Related work group status discussed during virtual meeting held last Friday

By Greg Ellison

(March 11, 2021) The Ocean Pines Bylaws and Resolutions Committee last Friday dove into the multiple updates to association governing documents that have been pending.

Committee Chairman Jim Trummel said a related bylaws work group held its most recent meeting the day before.

In addition to Trummel, the work group includes Directors Doug Parks, Camilla Rogers and Communications Committee member Jenny Cropper Rines.

To this point, the review group has assessed the first five bylaws sections, including details for membership, voting, meeting requirements, petitions, referendums and specifics relating to the board of directors.

“That’s basically the meat of the bylaws from the standpoint of the kind of review we’re doing now,” he said.

Trummel said the sections yet to be reviewed — association officers, corporate records, finance, operations, administration, advisory boards/committees and amendment processes — would be less likely to generate proposals for change.

Trummel said Parks emailed members a summarized list of the work group’s proposed bylaws tweaks last Thursday.

“Once I get it, I will send it out to our bylaws committee members,” he said.

Trummel said the bylaws committee would likely examine the work groups’ suggestions at its next meeting

Bylaws Committee member Bob Hillegass asked if the work group would provide a red-lined version of governance documents highlighting potential amendments.

Trummel said the work group report would be reviewed by Bylaws Committee members for input before suggestions are sent for board consideration.

“We can expect to see suggested wording,” he said.

Outside of the work group discussions, other resolutions gaining recent attention include M-06 that involves elections and referendums.

Trummel said following an earlier Bylaws Committee discussion, the Ocean Pines Elections Committee on Feb. 12 mulled potential updates for M-06.

The issues at play include duplicate ballots and soliciting additional board candidates.

Trummel noted there was a discrepancy with resolution mandates and ballot receipt procedures during the most recent board contest.

“I’m not quite sure that there was an understanding that there’s a conflict with how duplicate ballots were accounted for or precluded,” he said.

Another conflicting interpretation involves M-06 timelines for soliciting board candidates.

“There was a difference between how the board publicized the need for additional candidates and when the cutoff date was,” he said.

The bylaws work group also vetted the deadline issue last week, Trummel said.

“The bylaws group understanding is that the M-06 provision of the third Friday in June being the cutoff was the proper interpretation,” he said.

Trummel said whether to publicize the need for further board candidates to meet the required number is the board’s purview.

“It will be the responsibility of the board to accurately state the cutoff date when an announcement is made,” he said.

Trummel said Elections Committee members also concluded the M-06 requirement to alert residents more board candidates are needed by the third Friday in June should be followed.

“At this point and time … the resolution stands as it is and it’s expected to be followed,” he said.

Shifting gears, Trummel highlighted previously discussed updates to F-02 concerning annual budget development, F-03 reserve accounts and F-04 delinquent assessments collections.

Trummel said an email would be sent to board liaison Camilla Rogers to confirm the F-series resolutions discussed at the Bylaws Committee meeting last month were intended as action items for consideration by Directors.

“I think it’s important that we maintain the integrity of the resolutions and just don’t let them slide and be ignored,” he said.