Is It Time for a Columbia Association Board Makeover?

The Columbia Association (CA) is a $65-plus million private community organization. It’s among the 10 largest employers in Howard County, with upwards of 1,500 employees during the summer peak. And it hires the CEO.

The 501(c)(4) is paid hundreds (and even thousands) of dollars in assessments each year by residents and businesses that pay for maintenance of open spaces, pathways, clubs and other amenities, as well as enforcement of its covenants.

But it’s no secret that some observers feel that the CA has had considerable difficulty getting qualified residents to run for the elected, but unpaid, positions on its board.

And that, some feel, has affected the quality of its policymaking and allowed certain board members to push private agendas — rather than doing what’s right for Columbia.

What Perks?

How the CA board (which doubles as the Columbia Council, but that’s another story) is selected is different than it is most anywhere else, said CA Director of Communications & Community Engagement Jessie Newburn.

“In most organizations, the board is selected by a board development committee, which analyzes [its roster] and if it has representatives from various sectors of the local community, like education, business,” etc., said Newburn.

But not in Columbia: Elections are held in each of the town’s 10 villages, and residents from those villages decide if they want to run for the CA board.

Few usually do, however. “The real issue is that, last year, we had CA board elections and only one candidate for each open position,” said Newburn. “That’s hardly democracy.”

And serving on the CA board can be a “thankless job,” she said, “given the amount of work to be done”; another talking point is that, while board members represent the interests of their villages, they also have to work as a group to represent the best interests of CA,” she said.

And there are other issues. “The way that the process of electing the CA board plays out is very time-consuming, which can also dissuade people from running,” said Brian Dunn, a village board member from Kings Contrivance.

Newburn also noted a “real dearth of younger leaders,” on the CA board. “Any true leader is always concerned about the next generation. As a Columbia resident and staff member, I think we can do more to encourage younger leadership.”

Dunn echoed that sentiment. “We’d like to see a better balance of backgrounds on the board, with more young people engaged,” he said, noting that the original plan for Columbia 2.0 was to get younger people concerned about the redevelopment of downtown Columbia.

Bring Back the Ideal

Tom Coale is the board rep from Dorsey’s Search Village. He noted that nonprofits like CA cannot, by law, pay their board members, and disagreed with the notion that there is no power in holding a CA board position.

“I say that there is. This organization is a large stakeholder in the future of Columbia, and it works in tandem with The Howard Hughes Corp. and General Growth Properties,” he said.

“The public can say that the board members are not qualified, and I can see why,” he said. “But I think the staff is well- qualified. The criticism is often directed at the board members who are overstepping their role by trying to direct CA staff to perform the board members’ duties.”

Coale agreed with Newburn about the need for more competition for board positions. “These are genuine good people, but their ideas are not challenged by elections,” he said. “When that’s the case, this is what you get.”

His approach to solving the issue is to make an altruistic appeal.

“People need to want to be on the board for the intrinsic benefit of helping their community,” said Coale. “That would help make Columbia the ideal of the interworking community that it was designed to be — rather than one part, the CA board — being seen as obstinate.

“And as much as people say that the board is doing something wrong,” he said, “that is an opportunity for the people doing the criticizing to do something right.”

What to Do?

Jud Malone, an ex-CA boardmember and the founder of Columbia Tomorrow, offered his insights into the issue.

“The long and short of it is that the CA is largely regarded as falling under the Maryland Homeowners Association Act,” said Malone, adding that CA briefly tried to get out from under the act due to amendments and legislation driven by typical homeowners associations.

“Those associations might encompass from 50 to 150 dwellings,” he said, “but CA is 38,000 households in a town with 100,000 people, so there is a problem of scale. CA is so unique that it’s hard to use ‘one size fits all’ homeowners association (HOA) rules.”

However, if the CA was not under the state HOA act, there would be no state law governing its transparency, meaning that no open meetings, public access to records, etc., would be required, said Malone. “That’s why the CA withdrew its request to no longer operate under the state HOA act.”

So it’s “probably time,” he said, “for a new law to govern ‘municipal’ associations, like CA.

“A city the size of Columbia needs state oversight in how it governs itself, and it needs legislation specifically designed for a municipal association of its size,” he said. “So I propose that a municipal association — that would be subject to sunshine laws, open government rules, and state and county government oversight — continue to provide the services that CA provides that the county does not, so there is no competition.”

Newburn supports that idea.

“Howard County government doesn’t have to be as concerned about recreation and parks because it has the CA in its midst,” she said. “People are used to all of the amenities that are easily available in Columbia, but few understand just how they become available and who takes care of them. It’s this powerful engine called the CA.”