As you are a lawyer, I can understand your feelings. However, you were not at the meeting, so I'm not sure how you could characterize what did or didn't happen.

As a lawyer, I know that lawyers don't have near as much pull as you'd like to suggest.  Lawyers can advocate before decisionmakers, but it's the decisionmakers who make the call, most times for reasons that transcend the special interests of those hiring the lawyers.  I think that's the case here.  The four commissioners who voted to bring Pennington Commons into the system have a certain vision about the best way for development to proceed in northern Worcester County, and the best way for sewer and water to evolve relative to that development.  You may disagree with their vision, but that doesn't mean that their vision is unreasonable, or that their votes are cast at the behest of lawyers, money, and/or developers.

As for the meeting, I was not there, and have not made any attempt to characterize what went down, as you erroneously suggest.  I have, however, attempted to defend the motives of all 7 commissioners relative to their individual votes (3 of which you agree with, and 4 of which you don't), and I do not need to have been at the meeting to do that. 

It indeed all came down to the lawyers and the money -- it was painfully obvious.

I disagree with your characterization, and I base that disagreement on what I have heard and read from the other side on this issue.  They are not voting on the basis of lawyers and money, but what they feel is best for Worcester County.  Your need to discredit their motives in order to bolster your position is what I see as painfully obvious.

I'm sure the four commissioners who voted to bring in Pennington Commons and have Ocean Pines take the risk for $1 million rather than the developer may have rationalized they were doing what was best for Worcester County. For anyone in the room it was crystal clear the four commissioners were more concerned about protecting the developer than protecting the taxpayers.

Reasonable minds can disagree relative to how water and sewer services should evolve in light of the inevitable development occurring in the northern end of Worcester County.  Again, your need to to discredit the other side, as if your position is the only reasonable one on the table, is painfully obvious.  There is wisdom in acknowledging that the other side has a reasonable position, though you may disagree.

As Tom Cetola made very clear - First Things First.

You clearly disagree with Tom's position on this issue.  That doesn't make his position unreasonable.  Time may tell that his position was ultimately favorable for Worcester County AND Ocean Pines.  Time may tell the same relative to your position.  Only time will tell.

One can only assume you agree that Ocean Pines residents should take the $1 million risk rather than the developer.

Risk is inherent in life.  Yes, I tend to think that Worcester County AND Ocean Pines will be better off if the water and wastewater system currently serving Ocean Pines is expanded to serve the developing areas around the Pines, rather than allow those areas to develop their own systems helter skelter, which the County will then have to take responsibility for once they are built.

As an aside, Bennett Bozman showed up to testify as a private citizen who is apparently concerned about bringing in Gum Point Road to the Ocean Pines system. He lives there. He wasn't allowed to provide public comments as the hearing was only about Pennington Commons. There was little doubt, however, he wasn't happy about people along Gum Point being forced into the OP system.

Reasonable minds can disagree concerning the issue of Gum Point Road properties coming into the system.  Bennett Bozman is one of those minds.  The Commissioners will decide based on their view of what is best for Worcester County.

From a political perspective it is going to be interesting when the issue is up for public hearing to see if James Purnell votes against Bozman when push comes to shove.

Interesting question, indeed.  We'll just have to wait and see . . .