(April 21, 2016) “I think we’re on our own, guys.”
That was the message of Steve Cohen, chairman of the Ocean Pines Comprehensive Planning Committee, said at the start of a meeting in the community center last Thursday.
The committee is attempting to regroup, following what many considered to be a calamitous meeting with the board of directors last month.
“The last board meeting … would, I believe, charitably be called an unmitigated disaster,” Committee member Frank Daly said. “It is our job to go in front of [the directors] with a deliverable [message] and have backup and have a clear understanding of what that deliverable is going to be.”
By all accounts, that did not happen.
Daly said the committee had not effectively communicated just what kind of information the in-progress comprehensive plan would contain, and that the committee members were often not “on the same page.”
According to Pat Renaud, president of the board and the liaison to the committee, the consensus among the other directors was, “let’s dump this project – we don’t want to do it anymore.”
“I’ve got five [of seven] people that are against this project,” Renaud said. He added that he was one of the two who still supported the committee’s work.
For just over a year, the committee had been working with Salisbury University group BEACON (Business Economic and Community Outreach Network), led by Dr. Memo Diriker. BEACON was commissioned to perform a communitywide survey that would help inform a new comprehensive plan.
“The disconnect [between the board and the committee] came when we got the survey questions from Dr. Diriker,” Renaud said. “We sent them to every member of the committee asking you comment on them one way or the other. A lot of people didn’t … a lot of you didn’t do anything.”
The committee then presented a draft of the survey to the directors, Renaud said, without first vetting questions.
“That was the wrong thing to do,” he said.
Daly suggested a new strategy, and presented a “table of contents” for a comprehensive plan, along with a rough outline, borrowed from the 2008 draft. He also used planning documents from St. Michaels, Maryland to fill in some of the blanks.
“This is what I would come to you, as a committee member and homeowner, and say, ‘this is what should be in the Ocean Pines comprehensive plan,’” he said. “If you buy this as the outline … which merges the past good work of the committee with what we know about now in terms of a good comprehensive plan … then you can say, OK, where are we going to get this data?”
That, he said, is where the survey potentially comes in. He suggested the committee work to refine the outline first, then develop the questionnaire and present both to the board for approval.
Members of the committee debated whether the finished survey would be sent to Ocean Pines homeowners, or all residents – including renters. Previously, Diriker proposed that as many as five people per household could respond to the questions.
“When we go to vote for the board of directors, our household gets one vote. So the question is, why would we give – if we talk about anything that potentially affects an opinion on what we should do with our assessment – nonresidents five votes, when we get only one?” Daly said.
Committee member Tom Butler said the survey, and the plan, was not an assessment, nor was it to be used as “a voting tool.”
“It is what our community is,” he said. “Dependent upon how you sit in a community, you’re going to have a different perspective of it. If you’re a golfer, you may look at this community as a golfing community. If you’re a boater or waterman or like aquatics, you might very well look at this community as a vacation community, or someplace I can go in the summertime.
“Every one of those view points … are very valid,” Butler continued. “But, they are not viewpoints as homeowners – they are viewpoints as a community. Therefore, every one of those viewpoints [are] stakeholders with a different perspective on the community.”
Those stakeholders, Butler said, also included merchants and renters.
“These are all things that help make a community. And, as I understood it … when we started this thing many years ago, it was to discuss it as a community, to talk about the comprehensive strategic plan from a community perspective,” Butler said. “When the board of directors are talking about it, they’re interested in one freaking thing only – maybe two. The first thing is, how I get reelected, and the second thing is, how much is it going to cost me?”
Daly said the committee could present that perspective to the board, but first had to develop a rationale for it – and be able to defend that rationale.
“I think what you need to do is to continue developing the way Frank is talking about,” Renaud said. “I think it’s a good idea – just lay a little low for a while. The board is not taking any action that I know of … to disenfranchise you.
“Right now they’re very disappointed. I won’t say they aren’t – they are,” Renaud added.
“They can’t be more disappointed than we are,” Butler said.
“Oh, yes they can. A lot of them think it’s a failure – [the survey] is just a bunch of smokescreens, and it’s not going to do anything,” Renaud said. “Put something together for the board so they can understand it and see it. Otherwise, if you don’t do that, they’re not going to vote for it.”
The committee will meet next on April 28, at 4:30 p.m., in the community center.
That was the message of Steve Cohen, chairman of the Ocean Pines Comprehensive Planning Committee, said at the start of a meeting in the community center last Thursday.
The committee is attempting to regroup, following what many considered to be a calamitous meeting with the board of directors last month.
“The last board meeting … would, I believe, charitably be called an unmitigated disaster,” Committee member Frank Daly said. “It is our job to go in front of [the directors] with a deliverable [message] and have backup and have a clear understanding of what that deliverable is going to be.”
By all accounts, that did not happen.
Daly said the committee had not effectively communicated just what kind of information the in-progress comprehensive plan would contain, and that the committee members were often not “on the same page.”
According to Pat Renaud, president of the board and the liaison to the committee, the consensus among the other directors was, “let’s dump this project – we don’t want to do it anymore.”
“I’ve got five [of seven] people that are against this project,” Renaud said. He added that he was one of the two who still supported the committee’s work.
For just over a year, the committee had been working with Salisbury University group BEACON (Business Economic and Community Outreach Network), led by Dr. Memo Diriker. BEACON was commissioned to perform a communitywide survey that would help inform a new comprehensive plan.
“The disconnect [between the board and the committee] came when we got the survey questions from Dr. Diriker,” Renaud said. “We sent them to every member of the committee asking you comment on them one way or the other. A lot of people didn’t … a lot of you didn’t do anything.”
The committee then presented a draft of the survey to the directors, Renaud said, without first vetting questions.
“That was the wrong thing to do,” he said.
Daly suggested a new strategy, and presented a “table of contents” for a comprehensive plan, along with a rough outline, borrowed from the 2008 draft. He also used planning documents from St. Michaels, Maryland to fill in some of the blanks.
“This is what I would come to you, as a committee member and homeowner, and say, ‘this is what should be in the Ocean Pines comprehensive plan,’” he said. “If you buy this as the outline … which merges the past good work of the committee with what we know about now in terms of a good comprehensive plan … then you can say, OK, where are we going to get this data?”
That, he said, is where the survey potentially comes in. He suggested the committee work to refine the outline first, then develop the questionnaire and present both to the board for approval.
Members of the committee debated whether the finished survey would be sent to Ocean Pines homeowners, or all residents – including renters. Previously, Diriker proposed that as many as five people per household could respond to the questions.
“When we go to vote for the board of directors, our household gets one vote. So the question is, why would we give – if we talk about anything that potentially affects an opinion on what we should do with our assessment – nonresidents five votes, when we get only one?” Daly said.
Committee member Tom Butler said the survey, and the plan, was not an assessment, nor was it to be used as “a voting tool.”
“It is what our community is,” he said. “Dependent upon how you sit in a community, you’re going to have a different perspective of it. If you’re a golfer, you may look at this community as a golfing community. If you’re a boater or waterman or like aquatics, you might very well look at this community as a vacation community, or someplace I can go in the summertime.
“Every one of those view points … are very valid,” Butler continued. “But, they are not viewpoints as homeowners – they are viewpoints as a community. Therefore, every one of those viewpoints [are] stakeholders with a different perspective on the community.”
Those stakeholders, Butler said, also included merchants and renters.
“These are all things that help make a community. And, as I understood it … when we started this thing many years ago, it was to discuss it as a community, to talk about the comprehensive strategic plan from a community perspective,” Butler said. “When the board of directors are talking about it, they’re interested in one freaking thing only – maybe two. The first thing is, how I get reelected, and the second thing is, how much is it going to cost me?”
Daly said the committee could present that perspective to the board, but first had to develop a rationale for it – and be able to defend that rationale.
“I think what you need to do is to continue developing the way Frank is talking about,” Renaud said. “I think it’s a good idea – just lay a little low for a while. The board is not taking any action that I know of … to disenfranchise you.
“Right now they’re very disappointed. I won’t say they aren’t – they are,” Renaud added.
“They can’t be more disappointed than we are,” Butler said.
“Oh, yes they can. A lot of them think it’s a failure – [the survey] is just a bunch of smokescreens, and it’s not going to do anything,” Renaud said. “Put something together for the board so they can understand it and see it. Otherwise, if you don’t do that, they’re not going to vote for it.”
The committee will meet next on April 28, at 4:30 p.m., in the community center.