Why is it OVA Boards can’t learn from past mistakes?
Can we avoid such discord?
First, the Board needs to stop cherry-picking attorney opinions to suit their typically club-affiliated agenda and acknowledge the need for a membership vote on such matters. They should welcome and embrace prominent HOA attorney Steve Weil’s read on this, which he provided during a 2017 OVA Board meeting:
“There is nothing in Davis-Stirling, nor is there anything in the OVA governing documents that prohibits the Board from submitting it to (a vote) of the members. Under Section 3.3 (bylaws) the Board can convene – the President or the Board of Directors – can convene a special membership meeting for any purpose. And then under Section 4.1, the members have the right to vote on any referendum or proposal submitted to the members.”
I call on the OVA Board President to honor his commitment to the membership that he will conduct OVA business with transparency and input from the community. So far, the OGC subsidy request has not been conducted as he promised.
The Board needs to do its due diligence and demand accurate information (aka transparency) from the OGC as well as an independent audit of their financials. Also, ALL Board members should have access to OGC’s financial information, not just those selected by the OGC. Actually, the OVA Board should simply reject any subsidy, in which case they don’t need to see OGC financials at all. If certain Board members wish to believe and/or accommodate OGC’s plea for financial support, then identify an OGC asset of value to OVA to trade for some lesser sum, so member dues are not diverted from maintenance of OVA’s own assets.
Why weren’t ALL OVA Directors available at the June 5 Meeting to voice their concerns and ask pertinent questions? We heard each member of the OGC panel say the two courses were not in trouble of folding and will not be sold. We were even told the OGC did not need our money for operations. But then we heard Director Kendrick say the financials were “murky.” What does this mean?
Troubling statements I heard on June 5:
Barbara Robinson, president of the OGC said “areas of collaboration will not be discussed with residents, only the Board of Directors.”
OVA Board Vice President Kendrick said “And votes around issues like this do run afoul of the controlling California law, Davis-Stirling. It has rather strict requirements about what boards can shuffle off to others. But that is one of the things – again, we are looking at it. It doesn’t look like that is something that is really a viable alternative.” (This too, is incorrect as stated by attorney Steve Weil in the quote above)
Have a majority of Directors already made up their minds? The election candidates and now Directors have not revealed their positions on this critical matter. Will this Board make the same mistake previous Boards have and make their decision based on significant pressure from, or their affiliation with, a politically active but not OVA-authorized club, one that may well have campaigned for them? Are we being asked to subsidize poor management?
My response to a request for a subsidy is a resounding NO, not for the 2019 budget.