Signs of the Times
commentary by Joe Reynolds

Association member Nate Douty wrote to the OPA Board of Directors back in late 2019 expressing concern about campaign signs for candidates for public office on lots in Ocean Pines, as to size, how many, and how long they can remain in place. Apparently, his primary concern related to signs for a presidential candidate on a property for years.

He was not inquiring about signs for OPA board candidates as it seems OPA can regulate these in any way it pleases via ECC/ARC Guidelines, although apparently there is even some question about that topic.

Back to the issue of public office candidate signs - Larry Perrone told Douty OPA had "no authority to intervene" with regard to presidential candidate signs displayed on a lot for years. He wrote, "OPA’s bylaws are only enforceable for our elections."

First off, any OPA sign restrictions are based on the Declarations of Restrictions, not the bylaws. Secondly, OPA does indeed have the authority to "regulate" signs displayed for candidates for public office, but Perrone even goes so far as to tell Douty, "A legal opinion is not needed." In other words, Perrone read the laws and made a legal determination.

Then board member Camilla Rogers, an attorney, responds to Douty, writing, "I have reviewed (the HOA Act), and have also put this out to my Real Property list serve (sic). While I respect Mr. Douty's position, the interpretation is correct as Mr. Perrone has stated which is the intent of this statute. While I have not reviewed applicable case law, the plain meaning of the statute is clear."

First off, Camilla Rogers is not OPA's attorney and, as a board member, should not be offering legal opinions on any OPA issue. Secondly, Rogers writes, "I have sent the question out to other members of my legal list serve (sic) and have learned a lot. The statute only applies to the candidates for the offices that are internal to Ocean Pines."

That interpretation is the exact opposite of what the HOA Act states! Rogers also said, "However, I  believe that your issue went a little further and you were also concerned about the size of all signs for political office. My feeling is that they should be reasonable."

Back in 2014 I asked then Maryland State Senate member Jim Mathias if he would ask the Attorney General for an opinion on the issue of public office sign regulation in an HOA like Ocean Pines. Jim instead suggested he would contact OPA's attorney, Joe Moore, and ask Moore to look into the issue and provide a report to the Board of Directors. Moore did so at a public board meeting on May 24, 2014.

The minutes of that meeting include the following: "Joe Moore - Political signs Discussion - Mr. Moore explained Sen. Mathias contacted him because Joe Reynolds said OPA has a limit on the number of campaign signs allowed on a property of a public election. Mr. Moore read Section 11 B-11.02 of the Maryland Act. OPA can restrict candidate signs on common areas and display no more than 30 days before and 7 days after a primary or general Public election but cannot limit on size, quantity, etc. on private property. OPA however can regulate its own election candidate’s signs. Mr. Terry thanked Mr. Moore for his attendance today." Note: the correct HOA Act reference in the minutes should be 11B-111.2. The discussion is also available on video.

So... where are we today? Clearly, if Moore's opinion as OPA legal counsel was correct, the two board members responding to Douty with their own legal opinions are wrong. OPA does indeed have the legal authority to regulate when public office campaign signs can be placed and when they must be removed.

At this point, sans any board revision of the Guidelines, it could be argued that signs supporting a candidate for public office can go up at any time and remain on OPA private lots for only seven days after an election.

With regard to OPA board elections and candidate signs, based on the current Guidelines, an argument can also be made that ECC/ARC must approve every board candidate sign placed on a private lot! As one informed source explained, "The DR prohibition on signs without approval prevents the Elections Committee, Board, GM or anyone else from issuing guidelines for such signs. The signs are prohibited without ECC/ARC approval."

The Bylaws and Resolutions Committee has urged the board for many years to clarify the Guidelines with regard to signs. To no avail. Board members offering questionable legal opinions only compound the problems.