Introduction
Please take a minute to read this important introduction.
I undertake the Candidate’s Q&A exercise every year to provide more information to property owners than is traditionally offered through the POA Board’s election process. In other words, I do it for your benefit.
How many people want this information, and how much do they want it?
Consider these statistics. This site has over 340 subscribers, and each post normally generates 300 to 350 hits. However, when the Candidate Q&A’s are posted, the hits have exceeded 900. Voters clearly want this information, and it travels beyond the actual subscribers to the site. By the way, I passed that information on to the nominees when I asked them to consider participating in the Q&A exercise, because I wanted them to know that you valued this information.
Let’s go one step further. Usually, less than 50% of eligible property owners actually vote in this election; resulting in somewhere between 400 to 500 ballots cast. If somebody goes to the trouble of reading the Q&A, they are most likely going to go to the trouble of casting their ballot. Therefore, given over 900 hits to the Q&A, it is probably safe to say that, of the total ballots cast in the last two elections, a large majority of those voters took the time to read the Q&A before voting.
Given such clear evidence that voting residents value this information, I was somewhat surprised that the nominees declined to participate in this voluntary exercise. All three signed a short letter to that effect which can be seen here: Nominee Response
Needless to say, I am quite disappointed with this response. If this was a real election, I suspect that the attitude of these nominees would be different. But this is not an election. And, since the directorships are effectively being handed to them by a committee of five people, they apparently don’t feel compelled to respond to questions. Or perhaps they feel they can be selective as to what questions they wish to answer.
If you are comfortable with this situation, you can stop reading here.
If you share my disappointment, I ask that you read the balance of this post. I think it is important for readers to clearly understand certain aspects of this process and why there might be concerns as to how this all unfolded.
Should Candidates Answer Questions?
In the end, I find it hard to conceptualize a good reason why nominees would decline to answer questions from residents. Or why they might answer questions only in situations of their choosing and/or only on topics of their choice.
While I appreciate the fact that they are volunteers willing to serve the community, I also recognize that directors represent all property owners. If property owners cannot ask questions of nominees to determine how they perceive critical issues, and if that information cannot be shared among other property owners, how can we determine whether they will represent our interests. Does their volunteer status absolve directors of being responsive to their constituents?
More importantly, without the ability to easily ask questions, how can any property owner determine whether a fixed slate of candidates is agreeable; and, from there, whether additional write-in candidates should be nominated.
Insufficient Time for Write-In Candidates
The Nominating Committee instituted a major change in the nominating procedures with no notice to the community. As a result, there was insufficient time to allow for proper consideration of write-in candidates.
People tend to avoid confrontation. Therefore, most people will not want to support a write-in candidate unless there are reasons to do so. And I believe those reasons would depend on where the nominated candidates stood on important issues.
But, to determine that, you need three things:
1. A willingness on the part of the nominees to answer very specific questions.
2. Adequate time to ask those questions and receive answers.
3. Depending on the responses, adequate time to nominate a write-in candidate.
This year, it seems we have none of those three items. And, since we were not given a choice of candidates, consideration of write-in candidates was more important this year than in prior years. Unfortunately, the absence of adequate notice meant that the three nominees were effectively elected at the time of the first announcement.
The Nominating Committee claims that it lengthened the time for obtaining a write-in candidate from 15 to 20 days. As I explained in my last post, that is true only from a strict, technical viewpoint. In reality, compared to prior years, their actions actually shortened the time available to mount a write-in campaign.
However, even ignoring that point, twenty days is not sufficient time to ask questions of a fixed slate of nominees, obtain answers and then, if necessary, deal with a write-in campaign.
Candidates Q&A vs. Candidate’s Night and the POA Questions
Here is the list of the questions I submitted to the three candidates; which I deliberately made quite short this year. In several cases, I have included short explanations as to why the question was included; which is particularly important for the last three. You may find it interesting to see what the candidates did not wish to answer. Candidate Questions
The letter from the three candidates seems to rationalize their action by implying that answering the Nominating Committee’s questions and attending Candidate’s Night will be sufficient. I disagree with that for several reasons.
First, the Nominating Committee questions are very general and rarely give a totally clear indication of where the nominees stand on key issues. For example, in the circular that came out last week, only one nominee expressed definitive support for the Board’s long range road refurbishment plan; which calls for multiple 10% increases in the annual assessment (dues). And none definitively supported the current Board’s multi-year marketing plan; which, to be successful, requires a multi-year financial commitment. In addition, none of the questions dealt with very specific issues such as, for example, community wide amenities and the supposed conclusions of the Immortology study.
Sidebar…….for those who are saying to themselves. “Gee, the Board has said all proposed community amenities are “on hold” until the road plan has been finalized. So, why is this an issue?” Well, let’s put that in perspective. A Long Range Plan was approved in early 2014 which included a list of possible community amenities. But it also stated that none would be considered until a “more complete road plan” had been established. However, totally contrary to that language, one of the major items on that list was pushed through and approved by the Board in late 2014; namely the re-landscaping of the Mt. Carmel gate.
I don’t wish to argue here whether that was a good decision. Rather, my point is that circumstances can change; especially when new people are added to the mix. For some current directors and committee chairs, building community amenities is not a dead issue; and I think many residents would like to know where these nominees stand on that point which, in turn, would give an indication as to whether or not there might be a change in direction from what we are being told today.
Second, Candidate’s Night is an extemporaneous oral exercise. It does not provide what voters really want; namely concise, unambiguous information that is easily and widely available to residents. Written questions and answers are far more beneficial for the following reasons:
1. Candidates have time to think and, if necessary, do research before they respond.
2. Written answers must be concise and cannot be disowned.
3. Any attempt to dodge an answer is easily seen.
4. Readers have time to thoughtfully absorb and consider the answers.
5. Information can be distributed to everybody who is interested.
None of that can be accomplished within the Candidate’s Night format.
Third, in the unlikely event that the Candidate’s Night does provide useful information, it will, in the current circumstances, be irrelevant. A Candidate’s Night forum has a chance of being useful only when you have a choice of candidates and philosophies. Right now, we don’t have a choice.
Alternatively, the forum might have helped you decide whether to nominate a write-in candidate. However, by the time this event takes place, the deadline for nominating a write-in candidate will have long passed. Therefore, the Candidate’s Night will be little more than a “meet and greet” exercise.
Why is This An Issue Today?
This would not be an issue but for the fact that, over the past several years, we have had differing opinions on key issues both on the Board and in our community. To give just one example, there is the issue of the POA spending money on community activities and amenities (other than sidewalks). If you look at the last two year’s Candidate’s Q&A’s, you will find that those who openly favored such ideas were not elected. 2014 2013
In other words, I would argue that, for the last two years, voters have actually had a choice based on relevant issues; as opposed to voting based on who they knew or how they perceived each candidate’s resume of prior work experience. This year, not only do we not have a choice, we don’t necessarily know what we are “electing”; because the nominees will not answer questions from their constituents.
Summary
1. The decision to nominate a fixed slate of candidates was a huge, unexpected departure from previous practice. The Board gave no notice to the community that this was even being considered; unless, of course, you consider 90 minutes adequate notice.
2. The Nominating Committee effectively shortened the time available to mount a write-in campaign.
3. Given a fixed slate of candidates and no choice, twenty days is not sufficient to consider the possibility of nominating a write-in candidate. Granted, the required number of signatures has been reduced, but I believe that is a minor item and does not offset the insufficient time period of twenty days.
4. The nominees have apparently decided to answer questions only of their choosing and only in situations of their choice. Therefore, voters were never able to judge the nominees in time to decide whether a write-in candidate was appropriate.
5. The Candidate’s Night was scheduled after the deadline for nominating a write-in candidate. Given the unwillingness of the candidates to answer questions outside of that forum, it calls into question the usefulness of holding the event at all.
All of this has occurred because of decisions made by five people on the Nominating Committee and the ratification of those decisions by the Board.
If you are comfortable with this state of affairs, that is OK.
I am not, but I am only one voice. If you are unhappy with these changes, consider letting all the Board members know your views. Board Contact Information Also, if you know of somebody who is not a subscriber but who might be interested in this information, please send them the link to this page.
Unfortunately, nothing can be done this year, but that does not mean it has to happen this way in the future. The Directors pay attention when people write to them. If nobody speaks up, they will assume you are happy with their actions; and nothing will change.