I also recall, as put forward by Ray Unger, Board members  would personally develop their rapport with our elected officials and request Ocean Pines participation in revenue sharing.

This is exactly the manner in which I believe we have the best chance in obtaining the most revenue sharing from slots.  Thank you.

That was part of the peripheral discussion and not in the motion that the Board voted on and that passed by a majority that included yourself. 

 I believe the least chance we have is to participate in confrontational politics, lose the battle, and then expect to get a fair share.  Your course of name calling and confrontation will do just the opposite of what we want IMO.

It's asinine to beleive that being assertive by pointing out that slots in Ocean Downs would effect the quality of life in the Pines and that the property owners (voters) beleive we should be compensated is interpreted as "name calling"   and "confrontational".

I would really like to see the discussion and observe the Board members and listen to their individual rationale for changing their collective minds.

Here, I agree with you.  We did not discuss this at all, but sent our position to the Board.  I guess someone decided to send it out as a press release.  If consulted, I would have chosen to discuss it at a meeting.

It appears that just to appease and pacify property owners (get them off our back) the Board publicly passed their motion and then did their own thing behind closed doors.

Norm