Pines Residents Urge Board To Delay Bylaws Referendum

OCEAN PINES – Community members urged the board last week to delay a referendum on proposed changes to the association’s bylaws.

Last Saturday, the Ocean Pines Association Board of Directors held a public hearing on several proposed bylaw revisions.

“The proposed changes provide language that aims to eliminate inconsistencies, add clarity, and correct deficiencies in our bylaws identified in lawsuits going back several years in the Association’s history,” Association President Colette Horn said in a statement. “The final step in this process will be the referendum vote on the proposed changes.”

In February, the board voted to support several motions involving amendments to sections of the association’s bylaws, including general manager and director responsibilities and the resignation or removal of a director. The board also considered motions related to the candidate verification process and certain candidate eligibility requirements.

Nearly 30 motions that were supported last month advanced to a public hearing, held last Saturday. During public comments, resident Slobodan Trendic agreed the association’s bylaws could use some improvements, but argued some of the proposed revisions were better addressed through policy manuals and operational changes.

“Unfortunately, I wonder if your proposed changes will produce the desired results or make the matters more complex,” he said. “Therefore, I recommend you postpone your planned referendum mailing and dedicate more time and consideration to this important undertaking.”

Both Trendic and resident Joe Reynolds said they would both be voting no for all revision changes presented through referendum.

“I think all of this has been a bit of a knee-jerk reaction,” Reynolds said. “There’s no rush for any of this. Nothing we are doing here is critical to this association, not one thing.”

Reynolds also questioned if a new definition for “owner of record” would have allowed Director Rick Farr to run for the board in the 2021 election. As proposed, an owner of record is defined as a person listed on a recorded deed as the owner, a trustee or co-trustee of a trust listed on a recorded deed, or an officer of a corporation, a living member of a limited liability company, or a living partner of a partnership listed on a recorded deed.

“I have people tell me you support the definition of owner of record being proposed here …,” Reynolds said. “If it had been in effect when you were running for the board of directors, it would have made you ineligible.”

Farr and other board members noted the proposed definition would’ve made Farr eligible to run for the board.

“It outlines that a co-trustee, a trustee of the trust, is eligible to run for the board,” Farr said.

Jim Trummel also came before the board in his role as chairman of the association’s Bylaws and Resolutions Committee seeking an amendment to the definition for owner of record.

“The co-trustee and trustee of property would remain as eligible to run [for election] but not the corporate partnerships and representatives,” he said. “The reason for this is that those representatives have an inherent conflict of interest.”

Several community members told board members last week that they wanted to see the association postpone a referendum on the proposed changes, arguing that the delay would give both officials and residents time for review and consideration. Horn, however, disagreed.

“This has been in process for two years …,” she said. “I think the perception that this is being rushed is not an accurate perception.”

Reynolds told board members last week he would vote no for the proposed changes because he believed the intent of some of the proposed changes was to target certain community members.

“There’s a lot of personal stuff going on here behind the scenes …,” he said. “Given the current situation, it’s the only reasonable thing to do because too much of this involves political controversy, political and personal animosities on both sides of this. I think the association members need to say stop.”

Director Doug Parks offered that the association give residents more time.

“There are some people out here, in this meeting, that are interested in this,” he said. “But if this is the only amount of interaction we have with the membership regarding these important rules, chances are they are going to vote no. Then what have we accomplished? Nothing.”

Horn reiterated that voting no across the board to the proposed bylaws changes would undo hours of work.

“I think it’s extremely disrespectful of our Bylaws and Resolutions Committee, of our workgroup, of the individuals that have put hundreds of hours into studying these bylaws by discussing them and discussing with counsel just to say, ‘vote against all of them,’” she said. “If there are individual bylaws changes that you are not in favor of, vote against them.”

Director Larry Perrone agreed.

“There is nothing nefarious here, it’s not a knee-jerk reaction,” he said. “This is not as has been alleged in some social media that this is in retaliation against anyone. It has been going on for well over two years and we’re at the point where some conclusion has to be made. And the community will make that decision.”

About The Author: Bethany Hooper

Alternative Text

Bethany Hooper has been with The Dispatch since 2016. She currently covers various general stories. Hooper graduated from Stephen Decatur High School in 2012 and the University of Maryland in 2016, where she completed double majors in journalism and economics.