Democracy in Oakmont: The Roles of Membership Surveys and Votes

In childhood, we all learned to believe in democracy, the fundamental principle that the right of a government to regulate our lives derives from the consent of the governed. A government is democratic only to the extent that decisions made by that government accurately reflect what decisions the voters as a whole would make if they were fully informed on the issue at hand.

While no government is or can be perfectly democratic by this standard, some forms of democracy are clearly more democratic than others. Representative democracy is more democratic if the electorate has a variety of candidates from which to choose at election time, and if the elected representatives are committed to following the will of those who elected them.

Oakmont democracy has often suffered from the limited field of candidates running for the Board, the most important qualification for election being a willingness to serve; given that, we are very fortunate that, over the years, our directors have almost always been honest and well-intentioned, but sometimes their decisions have deviated dramatically from the will of the governed. Examples include the thrust to build an office building for OVA on the greensward in front of Berger, and the proposed construction of pickleball courts adjacent to our central pool. Both of these efforts were thwarted, but only with a couple of years of focused effort and outrage on the part of OVA members — the only way to stop these projects was to elect a new Board who would follow the will of the membership, and doing that takes two years, even with our relative short director terms. Had there been a requirement for a membership vote to approve these projects, they would have been cut short far sooner, and much of the associated rancor would have been avoided. We are fortunate this year to have a large field of Board candidates, some of whom represent a different direction from that pursued by recent OVA Boards — this is an opportunity to begin to attain a Board that more accurately reflects the will of the electorate.

Surveys can serve the purpose of informing the Board about membership support or lack of support for particular projects. They can also be used to evaluate needs and desires of particular interest groups. And, when wielded in a partisan fashion, can be used to manipulate results to favor a particular conclusion. Regardless of purpose or construction, a survey is an expression of the opinions of those surveyed and is not binding on the governing body (for Oakmont, the OVA Board of Directors).

In Oakmont, the Long Range Planning Committee (LRPC), following directives from the Board, has conducted numerous surveys over the years, and I believe that their surveys have always been well done and were not manipulated for partisan purposes. However, in service to the Board, surveys of recent years have only been performed on selected groups such as club leaders, realtors, newly arrived Oakmonters and business leaders. These can provide key insights into the wants and needs of those groups, but cannot demonstrate support or opposition for any question by the OVA membership as a whole.

The last time the LRPC conducted a survey of the OVA membership was in 2015 with the Voices of Oakmont survey. That survey has been much maligned by opponents of surveys, but lauded by proponents of democratic principles. Its primary strength was that it was a real effort to understand the desires and needs of Oakmont as a whole, and it was about as unbiased a survey as one could hope for. Its primary weakness was that it did not directly address specific decisions to be made, such as whether or not OVA should build pickleball courts next to the central pool or whether Berger should undergo a major and expensive expansion, and its critics have considered it to be useless and divisive.

Membership votes (plebiscites) in Oakmont, unlike surveys, would bind the Board to abide by their results. Such votes would typically address the very narrow issue of a particular decision that must be made. Under our current governing documents, and in spite of language in our Bylaws stating that “Special meetings of members for any purpose or purposes whatever” may be called, OVA Boards have obtained legal opinions (though not judicial rulings) that have stated that the only legitimate purposes for such meetings are those narrowly defined decisions mandated by law, e.g. approval of dues increases larger than 20% within a single year. This does not mean that a Board could not legally hold a membership vote unless required by law, but it does mean that the membership cannot force such a vote, and the Board would be responsible for assuring that the results of such a vote met the standard of fiduciary duty. No recent Board has been willing to even consider holding a membership vote, except as required by law.

In order for membership votes in additional circumstances to be required, changes to the OVA Bylaws would have to be made. Such changes are common among newer HOA communities, were proposed by the OVA Bylaws Revision Committee in 2019, and are supported by the California Real Estate Code, in a section entitled “Reasonable Arrangements-Governing Body Powers and Limitations” (Section 2792.21). Unfortunately, few OVA directors or candidates have expressed support for such Bylaws changes, and all Bylaws amendments are currently blocked due to a controversy about changing the Bylaws amendment threshold and other details.

Summary

Surveys and membership votes both serve the purpose of making governance decisions more accurately reflect the will of the governed. Oakmont has long suffered from Boards which, primarily for demographic reasons, are less representative of all Oakmonters than is desirable for meeting the democratic principle. A willingness on the part of Boards to utilize surveys and membership votes would go a long way toward addressing this challenge. Changes to our Bylaws to mandate membership votes in appropriate circumstances would ensure higher quality democratic representation into the future.