Is This the Way to Get Community Input?
Last week we were informed via an OVA email that “in July, a subcommittee conducted 26 interviews with people considered to be community leaders and compared that with 93 new residents who filled out a questionnaire for the OVA.” This “survey” was performed by the newly-formed Long Range Planning Committee at the request of the Board of Directors.
One has to ask how much weight this thoroughly unscientific sample of opinions will be given by the OVA board in their efforts to determine how best to serve the needs of current and future members of the Oakmont Village Association. In point of fact, a truly competent survey of Oakmont residents was performed just a few years ago and can still be a useful road map.
The “Voices of Oakmont” survey was conducted over the course of several months by a highly competent team of volunteers consisting of several PhD’s and others with vast experience in the field of survey research. As noted in its report: “Out of the estimated 3244 owners (including absentee owners), almost half (47%) took the survey.” Unfortunately, the survey results were largely ignored by the subsequent board and they then disbanded the Long Range Planning Committee that had conducted it.
An article I wrote in the Oakmont News last year discussed some of the findings of the survey as they relate to demographics and the views of OVA members regarding our facilities and funding priorities. (see An Oakmont Perspective)
When our current board recently reinstituted a Long Range Planning Committee, there was some talk of commissioning a new or updated survey. However, this appears to have gone by the wayside. According to the announcement on the OVA website: “The LRPC also felt that a new community-wide survey, is not something that should be undertaken now, but could be conducted if the committee or the Board of Directors require answers to specific questions.” LRPC member Marlena Cannon concluded, “The subcommittee believes that the data collected from the interviews will adequately inform the LRPC, and ultimately the board, as it starts making long-term and short-term strategic decisions.”
It can be argued that a survey of nearly half of the owners in Oakmont, while imperfect, “adequately inform(s)” and far outweighs in accuracy and relevance a random sampling of “26 people considered to be community leaders” and 93 residents new to Oakmont. Is the LRPC actually looking for input from the community as a whole? Or is it just seeking enough answers to questions it formulates to confirm an already established bias and opinion?
Suggestions are being made to greatly expand the Berger Center or to build a new larger Berger and to convert the existing Berger to a fitness center, indoor pool, and even indoor tennis courts. These options have already been raised in discussions at LRPC committee meetings.
Admittedly, a segment of our members see these ideas as viable and worth pursuing. Others see the existing amenities (including three clubhouses and pools, central auditorium, fitness center, library, multiple meeting rooms, tennis courts, pickleball courts, lawn bowling, bocce ball, hiking and biking trails, as well as numerous clubs and organizations) as exceptional offerings to current and future OVA members. The focus should remain on maintenance, repair and upgrade of existing facilities.
Survey data can delineate the degree of acceptance or rejection of these (and perhaps other) views in our community. If the current board chooses not to take advantage of the existing Voices of Oakmont survey it should commission an update prior to committing OVA to expensive new amenities that may not be in the interest of the majority of our residents.
We continually hear mention of our facilities and amenities as they relate to maintaining property values in Oakmont. Yet in the LRPC’s own limited survey, new owners listed the wide variety of social activities and the natural beauty of our location as their main reasons for being attracted to Oakmont. These features attracted past residents and will continue to attract future residents.
It might also be pointed out that not everyone in Oakmont looks at their home primarily with an eye to “return on investment.” For many it is a place to live and enjoy their remaining years. Oakmont was envisioned by its developers as a community for both those of means and those of modest means, as witnessed by the many multiplex structures side by side with private lots.
In this spirit, the voices of the least among us should be heard side by side with those of the most advantaged and any discussion of “values” should include human values as well as financial values.
Thank you for this excellent and wise article.
I would hope to see it reprinted often.
Such clear understanding, thinking, and logic are rare
in social communications.
Question is:
Can this mature and wise position counter
abundantly existing anger, greed,
corruption, bias, and desire for power and control in Oakmont?
Thank you for this article. How can fewer than 100 new residents and 26 unidentified, hand-picked so-called Oakmont “leaders” possibly reflect the diversity of opinion, wealth, and desires of nearly 5000 residents?! And who are these movers and shakers? Since their input will likely support the pre-ordained wishes of the current LRPC and BOD, shouldn’t they be named and the basis for the validity of their opinion be made public? Many new residents in the past year have spent up to a $1 million dollars, often in cash, for their homes. This group clearly does not reflect the reality of many longer-term residents, so why should their views be given so much weight?
In deciding to skip a rigorous, statistically significant survey process, and to ignore the 2015 Voices of Oakmont, the LRPC (who will make recommendations to the board on projects and spending), seems to already have a bias towards bigger spending and are not genuinely interested in what the community actually needs. The Voices survey reaffirms what many of us have been saying–there are at least 30-40% of residents who cannot afford hefty dues increases in order to pay for the new shiny thing and the deficits of the failing OGC.
And just how and why did the prior boards decide to ignore the findings of the 2015 LRPC’s recommendations, including the demographic information? My speculation is that the findings didn’t support their spending priorities for things like new pickleball courts or office buildings; is that accurate? I fear that once again a small group with their own agenda, irrespective of what the majority of residents here say they need and appreciate, are just going through the motions of transparency.