.

CA: Not Trying to Hide Salary Info

Columbia Association officials respond to salary information controversy.

 

A spokesperson for Columbia Association responded Wednesday evening to allegations it was witholding specific salary information of its employees by saying it was an effort to protect "personal finance information."

David Greisman, CA spokesperson, wrote in an email to Patch that CA didn't release exact salary information for 40 to 50 employees to the Alliance for a Better Columbia due to a perceived ambiguity in the Homeowners Association Act.

Greisman wrote CA released 86 pages of documents in a chart form listing every CA employee, not by name (which is not required by law) but by position.

Thomas D. Scott, the president of the Alliance, that those documents, provided to the Alliance in 2009, contained ranges of salaries for several positions, which made it hard to tell how much the employees were being paid.

In 2010, the Alliance received an opinion from Dan Friedman, the counsel to the General Assembly, that stated he believed, under the law, that providing a range of salaries is unacceptable because "a homeowners' association will certainly have additional documents with more precise information pertaining to its employees' salaries."

Greisman wrote that several of the association's top officials' salaries are already listed in CA's Form 990, which is submitted annually to the IRS.

Approximately 40 percent of CA's operating expenses is spent on employee salaries, incentives and benefits, according to the association's budget.

"What was not included, however," wrote Greisman, "were those who were sole occupants of a position but who were not already disclosed in the IRS filings. In those cases, we provided a salary range for those positions."

The reason being was because the CA believed under the law that an HOA did not have to provide information on personal financial records, according to Greisman.

"CA, by law, had to provide salary info, but there remained a question of exactly what," wrote Greisman.

Despite this, after years of wrangling with the Alliance for a Better Columbia, the CA has recently agreed to release a complete list of all its employees with exact compensation information for every position, including salary and a second column with any bonuses, according to Greisman.

"We are in the process of compiling salary information and providing that by the end of the month," wrote Greisman.

He said that even as CA works to support a bill that would change the designation of the association from a "homeowners association" to a "nonprofit community service corporation," that all salary information will continue to be released under the terms of the new bill.

Scott recently expressed his dismay that if CA were to change its designation, then it wouldn't be subject to the state's Homeowners Association Act, which has specific disclosure requirements.

He said the move was being made to attempt to "hide the salaries and bonuses of the people who run the CA," according to a Baltimore Sun article.

Greisman wrote that assertion is incorrect.

Sheri Fanaroff, CA counsel, said the measure would spare CA from having to spend money and staff to review the many amendments introduced to the Homeowners Assocation Act every legislative session, according to the Sun article.

Related Articles

Sign up for the Columbia Patch newsletter here and follow us on Facebook and Twitter for instant news updates and community conversations. 

bill bissenas August 09, 2012 at 01:58 PM
"Despite this, after years of wrangling with the Alliance for a Better Columbia, the CA has recently agreed to release a complete list of all its employees with exact compensation information for every position, including salary and a second column with any bonuses, according to Greisman. "We are in the process of compiling salary information and providing that by the end of the month," wrote Greisman." What?!! So CA isn't obligated to disclose the personal financial information of employees but they're doing it anyway?!! What sense does this make? Have the subject employees signed release forms? Do the employees have any recourse to stop this?
Andrew Metcalf August 09, 2012 at 02:12 PM
They're releasing the information by position, not by name. Names are not required to be released with salary info under the Homeowners Association Act.
bill bissenas August 09, 2012 at 06:35 PM
Is there public information about who holds what positions with CA?
Ann Delacy August 10, 2012 at 11:36 AM
This information should be made available to the public on the CA website. Those of us who are assessed CA fees annually and are CA members should know how our dollars are spent.
barry blyveis August 11, 2012 at 11:46 PM
One section of the Homeowners Association Act provides that salary and bonus information must be provided. Another section provides that "personal financial information" need not be provided. The later is information such as one's stocks and bonds, mortgage on one's home, money the bank, and other property owned or mortgaged. The CA representative was purposely confusing the two things. And, yes, we pay for CA and are entitled to know what it pays its employees. I believe that a similar law applies to state employees. Barry Blyveis

Boards

More »
Got a question? Something on your mind? Talk to your community, directly.
Note Article
Just a short thought to get the word out quickly about anything in your neighborhood.
Share something with your neighbors.What's on your mind?What's on your mind?Make an announcement, speak your mind, or sell somethingPost something
See more »