Our wording addresses the possibility of an individual representing OPA authorizing a change in usage or any construction on the property.

I understand. However, the language in the old lease required any change to be approved in writing by OPA. I believe OPA has certain restrictions in place as to authority on leases. The by-laws require any leases to be signed by OPA's president; one might assume this would extend to lease changes. At any rate, the new language certainly does no harm and does clarify the issue.

Regardless, the structures in the encroachment were built without written permission required in the old lease. In fact, the board was not even aware of the encroachments until I reported them here about a year ago and was initially told, "You don't know what you are talking about" by Marty.

How does one obtain a building permit to build on the property of another? Does OPA even know if a building permit was ever issued? Does OPA even care?

but I will give you two examples of the kind of posts I am talking about one being that Seacrets can fill in the lot and second that the board re-negotiated the lease to avoid a new board taking some action against Seacrets.

Well, with the first item it was probably someone unfamiliar with the prior lease, just as are some board members.  This is a discussion board, not a court of law. You also forgot the example of Director Marty Clarke and Jeff (on contract review committee) saying Seacrets paying the taxes was a financial benefit to OPA. When it comes to  a lack of understanding of some issues, those in charge too often contribute to association member confusion. Humans make mistakes, and mistakes are not limited to association members posting here. These discussions can help inform association members.

Plus, and most important, I think you would agree those directly involved in managing OPA should be held to a far higher standard as far as the factual content of their statements go, as compared to the comments of normal association members.

As for Rick's comment, he is welcome to his opinion, no matter how outlandish. My only problem is that he presented his opinion as a statement of fact.