I will allow Bill to respond to that but for the record I would certainly have asked.

Hi Jack,

You deserve an answer so I will respond.  I did not say it was wrong to ask.  I said that attempting to obtain a % of the grants available from slots is to be based on impacts, not votes.  To expect grants based on politics, buying votes, and a strict % without justification is WRONG.  I said that when OC and Berlin were given percents based on nothing but votes it was WRONG.  (As I recall, I very adamantly told Mathias that.)  I do not consider it very smart for the Board to play that game knowing what the law states.   

Were the Board to take a position to lobby for amending the Bill to include OPA, the Board would become the "body" that generates all the emails, letters, phone calls, etc. that MIGHT force Mathias and Conway to amend the Bill with a percent for OPA.  This is not something that the Board should be doing.  In my opinion, the Board had a duty to learn as much about this issue early on and then to inform our membership objectively as to the facts.  In this we failed to do, and as a member of the Board, I admit that I did not do what I know now I should have done.  I'm not going to beat myself up on it, though.  This year, I intend to make a motion that we form a Political Issues Committee that advises the Board on such things.  I say "issues" because I believe we should select the battles we get into very carefully, but inform our membership on issues that we believe affect them.

Now, we must do what we can to make certain OPA is represented when/if slots come.  This will not happen for at least three years, IMO.  The law creates a 15-member council.  On that council are our state senator, our two delegates, a slots representative, and - from the "immediate proximity" to the slots location - four business representatives and seven residents.  These 11 members are appointed jointly by the mayor of OC and our seven commissioners.  The mayor of OC should not have this power, but you can guess who added him in.

Let's see.  How effective will this council be?  Who will be nominated by our commissioners?  How is "immediate proximity" defined?  Is Snow Hill or Pokomoke in the "immediate proximity"?  We need to get knowledgeable people appointed, people who will be influential and unafraid to speak up.  If reelected, both Mathias and Conway will be on the council.  If we are smart, we can work to ensure that we are not cut out of this council.  I do not think it would be prudent to reveal conversations made with politicians wherein others could use the interpretations of what was asked and said to their own devices. 

I do not know who our commissioners will nominate, but I can think of a few who won't have a chance.     

Promises are easily made and can be poorly kept.  Informing Reynolds whether we asked Mathias to add OPA or not and what his response was, if asked, will not satisfy him.  Hey, maybe we did ask and maybe he will attempt to get us added.  And, maybe we asked and he won't really try.  Or, what ................. ?  Then, Reynolds will ask if we asked forcefully enough or who knows what.  Makes no difference, as we came to a conclusion that what we are doing is what is best for OPA and we presented that to te rest for the Board in a "paper."  I agree with those who have stated that we should have discussed this at our last Board meeting.   

I think it is best if those who are of the opinion that OPA can be included in an amended Bill to learn the facts and then act on their own or in like-minded groups.  IMO they will be wasting their time, but that is for them to decide.  Ranting about what we did is time that they could be spending doing what they believe should be done. 

Bill