Make the effort
Editor,
An excerpt from a letter that ran in the May 26 Gazette read:
“They held the entire Ocean Pines community hostage for three or four years by insisting that Sandpiper Energy pay a franchise fee to the OPA in order to convert the community to natural gas. Ocean Pines has been bypassed and delayed due to bullying behavior by some members of the OPA for no good reason other than stubbornness.”
As a Board Member who became involved in this issue, I felt I needed to respond to these allegations of bullying. Fact: In late 2013 ESG [Eastern Shore Gas] approached the OPA to request an extension on their expiring 20-year contract agreement. They were in the process of being purchased by Sandpiper.
An initial problem was that Sandpiper would not acknowledge OPA member-ownership of the right of ways in Ocean Pines. Sandpiper would not agree to meet until mid-2014. In the meantime, the OPA extended the contract several times and was forced into hiring an outside law firm to help craft a draft agreement that would at least begin the transition to natural gas. Tom Terry, Jeff Knepper and Marty Clarke represented the board until August, when I was elected and replaced Jeff. We continued to reach out to Jeff, and he was very gracious in continuing to consult with us.
The one thing I found was that all three directors were of a very like mind, as was I after learning what had transpired. The issue was, as Tom Terry said in a September 2014 OPA press release, “The Board understands the desire of some of our OPA membership for the lower energy costs that have been long promised with the introduction of natural gas. At the same time the board must fully understand how that promise will be met and assure our community has appropriate protections.” In the end the board did the exact opposite of bullying by asking Bob Thompson to lead the negotiations with Sandpiper to reach a mutual agreement.
To suggest that hundreds of hours of work put in by four different Directors and the GM was “bullying and stubbornness” is itself as unknowing, uncivil and insulting as any behavior referred to in the article. During this negotiation period Bob Thompson and the board considered the interests of all residents, including those who used electric power or gas from tanks and many switched to lower priced tank propane, saving more than a thousand dollars a year. Bob set an example by negotiating an agreement with Sandpiper to switch to tanked propane at the Sports Core with a reduction in utility expenses, of as much as $24,000 in a single year. We believe competition was a positive step in bringing the parties together toward solutions.
The idea of a “franchise fee” or “surcharge” to be paid by Ocean Pines gas customers were suggested as ways of compensating those many residents whose property was going to used, but would receive no benefit since they would not be connected to the Sandpiper system. The final agreement contains no Ocean Pines specific franchise or surcharge. However, in the final agreement Sandpiper will pay easement fees totaling $136,000. Other fees payable by Sandpiper included a payment of $75,000 for OPA legal expenses, $1,350/month for lease of OPA property and $450 per month for OPA services to Sandpiper. The total was a little under $400,000, a substantial benefit to our entire community that resulted directly from extended negotiation.
If that is what we gained, what did OPA members lose by being “bypassed and delayed?” The answer is absolutely nothing! Only one consolidated rate was approved by the PSC [Public Service Commission] and it is the same for everyone on the system, whether they are connected to natural gas or propane. That was true from the beginning and it will continue to be true into the foreseeable future. There was no advantage to those who were converted first.
Public statements and accusations made without facts are harmful to the community as a whole. Even on issues as complicated as natural gas conversion it is possible for OPA members to get the truth if they are willing to make any effort at all to do so.
Dave Stevens, OPA
Editor,
An excerpt from a letter that ran in the May 26 Gazette read:
“They held the entire Ocean Pines community hostage for three or four years by insisting that Sandpiper Energy pay a franchise fee to the OPA in order to convert the community to natural gas. Ocean Pines has been bypassed and delayed due to bullying behavior by some members of the OPA for no good reason other than stubbornness.”
As a Board Member who became involved in this issue, I felt I needed to respond to these allegations of bullying. Fact: In late 2013 ESG [Eastern Shore Gas] approached the OPA to request an extension on their expiring 20-year contract agreement. They were in the process of being purchased by Sandpiper.
An initial problem was that Sandpiper would not acknowledge OPA member-ownership of the right of ways in Ocean Pines. Sandpiper would not agree to meet until mid-2014. In the meantime, the OPA extended the contract several times and was forced into hiring an outside law firm to help craft a draft agreement that would at least begin the transition to natural gas. Tom Terry, Jeff Knepper and Marty Clarke represented the board until August, when I was elected and replaced Jeff. We continued to reach out to Jeff, and he was very gracious in continuing to consult with us.
The one thing I found was that all three directors were of a very like mind, as was I after learning what had transpired. The issue was, as Tom Terry said in a September 2014 OPA press release, “The Board understands the desire of some of our OPA membership for the lower energy costs that have been long promised with the introduction of natural gas. At the same time the board must fully understand how that promise will be met and assure our community has appropriate protections.” In the end the board did the exact opposite of bullying by asking Bob Thompson to lead the negotiations with Sandpiper to reach a mutual agreement.
To suggest that hundreds of hours of work put in by four different Directors and the GM was “bullying and stubbornness” is itself as unknowing, uncivil and insulting as any behavior referred to in the article. During this negotiation period Bob Thompson and the board considered the interests of all residents, including those who used electric power or gas from tanks and many switched to lower priced tank propane, saving more than a thousand dollars a year. Bob set an example by negotiating an agreement with Sandpiper to switch to tanked propane at the Sports Core with a reduction in utility expenses, of as much as $24,000 in a single year. We believe competition was a positive step in bringing the parties together toward solutions.
The idea of a “franchise fee” or “surcharge” to be paid by Ocean Pines gas customers were suggested as ways of compensating those many residents whose property was going to used, but would receive no benefit since they would not be connected to the Sandpiper system. The final agreement contains no Ocean Pines specific franchise or surcharge. However, in the final agreement Sandpiper will pay easement fees totaling $136,000. Other fees payable by Sandpiper included a payment of $75,000 for OPA legal expenses, $1,350/month for lease of OPA property and $450 per month for OPA services to Sandpiper. The total was a little under $400,000, a substantial benefit to our entire community that resulted directly from extended negotiation.
If that is what we gained, what did OPA members lose by being “bypassed and delayed?” The answer is absolutely nothing! Only one consolidated rate was approved by the PSC [Public Service Commission] and it is the same for everyone on the system, whether they are connected to natural gas or propane. That was true from the beginning and it will continue to be true into the foreseeable future. There was no advantage to those who were converted first.
Public statements and accusations made without facts are harmful to the community as a whole. Even on issues as complicated as natural gas conversion it is possible for OPA members to get the truth if they are willing to make any effort at all to do so.
Dave Stevens, OPA
Clarifying Stevens comment
Editor,
If you are going to “set the record straight,” do it with factual information.
Director Stevens [in a letter in the May 12 issue of the Gazette] found it necessary to “set the record straight” about the machinations behind the 6-1 vote to extend the contract of the OP General Manager. Unfortunately, he did not use correct information to make his point. During his letter, he said that the letter received from the general manager about renewing his contract should not have been released to the public and then he proceeded to release the information. I totally agree with him that the information being released is in itself a “procedural and ethical violation.” It is a personnel and a legal issue, and should have been held in confidence by the members of the board.
So why then did Stevens choose to release the details? Other members only talked in general terms and not in specific language contained in a letter, which was not officially acted upon. This goes against human resources and employee personnel protocol. And to see Stevens reveal that an employee had been “reprimanded,” which was done in private, is totally inappropriate and may have put the community in a bind legally. But, we have seen in the past that Mr. Stevens plays by one set of rules and everyone else is supposed to play by another.
Stevens went on to discount Director Jacobs’ assertion that “the vote (6-1) says a lot about the confidence the board has in Bob,” and says it is “untrue and self-serving to her point of view.” Really? Then why did Stevens vote for it? He tried to say that it was a long, seven-hour meeting and intimated that some directors may have voted because they were tired. Oh well.
We have long meetings routinely because Mr. Stevens has to argue over nothing, so I don’t get that point. Besides, the general meeting started at 9 a.m. and was a couple hours. Then, we took a break and all moved to another building where we waited a while for Mr. Collins to stop campaigning, back at the first meeting location, before we could start. Collins eventually arrived and we had discussions, ate lunch and voted, and walked out of there at approximately 1:30 p.m., two-and-a-half hours less than Stevens thought the meeting was. He also said that he had just found out about this closed meeting and the reason for it a few days ahead of time and after he had left for vacation. Sorry, completely untrue.
Back in February, Mr. Herrick made a motion about looking at going to a management company in place of the general manager concept that has been used since the community was formed. His motion was voted down, partially because of the fact that it was in an open session and should be discussed in closed session, and that it was in the GM’s contract that a decision [on his contract] would be made by the end of April, and that we could discuss this proposal further after the April meeting in closed session. So, he actually had two months notice, not a couple of days.
The General Manager had to notify us in writing about his intent to stay on by the end of April. That is exactly what happened. And as far as Mr. Stevens being on vacation, our board schedule is completed in August for the entire year. This was a regularly scheduled meeting. I don’t begrudge the guy for going on vacation, but as the former board president, he should have been fully aware that the GM’s contract calls for these discussions to be held by the end of April, which means after the April general meeting.
I applaud him for getting up and joining the meeting by phone, as Vegas is a few hours behind us in time, so he started the morning early. Also, he said that there were no other options put on the table. We were in the meeting for almost two hours, so there was plenty of time for anyone to suggest other options, including Mr. Herrick’s previous proposal, but there were none. Instead, we concentrated on the letter from the GM.
This letter was a suggestion. Anything in it could have been modified. For some unknown reason, we spent most of our time discussing the vacation carryover. This went back and forth for a long time and no compromise could be agreed to. I didn’t know why this was such a big deal, as Bob Thompson hasn’t taken a vacation in years. He is entitled to four weeks a year, but he either uses them or loses them, which he has done every year. Misters Collins and Herrick insisted they were going to “force him” to take vacation. I didn’t understand this and told them that if he doesn’t take vacation, that it was his loss and the associations gain, but they insisted they were going to “force him” to take it.
After approximately one-and-a-half hours, we decided that the first thing that should be taken into consideration should be the removal of the bonus from his contract. This removal is what would have given way to the other suggestions. After a brief discussion about this, it was evident that there wasn’t going to be a compromise on this either. Someone then made the statement to just extend the contract as is for another three years. Mr. Collins threw his hands up in the air and yelled, “that’s a great idea.” We looked at each other for a minute or two, and then I made a motion that we do just that and Mr. Collins seconded my motion. The only discussion was Mr. Collins saying, “this contract has been great for him and for the association for 3 years,” and Mr. Stevens agreed over the phone, even though the contract has only been in effect for two years. We then voted 6-1 in favor of my motion to extend as is.
Now, I hear that Mr. Collins is saying that he only voted for it because he thought the “majority” wanted it and he wanted to save the community from a drawn out negotiation. Horse manure! He was very exuberant in his approval of the suggestion and his seconding of the motion. And negotiations are done in private, so the residents wouldn’t have known about it anyway.
And about the “majority” wanting the renewal, I personally would have gone with the GM’s suggestions and modified them, and apparently Ms. Jacobs had the same idea, so I have no idea what “majority” he is speaking of. My personal belief is that some felt that because the general manager proposed it, they felt there had to be something wrong with it but they couldn’t figure out what was wrong, so they figured they were safer going with the known.
Then, in the same paper Mr. Collins writes reasons for why he is running again for the board. That is his right, but what occurred leading up to this is very concerning. Mr. Collins was the board liaison to the search committee. These volunteers work hard for months trying to find qualified candidates to run for the board. They keep information confidential about who they have contacted and who has decided to run for the board, so everyone is on equal ground going in. Collins was told months ago that he needed to remove himself from the committee if he was going to run for the board, like Terri Mohr did a couple years ago when she knew she was going to run. Collins did not remove himself, and was therefore privileged to the confidential information of the committee and the names of who had filed to run and who his competition would be before deciding whether to run or not. I understand he was also sharing this information with another potential candidate, Slobodan Trendic. These actions were totally unethical and inappropriate.
He clearly just stuck a finger in the eye of every one of the committee members, who worked so hard to get us the 12 candidates who filed to run. If I was one of the candidates, I would be furious that Collins used his position as a director to give him and Trendic an unfair advantage. I’m sure Mr. Collins will say that he didn’t make up his mind until the last minute, but anyone who has been paying attention has heard Collins make his campaign speech every meeting for the last year. But quite frankly, knowing those involved, I am not at all surprised.
Bill Cordwell, OPA
Editor,
If you are going to “set the record straight,” do it with factual information.
Director Stevens [in a letter in the May 12 issue of the Gazette] found it necessary to “set the record straight” about the machinations behind the 6-1 vote to extend the contract of the OP General Manager. Unfortunately, he did not use correct information to make his point. During his letter, he said that the letter received from the general manager about renewing his contract should not have been released to the public and then he proceeded to release the information. I totally agree with him that the information being released is in itself a “procedural and ethical violation.” It is a personnel and a legal issue, and should have been held in confidence by the members of the board.
So why then did Stevens choose to release the details? Other members only talked in general terms and not in specific language contained in a letter, which was not officially acted upon. This goes against human resources and employee personnel protocol. And to see Stevens reveal that an employee had been “reprimanded,” which was done in private, is totally inappropriate and may have put the community in a bind legally. But, we have seen in the past that Mr. Stevens plays by one set of rules and everyone else is supposed to play by another.
Stevens went on to discount Director Jacobs’ assertion that “the vote (6-1) says a lot about the confidence the board has in Bob,” and says it is “untrue and self-serving to her point of view.” Really? Then why did Stevens vote for it? He tried to say that it was a long, seven-hour meeting and intimated that some directors may have voted because they were tired. Oh well.
We have long meetings routinely because Mr. Stevens has to argue over nothing, so I don’t get that point. Besides, the general meeting started at 9 a.m. and was a couple hours. Then, we took a break and all moved to another building where we waited a while for Mr. Collins to stop campaigning, back at the first meeting location, before we could start. Collins eventually arrived and we had discussions, ate lunch and voted, and walked out of there at approximately 1:30 p.m., two-and-a-half hours less than Stevens thought the meeting was. He also said that he had just found out about this closed meeting and the reason for it a few days ahead of time and after he had left for vacation. Sorry, completely untrue.
Back in February, Mr. Herrick made a motion about looking at going to a management company in place of the general manager concept that has been used since the community was formed. His motion was voted down, partially because of the fact that it was in an open session and should be discussed in closed session, and that it was in the GM’s contract that a decision [on his contract] would be made by the end of April, and that we could discuss this proposal further after the April meeting in closed session. So, he actually had two months notice, not a couple of days.
The General Manager had to notify us in writing about his intent to stay on by the end of April. That is exactly what happened. And as far as Mr. Stevens being on vacation, our board schedule is completed in August for the entire year. This was a regularly scheduled meeting. I don’t begrudge the guy for going on vacation, but as the former board president, he should have been fully aware that the GM’s contract calls for these discussions to be held by the end of April, which means after the April general meeting.
I applaud him for getting up and joining the meeting by phone, as Vegas is a few hours behind us in time, so he started the morning early. Also, he said that there were no other options put on the table. We were in the meeting for almost two hours, so there was plenty of time for anyone to suggest other options, including Mr. Herrick’s previous proposal, but there were none. Instead, we concentrated on the letter from the GM.
This letter was a suggestion. Anything in it could have been modified. For some unknown reason, we spent most of our time discussing the vacation carryover. This went back and forth for a long time and no compromise could be agreed to. I didn’t know why this was such a big deal, as Bob Thompson hasn’t taken a vacation in years. He is entitled to four weeks a year, but he either uses them or loses them, which he has done every year. Misters Collins and Herrick insisted they were going to “force him” to take vacation. I didn’t understand this and told them that if he doesn’t take vacation, that it was his loss and the associations gain, but they insisted they were going to “force him” to take it.
After approximately one-and-a-half hours, we decided that the first thing that should be taken into consideration should be the removal of the bonus from his contract. This removal is what would have given way to the other suggestions. After a brief discussion about this, it was evident that there wasn’t going to be a compromise on this either. Someone then made the statement to just extend the contract as is for another three years. Mr. Collins threw his hands up in the air and yelled, “that’s a great idea.” We looked at each other for a minute or two, and then I made a motion that we do just that and Mr. Collins seconded my motion. The only discussion was Mr. Collins saying, “this contract has been great for him and for the association for 3 years,” and Mr. Stevens agreed over the phone, even though the contract has only been in effect for two years. We then voted 6-1 in favor of my motion to extend as is.
Now, I hear that Mr. Collins is saying that he only voted for it because he thought the “majority” wanted it and he wanted to save the community from a drawn out negotiation. Horse manure! He was very exuberant in his approval of the suggestion and his seconding of the motion. And negotiations are done in private, so the residents wouldn’t have known about it anyway.
And about the “majority” wanting the renewal, I personally would have gone with the GM’s suggestions and modified them, and apparently Ms. Jacobs had the same idea, so I have no idea what “majority” he is speaking of. My personal belief is that some felt that because the general manager proposed it, they felt there had to be something wrong with it but they couldn’t figure out what was wrong, so they figured they were safer going with the known.
Then, in the same paper Mr. Collins writes reasons for why he is running again for the board. That is his right, but what occurred leading up to this is very concerning. Mr. Collins was the board liaison to the search committee. These volunteers work hard for months trying to find qualified candidates to run for the board. They keep information confidential about who they have contacted and who has decided to run for the board, so everyone is on equal ground going in. Collins was told months ago that he needed to remove himself from the committee if he was going to run for the board, like Terri Mohr did a couple years ago when she knew she was going to run. Collins did not remove himself, and was therefore privileged to the confidential information of the committee and the names of who had filed to run and who his competition would be before deciding whether to run or not. I understand he was also sharing this information with another potential candidate, Slobodan Trendic. These actions were totally unethical and inappropriate.
He clearly just stuck a finger in the eye of every one of the committee members, who worked so hard to get us the 12 candidates who filed to run. If I was one of the candidates, I would be furious that Collins used his position as a director to give him and Trendic an unfair advantage. I’m sure Mr. Collins will say that he didn’t make up his mind until the last minute, but anyone who has been paying attention has heard Collins make his campaign speech every meeting for the last year. But quite frankly, knowing those involved, I am not at all surprised.
Bill Cordwell, OPA