A bitter feud on the Columbia Association board erupted into public view this week when three members were removed for allegedly weaponizing its ethics policy and not cooperating with an outside investigation.
In a closed session Thursday night, the board voted to remove Reg Avery of Long Reach, Karin Emery of Oakland Mills and Eric Greenberg of River Hill for what the association’s ethics panel determined were violations of the code of conduct. Chair Collin Sullivan of Town Center announced the decision at the start of the open session.
“Please leave the dais,” Sullivan asked the three, while stating that they could remain as members of the public.
“What you did is wrong, and you know it,” Avery shouted at Sullivan as he and the two other ousted members walked out of the meeting room.
On Friday, the Columbia Association released an 82-page report detailing the trio’s alleged misconduct and seven months of board infighting. The ethics panel, made up of three attorneys independent of the association, hired the law firm of Liff, Walsh & Simmons to investigate.
The three now-former members had filed an ethics complaint last fall accusing Sullivan and board member Bill Santos of Wilde Lake of improperly disclosing confidential information discussed in closed session — namely Greenberg’s ratings of the association’s CEO and president — but the association’s ethics panel found no violations. Sullivan responded in January by filing a complaint accusing the three of weaponizing the ethics process.
In an April 9 memo, the ethics panel wrote that Greenberg, Emery and Avery had acted in bad faith when they lodged the ethics complaint in September against Sullivan and Santos. The panel also said the trio’s lack of cooperation with the law firm investigating Sullivan’s complaint was “deeply troubling and shows a total disregard of their obligations as CA Board Members.”
The memo noted that Avery “refused to participate in the investigation in any manner,” Greenberg “refused to provide relevant information” about the filing of the complaint against Sullivan and Santos, and Greenberg and Emery declined to provide any written communications among the three about the complaint.
If the investigation had only discovered a bad-faith complaint, the ethics panel wrote, it might have recommended censure or reprimand, additional ethics training and possibly a fine. Instead, it recommended removal.
The panel wrote that Columbia Association board members are “fiduciaries and owe duties of loyalty and fidelity to CA,” adding later, “The Respondents failed in each regard and should not be afforded the privilege of serving on the CA Board. They should be removed.”
The public spat stemmed from an internal memo that Sullivan sent his colleagues and the association’s leadership in September that revealed Greenberg had given Columbia Association CEO and President Shawn MacInnes several “zero” ratings during a spring evaluation. The ratings were meant to be kept confidential.
At the time of the spring evaluation, Santos was board chair and Sullivan was vice chair.
The three filed a complaint that month accusing Sullivan and Santos of improperly sharing confidential information with MacInnes, but an outside law firm hired by the ethics panel investigated and found no violations. It determined that Greenberg’s views were widely known.
In a joint statement Thursday night, the three said they “believe the expulsion was retaliation for filing an ethics complaint against” Sullivan.
The three claimed they were “inappropriately removed” in a move that they said disenfranchised residents of the villages of Oakland Mills, Long Reach and River Hill.
In an interview with the law firm, Sullivan said the goal of the Sept. 18 memo was to “initiate a ‘course correction’ to improve the relationship between the board and senior leadership.” Vice Chair Michael Golibersuch of Owen Brown village looked over the memo and “made significant edits,” including adding the information about the “zero” ratings, he told the law firm.
Sullivan characterized Greenberg as a divisive figure in the memo.
“Eric Greenberg has engaged in a consistent pattern of behavior that has created conflict and contributed to a hostile work environment for staff, outside legal counsel, and fellow CA board members,” Sullivan wrote.
The memo, he said, provided “representative, non-exhaustive examples of this behavior.”
Although many examples were heavily redacted in the report released Friday, unredacted sections of the memo shed light on board tensions. Sullivan wrote that “Mr. Greenberg consistently treats staff with an unearned sense of distrust and skepticism” in meetings and had “assigned ratings of ‘zero’ on multiple evaluation factors ignoring clear definitions for that rating established in board policy.”
Golibersuch told investigators the intent of the memo was to “document past behavior” of Greenberg’s that had led to significant turnover of senior leadership in recent years.
The vice chair had no issue including the information about Greenberg’s ratings of MacInnes because, he said, “Greenberg’s scores ‘were already known.’”
Sullivan kept the ratings in the memo, he said, because “he felt it demonstrated that Mr. Greenberg was leading efforts to mischaracterize Mr. MacInnes’ performance,” the investigation states.
Greenberg, Emery and Avery did not respond to requests for comment on Friday about the released report.
But Emery told WMAR-2 News, “I do believe that in doing my job as a board member, I am being retaliated against because of my advocacy for the residents. I’m going to keep fighting for the residents, that’s what I’m about.”
She also questioned whether the 10-member board had properly followed the procedure for removing a board member.
“You needed two-thirds of all the members to vote to remove a member, and only nine people were there, and only five people were there to remove us,” she told the news station.
Per the association’s ethics policy, the “interested” board members — Greenberg, Emery and Avery as well as the chair, Sullivan — did not vote Thursday, according to Sullivan.
Sullivan said the disinterested members unanimously voted to implement the recommendation of the ethics panel, with one member absent.
The chair said the communities represented by the three former members may use whatever process they choose to select new board representatives. But he noted that any board member who is removed because of an ethics violation cannot be reappointed in the future.
In their joint statement, Greenberg, Emery and Avery commented on their tenure, stating they “have consistently questioned the budget and finances of the Columbia Association including overspending on executive compensation,” and have worked to reduce residents’ costs for the association’s amenities, including the pools.
Each of the 10 villages has a representative on the board of the Columbia Association, a massive homeowners association that functions much like a local government. Saturday is Election Day for the villages, which also have their own councils. Columbia has more than 100,000 residents and is Maryland’s second-most-populous community.
Comments
Welcome to The Banner's subscriber-only commenting community. Please review our community guidelines.