08/08/2007

It’s a Matter of Trust
Commentary by Bob Lassahn

"Our distrust is very expensive." - Ralph Waldo Emerson

The Ocean Pines Association (OPA) Board of Directors, along with the Bylaws and Resolutions Advisory Committee has recently delivered to the membership (under the signature of the general manager) a proposed bylaws revision packet for review. This is but the first step in the process of ultimately gaining approval of a new set of bylaws for the association.

Once the membership has an opportunity to digest the information on the revised bylaws two "town meetings" are planned where the members may comment, ask questions and offer suggestions regarding the content of the document. Then, after some possible tweaking based upon these town meetings the revised-revised set of bylaws will be the subject of a public hearing where even more commentary and input might be offered by the members and further revisions made to the revised-revised document. Within 15 days of the public hearing a referendum packet with the revised-revised-revised bylaws could potentially be sent to the membership with a referendum ballot enclosed where they vote to accept or reject the revised-revised-revised bylaws in total. It's an all or nothing choice.

The requirement for a referendum to change the bylaws dates to another referendum in 2000 mandating the process for all future changes. This means that a majority of the more than 8,000 potential votes that could be cast on the measure must either agree or disagree with all of the changes. Sounds fairly simple until one stops to consider that those 8,000 plus potential votes also represent 8,000 plus potential opinions regarding the most minor details such as where to place a comma and where the use of "shall" or "will" might be appropriate. Then there are the bigger issues regarding the meat and potatoes of running a complex organization such as OPA to consider.

The present bylaws were originally adopted some 38 years ago. As with any governing document they have been adjusted on a piecemeal basis, but no one ever sat down and went over the total package until the most recent endeavor. This is a perfect spot to offer kudos to the Bylaws and Resolutions Advisory Committee for their dedication to the task of this re-write and for their patience in dealing with the minutiae that virtually every director and many OPA members have seen fit to interject over the more than three year course of the project. Compiling a document such as the bylaws and tracking the various changes is a daunting task.

The spoiler in this process of gaining final approval relates to the present attitude of many OPA members toward the current board. Without rehashing all the fine points, suffice to say the membership has about zero confidence in anything the board puts its stamp of approval upon. For many members the bylaws re-write falls neatly into the category of, "If they want it, then it can't be a good thing!" There is that segment of the membership that will vote down the changes, regardless of any merit, based purely upon association with a board of directors they do not trust.

Trying to push this set of bylaws to approval in the current climate is pure folly. The bylaws packet sent to the membership contains a one page letter, a seven page summary of changes and a 19 page document with the revised bylaws. What percentage of the membership is going to sit down and read all of this material during the peak of the summer season? The bylaws are somewhat complex and require careful consideration to fully digest the content and actually understand the fine points of what is being put forth. What percentage of the membership might be willing to devote the time and energy, when the kids or grandkids are visiting, to an in-depth study of the documents?

I proffer that beyond a select few who fall into the categories of community leader or community activist, the documents will probably serve only to collect dust. When the time comes to vote the decision of those fully aware of the circumstances will say "Yes" or "No" based almost solely on trust in the elected leadership, or the lack thereof. Some less informed voters may opt to not cast a ballot, some might check off "No" because they see no need for change, some may check "Yes" simply to be agreeable and some may flip a coin. Whichever way the vote goes there are definitely people who will not be happy with the outcome. Furthermore, failure requires starting all over and paying for the process a second time.

The newly constituted board has an opportunity to short circuit the current rush to judgment on the bylaws. It might serve the association well to take some deep breaths and avoid facing a divisive issue in the first days after the new board is constituted. The lack of a newly revised set of bylaws will not stop the world from going around. After the dust settles a bit the new board and the membership can put their collective heads together, tweak the document if necessary and perhaps put forth a document that will prove to be acceptable based upon a greater degree of trust in the leadership.

It makes more sense to do the bylaws project methodically and gain a better chance of success rather than to get "something" out of the door quickly and have it fail. Failure not caused by of lack of merit or by improper content, but rather because of distrust in the leaders. Then, perhaps without knowing exactly what might be required to make change acceptable to the members, the entire process must be started anew and paid for again.