In my opinion, it is prudent that the GM seek advice from counsel regarding owner's drainage responsibilities as expressed in the DR's. The scope of the effort demands nothing less than a full understanding of the applicable obligations of owners and the Association. Jeremy Tucker's comments at the annual meeting indicate that there is reason to better identify respective obligations. The words and phrases in the DR's are not just filler. They have meaning and it is entirely appropriate to get advice regarding the meaning of the drainage provisions.

After the annual meeting, several comments have been made to the effect that the GM is "stupid" to be considering the impact on owners who may have resource or physical condition limitations that may inhibit their ability to comply with potential owner drainage responsibilities. No, the GM would properly be subject to criticism if he did not foresee such potential issues should owners be subject to drainage responsibilities not now in effect.

I have decided to limit myself to one "SPECIFIC" criticism example. Those who have questioned the GM's judgment, the pretext of his actions or his intelligence can can self-identify themselves in my comments and reply as  they see fit.

msg 1022246 (Joe Reynolds): class action should Bailey get his wish; definite possibility is an extreme effort to change the DR's; this nonsense initiated by Bailey.

You forgot to add that the sky is falling down on Ocean Pines.

Jim Trummel