Election Reform for the PVHA

Our Goals

We believe it is important to have a PVHA board that is elected by and accountable to the members. We also believe it is wrong for a board of directors to appoint themselves. Our original bylaw amendment proposed that the PVHA bylaws be updated to include a provision that if an election fails to achieve quorum then those candidates who received the most votes be allowed to serve on an appointed basis until the next election. While collecting signatures it became clear that the PVHA Membership list is inaccurate making our efforts all the more difficult. As a result on July 25, 2025 we asked a Judge to review the PVHA's election procedures and make changes to the PVHA bylaws to ensure that those who vote in the election determine the outcome. One of the things we asked the court to look at is the quorum itself and potentially lower it. While we will continue with our Bylaw Amendment Petition, we also hope Judge Honeycutt's review of the PVHA's election procedures will provide another avenue towards an election that counts.

Our only goal is to end the practice of a small minority of never elected board members ignoring the member ballots cast and appointing themselves winners year after year after year.

BACKGROUND / Q&A

Q: Why is judicial review needed? A: PVHA has not held a valid board election since 2009 — seventeen consecutive years. During that time, over 26,732 member votes have been cast and not counted because the 50% quorum requirement was never reached. A court-ordered survey conducted in 2020 found that 69.7% of PVHA members support lowering the quorum. The current board has never been formally elected by the membership.

Q: What does the law say? A: California Corporations Code § 7515 allows any member to ask a judge for help when an association's election system is not functioning. In fact, PVHA's own attorneys at Adams Stirling state on their website that "if members are unhappy with the board's decision regarding appointment of Directors after a failed election, they have the right to file their own petition with the court to reduce the quorum requirements." That is exactly what this case does.

Q: What solutions are being proposed? A: Three approaches have been put forward for the court's consideration:

• A straight quorum reduction — lowering the percentage required for a valid election to a level consistent with actual historical participation

• A two-step process — attempting the current quorum first, then automatically reducing it if not achieved, modeled on California's AB 1458

• A fail-safe trigger — if quorum is not reached after a properly administered election, the candidates receiving the most votes are appointed to one-year terms, ensuring member votes always have a meaningful outcome

Q: Isn't this a drastic move? A: Allowing those who vote in elections to determine the outcome is not drastic. It is democracy. While a few failed elections might be acceptable, seventeen consecutive years of governance without a valid election was never what the founders of PVHA intended.

Q: What did the PVHA board say when asked to cooperate? A: Before filing this petition we asked the PVHA board to join our efforts voluntarily. In March 2025 they declined. A copy of their response is [here].

Q: Where can I follow the court case? A: All court filings, a full case timeline, and key documents are posted on our [Timeline & Key Docs] page. The court docket is also publicly available at the Los Angeles Superior Court website under Case No. 25TRCP00366.

Q: What about the bylaw amendment petition? A: It is still active. We will pursue every available avenue to ensure PVHA members have a democratically elected board.

This case has been pursued entirely by a PVHA member. If you'd like to support the effort:

https://www.gofundme.com/f/support-palos-verdes-homes-board-reform

Where Things Stand — September 2026

Since the public testimony hearings in July and August, this case has moved into its final phase. On August 19, 2026, the Court held an evidentiary hearing and heard closing arguments. We feel strongly that the quorum will be lowered and both parties are working closely with the Judge to finalize the specific terms.

Petitioner Brian Pressman and PVHA's counsel have since met to work through implementation details — including election administration, ballot mailing timelines, and how the Court's reforms will be written into the Association's Bylaws. A joint proposed order is due to the Court by September 30, 2026.

The final hearing is scheduled for October 7, 2026, where the Court is expected to issue its ruling on the quorum requirement.

Judge Honeycutt has specifically asked residents to answer one question:

"Do you support a reduction in the quorum percentage required for elections, and why?"

This is your opportunity to answer that question directly

In the News — ABC7 Eyewitness News

ABC7's investigative unit has covered this story in two separate segments:

📺 March 2026 — Art Jury Investigation: Residents speak out about restrictive oversight and lack of accountability [Click Here to Watch the story]

📺 May 2026 — The election that hasn't happened in 17 years: Brian Pressman's lawsuit explained [Click Here to Watch the story →]

The Data

26 years of PVHA election data tells an unambiguous story. See the full analysis on our [Key Quorum Data and Facts] page — including year-by-year voting history and what quorum levels have historically worked.

The headline numbers:

• 0 valid elections in 17 consecutive years at current 50% quorum

• 26,732 member votes cast and ignored due to quorum failure

• 69.7% of surveyed members support lowering the quorum

• Last valid election: 2009

Contact Us

Connect

info@reformpvha.com

PVHA Reform: Stay Updated