Indeed. An achievement of a board majority those candidates want to replace. The current board agreement with Viola was announced on June 30. The endorsement mailing was postmarked on July 8. I suspect the mailer had already been printed but the sender decided not to print a new letter after the announcement. Perhaps they had all been printed, stamped, etc and were waiting to be mailed when the Viola announcement was made. Unfortunate if so. Make no mistake. This election is about one thing -- majority control of the Board of Directors.

However, actions by the BoD for actions not recommended by BoD member(s) have resulted in OPA having to compensate the OPA attorney for defense of those civil actions, unless he or his firm did so "No Charge". Campaign Spending does not include OPA funds such as were spent in the past by BoD for personal opinions, such as for the Referendum regarding the spending of OPA funds in excess of $1,000,000 annually and costs for mailings.

Not all board actions are passed unanimously. Nor should it be expected. Boards should not make decisions based on constant fear of being sued. 

In the case of the spending petition and the Farr case, the board decisions that sparked Trendic and Farr suing OPA were based on supporting legal advice from OPA counsel. While OPA lost in both instances, the amount of abject personal hatred those events triggered toward individual board members is quite irrational and sad.

Notice how factual reporting about a mailing by a Facebook site has raised the intense ire of some. That said, if my commentary contained any factual errors, please point them out.