You Tell Us: Is It Time to Rethink How Village Elections Are Held?

After reading, we want to hear your opinion!  Visit our website at CVEreporter.com and send us your comments! Click on “Election Comments” at the top of the home page.

As the village election season approaches, many residents may not fully realize the impact these elections have on their daily lives. Board members for CenClub and CVE Master Management—organizations that oversee approximately $30 million in resident dollars—are chosen by a miniscule group of residents. These individuals, called COOCVE directors, representing less than 3% of the village population, are given the sole power to elect the people who control virtually every aspect of village life. But with such limited participation, should we be asking whether this system is truly fair or functional, or is it a relic of past years?

The current election system was established half a century ago when organizing a village wide election for over 16,000 residents would have been logistically challenging. Relying on directors made sense at the time, given the difficulties of managing large-scale elections without modern technology. However, today’s advancements—such as secure online voting and other digital tools—make it much easier to conduct elections that involve the entire community.

With these innovations at our disposal, is it worth questioning: should we still rely on the current system, or is it time to open the voting process to all village residents?

We want to hear your opinion!

There is troubling evidence that the system is simply not working as intended. Approximately 50 buildings in the village have not selected the required number of directors, and some buildings have no directors at all. This leaves a significant portion of residents entirely unrepresented, with no voice in the crucial elections that determine the management of village amenities, infrastructure, and security. In these cases, residents are effectively disenfranchised, their interests left unprotected by a system that was supposed to ensure fair representation.

This raises an important question: Is the system broken? If buildings are not designating the required number of directors—or worse, if some buildings have no directors at all—then the system clearly isn’t functioning as it was designed. Rather than guaranteeing representation, it is leaving some residents without any voice in the management of their own community.

This lack of representation is particularly concerning given the enormous influence that CenClub and CVE Master Management have over village life. These organizations collectively control millions of dollars in resident dues, making decisions that directly affect your property value, infrastructure projects, the upkeep of recreational facilities, and security services. Yet, under the current system, the majority of residents have no direct say in who is elected to make these critical decisions.

With modern technology, is there no longer a logistical barrier to holding village wide elections that include every resident?

Can secure online voting systems ensure accessibility, convenience, and transparency? If implemented, could a new system allow all residents to participate in the selection of their leadership, not just a small percentage?

A more inclusive process could also encourage a more diverse group of candidates to run, bringing new ideas and perspectives to the leadership.

Other communities have already moved away from similar outdated systems. Could we do the same?  The director-based system may have been the best option 50 years ago, but does it still serve the best interests of our community today?

Visit our website at CVEreporter.com and give us your thoughts. Click on “Election Comments” at the top of the home page.

We will publish comments in the December issue.