commentary by Joe Reynolds, OceanPinesForum.com

On February 20th the OPA Board of Directors voted 4-3 to enter into contract negotiations with Landscapes Unlimited to manage the Ocean Pines golf course beginning on May 1, 2015.

Incredibly, about a week later OPA General Manager Bob Thompson publicly challenged that board decision during a regular board meeting on February 28. Thompson essentially told the board that it did not do its due diligence in selecting Landscapes Unlimited to replace Casper and expressed his concern that the board made a mistake in selecting Landscapes Unlimited.

Thompson, along with board members Sharyn O'Hare, Tom Terry, and Bill Cordwell had supported keeping Casper on as the management firm for the golf course during the evaluation phase that led up to a board vote to remove Casper and negotiate a new contract with Landscapes Unlimited.

Bringing this up in a public board meeting was a major mistake by the GM. Major mistake. It appeared he was goaded or conned into doing so by one or more of the three board minority votes favoring keeping Casper.

OPA board president Dave Stevens, after hearing Thompson out, said, “Basically there's no other way to break this down Bob than to say that you are challenging, questioning a decision that's already been made by the Board of Directors. Bob, you are not bringing it up to the board. You are bringing it up to the public. The board has already made a decision and you're challenging it.”

Thompson replied, “That's not my intent.”

Director Jack Collins said to Thompson, “Well, that's what you accomplished.”

Stevens then told Thompson in no uncertain words, "If there was a time to bring this up it was during the evaluation process, not afterwards.“

Given the board decision to deal with Landscapes Unlimited and that the GM will need to work with the company closely, this decision by the GM to challenge the board in public over selecting Landscapes Unlimited is most unfortunate.

Below is a fair transcription of what was said:

GM Bob Thompson: “I have a concern since last week and I want to present it because I think it is the right thing to do. And I'm not trying to be adversarial in any way at all. But I do think I have a responsibility to ask the questions because I'm being asked the questions and I don't have the answers.

“Last Friday the board made a decision to move in a different direction with golf. It is important to note that the last time they did it they interviewed a number of companies. The two finalists were Kemper and Casper. My support was Kemper at the time. I bring that up to point out that once the board made the final decision, that was the direction we moved down, I got solidly behind it. OK. I would be behind it.

“I share that with you understanding why I'm asking these questions. Now. I'm concerned that we made these decisions to go in a different direction and I think I have a responsibility to at least ask the board as a whole to clarify some things for me.

“First, my concern is decisions were made and I don't believe we did any background checks with the final company that was chosen. Again, that's strictly board's decision but I think we need to know we didn't do the same level of scrutiny that we did when we made the last selection of our golf club. My big concern there is making these decisions without actually doing our homework, we're not only impacting the longevity of our course but also of our members who are paying the rates for those and those who are currently working here and their families. Lot of big decisions with what happened Friday.

“So, my question is - as we're going through it and I'm trying to wrap my arms around it and be supportive of it, some things such as - we terminated the Casper contract because we didn't like their performance but the new contract we need to make sure they make every effort to hire the Casper team that’s in place. The employees. I don't understand that. I don't know how to answer that when members are asking me I just don't know how to answer that.

“When the question came up of who we did a background check on I'm getting the answer we didn't do a background check or visit any of the Landscape Unlimited courses. That's very different than what was done in the past. I just need to understand how to answer that to our membership. I'm struggling a little bit. We’re happy with the performance of the folks now in place and want to make sure Landscapes Unlimited hires them but we're terminating the contract... I just don't know how to answer those folks and I need some input, some insight, some understanding cause again the board obviously has the right to do whatever they want to and I'm gonna get behind it but without clarity on that it's a concern for me.

“I just think, and again I'm not trying to create an issue, but if a mistake was made and this vote made with a lack of information. I don’t think anyone was intentionally doing it. It was just an oversight. I think it important we understand that, because if we make a mistake now and we recognize it, it’s not the mistake that matters, it’s what we actually do in light of making it. That's where I am with it. I'm not saying I'm above making a mistake because I do all the time, but when I'm made aware of them I try to correct them. I think that's kind of the measure of where we are and I'm a little concerned here and I'm just not sure how to answer my membership and quite frankly how to understand this myself, and I just need to ask because I need to represent the membership when I’m out talking to them, and the board obviously, and I'm trying to answer these questions. And any clarity the board can give to me would be helpful.”

Board discussion then revealed Landscapes Unlimited indicated at the public presentations that it might be interested in hiring some of the existing golf employees. The board is not insisting they hire anyone.

OPA President Dave Stevens: “The board voted to start negotiations with Landscapes Unlimited on a contract, but we are not going to reopen the evaluation.”

GM Bob Thompson: “Please understand Mr. Stevens my question wasn't to be fractural. I understand the necessity to be cognizant of and how to negotiate a contract. My bigger concern is we made a decision to move down a path, a different path with a different company how much research went into that company to make the decision. That's what concerns me. I'm not making light of it. I'm not hoping it was wrong. I'm trying to go back and get my arms around it because I've been asked to support it, and as I read through it, it's not as clear we did our due diligence in the same way as when we brought in a different company and I think it’s important to note that and ask about it. And I don't mind asking it because I think it’s appropriate to understand that.”

OPA President Dave Stevens: “Basically there's no other way to break this down Bob than to say that you are challenging, questioning a decision that's already been made by the Board of Directors.”

GM Bob Thompson: "I'm not doing that. I knew it was going to feel adverse. If I see something that's of concern to me, who do I bring it up to? The board. I've spoken to two separate board members about this concern and they said bring it up to the entire board. So that’s what I'm doing.”

OPA President Dave Stevens: “Bob, you are not bringing it up to the board. You are bringing it up to the public. The board has already made a decision and you're challenging it.”

GM Bob Thompson: “That's not my intent. “

OPA Director JACK Collins: “Well, that's what you accomplished.”

OPA President Dave Stevens: "If there was a time to bring this up it was during the evaluation process, not afterwards.“