By Greg Ellison

Staff Writer

(Oct. 17, 2019) The methods used to confirm election results were discussed during the Ocean Pines Bylaws and Resolutions Committee meeting on Oct. 4.

Committee chairman Jim Trummel said Board of Directors President Doug Parks recently broached the subject of elections validation.

“This doesn’t have to be settled in one meeting,” he said. “Any urgency really is not there until we approach the annual meeting.”

Trummel said the goal is to resolve any uncertainty regarding the meaning of “validate” in the OPA bylaws.

Committee member Jeff Knepper said the validation process is relatively simple and assures a proper election was conducted.

“We have to have a process to review an election and make sure that things were done correctly [and] that the result of the count represents what the election actually said,” he said.

After examining election procedures to confirm the contest was conducted above board, the results are validated, in essence, Knepper said.

“When you’ve gone through that process, you have validated the election process,” he said. “The reason we need to do that is to make sure that idiots like me don’t run an election on the side and sit back and scream we elected the officers and they’re different than the people that are there.”

Committee member Audrey Wahl said the recent OPA election results could not be validated at the annual homeowners meeting as prescribed since membership attendance did not comprise a quorum of eligible voters.

Knepper said the OPA governing documents provide an alternative.

“When you don’t have a quorum you hold another meeting,” he said.

Trummel said if election results are not validated at the annual meeting, the board of directors takes the reins to confirm final outcomes.

“The question is what does validate mean and literally how do you do it,” he said. “The thing it boils down to is there a vote taken at the annual meeting.”

Knepper said the term validate is not explicitly defined in the OPA bylaws.

Wahl said confirmation of vote totals would validate results.

“My understanding was once it was announced at the annual meeting, that itself was the validation,” she said.

Knepper said post-election results are largely not referenced in the bylaws.

“The only expression in the bylaws that is post-election results is that the board can entertain and resolve a request for recount,” he said.

Wahl asked if a precise definition of validate is required.

Trummel said the process provided for at the annual meeting should suffice to certify vote counts.

“It’s the announcement of the results and entry … into the meeting minutes that is what consists of a validation,” he said.

Meeting minutes become part of the OPA official records, Trummel said.

“If you look at the concept of what members can do at the annual meeting in the bylaws, you can’t do anything of any consequence unless all the members have the opportunity to literally vote,” he said.

At present, the only post-election action the board can exercise involves a recount, and Trummel expressed hesitation with expanding oversight.

“I’m not willing to give an implied or inherent power to the board which could somehow undo those results,” he said.

Trummel suggested the Election Committee could amend resolution M-06, which addresses elections and referendums, to include language mandating election validation results be filed with meeting minutes.

Committee member Bob Hillegass asked if only 40 percent of eligible voters return ballots does that raise concerns that a portion of the remaining majority never received election materials.

Knepper said the process is being validated not the percentage of participation.

“I don’t think that anybody expects that unless 100 percent of the ballots come back the election is void,” he said. “There are a few that always go astray.”

Assuring election processes are reasonable and fair is the goal, Knepper said.

“At the core of it, that’s what we’re looking at,” he said. “Was the election conducted by the right people [and] conducted in reasonable way.”

Wahl said added clarity to M-06 seems appropriate.

“It has to be clear you’re not validating who won, it’s the process,” she said.

Knepper agreed that process-related questions are not tied to the candidate pool.

“We should care was the process fair [and] did we send out ballots to all the right people,” he said. “Those are process questions and they don’t go to who won or lost.”

Knepper also echoed Trummel’s sentiment to propose the Election Committee tweak M-06 to include language concerning validation of results.

“We recommend that the Election Committee consider defining the term validate for insertion into the bylaws at an appropriate time,” he said.

Trummel said short of receiving vote totals, the board has limited authority related to elections.

“Unless you look at the board having an inherent authority,” he said. “All you’re doing is putting it in the official records of the association. That’s what I look at the validation to be.”

Hillegass concurred the boards election purview is limited.

“The authority of the board is to make sure elections are conducted fairly and equitably,” he said.

Knepper suggested the principal language addition required for M-06 would be defining validation.

“All we need to do with the board is say don’t vote … listen to what’s presented to you and smile politely,” he said.