Pine Mountain Club Members Page, Pine Mountain Club, CA (2026)

08/05/2026

In the PMCPOA we have lots of rules, CC&Rs, Bylaws, Policies, all meant to be the guardrails for homeowner rights, board conduct, and association operations. None of these speak to the future of our organization and the sustaining vision needed to direct an entity like this.

Every few years, we conduct a member survey. How the survey is worded, the questions it asks, the multiple choice options, all of it seeks to get good usable member feedback. That questionnaire is actually important, because any bias in it or lack of choice can drive an agenda. I am not suggesting the surveys are anything but an entirely honest effort to get a valid direction, yet it's very hard to actually get that. In the last two surveys, fewer than 500 members responded. It speaks to a level of disinterest that is disheartening at best.

From this survey, the planning committee updates the strategic plan. The Strategic Plan is the community's five-year to-do list, built from what members asked for in surveys, with deadlines and someone responsible for each item and a promise to report progress back to the membership.

Imagine a strategic plan for a growing business. A vision for the product, growth of the company, new markets, acquisitions, a roadmap for responsible growth, driven by senior executives, measurable, challenging, and visionary. What about a company in decline? If they have a plan at all, it is a best effort to save the ailing ship, a very different plan. Staff reductions, reduced products and services, staying only with the most profitable products. Often in these plans we see, in retrospect, a reactive management style where management drove them to the bottom.

Whatever the case, a plan approved and selectively followed is hardly a plan. So what is the PMCPOA? Its funding comes primarily from the membership annual assessment. The prevailing narrative is that keeping annual assessments low is all that matters. However, no organization can continuously cut budgets without compromising the organization and the people it serves.

In our last board meeting, our board chair indicated that the board believes the plan was never read by our General Manager until the Equestrian Center issue arose, and acknowledged most of the board had not read it. No questions at the Candidate Q&A surfaced any understanding of the five-year plan. After that exchange, they posted the five year plan as a link in the recap minutes document sent out via email.

Experienced board members recognize the importance of a vision for the organization. A five-year plan provides one of the only continuous documents shared by multiple boards, with each one reporting on its progress. It ought to give us hope that our association is moving in the right direction.

This past year, we made draconian cuts to staff, which is a common cost-cutting measure. We are not replacing staff. We do not have staff for capital planning, we no longer have a parliamentarian, and we do not have an HR director for an organization of more than 50 people. Fewer people doing more work. Sound familiar? Keep in mind, good HR is the sole avenue staff has to voice concerns, and HR provides moderation between management and staff. And we are all being charged more to use our services, which means paying higher user fees benefits non-users who rely on amenity subsidies, but burdens active community participants.

The board's lack of seriousness about the strategic plan, their focus on our lost non-profit status, the continued slashing of our staff and budgets to sustain our lower assessments, the lack of headway on major capital improvements, the preparation work we heard on special assessments at our last board meeting, the constant blaming of past boards for issues they need to deal with, it all points to the same thing: a board that isn't being fully transparent or answering for the direction it's setting.

I'm not asking anyone to agree with me. I'm asking for accountability for the path we're on.

Authored by Elizabeth Gilbert, PMCPOA Member

Member-run information page. This page is not affiliated with or endorsed by PMCPOA, its board, or management.

08/02/2026

Having a father (Randall Gates) and daughter (Nichole Gates) concurrently serving as the Chair (President equivalent) and Treasurer of a Property Owners Association (POA) board—or any non-profit board—presents massive structural, ethical, and governance challenges.

Even setting aside the direct risk of signing checks together, having a immediate family pair hold the top executive power (the head of governance) and the top financial power (the controller of funds) compromises basic board integrity in several key ways:

1. Complete Breakdown of Financial Separation of Duties
Good governance relies on checks and balances between the Chair and the Treasurer.
• The Normal Checks & Balances: The Chair oversees board direction and approves budgets, while the Treasurer monitors spending, manages audits, and presents financial truths—often acting as a counterweight to overspending proposed by leadership.
• The Conflict: When father and daughter fill these two positions, independent financial oversight evaporates. It creates an environment where the Treasurer is far less likely to challenge or audit financial moves backed by the Chair, and vice versa.

2. "Block Voting" and Distorted Board Dynamics
A board functions on healthy debate among independent directors. A family dynamic completely shifts the voting power:
• Instant Coalition: On a typical 5- or 7-member board, a father-daughter duo automatically controls two guaranteed votes that almost always align.
• Chilling Effect: Other board members may feel intimidated or discouraged from pushing back against either officer, knowing that challenging the Chair means automatically alienating the Treasurer. It creates a perceived "family faction" that dominates meetings.

3. Destruction of "Fiduciary Duty of Loyalty"
Board members owe a Duty of Loyalty exclusively to the community and its members.
• Divided Loyalty: When a fiduciary decision puts a father’s preference against a daughter’s strategy (or vice versa), personal family loyalty naturally competes with corporate duty.
• Self-Dealing Risk: In executive sessions where sensitive matters are discussed—such as director misconduct, contract awards, or internal audits—it becomes nearly impossible for either individual to remain objective if the other is involved.

4. Severe Risk to HOA Insurance & Audit Standards
• D&O Insurance Red Flags: Directors & Officers (D&O) liability insurance providers scrutinize board composition. A board where immediate family members hold the top two executive slots can trigger higher insurance premiums or result in denied coverage if a financial mismanagement claim is filed by homeowners.
• Auditor Scrutiny: Independent CPAs conducting the annual HOA audit will mark immediate family control over executive/treasury functions as a significant internal control deficiency.

5. Paralysis of Executive Disciplinary & Ethics Processes
If a homeowner files an ethics complaint or alleges a violation against either the Chair or the Treasurer, the HOA's internal investigation process is compromised. The Chair typically directs committee investigations, while the Treasurer handles legal or audit expenses for those reviews. Neither can perform those duties impartially when their immediate relative is the subject of the investigation.

6. Erosion of Community Trust
Perception is reality in HOA governance. Even if Randal and Nicole operate with 100% personal integrity, the appearance of impropriety destroys member trust. In a community already debating high assessments, dues, or major projects, having one household/family effectively controlling the board's executive power breeds intense cynicism, legal threats, and endless town hall conflict.

Governance Best Practice: Most modern HOA bylaws or parliamentary rules (like Robert’s Rules of Order and CAI standards) explicitly ban immediate family members from sitting on the board at the same time—let alone holding the two most powerful officer positions simultaneously.

07/30/2026

Authored by Teresa Mammana, PMCPOA Member

A follow-up regarding the statement made by Nichole Gates at Saturday's board meeting that equestrian user fees have not been raised in five years.

When dealing with the PMCPOA board chair one must bring the receipts, as one who gets up for the "member open forum" unfortunately is not respected and allowed to speak freely and share like, as members, we should ALL have the right to do so. EVERY single time I have personally gotten up I am either interrupted repeatedly and/or the chair will "clarify" with made up numbers/financials etc.. It is frustrating to say the least as the community is literally being told that I just got up and lied when it is the other side that is not being honest.

I ALWAYS bring the receipts and here they are so ALL members can take a look and come to their own determination.

The Association's own published, board-approved User Fee Schedules show otherwise.

Boarding fees have increased every single year:

• Barn Stall: $285 (2023–24) → $295 (2024–25) → $310 (2025–26) → $410 (2026–27) • Pipe Corral: $260 → $270 → $284 → $375 • Pasture: $215 → $220 → $231 → $305

That's roughly a 42–44% increase in each boarding category in just three years — including a $100 jump on a single barn stall in the 2026–27 schedule.

It also wasn't just boarding. The Equestrian Center fee schedules show increases to existing services, including turnout, lunging, blanketing, medication administration, farrier assistance, veterinary assistance, supplemental feeding, hard keeper care, overnight boarding and call-out fees. Additional billable services were also added over time.

These numbers come from the Association's published User Fee Schedules. Members can review those schedules and draw their own conclusions.

>>> My actual presentation at the July 2026 board meeting:

07/28/2026

The Wall Where Concerns Go to Die

I was one of the members who spoke at the July 17th board meeting and I've asked myself whether I'm overreacting, whether I'm reading too much into a few tense exchanges. Seven members spoke during the members' open forum and what I observed was a choice: that establishing the chair's version of the "truth" mattered more than digesting what the member actually meant.

We know the chair has that right, it's been made perfectly clear. When the chair corrects a member and moves on, the concern doesn't go anywhere. It doesn't get referred. It doesn't get answered later. The correction is the response and that the rebuttal is the last thing that ever happens to what they brought.

PMCPOA Policy G-3 promises that members' forum comments will be "thoughtfully noted and referred" for follow-up. That promise is not what plays out in the room. Everything that follows comes straight from the transcript and focused on the aspect of the presentations related to the Pine Mountain Club Equestrian Center

Teresa Mammana asked why the equestrian center is the only amenity in the strategic plan carrying a self-sufficiency requirement, a subsidy cap, and a leasing contingency. She quoted the 5-year strategic plan. Mid-sentence, the chair cut in to tell her she was reading "member feedback," not board language.

I spoke to several observation and concluded by reading the same section aloud as Teresa, pointing out that listing a handful of members' comments in the five-year plan made it sound like every member held that view, which I doubted. The chair called it "just member feedback," not held to "the same statistical standard," then went further, she doubted any board member had even read the plan, said the GM wasn't aware of it until the equestrian group cited it, and called it "taken out of context."

Is this where experience matters? In retrospect, here's what I wish I'd said in the moment: the board adopted this plan after careful review. What's in it matters. Yet the chair's position is that the board doesn't read it, the GM didn't know it existed, and its language is "just member feedback" not to be taken seriously. It can't be both. Either it's a plan the board stands behind, or it's an unread file with no weight. What it can't be is authoritative when it's convenient, when one of its goals is being invoked, and weightless the moment a member reads it back.

Russ Rogers warned that a 33% fee increase with no cap or sunset could, over time, price members out. The reply was "That is false." But Russ never said the board planned to close the amenity, he named a long-term risk. Calling the first claim false doesn't answer the second.

Jana Yeakel thoughtfully explained her boarding bill rose about $3,600 a year against roughly $186 in assessment savings. She asked the board to stop calling that "affordability." The chair answered that the assessment cut came from trimming expenses, correcting a point she never made, and leaving hers unanswered.

The board's response on Equestrian Center fees: Asked whether this was the first increase in five years, the board said "Yes." The association's own schedules say otherwise. Boarding was raised by board motion in each of the prior years, a simple example, a barn stall went roughly $285 to $295 to $310, before this year's 2026-27 schedule delivered the 33% jump to about $410. That's a 43% cumulative increase since 2023. So, what is the truth?

The justification for the boarding increase is that the center needs to cover its costs. But the treasurer's own report clearly states the equestrian center is running about $50,000 better than budget through eleven months, and has improved its financial performance four years in a row. So which is it, a money-loser that must be corrected with a 33% hike, or a facility beating its budget? The board's own numbers say the second, while the board's fee decision says the first. Which leaves me asking, based on the board's own figures: why are we collectively punishing the management and members paying its way, and improving every year?

So, what do you think, am I overreacting? I observed a choice get made, over and over, in one direction. And the fix isn't complicated. It doesn't require anyone to agree with the members who spoke. It only requires the chair to do less in the moment and more afterward: to stop correcting and start absorbing, to let a concern land, note it, carry it into the process, and come back with a real answer at the next meeting.

Authored by Elizabeth Gilbert, PMCPOA Member

Member-run information page. This page is not affiliated with or endorsed by PMCPOA, its board, or management.

07/24/2026

Borrowed Certainty. There is a kind of certainty we can borrow. It arrives fully formed, from a side, a feed, a group and it never required us to think.

It works like this: we hear a position or see the outcome of a decision, decide which side it belongs to, and then decide whether we agree. The side comes first. The reasoning comes later.

Too often, we place each other on sides before we understand the reasoning. Once that happens, we stop responding to the idea and start responding to the label.

Proximity is not coherence. Two ideas appearing together does not mean they belong together. Agreement on one issue does not require agreement on every issue. Disagreement on one issue does not tell us everything about a person's beliefs or intentions.

The danger begins when we stop thinking independently because we have found a group that thinks for us.

That is when questions become uncomfortable. Not because the questions are wrong, but because they challenge the identity we have attached to an answer.

Good decisions require more than a position. They require curiosity.
What problem are we solving? What evidence do we have? What are the tradeoffs? Who bears the cost?

Sometimes a decision does not eliminate a cost. It simply moves the cost somewhere else, from the budget to the member, the association to the individual or from today to tomorrow.

That does not mean the decision was wrong. It means we owe each other the responsibility of understanding the full picture.

Strong communities are not built by avoiding disagreement. They are built by people willing to examine ideas, challenge assumptions, and change their minds when the facts require it.

Because if nothing could change your mind, it is not a conclusion anymore. Even an idea you built yourself becomes borrowed the day you stop examining it.

We do not need more people defending sides. We need more neighbors willing to think independently.

The enemy is not disagreement. The enemy is borrowed certainty.

Published by Elizabeth Gilbert

This article is published by a member-run information page. It is not affiliated with or endorsed by PMCPOA, its board, or management.

07/24/2026

I spoke at the July board meeting, and I want to lay out here what I was trying to say. I felt my message was lost during Director Nicole Gates' Open Member "rebuttal" comments. I hope this matters to everyone here, not just to me.

My concern is this: cost reduction has become this board's primary tool, and we aren't accounting for what that reduction is costing us.

We hear about the assessment constantly. It stayed flat. It came down. Members are saving money. But the assessment is one line on a budget. It is not what belonging to this community actually costs. And while that one line has come down, the cost of using this place has gone up, boarding, golf, the Bistro, and other user fees. My own costs at the stables rose by several times whatever the assessment gave back to me.

That is not a cost reduction. That is a cost transfer. And it lands on the members who actually participate and on remaining staff working with less help.

This is not simply an Equestrian center issue. Horses are simply where the arithmetic is impossible to ignore. The same pattern shows up anywhere a member has to pay to take part in something.

People choose Pine Mountain Club for the life that comes with the house. We buy into mountain life, the golf course, swimming pool, bar and restaurants, and all our amenities. We buy into the idea that ordinary people can use and enjoy these things. That usability isn't a line item, it's a real part of what our property is worth.

So when members get priced out of participating, the loss doesn't appear on a budget page where anyone can see it. It shows up as the member who quietly stops coming. The family that looks here and decides against it. The home that sits a little longer on the market. I mentioned some specific instances at the stables, including a family that withdrew an offer on a house once they learned what the new fees would be.

The mechanism is what concerns me: a spreadsheet measures what comes in this month. It cannot measure what stopped coming, or who never arrived at all. It is a gentle balancing act, less participation, more cuts to keep spending in check, more participation, it helps offset yearly dues.

To be fair, the board did respond, and I want to represent that accurately. I was told the assessment reduction and the fee increases were separate decisions, that the assessment came down by cutting unnecessary operational spending, not by raising fees to cover it. That fees had gone years without adjustment while costs rose sharply, so the increases correct a long-deferred gap, and that boarding is still subsidized by the membership overall. And I was told clearly that self-sufficiency and break-even are not this board's goals, that legal counsel has advised they aren't permissible standards, and that no amenity is being closed or starved. The answer missed the point.

I wasn't asking whether the two budget decisions were connected to each other. I was asking whether we're measuring the right thing at all. A lower assessment paired with a higher cost of participation isn't obviously a win for members and no one has yet told us what it does to the value of belonging here, or to what our homes are worth.

An association isn't a business. It doesn't have customers, it has members. We pool our money precisely so these amenities don't have to pay for themselves. The moment we start treating them as standalone operations that must hit their own numbers, we've stopped being an association and started being a landlord.

Authored by Jana Yeakel, PMCPOA Member

Member-run information page. This page is not affiliated with or endorsed by PMCPOA, its board, or management.

07/12/2026

The Professionals Can Only Do So Much. The Rest Depends on Us.

Over the Fourth of July weekend, a resident lit a fire behind their home. Flames rose more than four feet into the air, surrounded by dry vegetation, while smoke drifted down the hillside. When patrol arrived, the resident denied there was a fire.

What impacted me was persistence. The neighbor refused to let it go. She called patrol, then called again when she heard the neighbor denied it. She walked an officer onto her deck and pointed directly at the flames. That willingness to observe and report matters.

One person's carelessness put all of us at risk. One person's persistence helped protect us.

I believe that important story captured the message of Saturday's Wildfire Town Hall: wildfire preparedness is a shared responsibility. The agencies working with us can reduce risk, provide resources, and respond when needed. But they cannot protect Pine Mountain Club by themselves. The rest depends on us.

About 30 community members attended the meeting, a meaningful group of residents who took time to learn, ask questions, and become part of the solution. To truly protect our mountain community, we all have to step up, in whatever way we can.

General Manager James Williams reported that the PMCPOA is now working alongside Kern County Fire, the Forest Service, USDA, the Fire Safe Council, and the FIELD Institute as a full partner in wildfire planning. Our $876,000 CAL FIRE grant will fund treatment on 386 acres, including a protective fuel break along our northern ridge where prevailing winds can push fire toward the community. Fire Safe Council member Will Houston has developed a digital map that tracks completed fuel reduction projects, creating both a permanent record and a tool for future planning.

Fire Captain Nick Young of Kern County Fire reported that April fuel moisture measurements near Frazier Park were about 12% higher than normal, meaning our trees and brush are still holding moisture. Crews continue fuel reduction work around Camp Condor and the Peak to Peak Mountain Charter school, removing ladder fuels that allow fires to climb into tree canopies. He also warned that a possible El Niño winter could resemble 2023-24, when flooding damaged roads in Kern County. Looking ahead, CAL FIRE is expanding its emphasis on "Zone Zero," the first five feet around a home, where the goal may eventually become no combustible vegetation at all.

Although the Fire Safe Council could not attend, Ted Peters, wildfire lead for the Emergency Preparedness Committee and a Fire Safe Council member, shared their message. He explained the Home Ignition Zone, from the first five feet around your home out to 100 feet, along with practical ways to reduce risk, including clearing gutters, screening vents, enclosing eaves, and using noncombustible materials.

The Fire Safe Council now provides trained local volunteers to assess fire mitigation standards at no cost, taking photos and offering practical recommendations. Ted also announced upcoming chipper days in partnership with FIELD, making it easier for residents to clear their properties, and invited everyone to visit the Fire Safe Council booth during Fiesta Days, August 7 through 9.

Steve Watkins of the FIELD Institute reported that more than 150 acres of fuel reduction have already been completed in Pine Mountain Club. He also reminded us that communities affected by major wildfires, such as the Eaton Fire, are still fighting insurance companies years later. The work we do today not only helps manage wildfire risk but also demonstrates to insurers that our community is taking fire preparedness seriously.

Three actions stood out as things every resident can do now.

First, get your home reviewed by the Fire Safe council, develop a long term plan to harden your home, its an exercise in awareness leading for a call to action within your budget.

Second, participate in the Radio Safety Net (RSN). Last night's earthquake showed why it really matters. Within minutes, members confirmed the epic center near Frazier Park and reported that no one needed assistance. I actually love seeing the RSN in action. For about $20, residents can purchase a radio at the clubhouse, and volunteers meet every Thursday to help members learn how to use them.

Third, join or organize a Firewise Community with your neighbors. Many neighborhoods are already working together to meet clearance standards, and Firewise recognition may help strengthen our position with insurance companies.

On July 25, our local volunteer CERT will conduct Pine Mountain Club's first community evacuation drill, the first step toward building the evacuation plan this mountain has never had. Volunteers are needed as drivers, observers, and neighbors helping neighbors. No experience is required. Contact information is at pmccert.com contacts page if you'd like to participate.

Wildfire preparedness is not a once-a-year effort. It is something we build together, continuously, and its just part of living in a National Forest. The work takes commitment, but the result is a more resilient Pine Mountain Club, where we have taken the steps we can to protect our homes, our fellow members, and each other.

Reported by Elizabeth Gilbert

Editor's Note: Because Saturday's Wildfire Town Hall was not recorded or broadcast, this summary is based on my notes and observations from attending the meeting. Any errors are mine.

Member-run information page. No individual is criticized here, and no accusation is made against any current or past employee or board member. This page is not affiliated with or endorsed by PMCPOA, its board, or management.

Pine Mountain Club Members Page

08/05/2026

08/02/2026

07/30/2026

07/28/2026

07/24/2026

07/24/2026

07/12/2026

Address

Website

Alerts

Shortcuts

Share

Category

Listing takedown request