Jeff, I see no mention of dollars in the part of the Articles of Incorporation I quoted.

It refers to substantial "activity." The board can lobby at no cost to the association. Cost is not the issue. Where is the cost in simply asking our three local legislators to seek a 10% cut for OPA.

I do not recall any "ruckas" raised over the purchase of the golf information system. What did I misss? Fill me in.

Past boards have lobbied in Annapolis on several occasions.

If Marty is so concerbed about OPA non-involvement in politics, he should bring up a motion to change the Articles of Incorporation and change the words to eliminate any and all interpretation of the current language.

Keep in mind that while many may think the Articles of Incorporation are some sancrosanct document, the Articles can be changed by a 2/3 vote of the board. The articles can be changed in any way with the exception they cannot conflict with the DRs. Read it closely and it does not prevent the board from changing the Articles to actually override the By-laws.

Maybe those board members so concerned about ethics should read the Articles. They also include the following:

No part of the income of the association shall inure to the benefit of any member, associate member, director or officer of the Association.

Yet the board votes to provide itself with free amenites valued at thousands of dollars per board member. I don't particularly care one way or the other, but it seems hypocritical to sit on a board that provides this valuable benefit and then split hairs over the word "substantial" in regard to lobbying.

Getting 10% of slots money is long shot, but I believe it is worth trying for. Should a group of citizens, by some stretch of the imagination, bring the idea to fruition are you suggesting OPA should then refuse the money?