By Tara Fischer

Staff Writer

The incumbent MK Election Services from Pittsburgh will handle the Ocean Pines Association’s 2025 Board of Directors Election, per a board vote at last week’s special meeting.

At a special board meeting on Friday, May 2, the OPA board chose MK Election Services, the vendor who conducted the community’s election last year, to oversee this year’s voting cycle. The selection follows a regular board meeting in April in which the OPA Elections Committee recommended Berlin-based ACE Printing and Mailing for the job. The board questioned that suggestion, and it ultimately failed to pass.

A requirement of the RFP (request for proposal) was that bidders must be able to handle a hybrid election. A few years ago, the community implemented an online voting option in addition to paper ballots.

At the April meeting, OPA Board of Directors Vice President Rick Farr asked Elections Committee Chair Steve Ransdell whether ACE had developed and tested the Ocean Pines-specific portal they had promised to offer internet ballot-casting. According to Ransdell, to his knowledge, the system had yet to be created.

The board also struggled to accept ACE, as the company did not offer references to past work similar to the hybrid requirements asked by OPA, claiming confidentiality concerns.

“I know in any business, references as far as performances are critical and important,” Farr said at last month’s board meeting. “Not being able to share references is a concern for me on that aspect of being able to show past performance. So, I will be brutally honest that that’s a red flag … I understand confidentiality. However, regarding providing references of past performance, I think it’s very important for us to make this type of decision.”

Following the April meeting, the board planned to solicit answers to their questions from ACE to make a more informed decision. That intention was thrown out when ACE opted to remove itself from election service considerations. The company claimed that the questions posed at the board gathering, like client references and a completed online voting portal, were not included in the original RFP.

“After reviewing the video and transcript of your recent Board meeting discussion, we must express serious concerns regarding the evolving nature of the selection process and the apparent deviation from the requirements set forward in the original RFP,” the note reads. “…given the cumulative procedural irregularities, shifting requirements, confidentiality breaches, and demonstrable bias exhibited during this process, ACE Printing & Mailing formally withdraws all consideration from this RFP and disassociates from any further involvement under OPA’s current, tainted framework. We categorically reject any continued participation in a procurement exercise that so plainly violates the fundamental standards of fairness, transparency, and professional ethics.”

The correspondence added that the “financial implications of the board’s actions cannot be ignored.” ACE’s bid was $18,685, while MK Elections’ was $31,539.

Per ACE’s self-elimination, OPA has chosen MK Election Services to handle the 2025 board election. The motion to authorize the election committee and legal counsel to negotiate the final terms of a written contract with MK was passed by the board last week. Board members Jeff Heavner, Elaine Brady, John Latham, Stuart Lakernick, and Farr voted yes. Monica Rakowski and Steve Jacobs abstained.

“I am disappointed that ACE was not willing to come back to us with answering some of the questions,” Brady said. “Everybody was on the fence about which way to go. There were certain questions we all had that I think were valid. I’m sorry that he did not, so we couldn’t consider him. But, it is what it is, and this is where we’re at.”

Latham, the liaison to the elections committee, said that ACE’s willingness to respond to the board’s inquiries may have changed the outcome.

“I was disappointed,” he said. “I thought they were not difficult questions that should have been answered by ACE. We fully suspected we would get those answers back. It did not seem that difficult … we may have been making a different decision today.”

Jacobs argued that the election vendor selection was “a mess.” According to the board member, the committee did not do its part in receiving answers to essential questions. Additionally, the RFP should have been issued earlier to provide the board more time to select a contractor and the committee more time to submit a recommendation.

Farr, however, maintained that the situation is not in disorder. Instead, the board sought answers to questions that were not provided.

“I personally don’t think there’s a mess here. I mean, at all,” Farr said. “…I asked specific questions about the vendor. Very simple questions…I don’t believe this is a mess. It is my hope this whole election will run smoothly.”

This year, the board has three seats up for election: those belonging to Rakowski, Lakernick and Jacobs. The final day for candidates to submit campaign applications is Monday, May 12.