You must be the change you wish to see in the world
— Mahatma Gandhi

Quorum

Question: Do you support having the quorum lowered to less than the current 50%, and if so, how low? Please explain.

Responses:

 
Marlene Breene

Marlene Breene

MARLENE BREENE (incumbent)
”I support lowering the quorum. Most homeowners associations have a standard practice of a 25% quorum, so 35% is somewhat conservative, and 50% is very rare. The last valid election occurred in 2009, and classically participation has been low. Is it apathy? Looking at the demographics of our community there is a fairly large proportion of rentals and also a number of owners that reside overseas. Newer families moving in are often confused by PVHA/ Art Jury /PVE and their respective responsibilities. Out of the gate we are at a disadvantage between demographics and an outdated model for voter participation. I would love to have 50% or more participation of voters, everyone’s ballot is important, however, the history just does not bear out the numbers. Appointing year after year propagates the same culture, processes get set and progress slows. While some continuity is necessary for any organization, newly elected board members rejuvenate the organization, keeping the focus current and providing fresh energy to get things done. This year we have a unique opportunity to modernize our business practices. I encourage everyone to vote yes!”
 
Gayne Brenneman

Gayne Brenneman

GAYNE BRENNEMAN
”Yes, I support the court’s decision of lowering the quorum, to 35%, as set by the most recent lawsuit, for the next election, and perhaps beyond. I also support e-mail balloting and/or online balloting (voting), as the SEC allows for public stocks and shareholders.”
 
W. Richard Fay

W. Richard Fay

DICK FAY (incumbent)
”I do not like the 50% quorum. I do think we need a quorum otherwise a small group could hijack the PVHA. I would support 25%. 50% is too hard to reach in our present environment, 35% is better than 50%.”
 
John Harbison

John Harbison

JOHN HARBISON
”This will be an important election because the California Superior Court required that PVHA members be asked if they support lowering the quorum from 50% to 35%. If the majority says “no”, then the quorum stays at 50% and likely can never be revisited again by the Court. ROBE has been fighting for a lower quorum because a 50% (+1) quorum was achieved only 29% of the time since 1941, and only three times in the last 25 years. In the last three contested elections, the vote count only reached 35% once — 32.5% in 2016, 29.2% in 2017 and 39.5% in 2018. Since a goal of 35% is more attainable than 50%, it is very important to vote “yes” on this question. Once additional, like-minded, new members join the Board, there is a chance that a future board will advocate for a lower threshold (but it is unclear whether the Court will revisit the issue even with Board advocacy) so this election is very important. I support lowering the quorum to 25% because that would have meant that we would have had a valid election 65% of the time since 1941, compared to 56% at 30% quorum level, 51% at 35% and 29% at 50%. Moreover, in the past 20 years, lowering the quorum to 25% would have meant a valid election 100% of the time, compared to 85% at 30% quorum level, 70% at 35% and 15% at 50%.”
 
L Ried Schott

L Ried Schott

L. RIED SCHOTT
”Yes. The current quorum of more than 50% needs to be lowered. It was established nearly a hundred years ago and is simply much too high today. After all, most local elections currently only receive a turnout in the twenty to thirty percentiles. The PVHA has been unable to obtain an election for over a decade, and only three times in 25 years, because of this dated quorum requirement. As many other HOA’s have done, the quorum simply needs to be lowered in order to allow valid elections. Due to a Settlement Agreement, of which I’ve been involved, the PVHA is required to allow the members to decide whether to lower the quorum to 35% this year and in future years, but only IF the majority of those that vote approve this measure. This may be a one and only opportunity for the PVHA to begin having valid elections for years to come. Therefore, all members are strongly encouraged to vote YES on this measure. By having valid elections it will help prevent the PVHA from being taken over by a small group of Directors, as was done, who deliberately prevented challengers from running against them and self-appointed themselves year after year - up to 20-years. To have Directors responsible to its members we need valid elections. Term limits should also be considered.”
 
Charles Tang

Charles Tang

CHARLES TANG (incumbent)
”In order to enable the PVHA to achieve its mission, I enthusiastically support lowering the quorum requirement from 50% to 35% so that we can have a valid election and be consistent with the court settlement. Lowering the quorum requirement would also empower the elected board to be more effective in enforcing the protective restrictions and standards.”

To return to the main page of specific questions about recent issues that have been controversial — click here

To return to the main page on the election — click here