Transparency Crisis: The Unanswered Questions Behind Oakmont’s Central Area Designs
Recently, the Oakmont community was invited to participate in a questionnaire survey to provide feedback on three proposed design concepts for the Central Area. The survey was a significant opportunity for residents to voice their opinions and shape the future of our community. However, despite the completion of this survey, there appears to be a troubling lack of transparency regarding the results. Please carefully review the OVA General Manager’s statement as to feedback on the central design concepts dated August 7, 2024. Why doesn’t the stated plan include a resort to the community and the board as to the results of the tabulated data collected from this survey?
This is the statement made by the General Manager regarding regarding the design concepts questionnaire survey next steps:
What’s Next?
- Reviewing Feedback: Reviewing of all the comments received will start next week. Each piece of feedback will be carefully considered to ensure that it reflects the needs and desires of the community.
- Revising Concepts: Based on feedback, there may be revisions to the initial design concepts to better align with the community’s vision. This process would involve refining the designs and addressing any concerns or suggestions raised.
- Presentation of Revised Designs: Once the revisions are complete, there will be a Townhall to present the updated design concepts for further review. Stay tuned for announcements regarding the date and format of this presentation.
- Finalizing the Plans: After presenting the revised design concepts and incorporating any additional feedback, as needed, we will host additional town halls/workshops to provide the community with a comprehensive financial overview. Within the existing contract with Achilogix, this will include cost modeling, funding options, and Archilogix’s recommendations on how OVA could phase the implementation of a master plan.
Unanswered Questions and Growing Concerns
The central question on many residents’ minds is whether the survey results supported any or all of the three conceptual designs presented. The primary purpose of the questionnaire was to gauge community support and identify any areas of concern. Yet, the results remain undisclosed. This lack of information leaves the community wondering if the feedback received aligns with the original designs or if there were significant issues raised that are now being ignored.
Moreover, were there any notable trends or concerns highlighted in the feedback? The community has a right to know if specific aspects of the designs received overwhelming support or faced widespread opposition. If particular ideas were consistently rejected or praised, that information should be shared openly. Transparency in this regard is crucial for maintaining trust and ensuring that the project truly reflects the community’s desires.
The Simplicity of Data Tabulation: What’s the Hold-Up?
The questionnaire was conducted via Google Docs, a platform known for its ease of data collection and analysis. Tabulating and sharing the results should be a straightforward process, yet the community is still waiting. This delay raises red flags. Is there something in the data that the project leaders do not want the community to see? The simplicity of the tool used makes the lack of communication even more concerning. If the data contradicts the initial direction of the project, transparency demands that it be shared regardless.
Revisions Without Justification?
The project’s current phase involves revising the design concepts based on the feedback received. However, without the survey data being made public, how can residents trust that these revisions genuinely reflect their input? The community deserves to see how their feedback influenced the proposed changes. Without this transparency, there is a risk that the revisions will merely pay lip service to the community’s concerns while the core of the project remains unchanged.
The Financial Black Hole
Adding to the concerns is the complete lack of cost projections at this stage of the process. Financial transparency is not just a nice-to-have—it is essential for informed decision-making. The community is being asked to provide feedback and potentially support a project without any understanding of the financial implications. How can residents make informed decisions if they do not know the costs associated with these designs? The decision to withhold cost information until later in the process only deepens the suspicion that the community’s input is not being taken seriously.
The Path Forward: Demand for Transparency
For a project of this magnitude, transparency is not optional — it is a fundamental requirement. To move forward in a way that respects the input and concerns of all Oakmont residents, the following actions are necessary:
- Immediate Release of Survey Data: The results of the Central Area Concepts questionnaire should be made available to the community without further delay. This will allow residents to see how their feedback is being considered in the project’s development.
- Clear Justification for Revisions: Any revisions to the design concepts should be accompanied by a clear explanation of how the survey data influenced these changes. The community needs to see that their voices are making a difference.
- Early and Transparent Cost Projections: Financial details should be provided as soon as possible, well before the designs are finalized. This transparency will enable residents to engage in meaningful discussions and make informed decisions about the project.
- Ongoing Open Communication: The Oakmont Village Association must commit to regular, open communication with the community throughout the entire process. This includes additional town halls and workshops where residents can ask questions and receive clear, honest answers.
The success of the Central Area Concepts project depends on the active participation and trust of the Oakmont community. Withholding survey data and delaying critical financial information undermines this trust and risks alienating residents. The Oakmont Village Association must correct this course by embracing full transparency, sharing all relevant data, and fostering an environment where the community’s voice truly guides the future of our shared spaces. Only then can we ensure that the Central Area Concepts project reflects the genuine needs and desires of all Oakmont residents.
You know something is not right when belaboring the obvious becomes necessary. Once again, Deborah, thanks for shining a light where it needs shining. While some idea of costs is important, I’ll quibble about its order of importance.
One needn’t know much about the cost of some proposed projects to know that the number is large, large enough to say a loud “no” to proceeding further. Yet, that doesn’t seem to be a result recognized. We just keep marching in one direction.
One common theme in today’s political commentary is the threat to democracy. It’s beginning to look like its defense might just as well start right here in Oakmont.
Yes, release to results!
I, too, have been awaiting results from the survey. Looks like I’m in for a long wait and that is inexcusable. The new board was elected for its’ transparency and openness to OVA members’ concerns. Show us the results!
Karen, only three of the seven OVA Board positions were open in the 2024 election. There was no way to elect a “new” Board that would change the Board’s direction. The “old” Board still has the majority with their four votes. We elected three Directors this year, all of whom campaigned on platforms that indicated they would not support the direction of the 2023 Board. Even if all three new Directors, Jerry Gladstone, Matt Oliver and Heidi Klyn, had followed through on their campaign statements, the majority vote would not have changed. In fact it has grown by one vote, as Heidi Klyn has been supporting the 2023 Board agenda.
The important thing for people who do not support the Board’s current direction to know is that we have the ability to change it. In the 2025 OVA Board election four positions will be open. It is imperative that candidates run who will vote against the prevailing majority, meaning for transparency and a competent, best-practice based approach to financial management. Anyone who feels similarly could help by asking their Oakmont friends and neighbors to encourage such candidates to run and then support their campaign.
YES!
The link to the managers report on the survey is not active when reading the observer on the website
The hyperlinks in the article function once you sign into the OVA Website on the pop-up. Direct Link https://oakmontvillage.com/article/general-manager-thank-you-for-your-valuable-feedback-on-the-initial-draft-design-concepts/
Subject: Request for Records Related to Recent Central Area Design Concepts Questionnaire
Dear General Manager Christel Antone and President Heidi Klyn,
As a member of the Oakmont Village Association, I am formally requesting access to all records related to the recent questionnaire survey regarding the central area design concepts, pursuant to the Davis-Stirling Act and the California Civil Code.
Under California Civil Code Section 5200, HOA members have the right to inspect association records. I am requesting the following information:
• Raw respondent data from the July 2024 online and paper questionnaire survey regarding the Central Area Concepts Design
• The original Google Form used for the survey
• Any Google Sheets, forms or other documents used for data analysis. Data analytics report including all variables such as age, income, preferences, needs, member use of amenities, etc…
• All relevant communications and documents related to the survey and its analysis
As this data is likely to influence significant financial decisions impacting the community, I believe it is crucial for members to be fully informed.
Thank you for your prompt attention to this matter. Please let me know when I can expect to receive these electronic records, or if you require any additional information to process this request.
Sincerely,
Deborah Quam,
Oakmont Village Member
Section 5300 requires the HOA to provide annual budgets, reserve funding plans, and other documents to members, which often includes data that informs these reports.
Since questionnaire survey results influence decisions related to community improvements, budgeting, or financial planning for the central area complex, they fall under the umbrella of documents that are essential for informing the community of upcoming financial decisions. Therefore, transparency around this survey aligns with the HOA’s duty to disclose information that impacts financial and operational planning.
In other words, the HOA must make available records that contribute to decision-making processes affecting the community’s finances, which can include survey data used to guide significant projects. This supports our right to request these records under California Civil Code.
Exact quote from California Civil Code Section 5300(a), which is part of Article 7 in the Davis-Stirling Act:
“(a) Not less than 30 days nor more than 90 days prior to the beginning of the association’s fiscal year, the board shall distribute to all of its members the following documents:
(1) A pro forma operating budget, showing the estimated revenue and expenses on an accrual basis.
(2) A summary of the association’s reserves.
(3) A summary of the reserve funding plan.
(4) A statement of the association’s policies and practices in enforcing lien rights or other legal remedies for default in payment of assessments.”
While Section 5300 primarily focuses on budget and financial documents, if the questionnaire data impacts future budgeting or reserve spending for central area complex projects, it could fall within this category of necessary disclosures. The association may be required to disclose the information if it influences future financial decisions.
The G.M.’s statement says: “Each piece of feedback will be carefully considered to ensure that it reflects the needs and desires of the community.” While that statement’s awfully vague, it seems to suggest that all the feedback responses to the CAC questionnaire will be carefully analyzed (by someone) to try to reach conclusions about the “needs and desires” of the overall Oakmont community with regard to changing the CAC.
If so, here’s a question: Regardless of what methodology they employ for this analysis – and I do hope they’ll share that methodology along with the raw data and whatever conclusions they reach – how will that methodology take account of the “needs and desires” of those Oakmont residents who chose NOT to respond to that questionnaire at all? For example, will the silence of the non-responders be treated as indifference or consent to whatever the “needs and desires” are of those who DID respond, meaning, the sentiments of those who did respond will effectively be deemed the reflect the sentiments of the overall community? Or will their silence be treated as saying, instead, they do not wish to see ANY changes made to the CAC, at all? While you can make reasoned arguments for either position, this is potentially a very, very important question, because my guess – and it’s only that, a guess – is that a large majority of Oakmont residents did not submit any response to that questionnaire, meaning, however the analysts treat their silence will, in some sense, be outcome determinative of the entire exercise.
This question also underscores the flaw in trying to draw scientifically accurate and meaningful conclusions about a community’s overall sentiments with non-scientific devices like the CAC questionnaire. I don’t mean by this to say that the CAC questionnaire had no value. To the contrary, I appreciated the opportunity to provide input (which I did), and I sincerely hope the responses provided the Board with an array of opinions and ideas that will help inform the Board’s ultimate decisions. But it wasn’t a scientific poll. It was more of an extended focus group. And at some point, it might be valuable to perform a more comprehensive and exhaustive survey of the entire community. Until then, I think the Board should be very, very wary in drawing any conclusions (from what’s been done so far) about the “needs and desires” of the OVERALL Oakmont community about changing the CAC.
This is the type of mailed and online survey that so many of us have requested of the GM and the Board. Declined. https://oakmontvillage.com/article/voices-of-oakmont-2015/
David: For several years now I have requested (as have many others) in writing and at open forum board meetings that the OVA MAIL a comprehensive survey questionnaire to each paying member. The questions would measure many variables as did the Voices of Oakmont Survey in 2015. Comments also. Demographics would also be updated. A questionaire survey was actually on the board agenda several years ago during the Spanier Board ((Tom Kendrick, Heidi Klyn) and was rejected and tabled. The 2030 project from the very beginning has REFUSED to conduct a mailed and online comprehensive survey. It would be very cost effective to mail such a survey with the next budget. We even had a petition with about 500 signatures presented to the 2023 board and the board President still would not even bring it up as a new agenda item. Deb
You can review the 2015 survey on the OVA website in the 2030 section.
Response to email from General Manager:
“Subject: Clarification Regarding the Central Area Design Concepts OAKMONT VILLAGE ASSOCIATION July 2024 Questionnaire Survey
Dear Christel:
Thank you for your response. However, I would like to clarify why the hard copy and online Google Forms document in question is indeed a “questionnaire survey” by definition, rather than simply a feedback form.
A questionnaire survey is defined as a method of systematically collecting data from respondents using structured questions, typically aimed at gathering specific information to inform decisions. The Google Form used to gather input for the Central Area Design Concepts clearly fits this description for the following reasons:
· Predefined Structure: The form consisted of structured questions related to the design concepts, intended to elicit responses that could be analyzed. This is a hallmark of a questionnaire survey, not an informal feedback mechanism.
· Systematic Data Collection and Analysis: Responses were collected through this form for the purpose of informing the Board’s decision-making process regarding the central area projects. This aligns with the function of a survey, where data is analyzed for trends and used to guide actions or decisions.
While your claim of “feedback” is typically more informal and qualitative, a questionnaire survey involves a deliberate, organized process of gathering and analyzing data. Given that the Google Form asked targeted questions and is being used to shape future planning, it clearly operates as a survey. As you know Google Forms and Sheets are questionaire survey analytical tools by definition.
Additionally, under California Civil Code Section 5200 and the Davis-Stirling Act, HOA members have the right to inspect “association records,” which include documents related to the financial and operational aspects of the HOA. The law states:
“Association records” include:
– “(1) Any financial document required to be provided to a member in Article 7 (commencing with Section 5300) or in Sections 5565 and 5810.”
– “(2) Any records or information related to transactions to which the association is a party, including, but not limited to, contracts, invoices, statements, receipts, canceled checks, purchase orders, credit card statements, statements for services rendered, and reimbursement requests submitted to the association by directors or association officers for expenditures relating to association matters.”
– “(3) Membership lists, including name, property address, mailing address, and email address.”
As the OVA Central Area Concepts questionnaire survey informs decisions that could ultimately affect finances, especially with regard to the allocation of resources for the central area projects, the results and all relevant documentation (including the Google Form, raw data, and analysis) should be made available for examination by members. This aligns with the association’s obligation to maintain transparency, especially in matters that may impact future financial decisions.
I appreciate that the Board is in the “Next Steps” of the Central Area master planning process, but transparency regarding the data collection method, results and the nature of this exercise is important to the community. This was indeed a survey by definition, and I believe it should be treated as such when communicating with members.
Therefore, how is it even possible that the OAKMONT VILLAGE ASSOCIATION is declining to share the CURRENT comprehensive data collected on this questionaire survey? If this information was important enough to commit significant OVA resources (including paid staff hours) in the collection process, then it is important enough to make a commitment of transparency and inclusion to our community.
Please provide a written data analysis to our community before any more OVA funds are spent on expensive architectural consulting fees to Mitch Conner at ArchiLOGIX. We, the Oakmont members deserve no less.
Best regards,
Deborah Quam, member”
Deborah Thibodeau Quam
This email and any attachments may contain confidential information intended solely for the use of the individual or entity to whom it is addressed. If you have received this communication in error, please notify the sender immediately and delete the email from your system. Any unauthorized use or dissemination of this communication is strictly prohib
Deborah Thibodeau Quam
This email and any attachments may contain confidential information intended solely for the use of the individual or entity to whom it is addressed. If you have received this communication in error, please notify the sender immediately and delete the email from your system. Any unauthorized use or dissemination of this communication is strictly prohibited.
Deborah:
I would like to follow-up with the Board and make a similar info request to them. Would you be willing to share what Cristel’s response was to you, and whether you two had any follow-up after your above email? It might help inform my approach.
Thank you.
-David Simpson
An update of the 2015 (most data collected in 2014) survey is attractive. It would require a lot of work and be expensive. I favor one, but many, including board members, don’t. How about a compromise, something that would be simpler, less costly and, I believe, only modestly less informative?
Every household in Oakmont receives the Oakmont News. Using it to distribute the questions would cost not one penny more, only the loss of one page of club news. Drawbacks? A few. First and foremost, not every possible question or activity or interest group will get the attention it might want. On the plus side, how many questions do we need to ask to get a general understanding of member satisfaction and wants in several broad areas?
I thought the recent board election confirmed what I wanted. I was wrong. The board and staff are spending a lot time making this, in my opinion, more complicated than it needs to be.
We are a homeowners association. What I’m seeing are filings more appropriate before a judge in a highly disputed legal matter,
Let’s not go down that path.
I am skeptical of using the Oakmont News, because most of the time most of it ends up never being looked at – I usually glance at the headlines and then use mine to line my compost bucket! But if something is mailed first class to your name, like the annual budget and like the annual election ballot, then you are more likely to pay attention and respond. As Deborah has pointed out, the cost to adding a survey questionnaire to such mailings would be minimal. Of course, designing the questionnaire and then analyzing the responses will take time and, if staff time is used, money, but that would be true regardless of the form of delivery.
No matter what method was used to try to reach all OVA members, the entire cost for a comprehensive survey would be far less than the cost of the current ArchiLOGIX contract, and would be far more valuable in gauging OVA membership priorities than all of the multitude of Oakmont 2030 meetings. It is, frankly, outrageous that the Board has consistently refused to ask all of Oakmont what we think, apparently believing it is fine to only consider the vocal minority that attend these meetings.
Agree. But, what is a better source? (Ah, the OO.) The Oakmont News should become more than a club activities newsletter. My point though was only about the utility of using our newspaper to reach all households easily and for little cost.