In many ways I'm surprised and appreciative that you have taken the time and effort to send me this email message. I didn't see where your message  was in response to a previous reply I had made.

I'm not sure it's that important  to increase full time golf memberships unless "Golf" has a real full time Golf Advisory group. The golf council is at least officially a "Social Club" with no official influence over golf. I went to a Golf Counsil meeting to voice my concerns over how golf was being run in OP. I was told that it was a social club only. Them why was the golf Pro, his assistant and two members of the board in attendance?

With in the last month, I played 18 holes at Bay Club, Eagles Landing, River Run and Ocean City for $25. I am a property owner in OP, I pay a $913 assessment, part of which goes to support the golf amenity in OP. Why should I pay more to play in OP than in near by courses as a property owner?

If I or another property owner bring a large group of OP property owners to play in OP gplf Amenity why shouldn't they get a group rate. Some of the excuses I hear are, "there are so many new courses in the area". So what, match or beat the competition. All the excuses I hear are stupid... Is it better to have 10 golfers at $25 or $50 at $20? Let's be serious, the rigidity in the OP club house is ridiculous. I have seen no attempt to draw old members back or try to attract golfers no longer playing in  OP. I play with a group called the 19th Holers. They have 62 members all but two are property owners in OP. All the courses in the area allow them to play nine holes for $20 or less except OP. They play Wednesday afternoon between 1 and 2 PM at the discretion of the course pro. Here is an opportunity to reintroduce 62 golfers to OP golf course and increase revenue for OP golf. This can be expanded quite a bit with a little imagination.

As you mentioned  the local rate is lower at area courses than the resident rate at OP.

Here is a good one, why would the president of the B of D appoint as a go between members of the board who are not golfers and were opposed to LU from the get go?

When some one accuses you of disparaging their integrity when you haven't, where I come from we call that person guilty.

"Policy changes must be made to encourage golf course use by our residents." What policy changes should be made. We need specifics which will be carried out. As a starter Collins and Stevens should be the go between for obvious reasons. Have LU contact the 300 golfers in an attempt to bring many of the back. Give LU a deadline to accomplish this. Have LU come up with some enticements to achieve this goal.

Your three suggestions below are a good start but they need to be expanded upon. I'd be willing to meet with you to discuss these issues further, but I do not want to be patronized.

Thanks,

Frank