NEWS AND OPINION: Board Ignores Objections, Votes Full Speed Ahead on the Most Ambitious Oakmont 2030 Proposals
NEWS: After an active discussion at today’s OVA Board of Directors meeting, the BOD created a resolution on the fly (i.e. it was not in the agenda) and approved a controversial recommendation from the Long Range Planning Committee, stated in the LRPC report as:
LRPC recommends that the board explore in more detail the Walk in the Park concept, and options 3 for both CAC and Berger.
Note that the “Walk in the Park” concept is the most ambitious of the three proposals, as are options 3 for the CAC and Berger. The report noted that there were a total of 669 feedback forms submitted, 174 of which wanted no changes or wanted cost information before making any comments. Less than 11% of OVA members provided positive comments about any of the ArchiLOGIX proposals. Yet the LRPC has concluded, without showing how they came to this conclusion, that the OVA BOD should explore only the most expensive and ambitious of the presented proposals.
One meeting attendee, at Open Forum, called for an Oakmont-wide survey before deciding which, if any, of the concepts to explore further. Two additional members (one of which was myself) noted their concerns via messages sent to AskOVA@OakmontVillage.com, both of which were read by an OVA staff member.
Following the LRPC report (which started around 1:41 pm, for those who might want to view the video), and before Open Forum, the Board discussed the LRPC recommendation (until 2:07 pm). Then, after Open Forum (starting around 2:24), and before the next agenda item (Unfinished Business), there was around ten minutes of discussion about the LRPC recommendation. This discussion culminated in a resolution to adopt the LRPC recommendation, and thus to authorize ArchiLOGIX to provide cost modeling on the Walk in the Park concept, and options 3 for both CAC and Berger, i.e. on the most expensive of the alternatives suggested by ArchiLOGIX and not on the less ambitious proposals. Note that this resolution and its passage was not identified under Unfinished Business or New Business, so OVA members had no reason to expect that a decision would be made today.
The rest of the meeting’s business (Unfinished Business, New Business, Review and Next Meetings) were covered in short order, between 2:35 pm and adjournment at 2:46 pm.
OPINION: The action taken relative to the LRPC recommendation was premature, ignored OVA member opposition, and may have been illegal for violating established rules and norms. Specifically:
- The resolution to adopt the LRPC recommendation was not mentioned in the agenda that was distributed with the meeting packet, thus depriving OVA members of any warning that this resolution was to be discussed and voted on.
- Established protocol, which has been followed for some years now, is that a resolution considered by the Board should include, as part of the discussion preceding a vote, an Open Forum, giving OVA members a chance to be heard. (Open Forum comments were spoken or read today, but not as part of the LRPC resolution discussion.)
- Significant opposition to the process of developing proposals prior to any cost estimation has been evident for many months, and was evident in Open Forum comments today. Yet the Board chose to ignore all such opposition and to authorize cost modeling (the next step in the Oakmont 2030 plan) only for the most expensive alternatives! We need and want and have been begging for cost modeling, but for all alternatives, not just for the most expensive.
Personally, I find this behavior to be disrespectful to all OVA members, especially after major proponents of this path were soundly defeated at the ballot box just a few months ago. The Oakmont 2030 juggernaut continues, apparently seducing even the three directors (who all voted in favor of the LRPC resolution today) who were voted in specifically to bring a halt to the irresponsible commitment of OVA to major projects, without adequately considering the financial trade-offs or the will of the OVA electorate. Oakmont, we have to stop this behavior, and the only sure way to stop it is to elect directors who will refuse to vote in favor of such nonsense! Please, please consider joining the efforts of opponents such as the Oakmont Grassroots Organization, and working to change Oakmont’s future into one controlled by the OVA membership, not by an elite few.
Thanks Bruce for your continuing effort. It’s appreciated by many, though none on the board apparently. Foolish me thought the last election sent a clear message. What’s next? A repeat message is likely our best. Will we need a signed loyalty oath from candidates endorsed by Grassroots, I ask only half in jest?
Personal comment, Oakmont remains a beautiful place to live one’s retirement years. This board’s decision in the face of clear member opposition is frustrating. Continued polite but firm opposition, and a few dedicated volunteers, will get us back on track before serious harm is done, I believe. It’s time to step up. Thanks.
This OVA Board action seems ILLEGAL.
It is shameful that Board members who campaigned on a platform to stop this sort of behavior when they were elected have been shown to be dishonest – dare I say liars based on the campaigning promises and traitors to the needs and wishes of the OVA members who elected them.
This is a very sad day for Oakmont.
I listened to the 9/17/24 Board meeting (I’d been unable to attend), and to me the most disrespectful part was the LRPC’s apparent intention NOT to provide the Board, much less the membership, with any breakdown, specifics, details or statistics about the Central Complex membership feedback. To his credit, Board member Matt Oliver specifically asked about getting more detail, but it appeared to fall on deaf ears. And while the LRPC’s Report (attached to the meeting agenda) did say, “The LRPC will develop a more comprehensive report summarizing its work and providing added rationale for this recommendation in the near future,” the LRPC’s Chair repeated a couple times at the meeting that this “more comprehensive report” would NOT contain any more detail or data about the actual membership feedback, it would merely provide backward looking context for the LRPC’s efforts.
Question: Where is the transparency? Why is that membership feedback being treated like a state secret?
It was the Board who asked the membership for its feedback. So the very least that the membership should expect, should be entitled to, and should demand is that the Board (and its LRPC Committee) disclose back to that same collective membership what its own feedback was.
Why isn’t that being done?
To my recollection, neither the online nor the paper feedback forms said anything about membership feedback being kept confidential. So why is it being treated as such?
Also, take note of the language of the LRPC’s Report: “Following careful consideration of the membership feedback and extensive discussion, the LRPC passed the following motion: LRPC recommends that the board explore in more detail the Walk in the Park concept, and options 3 for both CAC and Berger.” The LRPC does NOT say that’s the membership feedback preferred and recommended. It just says that’s what the LRPC recommends. Which is different. And all the more frustrating because, apparently, there’s no intent on the part of LRPC or the Board to disclose what that actual feedback was.
Two final notes.
First, if, in fact, the overwhelming consensus of the membership feedback was to pursue solely the Walk in the Park concept and solely options 3 for CAC/Berger, that’s one thing. But if it wasn’t, then why should the Board apparently limit its next step, including cost modeling, to just that one concept and just those particular options? Doesn’t the Board first need to know whether there was, or was not, an overwhelming consensus for just that one Concept and just those CAC/Berger options? Doesn’t the Board – and the community – deserve more than just the opaque recommendations of the LRPC? Again, maybe the LRPC’s recommendation does reflect an overwhelming consensus of the feedback. But the Board won’t know, and the membership won’t know, unless and until we can all see precisely what that feedback was.
Second, Board member Olga Ydrogo emphasized at the meeting the need to seek “ala carte” price modeling, on various change items from various of the Concepts. Bravo! It was unclear, however, whether doing so was either within the scope of the vague Board resolution that did pass or within the scope of ALX’s contract.
Maddeningly frustrating.
Thanks for the insightful summary, David. Keep it up. This process has been flawed from its beginning. The first step in anything this large, disruptive and costly should have started with a survey of all members. Instead, we have an activist minority that has pushed for upgraded and larger facilities. OK. Their willingness to continue pushing despite opposition by the majority is not OK.
I am totally against spending any more of our dues money on plans for new facilities or the expansion of existing facilities in the Central Area. I hope the entire plan is dropped. OVA should proceed with keeping our existing facilities well maintained and upgraded without expansion.
Something we don’t need is larger facilities. Our existing facilities are not in use a great deal of the time. One would hope that our BOD got the message when the three “Grassroots” candidates supporting affordability and fiscal responsibility were elected overwhelmingly.
I listened to the meeting prepared to identify BOD members who supported Central Area redevelopment by their vote to fund the next step of contracting with Archilogix to obtain cost estimates.
However, Marianne Neufield, past president, stated that the terms of the contract with Archilogix included cost estimates. It remains a mystery why cost estimates were not included when the plans were presented to residents for comment. GM Antone stated that the contract allowed estimates for only one of the three options.
By the time the vote was taken, I found myself in agreement that OVA should obtain the cost estimates for which we have already paid. Also Director Randol clarified before the vote that approving the resolution did not in any way mean that the BOD was endorsing option 3.
If only one option could be chosen for a cost estimate perhaps it was best to choose Option 3 so residents will understand just how expensive the proposed 2030 Central Area project can be.
Interesting perspective, Jeannette, and you may be right — the magnitude of the cost estimates, which presumably will be delivered before the end of the year, may be just what we need to vote the big spenders out!
What should have happened, of course, is that the Board and LRPC should have compiled a list of alternatives that included estimates of costs and benefits for each (e.g. estimated membership-hours used per year), and then used ranked-choice voting (to avoid having to have run-off elections) of the OVA membership to choose among the alternatives. But that is not the world we live in. In our world, those on the Board and who join the LRPC, seem to jealously guard their right to decide what is best for Oakmont, not trusting the membership to make good decisions.
We need to replace directors who don’t trust the membership with some who do. That will require (1) membership-oriented people who are motivated and able to run for the Board and (2) volunteers to help them get elected.
Well they should rename this proposal because it is surely NOT going to be a ‘Walk in the Park’ for those of us who have to live through the tremendous upheaval and pay the tremendous cost.