OCEAN PINES– Five remaining candidates are entering the homestretch in the OPA Board of Directors election.
Ballots, mailed to Ocean Pines property owners on July 3, are due by Thursday, Aug. 7. The two candidates with the most votes earn three-year terms on the Board. The Ocean Pines Association will announce election results during their annual meeting on Saturday, Aug. 9 at 10 a.m. at the Community Center.
Incumbents Jeff Knepper and Terri Mohr face challenges from David Stevens, Pat Renaud and Lawrence Lee.
After the OPA announced candidates on May 20, the challengers immediately hammered the current Board and General Manager Bob Thompson on issues ranging from alleged “cronyism” to bloated contracts for town employees. Two challengers, Slobodan Trendic and Dan Moul, dropped out of race early.
Knepper, for his part, defended his actions and those of the sitting Board of Directors.
“There are many things right with the BOD,” he said. “There is great diversity of backgrounds and experience of the Board members. We have people with experience or current expertise in banking, telecommunications, real estate, building and development, law enforcement, technology and medical practice management. These combine to give the Board broad experience in handling a wide variety of issues that arise. In addition, in my experience every single Board member has their view of the best interests of the members of the Ocean Pines Association at heart. Although we have disagreements from time to time, we can usually resolve them one way or another. Board members put a lot of time and effort into performing their jobs.”
Knepper admitted the Board is sometimes “more loose with our meeting deadlines and following procedures” than he would prefer.
“I have tightened a little bit of that up, but we can do even better,” he said. “Meeting deadlines and tightening procedures should reduce the arguments that inevitably come from missing them.”
Knepper also defended Thompson’s controversial contract, which he did most of the work on, soliciting suggestions from other organizations, writing letters, making phone calls and researching salaries on the internet.
“In looking back we learned that it was a long time – if ever – since OPA studied the question of what the job of OPA General Manager is worth, so the Board’s Compensation Committee decided to do that,” he said. “We could have contracted that work out at a substantial cost –Ocean City decided this past March to do a salary study for $50,000. Instead, we decided not to spend OPA money on that, but to do the work ourselves.”
Nine comparable organizations sent Knepper detailed information on their salary structure “focusing on the demographics, responsibilities and compensation of their leaders,” he said. Knepper summarized all of the data he obtained and presented his findings to the Board.
“From the nine we settled on Montgomery Village as the most like Ocean Pines,” he said. “While there are certainly differences between OP and MV, the data says they are enough alike to validly compare one to the other. I then adjusted the MV leader’s salary to the equivalent as if he had the same responsibilities as the GM here. A few examples of the adjustment include the fact that MV has more Community Centers and Pools than OP, so I adjusted for that.”
Knepper noted the Montgomery Village director is not responsible for police or public works.
“The bottom line is that on a same responsibility basis as our GM, the MV leader’s base salary should be $189,500,” he said. “We offered our GM substantially less than that.”
Mohr also served on the committee that developed the draft of the contract.
“There were three people involved in the development of this draft including Jeff Knepper, Tom Terry and myself,” she said. “Our backgrounds in contracting are very different and diverse but quite extensive.”
Mohr believes most criticism of the contract is superficial.
“I have not heard anyone talk about what the actual job entails, only that the salary is too high,” she said. “I outlined the GM position in terms of hours per week, number of employees, number of departments to manage, etc. I stand by my decision and believe that anyone in that position with the current level of responsibility should be provided that salary with the bonus opportunities presented.”
The incumbent also deflected the idea that the current Board is contentious.
“I have … elected to stay true to my core values with a willingness to do my job to the best of my ability with an open mind and a voice of reason,” she said. “I will continue in this manner if re-elected. I will continue to work with the members of the Board, General Manager and membership to assure that Ocean Pines remains one of the best communities in which to ‘Live, Work and Play.’”
Stevens said he believed the current Board had good intentions and that he mostly shared their vision for the future, although he disagreed with their process.
“The regular meeting on July 23 illustrates this vividly,” he said. “A meeting in which the Board was supposed to discuss issues and make decisions was instead dominated by an over 90-minute GM report which was not provided to the Board in advance. It included issues that should have been announced in the agenda rather than embedded in a verbal report. The validity of what it contained was at a minimum open to dispute and in places self-contradictory. Moreover, the information only further confused the issues and, as evidenced by the Board’s need to call a special meeting less than a week later, did not support any decision. The current Board’s predilection for allowing the GM to take over their own meetings is systemic and very, very wrong.”
Stevens called the divisive GM contract “unfavorable to Ocean Pines,” and said it was important now to hold Thompson accountable for the contract’s responsibilities. A former Board member, the candidate did not think the contentious election would hamper his ability to work with the current Board, although he still took shots at their direction.
“I believe that the use – or misuse – of reserves is extremely important and must be addressed by the next Board,” he said. “It is a complex and not widely understood issue that really can’t be adequately discussed with three-minute sound bites.”
Stevens pointed to a July 26 meeting when Board members asked how replacement reserves could fund a new pickleball court.
“The GM’s answer was something to the effect that outside accountants advised that this could be done,” he said. “This is not the first time that ‘accounting principles’ have been used to circumvent the clear intent of our bylaws and resolutions. The result has been to turn our replacement reserves into a very large slush fund that can (be) borrowed from at will or spent on anything that the GM and a compliant Board chooses.”
Renaud also objected to current Board procedure, citing the pickleball debate.
“Having attended the last few meetings the word ‘control’ keeps coming to mind,” he said. “In the last meeting the battle raged between the OPTC, the BOD and the OPPTA over what should be built first, the pickleball courts or the platform tennis courts. Finally after an hour Terry puts it on a special agenda, where it belonged at least an hour before it was put there.
“The bridge club issue was another debacle where the questions were never answered as to why they were moved from two of their 52 weeks and what alternatives were explored – evidently none,” Renaud continued. “Finally, there was the Battersea debacle with each speaker becoming more emotional than the preceding speaker; there needs to be a better control of time no matter how emotional the issues become. When speaker after speaker gets up and says the same thing as the previous speaker, there needs to be a definite cutoff and referral to one of the Advisory Committees. I left at 6 p.m. having seen enough.”
Renaud called the GM contract “too expensive for our community.”
“I thought that we could have gotten by with either a raise on base salary or an incentive bonus, not both,” he said. “Legally I don’t know if we can do anything to affect the current contract except to terminate it. I am not advocating termination, but I am in favor of making sure any bonuses are fairly earned.”
Stevens and Renaud allied themselves during the race, advocating their dual candidacy as a voting block alternative to the current Board.
“If either Dave Stevens or myself are not elected the board will not change and the current thinking will remain the same,” he said. “If both of us are elected positive changes will be made.”
Lee, on the other hand, is running as “an independent candidate and a dedicated centrist who will side on issues that best protects the landowners of Ocean Pines interests.”
He accused the current board of jumping to achieve “showy results” without following a well-defined plan, citing the yacht club as an example of a rushed project. Lee advocated the Board freeze incentive bonuses on Thompson’s contact.
Ballots, mailed to Ocean Pines property owners on July 3, are due by Thursday, Aug. 7. The two candidates with the most votes earn three-year terms on the Board. The Ocean Pines Association will announce election results during their annual meeting on Saturday, Aug. 9 at 10 a.m. at the Community Center.
Incumbents Jeff Knepper and Terri Mohr face challenges from David Stevens, Pat Renaud and Lawrence Lee.
After the OPA announced candidates on May 20, the challengers immediately hammered the current Board and General Manager Bob Thompson on issues ranging from alleged “cronyism” to bloated contracts for town employees. Two challengers, Slobodan Trendic and Dan Moul, dropped out of race early.
Knepper, for his part, defended his actions and those of the sitting Board of Directors.
“There are many things right with the BOD,” he said. “There is great diversity of backgrounds and experience of the Board members. We have people with experience or current expertise in banking, telecommunications, real estate, building and development, law enforcement, technology and medical practice management. These combine to give the Board broad experience in handling a wide variety of issues that arise. In addition, in my experience every single Board member has their view of the best interests of the members of the Ocean Pines Association at heart. Although we have disagreements from time to time, we can usually resolve them one way or another. Board members put a lot of time and effort into performing their jobs.”
Knepper admitted the Board is sometimes “more loose with our meeting deadlines and following procedures” than he would prefer.
“I have tightened a little bit of that up, but we can do even better,” he said. “Meeting deadlines and tightening procedures should reduce the arguments that inevitably come from missing them.”
Knepper also defended Thompson’s controversial contract, which he did most of the work on, soliciting suggestions from other organizations, writing letters, making phone calls and researching salaries on the internet.
“In looking back we learned that it was a long time – if ever – since OPA studied the question of what the job of OPA General Manager is worth, so the Board’s Compensation Committee decided to do that,” he said. “We could have contracted that work out at a substantial cost –Ocean City decided this past March to do a salary study for $50,000. Instead, we decided not to spend OPA money on that, but to do the work ourselves.”
Nine comparable organizations sent Knepper detailed information on their salary structure “focusing on the demographics, responsibilities and compensation of their leaders,” he said. Knepper summarized all of the data he obtained and presented his findings to the Board.
“From the nine we settled on Montgomery Village as the most like Ocean Pines,” he said. “While there are certainly differences between OP and MV, the data says they are enough alike to validly compare one to the other. I then adjusted the MV leader’s salary to the equivalent as if he had the same responsibilities as the GM here. A few examples of the adjustment include the fact that MV has more Community Centers and Pools than OP, so I adjusted for that.”
Knepper noted the Montgomery Village director is not responsible for police or public works.
“The bottom line is that on a same responsibility basis as our GM, the MV leader’s base salary should be $189,500,” he said. “We offered our GM substantially less than that.”
Mohr also served on the committee that developed the draft of the contract.
“There were three people involved in the development of this draft including Jeff Knepper, Tom Terry and myself,” she said. “Our backgrounds in contracting are very different and diverse but quite extensive.”
Mohr believes most criticism of the contract is superficial.
“I have not heard anyone talk about what the actual job entails, only that the salary is too high,” she said. “I outlined the GM position in terms of hours per week, number of employees, number of departments to manage, etc. I stand by my decision and believe that anyone in that position with the current level of responsibility should be provided that salary with the bonus opportunities presented.”
The incumbent also deflected the idea that the current Board is contentious.
“I have … elected to stay true to my core values with a willingness to do my job to the best of my ability with an open mind and a voice of reason,” she said. “I will continue in this manner if re-elected. I will continue to work with the members of the Board, General Manager and membership to assure that Ocean Pines remains one of the best communities in which to ‘Live, Work and Play.’”
Stevens said he believed the current Board had good intentions and that he mostly shared their vision for the future, although he disagreed with their process.
“The regular meeting on July 23 illustrates this vividly,” he said. “A meeting in which the Board was supposed to discuss issues and make decisions was instead dominated by an over 90-minute GM report which was not provided to the Board in advance. It included issues that should have been announced in the agenda rather than embedded in a verbal report. The validity of what it contained was at a minimum open to dispute and in places self-contradictory. Moreover, the information only further confused the issues and, as evidenced by the Board’s need to call a special meeting less than a week later, did not support any decision. The current Board’s predilection for allowing the GM to take over their own meetings is systemic and very, very wrong.”
Stevens called the divisive GM contract “unfavorable to Ocean Pines,” and said it was important now to hold Thompson accountable for the contract’s responsibilities. A former Board member, the candidate did not think the contentious election would hamper his ability to work with the current Board, although he still took shots at their direction.
“I believe that the use – or misuse – of reserves is extremely important and must be addressed by the next Board,” he said. “It is a complex and not widely understood issue that really can’t be adequately discussed with three-minute sound bites.”
Stevens pointed to a July 26 meeting when Board members asked how replacement reserves could fund a new pickleball court.
“The GM’s answer was something to the effect that outside accountants advised that this could be done,” he said. “This is not the first time that ‘accounting principles’ have been used to circumvent the clear intent of our bylaws and resolutions. The result has been to turn our replacement reserves into a very large slush fund that can (be) borrowed from at will or spent on anything that the GM and a compliant Board chooses.”
Renaud also objected to current Board procedure, citing the pickleball debate.
“Having attended the last few meetings the word ‘control’ keeps coming to mind,” he said. “In the last meeting the battle raged between the OPTC, the BOD and the OPPTA over what should be built first, the pickleball courts or the platform tennis courts. Finally after an hour Terry puts it on a special agenda, where it belonged at least an hour before it was put there.
“The bridge club issue was another debacle where the questions were never answered as to why they were moved from two of their 52 weeks and what alternatives were explored – evidently none,” Renaud continued. “Finally, there was the Battersea debacle with each speaker becoming more emotional than the preceding speaker; there needs to be a better control of time no matter how emotional the issues become. When speaker after speaker gets up and says the same thing as the previous speaker, there needs to be a definite cutoff and referral to one of the Advisory Committees. I left at 6 p.m. having seen enough.”
Renaud called the GM contract “too expensive for our community.”
“I thought that we could have gotten by with either a raise on base salary or an incentive bonus, not both,” he said. “Legally I don’t know if we can do anything to affect the current contract except to terminate it. I am not advocating termination, but I am in favor of making sure any bonuses are fairly earned.”
Stevens and Renaud allied themselves during the race, advocating their dual candidacy as a voting block alternative to the current Board.
“If either Dave Stevens or myself are not elected the board will not change and the current thinking will remain the same,” he said. “If both of us are elected positive changes will be made.”
Lee, on the other hand, is running as “an independent candidate and a dedicated centrist who will side on issues that best protects the landowners of Ocean Pines interests.”
He accused the current board of jumping to achieve “showy results” without following a well-defined plan, citing the yacht club as an example of a rushed project. Lee advocated the Board freeze incentive bonuses on Thompson’s contact.