complaints against Commissioner Miranda, the tenant representative. Rather than address the complaints through a simpler board process, the board hired an attorney to investigate, at a cost of $9,450. The investigator concluded that the complaints did not fit the ordinary understanding of “hostile workplace” complaints and suggested that coaching or mediation might help. After months of discussion and bid-seeking, the board approved a $9,999 contract in May 2025 for mediation and board relationship- and trust-building services.
SHA—really, the executive director—also spent thousands more on legal transcripts and legal advice during the whole “hostile workplace” episode. In other words, validating staff concerns and demonstrating attention to the staff’s lived experience has already cost SHA real money. Was it worth it? Opinions vary, and the tune is not exactly easy listening.
Mediation began in August 2025, during the time Commissioner Miranda sought reappointment to the board. After one session, and after Ms. Miranda was reappointed to a full five-year term, the executive director recommended “moving forward” (away from mediation). The cancellation of the rest of the mediation sessions happened without Ms. Miranda being informed, which led her to file an Open Meeting Law complaint against the board last April. On June 17, the board voted to ratify the earlier decision to end the contract—or something like that. It was hard to follow the logic. Chairman Paternoster acknowledged an “inadvertent” Open Meeting Law violation had occurred at some point. There was discussion of going back to the drawing board and hiring a new mediator. (Video 1:25:26 - 1:47:26) Then, later in the meeting, two of the complainants said they did not want mediation. (Video 2:19:54 - 2:27:51) Maybe that could have come up before the first $9,999 contract was signed? Then the meeting adjourned. Curtain down, encore unresolved.
We are left with a nagging concern: whatever the intent of the complaints, one effect may have been to sideline the board’s strongest voice for tenants’ rights and oversight. We hope that was not the goal, although staff have asked repeatedly for the board’s code of conduct to be amended to restrict speech. Either way, the board should examine its past actions and recommit to its proper role. A housing authority board is not there to rubber-stamp whatever staff brings forward. Its job is oversight—especially when tenants are the ones bearing the consequences. In housing authority governance, tenants should not be the background singers. They are the reason the whole show exists.