Court still has to decide whether Farr was legally denied right to seek office

By Greg Ellison

(Sept. 30, 2021) Following a delayed motion hearing on Monday in Worcester Circuit Court for board candidate Rick Farr’s lawsuit against Ocean Pines, the Ocean Pines Association Board of Directors scheduled a special meeting today (Thursday) at 3 p.m. to consider whether to hold a new election.

On Tuesday, the directors announced a meeting would be held on Sept. 30 at the Golf Clubhouse to vote on rescinding an earlier motion to count election results and to conduct a new election … without Farr on the ballot.

The motion to authorize an election redo would limit the field to three candidates already deemed eligible — Frank Daly, Stuart Lakernick and David Hardy.

The new motion under consideration today seeks to remedy concerns raised after Farr, who was initially approved to run by Ocean Pines Board member and Secretary Camilla Rogers on May 11, was deemed ineligible on July 27 after ballots had been distributed.

“The Ocean Pines community has made it clear to several board members that they want their two votes to count,” the proposed motion states. “Holding a new election of the three eligible candidates will give the … community a chance to vote again with two valid votes.”

Although a temporary restraining order requested by Farr’s attorney Bruce Bright was initially approved on Aug. 11, Judge Sidney Campen allowed it to expire during an injunction hearing on Aug. 30.

At that time, Campen based the decision on the premise of holding a motion hearing in short order.

After opting to hold off ballot counts until the motion hearing on Sept. 27, seeing that no action was taken this week, the directors decided to proceed.

The new motion introduced by Association President Larry Perrone states, “The board is free to continue the business of running OPA and conducting a new election where all members can vote on the 3 eligible candidates.”

During court proceedings on Monday, association lawyer Anthony Dwyer said that a revised motion to dismiss had recently been filed by his client.

Campen noted the issues at play had not changed.

Bright said the associations’ second motion to dismiss was filed within the last week.

“We haven’t filed our response to the second motion to dismiss,” he said.

Dwyer said the case was not sufficiently developed for the court to issue a summary judgment.

Campen suggested counsels should have conferred last week prior to the hearing.

“We’re clearly not ready to go forward with the motion to dismiss and you haven’t had an opportunity to respond,” he said.

Bright agreed that both sides should expedite the matter and build in a future hearing date.

“Counsel and I should confer on an overall schedule,” he said.

Campen said after both lawyers confer, a motion hearing could be scheduled at the conclusion of the discovery phase.

Following the hearing on Monday, Campen issued an order stating that a preliminary injunction request from Farr had previously been denied and that all ballots should be maintained and preserved by the Ocean Pines Elections Committee.

“It is also ordered that the entire ballot count shall be preserved insofar as ballots in favor of the plaintiff may be relevant in final determination of the matter,” Campen wrote.