Your characterization of this as a "debacle" just goes to show how you have come to make judgments without a clue as to the facts.

Ahhh, here we go again on the adjectives.  I'll stand by the one used, given the overall context of the 99-year lease negotiations and what has been said publicly by board members about the new 5-year lease.

I happen to believe it is a well-thought out and "good" document with proper safeguards and a fair lease payment for OPA.

Do you think anyone would expect you to say otherwise? I'm sure Judy Boggs was saying much the same when she signed the Steen/OPA/YMCA contract. Bill, one does not reach to state of perfection upon being elected OPA president, something history has repeatedly shown. I'm sure Dan Stachurski said or thought as much when the prior lease was negotiated, despite our recent consultant report indicating the lease was under valued.

Your calling the agreement "top-secret" is just your way to attempt to cause undue concern to forum members.

Would just "secret" as opposed to "top-secret" make you any happier? Your "undue concern" comment yet again displays a lack of confidence in the metal ability of members. I don't ask association members to take my opinion as gospel. In this case I even provided about 5 video clips for their review.

Top-secret. Super-secret. Secret. Confidential. Call it whatever you want. Regardless of the adjective, the net result is association members could not see it.

There is no way that this agreement should have been "approved" on this forum, or at town meetings, or in the press. 

A strawman. Who on earth suggested anything remotely like what you write above? No me. However, the more eyes looking at anything could make for some good advice for the board. The last five-year lease was discussed and approved in public board meeting. The world did not end.

The agreement has been reviewed by our attorney

You mean the same attorney Heather Cook called the "Supreme Court of Ocean Pines?"  Same as reviewed the Steen/OPA/YMCA contract? Perhaps an association members review of that document might have avoided the current court case.

Really? Under what conditions in the next four years can you come up with anything to justify spending one cent for a new walkway?

Perhaps in the same manner a prior board spent $1 million on a pool cover? Perhaps a cost/benefit analysis would be positive for the walk. I don't know for sure, and neither do you., and neither you nor I know what any given board will decide to do on any given issue. Point is, why should we have to ask Seacrets permission?

(You can keep patting yourself on the back for repeatedly pointing this out to us and the readers of this forum, but some of us did not need such constant reminding.)

I suppose it is the result of being told I didn't know what I was talking about so many times.

But you have been offering lots of opinions without much information, so why stop now?

Not true. My comments are based on public remarks by Marty Clarke about how OPA would need Seacrets permission to build a walkway, and presumably anything else OPA might decide to do. Clarke reiterated those remarks today. This was also reinforced by your comment to me after the board meeting that it didn't make any difference because OPA had a good relationship with Seacrets. Then there is Les Purcell who told me the expiring 5-year lease was for parking only.

Don't say the lease is "top secret"; you know that as soon as it's signed you have a right to a copy.

This is great to know. Let me see if I have this right.... the lease is not top-secret (but maybe secret) but no one can see it until after is is declassified.

You have made comments on such things on an interim and initial report by a committee that the information on wetlands may be incorrect. Could be, but this is an interpretation based on some vague and remotely possible official's opinion that something "might" be able to be negotiated to change the classification. Filling the wetlands in is something you postulated as a result of this reclassification, and IMO is farfetched even should reclassification be approved.

I would respectfully submit that if an individual owned the property the owner would thoroughly  investigate such a possibility so as to maximize the value of their property.  Anyone who didn't would be a fool. Actually, for relatively little money OPA could begin the process to seek fill permits. The board was involved last year in negotiating a possible 99-year lease and the value-maximizing issue of filling the land was never investigated.

My cast on my right hand came off today.

Great.

Finally, it isn't about keeping ME informed; it is about keeping association members informed and making decisions with as much input as possible. This Seacrets lease did not require secrecy.