message board home
Next
4/29/2025 12:51:22 PM
 
Reply
or ReplyNewSubject
Section 23: OPA Elections Subject: Public Vote Count Results Msg# 1224497
|
||||||
|
Joe -- Couple of clarifying legal points:
1/ M-06 provides that the Association (the corporation) hires the election vendor. 2/ In regard to contracts of this size, the Association (the corporation) can act only with approval from its Board, i.e., in this instance, the Board approves the hiring of the vendor. 3/ M-06 provides further that the EC approves the contract with the vendor, which I read as meaning the EC, since it runs elections, approves the scope and terms of services to be provided by the election vendor. 4/ The EC supervises the election vendor. 5/ No OPA Committee, including the EC, has any legal standing to enter into contracts; only OPA, Inc., acting through its GM or Board (depending on the magnitude of the contract), can enter into contracts. One obvious question is what happens if the board rejects the contractor selected by the committee but the committee refuses to approve a contract for a different contractor? The EC performed its job in receiving and reviewing proposals from vendors and it provided its findings and made its recommendation to the Board (there were two "finalists" in the EC's view -- ACE and MK -- and a majority of the EC voted to recommend ACE). But it is the Board that finally approves a vendor and authorizes the EC and legal counsel to move forward with contract negotiations, after which, the contract would be signed by the OPA VP and/or GM. I see no possible scenario where, as you posit, the EC would "refuse" to proceed with negotiations with the selected vendor or would "refuse" to work with the selected vendor. The EC members have been conscientious and responsible from the beginning, and I see no reason to think this won't continue from now to the conclusion of the election. Final comment -- there was nothing "disgraceful" that happened at Saturday's meeting. That's hyperbole, Joe, even if one may disagree with aspects of how the meeting went. Final, final comment -- At the meeting, I should have permitted Steve Jacobs to make his motion to table John Latham's motion. I did not have my Roberts Rules cheat sheet with me, nor did I have my parliamentarian emeritus, Doug Parks :) But since the vote on John L's motion was 3-3 and did not carry, the outcome was essentially the same as if his motion was tabled (and assuming that motion had passed). Live and learn . . .
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
For reference, the above message is a reply to a message where: There will be no change in the way the owners view and have access to the vote count at the conclusion of the vote counting. Thanks for that update. I do want to also say that this Elections Committee like the many other committees that we have, is doing the very best job that they can do. This Board is appreciative of the work that they are doing. You are entitled to your opinion, and I'll leave it right there. Sorry, but I have to take a contrarian view on that with regard to chairman Ransdell. On Saturday, committee chair Steve Ransdell said the committee has been meeting regularly on a number of occasions. Unfortunately, those unannounced meetings are likely in violation of the Maryland HOA Act. Ransdell also announced the committee voted 3-2 to approve ACE as the election contractor. This was not done at a committee meeting. Ransdell called each committee member individually and asked whether they would vote for ACE or MK. Unfortunately, only Ransdell knows who voted for each contractor since he never even told the committee members. In other words, Ransdell took a PRIVATE phone call vote and only he knew the result. That is not the way to do things. There is a Committee meeting on the OPA calendar for today at 5:30 but the official, OPA calendar does not provide the location of that meeting. Finally, what happened at the Saturday board meeting was a disgrace. Ransdell undermined the vote of his own committee, to the very clear consternation of committee member Cheryl Jacobs. As Jacobs pointed out to the board - The committee voted to select ACE. The board has directly involved itself in the contractor selection process while three sitting board members are up for re-election. Resolution M-06 says the Election Committee approves the contract for the election contractor. One obviois question is what happens if the board rejects the contractor selected by the committee but the committee refuses to approve a contract for a diffrent contractor? Will the board remove folks like Marlene Ott and Cheryl Jacobs from the committee?
Anyway, your input is much appreciated. Thank you. |
| Calendar |
OPA Board Meeting - Golf Clubhouse
5/24/2025 - 9:00 A.M. |
|
OPA Board Meeting - Golf Clubhpuse
6/28/2025 - 9:00 A.M. |
|
OPA Board Meeting - Golf Clubhouse
7/26/2025 - 9:00 A.M. |
|
Annual Meeting - Assateague Room
8/9/2025 - 9:00 A.M. |