2026 OVA Candidates Night
This year’s Candidates Night event took place from 5 pm until 7:15 pm on Wednesday, Feb 18. In addition to in-person attendance, members could view the event via Zoom. Forty questions were submitted, but only twelve were asked at this event, in order to reduce redundancy and for the event to fit within a bit more than hours.
The purpose of Candidates Night each year is to provide Oakmont voters with the information they need to make wise and informed choices when they vote for Oakmont Village Association (OVA) directors in March. To that end, there should be two goals: first, to identify issues of importance to the OVA membership and, second, to inform the OVA membership about how candidates for the OVA Board of Directors view these issues. With these goals in mind, the questions asked were carefully selected and/or condensed by a group that included the OVA staff and several OVA members not associated with the Board.
I have struggled with how to report on Candidates Night. Not only is trying to fairly condense and represent the candidates’ words difficult and time consuming, but it is also subjective, and it is challenging for me to give equal attention to questions that I care less about. Furthermore, I find most of the candidates’ responses to most questions to be “motherhood and apple pie”, i.e. predictable bromides that all candidates are likely to agree with, rather than ideas that might help us choose who to vote for.
So instead of giving my subjective reports on candidate’s responses to the 12 questions, I will provide a link to the video of the event and a “table of contents” which will allow you to quickly jump to the parts of the video that most interest you. I encourage you to report on what you heard the candidates say about issues of importance to you, either in comments to this article or in comments to the companion post on Nextdoor, which will closely duplicate this article. In these comments, it is fair to refer to past performance or to what you know about a candidate from other sources — you don’t have to stick to just what he/she said during the event. But please be respectful to all candidates. Every one of them deserves our gratitude for being willing to devote a large chunk of their time for the next two years to serving all of us! I plan to make my own comments about candidates’ responses to question # 8, which is one of most critical interest to me, and perhaps to one or two other of the questions.
Key Links:
- Candidate statements, as printed in the Oakmont News:
https://oakmontvillage.com/candidates/ - The full, 2-hour video of Candidates Night:
https://oakmontvillage.com/article/candidates-night-set-for-feb-18/ - The Nextdoor post duplicating this article, to which Oakmont Nextdoor readers may add comments — to see all comments, you’ll need to review both this and the Nextdoor articles:
https://nextdoor.com/p/sXWncDdkkQbM
In about a week, I expect to publish this year’s Oakmont Observer OVA Board Candidate Survey, which should provide more precise statements on a few key issues by those candidates who respond to the survey. I will add a link to the survey report to the above list.
Questions Asked, with Time Offsets into the Video
The numbers within square brackets at the end of each question is the time offset into the video, in hours and minutes.
- Opening statements [0:07]
- What have you done for Oakmont so far, and what experience or qualifications do you bring to this role? [0:19]
- What is your vision for Oakmonts future and what are the challenges for getting there? [0:28]
- How do you build community trust and understanding in the decision-making process as a build member? [0:37]
- What will you do to be an effective collaborator and team member and what does it look like when a board works together? [0:45]
- Do you think there is adequate information available to the board to make decisions to repair, renovate, or rebuild in the central complex area and what should that process be? [0:53]
- How do you see the role of the committees in serving and supporting the board? [1:03]
- How would you balance the interest and needs of multigenerational Oakmont residents, both current and future, regarding recreational facilities? [1:15]
- What is your opinion on amending OVA Bylaws to require a membership vote for large capital expenditures and long-term loans and how do you define large and long term? [1:24]
- How will you balance required maintenance of common areas and facilities while upholding the board’s fiduciary responsibilities and being mindful of members’ dues? [1:33]
- How would you increase communication between the board and the community? [1:42]
- What do you see are the greatest assets of Oakmont? [1:51]
- Is there an issue you would like to bring up that has not been discussed tonight? [1:59]
- Closing statements [2:05]
Conclusion
This year’s Candidates Night produced a wealth of information about the views of the six candidates who are running for the Board. I urge all OVA members who were not able to attend Candidates Night to review the video, along with the candidates’ statements in the Oakmont News, and the Oakmont Observer Candidate Survey when it is published in about a week. If you want to know more about particular candidates, attend one or more of their Meet & Greets — see schedule at https://oakmontvillage.com/article/board-candidate-meet-greets/. Read what your neighbors think about the candidates in comments below and in the companion Nextdoor post. Then judge the candidates by your own criteria for who will best serve Oakmont on the Board, and vote using the ballot that will be mailed to you in early March. Let’s all aim for a better Oakmont!
Question #8 about amending our Bylaws to require membership votes for large capital expenditures.
The reason this is an issue: for a 15% increase in our dues, and using a 15-year term such as that of the golf course loan, the Board could borrow over $10 million to finance some new capital improvement project. Every candidate knew this, because I sent every one of them a link to this article that goes through the calculations to show it (https://oakmontobserver.com/faq-how-much-can-dues-finance/). This means that, without even retiring the current golf course loan (which has another 9 years before it will be paid off), an expansionist Board could commit OVA to an overwhelming debt load without ever putting it to a vote of the membership. I find it unacceptable that 7 people, selected from the tiny minority of those OVA members who are willing and able to serve on the Board, and elected for a mere 2-year term, can commit OVA to a crushing debt load that won’t be retired until many of us are dead!
So how do the candidates rate, based on their enthusiasm for requiring membership approval for large projects?
Spanier, Mui — completely clear in their opposition to requiring membership approval, even for the largest projects. Spanier’s record from when he was on the Board, president’s messages at the time, and current FAQ on his election website all confirm his opposition.
Klein — not much better. While Heidi first said it depends on the amount, she backed off from that, stating that the state law requirement for votes on greater-than-20% dues increases was enough, and that membership votes might not take into account the needs of the community. She is still dreaming of expanding Berger to accommodate larger crowds for the Boomers club. Two years ago, when she was running for the Board, she promised the Oakmont Grassroots organization that she would support membership votes on large projects. Former members of Grassroots, including myself, have expressed their strong feelings of being betrayed by Heidi, after she used us to help her get elected to the Board.
Oliver — Matt didn’t answer the question, choosing instead to talk about the complexity inherent in deciding how to improve the central complex, and exhorting people to come to the Bylaws Town Hall. In the past, he has stated that there should be community votes on any major projects resulting from the Oakmont 2030 needs and vision study. But he has not come out clearly for a Bylaws amendment requiring membership votes for large projects, so we don’t know exactly what types of membership votes he has in mind.
Axelrod — Josh gave the most interesting, but non-committal answer. Almost speaking as though it was the GDC running, rather than Josh Axelrod, he talked about the Bylaws amendment effort, and the fact that, if the amendment to lower the threshold for amending Bylaws passes, it will become feasible for members to enact an amendment requiring membership votes to approve large new capital improvements. This is true, but does not express whether or not Josh thinks such an amendment would be a good idea.
Darcy — The newcomer, and the one with the least experience (at least, other than Mui) in Oakmont activities, is the only candidate to come out clearly and unequivocally for a Bylaws amendment requiring membership votes on large projects.
My bottom line — mostly negative. I can never vote for either Spanier or Mui, because no matter what their other strengths, I find their position on this issue to be elitist and anti-democratic. I cannot vote for Klein, both because she has fallen in line with the Spanier position and because she is unreliable — she betrayed many of those who supported and voted for her two years ago.
I will most likely and reluctantly vote for Oliver. Reluctantly not just because he has been unclear on his position on this issue, but more so because his term as president of the Board has been one of the least transparent that I have seen — I don’t like his MO for governing. He does appear to be more fiscally responsible than members of past Boards.
I will most likely vote for Axelrod, in spite of his failure to commit his support on this issue. At least he did not oppose membership votes, and he supports the membership’s right to decide on Bylaws amendments.
And, of course, I will support Darcy, and hope that his fairly clear message of good facilities maintenance and fiscal responsibility resonates with enough OVA members to overcome his lack of earlier visibility in the community.
Well said, Bruce. Your “motherhood and apple pie” description of most responses to questions is apt. I agree that Oliver is credible and competent. While worthy of support, his apparent unwillingness to support a member vote on large discretionary projects is a deal breaker for me. Darcy may lack the Oakmont experience I’d normally want in a board member but he brings common sense to the board. His voice, maybe only one of 7, will be needed if this election turns out as I suspect.
I believe that Oliver does, in fact, support membership votes on large projects, but he certainly didn’t make it clear at Candidates Night – a poor performance. Also, don’t forget that Robert Williams will be on the Board for at least another year, and Robert is both in favor of votes on large projects and opposed to extravagant spending. The trouble is, we need more than two such directors! And, of course, Darcy has a very uphill battle to get elected.
Sadly, it should not be so difficult to decipher what a candidate’s position is on a bylaws amendment for membership voting on large projects.
The reason is the OVA “rules of the road” for the Candidates Night PROCESS.
There are no FOLLOW UP questions if a candidate is not clear or doesn’t answer the question. This structural defect in the OVA candidates night forum is a disservice to both the candidates and the members in the audience.
A neutral moderator from outside Oakmont should be given the authority to ask a follow-up question.
One candidates night does not cut it, we ought to have 3 of them! We are electing people for a period of 2 years, there is a lot to ta Introductory comments by the candidates is a waste of time, you can read all about anyone in the Oakmont News. No follow-up questions allowed from the audience is simply put: lacking! They ought to just have Q’s from the audience and A’s from the candidates, right from the start. How about we just get down to the business and the important stuff, from the very beginning?
There will be an OO candidate survey report, in about a week, providing more precise data on the policy positions of those candidates who respond. But I have trouble enticing candidates to respond, so many of them may just be marked NR (No Response).
Ref my above, something went wrong, so correction please: We are electing people for a period of 2 years, there is a lot to talk about. Introductory comments by the candidates is a waste of time…