Anyone who thought the last election would bring some closure to the political battles raging among factions within the Board of Directors was sadly mistaken. If anything, the intense animosity between the two board factions may be worse than ever.

Any doubt on that score was clearly eliminated with an article in the January 2023 edition of the Ocean Pines Progress with one of various headlines boldly saying: "Farr vs. Daly." The issue involves discussions in a closed board session about how Yacht Club management firm Matt Ortt Companies handled the incident between Tom Janasek and Josette Wheatley.

According to Progress publisher Tom Stauss, Director Rick Farr claimed there "could" be a motion by Director Frank Daly or Director Colette Horn to put Ortt on notice that their management contract might be at risk if future incidents are mishandled. The Progress article quotes Farr as saying: "This is all a political hit job designed to shift blame and deflect responsibility for their [Daly and Colette Horn’s] own poor judgment, violation of OPA governing documents, and ignoring of legal advice” in the handling of the Yacht Club incident.

Asked about the Progress article, Daly replied on OceanPinesForum.com, "Nothing more than Farr protecting and attempting to justify the behavior of his friends and drinking buddies."

Daly went on to say: "The motions he [Farr] referred to will address the shortcomings in dealing with the Janasek incident that were pointed out in the litigation process and in discussions with Ralph DeAngelis that preceded it. Nothing more and nothing less.

"By shooting his mouth off about items discussed in closed session Farr has created a perception of conflict where none exists. The request to meet with Matt Ortt was to discuss these motions in that context and to avoid him being 'blindsided' publicly. Something that Farr accomplished by giving closed-session information.

"To be absolutely clear I have enjoyed working with the Ortt Companies as they have moved our food and beverage operations from poor service and over $1.1 million in losses to the levels of service and profitability that we enjoy today. There will be no motion to change any business relationship but there will be discussions on what could have been done and what should have been done to address the Janasek/Wheatley incident at the time it occurred."

This latest kerfuffle, stemming from a prior board banning Janasek from OPA food and beverage facilities after Janasek verbally accosted Wheatly and her husband at the Yacht Club, comes as OPA and Janasek settle the contentious court case brought against OPA by Janasek. After a Temporary Restraining Order hearing, Judge Beau Oglesby found OPA acted in "bad faith" by banning Janasek. Subsequently, the parties reached an out-of-court settlement with OPA's insurance company agreeing to pay Janasek $18,750 for attorney fees.

Janasek's attorney Bruce Bright made very clear the case Janasek filed before the court was not about what transpired between Janasek and Wheatley at the Yacht Club, but rather whether the Board of Directors had the legal authority to ban him, as an association member, from the food and beverage facilities for 90 days.

Bright wrote on OceanPinesForum.com, "As far as whether the Board or the GM could take action in the future as to, for example, some repeat offender/problem OPA member (Tom isn't in that category), I think there are ways for that to occur properly, but it's not my job to map that out."

Whether Janasek is a repeat offender or not is perhaps debatable, given his history of verbally accosting OPA General Manager John Viola in OPA food and beverage facilities a number of times over a period of many months. This was the subject of a public board meeting, with Janasek, a board member at the time, ultimately apologizing -- as he did after verbally accosting Wheatley at the Yacht Club. In another instance, Janasek refused to apologize for vulgar email comments about Director Colette Horn.

Common sense should dictate the Board of Directors perform a careful post-mortem of the Janasek case with an eye to creating any rules, regulations, etc. that should be in place for legally handling future incidents, especially repeat offenses, that reasonable individuals believe warrant OPA banning an association member from OPA amenities.

OPA needs a clear policy on handling disruptive association members. That policy should not even be discussed in a board closed session, but in public for all association members to observe and hear, and with an opportunity for public comment. While Daly was critical of Farr for bringing up closed-session comments in public, Farr did the right thing - even if he and Daly strongly disagree over Daly's stated intentions. Apparently, no board member spoke up in a closed session and said, "We should not be discussing this policy issue in a closed session."

Then there are what might be called some oddities surrounding the case and what some association members are saying. For example, one individual compared OPA boards to the Gestapo and brought up the First Amendment, writing, "1A has won again, even in a private amenity." Do individuals have a Constitutional right to yell obscenities in the face of patrons at the Yacht Club? Apparently, some association members believe they do.

Another oddity might be the case testimony related to the Janasek ban having an impact on his livelihood. This involves cleaning beverage lines at the OPA food and beverage facilities for Matt Ortt Companies.

In his opinion, Judge Oglesby wrote of irreparable injury to Janasek: "Mr. Janasek’s employment is directly impacted by the ban. Mr. Janasek testified that he is a partner of AC Beverage and responsible for cleaning the tap lines at certain OPA facilities and amenities. He is at these locations four (4) to six (6) times a month during the off season, and more than that during the busy season, cleaning lines and performing necessary maintenance."

Informed sources say OPA could find only a single $350 invoice for all of 2022. If accurate, that indeed sounds odd, given the court testimony.

While the court case itself was not about disgusting conduct no woman, or man, should endure, OPA must take steps required to gain legal authority to ban association members, or anyone, from OPA amenities who act in the disgusting manner described in the written eyewitness report of what was said to Wheatley and her husband.

If this current board does not do so, it is failing to act responsibly in the interest of all association members. Protecting association members and the general public should not be an internal board political issue.