message board home
Next
4/29/2025 2:22:22 PM
 
Reply
or ReplyNewSubject
Section 23: OPA Elections Subject: Public Vote Count Results Msg# 1224509
|
||||||
|
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).
Addressing this separately. I thought Monica Rakowski, as a candidate, did the right thing and stayed completely out of the discussion and vote. The only comment I heard from Monica was, "I'm not getting involved in any of this." Whether such actions by a candidate are required or not, she did the right thing in my view. I believe both Stuart and Steve Jacobs should have taken the position Monica took. Of course, the vote result, at 2-2 would have still failed. Of interest to me as well is that the motion mentioned Stuart Lakernick could not sign any contract for an election vendor, but apparently he was within his rights to vote on selection of the vendor. |
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
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. |