Preserve your voting rights.

What is cumulative voting?

Each year, there are three open seats for the Board of Directors in Jackson Oaks. Correspondingly, each JOA household has three votes to cast. Cumulative voting permits each household to allocate all three votes to one candidate or divide them among two or more candidates. Non-cumulative voting only allows you to divide your votes among three candidates.

Our articles of incorporation state:

“Each member shall be entitled to vote pursuant to rules of this Association as set forth in the By-Laws of the Jackson Oaks Association, Section 2.02. Every member entitled to vote at any election of directors may cumulate votes and give any one or more candidates a number of votes equal to the number of lots owned by the member multiplied by the number of directors to be elected.”

Why would I want to cumulate my votes?

Some people only want to vote for people they know. Some people have preferences as to who should win a two year seat. Some people might feel that only certain candidates will best represent their views.

How does the Jackson Oaks Association ballot differ from the video?

JOA ballots don't have bubbles next to candidates to indicate how many votes to give them. Instead, you must enter the number of votes next to each candidate you wish to give them, in total summing to no more than three. If you enter fewer than three votes, then your leftover votes are not given to anyone as it shows in an example toward the end of the video.

What is the board asking me to vote on?

The board says it is asking you to "approve the Board of Directors Action to remove the Cumulative Voting procedure from our Board of Directors Election Process."

The board cannot independently amend the articles of incorporation, bylaws, and CC&Rs that govern Jackson Oaks - only homeowners can approve such a change. The rules for amending these documents are different, which leads to the multi-proposal ballot we have before us.

Even though it's phrased as two proposals, it's really only one: voting "yes" means losing your right to distribute the votes your household is entitled to among one, two, or three board candidates in the future as you see fit.

Further, it appears the board is proposing to allow a simple majority vote of members to remove a director (for any reason, without limitation, even right after a director has just been elected) - click here to see analysis of proposed changes.

Why should I reject the proposal to change the rules?

We JOA homeowners have elected boards fairly and efficiently under the same rules for nearly 50 years. Over that time, scores of directors have served our community, selected using the voting system described in California Corporations Code §7615 and relied upon by more than 17 fellow associations in South County, including Eagle Ridge in Gilroy.

Disagreement is not disruption.

Recently, it’s been alleged that our longstanding voting system causes disharmony in the neighborhood. Have you seen evidence that it’s our voting rules rather than the way we communicate or treat each other at times that’s caused problems?

With 500+ households, we're bound to have disagreements on priorities and policies, and it's vital to discuss those differences respectfully. Did acrimony on Nextdoor in 2017 really come from how we vote, or did it come from statements neighbors made about one another (however you feel about them).

Your ability to cast your vote in proportion to your preference is valuable.

Cumulative voting allows each of us to express a stronger or lesser preference for individual candidates. This is a desirable feature of our system, ensuring that a small but vocal group cannot easily dominate the association’s business to the exclusion of all other voices.

Our voting system isn’t broken and doesn’t need fixing.

Each of our households pay dues, and we all benefit when our boards consider topics of diverse interest, examine issues from multiple viewpoints, and engage in respectful debate before deciding important matters.

How do I preserve my voting rights?

The wording of this proposal is complicated - but rejecting it is is easy. Do not return your ballot at all.

As the board's attorney advised members on June 26, 2018, returning a ballot with both proposals marked "NO" could actually help pass proposal 2, depending on how many other members vote.

If at least 253 ballots are returned, then however a simple majority of those ballots vote will decide proposal #2.

Proposal #1, however, needs 253 YES votes in order to pass.

Fewer than 253 ballots returned rejects both proposals outright.

Questions and answers

Why does the board want to remove cumulative voting?

• Board members have said they were giving homeowners who demanded it the opportunity to vote on this topic. Did you demand this?
• The board says that a Southern California-based law firm believes cumulative voting has no "true benefits" and makes it "nearly impossible" to remove "a problem director" from the board. Ironically, the incumbent they might identify as having been a problem last year was voted out in the last election, proof that this just isn't a problem. Another Southern California-based law firm takes a different view in this article published in the Los Angeles Times (click here), which states among other things, "The destructive consequences of an entrenched board far outweigh the fears that cumulative voting will upset the status quo."
• The board claims without evidence that "a few disruptive voters" are working to "thwart the will" of the majority of the association and that without cumulative voting, this "problem" will no longer exist. The board's attorney described homeowners who discuss with each other how to vote as "scheming." Neither the board nor the board's attorney explain which specific motions the board has ever failed to pass that it wished to; most motions pass unanimously currently, and the rest typically pass 4:1. What do you want the board to focus on? Conspiracy theories, or overseeing the association's assets?

What do my neighbors think?

Most of our neighbors don't vote in JOA elections - so it's hard to tell based solely on who's been elected to the board or attends meetings. There are 500+ households in our community!

Some will endorse whatever the current board endorses.

Some who endorse removing cumulative voting now have endorsed cumulative voting in the past, depending on which candidates were running for the board.

Some will make up their own minds based on the case for change (or lack thereof)

• Do you think that a minority of homeowners should dictate how you vote for board members in the future?
• Do you think that the board should be "invitation only" - either the majority of the board supports a candidate, or that candidate has no chance of winning?
• Do you think believe the board has goals that it can't accomplish with only 4 out of 5 directors routinely concurring?
• Do you think that the board's first priority after being elected should be to radically alter the election system that put them there?

If you'd like to discuss with neighbors, this group on Nextdoor is open to all neighbors in Jackson Oaks. If you'd like to share your position on this website, mail to andy@francke.com.

Why should I care what goes on with the HOA?

If you are among the many homeowners who don't use the pool or clubhouse, don't attend meetings, and don't vote, you might not feel you have much at stake in this ballot. Nevertheless, the board manages a costly asset that we all own and are liable for - the pool and clubhouse - and over five years, the board has levied $1 million dollars in dues from all of us to run the association's affairs.

Do you believe the board should be voluntarily spending thousands of dollars on attorneys to put forth this ballot, or do you believe they should put that money to more productive use? Would you care if they kept doing it, altering first one part of the bylaws and CC&Rs and then another? That could cover a lot of free hamburgers at pool opening day, pool repairs, and welcome baskets instead!

Is cumulative voting un-democratic?

No. Cumulative voting is just one election system for making decisions. It gives all households latitude to express nuanced preferences, and that's one reason that Eagle Ridge in Gilroy and 15 associations run by South Valley Property Management continue to rely on cumulative voting:

• Eagle Ridge: “We do this because if the homeowner is not familiar with the candidates, they can give one vote for each or three votes for one. It gives more voting freedom to the homeowner.”
• South Valley Property Management: “[our HOAs] have always used [cumulative voting] and no one has ever questioned it.”

Although not in California, it's even used in various United States jurisdictions for local elections - typically for school boards, town/city councils, and so on.

Invoking the slogan "one person, one vote" as an argument against cumulative voting misrepresents what that slogan means, that is, to give everyone equal footing when casting votes. No household in Jackson Oaks has more votes than any other under our current system - an even playing field.

Cumulative voting doesn't affect the board's operating under simple majority rule. Elected board members still work together to reach consensus (or not) and decide matters by majority vote. This doesn't mean that everyone has to agree to make decisions.

Anyway, does the manner of voting make the democracy, or is it really other factors? We're all familiar with organizations featuring elections in which:

• only candidates who receive the endorsement of a small number of key community leaders routinely win
• silencing discussion under the guise of maintaining artificial "harmony" is prized above exploration of alternatives
• paternalism dominates; artificial threats (e.g. "special interest groups") are fabricated to suggest that only one group has good intentions and the best interests of the community at heart

We also know that claiming something is "democratic" just by labeling it that way doesn't make it so.

Principles of fairness and openness matter.