Trying to analyze the reasons behind the Ocean Pines Association Board of Directors’ vote on General Manager Bob Thompson’s contract extension is an exercise in befuddlement.
As his contract was up for renewal, Thompson asked that it be extended for another three years, but without the generous bonus clause that could bring him anywhere between a few dollars and $41,250 at the end of the year if he substantially beat the budget.
Instead, he suggested, he would prefer the standard 3 percent annual increase other OPA staffers receive because it would bring him more in line with the people with whom he worked.
Such a move would guarantee him a raise of just under $5,000, based on his current salary, in lieu of the opportunity to make that many times over if everything falls in line with the budget.
Sounds like a simple plan, except for the fact that nothing is simple with the board. For all the clashes some board members have had with Thompson over the years, one would assume they would be delighted to guarantee him less money. But no.
On the other hand, it might also be assumed that board members think so much of Thompson, despite these clashes, that they were disinclined to eliminate the possibility of him earning a big payday. That doesn’t sound exactly right either.
A cynic might argue that Thompson was taking the bird-in-hand approach by asking for a set raise percentage, however small it might be, rather than pursue a budgetary goal that he may or may not achieve. But it didn’t seem like that was the case in last week’s contract discussion either.
Instead, it appeared that the board was so taken aback by his pay cut request that it didn’t know how to respond other than to say thanks, good job, let’s keep things as they are for three more years.
Still confused? Let’s just say instead that it was business as usual.
As his contract was up for renewal, Thompson asked that it be extended for another three years, but without the generous bonus clause that could bring him anywhere between a few dollars and $41,250 at the end of the year if he substantially beat the budget.
Instead, he suggested, he would prefer the standard 3 percent annual increase other OPA staffers receive because it would bring him more in line with the people with whom he worked.
Such a move would guarantee him a raise of just under $5,000, based on his current salary, in lieu of the opportunity to make that many times over if everything falls in line with the budget.
Sounds like a simple plan, except for the fact that nothing is simple with the board. For all the clashes some board members have had with Thompson over the years, one would assume they would be delighted to guarantee him less money. But no.
On the other hand, it might also be assumed that board members think so much of Thompson, despite these clashes, that they were disinclined to eliminate the possibility of him earning a big payday. That doesn’t sound exactly right either.
A cynic might argue that Thompson was taking the bird-in-hand approach by asking for a set raise percentage, however small it might be, rather than pursue a budgetary goal that he may or may not achieve. But it didn’t seem like that was the case in last week’s contract discussion either.
Instead, it appeared that the board was so taken aback by his pay cut request that it didn’t know how to respond other than to say thanks, good job, let’s keep things as they are for three more years.
Still confused? Let’s just say instead that it was business as usual.