Close Menu
Berlin, Ocean Pines News Worcester County Bayside Gazette Logo Berlin, Ocean Pines News Worcester County Bayside Gazette


Flurry of resolution overhauls under OPA consideration

By Josh Davis, Associate Editor

(Dec. 7, 2017) Four first readings of amendments to the resolutions governing the Ocean Pines Association were introduced at an Ocean Pines Board of Directors meeting last Thursday. Some were matters of housekeeping, while others involved substantial changes to association procedures.

The alteration to Resolution B-04, for example, would change the phrasing on meeting agendas from “old business” to “unfinished business,” a practice that has already been adopted unofficially.

Resolution B-01, on the other hand, would overhaul how future amendments are proposed, passed and stored.

“This is the resolution that handles how we approve resolutions and how they’re taken care of,” Director Ted Moroney said. Moroney is the liaison to the bylaws and resolutions committee that drafted the text.

One of the significant changes, Moroney said, was the addition of the language “the First reading shall be at a regular meeting of the board. First reading submittal is not by motion.”

“In the past, often times we’ve had a motion for the first reading, but there’s no action being taken by the board,” he said. “They’ve tried to take and have this resolution match what we actually do in practice rather than to have something in writing and [the board] not follow it.”

Additionally, the board member who submits a resolution amendment would be responsible for “providing a sufficient description of the action. If action is subsequently approved, the board member is responsible for providing the secretary with a final copy for signature approval.”

During a recent bylaws committee meeting, members discovered that modifications approved last spring had not been posted online or stored in the master physical copy of the Ocean Pines book of resolutions.

Also in the new text, adoption of revisions could be approved at any regular or special meeting subsequent to the first reading. The secretary would be responsible for obtaining signatures on physical copies of the resolution and adding a signed copy of the amendment to the book of resolutions.

The bylaws committee would be responsible for establishing a review schedule and delegating the bodies to review each resolution, many of which relate to specific advisory committees. The group would then review proposals for consistency.

“The idea is that it will go to bylaws, which will compare it to what the governing documents are [and] law is … rather than having one group that may not be looking at the whole picture, so we don’t have any unintended consequences,” Moroney said. “The bylaws committee has done a good job of broadening what we’re doing and including all of the governing documents and also trying to set up a process that actually mirrors what we do, rather than have some kind of a process that we ignore as we go along.”

A revision of M-06 regarding the elections committee would move the ballot deadline up a day. That would allow the committee to set seating assignments during candidate forums, and announce voting results immediately after ballots are counted. Under the current practice, votes are announced the day after the election, during the annual meeting.

Vice President Cheryl Jacobs noted the announcement date was brought up earlier during the year, but was rejected by the board.

“We have already had this presented to us in the past and it was made clear that we were not in favor of this. I’m just curious why this is being brought back again,” she said.

Director Slobodan Trendic, the liaison to the elections committee that drafted the amendment, said he was simply reporting on their work.

“It is my responsibility to convey what the committee is recommending. If the board wishes not to entertain that change, then I think the board should make it clear to the committee that this is a final position and it shall not be revisited,” he said. “That is up to the board to decide – collectively, not individually.”

Trendic also introduced a rewrite of Resolution C-07, on the comprehensive planning committee, which would change the committee charter.

“The whole resolution is proposed to be restructured,” Trendic said. “Basically, what the committee is recommending is that a change be made from the current comprehensive planning model which follows, really, a government … model, to more of a corporate, traditional strategic planning model.”

He said the committee noted a multi-year strategic plan was not in place and they recommended the general manager develop one. The committee would support that effort, Trendic said.

Director Ted Moroney said the general manager should have total ownership of a comprehensive plan and wondered if the committee should be a permanent group, or “be put together on a case-by-case basis.”

“Normally, a strategic planning committee … has a shelf life. It comes in, it helps develop the plan, and then it goes away because the implementation belongs [with the general manager],” he said. “My big question is, when would we start a strategic plan given all the other stuff we’ve got going?”

Moroney added implementation of the plan needed to belong “100 percent” to the general manager.

Trendic said whether the committee should be an ad hoc or permanent group could be discussed during the second reading at a later meeting.

Full texts of all the proposed changes are available online at

The board is not scheduled to meet again this year.