Pick your cliche. They shot themselves in the foot. The gang that couldn't shoot straight. Commit political suicide. Putting your foot in your mouth. Cutting their own throat.

The deadline for filing as a candidate for the upcoming OPA Board of Directors election is Friday, May 10, 2024. Until around 9AM Wednesday May 8, 2024 only two individuals filed as candidates for the two open board seats this year. They are sitting board members Rick Farr and Jeff Heavner. Odds are, only a day or so ago, those two sitting board members would be the only candidates and re-elected to the board with no opposition.

Farr and Heavner are members of a six-person majority on the Board of Directors. As a practical matter, the seventh board member, Steve Jacobs, is of little consequence to the six. The six vote as a block on almost every motion. If Jacobs suggests something, odds are it will not even receive a second for board discussion. The six have total control of the Board of Directors. Association members elected these six individuals. All seven have the best interests of Ocean Pines at heart.

This Board of Directors, with Rick Farr as president, presides over one of the most prosperous and successful periods in the history of Ocean Pines. Why would this board at a time of such success, on the eve of a board candidate filing deadline with only two sitting board members entering the race, get involved in a petty legal squabble over some Facebook posts? It is inexplicable. It defies logic.

Here is the background:

Reliable sources report in recent days the board had OPA's attorney prepare letters to be sent to association members Amy Peck, Sherrie Clifford, and another woman. These sources describe it as a "cease and desist" communication to the three women, more or less accusing them of defaming the OPA Board of Directors with posts they made to Facebook on the ROC page. Pretty serious stuff.

The three women are frequent critics of the Board of Directors. Whether their criticism of the board rises to the legal definition of defamation is questionable.

For every action there is an equal and opposite reaction - Newton's Laws of Motion. If the intent of the board was to intimidate these women it failed. After hearing the Board of Directors is threatening to accuse them of defaming the board, Sherrie Clifford and Amy Peck filed as candidates in the OPA Board of Directors election early on Wednesday morning.

The board, unknown to association members, had OPA's attorney prepare the "cease and desist" letter and it appears their plan to have it mailed to the three women after a secret email vote failed, perhaps because one or more board members refused to participate in the required unanimous email vote to take a board action outside a meeting.

Thus the board scheduled a special meeting, announced by OPA for Thursday evening at 7 PM in the board room, to go into closed session to discuss legal matters with counsel, presumably to discuss and/or vote on sending these "cease and desist" letters to the three women.

Meantime, a post by the operator of another Facebook site, devoted entirely to attacking and mocking the three women day after day for two years or more, indicated someone had leaked the letter or the intent of the letter to the Facebook site owner. The site owner posted about contacts from "my attorney" suggesting he take a break from attacking the three women.

This particular Facebook page has few members and is of no interest, except a number of board members visit the site and on occasion "like" posts by the page owner who constantly calls these women hags, bitches, and other disparaging words. How did the owner of the Facebook site know from his attorney that "remedial action is happening" against the three women four days ago? How would "his" attorney even know?

Are readers beginning to get an idea of how ridiculous this board attempt to intimidate three female association members is? The sitting directors won but cannot overcome their obsession with political opposition or criticism coming from these three women.

It gets more ridiculous. The new OPA By-Laws state:

"No individual may be a candidate for election as a director if they are a plaintiff in an active lawsuit in a Maryland or Federal court, including on appeal, in which the Association or any of the Association's Directors, named in their capacity as a Director, is/are named as a defendant; nor may the candidate be named as defendant in an active lawsuit in a Maryland or Federal court in which the Association is the plaintiff, including on appeal."

Does this mean the sitting OPA Board of Directors can keep potential candidates off the ballot simply by filing a lawsuit for defamation or something else against the candidate in court?

Sure looks like it.

Has our HOA reached the point where criticism of the Board of Directors risks being sued or receiving threatening letters from OPA's attorney?

Adding insult to injury, if a candidate is rejected for some reason and sues to be placed on the ballot, does the act of suing OPA automatically prevent the individual from being on the ballot? Readers of these commentaries may recall Rick Farr, now OPA president, had to sue a prior OPA board to be on the ballot. He won in court and on the vote count.

Should this provision be in the bylaws as written?

Here is something worth repeating:

This Board of Directors, with Rick Farr as president, currently presides over one of the most prosperous and successful periods in the history of Ocean Pines. Why get involved in these petty Facebook squabbles?

Makes no sense. The board should cancel the Thursday evening meeting.

Go back to the first paragraph of this commentary. Pick your cliche.