CA funding of Inner Arbor Trust

Submitted by Sufficient-Item-2750 t3_11bwbsu in ColumbiaMD

The CA Board meeting discussion on the Inner Arbor Trust and its most recent request for funding is noteworthy.

Quotes below (summarized with best efforts, timestamps might be a little off; words may have been transposed and omitted interludes, meeting is worth a listen for the whole context and to understand quotes within full context).

"We have funded this organization to the tune of millions over the years....we should not be using our residents money to fund an unaccountable private corporation. I think we should be working to bring the easement back..Symphony Woods our crown jewel of downtown into CA's control...we should not be putting any of our Residents money in this corporation." - Alan Klein 2:04:00

"I find it troubling that one of our board members who is a crossover member read details of the Inner Arbor's budget into our record here. This whole thing is ethically dubious and financially reckless." - Bill Santos at the 2:04:42 mark of this meeting.

"I asked Nina to justify how much...this was an estimate of what it would cost to take care of this...but I had asked for this information" - Dick Boulton 2:05:10

"We need to manage these things more responsibly...It seems to be that this is a year over year challenge. I"d like to see a little more discipline around that from the board." - Keith O'Neil 2:05:40

2:06 - 2:07 a vote to give them 200K by taking funds out of the annual charge abatement reserve; motion passes 6-4 with only Andy, Bill, Keith and Alan voting no. Votes yes include: Ginny, Eric, Lin, Josh, Dick, Brian England

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bgw8hcbjnRg

20

Comments

You must log in or register to comment.

NoDaikon9612 t1_ja0gl3i wrote

This board president just watches as unethical behavior happens on his watch. Clearly he’s cool with it all. The IAT board members (who also serve on the CA board) who didn’t recuse themselves and voted to give their other board funding is a clear conflict of interest. No debate. Meanwhile no other community grants were awarded or seriously considered. You don’t have to be a lawyer to figure this dumpster fire out. What an embarrassment!

14

Rashaverik t1_ja0icao wrote

I'm in complete agreement. I'm not sure what it's going to take, but I eventually expect there will need to be some form of legal action against the CA Board for their actions. At the first mention of HB1024 you can see just who is against it because they fear loosing power that some of them have held for over a decade or longer. We need big changes in CA elections and specifically the CA Board.

13

Engineered-Failure t1_ja0e0uu wrote

I look forward to having my CPRA and membership fees upped again this year to pay into Nina Basu's pockets!

8

goliebs t1_ja154zo wrote

I think criticizing IAT's management and CA's decision to give it money is warranted on the merits. But implying that this is personally enriching Nina is at best needlessly hyperbolic and seems mean-spirited.

3

Rashaverik t1_ja1kxg0 wrote

I'm quoting you here.

"I think our community would be improved with more people talking personally with one another instead of online."

I tried that once with Josh Friedman. At the time I was an employee of the Village of LR. It ended with Nina and Josh sending the same attorneys the IAT and CA Board have used, to talk with me.

I had written a long response to your comment above, but thought it was best left offline. I'd be more than happy to talk with you over a cup of coffee.

4

goliebs t1_ja1lmve wrote

I stand by that comment - Josh and Nina are among the many people that I had in mind when writing it.

Happy to talk. Will send a DM.

1

Engineered-Failure t1_ja42stf wrote

>seems mean-spirited.

Sorry if it's a bit brash, but I'm not going to be nice about a clear and concise conflict of interest between Basu's positions in both the LR Board and IAT that is already posing a significant threat to CA's financials.

2

goliebs t1_ja46p8h wrote

My point is that you aren’t being clear and concise about the issues. I think it’s perfectly reasonable to clearly criticize Nina’s multiple positions, how that is a conflict of interest, and the financial issues you think it’s causing.

But implying that she is being personally enriched by these things is inaccurate and definitely not clear and concise.

1

goliebs t1_ja17ifx wrote

Over the last several years, Inner Arbor Trust/Symphony Woods and CA's relationship with that organization/park has repeatedly been a source of contention. Lawsuits, a lack of financial audits, conflicts of interest, seemingly endless grants, relation/cooperation with other downtown non-profits... Its just non-stop drama with IAT. This level of attention is totally out of proportion with the importance of one 36 acre park compared to everything else CA is responsible for - and this speaks poorly of the leadership of CA's board and IAT.

6

Sufficient-Item-2750 OP t1_ja1f4d2 wrote

Regarding your lawsuits comment. The posted 990s reveal legal fees (and if I recall correctly business consulting) as a percentage of the total budget (excluding depreciation) for recent years posted. It was frankly a little surprising to me the proportional amount.

2

goliebs t1_ja1ice3 wrote

The CA Board and (I think) IAT has taken an overly confrontational and litigious approach towards resolving conflict over the last few years. Its unhealthy for the community.

3

[deleted] t1_ja0nrzo wrote

[deleted]

1

Sufficient-Item-2750 OP t1_ja0s2uw wrote

If you want to look at financials, these are not up to the minute, however many 990s are here (they are a publicly available document for any nonprofit, IAT posts to their website, but you can get for any NP via guidestar or similar). https://innerarbortrust.org/financials

Page 11 and page 29-30 for the most recent 990 posted for 2021 will give you a view of that year by expense type.

From listening to the CA board meeting it seems like at least part of the issue is the most recent fiscal year (different from calendar year) 2022 audit has not yet been produced, yet at the same time IAT is being considered for more funding. I believe the 2022 fiscal year would have ended April 2022 (based on the FY listed on the 990s), and from listening to the discussion at that meeting, it sounds like the audit for that year has not been provided to CA. There were a number of comments at the meeting indicating these funds were needed for paying for the audit, amongst other items. It is not clear to me from listening to the CA discussion if the IAT audit provider for the year that is needed has been hired or engaged yet.

6

goliebs t1_ja15n0y wrote

>ReportSaveFollow

The criticism of the board is warranted. They control CA"s organization not the other way around.

6