Defending Fry
Editor,
It is really unfortunate that Director Stevens felt the need to criticize a resident, Ms. Fry, who only wrote a letter stating her opinion on the board’s involvement in the Sandpiper Energy negotiations. I personally found Ms. Fry’s comments closer to the facts, however.
The OP Board put together a committee to negotiate with Sandpiper Energy. After several months, the committee was not making any headway with negotiations, so they turned the negotiations over to General Manager Bob Thompson to see if he could have success. Not all board members were involved as these negotiations are usually done in secret. Mr. Thompson was heading toward an agreement with Sandpiper.
In December 2014, Thompson then advised the Acting President Marty Clarke of the terms he had negotiated. Clarke insisted that Thompson had not done a proper job of negotiating, as the agreement did not include a “franchise fee.”
Clarke had insisted that every other jurisdiction was receiving a franchise fee and that Thompson did not have the welfare of the community at heart in his negotiations, as he was not able to negotiate a franchise fee.
Thompson advised Clarke that the other jurisdictions were not getting a franchise fee, but Clarke did not believe Thompson. Clarke went to the newspapers and negotiations broke down and nothing was done about this for months and months.
Note: a franchise fee is just a pass through where the energy company would have charged the customer a fee for using the system, and then sent the fee back to the association.
I personally had propane tanks put on my property, as I was led to believe that Sandpiper was the “bad guy” in all of this. It wasn’t until later that I found out about Clarke’s insistence on a franchise fee was the main reason for the breakdown in negotiations.
I then made the motion to restart the negotiations with Sandpiper, and have Thompson alone do the negotiations. My motion was opposed by Mr.’s Stevens and Collins, who insisted other members of the board be involved, which hadn’t worked previously. A majority passed the motion and Thompson began negotiations.
After several months, Thompson brought back a contract for approval of the board. The board asked for a couple changes and Thompson went back to Sandpiper. Eventually, he brought us back a final contract, which some have described as “fantastic” and “amazing,” which has Sandpiper paying the association approximately $400,000 over the next several years. A board majority approved the contract.
After he re-started the negotiations, Mr. Thompson was able to acquire copies of the Sandpiper contracts from the other jurisdictions, which showed they, in fact, were not getting a franchise fee. This way he had it in writing so there would be no disputing what he had told Mr. Clarke, who did not believe him.
They did, however, have a clause that if any of the jurisdictions in the area got a franchise fee, that they would be able to also. We also got that “me too” clause, which caused one director to vote against the contract.
Mr. Stevens said that he didn’t really see the big deal in all of the delay because gas and propane prices were not all that different at this time. I see the problem as a little broader as we could have had the agreement a full year before if we hadn’t been stopped by somebody who knows it all.
We are also just lucky that the gas prices are down. The conversion may have been completed in much more of the community. Now that I know Sandpiper wasn’t the “bad guy” in all of this, I am going to switch back to be on the pipeline.
Bill Cordwell, OPA
Editor,
It is really unfortunate that Director Stevens felt the need to criticize a resident, Ms. Fry, who only wrote a letter stating her opinion on the board’s involvement in the Sandpiper Energy negotiations. I personally found Ms. Fry’s comments closer to the facts, however.
The OP Board put together a committee to negotiate with Sandpiper Energy. After several months, the committee was not making any headway with negotiations, so they turned the negotiations over to General Manager Bob Thompson to see if he could have success. Not all board members were involved as these negotiations are usually done in secret. Mr. Thompson was heading toward an agreement with Sandpiper.
In December 2014, Thompson then advised the Acting President Marty Clarke of the terms he had negotiated. Clarke insisted that Thompson had not done a proper job of negotiating, as the agreement did not include a “franchise fee.”
Clarke had insisted that every other jurisdiction was receiving a franchise fee and that Thompson did not have the welfare of the community at heart in his negotiations, as he was not able to negotiate a franchise fee.
Thompson advised Clarke that the other jurisdictions were not getting a franchise fee, but Clarke did not believe Thompson. Clarke went to the newspapers and negotiations broke down and nothing was done about this for months and months.
Note: a franchise fee is just a pass through where the energy company would have charged the customer a fee for using the system, and then sent the fee back to the association.
I personally had propane tanks put on my property, as I was led to believe that Sandpiper was the “bad guy” in all of this. It wasn’t until later that I found out about Clarke’s insistence on a franchise fee was the main reason for the breakdown in negotiations.
I then made the motion to restart the negotiations with Sandpiper, and have Thompson alone do the negotiations. My motion was opposed by Mr.’s Stevens and Collins, who insisted other members of the board be involved, which hadn’t worked previously. A majority passed the motion and Thompson began negotiations.
After several months, Thompson brought back a contract for approval of the board. The board asked for a couple changes and Thompson went back to Sandpiper. Eventually, he brought us back a final contract, which some have described as “fantastic” and “amazing,” which has Sandpiper paying the association approximately $400,000 over the next several years. A board majority approved the contract.
After he re-started the negotiations, Mr. Thompson was able to acquire copies of the Sandpiper contracts from the other jurisdictions, which showed they, in fact, were not getting a franchise fee. This way he had it in writing so there would be no disputing what he had told Mr. Clarke, who did not believe him.
They did, however, have a clause that if any of the jurisdictions in the area got a franchise fee, that they would be able to also. We also got that “me too” clause, which caused one director to vote against the contract.
Mr. Stevens said that he didn’t really see the big deal in all of the delay because gas and propane prices were not all that different at this time. I see the problem as a little broader as we could have had the agreement a full year before if we hadn’t been stopped by somebody who knows it all.
We are also just lucky that the gas prices are down. The conversion may have been completed in much more of the community. Now that I know Sandpiper wasn’t the “bad guy” in all of this, I am going to switch back to be on the pipeline.
Bill Cordwell, OPA
‘Cordwell’s Fables’
Editor,
After reading yet another one of “Director Cordwell’s Fables” in a recent issue of the Bayside Gazette (Dated June 2, 2016), and unfortunately seeing my name mentioned as a target in his constant mudslinging and disparagement of his fellow board members, I feel compelled to now respond.
As Mr. Cordwell revealed, vacation carryover for the GM was discussed at the meeting. The GM requested unlimited vacation carryover. My suggestion in the discussion was to limit the accumulation to six weeks and any additional vacation time he would use or lose.
I never insisted the GM would be “forced” to take vacation time as Mr. Cordwell accuses me of. In fact, Mr. Cordwell himself is the only one who misunderstood this concept and he was the one who used the term “force,” which was not true.
To allow unlimited vacation time to be accrued would have been an injustice to the fiscal responsibility we as a board owe to our membership. A limit needed to be discussed.
Director Cordwell also mentions my proposal to form an advisory committee to explore the viability of bringing in a management company to manage our community. His allegation that it was voted down because it “should be discussed in closed session” is highly debatable.
The reason is was not brought up again is simply the fact that it had been already discussed at length at the open meeting and was already dismissed by the current board majority.
Director Cordwell’s term will be over in a few months. Hopefully, the anger he exhibits towards fellow board members who do not agree with him will subside and he will heal. The rubber stamp he uses to approve all the ideas proposed by our current general manager will be retired, unless of course he hands it over to the candidate he, or who his “associates” (his term) support in the upcoming election.
I again apologize for feeling the need to respond, but I can no longer continue to allow our association members to be misled.
Sincerely,
Tom Herrick, OPA
Editor,
After reading yet another one of “Director Cordwell’s Fables” in a recent issue of the Bayside Gazette (Dated June 2, 2016), and unfortunately seeing my name mentioned as a target in his constant mudslinging and disparagement of his fellow board members, I feel compelled to now respond.
As Mr. Cordwell revealed, vacation carryover for the GM was discussed at the meeting. The GM requested unlimited vacation carryover. My suggestion in the discussion was to limit the accumulation to six weeks and any additional vacation time he would use or lose.
I never insisted the GM would be “forced” to take vacation time as Mr. Cordwell accuses me of. In fact, Mr. Cordwell himself is the only one who misunderstood this concept and he was the one who used the term “force,” which was not true.
To allow unlimited vacation time to be accrued would have been an injustice to the fiscal responsibility we as a board owe to our membership. A limit needed to be discussed.
Director Cordwell also mentions my proposal to form an advisory committee to explore the viability of bringing in a management company to manage our community. His allegation that it was voted down because it “should be discussed in closed session” is highly debatable.
The reason is was not brought up again is simply the fact that it had been already discussed at length at the open meeting and was already dismissed by the current board majority.
Director Cordwell’s term will be over in a few months. Hopefully, the anger he exhibits towards fellow board members who do not agree with him will subside and he will heal. The rubber stamp he uses to approve all the ideas proposed by our current general manager will be retired, unless of course he hands it over to the candidate he, or who his “associates” (his term) support in the upcoming election.
I again apologize for feeling the need to respond, but I can no longer continue to allow our association members to be misled.
Sincerely,
Tom Herrick, OPA