(Feb. 4, 2016) OPA Director Tom Herrick’s motion last Thursday to explore alternative options to its current general manager system, including employing an outside firm to manage the association, generated more debate than it did support.
Roughly half the directors saw the motion as a slight to current General Manager Bob Thompson, while the other board members claimed it was merely intended as a tool to gather information – a phrase that was used repeatedly.
Thompson’s contract is up for review in April, and Herrick said the association needed to protect itself should he decided to seek employment elsewhere.
According to Herrick, two years ago Thompson told him that “if two certain individuals were selected to the board, he would leave.”
“That was alarming to me,” Herrick said. “It alarmed me enough to say, is our association prepared?
“All I’m asking for is information at no cost to the association,” Herrick continued. “Any information is a benefit to the board. Why any board member would want to turn a blind eye to information and just rubber stamp one of the options in the contract without exploring the other options – I don’t understand that.”
Dave Stevens agreed.
“This motion is to get information,” he said. “It’s something that’s in our bylaws as an option, and something to the best of my knowledge we’ve never fully explored,” Stevens said. “There is uncertainty in the future, and I’ve seen that uncertainty. I’ve lived through it. I’ve seen one general manager fired abruptly and without notice, so I’ve lived through this.
“There is uncertainty, and what Tom’s proposal will do is get information that will help the association reduce that uncertainty,” Stevens continued. “It’s simply about getting information about another option of management that’s available to us.”
Bill Cordwell defended Thompson’s accomplishments, citing his work in developing the budget, the recent Sandpiper accord, and negotiations related to the building of the yacht club that Cordwell said saved the association $100,000.
“This is another attempt to circumvent, and let’s go after the general manager and see if we can get him to leave. That’s my opinion,” Cordwell said. “To change the entire premise of what this community has done for 40 years – since its inception – in a motion here I think is ridiculous.”
Tom Terry said the motion was just the latest of “a thousand small slices” meant to force Thompson out.
“In my opinion this motion is nothing more than another one of those 1,000 slices where we as a community, for some unknown reason, seem to want to make sport of constantly snipping away and hacking away at our administration,” he said.
“The reality is general managers have a right to leave at any time they wish, and the board of directors has the right to fire a general manager any time they want,” Terry continued. “This is nothing more than another attempt at creating another opportunity for, ‘what am I going to run on next summer?’”
For six years, Terry said, he has witnessed “the constant, ongoing snipping” by the board of directors, aimed at both the general manager and his staff. Herrick’s motion, he said, not only threatened Thompson’s job, but the jobs of “possibly all of the employees of Ocean Pines,” who could all be victims of outsourcing.
“Do we have a good record of outsourcing anything around here?” Terry said. “Obviously I’m not going to vote for this motion for many reasons, not the least of which is I think it just adds to the constant upheaval that this community constantly has to live [with].”
Vice President Cheryl Jacobs said the entire debate should have played out during a closed session, and suggested one of Herrick’s main premises was faulty.
“If the basis of your motion … is that you believe that the general manager is going to take advantage of his options and not renew his contract – have you spoken with him? What do you base that on?” she said.
She went on to call Herrick’s motion “trumped up.”
“Something lives in this community that feels the need to always have negativity,” she said. “I’m disappointed in the fact that this motion has been put before us, and I will definitely vote against it. If you have problems with the GM and you have some idea that you want to get rid of him, then we’ll deal with this in a closed session, which is the appropriate venue.”
Herrick fought back, again saying the motion was intended to gather information, and that it simply gave the board some leeway.
“The renewal notification gives the board options. To not explore those options is doing a disservice to the community,” Herrick said. “All this is, is asking for information – and nothing more.”
“I’d like to believe you are so altruistic,” Jacobs said. “I have my doubts.”
President Pat Renaud said he agreed the motion should have been discussed during a closed session, and that he suggested as much to Herrick before the meeting. Herrick insisted the debate be made public.
Renaud also said he had spoken to Thompson more recently, and that he was assured Thompson wanted to remain in Ocean Pines.
Ironically, the entire debate followed Renaud’s comments during the start of the session, when he called for civility during his opening remarks.
In the end, Herrick, Stevens and Jack Collins voted for the motion, while Renaud, Jacobs, Cordwell and Terry voted “no.”
Roughly half the directors saw the motion as a slight to current General Manager Bob Thompson, while the other board members claimed it was merely intended as a tool to gather information – a phrase that was used repeatedly.
Thompson’s contract is up for review in April, and Herrick said the association needed to protect itself should he decided to seek employment elsewhere.
According to Herrick, two years ago Thompson told him that “if two certain individuals were selected to the board, he would leave.”
“That was alarming to me,” Herrick said. “It alarmed me enough to say, is our association prepared?
“All I’m asking for is information at no cost to the association,” Herrick continued. “Any information is a benefit to the board. Why any board member would want to turn a blind eye to information and just rubber stamp one of the options in the contract without exploring the other options – I don’t understand that.”
Dave Stevens agreed.
“This motion is to get information,” he said. “It’s something that’s in our bylaws as an option, and something to the best of my knowledge we’ve never fully explored,” Stevens said. “There is uncertainty in the future, and I’ve seen that uncertainty. I’ve lived through it. I’ve seen one general manager fired abruptly and without notice, so I’ve lived through this.
“There is uncertainty, and what Tom’s proposal will do is get information that will help the association reduce that uncertainty,” Stevens continued. “It’s simply about getting information about another option of management that’s available to us.”
Bill Cordwell defended Thompson’s accomplishments, citing his work in developing the budget, the recent Sandpiper accord, and negotiations related to the building of the yacht club that Cordwell said saved the association $100,000.
“This is another attempt to circumvent, and let’s go after the general manager and see if we can get him to leave. That’s my opinion,” Cordwell said. “To change the entire premise of what this community has done for 40 years – since its inception – in a motion here I think is ridiculous.”
Tom Terry said the motion was just the latest of “a thousand small slices” meant to force Thompson out.
“In my opinion this motion is nothing more than another one of those 1,000 slices where we as a community, for some unknown reason, seem to want to make sport of constantly snipping away and hacking away at our administration,” he said.
“The reality is general managers have a right to leave at any time they wish, and the board of directors has the right to fire a general manager any time they want,” Terry continued. “This is nothing more than another attempt at creating another opportunity for, ‘what am I going to run on next summer?’”
For six years, Terry said, he has witnessed “the constant, ongoing snipping” by the board of directors, aimed at both the general manager and his staff. Herrick’s motion, he said, not only threatened Thompson’s job, but the jobs of “possibly all of the employees of Ocean Pines,” who could all be victims of outsourcing.
“Do we have a good record of outsourcing anything around here?” Terry said. “Obviously I’m not going to vote for this motion for many reasons, not the least of which is I think it just adds to the constant upheaval that this community constantly has to live [with].”
Vice President Cheryl Jacobs said the entire debate should have played out during a closed session, and suggested one of Herrick’s main premises was faulty.
“If the basis of your motion … is that you believe that the general manager is going to take advantage of his options and not renew his contract – have you spoken with him? What do you base that on?” she said.
She went on to call Herrick’s motion “trumped up.”
“Something lives in this community that feels the need to always have negativity,” she said. “I’m disappointed in the fact that this motion has been put before us, and I will definitely vote against it. If you have problems with the GM and you have some idea that you want to get rid of him, then we’ll deal with this in a closed session, which is the appropriate venue.”
Herrick fought back, again saying the motion was intended to gather information, and that it simply gave the board some leeway.
“The renewal notification gives the board options. To not explore those options is doing a disservice to the community,” Herrick said. “All this is, is asking for information – and nothing more.”
“I’d like to believe you are so altruistic,” Jacobs said. “I have my doubts.”
President Pat Renaud said he agreed the motion should have been discussed during a closed session, and that he suggested as much to Herrick before the meeting. Herrick insisted the debate be made public.
Renaud also said he had spoken to Thompson more recently, and that he was assured Thompson wanted to remain in Ocean Pines.
Ironically, the entire debate followed Renaud’s comments during the start of the session, when he called for civility during his opening remarks.
In the end, Herrick, Stevens and Jack Collins voted for the motion, while Renaud, Jacobs, Cordwell and Terry voted “no.”