Who's On First?
Commentary by Joe Reynolds

As if the issues surrounding the various Ocean Pines Declarations of Restrictions, ECC, ARC, and the ECC and/or ARC guidelines wasn't complicated enough, local papers are adding to the confusion.

A Bayside Gazette front-page story begins with, "For the first time since 1975 Ocean Pines Association board of directors is considering changes to the guidelines that govern building and upkeep of homeowner properties."

The opening sentence is incorrect and the piece goes downhill from there. The guidelines were changed a number of times since 1975. The reporter's source is ECC chairman Walt Boge. Either Boge doesn't have a clue about the committee he chairs, or the reporter totally misunderstood what he said. The fundamental problem with the article is a total confusion between the Declaration of Restrictions (DRs) and the guidelines associated with those restrictions. Guidelines are just that, guidelines. These guidelines provide lot owners with an idea of what the ECC may approve or not approve under their broad, near-dictatorial powers granted in the DRs. If there is an OPA "constitution" as stated in the Gazette article, it is the DRs, not the guidelines.

The reporter goes on to say the ad Hoc ARC Committee turned over its recommendations to the ARC for review and final recommendations. In creating the ad Hoc committee the board made no provision for review of suggested changes by any individual or group prior to submittal to the board. The committee turned its recommendations over to the OPA board weeks before Boge presented a dissenting view. Boge was a member of the ad Hoc committee but his views on some topics were not accepted by the ad Hoc committee.

Much of the confusion over these matters is related to an OPA board decision some years ago to change the name of the Environmental Control Committee (ECC) to the Architectural Review Committee (ARC). However, the ECC is created in the DRs for most sections of Ocean Pines, and nothing in the DRs can be changed without a majority vote of the lots in each section. The guidelines can be changed by ECC at anytime for any reason, but must fall within the authority granted to ECC in the DRs. Walt Boge is chairman of ECC, not ARC. The DRs contain no mention of ARC.

Further confusing the entire issue is OPA Board counsel Joe Moore's assertion at the board meeting of 10/19/2005 that a 1975 agreement between OPA and Boise Cascade gave the board authority to set procedures and guidelines for ECC to follow.

This is interesting in that the agreement was made years after the DRs were recorded with Worcester County. The DRs created the ECC, gave the committee broad powers, and the only authority granted to the board in regard to ECC is to appoint or fire the three members of the committee. Keep in mind the DRs can only be changed by a majority vote of the lot owners. The question begging an answer is how an agreement between Boise and OPA can change the DRs.

Want more confusion? Boge says ECC has no authority or control over the inspectors and staff hired by OPA for what OPA calls ARC. Of course OPA also calls ECC ARC. It's all a local version of "Who's On First?"

In otherwise excellent coverage, the Ocean Pines Progress adds somewhat to the confusion, again in a front-page article, about Director Dan Stachurski's passed motion to charge a resale fee for certain documents and an OPA inspection. The piece states, "Stachurski's motion was prompted by ongoing allegations that the OPA is illegally levying a $250 fee for the resale packages. Opponents of the fee have argued that the OPA is limited to charging just $30 as provided in the declarations of restrictions for most sections of the community and that those selling their property are not required the get the information from the homeowners association."

No one has ever said the resale package was illegal or suggested OPA could not charge $250 for the package. What opponents have said is OPA improperly told sellers they were required by law to purchase the package from OPA, as has been the practice for years. On this matter Joe Moore agrees with the opponents. Additionally, whatever fee OPA decides to charge for the optional resale package has nothing to do with the $30 fee set in some DRs for a building permit authorization from ECC; Maryland law authorizes OPA to charge a reasonable fee for the resale documents, but they can also be obtained from Worcester County for much less.

Interestingly, neither Maryland law nor the OPA DRs require an inspection by the homeowners association as a condition of selling a home in the Pines. However, Stachurski's motion lumped the provision of documents and an OPA inspection together. This will only further confuse the issue.

Some believe OPA wants the issue to be as confusing as possible for those selling a home in Ocean Pines, since the resale package is a money-maker for OPA. Tom Stauss hit the nail on the head in his Progress commentary when he wrote, "But it still will be individual property owners who must assert their independence from the OPA's intrusive home inspections."

Unfortunately the ECC, ARC, or whatever name is the choice of the day, chose to mire itself in the mostly insignificant minutia of OPA restrictions, rather than using its authority to maintain the overall quality and appearance of the subdivision -- ECC's primary charge and obligation. In some important regards, ECC is a 30-year failure. Spend an hour driving through the byways of Ocean Pines and see if you don't come to a similar conclusion.