Tom Piatti, chairman of the OPA Elections Committee, told the Ocean Pines Progress that any review of the ten-digit code on the return paper ballot envelopes from the last board election will "not produce any new count of lots that participated in the last election." Author Tom Stauss goes on to quote Piatti as saying, "The code on these envelopes do not refer to the number of lots that a property owner might own, contrary to the stubborn belief by some that they do."

Count this commentator among those who not only have a "stubborn belief," but know for a fact that the code numbers on the return envelopes and the corresponding code number on the voting instruction sheet sent with the ballot packages do reference the number of lots represented by a paper or online ballot. That new Election Committee chairman Piatti would make statements as published in the Progress is extremely troubling. This is especially so since the new committee is charged with restoring confidence in the OPA board election system after the disaster last year.

In an interview subsequent to the publication of Piatti's comments in the Progress, he said, "I may not have understood the question fully, as what transpired last year under the old committee was very complicated. As a result, my response may not have been as clear as I would have desired." The Progress quotes are unfortunate in that association members should have every confidence that Piatti, a man of unquestioned integrity, will do his level best to insure a fair and accurate accounting of the upcoming board election.

Of some interest is that OPA staff did not provide the "weighted" code numbers that caused the problems last year. Staff sent a list of lots eligible to vote to the Elections Committee. What happened then is unknown. Most likely, the Internet voting company or the mailing contractor took the OPA list and created the 10-digit code numbers for "weighting" each ballot. Piatti says he cannot find any copy of this list of code numbers and the referenced lots, a primary document in the mangled election process last year. Also of note, no video exists of the vote count or the subsequent recount because the chair last year refused to allow video recording.

Anyone can verify the fact that contrary to what was published in the Progress, the control number was indicative of the number of lots voting on a single ballot simply by looking at the "IMPORTANT INFORMATION ABOUT OPA ELECTION BALLOTS" included in the election package mailed to every eligible owner last year.

Included in that "important information" for voters one finds the following: "Since this is a 'hybrid' voting process, Association members owning multiple properties will receive one code and are encouraged to use online voting. Your code is 'weighted' according to the number of properties you own."

Those voting on the Internet had to enter their code number in order to vote. Thus, there is a degree of confidence that those owning multiple lots had all their lots counted. Not so with all voters who returned paper ballots representing ownership of more than one lot. The Elections Committee last year, in violation of Resolution M-06, decided to open the return envelopes rather than have the mailing contractor do so and then provide the Committee a stack of returned envelopes and a separate stack of the actual ballots removed from the envelopes.

The return paper envelopes from the 2022 OPA Board of Directors election, are all in possession of OPA, along with the returned ballots. The ballots themselves contain nothing indicating who owned the properties. In an even more ridiculous sidebar to all this, association member Sherrie Clifford has requested access to look at the envelopes and ballots, and OPA's attorney wants her to sign a non-disclosure agreement in the event Clifford can do the impossible -- determine the name of voters and how they voted by looking at the ballots.

In what amounted to an unintentional but disastrous mistake, the committee last year separated paper ballots from the envelopes without first determining how many lots a ballot represented by checking the code number on the return envelope. Thus any association member owning more than one lot and returning the ballot as originally sent by the Election Committee, had only one of their lots counted, regardless of the number of lots owned.

Why is anyone even concerned about this issue? The third open board position was determined by a 13-vote margin. There could be hundreds of uncounted returned paper-ballot lots because any owner with more than one lot who returned the single ballot as originally mailed had their lots counted only as one. In other words, if you owned five lots, only one of your lots was counted.

The current board majority controlling OPA was decided by a 13-vote victory for an open board seat and many paper-ballot lot votes were not counted.

OPA attorney Jeremy Tucker, according to leaked information published in the Progress, told the OPA Board of Directors it is possible Clifford could uncover vote count irregularities and file a complaint in the Circuit Court or with the Maryland Attorney General "to overturn the election results."

While the odds of an overturned election are slim, association members have an absolute right to know how many validly submitted lot votes were not counted in the last election.

Unfortunately, an OPA Board of Directors majority consisting of Doug Parks, Rick Farr, Stuart Lakernick, and Monica Rakowski is not likely to want a review of the return envelope code numbers, a review that might very well call into question whether they should even be in the majority. On the other hand, such an envelope review could reveal so few as to have no impact on the results. Association members have a right to know, whether the results prove embarrassing to the current board majority or not.

The new Election Committee should not be responsible for checking the returned envelopes from the last election. Clifford should not be allowed to handle the envelopes until after the Board of Directors arranges to send the return envelopes to the mailing contractor, who must have a copy of code numbers, or to some other reliable, trusted outside entity to obtain a count of how many eligible lots were not counted last year.

Partial transparency is not transparency.