The Ocean Pines Bylaws and Resolutions Committee last week came to the consensus that lingering controversies about the association search committee had already been addressed.

By Josh Davis, Associate Editor

(May 10, 2018) Asked to review a segment of Resolution M-09, governing the search committee, members of the Ocean Pines Bylaws and Resolutions Committee last Friday determined the issue already had been discussed at length.

The Ocean Pines Board, on April 28, held a first reading on an updated version of M-09 and one director, Tom Herrick, asked for clarification about a passage including reference to a “confidential list of the people contacted” by the committee.

The search committee each year is charged with recruiting candidates for board of directors’ elections.

“Questions arose whether this confidential list is comprised in a closed meeting and also, by doing so, does it hinder full disclosure that the committee is properly fulfilling its role,” Board President Doug Parks said in an email to the committee.

Committee member Jim Trummel said the board, on Feb. 5, 2014, “considered this issue, in particular the confidential list and privacy regarding applicants and candidates in a … segment of that meeting that lasted for approximately 50 minutes.”

Trummel said he was present during the meeting.

“[The confidential list] was discussed in considerable detail. The board of directors knew every possible thing it needed to know about this issue and decided on what’s in the current resolution,” he said. “At the risk of being short about it, you cannot know the history very well unless you go back and look at that video.

“The short answer really is, the board knew exactly what it was doing,” Trummel added.

According to meeting minutes from Feb. 5, 2014, Trummel at the time said the resolution draft “fits the needs of the community and fulfills their expectation.” The minutes also state then association attorney Joe Moore said the committee could keep names of potential candidates private because it was a personnel issue and “any organization with memberships is considered personnel.”

“If Director Herrick needs background, sit at his computer … and look at the video of that meeting,” Trummel said last Friday.

The group also discussed a reference to “secretary” in Resolution M-09, which caused some controversy last year when Herrick, then the search committee liaison, delivered names of candidates who filed out applications to the general manager’s executive secretary, Michelle Bennett, instead of then association secretary Slobodan Trendic. The “secretary,” according to the resolution, is responsible for determining candidate eligibility.

“I reject that comment entirely,” Trummel said. “There is no question in the resolution as to what secretary is being talked about – period. It’s not Michelle Bennett.

“The resolution is abundantly clear – abundantly clear – that the eligibility is determined by [the association secretary], which today would be Colette Horn,” he added.

Committee Chairman Marty Clarke said he would reply to Herrick’s questions in an email.

“‘Tom, everything you’re asking has been asked and answered,’” Clarke said. “‘I, personally, don’t agree with the use of confidential lists, however, the board does and the board’s council signed off on it.’

“I’m sending the letter. It’s going to go out today,” he continued. “I may add, ‘I don’t know about my committee members, but I am sick and tired of talking about the search committee.’”