7/23/2008

Give it a fair shake

Commentary by Bob Lassahn

The current OPA board has, at least in my opinion, gone above and beyond the call of duty in planning for a replacement of the aging Community Hall. If anything, they may have been overly cautious to make sure that every "i" is dotted and every "t" is crossed in their handling of the effort. They have brought aboard some significant expertise and formed a task force to dissect virtually every step of the project, evaluating everything right down to the minutiae of door knobs specified by the contractor.

On the previous effort to construct a community center for OPA some of the cost issues seemed little more than a wild guess, while this time the costs appear to be computed down to the minor details and apparently, will also be solidly locked in via contractual agreements. The board has even specified the cost of the "in house" work such as landscaping to avoid any inference of "hiding" the eventual bottom line from concerned OPA members. It has been their stated intention to provide the worst case scenario regarding the final cost, rather than lowball the bottom line for an easier "sell."

Another item that shows a turnaround in the way the current board is doing business relates to its discussion of how to present the project to the membership. In this case they have stated their intent to reject any hint of slick marketing and just stick to the facts. Sergeant Joe Friday would be very pleased indeed.

It is certain that there will be those who lack confidence in this OPA board. History has provided many reasons not to take all things OPA on face value. Even as I type these words a minor storm brews (at least for some members) regarding the ongoing referendum to approve a new set of bylaws. It is an issue that, in my personal view, equates to a tempest in a teapot. To parse every word in the document looking for the hidden agenda may hold greater significance for others.

What I hope to convey here is the thought that the Community Hall project deserves a thorough look by the membership and not a knee jerk rejection based upon water under the bridge. There will be opportunities to understand what the board is attempting to do by attending a public hearing (set for August 16, with details to be announced) and by carefully reading the requisite prospectus that will accompany the referendum ballot.

Each OPA member should consider what is currently being set forth, ask questions they deem necessary and base their final decision on factual information. This board deserves consideration for their project based upon what the current directors have done, not the track record of boards in the past. Hopefully the membership will give it a fair shake on its own merits and won't see fit to "punish" the current board for the sins of others in the past.

Voting down the proposed new building without giving it proper consideration would leave the board with only the option to rehab the Community Hall. The membership could then wind up with a lesser finished product at a negligible savings in money (about a $400,000 savings). The ones being "punished" in that case might be the members of OPA who deserve a decent facility that serves their needs in the best possible manner, for now and for the future.