Residents denied salary information – obfuscation?– decide for yourself

submitted by a retired employment and compensation specialist

Despite repeated and numerous resident requests, the PLCA Board refuses to provide salary/compensation information for individual employees.  The continued party line is to claim that the PLCA is not required to provide payroll information. Well, of course not.  The State and reasonable people understand that payroll details are private since they may include information such as number of dependents, 401K deductions, alimony payments, etc.  But, please, let us not be fooled by this resistance to adhere to the laws enacted by our State Legislature.  Even if you are from the old school and believe all salaries are private – still – laws are laws – aren’t they?

Fact? –  Read on:

In various correspondences the PLCA Attorney, Tom Hart, explains that the Association Board “believes” or its “position” is that the PLCA is not legally authorized to provide the requested information.  Such terms of art are quite clever, but of course in his position as General Counsel to the PLCA, shouldn’t Mr. Hart be well aware of what the law requires?

Facts:  Chapter 720.303 (5) (c) reads:  … Notwithstanding this paragraph, the following records are not accessible to members or parcel owners: …

3. Personnel records of the association’s employees, including, but not limited to, disciplinary, payroll, health, and insurance records. For purposes of this subparagraph, the term “personnel records” does not include written employment agreements with an association employee or budgetary or financial records that indicate the compensation paid to an association employee. (emphasis mine)

When copies of the 2008 Community Association Manager’s 5 year contract are provided to residents — the salary information is redacted.  Really? Yes, really.

Still going on? Yes.  On September 5, 2012 the Association Manager made the following statement during the Unit Owners meeting: “I also have a portion of a legal opinion that we got from an attorney other than Tom Hart. Since the term payroll has been deleted from the statute, the Association can comply with statutory changes by disclosing its budgetary or financial records without disclosing payroll information of its individual employees. That is where our board stands and that is where they will stand.”

Well, OK, What did she say … exactly?

7 thoughts on “Residents denied salary information – obfuscation?– decide for yourself

  1. Why would anyone want to know the salary of an employee except to make trouble. like saying that person is underpaid or overpaid..

    • Ignorance of the law is not an excuse. If you don’t know the law then educate yourself. The compensation of all employees, including the general manager are specifically identified in the H0A Statute as information required to be disclosed to members. You are looking over the wrong side of the fence. Look over the fence and ask why the PLCA
      Board and the General Manager refuse to disclose information that they have a fiduciary duty to disclose and the residents have the legal right to know. Now that is more than
      just making trouble, it is also shameful.

  2. I have said all this several times before as well as providing the statute for anyone wishing to see the truth.. Glad to see someone else is sasying it. Payroll information does include informatiion that is not protected. e.g., the employees name! and of course specifcally mentioned in the statute as excluded from any protection is every employees compensation. Bye the way, at the last U.O.C. meeting Marie said all this was not true based upon some written opinion she had. So where is this opinion? Produce it! Unfortunately, for her and the Board there are several opinions by lawyers and lawfirms that confirm everything I have said and in the blog above. Submitted by a lawyer.

      • yes the residents pay the salaries via our dues and that is why (presumably) the State of Florida determined we should know what we pay our employees!

        Yet Duder and Company refuse to give us this information.

Comments are closed.