Privacy, Secrecy, and Opacity Describe new Board Committee
A perception of privacy, secrecy, and opacity describe the atmosphere surrounding the OVA Board Committee charged to deal with the Oakmont Golf Club issue. This sense of unease was voiced by the chair of the Oakmont Community Development Committee (OCDC). An attorney and former OVA Board Secretary, Hugh Helm, addressed the Board at its last meeting, November 13, 2018
[VIDEO] OCDC chair, Hugh Helm makes his case to the OVA Board
Concerned with the limited range of the panel’s configuration, Helm requested his committee’s participation in the ongoing OVA/OGC deliberations for the purpose of sharing ideas and to move the negotiations “further along.”
We could not agree more. The OCDC – a standing committee – has for many years represented the Association’s interests in connection with commercial developments both inside and outside of Oakmont. Their expertise in dealing with city and county agencies; change of uses, enforcement of codes, regulations and permit applications, has proven invaluable to our rotating leadership.
No other project is of greater importance to the community today than the disposition of the Oakmont golf courses and the club operation. To limit negotiations to a handful of board members is shortsighted – and cloaking the discussions in secrecy does not serve the greater good.
While making allowances for discretion of certain findings, we regret the absence of a formal announcement introducing the full committee’s participants, the lack of a charter outlining the breadth and depth of the responsibilities, open meetings and the availability of minutes from the proceedings.
Oakmont Village Association President Steve Spanier stated that the Board would consider Helm’s offer of working together with the OCDC at their December meeting. It is to be hoped that the collaboration will take place and with it some measure of transparency into the process of transaction with the Oakmont Golf Club.
I agree completely. The biggest single failure of this Board to meet their campaign promises is the active anti-transparency that has characterized all negotiations on the OGC issue. It is time for them to understand that secrecy is going to increase bitter dissension within Oakmont, rather than suppressing it.
I’m less troubled by the lack of board transparency on the activities of this committee, though transparency is surely lacking, than the (as Yvonne politely puts it) “limited range of the panel’s configuration.” The committee’s makeup suggests the only outcome in doubt is the amount of money it cost Oakmont residents to save the OGC from the declining fortunes of golf and its own business errors?
Yvonne. In this writing you use the word “we” on more than one occasion. Do your words represent the opinion of a body of people?
Hello Julie –
Going back to my newspaper days, I am using the editorial “we.”
Cordially,
Yvonne
Thanks for the clarification Yvonne. As such, I will assume that the opinion you stated is your own.
Julie
Point taken Julie… BUT, seriously, how can a committee of “ball boyz” represent 4700 people of which less than 20% play golf. To be clear, I am not “anti golf” and think that the courses are an asset to the community, but with the lack of participation, it is unfair to expect the complete community to support 2 courses or the OVA to buy land with no immediate use, to temporarily sustain a failing activity. The direction needs to be decided by a group with input from other than a committee of supporters. I am finding with EVERYTHING about this BOD (the old board reconfigured) is that they are more concerned about their particular interests over the wants and needs of the complete community. I mean, they disregarded the study done two years ago as “outdated” without instituting a new one and limit discussion on the Buzz while controlling the information on all official news sources. How is this fair? Time for an updated survey, or better, take a vote from the whole community.