Pines committees: to be or not to be?

Whether Ocean Pines Association Board of Directors member Jeff Heavner is making the right call as he seeks the dissolution of most of the OPA’s advisory committees is open to discussion. And that’s how it should remain for now — all discussion and no decision, because this could get awkward and, possibly, ugly.

The argument for the continuation of the committee system is simple: board members and the administration can’t be everywhere and can’t see everything, which is where a committee assigned specific tasks in a specific area of OPA business, services and products would be helpful. They can observe and make recommendations to the board based on what they see and hear.

But then there is Heavner’s point: a committee without a regular job to do will find or create its own work, which may not coincide with what the directors want to do.

That can be as much of a problem for the board and management as a failing or fumbling amenity, except that it compounds the difficulty the board must overcome:  instead of just one challenge to deal with, the board ends up with two: figuring out how to fix what’s broken and reining in a committee that’s sees itself not as an advisory body but as an independent agency or advocate with its own agenda.

The real question here is how many managers does the OPA need? The one who is paid to run the association and to advise the board on all aspects of the community, or volunteer managers who might see things differently?

If Heavner does move to eliminate all but a handful of committees, the other members risk entering a public relations minefield by alienating many volunteers who believe in their missions. On the other hand, a vote of confidence in the committees invites those with little to do to justify their positions by making work for themselves.

Faced with this unpleasant situation, the board should opt to assess the value and contribution of each committee one at a time and then act if members deem it necessary.