message board home
Next
1/24/2008 9:07:13 AM
 
Reply
or ReplyNewSubject
Section 5: OPA Board Subject: Board Punts on Slots Msg# 528165
|
||||||
|
But can you respond to the major point of my question as repeated below? I want to see where the Board was against OPA directly receiving slots revenue. Here's one: It was the opinion of Directors Purcell, Rakow, and Sterrett that Ocean Pines would be better served, in the long run, by enhancing and maintaining a close, working-relationship with the Worcester County Commissioners on any slot-related issue or any revenue sharing issue rather than demanding Ocean Pines be designated a specific percentage of some anticipated, but unknown, “slot” revenue. The BOD does not want to be included in any legislation which would allow them to directly receive slots revenue. As the BOD had this mindset prior to their meeting with Delegate Mathias, it should come as no surprise to anyone that the meeting changed nothing. |
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
For reference, the above message is a reply to a message where: Rick, The argument of who has what role in the politic process can be argued from both sides and frankly there is a role for OPA. The extent of that role is debatable and some on this platform called for the Board to oppose slots, clearly a political action. So I can see both sides. But can you respond to the major point of my question as repeated below? I want to see where the Board was against OPA directly receiving slots revenue. Thanks, Ted Previous post Rick, After exploration the BOD announced they were against, or still against, OPA directly receiving slots revenue. Where did you see this...what I read is that they didn't think they could amend the legislation, not that they were against OPA directly receiving slots revenue (if I am wrong can you reference the post?). |
