“MARLENE BREENE (incumbent)
”Yes! Yes! Yes! As previously mentioned many of the original governing responsibilities now reside with the city, so those portions of the CC&R’s need updating. Likewise the language in some passages is not specific enough or outdated. The meaning of a passage in 1920 may be interpreted differently today. So many new conditions are placed on our communities in the state of California that our founding fathers could not even imagine. As an example, what would Olmsted do about cell towers? We need to clear out what no longer applies and re-set the language to express the original intention of the document more effectively and precisely in today’s context. The CC&R’s acknowledges the need for periodic updating and has provision for this effort.””

“GAYNE BRENNEMAN
”I support the idea of getting a significant percent of homeowner’s approval for ALL permanent changes in the PVHA CC&R’s, particularly when and/if the PVHA acquires a better, and more up to date, homeowners list of contact numbers, cell phones? E-mails, and out of town and/or out of the country locations. Keeping everyone ‘in the loop’, is important for any and all updates.””

“DICK FAY (incumbent)
”While I think the By-Laws are outdated I also think that getting the necessary approval to change them is an uphill and time consuming battle. If the By-Laws can be updated efficiently fine, but I think there are more important issues. If the By-Laws were updated then I would, at a minimum, remove responsibilities that are no longer done by the PVHA. I would also like to see the annual moved away from early January which I think is too close to the holidays.””

“JOHN HARBISON
”The By-Laws were written in 1923 and require a 2/3 approval of members to change. In 1940, the PVHA was faced with the prospect of foreclosure and seizure by LA County over past due taxes on the approximately 600 acres of parkland it held. The solution was to create the City of PVE as a municipality that does not pay County real estate taxes, and then to transfer all parkland to the new City of PVE along with various responsibilities of local governance. Unfortunately, many responsibilities of governance (such as maintaining roads and sewers, trash removal, building plan codes and approvals, enforcement of parkland encroachments, etc.) were transferred to the City of PVE but remain in the PVHA By-Laws because the PVHA could never get 2/3 of the members to vote for such an update. These By-Laws should be updated to reflect the responsibilities that remain with the PVHA, as well as to lower the Quorum Requirement from 50% to something between 25-35%. Getting 2/3 of members to approve will be challenging, but it would be worthwhile because it would clarify the governance responsibilities between the City and the PVHA, and a lower quorum would mean validly elected Board Members. In summary, this would improve transparency, clarity and responsiveness in our government.””

“L. RIED SCHOTT
”Yes. Unfortunately, when the City of PVE was established in 1939, the PVHA Bylaws were never modified to reflect the reduced responsibilities of the PVHA. Therefore, the Bylaws need to be revised and updated. Also, as mentioned in item 1, certain municipal codes and zoning restrictions are somewhat different than the PVHA CC&R’s and Bylaws. Consequently, there needs to be joint cooperation between the City and the PVHA to resolve such inconsistencies, which can be done in part by making appropriate changes in the revised Bylaws.””

“CHARLES TANG (incumbent)
”When updating the By-Laws, PVHA should seek homeowners’ approval. This can be accomplished by 1) organizing advisory committees consisting of all interested homeowners to solicit community input and explore options, 2) publishing articles to educate the general membership on the issues, proposed changes to the By-Laws, and its projected impacts and , and 3) using the web site to disseminate relevant information.””