Venit Responds to Cook

Note: Below is a letter from OPA Director Mark Venit. It was sent to OceanPinesForum.com and to the Ocean Pines Independent. The letter is a response to OPA Director Heather Cook about her comments in a recent Independent story that blamed problems with the 2005 election on Venit and OPA Director Dan Stachurski.

Dear Heather,

Are you for real?!

How sad that I've read that you blame Dan and me for the bollixed balloting process in the recent elections. Indeed the balloting was, to say the least, flawed, but allegations against me and Dan are nothing short of a blindsided attack on both our integrity and efforts.

Reading your comments in the 5 October edition of "The Independent," I saw midway in the headline article entitled "Panel to review election process," staff writer Susan Canfora states "Information had to go to the [printing] vendor by a certain date, but the date 'was missed by a long shot by staff,' "[Cook] explained.  Then you're quoted in the next paragraph that "It had to do with the ballot package for the referendum. (OPA board member) Mark Venit changed some things he wanted to put in the packet and missed the deadline," she said. 

It's apparent that either your memory is impaired or you're simply making things up.  We'll let the facts speak for themselves.  

Here are the facts, for which I have ample time-stamped documentation:

1. In late May I was advised by Kristi Frenier, OPA Public Relations Director, as to the deadline date for getting things to the printer, specifically the referendum Prospectus sent to all residents with the ballots. As the ballots had to go out by 14 July, the drop-dead date for all the materials, including mine, was 7 July, earlier if possible.   
2. The text of the Prospectus, written wholly by me with plenty of input for every director, was first shown to the Board's Referendum Marketing Committee on June 8 and approved with some minor changes, particularly about "the close" on the letter appearing the back page of the document.
3. The corrected version was E-mailed to every director on 9 June.  A few comments and requested changes were communicated back to me via e-mail.  I included some of the suggestions in another version, E-mailed again to the entire board the following week.   Hard copies were distributed to all directors at the 15 June closed session of the  board.  Very minor changes were made again.  
4. E-mail copies of the next version were sent again to all directors on 16 June.  I received final requests on or about 3 July from Dan for a two-sentence addition to the already thrice-vetted and approved text.
5. Two weeks prior to this, a hard copy version of the prospectus was furnished to Kristi along with electronic text; Kristi forwarded both the hard copy and the electronic text to the people doing the composition work at the printing company, so they could get a handle on the layout.  Various changes done between me and Kristi's contacts were made several times and all verified and approved.
6. The final-final copy of the prospectus was E-mailed to Kristi on 5 July, ahead of deadline.  The minor corrections had been made all along and only extremely finite changes were made just before the deadline; the details dealt simply with to a few typeface configurations (italicization and bolding).   With more than a full week ahead of the printer's mailing deadline and with prompt communications between me, Kristi, and the printer, the document was already largely complete at the printer's two to three weeks before the deadline.  Kristi's work in getting everything to the printer was done faithfully and on a timely basis; the printer's staff did excellent work, and on time, in making all the necessary knit-pick changes.  You and every other director saw the text weeks before and several times.  To suggest my work was late is an outrage and totally without basis.  I left to head out of town on business the evening of 7 July with the prospectus in good hands. 

Your allegations that I "changed some things [that I] wanted to put in the packet and missed the deadline" is pure mythmaking on your part.   Or worse.  Difficulties were encountered only in the reproduction of the architectural images from Design Atlantic and the matter was resolved by Kristi and the printer well ahead of deadline. 

In an e-mail you sent in late July to me and the board, you commented that if the referendum goes down, it would be due to the prospectus, which you opined gave "too much information."  I'll wonder rhetorically what we should have kept unsaid and undisclosed.   You said that if the referendum failed, it would be my fault, perhaps blaming me prematurely to prime the excuse machine in advance.  Now you say I'm to blame for the election fiasco?  

I don't recall any controversy whatsoever regarding the prospectus I wrote or the text that stated in detail the board's rationale and positions about the Town Center.  I do, however, recall significant complaining about the ubiquitous signs that appeared, which was done at your insistence.   In the original marketing proposal and budget, you'll recall I recommended purchasing 50 signs and 10 banners (and have the documents available for inspection).  You said we needed 100 signs and more banners.  Three days after the signs were ordered, you called to instruct me to order 200 more signs to be produced and shipped along with the ultimate total of 16 banners.  I checked with Dan before going ahead with the supplemental purchase.   Fortunately our marketing budget allowed for these changes (and we still came in $5,000 to $6,000 under our originally approved budget of up to $20,000). 

That you chose to question the degree of Dan's involvement of the liaison to the Elections Committee is incomprehensible, given the clear language about the role of board liaisons with the committees they liaise.  That committee, with which for the record I had no contact or instrumentality whatsoever, was taken to task by you, and about which you noted: " . . . had I [Heather] been involved, you can trust me, there would have been a lot closer supervision because that's just the way I operate."   Your bravado might be admirable to some, but are you really suggesting you could have -- or that Dan should have -- arbitrarily superseded the operative resolutions on liaison activity? 

Though you discuss in the article details regarding the hoops A.C.E. Printing and Mailing had to go through to get their job done, the 8 September OPA Election Committee Report on the 2005 directors election and referendum cites the company's efforts as having "provided outstanding service in all areas of performance."  The report also recommends that A.C.E. "should be given first priority" for next year's contract.   Do you dispute Chairman Bill Snyder's commentary?

The issue surrounding A.C.E.'s abilities or inabilities to perform had nothing to do with the prospectus, which went from me to the OPA Public Relations office on a timely basis.  This whole issue has to do with internal administration issues and has absolutely nothing to do with the printing or timeliness of the prospectus.  And you know it.

The board's referendum marketing committee charged me with developing the overall framework for the referendum encompassing my responsibilities for all written materials, developing and proposing the strategy of the campaign,  producing advertising and marketing materials, working with media vendors,  and placement of all media advertising.  (I'll leave it to others to determine the value and efficacy of my personal efforts.)

The board's referendum marketing committee charged you with recruiting "grass roots" volunteers and developing and spearheading a people-to-people educational campaign to explain the need for a Town Center and the issues surrounding it.  You and the YES-vote volunteers did a yeoman job.  And, as you clearly stated before the entire board in closed session, I was to have no involvement whatsoever with     your grassroots committee.   I fully complied with your fatwah except for being present at those events where you personally directed me to serve.

Please think twice before you make silly, unfounded comments about my work on the referendum campaign, especially in the local newspapers.   As your comments were public, you leave me no alternative than to respond to you in the same arena to clear my name and set the record straight. 

You did your job.  I did mine.  Dan did his.  Mssrs. Sandusky, Carey, Duffy, and Coleburn also made valuable and direct personal contributions toward passing the referendum.  We were also assisted in part by seven candidates for director endorsing and promoting a YES vote.  And every media vendor without exception performed diligently in complying with our instructions as to content and publishing dates.  The fault with the election lies elsewhere, so please find some 
other bogeymen when you get a chance.

That you chose to make the comments you did are regrettable, but I've now had an opportunity to respond.  Would that Ms. Canfora had taken the time to contact me by phone or e-mail, I might have been able to put this matter to bed earlier.  (But she made no attempts at contacting me regarding the  veracity of your comments).

The property owners of Ocean Pines elected each of us to do the community's business.  Whatever our policy disagreements, I'll can only hope to look forward to putting this matter behind us and moving forward on the serious business ahead for the board.   

With nearly ten months left to serve on my term, I can only hope the community gets more from you and me than your blaming me for things I'm not responsible for and for my having to defend myself from your ill-advised and ill-timed remarks.  

Regards,

-- Mark

cc: The Independent.  Authorization for full reproduction in the newspaper is granted and requested.