Association members have questions about vote counting in the recent OPA Board of Directors election after a September 7, 2022 Election Report was posted to the OPA website.

The issues involve the accuracy of the total votes received by all candidates as well as the cost of internet voting.

With regard to internet voting cost, the report says, "811 Votes were received online, representing 764 Members (includes owners of multiple lots)."

In the fiscal performance section of the report, the following is found: "Members who voted online saved the Association $1,238 (reply postage is $1.52 each-2028 mailed ballots = $3,084) Vote HOA Now = $2911.00.

Note that the report suggests internet voting saved OPA money. That is pure propaganda, fake news.

While each association member voting online may have saved OPA $1.52 in return postage, the cost for the internet voting service to handle 764 voters was $2,911.00. That amounts to $3.81 per voter. Simple math indicates internet voting cost $1,673 more than if those voting online had returned paper ballots. Not an enormous sum, certainly, but internet voting did not save the Association money. One unanswered question is why the return postage cost is $1.52 when a first-class stamp costs 60 cents.

The issue of the reported total counts for individual candidates is a far murkier issue.

The vote count, as reported by the Elections Committee and certified at the Annual Meeting, is as follows:

• Paula Gray 1027
• Amy Peck 1451
• Stuart Lakernick 1802
• Monica Rakowski 1603
• Josette Wheatley 1303
• Steve Jacobs 1867

Total 9053. This is a problem. 9053 represents more candidate votes than could possibly have been counted.

The Election Committee confirmed today (9/16/2022) that valid votes were counted for 2,839 individual lots. 

A request to OPA Info asked for an answer to the following rather straightforward question:

"How many individual LOTS cast valid votes in the election?"

The answer received was:

"Per the Elections Committee, the total number was 2,839."

Association member Chris Radman reported he asked the Elections Committee chairperson the same question and he received the same 2,839 number to him via email.

Assuming every valid lot voted contained a vote for three candidates, the highest possible number of total votes for all candidates would be 8517 (2839 X 3). Yet the elections report says 9053 candidate votes were cast. Will we now see backtracking regarding the vote counting results? Time will tell.

Seriously compounding this anomaly, voters were not required to vote for three candidates. Voters could vote for one, two, or three. Thus, the discrepancy could easily be 1,000 or more candidate votes less than the total votes reported as received by all candidates.

About three years ago, OPA dumped a vote counting system that used a machine called Scantron to count ballot cards. It was fast and reliable for a decade or more. Things went downhill from there, culminating in the move this year to include internet voting and confusion regarding owners of multiple lots.

The low lot vote return percentage of 37% and less than 30% of returns done via the internet mock the online and paper survey results published by the Strategic Planning Committee indicating about 65% of association members supported internet voting, and claims internet voting would increase return rates. 

Election Committee members put in a great deal of time and effort. They are to be commended for doing so. Regardless, the report raises serious questions, not about the work of committee members but the Board Resolution and processes used for our elections. Prior to the next election, the board clearly needs to become directly involved in a public manner in examining the election-related Resolutions. The entire election process must be reviewed, perhaps by a new ad hoc committee. There should be specific and consistent reporting requirements for the results of elections and referendums.

Consideration should be given to a return to only paper ballot voting with a reliable, fast, accurate Scantron or similar system where a ballot is mailed for every individual lot.

There should be no question as to the integrity or accuracy of our election results.