Barbara Russell, chairwoman of the Columbia Association Board of Directors, has decided not to seek re-election this month after serving eight years on the board.
Herterm ends April 30.
She spoke with The Examiner about her plans and the CA?s role in Columbia?s downtown development.
What made you decide not to run this year?
I have to say that the question should really be why I decided to run over and over again for eight years.
It is very stressful.
It is very time-consuming to serve on the CA board, especially if you are focused on not only guarding the interest of the corporation, but especially guarding the interest of the assessment payers.
When you were elected chairwoman, you said you wanted to work on having a positive culture on the board. Has that happened?
I think what I have accomplished is making sure that the board has treated the public with respect.
With regard to board members treating each other with respect, I have tried valiantly, using my gavel heavily, to accomplish that, but I have to admit that I don?t believe the culture of the board has changed or that board members treat each other with respect.
How do you think residents perceive the CA and the board?
Most residents don?t think about the CA board most of the time.
They aren?t aware of the power that it has of controlling CA?s nearly $60 million budget.
And it?s unfortunate that the time when the public does become involved, it?s over very small issues, issues that are personal to them.
Why is that, and why do so few people vote?
I think they just don?t understand that what we do affects their assessments to the extent that it does, and I think that the fact that we have our elections in April rather than in conjunction with county or state elections also is a contributing factor.
Where should the CA fit in the discussions on downtown redevelopment?
The Columbia Association has a major role to play in downtown development, because we have property on the lakefront, we have Symphony Woods and we control the open space.
It has been a great disappointment to me that it has taken six months to get [primary land owner General Growth Properties] to agree to meet with us in open public meetings.
I believe we should have been talking to them all along.
They are due to come out with their plan in about a month?s time, and we have not yet been able to find out from them what those plans are.
Will the CA be called on to spend a lot of money on redevelopment?
I think GGP will want some agreements from us with regard to our landholdings.
And I want to make sure that those agreements are fully vetted to the public before any decisions are made by the board.
Speaking of agreements, should the CA give back easements granted, such as the one that allowed the Plaza Residences to be built?
Well, that is a subject that is under discussion with the board, so I can?t speak on behalf of the board at this time.
… I do think it was unfortunate that those easement agreements were signed by the president in the first place. [An easement is the right to use land owned by the organization.]
It?s one of the things that worries me about any agreement that might be made with General Growth Properties with regard to the future development of downtown.
