The Oakmont Observer OVA Board Candidate Survey 2025
In an effort to provide OVA members with useful information on topics of importance to the community, we sent a survey containing four assertions to every candidate, asking them to rate each assertion with an agreement/disagreement score and allowing text explanation of their answers. We are happy to report that five of the seven candidates provided responses. This article will present the assertions and the candidates’ responses, with explanations in their own words.
The Assertions
A: Expansion of Oakmont’s central facilities is needed: Oakmont needs to expand its central facilities, as envisaged in the Oakmont 2030 concepts presented to us last summer. This is a worthwhile effort and I believe that we can accomplish it, by use of loans or grants to avoid an undue burden on Oakmont homeowners, even if the cost exceeds $10 million.
B: A comprehensive Oakmont survey should be executed every 10 years: The OVA Board should ask the Long Range Planning Committee to execute a comprehensive survey, mailed to every Oakmont owner, at least every ten years. The survey should be designed to provide key information about Oakmont owner’s priorities and preferences, to guide the OVA Board in operational and planning decisions.
C: OVA Bylaws should require membership votes for major capital improvements: The OVA Bylaws should be amended to require membership votes for approval of expenditures for major capital improvements. Criteria for when such votes are required should include (1) total estimated cost of the project to exceed some threshold (say $1 million) and (2) need to borrow money to fund the capital improvement, with a term of 5 years or longer.
D: The OVA BOD Project Oversight Process should include OVA membership referendums for go/no-go decisions: The OVA BOD Project Oversight Process should be amended to require OVA membership referendums at the end of Phase 2 (Generate possibilities and select the preferred alternative) and of Phase 3 (Develop detailed specifications). Cost estimates must be included for each alternative presented, and one of the alternatives must be to not proceed with the project. (Unless the Bylaws are amended, the result of such referendums would be advisory – the BOD would not be legally obligated to abide by the results.)
Candidate Agree/Disagree Responses
For each of the assertions, each candidate was asked to provide a numeric response from 1 (Strongly Disagree) to 5 (Strongly Agree), with the following more detailed explanations:
- Strongly Disagree — In a Board meeting, I would certainly vote against a resolution that is consistent with this statement.
- Mildly Disagree – In a Board meeting, I would probably vote against a resolution that is consistent with this statement.
- Undecided – In a Board meeting, how I would vote might depend on details not stated. If I have clear criteria which would determine my vote, I may explain in my text response.
- Mildly Agree – In a Board meeting, I would probably vote in favor of a resolution that is consistent with this statement.
- Strongly Agree – In a Board meeting, I would certainly vote in favor of a resolution that is consistent with this statement.
In addition, a candidate could respond “*” to any assertion, indicating the need for a more nuanced textual response, and candidates could provide text explanations or elaborations of their responses. Text responses below are their own words, with no editing or abridgement.
The numeric responses of all candidates are represented in the following table. NR indicates no response to that question or to the survey as a whole. The order of candidates is the order in which OO received their responses, or no particular order for those who did not respond.
| Assertion A | Assertion B | Assertion C | Assertion D | |
| Robert Williams | 1 | 5 | 5 | 5 |
| Karl Turner | 3 | 5 | 5 | 5 |
| Timothy Nelson | 3 | 2 | 4 | 1 |
| Jess Marzak | * | 2 | 2 | 2 |
| John De Groot | * | * | 5 | * |
| Neill Ray | NR | NR | NR | NR |
| Jeff Neuman | NR | NR | NR | NR |
Text responses, when provided by the candidates, are quoted verbatim below. If you do not see a candidate listed under the assertion heading, it is because he provided no text related to that assertion or did not respond to the survey.
Text responses to “A: Expansion of Oakmont’s central facilities is needed”
Williams, strongly disagree: These fantasy projects are not vital to Oakmont and are special interest picks made by a very small percentage of Oakmont residents.
Nelson, undecided: The Oakmont 2030 initiative gathered community suggestions without considering need, cost, or practicality, resulting in a “blue sky” list of desired improvements. While the very thorough 2016 Central Project Committee Report concluded that “OVA facilities can currently adequately support the requirements of the Oakmont organizations for meeting room and activity space”, many community members continue to express a desire for expansion. I am open to considering a well-defined plan with realistic cost estimates, well-articulated benefits and a specific financing proposal.
I see little need to actively pursue facility expansion until 1) the loan used to purchase the golf course is paid off, 2) CourseCo’s management of the golf course is profitable and returning sharing payments to OVA, and 3) the 21% across the board decrease in Social Security payments now scheduled to occur in 2033 has been avoided.
Transparency in this process is crucial, and I promise to ensure it if elected to the 2025 Board.
Marzak: The decision to renovate the central area should be made by Oakmont residents, not any individual board member, or any individual board. So what I think about the costs of the renovation might be interesting, but sort of irrelevant. I believe the CAC remodel was completed around 2008, which is 17 years ago. The Oakmont community has increased in size, and the diversity of activities are much broader than 17 years ago, so I believe some sort of renovation is appropriate.
De Groot: I don’t believe an expansion of Oakmont’s central facilities is needed. However, if a deferred maintenance or other problem occurs with key mechanical or structural components in something OVA-owned, and it were to cost a million +$, then it may make sense to do more than a repair.
Text responses to “B: A comprehensive Oakmont survey should be executed every 10 years”
Williams, strongly agree: Do what the majority of the people vote for.
Nelson, mildly disagree: I believe decisions should be made by knowledgeable elected representatives rather than adhering to rigid procedural rules. If necessary, representatives can choose to conduct surveys when they believe they will add sufficient value to offset the time, money and effort required to implement them.
The 2015 Voices of Oakmont survey and the 2019 LRPC report remain relevant and most informative.
Marzak, mildly disagree: If there is a reason to conduct a survey, I’m all for it. However, a survey costs money. I believe the 2015 survey cost around $13,000, and today that would probably be much higher.
De Groot: A decade is too long a period. To me, 5-7 years is appropriate considering OVA membership turnover. If survey responses were found to be relatively stable, then the interval could be increased. A survey should be conducted electronically. The OVA website could be utilized. Additionally, I strongly support a professionally designed survey vehicle. This will assure questions asked generate data that is meaningful.
Text responses to “C: OVA Bylaws should require membership votes for major capital improvements”
Williams, strongly agree: Previous board members should have already taken care of this. Those board members in favor of the 2030/CAC area project do not want OVA residents to be allowed to vote on major projects.
Nelson, mildly agree: I advocate for an amendment to the OVA Bylaws requiring majority approval from the membership before the OVA Board can borrow large sums of money for non-emergency purposes. Davis-Sterling requires a community-wide vote before dues can be increased more than 20% in any year, and on special assessments greater than 5% of OVA’s annual budgeted gross expenses. Using loans to finance capital improvement would allow the Board to subvert these legal protections.
Marzak, mildly disagree: I think the parameters established in the Bylaws and CCR’s work pretty well. The part of the question I disagree with is the requirement for a vote if money is borrowed. The criteria for a vote should depend on the size of the project that is usually reflected in the cost of the project. Then the rules of the Bylaws and CCR’s kick in.
De Groot, strongly agree: Current law requires member approval in specific circumstances. The OVA’s Governing Docs Ad Hoc Committee should consider a threshold that is lower than the law requires.
Text responses to “D: The OVA BOD Project Oversight Process should include OVA membership referendums for go/no-go decisions”
Williams, strongly agree: If we had this in place now I feel we would not be facing this stalling of telling members the costs of these fantasy projects because a vote of ALL members would have stopped this long ago.
Nelson, strongly disagree
Further Comment concerning Direct Democracy vs. Representative Democracy (B, C & D): OVA is a representative democracy with all power vested in the OVA Board. While I respect some members’ preference for the direct democracy techniques expressed in these questions, I believe representative democracy is more practical for a community of Oakmont’s size. Elected representatives can make better informed decisions more efficiently. However, to better check the power of the OVA Board, I propose amending the Bylaws to improve the recall procedure and increase the Board’s size to nine members, with term limits to prevent undue influence from special interest groups. The best way to address these concerns is by electing highly qualified members to the OVA Board.
Marzak, mildly disagree: Without accurate costs, any proposal for building something is like asking for an answer in a vacuum. I think conducting a survey after Phase 3 might make sense, as long as it doesn’t force the board to go forward with a project or stop a project. I read the questionnaire that the 2030 Committee presented for the three Concepts in the CAC. and many responses asked for accurate cost information before they would/could give a response.
De Groot: Although these amendments sound somewhat sensible, requiring multiple referendums is too cumbersome. My response would depend on the motion. I believe the BOD must fulfill its obligation of reasonable decisions after deliberate evaluation. Direct communication of member preferences, through surveys, would improve the Board’s ability to consider our input to their decision-making.
Conclusion
It is interesting to note how much variation there is in the candidates’ responses, even in the simple table depicting degree of agreement or disagreement with each assertion. We urge all OVA members to consider their responses to this survey and to attend Candidates Night and candidate meet and greets before deciding whom you will vote for. It is up to all of us to decide, when we mark our ballots, who will best represent our interests for the coming two years (the term of office of our directors). Literally, the future of Oakmont will be determined by our voting decisions.
Neill Ray and Jeff Neuman were unresponsive to the Oakmont Observer’s 2025 Board Candidate Survey, declining to answer four straightforward questions about how they would apply their knowledge and experience to Oakmont governance. At a time when transparency and accountability are more important than ever, their refusal to participate raises serious concerns about their willingness to engage with the community and openly share their perspectives. Oakmont residents deserve leaders who are willing to communicate and be forthcoming about their positions on critical issues.
The survey provided valuable insights into where candidates stand on key governance and financial oversight matters. Five of the seven candidates—Robert Williams, Karl Turner, Timothy Nelson, Jess Marzak, and John De Groot—responded thoughtfully, offering clear perspectives on issues such as central area expansion, community surveys, membership voting on major capital improvements, and project oversight referendums. Their willingness to participate demonstrates a commitment to open dialogue and a respect for the community’s right to be informed.
Ray and Neuman’s silence leaves a gap in understanding their approach to Board decisions. Without their responses, residents are not able to compare and contrast their positions in relation to the other candidates on these critical issues. This lack of transparency makes it difficult for voters to assess their potential impact on Oakmont’s future. Let’s hope they offer clear responses at Candidates Night this week so the community can better understand where they stand.
Thank you to Williams, Turner, Nelson, Marzak, and De Groot for their insightful answers and willingness to engage with the community. Their responses help ensure that Oakmont residents can make informed choices in the upcoming election.
Why wasn’t this done earlier? Maybe it took a big issue to force the issue. Thanks Bruce for a valuable guide to the upcoming election. I can see that some issues might require additional informational before an informed opinion is possible, while others are bright lines.
Now, how about we practice some power politics is this modern age? Should we all vote for 4 candidates? That depends. The outcome sought is 4 strong votes on important issues. Might we have 2 strong votes remaining on the board? If so, voting for only the 2 best candidates is the best way of getting them elected.
We need more information. Bruce, might the continuing board members be receptive to responding to you? Thanks.
Hi Lynn,
Here’s my analysis about whether or not to cast all four of one’s votes. I would appreciate feedback to check my reasoning:
If there are between one and three candidates whom you absolutely oppose, you should cast all four of your votes, even if it means you vote for someone you aren’t entirely comfortable with. This is the case even if there are two strong votes for. your positions remaining on the Board.
Because the four candidates who receive the highest number of votes will win, a candidate whom you strongly oppose has a better chance of winning if you don’t cast all of your votes. For example, let’s say you strongly oppose Candidates 1, 2 & 3 and are uncomfortable, but could live with, Candidates 4 and 5. If enough people don’t vote for Candidates 4 and 5, any or all of Candidates 1, 2 & 3 could win. That risks your having only one new Board member joining the current two to represent your positions on the Board. They would not have the majority.
I also encourage you to think beyond the 2025 election. Assume this election results in only two candidates winning who will join the two Board members whom you believe currently support your positions. That Board majority will only by guaranteed for one year. Three seats will be up for election in 2026. If three candidates are elected whom you oppose, the Board majority will flip again. On the other hand, if four candidates whom you can live with are elected this year, you have a good chance of having a Board that’s acceptable to you for the next two years.
Please let me know what you think.
Yes. My “it depends” was short for it depends on one’s objective. Mine is to get a board majority to require member votes on projects above a certain amount. This issue has long been sought by many members, though never a board majority.
For once I can see a majority in sight. Whether we do this as part of reforming our bylaws or as a single issue matters little to me. Though, a single issue is easy to understand and appears to enjoy widespread support. So, your perspective has merit if keeping the least desirable candidates off the board.
All else is almost inconsequential by comparison.
I have gone through the same analysis, with the same conclusions — if your highest priority is to get 2 specific candidates elected, then you should only vote for those two; if your highest priority is to ensure that 3 candidates do NOT get elected, then you should vote for the other 4.
And I agree with your priority — my first goal is to get a bylaws amendment that requires membership votes on large projects or large loans, as a check against a Board that decides that the best interests of Oakmont do not coincide with what OVA members want.
I will not vote for anyone who either supports the expansion as proposed in 2030 project or who opposes a OVA member survey (how often can vary but we are certainly well past the due date in 2025!).
I worry about the costs of a lot of surveys. Bias in the questions can also shape responses. Also, do you survey all the people here? Or all the members? Two- person households hold only one member vote. If the members vote, you are disenfranchising over 1000 people – maybe as much as a third of the residents – and we pay our dues per person.
There are pros and cons to the 1-member-1-vote proposal. On the one hand, as you say, we pay our dues per person and it would seem fair to have voting rights that way, too. On the other hand our current votes are more akin to voting shares in a corporation — one unit of ownership, one vote. And, if we were to shift from the current voting rule to one in which a 2-person household got two votes, then it would constitute a dramatic shift in voting power from single/widowed/divorced OVA members to married OVA members. Is that really what you want?
Surveys do need to be carefully designed and there is no doubt that there can be bias in the way a survey is constructed. But a survey, done conscientiously like the 2015 Voices of Oakmont Survey, is certainly more valuable than simply guessing what Oakmonters want, which is what Boards have to do in the absence of survey information. Personally, I think that a good idea would be to incorporate a survey into the annual Board election ballot, which would eliminate mailing costs. You would get a survey for not much more than the cost of preparing it and tallying the results, both of which could probably be done reasonably well by volunteers on our LRPC, perhaps with consultation from an outside expert for constructing the survey. And you would probably get a higher participation rate than if you sent out a survey by itself. Annual surveys would not have to be as comprehensive as the 2015 survey, possibly addressing just a few issues that would be important to decisions to be made by the Board in the coming year.
Thank you for going to the effort of compiling this survey. I appreciate the five people who responded, even though I don’t necessarily agree with all the responses. That’s OK, we’re all entitled to our opinions, and true democracy requires that candidates and office holders are upfront and transparent with theirs. I’m operating under the assumption that the 2 candidates who failed to respond were given a fair opportunity to do so. If indeed that’s the case, I find it insulting and imperious that they could not go to the trouble of offering up an honest response which would allow OVA membership to make the most educated decision possible. Evidently they’re too busy or too important to interact with the peasantry.
Or they scorn The Oakmont Observer because it is not controlled by OVA and publishes opinions that may be uninformed.
And, yes, all candidates got exactly the same survey at the same time (within Email delivery variation).
Of course, I would say that in most cases where an author’s opinion is uninformed, it means that OVA has failed to inform us! If we don’t know any of the content of the “cost models”, for example, it is natural for us to speculate what they might contain that might cause the Board to withhold the information. Complete and truthful information is the way to squash invalid speculation!
Thank you for doing this. It is very helpful. Can this be published in the Oakmont News?
No, at least not this survey and not this year.
It would be possible for OVA to conduct a similar survey and to publish its results. I don’t think they will ever do that, but you might want to suggest it to the Board and the OVA General Manager. I think it would be great if they did such a survey.
Like any survey, how you construct it and what issues it addresses are subjective decisions. I included issues that I thought would be most critical for deciding how to vote, but other people would have chosen different issues. It is similar to the selection of questions to be presented at Candidates Night. You can’t completely avoid bias, but you want fair-minded people to make intelligent selections of what to ask. And drawing questions randomly, as was done at last year’s Candidates Night, is much worse than attempting a fair selection, if you want to ensure that important questions are actually asked.
Many thanks, very helpful in making an informed decision.
First of all, the 2 candidates with a NR response should be automatically disqualified for not giving us their opinion! Period! the 2 people with an * asterik or two whould also be disqualified! What does having an * actually mean? Does it mean they want us to guess what they are thinking and just go along with them, the * candidates. Is it a matter of “you can trust me because I’m a candidate but for now, you cannot know what I think”? In his above comments, Martin Laney said it best! WTH! A comprehensive survey should take place ever 5 years! Reason being that if you get on the average 300 newcomers every year, that would be 1500 newcomers every 5 years, – which is roughly 33% of Oakmonters. That’s a lot! Their opinions should be heard after 5 Years of living in Oakmont as they are quite familiar with the goings-on by then. Plus, if they can spend $70,000 on the fake Oakmont 2030 scheme, then why not $15,000 on a Survey every 5 years? And, why not give every 2 person household 2 votes? Why are we still living in pre-women’s suffrage times. Primitive, medieval and discriminatory! Developing.
While this (was) a very worthwhile exercise to communicate the positions of candidates at the time, why is it landing in our inbox now?