Pines officials need to be respectful

Editor,

Below is the content of an email I sent to the Ocean Pines Board of Directors following the Oct. 30 meeting in which there were two motions put forth proposing revisions to Resolution B pertaining to the rules regarding the order of meetings of the board.

The items addressed may seem to be obscure details that have no relevance to the members of the Association. However, they importantly address a key aspect of transparency in how governance occurs in Ocean Pines.

The motion put forth by Director Farr purports to formalize procedures that have been in place for years. The motion put forth by Directdor Peck addresses the flexibility that is afforded “small boards.”

While OPA is a large corporation as may be defined by the size of our budget, our board is small as defined by the number of members. Robert’s Rules of Order gives small boards increased flexibility that allows for less rigid practices meant to avoid inadvertently shutting down public discussion of topics that have practical relevance to the governance of the organization. This is the issue that the two motions meant to address.

Directors,

In the 6 years I was a director and officer of the Ocean Pines Association, our colleagues routinely seconded motions “for discussion” even if they did not intend to vote in favor of the motion. This showed respect for their fellow directors and the ideas of directors who may represent a “minority” position on a topic.

This also importantly allowed the membership to know to what extent the directors had considered both sides of the question and their rationale both for rejecting the side with which they disagreed and supporting the side with which they agreed.

I have seen this board and the previous 5-6 iterations of this board (which were comprised of several of the current directors) routinely refuse to second a motion with which they disagreed and thus, shutting down discussion.

This makes it look like you are incurious and unwilling to publicly assert your position and the rationale for your position regarding something you don’t agree with. Not a good look. Not a sign of respect for your colleagues.

You may think that the public views you as getting along with each other. What it actually shows the public is that several of you all think alike and are unwilling to give due consideration to the ideas of directors with whom you disagree.

It shows the public profound disrespect for a diversity of ideas. This is not good governance.

Finally, I take exception to the lack of respect shown to Director Peck in the discussion points expressed by her colleagues this morning — particularly by Director Heavner, whose remarks consisted of personal attacks rather than ideas.

I have to applaud Director Peck for maintaining a respectful, professional demeanor, and sticking to the facts. I also applaud OPA’s counsel, whose remarks modeled for you what respectful disagreement looks like.

Colette Horn
Ocean Pines
(The writer is a former OPA Board of Director.)