I do not think Oglesby’s opinion about the board taking action only after discovering it was Janasek can be faulted. 

What can be faulted perhaps is the failure by OPA counsel to highlight in detail past instances of Janasek’s actions at the Yacht Club and golf clubhouse. OPA counsel sat back and did virtually nothing to highlight what Janasek did and subsequently apologized for at a public board meeting. 

My point is, perhaps the board decided to take action upon hearing it was Janasek, not as something in bad faith just because it was Janasek, rather because upon hearing it was Janasek the board only then knew it was an individual with a known history of improper conduct at the facilities. 

I simply do not recall OPA counsel making this point to the judge in any detailed and emphatic manner. 

Would it have made a difference? We will never know.