Current and past OP Board members question reasons for candidate rule updates

By Greg Ellison

(Feb. 10, 2022) “Vindictive” and “egregious” were a few of the frequent adjectives included in the criticisms leveled on Monday morning during a special meeting of the Ocean Pines Board of Directors to review more than 30 proposed bylaws changes being finalized for an eventual referendum.

Among the list of language revisions were a number of suggestions from Director Frank Daly that involved board candidate requirements and verification processes. These were largely developed after Circuit Court Judge Sidney Campen ruled against the Ocean Pines Association’s decision to disqualify candidate Rick Farr midway through the 2021 election.

Daly recommended prohibiting  anyone with a felony conviction within 10 years of the filing date from running for director, while also proposing to ban their spouses from running as well.

Further, Daly recommended that if a director or the director’s spouse committed a felony, that would be grounds for the director’s removal from the board.

Lastly, Daly proposed instituting a three-year residency requirement for board candidates, including an exemption for serving one year on an advisory committee.

Regardless of the meeting convening at 8 a.m. a deluge of public comments poured in questioning Daly’s revisions.

Bob Schwartz said lumping in spouses convicted of a felony to prohibit board candidates would likely be challenged in court.

“It really smells funny,” he said.

Former Director Tom Janasek said the candidate qualification changes would introduce undue restrictions.

“I find it egregious to go after a spouse,” he said. “We already have a hard time getting board members.”

Janasek argued that the current board, which includes appointed members Amy Peck and Josette Wheatley, should refrain from pushing the bylaw changes for a quick referendum vote.

“The public did not vote two of these members on,” he said.

Peck and Wheatley were appointed in October following the resignations of Janasek and Camilla Rogers.

“These changes … seem vindictive and like you’re just trying to get back at the judge’s decision,” he said.

For his part, Daly acknowledged the Farr litigation resulted in the court issuing a 45-page decision that largely rebuked the associations’ actions.

“That court case showed us we had serious flaws in our bylaws,” he said.

While Farr was disqualified by then association secretary Rogers in late July after an anonymous tip questioned property ownership status, Daly noted under current bylaws comparable scenarios could arise if a candidate died while campaigning or owned property tied to a partnership of LLC.

“What we’re trying to correct is known flaws pointed out to us by the court,” he said.

Despite the eventual court decisions favoring Farr, who was subsequently seated on the board after receiving the most votes, Daly defended the association’s legal actions.

“At all times every decision was made under the guidance of counsel based on the rules that existed,” he said.

Janasek rebutted Daly’s assertion, noting association lawyer Jeremy Tucker had advised against several board decisions tied to the Worcester Circuit Court case.

“He told us not to have a re-election,” he said. “He told us not to do some of the things that we did anyway.”

Director Doug Parks said the 30-odd bylaws updates included, in addition to Daly’s proposals, a host of revisions recommended by a work group formed last year.

In addition to Parks, work group members included Bylaws and Resolutions Committee Chair Jim Trummel, Jenny Cropper-Rines and Rogers.

“Our charter was to propose changes to the bylaws,” he said. “We disbanded our work group by design and handed the changes to the Bylaws Committee.”

Parks said the work group addressed wording changes to standardize terminology, as opposed to candidate eligibility or policy changes.

“There are issues that are policy changes that need to be understood and the community educated on prior to voting,” he said.

Parks said bylaws updates should be fully reviewed before a referendum is held.

“What I don’t share with my board colleagues is a sense of urgency that it needs to be done right away,” he said. “We need to give this due process.”

Debbie Bloom concurred with Janasek and Parks that the revisions concerning candidate requirements were being rushed.

“I was in court and I heard the judge say, ‘Do the right thing,’” she said.

Bloom proposed breaking out the updates into separate packages.

“Do what the committee’s been working on for over a year but let’s not rush on the issues that we had with the court case,” she said. “It is vindictive.”

Association President Colette Horn suggested there was a split between perception and reality regarding the bylaws changes.

“It may feel like we’re rushing, but the board and Bylaws Committee have talked about a lot of this for a long time,” she said.

In light of the critical feedback, Daly withdrew the spouse felony inclusion, while also agreeing to amend the 10-year span for prohibiting board candidates with felony convictions to five years after restitution and probation are completed.

Daly also withdrew the three-year residency requirement for board candidates.