Sudden Valley committee backs full-mailing contract with optional online voting, rejects 50% mail plan

The Southern Valley Nominations & Elections Committee on a February meeting recommended that the Sudden Valley Board of Directors accept Unilect's Option 1 contract proposal to run the association's annual election, a package that would include full printing, mailing and an optional online voting portal, and rejected Option 2's plan to mail paper ballots to only 50% of members.

The recommendation matters because the election covers roughly 3,300 official ballot packets and the committee said the proposal fits inside the committee's $24,000 budget. Committee members and staff discussed how the hybrid approach (paper ballots mailed to every lot plus an invitation to vote electronically) would work, how to avoid duplicate votes if a voter submits both electronic and mailed ballots, and how to educate members before any change is implemented.

Committee members described two proposals from Unilect. Under Option 1, Unilect would provide what Linda Bradley described as "full service election management" including design of balloting materials, printing, mailing and online voting services for the 3,300 official ballot packets. A committee member who reviewed the bid said Unilect's services line item totaled about $21,000; the reviewer then added postage and return-mail charges and calculated a projected total of $23,905, which the committee observed is within its $24,000 budget.

Option 2 would reduce costs by mailing printed ballots to about half the membership and relying on electronic voting for the rest. Committee members repeatedly said the 50%-mailing idea was unacceptable because the criteria for selecting which half would receive paper ballots was unclear, and because it risked confusing and disenfranchising members. "Option 2 is out," one committee member said.

Committee members also flagged operational concerns if the association tried to move to electronic-only distribution for some members. Several speakers said the association does not currently have a reliable, audited process for maintaining up-to-date email addresses for all lots; the chair warned that relying on email would create additional administrative steps (logs of electing members, follow-up mailings when email bounces) and could jeopardize compliance with timing requirements under state law. One committee member called that potential path "a can of worms." The committee discussed asking Unilect for a demonstration or short video of the online voting portal so members and staff can see the authentication and vote-capture flow.

The committee also discussed how Unilect's system would prevent duplicate counting: Unilect said its process would determine which ballot (paper or electronic) was received first and accept only the first ballot for the lot. Committee members asked staff to reconfirm that functionality at a vendor meeting and to ask for data analytics from prior clients about online take-up rates to help estimate member adoption.

At the meeting the committee voted to recommend Option 1 to the Sudden Valley Board of Directors and to decline Option 2. The committee chair said staff (General Manager Michael Bennett) and the chair would meet Unilect to press for the demonstration, training materials and clarity on how the vendor handles email opt-ins, authentication, and first-received vote precedence; the chair said the vendor's answers would be shared back with the committee and with the board when the contract is considered.

The committee also discussed member outreach plans, including using the community newsletter (The Views), e-blasts, social media and in-person forums to run demonstrations and explain how the hybrid system would work, and asked staff to seek short, shareable educational materials from the vendor.

Votes at a glance

- Recommendation to Board: Accept Unilect Option 1 (full mailing + optional online voting). Motion moved by the committee chair; motion seconded; committee voted in favor and the motion passed. (Tally: not specified in transcript.) - Motion to submit Option 2 to the board for approval. The motion received no second and therefore failed (motion died).