(March 3, 2016) The OPA Board of Directors approved an $11.1 million fiscal year 2017 budget by with a 4-1 vote last Thursday, including in it $3.49 million in capital projects. Because of a compromise reached on Feb. 19, the basic annual assessment will remain unchanged over the previous year, at $921.
Although the directors agreed in principal to the parameters of the budget a week before the vote, several directors said they would have liked more time before finalizing the document.
Jack Collins, for one, said he had not received a physical copy before the meeting.
“I’m afraid I don’t know what I’m voting for,” he said. “It concerns me, because of things that we’ve heard about on the national level about people voting on things that they haven’t read.”
Dave Stevens agreed, saying he only received notice that copies were available at about 3 p.m. on the day before the meeting. He moved to table to vote.
“Although the basics of the budget we did agree on … there were a lot of changes made in terms of which capital items were approved, which ones weren’t and so forth. I think that, before [voting on] the final budget, I want to be able to go through those,” he said.
Several other directors, including Bill Cordwell, took a different slant, saying the proposed delay was merely a political stalling tactic.
Cordwell said the directors met at least eight times, and spent 30-40 hours reviewing the budget during public meetings. Last Friday, he suggested, the directors agreed to the terms of the budget with the understanding that a vote would be held during the regular board meeting a week later.
“We have the figures today – we had them yesterday afternoon,” Cordwell said. “Nothing has changed. The assessment hasn’t changed, capital [spending] hasn’t changed. Unless you’re saying that you don’t believe that [Controller] Art [Carmine] entered everything correctly, I have no idea what you could be looking for.
“The longer we put this off, the worse we are as an association,” Cordwell added. “Monday it will be something, then Wednesday it will be something else.”
Tom Terry, on vacation, but telecommuting to the meeting from Florida, said the board used a “very laborious, very detailed, very exacting process” in reviewing and approving the terms of the budget, and agreed with Cordwell that the consensus for a vote on Feb. 25 was present during the previous meeting.
“To give impression to the members of the association that somehow the board did not have the information, did not have the time to debate, did not have the time to work through the numbers, did not work through a process that they agreed to follow – to me, delaying this … simply sends the message to the members that the board of directors didn’t have the information,” Terry said. “That can paint a picture that can be very valuable to some people.”
In order to keep dues flat, the directors agreed to reduce the amount collected in the assessments for legacy reserves. For several years, that number had been $130 per member, per year. Tom Herrick argued that, without seeing the final budget numbers, the directors did not know the exact impact on reserves.
Herrick said he had only received the budget that morning, just before the start of the 9 a.m. board of directors meeting. Stevens and Collins apparently had yet to pick up copies.
Cheryl Jacobs said she was out of town for much of the previous day, and knew she would not be back in time to pick up the budget during business hours. With a single phone call, however, she made arrangements to get it later that night, and had said she had ample time to review the most-recent changes.
She suggested the board break for lunch, take a few hours to go over the budget, and then reconvene for a vote. Stevens balked.
“I’m not going to look at it in a half an hour, or whatever you’re suggesting, and come back and vote on it,” he said. “I see no reason that [the vote] has to be done.
“It’s not just a function of being suspicious … it’s a function [that] people make mistakes,” Stevens continued. “I don’t want to pass or to vote on a budget that I haven’t had a reasonable amount of time to review … That’s my responsibility.”
The motion to table the vote fell 4-3, with Stevens, Collins and Herrick voting in the minority.
In the final vote to pass the budget, Jacobs, Terry, Cordwell and Board President Pat Renaud voted for the motion, with Stevens voting “no.” Collins and Herrick abstained.
Total revenues and expenses, according to the motion, were identical, at $11.1 million.
Although the directors agreed in principal to the parameters of the budget a week before the vote, several directors said they would have liked more time before finalizing the document.
Jack Collins, for one, said he had not received a physical copy before the meeting.
“I’m afraid I don’t know what I’m voting for,” he said. “It concerns me, because of things that we’ve heard about on the national level about people voting on things that they haven’t read.”
Dave Stevens agreed, saying he only received notice that copies were available at about 3 p.m. on the day before the meeting. He moved to table to vote.
“Although the basics of the budget we did agree on … there were a lot of changes made in terms of which capital items were approved, which ones weren’t and so forth. I think that, before [voting on] the final budget, I want to be able to go through those,” he said.
Several other directors, including Bill Cordwell, took a different slant, saying the proposed delay was merely a political stalling tactic.
Cordwell said the directors met at least eight times, and spent 30-40 hours reviewing the budget during public meetings. Last Friday, he suggested, the directors agreed to the terms of the budget with the understanding that a vote would be held during the regular board meeting a week later.
“We have the figures today – we had them yesterday afternoon,” Cordwell said. “Nothing has changed. The assessment hasn’t changed, capital [spending] hasn’t changed. Unless you’re saying that you don’t believe that [Controller] Art [Carmine] entered everything correctly, I have no idea what you could be looking for.
“The longer we put this off, the worse we are as an association,” Cordwell added. “Monday it will be something, then Wednesday it will be something else.”
Tom Terry, on vacation, but telecommuting to the meeting from Florida, said the board used a “very laborious, very detailed, very exacting process” in reviewing and approving the terms of the budget, and agreed with Cordwell that the consensus for a vote on Feb. 25 was present during the previous meeting.
“To give impression to the members of the association that somehow the board did not have the information, did not have the time to debate, did not have the time to work through the numbers, did not work through a process that they agreed to follow – to me, delaying this … simply sends the message to the members that the board of directors didn’t have the information,” Terry said. “That can paint a picture that can be very valuable to some people.”
In order to keep dues flat, the directors agreed to reduce the amount collected in the assessments for legacy reserves. For several years, that number had been $130 per member, per year. Tom Herrick argued that, without seeing the final budget numbers, the directors did not know the exact impact on reserves.
Herrick said he had only received the budget that morning, just before the start of the 9 a.m. board of directors meeting. Stevens and Collins apparently had yet to pick up copies.
Cheryl Jacobs said she was out of town for much of the previous day, and knew she would not be back in time to pick up the budget during business hours. With a single phone call, however, she made arrangements to get it later that night, and had said she had ample time to review the most-recent changes.
She suggested the board break for lunch, take a few hours to go over the budget, and then reconvene for a vote. Stevens balked.
“I’m not going to look at it in a half an hour, or whatever you’re suggesting, and come back and vote on it,” he said. “I see no reason that [the vote] has to be done.
“It’s not just a function of being suspicious … it’s a function [that] people make mistakes,” Stevens continued. “I don’t want to pass or to vote on a budget that I haven’t had a reasonable amount of time to review … That’s my responsibility.”
The motion to table the vote fell 4-3, with Stevens, Collins and Herrick voting in the minority.
In the final vote to pass the budget, Jacobs, Terry, Cordwell and Board President Pat Renaud voted for the motion, with Stevens voting “no.” Collins and Herrick abstained.
Total revenues and expenses, according to the motion, were identical, at $11.1 million.