message board home
Next
1/24/2008 2:53:50 PM
 
Reply
or ReplyNewSubject
Section 5: OPA Board Subject: Board Punts on Slots Msg# 528275
|
||||||
|
rather than demanding Ocean Pines be designated a specific percentage Note the language chosen above for use in the press release. The three authors obviously saw any attempt to have Mathia introduce legislation for OPA's benefit as a DEMAND. The words say a lot about the mindset of the three people who signed that press release. Seems to me OPA would be making a request of Mathias, not a DEMAND. You are correct, however, in that the news release reflects almost exactly the views expressed by Bill Rakow before the board ever voted to get involved. The result was a foregone conclusion. The results might have been different if Rakow had not been in the group meeting with Mathias. Bill has always been highly motivated against this 10% and I'm sure he was very influential with the other two to see it his way and in crafting the text of the news release. |
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
For reference, the above message is a reply to a message where: 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. |
