[ Reply ]
From: Amy Copperman
email: mailto:acopperman@gbls.org
link: http://
date: 7/13/0 17:29
Date: 12/21/00
Time: 11:52:29 AM
Remote Name: 207.251.188.199
I represent a federal tenants organization which has been trying to get its PHA to comply with the section of QHWRA which requires a member of the PHA's governing body to be a tenant directly assisted by the agency (42 usc 1437(b) and 24 cfr 964.400 et seq). 964.410 specifically states that "directly assisted " means a federal tenant, not a tenant assisted by a state program.
Massachusetts also happens to have a statute regarding tenant membership on PHAs, and it requires that PHAs in cities (generally the larger communities) must have a tenant member appointed by the Mayor. The state law does not distinguish between federal and state assisted residents.
My clients live in a PHA in a city, and their current tenant board member is a state tenant. They are arguing that the PHA, while complying with the state law, is not in compliance with the federal law, and must also ensure a federal tenant sits on the Board.
The problem is that the Mass chapter of NAHRO has issued a "legal opinion" which states that the HUD regulations do not provide for the preemption of state laws concerning tenant membership on boards, and since in Massachusetts the cities get a tenant (be it state or federal) that's close enough. NAHRO also states that HUD has no regulatory authority to limit "directly assisted" to those tenants in federal programs. The PHA and the Mayor are relying on NAHRO's opinion.
The NAHRO opinion also appears to completely misstate the regulations for PHAs with less than 300 units (which is irrelevant for my clients but may have ramifications elsewhere).
Any thoughts about how to approach this? Go to HUD? To NAHRO directly?