The OPA Board of Directors met this morning (7/11/2007) to discuss some minor last minute changes to the by-laws and to discuss a time-line for sending the by-laws out to referendum. Bill Rakow was the only board candidate present, because, as he pointed out, the other candidates did not even know about the meeting. Rakow said there is a communication failure on the part of OPA and the Board.

Heather Cook was pushing hard to have the actual ballots out the door to association members days prior to the Annual Meeting and election of four new board members. This idea was eventually discarded since there was not enough time to print and mail the necessary information to lot owners, hold a public hearing and mail the ballots.

After much discussion, however, the board did decide to send a package to all members on July 31, 12 days prior to the Annual Meeting. The package would contain a letter from the General Manager, a copy of the proposed by-laws changes, and possibly a summary of changes. The letter will include the following dates set by the board:

• August 25 Town Hall Meeting 9 AM Country Club
• August 28 Town Hall Meeting 7 PM Country Club
• September 5 Public Hearing 7 PM Country Club per the by-laws
• Mailing of ballots within 15 days of the Public Hearing

During the discussion board member Tom Sandusky managed to insult every board candidate. Sandusky suggested that a new board would lack the experience to deal with the by-laws. Sandusky said, "I can't believe the (OPA) electorate is that stupid to elect people who would be that frivolous."

In other words, Sandusky is saying a new board should not set their own time-line for looking at the by-laws and should not change the by-laws approved by the current board because a new board would not be intelligent enough to do so. In total, Sandusky's comments displayed the same sort of arrogance that has inflicted a number of current board members.

At the conclusion of Sandusky's comments, Heather Cook said, "Well said."

This current board has spent a great deal of time on the by-laws. However, there are major areas of concern to many association members, perhaps even board candidates. The outgoing board should not be trying to dictate to an incoming board.

Interestingly, there was discussion as to who would sign the letter sent to association members on August 31. Ray Unger suggested Tom Olson sign it because Ray felt it would provide a greater chance of the referendum passing than if the board signed it. In the end the board decided to have Tom Olson sign the letter on behalf of the board and the By-Laws Committee.

Tom Olson should not be the one to sign the letter. The by-laws were approved by the board and the president of the association should sign the letter. By-laws are not in the realm of responsibilities for the general manager.

Topping off this questionable board decision is that another $15,000 or so of association member assessment dollars will likely go down the drain.

The board vote was unanimous, with Dan Stachurski absent.