Thank you — and congratulations.
Congratulations to Scott Magner, Virginia Smith, and Christina Kline, who were seated in the annual election. Thank you to every neighbor who returned a ballot, and to everyone who supported the effort for change this fall.
Full disclosure: Sunni Spoon was a candidate in both the recall replacement race and the October 21 annual election. The ballot-share figures below come from an unofficial owner review of the ballots. Announced vote totals and recall Yes counts follow the inspector’s official results. Nothing here identifies any unit or owner.
Votes vs ballots
Each annual ballot had three votes and could stack them on one candidate. Blue bars below are cumulative votes as announced. Orange bars are ballots that named that candidate at least once.
| Candidate | Ballots | Share | Votes (announced) |
|---|---|---|---|
| Smith | 48 | 59% | 51 |
| Magner | 45 | 55% | 54 |
| Spoon | 44 | 54% | 46 |
| Kline | 22 | 27% | 51 |
| Cruz | 16 | 20% | 22 |
Kline appeared on 22 of 82 ballots (27%) but received 51 votes because about 15 ballots stacked two or three votes on that one candidate. Smith, Magner, and Spoon each appeared on more than half of the ballots.
Support held across both races
Magner, Smith, and Spoon each appeared on roughly half or more of the ballots in both the recall replacement race and the annual election. Because no director was removed on September 24, that replacement slate was never seated.
The recall and the cumulative-voting shield
A majority of the votes cast on each director favored removal. The bylaws protect a director from removal if their No votes would have been enough to elect them under cumulative voting. Each director’s No votes cleared that bar, so all four stayed. The inspector applied those rules; the result followed the bylaws—and diverged from what most voting owners wrote down.
| Director | Yes / cast | Share |
|---|---|---|
| Cruz | 42 / 78 | 54% |
| Harvey | 48 / 79 | 61% |
| Kline | 43 / 77 | 56% |
| Olson | 47 / 79 | 59% |
Turnout was up
Neighbors showed up. The blocker was not apathy—it was the rules. Keeping that participation easier for the next formal votes is why electronic voting belongs on the reform list.
What owners can change next
Remove cumulative voting
Stacking let a smaller group of ballots produce vote totals that looked close to candidates who appeared on far more ballots. The same rule’s No-vote shield also kept directors in office after majority Yes votes on the recall. Owners should consider repealing it—and the recall protection tied to it—so outcomes track who most voting owners named.
Allow electronic voting
Turnout rose when neighbors cared enough to show up. Paper-only process still makes it harder for some owners to participate. Where the law and governing documents allow it, electronic voting is a practical way to keep that engagement for the next formal member votes.
Restate the governing documents
Prefer a full restatement of the CC&Rs and bylaws in plain language. At minimum, a targeted member vote should drop cumulative voting and allow electronic voting where permitted—alongside clearing board structure and quorum rules that confuse every election.
What’s next
Assessments, minutes, the budget package, reserves, insurance, and loan deadlines are on the living calendar. We update that page as dates firm up.
If you were surprised by the totals—or you want the board pressed on minutes, reserves, assessments, and clearer election rules—send a note. Share this page with a neighbor.
What’s next for CapriGot something to sayThe Capri HOA Board Candidates for Change