(March 3, 2016) Two documents drafted by Ocean Pines’ Budget and Finance Committee received first readings during a board of directors meeting last Thursday, although at least one director challenged by the wisdom and craftsmanship of both.
Resolution F-01 would adjust the association’s investment strategy, while C-03 addresses the function of the committee.
Tom Terry, the board liaison to the committee, said the directors passed an update of F-01 last year with the understanding a more thorough revision of the guidelines would be tackled later.
“I’m going to reserve my comments for a much broader discussion that will probably occur the next time this comes up,” Jack Collins said.
“I’m not going to wait for second reading,” Dave Stevens said, adding he did not believe the draft was “more thorough” than the previous resolution.
“I will say it had a lot more words than the other document did, but, they weren’t necessary words in my mind,” Stevens said. “There was no rationale for why these changes … were put in here. Why are we changing the simpler version that we already have? What was wrong with it, and why did we fix it?”
Terry said he would be happy to ask for clarification from the chair of the committee, Pat Supik.
Supik was present last month, when Terry first tried to introduce both motions during a board meeting. Instead, he consented to first clear the drafts with the by-laws and resolutions committee.
This time, Terry said, Supik was unavailable to attend the meeting because of a personal matter.
“That question should have been asked already,” Stevens said.
“Why don’t we just delay this for six months?” Terry said, hinting at sarcasm. “At some point we have to move on with these things.”
Asked by Board President Pat Renaud if he thought the directors should disregard the motion entirely, Stevens replied, “yes.”
“Let me put it this way – there is no reason, in my mind, to adopt this,” he said. “It’s a bad resolution, which, in my mind, is poorly written, poorly organized and does not answer the fundamental question, why is it that we have to change what was already written in the original resolution?”
Stevens said new motion “tremendously confused the issue” and essentially restated several points made in the original resolution.
“Maybe I can be helpful on this,” General Manager Bob Thompson said.
“Probably not,” Stevens said, drawing the gavel from Renaud.
Thompson said the budget and finance committee met next on March 23, one day before the next board meeting when the directors would be able to vote on both motions.
“It’s a board-approved committee … [and] it’s their recommendation,” Thompson said. “I would recommend the board attend their meeting and ask these questions from the experts that made the recommendation, and you can get the direct feedback instead of trying to guess what it was.
“That’s a fact-finding opportunity for the board of directors to get smarter about what this is. It’s your committee. Use the committee,” Thompson added.
The motion to accept F-01 as a first reading passed 5-2, with Stevens and Jack Collins voting against.
Stevens said he also had concerns about the draft of C-03.
“Do you think it’s unreasonable for me to ask [the committee to] provide what they’re changing and the reason for changing it?” Stevens said. “That is what, I believe, we ought to expect.”
The first reading on C-03 passed 6-1. Stevens was the lone “no” vote.
Resolution F-01 would adjust the association’s investment strategy, while C-03 addresses the function of the committee.
Tom Terry, the board liaison to the committee, said the directors passed an update of F-01 last year with the understanding a more thorough revision of the guidelines would be tackled later.
“I’m going to reserve my comments for a much broader discussion that will probably occur the next time this comes up,” Jack Collins said.
“I’m not going to wait for second reading,” Dave Stevens said, adding he did not believe the draft was “more thorough” than the previous resolution.
“I will say it had a lot more words than the other document did, but, they weren’t necessary words in my mind,” Stevens said. “There was no rationale for why these changes … were put in here. Why are we changing the simpler version that we already have? What was wrong with it, and why did we fix it?”
Terry said he would be happy to ask for clarification from the chair of the committee, Pat Supik.
Supik was present last month, when Terry first tried to introduce both motions during a board meeting. Instead, he consented to first clear the drafts with the by-laws and resolutions committee.
This time, Terry said, Supik was unavailable to attend the meeting because of a personal matter.
“That question should have been asked already,” Stevens said.
“Why don’t we just delay this for six months?” Terry said, hinting at sarcasm. “At some point we have to move on with these things.”
Asked by Board President Pat Renaud if he thought the directors should disregard the motion entirely, Stevens replied, “yes.”
“Let me put it this way – there is no reason, in my mind, to adopt this,” he said. “It’s a bad resolution, which, in my mind, is poorly written, poorly organized and does not answer the fundamental question, why is it that we have to change what was already written in the original resolution?”
Stevens said new motion “tremendously confused the issue” and essentially restated several points made in the original resolution.
“Maybe I can be helpful on this,” General Manager Bob Thompson said.
“Probably not,” Stevens said, drawing the gavel from Renaud.
Thompson said the budget and finance committee met next on March 23, one day before the next board meeting when the directors would be able to vote on both motions.
“It’s a board-approved committee … [and] it’s their recommendation,” Thompson said. “I would recommend the board attend their meeting and ask these questions from the experts that made the recommendation, and you can get the direct feedback instead of trying to guess what it was.
“That’s a fact-finding opportunity for the board of directors to get smarter about what this is. It’s your committee. Use the committee,” Thompson added.
The motion to accept F-01 as a first reading passed 5-2, with Stevens and Jack Collins voting against.
Stevens said he also had concerns about the draft of C-03.
“Do you think it’s unreasonable for me to ask [the committee to] provide what they’re changing and the reason for changing it?” Stevens said. “That is what, I believe, we ought to expect.”
The first reading on C-03 passed 6-1. Stevens was the lone “no” vote.