message board home
Next
8/27/2022 2:19:32 PM
 
Reply
or ReplyNewSubject
Section 5: OPA Board Subject: New Sheriff in Town Msg# 1168359
|
||||||
|
OP's actions have forced any equitable members to change their property's form of ownership to attain the level of trustee of their property, if they wish to run as a candidates for the board. Although equitable members are recognized under the charter for voting, they've now been blocked from candidacy for the board.
Although Farr was winner of his court case, he could not run for re-election, under OP's new bylaw [until he changed his property's ownership]. I'd view that as highly prejudicial to the class of equitable owners. That new bylaw, in effect, reverses the result from Farr's legal case. It overrides, it flouts that case's results. Becomes moot just a few months after the case was ruled upon. Yet I'd suggest that OP's then constituted board, especially Horne was the most active, pushing back against Farr. Seems others, like the bylaws committee, just marched along the path of least resistance, and missed seeing [debating] this big irony. And passed Horne's versions of the new bylaws. I'd doubt there was there any example where the bylaws committee substantively differed with her. Currently seems its good to hear your call for unity. And it seems good that you're aware and currently resisting any "factions". |
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
For reference, the above message is a reply to a message where: I strongly agree with Joe Reynold's sentiment that it is better to look forward rather than look back, but in this case I wanted to make a point or two regarding the eligibility issue(s) that arose during the consideration of changes to our By-Laws. 1) Adoption of Section 5.02(a) barring any corporate entity from having an individual run for the Board was recommended by the By-Laws and Resolution Committee, passed unanimously by the Board (on which Mr. Farr sits) and passed by a wide margin by the voters in Ocean Pines. The underlying reason for the inclusion of the 5th restriction in candidacy found in that Section was to avoid any conflict of interest. The basic concern was whether a person whose residence was purchased by a corporate entity (in which that person had an interest) owed a greater allegiance to the corporate entity or to the residents of Ocean Pines. The language in question specifically exempts any trustee or co-trustee that may "own property in the subdivision." To the best of my recollection during the discussion in the committee, no reference was made to the Opinion and Order issued by the Court in the Farr case. In fact, I believe the language adopted by the Board was specifically reviewed to avoid running counter to the Court's decision in that case. 2) I think it is fair to say that any number of concerns could arise if one seeks to include the universe of "equitable owners" to real property here in Ocean Pines. 3) I acknowledge that "factions" exist in the myriad of issues that the residents and the Board consider. However, I think we could move quicker to looking "forward" and not back, if we could acknowledge and agree that though differences of opinion exist that does not make one a member of a "faction" or an enemy of another "faction"; it is just a difference of opinion and in addressing any issue differences of opinion will arise. I am looking forward to working will all of my fellow Board members, we will have differences of opinion, but I am confident that all of us can work through those differences in a constructive and civil manner. Steve Jacobs |
| Calendar |
OPA Board Meeting - Golf Clubhouse
1/25/2025 - 9: A.M. |
|
OPA Board Meeting - Golf Clubhouse
2/22/2025 - 9:00 A.M. |
|
OPA Board Meeting - Golf Clubhouse
3/29/2025 - 9:00 A.M. |
|
OPA Board Meeting - Golf Clubhouse
4/26/2025 - 9:00 A.M. |
|
OPA Board Meeting - Golf Clubhouse
5/24/2025 - 9:00 A.M. |