Final OPA Election Thoughts

Commentary by Joe Reynolds

The OPA Board needed to step up to the plate and hit a home run by fully addressing the action of the Election Committee barring all but five committee members from the actual vote count in the recent OPA election. Doris Lloyd, one committee member not allowed to participate in the vote count, is a former OPA Board president.

The board struck out.

Some days prior to the 9/8/2004 OPA Board meeting, OPA Board President Dan Stachurski said he was the one who "suggested" to Election Committee chairman Ida Laynor that she limit the number of election committee members who would witness the actual ballot counting.

Laynor refuses to comment. Stachurski defends Laynor's right not explain why certain individuals were allowed into the counting room and why others were excluded. He said, "That's her choice. She isn't an elected official."

Stachurski is an able, hardworking, and dedicated member of the OPA Board of Directors. He may well be one of best OPA presidents to ever hold the position. On this issue, however, he is dead wrong.

Stachurski's suggestion to Ida Laynor, and her subsequent action based on his suggestion, cast a fog over a process that should be totally transparent. Laynor serves only at the will of the OPA Board. A suggestion from OPA President Stachurski is the equivalent of an order. To think otherwise is to ignore reality. Even Laynor apparently took Stachurski’s suggestion as coming from the Board.

How can the election process be transparent when Ida Laynor handpicked a small group from among the 24 hard working, dedicated committee members to witness the final vote tally? She did so with the blessing of Stachurski, a candidate in the election. Thickening the layer of fog is Laynor's original explanation to committee members that the Board of Directors instructed her to take the action, when it did not.

Based on Stachurski's comments, Laynor's explanation was disingenuous, at best. Add Stachurski's outspoken support of Laynor's refusal to comment to the press or lot owners, and it should come as no surprise when questions about the transparency of the election process are raised. Perhaps more troubling is the obvious lack of confidence shown by Laynor and Stachurski in the integrity of election committee members told to leave because they might be security risks.

Any after-the-fact OPA Board support for Stachurski and Laynor on this matter is inappropriate. The election process should not be subject to arbitrary changes from the norm by any individual, even the OPA Board President, without prior consent of the entire board in open session. Whether any OPA rules were technically violated is a moot point. This is as much a perception issue as a legal issue.

The election process did come up at the 9/8/2004 OPA Board meeting. There were no apologies or clarifying explanations, just a decision to look into changing the entire election process.

The lot owners of Ocean Pines and committee members deemed untrustworthy deserve an apology from Dan Stachurski and Ida Laynor, not to mention assurances that complete transparency will be the hallmark of future elections. The chance of any apology appears slim.