Time To Put the Record Straight

By Bob Hertz and Charlie Kadlec

Tenant claims discrimination and other issues against the Acton Housing Authority

Acton residents listening to the citizens’ concerns portion of the Select Board (SB) meeting of October 18, 2021, heard a tenant of the Acton Housing Authority (AHA) make claims of long-standing, serious, unfair, and perhaps unlawful behavior by the AHA and/or its staff. AHA is a federally regulated organization, separate from, and not subject to oversight by Acton municipal government, and devoted to providing affordable housing units and housing subsidies to those in need within Acton.  Why were the claims made to the SB rather than the AHA Commissioners or its overseers?

These complaints could have been resolved by the SB Chair referring them to the Town Manager (TM) and the AHA instead of in a public meeting. We believe the SB had reason to assume the tenant would make such claims at the October meeting. We are also concerned that, although the SB permitted the claims to be made during this meeting, AHA apparently was not informed of the likely timing of the remarks and had to wait for a subsequent meeting to publicly address the recited issues. We have e-mailed our concerns to the SB, and the chair acknowledged, without comment, receipt of our communication.

Responsibility of the Select Board

The tenant sent an e-mail of her remarks to the SB on the evening prior to the meeting date with her name and/or e-mail address. A return e-mail, a call, or a minor investigation during the following day would have made her intent known. Why did the SB members think she sent the e-mail if not to put the SB on notice of her intent? Mr. David Martin, chair of the SB, should have been aware of the intent of the claimant. Did the SB make the claims known to the AHA during the day of the SB meeting and if so advise them of the likelihood of the tenant publicly raising the issues? Apparently, they did not.

Acton Housing Authority Response

Two weeks later, at the next SB meeting on November 1, 2021, Mr. Peter Berry, an AHA Commissioner and former select-person, responded to the tenant claims leveled at the AHA.  Mr. Berry suggested unequivocally that the SB, by not timely informing AHA, breached its obligation of prior notice. Mr. Berry suggested the claims of unfair treatment were not true, and had been reviewed by the Massachusetts Commission Against Discrimination (MCAD) which found no basis for a claim of discrimination. Was the SB aware of these facts prior to the October 18 meeting?  Mr. Berry read a statement of the AHA Board of Commissioners accusing the SB of damaging AHA’s reputation earned over decades of serving Acton residents in need of affordable housing. Mr. Berry cited statistics of the minority component of both tenants and employees which in both categories reflected a high ratio minority participation. The AHA employs more minorities as a percent of total employees than does any Acton municipal department.

Response by the Select Board

The claims made by the tenant are significant, as are claims of health and fire department violations made by Mr. Martin, the chair of the SB. Mr. Martin does not suggest the seriousness of, or time to cure, the violations. During the October 18 meeting most of the SB either thanked, praised, or hugged the claimant for coming forward, suggested they would act as arbitrator, and that the TM and municipal staff would investigate and get back to the SB and the claimant who, as requested, left her telephone number with the TM. Some of the SB members seemed surprised by the tenant complaint, suggesting perhaps not everyone received the tenant e-mail. Might that be accurate?

We assume the TM and municipal staff, by now, have completed their findings and reported back to the SB. Since the SB allowed the claims to be addressed in public, they should now make public the findings of the investigation, as well as any actions to be taken because of such findings. Beyond the health and fire code issues addressed above, we are not aware of other issues raised by the SB. Were the health and fire violations serious, and if so, were they remedied in a reasonable time? Are there other issues? If so, what are they and have they been corrected? Logic would suggest, as one SB member clearly states, that issues of discrimination exist in Acton as they do worldwide. We believe instances of discrimination and bullying have been evidenced in the A/B schools. We assume there are limited cases in other populations as well. It is one thing, however, to assume a condition and quite another to identify specific instances. Has the investigation uncovered any specific issues of discrimination within the AHA? MCAD apparently did not find discrimination in this dispute, although that is their task. Are any disciplinary or other actions to be taken because of the investigation? Are any substantive changes being suggested? If there are no disciplinary, legislative, or other actions contemplated at this time the SB should so state. We are also aware the SB will be limited in the remedies they may undertake since the AHA is not directly governed by Acton. The chair states, however, the SB is not powerless in remediation if such is necessary. The SB controls some level of funding which is important to the AHA.

A Tenant-Advocate

Some in Acton have lobbied for a tenant-advocate position. We understand the need for tenant advocacy, and are aware that many state and national groups already provide that function. We applaud the TM for setting up a webpage identifying many helpful organizations, and we hail the SB for not folding to pressure and adding a largely useless tenant-advocate staff position to the town roster.

Timing of the claims

Hoping it is simply coincidence, we wonder about timing of the presentation of this set of long-term claims; shortly before votes to make DEIC permanent and add a DEI staff person, and shortly prior to discussions to add a tenant advocate. We are concerned the SB allowed these long-standing claims to be aired publicly without taking steps to review the circumstances prior to the public airing, or to give the AHA the courtesy of forewarning. We firmly believe the SB and DEIC are poorly qualified to address tenant/landlord issues, especially in a public setting. Actions of the SB in this episode have only reinforced our belief. We suggest our police department is better equipped and has appropriately trained staff to handle such issues – after all they have handled spousal abuse issues for years with little fanfare. 

The Select Board as Self-Appointed Jury

We do not know what happened in this situation, but we do know it is wrong for members of a jury to jump to a conclusion before hearing all the testimony. Jumping to a conclusion is exactly what most of the SB, as de facto jury, publicly did in this matter. The old Americanized saying “a hug is worth a thousand words” was certainly true October 18, intentionally or otherwise, when the action of Ms. Nagireddy, an SB member communicated complete support of the tenant. We also know it is the responsibility of the chair, Mr. Martin, to control the meeting, to infer and plan for the likelihood of issues arising, and to convey that impromptu actions or remarks of SB members, regardless of intent, should not be delivered in a public forum until the investigation is complete and the findings are known. Although we empathize with the claimant, we know every story has multiple sides which need to be heard and understood before the verdict is stated.

We strongly believe in our democratic tenet of freedom of speech. As a referee and fiduciary, however, the chair has the obligation to balance freedom of speech and fairness of process – not always an easy task. We believe the balance scale tilted in this situation, but might not have with a little more care. We believe Mr. Martin fumbled in this instance.

Time to put the record straight

The time has come for the SB to put the record straight in the same public forum as the claims were presented to citizens of Acton. We hope the SB agrees.