<<This blog post is the product of the LWV-Salem Affordable Housing Working Group Subcommittee on the Salem Housing Authority and has been approved for posting by LWV-Salem’s Convener.>>
Greetings, readers! We skipped summarizing the August Salem Housing Authority board meeting, which was held virtually. There was no tenant comment at that one.
The September 16 SHA board meeting was hybrid, lasted over three hours, and covered several very important topics. Unfortunately, at 13 business days and counting, SHA had not shared its link to the Zoom recording, transcript, and summary, which hampered our subcommittee’s ability to write this blog post. However, subcommittee members re-watched select parts on SATV (full video), reviewed our notes, and did our best. Then, just as we went to press, SHA provided the links, after we filed a public records appeal with the Supervisor of Records.
Wage Theft at Leefort Terrace / Board Moves Forward with memorandum of understanding with beacon for First Street
In a stunner, it was revealed that there was wage theft at the Leefort Terrace (LFT) project in 2024, including underpayment of workers (misclassification) and retirement money being deducted from workers’ pay but not being sent to the retirement system(s).
This wage theft was uncovered by two organizers from the Carpenters union, by obtaining lawfully-requested records during the initial phases of the LFT construction.
At this September 2026 meeting, a project manager/VP for Beacon, the developer at LFT, did not dispute that wage theft had occurred at LFT subcontractors, but she asserted that everything had been made right since then. According to statements made at the meeting by Beacon, Jeff Cohen, and the Carpenters, the Beacon VP submitted a memorandum to Jeff Cohen and the Salem City Solicitor (in 2025?) with measures Beacon and its subs were going to take to address the discovered wage theft and prevent future issues.
The SHA board selected Beacon as its co-developer for the new First Street project in January 2026. A Memorandum of Understanding between SHA and Beacon was on the agenda for August 2026 and was tabled until this September meeting. That MOU was the next step in moving forward with the First Street project.
Meanwhile, behind the scenes in 2026, SHA’s attorney held off a continued investigation into wage theft at LFT for more than 6 months (March 12 – September 15) by repeated refusals to produce certified payroll records with workers’ names and addresses. (M.G. L. c. 149, § 27B requires release of such information.) That is, after producing records that showed wage theft in 2024, and putting some sort of mitigation and prevention plan in place partway through the LFT project, Beacon and SHA stalled investigation into how well the plan had worked for the remainder of the LFT project.
SHA’s last ditch effort to withhold records was to claim that if there were domestic violence victims or crime victims among the LFT workers, and SHA released their addresses as required by law, then maybe SHA could be held liable for harm to those hypothetical workers. (Page 12 of PDF: “You have made no showing of irreparable harm, and as such, SHA is under no obligation to provide these addresses to you, where SHA could face substantial penalties for potentially disclosing the address of a victim of adjudicated crimes or domestic violence in violation of G.L. c. 66 § 10B.”)
After losing every round in appeals to the Supervisor of Records, SHA finally sent the Carpenters 4,000 pages of records with unredacted addresses the night before this SHA board meeting.
Tenant Rep board member Veronica Miranda moved to table the First Street MOU to October, presumably to allow the investigators to contact more workers and determine whether wage theft continued at LFT after Beacon agreed to correct the problem.
Labor-appointee board member and board chair Aaron Paternoster voted with three other board members to proceed with the First Street MOU without waiting for further investigation of wage theft at LFT. Commissioner Miranda was the only No vote on the MOU. (Read the unsigned MOU starting on p. 138 of the board meeting packet.)
As we understand it, the reasoning of the four board members who voted to sign the MOU immediately was that because the First Street project will take years to get through planning and construction, not even one month can be spared now. Moreover, Commissioner Morsillo had language added to the MOU to clarify that when Beacon writes a hiring plan for the project, that plan must comply with all federal, state, and local law, which definitely incudes Salem’s wage theft prevention ordinance.
Oh – and community member Chris Burke informed the board that the First Street project had gone before Salem’s Conservation Committee and there are some serious environmental concerns in play regarding protected wetlands and vernal pools. Commissioner Morsillo expressed displeasure that Beacon had appeared for the project at ConComm without the board being informed.
Analysis: Once again, members of this subcommittee are concerned about the SHA board’s oversight. Why was the board not aware of the more-than-six-month fight (potentially two-year fight) to withhold documents from individuals exercising their rights to investigate wage theft? Or if board members were aware, why did the majority of the board go along with the delaying tactics, and then vote to proceed before those 4,000 pages of documents could be reviewed and the second phase of the wage theft investigation could continue? How much did the unsuccessful legal fight cost SHA?
Tenant Issues & Tenant Comments
Rainbow Terrace tenant Eliud Rodriguez spoke at public comment, in Spanish, with interpretation supplied ad hoc by the Director of Maintenance and also by a family member. The tenant complained of board inaction in response to complaints he had raised to them earlier. He raised the issues of discrimination and excessive court actions against him and his family.
Pioneer Terrace tenant Gene Collins spoke again about the importance of the board complying with 760 CMR 9.06, which, among other things, allows and encourages tenant participation at board meetings (“a reasonable opportunity for Residents to be heard on agenda items”). The board allowed Mr. Collins to speak during the agenda item on the removal of emergency pull cords from Pioneer Terrace apartments. During discussions the executive director said that she had ordered the removal of those pull cords for safety reasons and also that an EOHLC designer and/or EOHLC construction manager had ordered the removal of the pull cords. The subcommittee is trying to find out more and will keep you posted.
Bertram Terrace tenant Ann Friedgen congratulated SHA for receiving grants for internet service and for window replacements at five complexes. She noted that her own windows are so problematic that she keeps a hammer by her bedroom window in case she needs to escape a fire but has to break the glass because she can’t open the window. She also suggested SHA partnering with Salem State to offer a grant-writing internship, in a win-win situation (more grants for SHA, resume-building experience for the intern). She noted that with decreased government funding, grants may be ever more important to SHA. She also reminded the board that Bertram’s kitchens are 63 years old and asked once again for action on upgrades.
Tenant Representative Board Member Veronica Miranda presented her monthly report in a new format. We urge everyone to read it. She stated that she welcomes feedback from tenants and others.
Board Training / Cancellation of Mediation
Finally, we return to an issue that has been lingering since May 2024.
At this meeting, the board agreed to seek out the training that Commissioner Miranda suggested in July, specifically an ongoing governance-development process for board members and executive leadership addressing board and executive director roles and boundaries, oversight and accountability, constructive conflict, tenant participation, cultural humility, racial equity, anti-bias practices, and difficult conversations. Commissioner Morsillo has taken the lead in approaching the Mel King Institute to arrange for such training.
Additionally, after the board agreed to seek out such training, Commissioner Miranda made a statement, which this subcommittee strongly suggests that you listen to in its entirety, from 2:31:45 through 2:39:45 in the SATV video. We include some highlights of her statement here:
Chair Paternoster asked me to provide a proposal two months ago, which I interpreted as a request to identify a path forward to address the dysfunction that contributed to the investigation of myself, the Tenant Representative and at the time the Chair, in 2024 . . . Five SHA staff members submitted complaints against me that clearly did not meet the legal standards for hostile workplace complaints, but they were investigated as such. The investigation that was conducted . . . identified several recommendations, including professional coaching and the development of a Board Code of Conduct [which we completed].
The [investigative] report recognized that if the shared goal is a stronger Salem Housing Authority, the goal is achievable. It also recognized that a Board member, and particularly a Tenant Representative, has an obligation to raise concerns and challenge the status quo.
I understand the position that mediation cannot be forced if one party is unwilling to participate. It’s unfortunate that we were not even able to get through even Phase One of the contract that we had before it was canceled privately.** However, I believe the Board must consider what it means when a recommended conflict resolution process is not completed. I want to be candid about how alarming this is. An Executive Director's unwillingness, according to what was stated in Board meetings, to participate in mediation should concern every member of this Board. Mediation was not my idea alone. It was the recommended path forward, approved and funded by this body. When the party with the most institutional power declines to sit at the table, it raises a serious question: is the goal here resolution, or is the goal to preserve a grievance against the Tenant Representative? A refusal to engage suggests this was never about serving tenants better. It suggests bias and self-interest were driving the process from the start . . .
I believe the racial and power dynamics of what happened were not adequately examined. I experienced this process as a Black, multiracial woman serving as the Tenant Representative, and I repeatedly raised concerns about the racial dimension of how the situation was unfolding. Regardless of anyone's intent, the impact of being publicly characterized through allegations of aggression, intimidation, harassment, or threats was significant.
I do not believe that we can talk about organizational learning without acknowledging that context . . . Everyone who was involved has an opportunity to reflect on the process and ask: What would we do differently today?
. . . The reason this matters beyond my individual experience is because the way this organization responds when concerns are raised sends a message to every tenant and future Tenant Representative. If serving in this role means risking public investigation, reputational harm, and exclusion from the very resolution process meant to address the conflict, no tenant will want this seat. The board should want the opposite: a role that tenants trust, seek out, and see as proof that their voices matter in this organization.
. . . This board has a responsibility to understand this history. The question should not be whether the board wants a quiet, compliant, Tenant Representative who is simply grateful to not be sleeping outside. Tenants deserve a Tenant Rep who can ask hard questions about where our money goes, advocate, raise concerns, and demand that this organization continues improving. We are the reason it exists, and we want our dollars to improve our living conditions.
. . . I have spent a lot of time identifying problems because I believe somebody has to be willing to name them. But I don’t want to spend the next several years doing only that. I’d like to co-create the solution to provide better governance and oversight. I want to see better relationships between the Board, management, staff, and residents. And most importantly, I want to make sure that no future Tenant Representative ever has to experience what I experienced because they did the job they were appointed to do . . .
Analysis: The sub-committee notes that after Commissioner Miranda spoke, Executive Director Sheehan stated “for the record” that she had never “refused to participate in any training,” although Commissioner Miranda had been speaking about mediation, not training.
**Additionally, we note that Chairman Paternoster has thus far not contacted the mediators (Conditioning Leaders) to attempt to obtain a copy of an October 2025 email regarding the cancellation of mediation, an email that appears to be missing from SHA’s records. Chairman Paternoster has acknowledged an “inadvertent” open meetings law violation, but the details of who was involved and how remain unclear.
That’s all we have for this blog post, except for our encouragement to all Salem folks to attend SHA board meetings as often as possible, or to watch the recordings. Your feedback to the board, in support of tenants’ rights, workers’ rights, and good governance, could have a real impact! The next meeting should be Wednesday, October 14, unless it is moved.