Last week, Columbia Patch reporter Andrew Metcalf posted an article relating a letter sent from Maryland State Delegate Liz Bobo to the Columbia Association Board of Directors. According to the article, the topic of the letter was the newly-formed Inner Arbor Trust. It seems that Delegate Bobo has issues with the Trust, but her efforts to make a point about transparency raise additional questions about overreach, fairness, moving the goalposts to suit one’s needs, and the misplaced role of the Columbia Association.
One of the first things that struck me about the article was that the Maryland Attorney General’s office was looking into the Inner Arbor Trust.
One of the first things that struck me about the article was that the Maryland Attorney General’s office was looking into the Inner Arbor Trust.
Bobo sent the letter after receiving an opinion from the Maryland Attorney General's office that stated the foundational documents of the Inner Arbor Trust “do not contain any requirements for transparency and openness in operation.”
I am not familiar with the workings of the Maryland Attorney General’s office, but I would think that they would only perform a review of non-profit corporation foundational documents if there was due cause. If this is true, then it seems that this review was done at the request of Delegate Bobo. That leads to the question of whether Delegate Bobo made this request as a private citizen, or used her State office. If she used official state letterhead (or equivalent) for this task, that is chilling. Maybe I am naive about how the State Government operates, but is it common practice for elected officials to engage State law enforcement on non-profit 501(c)(3)’s?
The other question to ask is why this particular non-profit? Is it fair to hold a particular non-profit to a higher standard, when other 501(c)(3)’s receive monies without precondition? The Columbia Association has been giving lien dollars to charitable organizations for years. According to CA’s latest budget figures, charitable giving to non-profits, as a budget line item, is on the order of $300,000 - $400,000 per year. I am not aware of the Maryland Attorney General reviewing the corporate foundational documents of recipients such as NeighborRide, Grassroots, or the (used-to-be) Columbia Foundation. Now, some detractors may say that the amount given to the Inner Arbor Trust is different. I can understand why that distinction may be voiced, but we are really talking policy here, not amounts. If there truly was a cause for alarm, why aren’t these other non-profits being called upon to be as transparent as the Columbia Association? Singling out one non-profit is telling.
But wait…
Getting back to the article, Delegate Bobo does provide some justification for writing her letter:
The other question to ask is why this particular non-profit? Is it fair to hold a particular non-profit to a higher standard, when other 501(c)(3)’s receive monies without precondition? The Columbia Association has been giving lien dollars to charitable organizations for years. According to CA’s latest budget figures, charitable giving to non-profits, as a budget line item, is on the order of $300,000 - $400,000 per year. I am not aware of the Maryland Attorney General reviewing the corporate foundational documents of recipients such as NeighborRide, Grassroots, or the (used-to-be) Columbia Foundation. Now, some detractors may say that the amount given to the Inner Arbor Trust is different. I can understand why that distinction may be voiced, but we are really talking policy here, not amounts. If there truly was a cause for alarm, why aren’t these other non-profits being called upon to be as transparent as the Columbia Association? Singling out one non-profit is telling.
But wait…
Getting back to the article, Delegate Bobo does provide some justification for writing her letter:
"I don't think it's right," Bobo said. "I think there must be a way to work out private contributions without conducting all the business in a non-transparent way."
She said the meetings of the trust should be open and transparent.
First off, let’s all agree that Delegate Bobo’s assertion that “all the business” of the Inner Arbor Trust will be conducted in a non-transparent way is unknown and highly speculative. To an extent, this assertion may be attributed to passion and possibly may not be exactly what Delegate Bobo intended – we are all human.
But with respect to transparency, Delegate Bobo comes to an interesting conclusion. Using the letter from the Maryland Attorney General’s office as evidence, Delegate Bobo decries the lack of transparency. What she asks for to correct her concern can be found in the first paragraph of the article:
But with respect to transparency, Delegate Bobo comes to an interesting conclusion. Using the letter from the Maryland Attorney General’s office as evidence, Delegate Bobo decries the lack of transparency. What she asks for to correct her concern can be found in the first paragraph of the article:
[D]el. Elizabeth Bobo asked that the bylaws and articles of incorporation of the Inner Arbor Trust be amended to include language similar to the transparency requirements that governs the members of CA's Board.
So Delegate Bobo believes that the Columbia Association bylaws and articles of incorporation provide adequate transparency requirements? That they are of such quality that other corporations should seek to adopt similar provisions? This is a very interesting admission by Delegate Bobo. Particularly when you consider that eight months ago the Columbia Association was deliberating their proposed (and flawed) legislation to exempt the corporation from future revisions of the Homeowners Association Act, and one of the main arguments against the legislation was that relying on the CA bylaws and Charter would reduce transparency.
I think most know that Delegate Bobo and her friends have a lust for what they consider transparency. However, this shifting definition of transparency reveals them to be something else.
Sovereign powers vs Contract Law
Another line that Delegate Bobo blurs is that between the sovereign powers afforded local governments and corporate contractual obligations. In the article, Delegate Bobo is quoted as follows:
I think most know that Delegate Bobo and her friends have a lust for what they consider transparency. However, this shifting definition of transparency reveals them to be something else.
Sovereign powers vs Contract Law
Another line that Delegate Bobo blurs is that between the sovereign powers afforded local governments and corporate contractual obligations. In the article, Delegate Bobo is quoted as follows:
"I think the overarching principle is transparency with public funds," Bobo said. "and that includes CA lien-payer funding."
The Columbia Association occupies a special place in Howard County and in Maryland. As a 501(c)(4) corporation, it uses revenue to improve the social welfare of Columbia, Maryland. To accomplish this purpose most of its revenue comes from contracts with residents and corporations in the New Town Zoning District. Transparency is key to the success of this corporate entity.
The folksy conventional wisdom that has stuck to the Columbia Association is that the annual assessment paid to the corporation is a “tax-like lien” on property. It is colloquial shorthand that allows residents to communicate how the corporation is funded.
The problem is that the CA lien bears little resemblance to a tax. Sure, the bill Columbians will receive in a few weeks appears similar to a property tax statement, but it is in fact the collection of fees due to a contractual arrangement. The only similarity is the format of the bill.
The State of Maryland derives is sovereign powers from the United States Constitution and it then grants similar powers to local entities, such as counties and municipalities. The Columbia Association is a private corporation and has no sovereign powers granted. CA derives its authority from contracts written into every deed within the New Town Zoning District. For a long-tenured elected official to confuse the two boggles the mind. As a former Councilmember, County Executive, and State Delegate, she knows better.
Given all the questions that have been detailed here about Delegate Bobo’s letter, I hope that she will demonstrate transparency and publicly release all correspondence between her and the Maryland AG’s office regarding Howard County non-profits. I hope she attends a Columbia Association Board of Directors meeting and clarifies here position on whether or not she believes CA’s foundational documents provide adequate transparency. I hope she further clarifies her understanding of local governments and corporations. If this demonstration of transparency finds that she did target the Inner Arbor Trust, I hope that Delegate Bobo apologizes to the Trust.
hocoblogs@@@
The folksy conventional wisdom that has stuck to the Columbia Association is that the annual assessment paid to the corporation is a “tax-like lien” on property. It is colloquial shorthand that allows residents to communicate how the corporation is funded.
The problem is that the CA lien bears little resemblance to a tax. Sure, the bill Columbians will receive in a few weeks appears similar to a property tax statement, but it is in fact the collection of fees due to a contractual arrangement. The only similarity is the format of the bill.
The State of Maryland derives is sovereign powers from the United States Constitution and it then grants similar powers to local entities, such as counties and municipalities. The Columbia Association is a private corporation and has no sovereign powers granted. CA derives its authority from contracts written into every deed within the New Town Zoning District. For a long-tenured elected official to confuse the two boggles the mind. As a former Councilmember, County Executive, and State Delegate, she knows better.
Given all the questions that have been detailed here about Delegate Bobo’s letter, I hope that she will demonstrate transparency and publicly release all correspondence between her and the Maryland AG’s office regarding Howard County non-profits. I hope she attends a Columbia Association Board of Directors meeting and clarifies here position on whether or not she believes CA’s foundational documents provide adequate transparency. I hope she further clarifies her understanding of local governments and corporations. If this demonstration of transparency finds that she did target the Inner Arbor Trust, I hope that Delegate Bobo apologizes to the Trust.
hocoblogs@@@