Candidates Night: Questions Asked

This year’s Candidates Night event took place from 6 pm until 7:30 pm on Wednesday, Feb 21. In addition to in-person attendance, members could view the event via Zoom, although Zoom allowed only 100 attendees to log in – many would-be Zoom attendees were thus shut out. 49 questions were submitted, but only 13 were asked at this event, because of the lack of time for asking more.

AUTHOR’S NOTE: The following is derived from notes that I and a couple of residents took during the Candidates Night event. Along with our notes and email responses received from the candidates, I am sharing my personal thoughts and insights. I welcome your feedback in the comments below.

The purpose of Candidates Night, and of this article and its companion article, Candidates Night: Questions Not Asked (not yet published), 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.

Sadly, this year’s Candidates Night format did not do a very good job at meeting either of these goals. Because fewer than 1/3 of submitted questions were asked, and the selection of which questions were to be asked was random (literally, drawing questions from a box!), a number of important issues were overlooked. And because the format resembled that of a quiz show, requiring candidates to respond “off the cuff” to questions not seen and thus not considered before the event, the quality of their responses demonstrated more about their ability to think on their feet than it did about how wise their decisions would be as directors.

In an attempt to ameliorate this situation, this article and its companion Questions Not Asked article will attempt to reach a broader audience with more detailed information about candidates responses to important questions. This article will list all of the questions asked at Candidates Night, along with a few notes on candidates’ answers. The time the question was asked, relative to the beginning of the recording, is noted in brackets (e.g. [0:21] for 21 minutes into the recording), to allow the reader to find and listen to the actual questions and answers in the video recording of the event.

Many of the answers were largely agreeing with what other candidates said, and that will not be reported herein. I am looking for what differentiated the answer of one candidate from the others. When I am aware of who asked the questions, and the questioner received a reply by Email from any candidate, I may include answers provided by candidates via Email to the questioner.

AUTHOR’S NOTE: Prior to the event, I encouraged people I knew were going to submit a question to also send it to all the candidates, so that they could take time to understand the question and to provide a thoughtful response. I did not suggest to anyone that candidates should make direct responses to the questioner, but in a number of cases that did occur. Where the questioner has provided me access to those Email responses, and where I deem it relevant, I will quote from those responses. In some cases, the candidate appears to give a more honest answer by Email than he/she did in front of a crowd at Candidates Night. In any case, these Email replies give us not only additional information about what the candidate really thinks, but some insight into his/her character and whether or not he/she is willing to give a straight answer to the question. I don’t believe that quoting from these Emails violates any journalistic ethics, because the questions were provided to the candidates to supplement the official Candidates Night process, and none of the candidates responding requested their words to be confidential or off the record. In one or two cases, I received an Email marked [for you only] and, though the note did not say “confidential” or “off the record”, I will not quote from it in case that is part of what the responding candidate meant.

Questions and Answers

Questioner: Deborah Quam

Question [0:21]:

Oakmont Survey about Mitch Conner Projects – Given that Mitch Conner will complete the architectural planning site map scenarios for our community’s Central Area Complex redevelopment projects, would you commit, if elected, to conducting an Oakmont-wide written questionnaire survey, both mailed and online, to gather feedback from all OVA members? How important do you think it is to align these building projects with the stated preferences and support of Oakmont community members?

Questioner: Shirley Philips

Question:

Oakmont Survey about Mitch Conner Projects – Once the three plan scenarios are completed by planner Mitch Conner, would you commit to an Oakmont-wide advisory survey to see how Oakmonters feel about these projects?

Questioner: Peggy Dombeck

Question:

Oakmont Survey about Mitch Conner Projects – After Mitch Conner comes up with his three options for the Central Complex, would the Board be willing to conduct a survey of all Oakmont residents to see what the Oakmont residents think about each option?

Answers:

All candidates answered that they would support member surveys, as well as town halls and other forms of receiving member inputs. Matt specified that a membership survey should only be conducted after one or more town halls to explain the ArchiLOGIX-proposed projects. Jeff approved of a survey, but reiterated that, after the survey, the Board makes the decisions (which implies that they may decide to ignore the will of the membership as expressed in the survey). He also emphasized that surveys can be constructed to get any answers the survey designers want to hear, though he didn’t explain how that could be done in this case.

AUTHOR’S INSIGHTS:

As they say, the devil is in the details. Under instructions from the Board, the Long Range Planning Committee has made a number of surveys over the past six years, of club leaders, new Oakmont purchasers, business owners, realtors and so forth. None of these surveys attempted to reach or represent all OVA members, a task which hasn’t been done since the Voices of Oakmont survey in 2015. So when a candidate states that he is in favor of a survey, it is difficult to know if he means a survey of all of Oakmont or just of the special interest groups within Oakmont, and none of the candidates made it clear which of these they support.

Reference: The Voices of Oakmont 2015, report of the 2015 survey of OVA members.

__________________

From Iris Harrell via Email with questioner Deborah Quam:

I would want to find multiple ways of with town halls, 2030 workshops, etc. before any sizeable redevelopment plan for Central moves forward.

I don’t see any such project moving forward with proper approvals until there is sufficient input from residents for the next couple of years.

We have a loan to pay down from purchasing the golf course and we do not have an emergency to deal with. So time is on our side.

The former big facility projects done in the last 5 years were forced upon us to act except for the Berger Refresh, which was done 3 years ago to take the pressure off of the desire for a new Berger.

Deborah’s reply:

So your answer to the question is “no.” Just wanted to be sure.

Iris:

No my answer is not “no”.

I want to have a comprehensive reach out to be detailed with input from residents & new Board.

Deborah:

So you WILL commit to a professional, written, mailed and online questionnaire survey, that will specifically identify membership preferences on EACH of the building projects identified by Mitch Conner on his site map? A Lickert Scale for example works well.

Iris:

This is what makes it hard to talk with you, Deb.

AUTHOR’S INSIGHTS:

This is almost a textbook example of evading the question (sorry, Iris, but it is). Deborah asked a very specific question about using a survey that would reach all OVA members to understand whether or not they approve of specific building projects. Iris never answered “yes”, but emphatically claimed that she didn’t answer “no”. My best guess from her replies to Deborah is that she is willing to commit to town halls, workshops and other methods of gathering “serious widespread input” from OVA members, but is NOT willing to commit to any sort of survey that would reach all OVA members. And she takes offense when Deborah tries to pin her down to a yes or no answer.

__________________________________

Question[0:26]:

Would you support ban on wooden fences and sheds?

Answers:

Most agreed but that OVA architectural standards already specify non-flammable fencing for at least 5 feet away from the house, for all new fencing. All supported phasing out wood fencing over time.

__________________________________

Question [0:31]:

Are you in support of updating the ByLaws and CC&Rs to comply with Davis-Sterling, as well as address inconsistencies and ambiguities, particularly with regard to OVA vs sub-Association bylaws and CC&Rs?

Answers:

All candidates agreed that the Bylaws should be revised, at least to be compatible with current California law, and that the quorum for amending the Bylaws should be lowered to make it easier to update the Bylaws in the future.

Iris specifically identified a change that she would like to be made, to allow up to two owner-residents of Oakmont homes to vote in all elections. This contrasts with the current state of the Bylaws, which allow exactly one vote per property. Two-person households pay double OVA dues but only get one vote in each election.

Matt voiced his support for membership votes to approve large capital improvement projects.

__________________________________

Question [0:39]:

What principles have helped you throughout your life?

Answers:

Not much to distinguish between candidates, except for Jeff and Tom Kendrick, who touted their background in Boy Scouts. All cited qualities like honesty, integrity, civility, fairness, respect, etc. Josh mentioned openness to new ideas. Iris mentioned returning calls and doing whatever you commit to.

AUTHOR’S INSIGHT:

This was a freebie and a largely a waste of time.

__________________________________

Question [0:44]:

Do you support the destruction and rebuilding of the existing central pool?

Answers:

Most candidates replied “not for a long time” or not until wear necessitates replacement. Some noted the need for upgrades for ADA compliance, while Matt opposed doing ADA upgrades unless/until required to do so, because both East and West Rec pools are already ADA compliant, thus meeting that need. Tom Kendrick noted that some Oakmont 2030 participants thought the pool should be upgraded. Iris noted that eventually the pool deck concrete would need to be replaced for ADA compliance, but warned that any upgrade to the pool area would likely trigger more work being needed, because the pool cabana was built without benefit of permits. She also noted that OVA has a 5-year plan for making all needed ADA upgrades.

__________________________________

Question [0:50]:

Should one of the golf courses be turned into a park?

Answers:

Every candidate said no, that it would be too expensive. Jeff noted that golf in Oakmont is barely viable with two courses, and implied that with only one course, it would no longer be viable. Tom Kendrick asserted that keeping the second course for golf is way less expensive, even with social membership dues [which subsidize CourseCo close to half a million dollars per year], than any other alternative. Iris stated that converting a golf course to a park would require a large increase in dues.

__________________________________

Question [1:06]:

Will you use Nextdoor to answer questions?

If you are elected to the Board, will you utilize the popular social media site Nextdoor to better understand the issues and concerns of Oakmont residents?

Answers:

Jerry Gladstone – yes, it can be effective.

Iris Harrell – no, it can take a lot of time to respond, and she doesn’t like the personal attacks that are found on Nextdoor.

Tom Kendrick – no, he doesn’t think there is much overlap with Oakmont and it has lots of gossip.

Josh Axelrod – no, he prefers in-person conversations.

Matt Oliver – there is good and bad, there should be a better mechanism to restrict personal attacks, we need a multimedia approach to reach Oakmonters.

Tom Tremont – Nextdoor can be useful.

Jeff Neuman – no, he is happy that Nextdoor exists and it is protected by the First Amendment, but it is not a good tool for the Board to use.

__________________________________

Question [1:12]:

Should there be a “Junk the Ladder Fuel” in Oakmont, similar to the “Junk the Junipers” program?

Answers:

All candidates answered yes, with a few caveats. Tom Kendrick noted that OVA should prioritize where it uses resources. Jeff asserted a need for reasonable limits.

__________________________________

Question [1:18]:

What is the best way to plan for the future needs of Oakont?

Answers:

Most candidates included the Oakmont 2030 process in their answer. Tom Kendrick emphasized outreach to the community. Josh wants to look at next generation needs. Jerry approved of the Oakmont 2030 process, but asserted that it should have included more considerations of costs. Iris suggested a couple of inexpensive possible changes, including opening up the Technology room in the CAC as a meeting room when not in use for classes.

__________________________________

Question [1:24]:

Some of the sub-associations are in crisis. Are you willing to search for a company that handles sub-associations as a business and can handle the group of sub-associations that need management?

Answers:

Most candidates responded that OVA should provide some assistance, at least by providing education, identifying options and pointing to outside assistance. Tom Tremont asserted that realtors should reveal sub-HOA problems to potential buyers and do a better job of explaining how sub-HOAs work in Oakmont. Iris suggested that smaller associations should be dissolved [thus converting the homes into owner-maintained homes]. Tom Kendrick noted that 40% of the homes in Oakmont are in sub-HOAs, while 60% are owner-maintained, and that there are legal limits to what OVA can do for the sub-HOAs.

__________________________________

Question [1:31]:

Do you support reducing or eliminating opportunities for community members to provide input before Board resolutions at OVA Board meetings? [This refers to the Board resolution introduced by Mark Randall a few months ago, which would have eliminated the Open Forum opportunities which, for several years now, have preceded the final vote on Board resolutions]

Answers:

The candidates unanimously voiced opposition to any reduction in Open Forum opportunities at Board meetings. Jeff, Iris and Tom Kendrick noted their support for “rules of engagement” to ensure civil and respectful proceedings at Board meetings.

__________________________________

Question [1:37]:

Do you belong to an MYN [Meet Your Neighbors] team or serve as a zone communicator?

Answers:

Most said yes they belonged, were in key roles, or supported it. Jeff is a ham radio operator.

___________________________________

I apologize for the sketchiness of most of the answer descriptions above. I very strongly urge you to view the video of any questions and answers that are important to your deciding how to vote, by going to this link and starting play at the location in the video indicated above by relative time within [brackets].

Finally, if you note any significant errors, please report them by submitting comments below. Any errors that I judge to be serious will be corrected in this article itself.