.

CA Releases Employee Salary Information

The top 50 paid employees at CA account for 25 percent of the $22 million spent in 2011 on employee compensation.

 

has released a full list of employee compensation by position that breaks down the $22 million spent in 2011 on salaries.

The 50 highest salaries account for approximately 25 percent of the $22 million spent, with the 19 employees who make more than $100,000 accounting for approximately 12 percent of total pay by the association.

Top 10 Salaries:

Rank Position Gross Salary (Compensation + Bonus) Bonus 1. President $250,227.65 $12,353 2. Vice President Sport and Fitness $201,413.06 $7,715.92 3 General Counsel $194,265.61 $7,648.07 4. Environmental Manager $171,092.53 $6,577.91 5. Vice Preisdent Administrative Services $160,088.03 $6,750.00 6. Acting Director Sport and Fitness $151,179.41 $6,682.75 7. Treasurer $146,750.52 $5,956.06 8. Director of Marketing $145,279.61 $5,400 9. Director of Community Services $138,625.20 $6,343.12 10. Chief Human Resource Officer $131,431.22 $5,464.99

Currently, CA employs 1,444 people including part-time, temporary and seasonal workers, according to CA spokesperson David Greisman. A full list of employee salaries has been posted here - http://patch.com/A-xKb4.

Salary costs made up approximately 40 percent of CA's Fiscal Year 2011 budget.

CA provided the payroll information to the Alliance for a Better Columbia, a local advocacy group. Tom Scott, of the Alliance, said the group , with exact salary figures, broken down by position, for years. The group received the information in late August, according to Scott.

CA said it didn't release the information immediately because it believed there was a discrepancy in the Maryland Homeowners' Association Act that allowed it to withhold salaries where only one person held a specific position. According to CA, releasing salaries of positions held by only one person would be disclosing personal financial information, which is not required to be released under the HOA Act.

However, the HOA Act states homeowners' associations may not withhold salary information of employees.

Greisman wrote in an email that the salaries of CA employees were determined by a Fiscal Year 2008 study done by the Hay Group, which looked at a variety of compensation databases to determine salaries. When asked if there was an organization similar in makeup to CA to compare the salaries with, Greisman said there was "no one organization comparable to CA."

The salary information was released as  its designation from a "homeowners' association" to a "nonprofit community service corporation." CA has said the change would save the association money and time that it spends reviewing amendments to the HOA Act that are largely inserted at the request of much smaller HOAs.

Members of the Alliance, along with at least one , argue that the reclassification may make it more difficult for homeowners who belong to CA to find information such as employee salaries, budget proposals and meeting notices.

In a statement recently posted to the CA Today Blog, CA wrote the legislation that would change the classification, "would cement, and in fact enhance, the same kind of protections and transparency provisions in the HOA Act."

CA at least two opportunities for public discussion of the reclassification over the next two months.

Related Articles

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

Editor's Note, Correction: An original version of this article stated the ninth highest paid employee was a director of communication services, when in fact it was the director of community services. The article has been corrected, we regret the error.

Cindy Stacy September 13, 2012 at 12:53 PM
Long overdue..great story! I'll be eager to read others' comments. But at first glance, these salaries seem too high for a non-profit property owners' association.
b.santos September 13, 2012 at 03:42 PM
Cindy -- Could you provide the sourced data for what the appropriate salary range should be?
Lorraine Kelly September 13, 2012 at 04:02 PM
Wow....I had no idea. It is no wonder CA was not eager to publish their salaries. And the bonuses? Almost everyone gets a bonus, why? I agree with Ms. Stacy, these salaries do seem very high for a non-profit owner's association. Wow.
David Greisman (Columbia Association) September 13, 2012 at 05:51 PM
Not all CA employees receive bonuses. The above document is just one of the 33 pages released and only a fraction of the employees. Also, the article incorrectly listed a director of communication services position at CA. There is no such position. There is, however, a director of community services. In addition, there shouldn’t be any concern on the matter of transparency if CA is to be be reclassified under state law. The proposed legislation, which Patch has had access to, shows that the protections received under the present classification would indeed be cemented and, in fact, enhanced. Last, the statement in the article that CA did not immediately disclose salary information to ABC is misleading. As Patch has been previously told, CA released information several years ago in response to a request from ABC for salary information for all of its employees. The Homeowners Association Act had conflicting tenets that created an ambiguity. While personnel records had once been exempt from being released, an amendment to the HOA act said salary info was not exempt — but another exception said that an HOA did not have to provide information on personal financial records. CA, by law, had to provide salary info, but there remained a question of exactly what, as by law CA did not have to provide personal financial information.
David Greisman (Columbia Association) September 13, 2012 at 05:52 PM
What CA provided years ago was 86 pages of documents in a chart form listing every single CA employee, not by personal name but by position name. For positions in which, say, there were multiple land maintenance workers, there would be several listings for that position, and the corresponding salary alongside it. However, there are positions at CA in which there is only one person. In those cases, if you provided a salary figure, you were also disclosing personal financial information. Some of those figures are already publicly disclosed in IRS filings: officers, key employees and highly compensated employees. Those positions' exact salaries were also included in the 86-page document. Mr. Scott's assertion that "salaries for top officials were listed in a table format that included ranges" is not accurate, given that officers, key employees and highly compensated employees have regularly had their compensation information disclosed, and was included in the document provided to IRS. What was not included, however, 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. That is an estimated 40-50 people out of 86 pages of documents. And that is the sole difference between what CA provided to the Attorney General's office and what was provided to ABC years ago.
David Greisman (Columbia Association) September 13, 2012 at 05:53 PM
It has long been CA's position that while we are obligated to (and have) provided compensation information for a request such as this, it is not required (and therefore we have declined) to provide that information by name of employee. In fact, the Attorney General's Office had conceded the ambiguity in the law and also has agreed (in a June 20 letter from Karen S. Straughn) that CA does not have to provide names alongside salary information. Nevertheless, in a letter from June 20 the AG's office confirmed with CA that CA has agreed to disclose exact compensation information for every position — salary (with any bonus included in that number), with a second column detailing what that bonus is — including those 40-50 sole-occupant positions that previously hadn't had exact information.
Andrew Metcalf (Editor) September 13, 2012 at 06:06 PM
Thanks David on community vs. communication services, article has been corrected.
Andrew Metcalf (Editor) September 13, 2012 at 06:07 PM
Also, we've released all 33 pages of salary information here - http://patch.com/A-xKb4
Lorraine Kelly September 13, 2012 at 06:31 PM
What are the bonuses for? Superior job performance? Percentage of CA profits? We like you a whole lot? While I am still stunned by many of the salaries, I am really curious about the bonuses. I am not interested in names, just justifications. Thank you.
LER September 14, 2012 at 08:28 PM
Maybe the range of salaries shouldn't shock members of the community that this " non-profit" serves b.Santos?
Lorraine Kelly September 14, 2012 at 11:24 PM
I have served Howard county for years, as a volunteer.

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