The OVA/OGC Negotiating Team Revealed
A perception of privacy, secrecy and opacity was recently described as the atmosphere surrounding the OVA Board Committee charged to deal with the Oakmont Golf Club issue. As we are learning, there are two groups unofficially charged with focusing on the details of a potential OGC deal with OVA.
According to Director Tom Kendrick, herewith are the names of OVA/OGC negotiators (Some well-known affiliations added.)
- Gary Smith (OGC Director)
- Neil Huber (OGC Director – Attorney-at-Law)
- Susan Chauncy (OGC Director-candidate)
- Carolyn Bettencourt (OVA Director)
- Tom Kendrick (OVA Director)
- Tom Woodrum (OGC Member)
- Judy Duport (Golf Course Advocate)
A protracted campaign to assess each OVA member a $5 dues to facilitate survival of the Golf Club encountered fierce opposition by the residents. A subsequent fee for services (waterways management) encountered equal resistance.
At this late hour, the OVA negotiating team is faced with a decision whether to bail out the Golf Club financially, to purchase the assets outright, or to allow the OGC to be potentially foreclosed upon and to acquire the property out of bankruptcy.
(12/15/18 – This article has been revised to reflect the following correction: Neil Huber is an OGC Director and also an attorney.)
(12/19/18 – Article revised to reflect the following correction: Director Bettencourt’s husband is an OGC member.)
Why are there only 2 OVA representatives (1 of whom is also an OGC member) in the negotiations ?
Why are there 5 OGC representatives (or 6 depending upon how you count the dual membership representative) ?
This is a very skewed negotiation !
I agree about the representation. It seems highly skewed to the golf club and I don’t know what the reason for that would be. Another point: why is this “a late hour“? What is the urgency that OVA cannot continue exploring options for another 6 to 12 months? Is the golf course financial status that dire? Thirdly, the article mentions “two unofficial Groups“ but only gives a single list of several names. What group is which?
Lastly It seems like there are enough articulate and knowledgeable residents for an unofficial but formal group representing homeowners in Oakmont to form – To be in mutually agreed dialogue with these official or unofficial groups. I don’t see myself or my neighbors represented anywhere in this process.
Is there a single skeptic on this negotiating team? Carolyn Bettencourt might qualify and while I have no wish to doubt her integrity, she lives on a golf course. We’re all human. Of the several people who have posted thoughtful and cautioning comments on this issue, both here and on Nextdoor, not one would have added anything to the ongoing discussions? For those inclined to believe the worst in board behavior, this setup is powerful ammunition. Disappointing, to say the least.
This is why Oakmont has the reputation of lacking the political will to operate legally and ethically.
Since this “news” contains considerable opinion, why no by line? Who authored the post?
Any financial facts related to the outcome of this vote re: individuals on the OGC? Do any of them personally benefit in any way if this “deal” happens?
I do agree with Thomas that this article, given its significance, should be bylined. There’s lots of passive voice and general statements that are not attributed. Why not?
Content in The Oakmont Observer is a collaborative effort of writers who do investigative reporting, feature articles and opinion pieces. You’ll see their bylines in the various sections of the Observer.
General news items come to the Observer and the writing and editing effort is often shared and posted as “Oakmont Observer”, similar to a “Staff Report” byline. Articles that are opinion pieces are published in the “OPINION” section with a byline of the author.
While what you say may be true, when you click on the “About” link for the Observer, you find almost nothing about who created the site and who are contributors (other than attributed articles). Is there an editor? Is there an editorial committee? Does it have formal governance? “Friends and neighbors” is nice enough, but completely lacking any transparency. Adding “collaborative effort of writers” does not provide much information about the Observer.
Thomas,
Why is it so important to know who writes every article for the OO? Do you maybe question the validity of the information?
You can go to the Oakmont News section of the Village website or even look in the paper, https://oakmontvillage.com/article/category/news/, and see that there is little to no information about the editorial committee, nor any information about Editor or how they manage the News. The ON policies only establishes basic rules and guidelines. In fact they recently took off any mention of the information and documentation, and moved the info behind a “member login” so that people have a harder time finding it.
I can say for a fact though that the people running the Oakmont News have no interest in anyone knowing what they do and how they make decisions. They would not share, or even talk, with me when I took over as ON Chair in 2017. After creating a transparent process, with a complete system in place that could be passed down to the next team, they decided to ignore the efforts of dozens of dedicated people and dump the entire system for their own private, secretive process.
If you get to know your neighbors running the Oakmont Observer, and read the articles, you may not agree with everything but they all care deeply about facts, the community and being open to other perspectives. And unlike the ON you could volunteer to write an article for the OO and be given that opportunity, and your article would not have to pass muster with the OVA Manager or anyone else who might want to keep you under wraps.
I might prefer to see a name attached to articles I read but understand why it may not be desirable in all circumstances. More important to me is the accuracy of whatever is written. For about 9 months now that standard has been met, and news and opinion is provided available nowhere else. In this example, the source of the information is identified and subject to verification. I tip my hat to the efforts of a few and a service that is an asset to this community.
It appears that some of the contributors hwew would rather kill the messenger rather than focus on the actual message. The information the original post contains, no matter who the author is, should be of interest and maybe troubling to the residents of Oakmont. If the facts are accurate then it doesn’t matter who the author is.
I respectfully disagree Mr. Baker. Authorship and attribution are of key importance when assessing the message. If you interpret my prior remarks as trying to “kill the messenger” you would be incorrect. I would agree the “message” is important, but to avoid any identifying source suggests that The Observer is engaging disseminating information in a manner that presents a perception of “privacy, secrecy, and opacity.” Transparency should be the goal for all concerned.
In this news piece the source of the information is clearly stated, as that of OVA Director, Tom Kendrick.
I was the head negotiator for hundreds of collective bargaining contracts. This is not two negotiating teams. The OGC lawyer is there. Where is the OVA lawyer. The “teams” do not have balanced representation giving the appearance of OVA being dominated by OGC. The composition of this team looks like OVA is having its capitulation terms dictated to it by the OGC.
Thomas, I hope Greg’s comment above put your concern to rest.
Just for the record. Neil Huber is an attorney and a volunteer on the board of the OGC. He is not the OGC attorney.
To clarify further: J. Neil Huber Jr. is not now and has never been admitted to the CA Bar. So he’s not licensed to either practice law or to identify/serve as an attorney in this state.
Gerry, interesting. This is what the KP reported 12-1-17 (hat tip to YF):
“Neil Huber, an attorney for the OGC, told the Kenwood Press there is “nothing to preclude” OVA from having “an interest of some sort” in the golf courses.”
http://www.kenwoodpress.com/pub/a/9704
Some OGC members have said here and on Nextdoor that Mr. Huber is not the attorney for OGC. I guess they didn’t make an effort to correct the Kenwood Press at the time of its article. Mr. Huber may not be their official attorney but he was offering legal opinions to them and to OVA members at past town halls.
The above article relates to the 11/10/17 Town Hall at the ERC. At the 2/26/18 Town Hall, also at the ERC, he responded to OVA member Evelyn George’s concern about contributions to OGC jeopardizing OVA’s tax exempt status as follows:
“I was a lawyer in St. Louis for 40 years. I represented the largest hospital in Missouri, a 501(c)(3) organization. I am very conversant with non-profits and the restrictions on it. There are many ways to structure this transaction so that OVA will not jeopardize its tax exemption and can still support the golf club. My hospital had investments in all sorts of different profit-making activities. They have to report it as unrelated business income when it’s done that way. We don’t have the income, folks. We are, like, break-even anyway. So there is no real risk to the OVA from any transaction that would come forward.”
Lyn and Michael,
Thank you for all the good factual information.
What exactly are these “many ways to structure” that Neil Huber claims? Even one example would do…
How do Missouri’s laws regarding 501(c)(3) hospitals have any relevance at all to the distinct and different laws of our state of California regarding the requirements and prohibitions governing tax-exempt associations such as the current “Oakmont Village Association”?
Michael, thanks for the clarification. Your diligence in keeping up with this is impressive and invaluable.
For the sake of truth and clarification, I am not now, nor have I ever been, a member of the OGC. Thank you.
Thanks, Carolyn. Is it just your husband that is the OGC member?