message board home
Next
1/24/2008 3:57:14 PM
 
Reply
or ReplyNewSubject
Section 5: OPA Board Subject: Board Punts on Slots Msg# 528304
|
||||||
|
The result was a foregone conclusion. I agree. I voted for Bill and would again,BUT what he should have done in this instance is declined to serve on this mission. If you don't believe in what you've been asked to do, don't take on the task. I am disappointed. Caper |
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
For reference, the above message is a reply to a message where: 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. |
