By Andrew Kramek, March 28, 2020
I have seen some fairly negative comments about the levels of participation in the recent Board election, so I thought I would take a quick look at just how the 2020 election stacked up against that of 2019. The results are actually quite interesting (at least, I found them so). So let’s start with the number of ballots…
In 2019 a total of 23,248 ballots were sent out, 9,301 to residents and 13,947 to non-residents.
In 2020 only 23,074 ballots were sent out, that is 174 less than last year (could this reduction represent lots in default and now owned by the POA?). Residents accounted for 9,369 of these – an increase of 68 over last year, while non-residents, with 13,705, were 242 fewer.
Of this year’s 9,369 Resident ballots, 6,506 were returned which is 69.44%. Last year Residents returns were 5,909 out of 9,301, or 63.53%. So participation by residents definitely increased this year.
Of this year’s 13,705 non-resident ballots, 2,686 were returned which is 19.60%. However, last year non-residents returned only 2,320 of the 13,947 ballots, or just 16.70%. So, although we may think that a non-resident participation rate of just under 20% is poor, it is also significantly up over last year.
So, to summarize, out of a total of 23,074 ballots sent out, 9,192 (39.84%) were returned. This compares to 8,238 out of 23,248 (35.44%) in 2019. So we can definitely say that participation this year was greater than last – the numbers show a 12.5% increase overall. This does seem to indicate, particularly among residents, a greater degree of involvement in this year’s election.
There is an interesting aside to all of this. In the 2020 Board Election Results, the following statement appeared:
“According to an unnamed source, information from the United States Post Office verified that the total number of envelopes returned was 8,472. Three hundred and thirty were returned undelivered to the Property Owners’ Association”.
By my reckoning that accounts for 8,802 ballot envelopes (8472 + 330 = 8802) but according to the published results 9,192 ballots were returned, so where did the other 390 come from? Probably from people who own multiple lots and received multiple ballots, but returned them all in a single envelope.
In terms of the votes cast for individual candidates it is not really possible to make any meaningful comparison to last year’s election because there were 10 candidates for three seats then, and 5 candidates for four seats this year. Having said that, the total of votes cast was 30,952, with resident votes totaling 21,750 and non-residents casting 9,202. What is, perhaps, interesting about these numbers is that in both cases the average votes cast per ballot was less than four! For residents the average is 3.34 (21,750 votes from 6,506 returned ballots) while for non-residents it was 3.43 (9,202 votes from 2,686 ballots). Clearly a significant number of people chose not to cast the full four votes to which they were entitled!
It is also interesting, in terms of the campaigns if nothing else, to note that the top three candidates (Omohundro, Sherman and Garrison) each had strong support from both residents (about 26% each) and non residents (about 24% each), and also that all three fared slightly better with residents.
Conversely the other candidates both fared better with non-residents than with residents. In the case of Denger the difference was small (15% vs 13%) but for Choyce it was much greater (13% vs 7%).
So what conclusions can we draw?
First, it appears that both residents and non-residents were more engaged this year than last.
Second that there was a significant difference in the source of support for candidates with both residents and non-resident favoring Omohundro, Sherman and Garrison, while Denger and Choyce generally fared better among non-residents.
Third that the top three candidates accounted for 80% of resident and 72% of non-resident votes.
Fourth that, if the votes cast for the fourth and fifth places were added together, the result would still have been 1,028 votes fewer than those received by the third placed candidate.
By Andrew Kramek March 28, 2020
***
Thank you for reading. Please bookmark this website so you don’t miss any updates.
Click here to visit our Private Facebook Group.
Mary Odom
03/28/2020 — 7:09 pm
Very interesting. Thanks for taking the time and for sharing!
Kathy
03/28/2020 — 8:17 pm
Really enjoyed this! Thanks!
Dolores
03/28/2020 — 8:24 pm
Thank you, great analysis.
Kilroy
03/28/2020 — 9:40 pm
Thanks Andy. Great stuff as always.
Election was really unkind to the Nalley-ites.
This is 3 elections in a row that hints were sent to her that the owners are NOT like-minded.
Back in the day just before charrettes, our ceo sent out a survey to all the members and in that survey were many inane questions that were asked (at that time these questions seemed innocuous) Not realizing at that time what she was planning, I threw mine in the trash. Does anyone remember what they did with theirs and what was in the survey? Apathy was the theme of the day in the village back then. Still today, there is more than you would think there would be. Turns out that that particular survey and the poor participation by the owners would be what she would hang her hat on for the next few years. We the people are becoming a little more engaged after another year of humiliation. The eyes and ears open a little more each year. A few more years and…..well….let’s not go there.
I am trusting that this is THE board. The board that will let us become civil again.
IN BOARD WE TRUST.
Greg
03/28/2020 — 10:53 pm
yes Kilroy i remember that survey. trashed it. little did we know.
wonder how many responded ??
Frank Shears aka Bubba
03/29/2020 — 7:46 am
Good analysis Andy. Thank you for sharing it with us. The numbers tell the tale. It appears that someone in the upper ranks of the POA underestimated how many of us (30 malcontents) are not happy with the direction in which the POA has been heading.
Well done, Sir.
a non resident owner
03/29/2020 — 8:09 am
I am a non-resident and received 2 emails from Nikki Choyce stating that she was a non-resident owner for several years and would strongly advocate for non-resident owners. This may speak to her vote counts from non-residents.
My question is… how did she get my personal email address? Does the POA provide email addresses to all candidates or just their preferred ones?
Julie
03/29/2020 — 10:17 am
You know she got it from the little “ceo”. Case closed.
Andy Kramek
03/29/2020 — 11:20 am
Any member in good standing can, (by court order) be granted access to the records of the POA.
So, when Lloyd Sherman asked for POA members e-mail addresses he was given access to a paper list only. It took a lot of work, by a lot of people, to convert those pages into an electronically usable format that could be used to send e-mails. So we know how the LTD campaign got the addresses, and how much work it took to make them usable.
Did Nikki Choyce have to go through the same process or did she, somehow, get direct access (that was denied to Mr Sherman) to the POA mailing list?
I certainly have my suspicions that she did NOT have to go through the paper process. However, suspicions are not certainty and I would dearly like to know the true answer to that question but given that transparency is not the strong point of the current “ceo” we will probably never know.
Alfred
03/29/2020 — 8:31 am
Tosser and Pillock comes to mind
Andy Kramek
03/29/2020 — 11:21 am
To whom are you referring?
(These are not terms that I would consider polite or respectful to anyone)
HSVP C
03/29/2020 — 1:39 pm
An ace is not always an ace and an Alfred is not always an Alfred, Andy. Just consider the source to be one of the main antagonists and CEO supporters on Nextdoor. This person is very seldom respectful or polite and as usual, has very little or nothing of value to add to the conversation.
Linda Anderson
03/29/2020 — 8:40 am
Thank You Andy, That was a lot of work to put together a better understanding of the percentages and involvement. Very glad to see that people understood the importance of this vote. There is an old saying that if you don’t get involved , your life may change. This was all about saving our Village. Now our new Board members have a real chance to make a difference and return to responsible and reasonable decisions. A Great Election for the future of HSV.
Ron
03/29/2020 — 9:00 am
SURVEY-March 27th, Village Digest.
In order to help plan for our future, the HSV POA Board of Directors would like to ask you to complete a brief questionnaire. It will take about two minutes for each property you own (up to three properties) and your responses will be anonymous. Click here to complete the survey. Thank you!
The type of questions……………………………………
Properties Questionnaire
In order to help plan for our future, the HSV POA Board of Directors would like to ask you to complete a brief questionnaire. It will take about two minutes for each HSV property that you own (up to 3 properties), and your responses will be anonymous.
So complete the survey, submit your responses, then you’ll be given the opportunity to complete it again for another property (if you have one).
Thank you for helping us!
* Required
1. Is this property undeveloped *
Meaning, there is no habitable structure or water meter on it.
Yes
No
2. Do you rent this home to non-property owners? *
Yes
No
Next page
3. Is this your primary residence? *
Meaning, you live in this home MORE THAN 6 months each year.
Yes
No
Page 4
What are your plans for your primary residence in HSV? Choose the most likely option on each row. *
Remain in this home
Live in another home within HSV
Live in HSV assisted lIving
Live outside the Village
Back
Next
For the next 3 years
Years 4-7
After 7 years
If you intend to remain in HSV (COLUMS 1-3 ABOVE) PLEASE CLICK THE TOP 3 REASONS WHY.
Close to family and/or friends
Satisfied with local and/or regional amenities (golf, fitness center, tennis, etc.)
Satisfied with local and/or regional shopping
Satisfied with value for the dollar
Satisfied with weather or terrain
Satisfied with social opportunities
Other:
If you intend to move from HSV (column 4 above), please click all of the reasons why.
Closer to family and/or friends
Dissatisfied with local and/or regional amenities (golf, fitness center, tennis, etc.)
Dissatisfied with local and/or regional shopping
Dissatisfied with value for the dollar
Dissatisfied with weather or terrain
Dissatisfied with social opportunities
Other:
Back
Next
WHAT IS YOUR AGE
LESS THAN 40
40-49
50-59
60-69
MORE THAN 70
WHAT IS THE ZIP CODE OF YOUR CURRENT PRIMARY RESIDENCE?
HOW OFTEN DO YOU VISIT HSV?
HSV IS MY PRIMARY RESIDENCE
MULTIPLE TIMES PER YEAR
LESS THAN ONCE PER YEAR
NEVER
HOW MANY HSV PROPERTIES DO YOU OWN IN TOTAL?
PLEASE SELECT ONE VALUE PER ROW
Developed (with a home/water meter 0 1 2 3 more than 3
Undevelopped (no home or water meter) 0 1 2 3 more than 3
Is There anything else you would like us to know?
Julie
03/30/2020 — 6:14 am
Seems like Choyce wasn’t anyone’s.
How embarrassing for the little “ceo” to have her hand-picked wonder candidate come in absolutely last!
Wow – a powerful endorsement.
If this wasn’t a total repudiation of everything the little “ceo” has ever done and is trying to still do, I don’t what could be.
Might be time to reconsider.
Anonymous
03/31/2020 — 10:30 am
This is addressed to the 8.68% voters who voted for Ms. Choyce and to someone named Scott who is an open advocate for the current Hot Springs Village management administration.
I would hope you can now see how the majority of the Villager’s feel about the current power structure. Using a small amount of deductive reasoning, I believe we can extend that to how we feel about the CMP. In the past, there has been criticism and derision directed at certain “petitions” that foretold how the vote would go down. Now we see and there is no more to argue on this point. The people have spoken.
Whether or not the damage done over the last 5 or so years can be reversed or if better leadership can be found, we must first clear out the current power structure and begin the difficult task of rebuilding the Village. This will require hard choices and cooperation from both the POA and all of the members.
This is a open letter to the swing vote on the POA who has, in the past, greatly surprised and disappointed his constituents. Now is the time to do what the voters expected you to do. Your vote could brings the the necessary total of 6 members in favor of removal of the CEO.
Lee
04/08/2020 — 11:47 am
Now maybe we can get back fair, equitable and SANE leadership of our POA!!!