You replied, "It is my understanding that the well intended inclusion of 'up to three representatives of the Board' in the LU contract was to open up the monthly meeting discussions to transparency and provide impartial feedback to the Board."

The contract with LU mentions nothing about board meetings. So, we are left to speculate about what Strevens, Collins, et al meant. Now that I have a copy of the contract, I can see some of the language is confusing at best, and two of those now complaining about the "three designated representatives of the OPA Board" language in the contract are the very people who controlled the language of the contract when written.

I believe that this is not to be interpreted as three Board members and the "difference" is that it should not be any THREE Board members at all.

Your take on the language is caused by the poor contract language, leaving it up to varying interpretation. Again, this is in large measure the fault of Stevens and Collins who are now complaining.

I agree with you that the representatives do not have to be board members. However, nothing prevents the representatives from all being board members. Sure, Kessler would be an obvious choice. However, the CHOICE is determined by a majority vote of four board members. So, the choice is political. What else is new.  Clear contract language would have helped. For example, wording saying only one of the three could be a board member.

The contract also says the GM can request the course manager to attend "meetings of the OPA Board Advisory Committees on golf related business." There is no such advisory committee at this time... although one could be created

Joe, know this change was COMPLETELY political in nature.

Absolutely.

Dave Stevens did try to incorporate full and part time resident golfers into a committee to be more inclusive and represent a greater number of our association members concerns to no avail. The association would best be served with a Golf Advisory Committee made up of golf members, full and part time resident golfers and non-golfers as well. 

Dave Stevens attempt at that was back in 2007, about eight years ago. The board subsequently decided to simply eliminate the Golf Advisory Committee.

How about item 2a of the contract. It gives total control of some potentially substantial issues solely to the GM and does not even mention the board.

Finally, in my opinion every elected board member has complete and total legal access to any meeting of any kind or any document of any kind that pertains to the governance of the association. I respectfully suggest you, and any other board member denied such rights, demand your rights to attend these "Executive Meetings."

The report from the three board members who met with LU in an executive meeting is troubling. It appears the tree board members are directing LU. That is not their task nor do they have the authority to do so.