Special meeting held on Monday quickly negated after court intervention 

By Greg Ellison

(Aug. 12, 2021) A motion to rescind the Ocean Pines Association Board of Directors’ decisions last week to declare then board candidate Rick Farr ineligible to run but to continue with the nearly completed election ’s was voted down during a special meeting on Monday.

The directors voted 3-2-1 to stick with their position, with Director Doug Parks absent because of the death of his mother Sunday, and Director Frank Daly abstaining.

Parks had made the motions to retract the July 30 closed session vote and issue new ballots including only eligible candidates. 

Opposing Park’s motion were association President Larry Perrone, and board members Dr. Colette Horn and Frank Brown. Voting in favor were Directors Tom Janasek and Camilla Rogers. Daly abstained because he is running for reelection.

Perrone opened the meeting by thanking the capacity crowd.

“It’s nice to see people are interested,” he said.

Speaking on behalf of Parks, Janasek read a statement from the board member who said he voted against proceeding with the election last week.

In response to the board decision, Parks called for a special meeting on Monday to address the matter.

“An honest mistake was made,” he said.

Rogers, who serves as board secretary, said the onus fell on her shoulders.

“I have been the sought-after culprit in all of this,” she said.

Validating board candidate eligibility is the responsibility of the board secretary, with assistance from association staff to confirm assessments fees are paid and individuals running are Pines property owners.

Additionally, Rogers said she examined Maryland Department of Assessments and Taxation for all four 2021 board candidates.

“I saw Farr’s property was owned by the Farr Living Trust,” she said.

The documents showed Farr’s parents purchased the Pines lot in 1999

“Rick Farr’s father’s name was also Richard Farr [so] when I saw that I thought OK he owned property,” she said.

After determining Farr was eligible at the launch of the annual election cycle, additional information came to light in recent weeks.

“Then we received the anonymous tip that Farr didn’t own property here,” she said.

Rogers proceeded to spend two hours scouring Worcester County Court records to confirm Farr’s ownership status.

“I found out Rick Farr was a successor trustee,” she said.

Much as a prince is in line for the throne but not yet ruler, Rogers said it is her opinion that being a successor trustee differs from owning property.

“What I learned in law school is that a successor trustee doesn’t have ownership of property,” she said.

Association attorney Jeremy Tucker said to qualify as a board member, the association bylaws say candidates must be property owners of record by Jan. 1 of the election year.

“That’s the crux of the problem, is that the deed does not reflect Mr. Farr,” he said.

Tucker said the property deed lists two of Farr’s relatives, including his recently deceased mother, as owners of record.

Parks raised issue in his statement with the recent disclosure.

“I’m somewhat suspicions of the anonymous tip that was provided and the timing,” he said. “I’m not convinced it was random or coincidental.”

Parks questioned why the information was not shared earlier in the election cycle and the need for anonymity.

“My position is by restarting the election, all votes on a ballot will be counted and not discarded due to discovering an ineligibility issue after the fact,” he said.

Parks cautioned residents to pay attention to the discussion points during the meeting and how board members voted.

“It will indicate how they perceive the sanctity of the association members’ vote,” he said.

Perrone said despite talk to the contrary, the closed session vote last week was not concerning Farr’s eligibility.

“The secretary determined that candidate Farr was not eligible,” he said. “After that determination was made, a motion was put forward by me, and approved by board, that we would continue with the election process as governed by our bylaws and DRs.”

Perrone added that because Farr had been declared ineligible, his votes would not be counted.

Among a host of public comments, related costs to restage the election were questioned.

Perrone said costs could range as high as $25,000, with another $20,000 added if a referendum was required.

Public commentary ran the gamut from concerns that discarded Farr votes would only permit supporters to make one selection, to others pinning the blame on the, now former, candidate.

Former board member Cheryl Jacobs said Farr’s failure to adhere to election guidelines caused the current dilemma.

“It’s the candidates’ responsibility to know if they’re qualified,” she said. “The rules call for the election to move forward.”

Horn noted residents shared varying sentiments during the special meeting on Monday.

“There are different ways people could fall out of their candidacy,” she said.

Besides death, sudden relocation was another change that would void board candidacy, Horn said.

“The decision we make today will set a precedent,” she said. “There are many situations that could arise to put us here year after year.”

Horn said short of an act of God, she would oppose making exceptions to bylaw requirements for elections.

“This is not a natural disaster, this is a man-made disaster,” she said.

Horn also said during her prior role as board secretary, a comparable situation arose.

“In 2019 the board voted to redo requirements for applicants for the board because we had a similar issue in 2018,” she said.

At that time a previous board candidate was claiming non-conventional property ownership through an LLC.

“It took a lot of research to get to the bottom,” she said.

In time the research did reveal true ownership status, but also motivated a realignment of responsibilities.

“The board decided at that time it’s not our job to do that digging,” she said.

Horn said licensing applications in various professional realms typically place the burden for providing proof of qualifications on the applicant.

“We changed our application in that way as well,” she said.

Horn said Farr’s application did not include the required documentation if the claim of ownership had been based on a trust.

“The claim of ownership was not based on a trust,” she said.

Instead, Horn said Farr purported to be a Pines property owner since 1999 when his parents purchased.

“The mistake that was made was an honest mistake made by our secretary based on the fact that the application was not completed correctly,” she said. “This could happen any year.”

Horn said in light of the recent eligibility reversal, Farr requested the board improve the application process.

“We will no longer make it a suggestion that supporting documents be supplied and … that you attest to the truth of what you’re putting in your application,” she said. “We will make that a requirement.”

For her part, Rogers professed sadness over recent developments.

 “I feel horrible about this,” she said. “I called Farr and apologized.”

The contention also sparked numerous hostile comments towards Rogers and her immediate family.

“My husband and I have gotten death threats [and] threats against our dog,” she said. “I’m ashamed to live in Ocean Pines right now.”