OPINION: My 2025 Endorsements and Evaluations of Candidates for the OVA Board

When I receive my OVA ballot, I intend to vote for: Robert Williams, Tim Nelson, Karl Turner and Jess Marzak. If I had reservations about any of these, I would consider voting for John DeGroot. I will not be voting for Jeff Neuman or Neill Ray.

Author’s note: When I took the job of Editor of The Oakmont Observer last year, I decided to keep OO as neutral as possible. Under my watch, OO will not endorse particular candidates and will accept responsible articles from all sides of Oakmont issues. But I most emphatically did not surrender my freedom of speech – I will express my opinion in articles written over my own name, rather than as Oakmont Observer. This is one such article.

All of this year’s Board candidates have impressive resumés, and I believe that all of them sincerely want what is best for Oakmont (as they see it), are basically honest, and will work hard if elected. The choice is not as black-and-white as it was last year, but the dominant issues are the same – affordability and democratic reform. I make no pretense of being objective in this article – these are my opinions concerning who I would like to represent OVA member interests on the Board.

Candidate Qualities and Statements That Are Not Deciding for Me

In the 12 years that I have lived in Oakmont, I have never had reason to believe that any director or candidate for the Board has outright lied, although some have, without doubt, twisted the truth, and some have certainly withheld information that the membership deserved to know. I also don’t know of any who have committed any sort of fraud or have had a financial conflict of interest that affected their Board votes, although some have had what I believe were non-financial conflicts of interest on some matters. In short, we are fortunate to have had candidates and directors who all are committed to following the law and to serving whatever they believe are the best interests of Oakmont.

So these obvious criteria do not serve our need to discriminate among the candidates, in order to choose who to vote for. Neither do pablum, “motherhood and apple pie” statements about fiscal responsibility/conservatism, transparency, or responsiveness to Oakmont needs, unless backed up with specific proposals for positive change. And, for me, neither do resume qualifications such as management experience, because (1) the OVA staff is fully capable of managing most operations, (2) the primary function of the Board is to make executive decisions relative to spending money and providing facilities and services, a function that requires more common sense then professional experience, and (3) I believe that all the candidates have adequate resume qualifications for the job.

My First Criteria for Choosing Who to Vote for – Democratic Reform

So how do I decide who to vote for? I must admit to being largely a single-issue voter, and that issue is lower-case democracy. For me, this is an issue of ethical governance. I believe that the Board is responsible to make decisions that are, as far as law will allow, the same as would the majority of OVA members if they were fully informed about them, and I believe that such decisions meet the “best interests of the association” test. In practical terms, of course, ours is a representative system, and I have no problem with the Board making most of the decisions that they make without having to get approval from OVA members. But if a decision might change the character of Oakmont in a substantial way, including making a substantially higher dues burden on OVA members, then there needs to be a check on Board decision-making power, and that check needs to be a requirement to get approval from the membership by a direct vote.

Some candidates appear to believe that our governing documents already have restrictions on how much Boards can spend without approval from the membership, but this is simply not true. There are absolutely no restrictions of this type in the CC&Rs or Bylaws. Davis-Stirling (i.e. state law) has requirements for membership votes on large dues increases and special assessments, but these are not part of our governing documents and they do not protect us from a Board that might use a less-than-20% dues increase to service a $10 million loan, for example (see details of this example in Why Is the OVA Membership Upset With the Board for Withholding Cost Models?).

I will not vote for or recommend any candidate who has not expressed support for membership votes on large capital improvement projects. My position on this is not radical – it is supported both by proposed revisions to our Bylaws by the 2018-2019 Bylaws Revision Committee (see Proposed Bylaws Amendments from the BRC) and by the California Real Estate Commission (see Cal. Code Regs. tit. 10 § 2792.21).

My Second Criteria for Choosing Who to Vote for – Priority on Oakmont Affordability

Over the past six or seven years, OVA Boards have commonly seemed insensitive to member concerns concerning affordability. Dues have consistently gone up substantially more than inflation, leading many to be anxious about their future ability to remain in Oakmont. At the same time, the Oakmont 2030 project appeared to have a vision of greatly expanded OVA facilities, whose only realistic funding source is our dues.

I believe that the Oakmont 2030 process is seriously flawed and likely to result in a Master Plan that the OVA membership is not willing to afford:

• By design, it avoided serious considerations of potential high costs of envisioned projects. After years, we still don’t have cost estimates for any of the project concepts.
• Its guiding process document, the Oakmont BOD Project Oversight Process, fails to include any survey or referendum for reaching all OVA members, and its Oakmont 2030 implementation has used highly subjective processes for evaluating inputs from members. This has led to believable charges that the conclusions were foregone, subject to the biases of those evaluating them.

Consequently, any candidate who has previously served on the Board and enthusiastically supported 2030, but has not sought to address these flaws, is suspect for me. Beyond Oakmont 2030 history or support, candidates’ statements for The Oakmont Observer OVA Board Candidate Survey 2025 and during Candidates Night provide more information on which to base my opinions of candidates. I will not vote for or recommend any candidate who I believe will be insensitive to member affordability concerns.

Other Considerations

Other concerns, such as transparency, fiscal prudence, affordability, safety and support for the needs of the various clubs and organizations are important, but I believe will be sufficiently addressed by Board members who meet my first two criteria. Also important is a candidate’s ability to work well with other directors, but I have little doubt that any of our candidates can do so, although there will inevitably be conflicts, and I don’t see any of them disrupting the Board’s ability to make sound decisions.

Brief Candidate Evaluations

My evaluations below are largely derived from the candidates responses to the The Oakmont Observer OVA Board Candidate Survey 2025 and at Candidates Night. I also have considered the opinions of people I trust who have spoken with candidates.

Robert Williams – Robert is brash and direct, in opposing spending any OVA funds on large new projects, such as those conceptualized for the Central Area for the Oakmont 2030 effort. At the same time, he fully supports “the highest degree of maintenance” for our existing facilities, and fully supports revision of the Bylaws to require a vote of approval by the membership of large capital expenditures. I might not want all OVA directors to be like Robert, but I respect his opinions and believe that he will serve as a valuable counter to those who believe we can and should afford multi-million dollar new facilities. Robert has my wholehearted support.

Tim Nelson – Tim is undoubtedly the best qualified of those candidates who have never served on the OVA Board, with both law and CPA degrees. He has the energy and will to research such things as census data and CC&Rs, and he expresses innovative ideas. For the Bylaws, he wants to close the major loophole where the OVA membership’s will could be thwarted by an activist Board. Such a Board, under our current Bylaws, could use a less-than-20% dues increase to service a $10 million loan, for example (see details of this example in Why Is the OVA Membership Upset With the Board for Withholding Cost Models?). Tim is also sympathetic to the affordability issue – see his article, Oakmont’s Coming Retirement Income Crisis: What You Need to Know. Tim has my wholehearted support.

Karl Turner – I do not know Karl Turner, but his expressions on Nextdoor, as well as responses on the Candidate Survey and at Candidates Night have demonstrated that his goals for serving on the OVA Board are congruent with my priorities. His experience is similar to my own, having served on the board of his subHOA and shepherded through CC&R revisions for his subHOA. At Candidates Night, he stated “You have to bring any big expansions to the people and let the people vote on it. It’s our money, and we should have a say in what’s being done with it.” Karl has my wholehearted support.

Jess Marzak – Jess is a well-respected member of our Oakmont community, having spent innumerable hours doing volunteer work in Oakmont. But at Candidates Night, referring to whether or not he would support the Bylaws being amended to require a membership vote for large capital expenditures, Jess stated “I would not put more restrictions than are existing in the CC&Rs and the Bylaws, ’cause I think those are pretty tight” and he said much the same thing in the Candidate Survey. But I like Jess and I think that he has made a very good director in the past, except for this apparent blind spot, so I asked him to clarify his position relative to amending the Bylaws and he gave me the following quote:

I would support a requirement that a “new” project of a certain size would have to be approved by a vote of Oakmont residents. I think the size of the project should be at least $2 million, and maybe up to $3 million. I know that the OVA attorney does not think this is a good idea, and I’m not sure why, except that it reduces the board’s power. I would like to hear Nathan’s argument for maintaining the status quo.

I have been a board member for four years, under four different presidents, and they all expected to take big projects to the community for a vote. So I never truly felt this was a practical problem, and the bylaw constraints did work. However, after our recent national election, I see that we humans are capable of electing truly unqualified and dangerous people to office, so I am supportive of putting boundaries on new capital projects here in Oakmont, just in case.

I am not happy with Jess’ past enthusiastic and non-critical support of the flawed Oakmont 2030 process, and I have seen little or no reason to believe that “they [Boards on which he served] all expected to take big projects to the community for a vote” if they could get away with not doing so, e.g. by using large loans. But I believe that he now supports a Bylaws amendment requiring a membership vote on large capital improvement (i.e. “new”) projects, and that meets my primary criterion for receiving my endorsement. Thank you, Jess!

John DeGroot – I also don’t know John, and his statements have sometimes seemed contradictory to me. When he responded to the Candidate Survey, he stated “Current law requires member approval in specific circumstances. The OVA’s Governing Docs Ad Hoc Committee should consider a threshold that is lower than the law requires.” but at Candidates Night, he said “they’ve gotta stick with a representational democracy. This is not a direct democracy. Everybody doesn’t get a vote. It’s the Board. And we give the Board responsibility to make those decisions.” I don’t know what to think, but I have also heard from people I trust who have praised John’s integrity and who intend to vote for him, so, as with Jess Marzak, I contacted him for clarification on his position relative to amending our Bylaws to require membership votes for large projects. This is what he said:

I agree with you that democratic reform of OVA’s governance needs to happen. Our Bylaws are a prime example. There needs to be a mechanism for direct voting on issues; not just a requirement on large capital expenditures, but for additionally determining resident sentiment.

This is enough to meet my first criterion, for democratic reform (see above), but I am still concerned about how John will decide on issues affecting Oakmont affordability.

Jeff Neuman – Jeff is also a well-respected member of our Oakmont community, having spent many, many hours doing volunteer work in Oakmont. He deserves our thanks for doing so, and I hope he continues, but based on his record of enthusiastic support for the Oakmont 2030 process over several years, with no suggestion that he is aware of its flaws or initiating any sort of democratic reform, I cannot support his candidacy for the Board. I am also seriously concerned that OVA affordability is not a high priority for him. At Candidates Night, Jeff suggested that we should consider expanding the amenities we have, using prudent borrowing. He stated “Yes, I would support going to the community for approval of major projects.” But based on his past performance on the Board, I won’t be voting for him this year. It is worth noting that, in last year’s election where the affordability/democracy candidates swept in with a landslide victory, Jeff was among the old guard that lost, receiving only 547 votes out of a near-Oakmont-record of 1,916 validated ballots.

Neill Ray – Relative to revising the OVA governing documents, while Neil seemed to claim special knowledge for being on the GDC, he completely failed to answer the question, revealing his ignorance of the topic and its history. The reference to the origins of the governing documents and the fact that they were written to serve the developers and not us, is true but not very relevant to the question and was probably gleaned from the introduction to the GDC provided at the February meeting ( the only GDC meeting that Neill has attended so far) by GDC chairman, Steve Spillman. Based on his Candidates Night statements and his failure to respond to the Candidate Survey, I won’t be voting for him this year.

Conclusions

As stated at the top, I plan to vote for Robert Williams, Tim Nelson, Karl Turner and Jess Marzak. If something prevented me from voting for any of them, I would strongly consider voting for John DeGroot. I noted the criteria I used to decide whom to endorse. If your priorities are different from mine, you might not reach the same voting decisions, so I urge you to do your own evaluation and vote accordingly. There is still time to attend meet & greet events and to ask your own questions of the candidates before deciding how to vote.

---