message board home
Next
4/29/2025 2:14:08 PM
 
Reply
or ReplyNewSubject
Section 23: OPA Elections Subject: Public Vote Count Results Msg# 1224507
|
||||||
|
Bruce, as always, thanks for your comments.
1/ M-06 provides that the Association (the corporation) hires the election vendor. I never said otherwise. 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. Agreed. 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. I suppose your opinion is one interpretation of the M-06 language. The language needs clarification. 4/ The EC supervises the election vendor. I never said otherwise. 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. Agreed. Never suggested otherise. 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. Under M-06 The committee has every right to refuse to accept a board imposed vendor. The board can replace the committee. Likely? Of course not. The Committee will cave to the will of the board. 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. I disagree. For example, the committee has been meeting many times according to the chairman. Up until now hardly any, if any, of those meetings were announced. Holding committee meetings without informing association members as to time and place certainly appears to be a clear violation of the HOA Act 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. Not hyperbole in my view. The chairman of th Election Commmittee made a presentation o the Board of Directors that undermined the vote of Election Committee. As far as I am concerned, that was disgraceful. It was readily apparent that committee member Cheryl Jacobs was equally upset about what Ransdell did at the board meeting. There was no mistake about the anger in her voice. |
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
For reference, the above message is a reply to a message where: 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 . . .
|
| 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. |