The interviews that were the basis for the Bayside Gazette’s recent article on the OPA General Manager’s contract renewal in closed session were inappropriate, inaccurate and misleading.
It was agreed, early in the meeting, that the results would be made available to the membership and the media immediately after it ended. Discussions that lead to those results are not releasable as they address both contractual and personnel issues. As an example, the general manager’s four “suggested” changes to his current contract were discussed at length, and rejected by the board as a whole. There was no justification for bringing these to the public’s attention other than furthering the debate on an issue the board had already decided. The GM has done this in the past, and has been reprimanded for it. That the GM was not in the meeting and authored the “suggestions” does not alter the fact that they were specifically intended for discussion in closed session. I personally, and I believe other directors, considered this input and the ensuing discussions, confidential.
While revealing details such as this from a closed meeting is in itself a procedural and ethical violation, it is compounded and made worse when only selective details are released, to the evident advantage of the person providing the information. When this happens there is no real alternative other than clarification and full disclosure.
The complete list of changes proposed by the GM, which I paraphrase for the sake of brevity are:
Eliminate the potentially $40,000 in “set” and “at risk” bonuses, which are which the GM characterizes as contentious and confusing.
Raise the GM’s salary by five percent ($8,250) at the start of the new contract to $173,250 and three percent for each of the two remaining years ($5,197) and ($5,353) for an end of contract salary of $183,800. The GM suggests that three percent per year will set his annual increase at the same level as every other employee of the association.
Allow carryover of unused vacation (currently four weeks) each year.
Increase severance pay from the current nine months to 12 months.
In the article Vice President [Cheryl] Jacobs characterizes the proposal as a “bold move” and says she would have supported the amendment. The reality is different. Per the contract the total “at risk” bonus is up to 25 percent of base salary or a little over $40,000. Of this potential amount 75 percent is available based on achieving specific financial performance goals in the income producing amenities. The other 25 percent is awarded at the board’s discretion based on pre-established nonfinancial objectives. To date, the GM has not met the financial goals thereby receiving no bonus by this measure. Last year he was awarded a $5,000 bonus based on the board’s determination of how well the nonfinancial objectives were met. In the current contract, salary increases are pegged to the February CPI, and have been effectively zero since contract start.
The GM’s assertion that by setting his increase level to three percent he is the same as other employees is either incorrect or he is willfully ignoring the budget guidance of the Board. The three percent applied to employees is the total across the entire employee base, while individuals might get more or less dependent on merit.
Should a future Board decide to terminate this contract for convenience, the last two proposed amendments (i.e., increased severance and carry-over vacation) could increase the association’s liability to as much as $238,000.
Vice President Jacobs’ opinion that “the vote (6-1) says a lot about the confidence the Board has in Bob” is untrue and self-serving to her point of view. In the two or so hours of discussion the subject of how the GM performed under the current contract was never discussed nor were the board’s options presented at the beginning of the meeting: e.g., the fact that the board, if it did not decide to end the contract now, only had to indicate an intent to renegotiate, in which case it would have had six more months to do so.
The Gazette editor [who wrote the May 5 editorial] is not alone in being surprised at the outcome or considering the board “befuddled,” and these opinions are not far from the truth. The entire board was first made aware of the subject of the closed meeting to be held after the regular board meeting when President [Pat] Renaud responded to a question from Director [Tom] Herrick on Sunday, April 24, one day after I had left for a week vacation. Discussion was obviously limited by the fact that this closed session followed a three hour regular board meeting and lunch. The GM’s suggested amendments, read by Ms. Jacobs at the beginning of the meeting, were the first time either I, or most of the directors had heard them. They immediately became the focus of continued discussion and until, after a seven hour meeting day, the motion to continue the current contract was accepted. In the future board “befuddlement” might be alleviated, if not entirely eliminated, through the simple courtesy of providing sufficient notification to allow for preparation and stopping the practice of introducing “day of meeting” materials and motions.
Dave Stevens
Ocean Pines Association Director
Dir. Collins to make bid for board again
Ocean Pines Association Director Jack Collins sent the following letter to the Gazette on May 7, addressing his decision to run for reelection.
It is titled “I have decided to seek re-election to the Board of Directors of Ocean Pines.”
Editor,
On a national level, there seems to be a deep dissatisfaction with our representative government at all levels. I believe this dissatisfaction is reflected at the Board of Directors level in Ocean Pines. What our members desire is a board that can compromise and work harmoniously together for the welfare of all members. Not special interest groups. So do I. The members want a cooperative and open relationship between the board and the general manager, working together to accomplish projects that benefit all of us. So do I.
What our members want are affordable and effective budgets that address the needs of our community. So do I. What our members want is a community that is a well-maintained and respectable community that any one would be proud to live in. So do I.
During my years on the Board, I have voted for and sponsored motions that I felt were the wishes of each and every one of us. While serving the members to the best of my ability, I offer the following examples:
I developed and was able to pass a motion broadening the input on the budget process by the budget and finance committee working with the GM and the board. I referred to it as “a sense of the Board” designed to broaden the budget process.
In every budget cycle, I focused on necessary economies that would keep our assessments stable or reduced while voting against unnecessary expenditures.
I focused the attention of the board, the GM and the members on the drainage challenges in our community. Working with the GM, the county and community volunteers through a committee effort, we addressed and solved some of these problems. However, there is additional work to be done.
I worked to improve the management of a major amenity that had cost the membership over a million dollars in a four-year period. Our new management group is working toward improving the golf experience while bringing revenue and expenses into line.
I have sponsored a motion and worked toward the renovation of the Beach Club Bathhouse. This motion passed our board with a 7-0 vote.
In the future, if I am elected, I pledge my efforts to bring the board, the administration and the GM into an amicable and positive working relationship. I would suggest the establishment of a beautification committee to improve the landscape and eye appeal of our community entrances , amenities and community open spaces. Work toward solutions to incent members to maintain their property in a neat and orderly fashion. Remain dedicated toward responsible budgets reducing assessments if possible. Keep the renovation of the Beach Club Bathhouse on track. I pledge to work toward the improvement of our physical needs such as our police facility, our country club, our roads, bridges, and continue our drainage project.
Yes, being a board member has it challenges and it does require a considerable amount of time. However, I have always had a keen interest in community governance. In college I was a member of the student government with a major in government and politics. I believe I have the interest, knowledge and experience to be re-elected to the board.
Jack Collins
Ocean Pines Association Director