2/20/2007

Why wait? Hold new Community Center Referendum Now
By Bob Lassahn

In the latest round of contention regarding the new Community Center for Ocean Pines, property owner Martin D. "Marty" Clarke has filed a petition with the court seeking intervention. Specifically he has requested that the Ocean Pines Association (OPA) be required to put the Community Center issue to referendum and has requested an injunction to halt any further construction activity pending the outcome.

Mr. Clarke has been a member of S.T.O.P. (Stop Taxing Ocean Pines) and a vocal opponent of the new Community Center since day one. Along with former board member Janet Kelley they have been the persistent "faces" of the Community Center opposition. Following a successful 2005 referendum authorizing OPA to build the new structure on the Sports Core property it appeared the effort to derail a new community center was in the past, but the argument was far from over.

Originally "anticipated" at about $3.9 million the actual cost of the project escalated and it became apparent the OPA board would be required to spend considerably more to bring the building to fruition. After design changes and a controversial decision that the original $3.9 million represented only "construction costs" the board moved ahead, but in doing so the total cost overruns exceeded the amount they are authorized to spend without a referendum. The arguments for and against the new Community Center continued unabated. The cost overrun issue became the basis for Mr. Clarke's continued opposition, but it was widely held that unless/until the matter was challenged in court, the board would likely pursue construction.

S.T.O.P. attempted to force another referendum via the petition method set forth in OPA bylaws and the number of signatures they collected exceeded what is prescribed by a considerable amount. However, OPA invalidated a sufficient number of the signatures to take the petition below the threshold that would trigger the referendum S.T.O.P. was demanding. The methodology in invalidating the signatures became yet another bone of contention. Mr. Clarke then took the next step and went to court.

The various and sundry foibles surrounding the new Community Center have caused even some of the staunchest proponents to question whether the project should continue in the present climate. It has become an extremely divisive issue for Ocean Pines overall, with sub-issues such as the recent drainage pond/Veterans Memorial debacle flaring up on a fairly regular basis. The situation has led many people to express a lack of confidence in the anointed "point man," Director Dan Stachurski, to get the job done right.

The legal challenge filed by Mr. Clarke comes in two distinct parts. In part one, if successful, the courts could issue an injunction bringing any further work to a halt while the question of the referendum is adjudicated. Essentially it becomes an order to do no further harm until the underlying argument might be settled.

Part two of the challenge will involve two lawyers arguing the merits, or lack thereof, in the issues set forth by Mr. Clarke in his filing. This is where it gets a bit tricky, because predicting the outcome with any degree of certainty would be difficult at best. I doubt that either Mr. Clarke or OPA would concede any possibility of failure at this point.

Where does that leave us? Logic might dictate (I yield that legal determinations may sometimes defy logic) that holding another referendum could be viewed by a judge as upholding the rights and best interests of the members. It certainly appears to be a no harm/no foul method of satisfying the disagreement regarding the right of the board to move forward and the right of the membership to have their say. But that is just an opinion from a layman and definitely could be subject to challenge.

Personally I now am convinced it is time to reconcile the issue. OPA might be best served to call an immediate halt to further work at the site to minimize potential financial liability in the event another referendum should fail. The board should also immediately begin preparation for a referendum to resolve the matter. Why delay for weeks or months awaiting a day in court only to learn a referendum is required? I personally think the board should look the challenge squarely in the eye and give the members their due. Do it now!

A lot of people (me included) have speculated that another referendum would fail based upon the issues surrounding the project, but in rethinking the matter success or failure might be somewhere around a 50/50 shot. A lot will depend on the board's ability to appear completely forthright in their dealings with the members when preparing the new referendum.

In preparing the referendum OPA must provide accurate and readily substantiated costs for completion of the proposed Community Center. Any potential assessment increase related to the project should be spelled out and a realistic number provided regarding potential income from the sale of properties. Additionally a valid figure for any penalties OPA might incur should the project fail to carry in the referendum should be set forth. The members deserve to know the true dollar figure in both scenarios, without spin, "enlightened" math or WAGs from either side.

I also feel very strongly that the board must mandate (should the project continue) that a working committee of knowledgeable members will assist in oversight of the construction. This might greatly assist in reestablishing at least some degree of confidence that the project will be done properly. Mr. Stachurski should graciously accept the help that has been offered to him all along.

It is time to bring to an end any hint of subterfuge or back door strategies. Yes…another referendum could certainly end any immediate hope for a new Community Center…something I personally believe to be a plus for the community…but on the other hand a successful referendum just might help to eliminate the contention surrounding the project, allowing everyone to take a deep breath and get it done right.

In closing I comment that Mr. Clarke and I have not seen eye to eye on the merits of a new Community Center and it is likely that we will continue to debate the potential benefits. However, in his latest action he has demonstrated a deep commitment to his beliefs. He has gone beyond simple "lip service" in pursuing what he perceives as the right thing to do for all OPA members and whether one might agree or disagree with his position, his determination is something to admire.

Send an Email Letter to Courier Editor - be sure to include your telephone number.