(July 27, 2107) Two elephants in the room were addressed early during a second Ocean Pines Association candidate forum Saturday in the community center.
Candidates were asked about recent policy changes at the Oasis pool, and, indirectly, about a motion expected to be introduced Friday calling for the removal of Director Slobodan Trendic from the board.
On the decision to remove the adults-only designation at the Oasis, Nicole Schafer Crosariol said her understanding was the Fair Housing Act bound Ocean Pines.
“We aren’t able to discriminate,” she said. “That wasn’t really a choice that the board made … that’s something we had to do to avoid any kind of lawsuit.”
Still, Crosariol said changing the status of the pool to an all-ages facility was not necessarily a done deal.
“I really am trying to look into finding a solution,” she said. “My goal is to try … to maybe have two different pool memberships.”
She said one membership would be for an adult pool and the other would be for family pools, and later clarified another company could come in and manage one of the pools.
Dr. Colette Horn said there were issues of transparency and fairness in the policy change. She said distrust of the board and general manager “caused us to question the motives and question the background of this decision.”
“We’re going to have to address that transparency and trust issue going forward as a board,” she said.
Horn agreed there was a legal issue that could not be ignored and cited the Fair Housing Act. She argued, however, the Americans With Disabilities Act provided other protections and said adults have the right to have a safe place to swim.
She suggested creating a single complex that included the Oasis and Mumford’s Landing pools, which are on either side of the yacht club.
“I think that the intents of both of these laws need to be balanced and considered in coming up with a solution to this problem,” Horn said. “I think it’s going to require some creativity of thinking by both the attorney who’s giving us some advice, as well as the board.”
Marty Clarke said the board decision, based on the Civil Rights Act and amended as the Fair Housing Act, was a no-brainer.
“Anybody that’s read the law will understand that you cannot discriminate against families,” Clarke said. “End of story. They had no choice.
“Are there any options? I can’t find one,” Clarke added.
Director Doug Parks, the lone incumbent in the group, said he moved to maintain the adults-only status during a special meeting in April.
“Soon thereafter, we were counseled by our attorney that we were indeed in violation of not only the Fair Housing Act, but several Maryland anti-discrimination laws,” he said.
Parks said the board considered other options, but the attorney said there were no exceptions.
“At that point, we decided we could no longer keep the association at risk by continually violating the law,” he said. “As evidenced by a unanimous vote of the board, the importance of protecting the association from potential lawsuits and fines that had totaled tens of thousands of dollars [was stressed]. To me, it was very prudent for us to make sure we protected the association by complying with the law.”
He said the board would continue to look for another solution and said privatizing the pool had been considered.
“How, actually, that works, I don’t know,” Parks said. “We also have to keep our tax exempt status … careful thought needs to be given to this [and] I think we owe the association continued research in this, but at this point following the law is the right thing to do.”
The candidates were next asked by moderator Steve Habeger, “What requirements must be met to remove a director from the board?”
Clarke answered, “five votes.”
“I think cause ought to be staggering,” he added. “I haven’t been in the closed meetings. I don’t know what cause is.”
He joked that anyone who has been in a bar in Ocean Pines during the last three weeks has heard plenty of rumors and conjecture.
Crosariol admitted she was not sure of all the details.
Horn said she was concerned that “cause” was not defined in the bylaws.
“It needs to be something that is so egregious as to be criminal,” she said. “The bar for proof of the commission of that act also has to be very high.”
She also said the board did not address confidentiality and ethical issues immediately and that led to other problems.
“That needs to be addressed when it happens,” she said. “We don’t want to store that stuff up and then decide when it’s maybe politically expedient … to go straight to a vote for removal. I think that’s wrong.
“I think we need to make sure the cause it clear, the actions have been proven and that the actions are so egregious that removal is the only way we can protect the association.”
Parks admitted he was in a precarious position as the only candidate that will have a vote on whether or not to remove Trendic.
“When you make a claim to hold in confidence information that’s relevant to legal action, I will abide by that,” he said. “I will not compromise my integrity to do anything else. If that costs me votes, so be it.”
He added it would be a bad precedent “if the board majority decided they don’t like a director that was elected by the community” and removed the person.
“I set the bar pretty darn high to criminal activity,” he said. “Anything short of that is suspect. Anything short of that is conjecture. Anything short of that is politicizing the issue.
“That bar should be set very high and should not be some cavalier approach to pushing one’s agenda forward,” Parks added. “I’m not happy that I’m in this position. Quite frankly I’ve got a better solution – and I’ll leave it at that.”
Candidates were asked about recent policy changes at the Oasis pool, and, indirectly, about a motion expected to be introduced Friday calling for the removal of Director Slobodan Trendic from the board.
On the decision to remove the adults-only designation at the Oasis, Nicole Schafer Crosariol said her understanding was the Fair Housing Act bound Ocean Pines.
“We aren’t able to discriminate,” she said. “That wasn’t really a choice that the board made … that’s something we had to do to avoid any kind of lawsuit.”
Still, Crosariol said changing the status of the pool to an all-ages facility was not necessarily a done deal.
“I really am trying to look into finding a solution,” she said. “My goal is to try … to maybe have two different pool memberships.”
She said one membership would be for an adult pool and the other would be for family pools, and later clarified another company could come in and manage one of the pools.
Dr. Colette Horn said there were issues of transparency and fairness in the policy change. She said distrust of the board and general manager “caused us to question the motives and question the background of this decision.”
“We’re going to have to address that transparency and trust issue going forward as a board,” she said.
Horn agreed there was a legal issue that could not be ignored and cited the Fair Housing Act. She argued, however, the Americans With Disabilities Act provided other protections and said adults have the right to have a safe place to swim.
She suggested creating a single complex that included the Oasis and Mumford’s Landing pools, which are on either side of the yacht club.
“I think that the intents of both of these laws need to be balanced and considered in coming up with a solution to this problem,” Horn said. “I think it’s going to require some creativity of thinking by both the attorney who’s giving us some advice, as well as the board.”
Marty Clarke said the board decision, based on the Civil Rights Act and amended as the Fair Housing Act, was a no-brainer.
“Anybody that’s read the law will understand that you cannot discriminate against families,” Clarke said. “End of story. They had no choice.
“Are there any options? I can’t find one,” Clarke added.
Director Doug Parks, the lone incumbent in the group, said he moved to maintain the adults-only status during a special meeting in April.
“Soon thereafter, we were counseled by our attorney that we were indeed in violation of not only the Fair Housing Act, but several Maryland anti-discrimination laws,” he said.
Parks said the board considered other options, but the attorney said there were no exceptions.
“At that point, we decided we could no longer keep the association at risk by continually violating the law,” he said. “As evidenced by a unanimous vote of the board, the importance of protecting the association from potential lawsuits and fines that had totaled tens of thousands of dollars [was stressed]. To me, it was very prudent for us to make sure we protected the association by complying with the law.”
He said the board would continue to look for another solution and said privatizing the pool had been considered.
“How, actually, that works, I don’t know,” Parks said. “We also have to keep our tax exempt status … careful thought needs to be given to this [and] I think we owe the association continued research in this, but at this point following the law is the right thing to do.”
The candidates were next asked by moderator Steve Habeger, “What requirements must be met to remove a director from the board?”
Clarke answered, “five votes.”
“I think cause ought to be staggering,” he added. “I haven’t been in the closed meetings. I don’t know what cause is.”
He joked that anyone who has been in a bar in Ocean Pines during the last three weeks has heard plenty of rumors and conjecture.
Crosariol admitted she was not sure of all the details.
Horn said she was concerned that “cause” was not defined in the bylaws.
“It needs to be something that is so egregious as to be criminal,” she said. “The bar for proof of the commission of that act also has to be very high.”
She also said the board did not address confidentiality and ethical issues immediately and that led to other problems.
“That needs to be addressed when it happens,” she said. “We don’t want to store that stuff up and then decide when it’s maybe politically expedient … to go straight to a vote for removal. I think that’s wrong.
“I think we need to make sure the cause it clear, the actions have been proven and that the actions are so egregious that removal is the only way we can protect the association.”
Parks admitted he was in a precarious position as the only candidate that will have a vote on whether or not to remove Trendic.
“When you make a claim to hold in confidence information that’s relevant to legal action, I will abide by that,” he said. “I will not compromise my integrity to do anything else. If that costs me votes, so be it.”
He added it would be a bad precedent “if the board majority decided they don’t like a director that was elected by the community” and removed the person.
“I set the bar pretty darn high to criminal activity,” he said. “Anything short of that is suspect. Anything short of that is conjecture. Anything short of that is politicizing the issue.
“That bar should be set very high and should not be some cavalier approach to pushing one’s agenda forward,” Parks added. “I’m not happy that I’m in this position. Quite frankly I’ve got a better solution – and I’ll leave it at that.”