Spending referendum wholly unnecessary

Ocean Pines Association members will be asked at some point this spring whether the spending authority of the board of directors should be limited by requiring them to seek voter approval of any expenditure of $1 million or more.

On the surface, this might not sound that unreasonable. After all, the argument for taking major spending matters to referendum contends that  it would ensure fiscal restraint and board accountability.

In some respects, however, it would be like wearing galoshes over your boots … just in case. In essence, what the pro-referendum argument says about current and future boards of directors, “We trust you enough to elect you to the board, but we don’t trust you enough to allow you to make major decisions.”

It would seem that if voters routinely elect untrustworthy people, that says as much about the voters as it does about whomever they put in office.

The fact is that the public already has control over board actions and votes, but all too often fails to exercise it by not attending meetings, expressing its opinions, and keeping itself informed of the directors’ decisions and discussions.

Because of that, tying spending limits to a referendum proposes to give association members a second chance at informing themselves on a specific issue they should have been aware of before any decision was made.

Although referendums on spending would be an element of representative democracy, it is really a patch to cover over a hole in the process that the public should having been filling all along.

The association structure is complicated enough as it is, with committee after committee studying, planning and recommending this or that action.

Although that approach provides expertise at no cost to members, the downside is that it can be a somewhat cumbersome way of doing things. Adding one more level of community oversight via the spending referendum would unnecessarily complicate the process.