The Oakmont Observer OVA Board Candidate Survey 2026
In an effort to provide OVA members with useful information on topics of importance to the community, we sent a survey containing six assertions to every candidate, asking them to rate each assertion with an agreement/disagreement score and allowing text explanation of their answers. Our intent was to obtain clear positions from the candidates about these topics. We also allowed an introductory statement for each candidate. Four of the six candidates provided responses. This article will present the assertions and the candidates’ responses, with explanations in their own words. If candidates Oliver, Mui or Klyn later submit responses, those will be added below.
Candidate Introductory Statements
The order of candidates statements is the order in which OO received their responses, or no particular order for those who did not respond.
Steve Spanier:
I’m excited to be a candidate for the OVA board and hope to serve the community as I did before. I stand for plentiful communication from the board and OVA staff to the community, active listening to member ideas and commentary and operational transparency to the greatest extent permitted by law.
I’ve been fortunate to have served Oakmont in many capacities over my 13 years here. Please see this page on my campaign website for details and a list of accomplishments.
During my time here, I’ve found Oakmont to be filled with wonderful, truly accomplished people. Our volunteer culture is one reason this place is so special to me and, I’ve discovered, to many of you. I hope to continue our legacy of people giving back to the community in whatever way they believe they can.
I’ve devoted a page on my website to policy questions and answers. You may find it here. Although I take definitive positions on issues, I try hard to not be fanatical, strident, or dismissive of anyone’s ideas. My decision-making pattern is to thoroughly consider all sides of an issue, talk to everyone I feel I need to and then act based on my findings. My decision-making goal is to put the community’s needs above the needs of any individual, including myself. I’m not swayed by loud voices and not afraid to vote based on my research, even when I believe I’m in the minority. As this article states, that is a board member’s obligation and commitment.
If you find you can support me, please visit this page of my website to access a digital version of my campaign flyer and circulate it to whomever you believe would be interested. Thanks for considering my candidacy and please accept my best wishes for a happy, healthy 2026.
Greg Darcy:
My name is Greg Darcy. I’m running for a board seat so that I may lend some of my knowledge to help assure that Oakmont is a thriving community with a very healthy reserve so we all can enjoy our golden years without worry outside our homes. I’m a man who is very task orientated, driven to succeed. One of my best traits is the willingness to listen to others, learn from others experience, and implement those into whatever project I’m involved with. I’m sure my fellow residents in Oakmont have tons of knowledge that can be helpful for myself and the other board members to make this community a smooth running, well-oiled machine that we all can be proud of. I’ll be willing to put in the time to review any/all documents put forth in front of me to make sure that every community member feels heard. Hopefully with tons of success. I know I’m the least known candidate up for election, but sometimes you’ll find a diamond in the rough when you least expect it. I can be reached at greg@darcysfinejewelers or my cell 707-799-0552. I hope you’ll take the time to get to know me, and I would love to earn your trust by getting your vote.
Greg Darcy
Darcy’s Fine Jewelers
Fellow Oakmont Resident
Josh Axelrod:
Hi everyone, I’m Josh Axelrod.
I moved to Oakmont about four years ago to be closer to my three daughters. After moving here, I’ve had the opportunity join Oakmont Lifelong Learning, I discovered that I really enjoy bringing in groups and filling the Berger with music. I have also joined the Long Range Planning Committee, and the Governing Documents Committee. I’ve enjoyed working with these teams and I’m proud of what we’ve accomplished so far – I’m sure great work in those groups will continue going forward.
Workwise I started out as a high school mathematics teacher and over time shifted into high tech. I began as a programmer and moved to managing teams of developers. In this role, I learned the importance of collaboration to get clarity on requirements, deliverables, and timelines. Most of all I learned it is important to deliver what is promised. This how you build trust.
As homeowners we are all investors in Oakmont – I want to help us focus on maintaining what we have, planning ahead, and using our funds wisely to modernize our faculties. This work should address needs of current residents and have some consideration of future residents. I believe if the board focuses on transparency, communication and stronger engagement with volunteers in the community; we can ensure our success over the next decade.
Why do I want to serve on the Board? I love living here and I care deeply about this community, I to contribute to its continued success.
I’d truly appreciate your support and your vote. Thank you.
Matt Oliver: Responded to survey but didn’t provide introductory remarks.
Terrie Mui: No Response to survey.
Keidi Klyn: No Response to survey.
The Assertions
A: The health of the golf clubs should be an active topic of Oakmont discussion: With the permanent closure of the Sugarloaf pro shop [Editor’s note: now reversed], the contraction in hours of The Oak restaurant, and the fact that Courseco’s contract for managing the golf courses is more than half over, it is reasonable to want more information and to start talking about the future of the golf courses. OVA should provide some forum (e.g. an annual town meeting?) at which past performance and future plans are presented to the community, and at which contingencies for what will happen at the end of the current contract are discussed. You may wish to discuss your answer and, if you are in favor, to briefly share you thoughts about how best to conduct this community conversation, and what information we should expect to receive about golf course operations, profits, plans, etc.
B: The OVA Board should establish and follow an OVA Transparency Policy: California’s Open Meeting Act requires openness and transparency by HOA Boards by strictly limiting what HOA Boards are permitted to discuss and decide in executive session outside the presence of community members. The Act entitles community members to see how individual directors address and vote on community topics and to comment in mandated Open Forums. In recent years, the OVA Board’s practice appears to have relied more and more on potentially non-compliant executive sessions with only the vaguest descriptions for the community, which erodes membership trust, denies membership’s right to openness, and could subject OVA decisions to corresponding legal challenges. The Board should establish and follow a policy that would make OVA decision making at least as transparent as required by law. You may wish to discuss your answer or to share your thoughts on pros, cons, nuances and other details.
C: Expansion of Oakmont’s central facilities is needed: Oakmont needs to expand its central facilities, to meet the growing needs of our many organizations and as envisaged in the Oakmont 2030 concepts presented to us in 2024. This is a worthwhile effort, and it is time we got started on serious planning. I believe that we can accomplish a reasonable facilities expansion, while exercising fiscal restraint by use of loans or grants to avoid an undue burden on Oakmont homeowners. You may wish to discuss your answer and, if you are in favor, to share your thoughts, including what scope of capital improvements you envisage and how you think the community should be involved in decision making.
D: 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 15% of OVA’s annual budget) and (2) need to borrow money to fund the capital improvement, with a term of 5 years or longer. You may wish to discuss your answer or to share your thoughts on pros, cons, nuances, thresholds and other details.
E: The OVA BOD Project Oversight Process should be amended to include OVA membership referendums for go/no-go decisions: The OVA BOD Project Oversight Process should 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 should be included for each alternative presented, and one of the alternatives should 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.) You may wish to discuss your answer or to share your thoughts on pros, cons, nuances and details.
F: 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. You may wish to discuss your answer or, if you are in favor, to share your thoughts on such things as how often broad surveys should be conducted, the scope of surveys, and how to reach as many OVA members as possible.
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.
- 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 | Assertion E | Assertion F | |
| Steve Spanier | 5 | 4 | 3 | 3 | 3 | 4 |
| Greg Darcy | 5 | 5 | 1 | 5 | 5 | 4 |
| Josh Axelrod | 5 | 5 | 4 | 3 | 3 | 4 |
| Matt Oliver | 4 | 2 | 2 | 2 | 1 | 4 |
| Terrie Mui | NR | NR | NR | NR | NR | NR |
| Keidi Klyn | NR | NR | 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: The health of the golf clubs should be an active topic of Oakmont discussion”
Spanier, strongly agree:
Please see the appropriate question and answer on the disposition of Oakmont’s golf facilities here https://spanier4ova.org/policy-faqs for my views on this issue.
Darcy, strongly agree: I think we need to dive into the real reasons why these have become issues. Is it quality issues? Or just economical at this period of time?
Axelrod, strongly agree: Love it or hate it, we are in the golf course and food service business. The good news is the golf course is in much better shape than in the past few years and round count is doing well. The bad news is that our lease partner CourseCo isn’t profitable at this location yet. The OVA board, needs to take an active role working with the Golf Advisory Committee to support the continued movement towards profitability. In addition, the OVA board, working with the community, and the Golf Advisory Committee should also be looking ahead so that we are proactive and not reactive to future changes and needs.
Oliver, mildly agree: In the past, there have been community Town Hall presentations about CourseCo. Additional community meetings are necessary so speculation can be squelched. I’m on the Golf Committee and I can tell everyone, currently, discussions are taking place regarding Sugarloaf course orientation being returned to its normal use; and operations of the The Oak. Public information about operations, plans and profits is limited to CourseCo’s obligation under the terms of the Lease; but we continue to negotiate with them.
Text responses to “B: The OVA Board should establish and
follow an OVA Transparency Policy”
Spanier, mildly agree: I’d need to see the text of this policy but I’m generally a big advocate of transparency and communication in general and wouldn’t mind seeing if there’s something additional that can be done beyond the Open Meeting Act that would not violate the law by, for example, requiring open discussion of legal or personnel issues. I offer, in addition, my previous service to the community as detailed on this page as proof of my commitment to transparency. On that page, you will see a number of transparency initiatives installed while a member of the OVA board.
Darcy, strongly agree: I truly believe honesty and transparency is the best policy. If we as board members are doing what’s best for our community we should have no secrets, or private off-the-books meetings.
Axelrod, strongly agree: The board should limit executive sessions to only the few conditions required. In addition, board meetings should be about discussing issues and options, not just presenting conclusions. The board should spend more time in the community meeting in person to discuss current issues. Regularly holding neighborhood conversations and periodic community coffee klatches would help in getting a better connection with the board and individuals in the community.
The OVA board should set yearly goals based on community input. There should be a simple scoreboard on the homepage of the OVA website and published in each issue of the Oakmont News that informs community members on the status of each goal, the progress made and the timing of the next milestone.
Oliver, mildly disagree: I agree with your remark that OVA decision-making be as transparent as required by law, but for that we don’t need a “policy.” We could certainly make the Board statement(s) a little clearer as to what the topics are. However, regarding Executive Sessions, those meetings and reviews are conducted not to withhold information, but to ensure that reports are accurate, complete and legally sound. Past Board practices and Executive Sessions have been legally compliant.
Text responses to “C: Expansion of Oakmont’s central
facilities is needed”
Spanier, undecided:
Please see the appropriate question and answer on central complex planning here https://spanier4ova.org/policy-faqs for my views on this issue.
Darcy, strongly disagree: I’m too fiscally responsible to spend large sums of money that don’t have a direct ROI on the community members’ individual property. Furthermore, I believe only a minority of Oakmont use the central community area.
Axelrod, mildly agree: I like the words update and modernize versus expansion, nevertheless the central complex is getting older. Even with some updates that have occurred over time, the facilities need attention. I’m encouraged by the work going on with the Berger Assessment Plan. The Berger is one of our most used buildings, many groups would benefit from some reasonable improvements.
Overall, looking at all of our facilities, there is a wide set of community needs to consider. Community members that have been here many years and may no longer be able to use the facilities as they once did. On the other end are new community members who want to take advantage of all of the facilities and want to continue as investors to increase the value of the assets. We need to strike a balance that works for all members
Any update plan should be mindful of many past data collection efforts and recommendations. Once the clear options are outlined, the finance committee should develop funding scenarios, and then as investors the community needs to make a good financial decision based on clear options.
Recently, the community undertook a large effort to get input and ideas and then turn those into some options for the future of the central area. The next step was to get some costing information for some of the options presented so that the community could at least discuss ballpark numbers. This is what I think any OVA board owes their community now, to follow up and to meet the stated commitment. Give people the information and allow further input and discussion.
Oliver, mildly disagree: Expanding facilities? The term “expanding” is not entirely correct, as there be a few areas needing to be larger, remodeled or expanded, but some may only be revisions to certain areas, or in terms from my career in real estate development, adaptive reuse, without demolishing existing buildings. And some conditions captured from the 2030 efforts, including modifications to the Berger Center (to provide slightly more seating and better stage conditions for presentations and entertainers); renovation of the existing pool (NOT building a new pool) and minor expansion and/or enhancements to the surrounding pool area; and space use modifications to the CAC building to provided better access and usability of the fitness center. All such efforts do not point toward or require a new building.
And as I have stated in open meetings, we have sufficient funds in reserve for the Berger and pool area work. That would avoid having to reach for a loan. That is “fiscal restraint.” And for the CAC efforts, we are still working to prepare a scope of improvements that will ultimately guide us to understand cost estimates.
Text responses to “D: OVA Bylaws should require membership votes for major capital improvements”
Spanier, undecided:
Please see the appropriate question and answer on community votes on major capital expenses here https://spanier4ova.org/policy-faqs for my views on this issue.
Darcy, strongly agree: I would be representing my community, not myself, so I do believe at least a 60% approval should be had if there is a major project put before the board.
Axelrod, undecided: The purchase of the golf course was an example of a capital improvement that clearly needed a community vote. In that specific case, the vote was required since the dues increased more than 20% to cover the cost of the new loan payment. The 15-year loan commitment and the need to operate a business were very impactful and buy-in was critical.
The 20% limit on the dues increasing is an existing Davis-Stirling rule that we will continue to be subject to. Theoretically, a board could try to borrow a large amount keeping the payment required low enough not to require a 20% dues increase. I don’t believe this is what the community wants, and a board that communicates in a transparent way and establishes trust with the community wouldn’t head in that direction. But I am not opposed to changes of the by-laws if that is what the majority of the community desires.
Two questions to answer are how large an investment would require a vote and how do you define a positive vote outcome. We are voting this cycle on changing the threshold for updating the ByLaws from a majority of eligible voters, to a threshold that is defined as if 50% of the community participates, a supermajority of that group (55%) can represent the communities wishes
If a ByLaws addition for limiting spending is desired, I believe a good starting point would be for a proposed expenditure that exceeds 50% of the OVA budget (roughly 3.75 million today) and using the positive vote definition we are defining for Bylaws changes for defining community approval.
Oliver, mildly disagree: Yes, major capital improvements should come to a vote; but that statement needs to be qualified as a range of cost may drive the decision-making by the Board, especially when such costs can be managed with (then) reserve funds; and the range of % and term need to be examined on a case by case basis.
Text responses to “E: The OVA BOD Project Oversight Process should include OVA membership referendums for go/no-go decisions”
Spanier, undecided:
Please see the appropriate question and answer on votes on large expenses here https://spanier4ova.org/policy-faqs for my views on this issue.
Darcy, strongly agree: Common sense comes into play here. If the board is working in the best interest of the Oakmont community, we should determine what we believe is best for the 4700 or so residents. Even with following our bylaws.
Axelrod, undecided: For any major OVA project, the board should keep the community well informed as each stage is executed and completed. The board and the community should have the opportunity to review the work products and share feedback on the state of the effort.
The goals of any major OVA project are to the meet the needs of the community, that should be aligned from the start. Good communication and meeting commitments builds trust and would help in aligning project goals and execution.
If having go/no-go votes when using the BOD project oversight process serves to better educate the board on the desires of community then that is valuable.
Oliver, strongly disagree: The Project Oversight Process is purely an academic model that should not be considered a guideline for all projects, and certainly not for the types of possible renovation/expansion projects in Oakmont. Yes, there are aspects of the process which can apply, but “possibilities and alternatives” may be conflicting, and the notion of developing specifications (and definitions) can be wildly vague (not providing enough useful information) for decision-making. And referendums should not be considered as interim decision-making measures.
Text responses to “F: A comprehensive Oakmont survey should be executed every 10 years”
Spanier, mildly agree:
Please see the appropriate question and answer on surveys here https://spanier4ova.org/policy-faqs for my views on this issue. I believe targeted surveys can be useful, but having done them professionally at one point in my career, I’m acutely aware of their limitations.
Darcy, mildly agree: I believe we should do this every five years, not ten, due to the turnover in community members.
Axelrod, mildly agree:
I think surveys can be a great tool. The 2015 survey that included 1639 (about 1/3 of dues paying members) responses was well executed and was a valid sample. I also believe a survey should be executed with some goals and action to take place after the results are in. At some point, just continuing to ask community members what they want, and then taking no action can be frustrating. I think that there should be many different methods for collecting community input: surveys, facilitated groups, neighborhood meetings, town halls.
Oliver, mildly agree: We will need to be very careful with how to reach Oakmont owners, and how we categorize and quantify survey results.
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 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.
