2026 Board of Directors Election

The following seven positions had a single candidate each and were elected without a contested vote.

This election set a new LWSTC participation record, surpassing the prior ceiling by 56%. Broad engagement reflects member interest in the newly restructured Board adopted in the September 2026 bylaws amendment.

The renovation was the central platform position in the presidential race, yet the survey cross-reference shows that even households expressing support for the renovation voted for Stadnisky at a higher rate. Members appear to have evaluated the policy question and the leadership question independently. A single-issue platform in a community election carries a structural risk: if the issue alone doesn't generate personal trust, the candidate has no second argument to fall back on.

In a community election, a sitting board member is evaluated differently than a first-time candidate. Rather than being assessed on potential and promises, they are assessed on a traceable record: how they communicated, how they handled disagreement, how they responded to members with different views. The presidency is a leadership and temperament role as much as a policy one. Three years of board service provides the membership with direct evidence on all of those dimensions.

The case that membership was in decline rested on selective evidence. The club's own data tell a different story: 249 member households against a cap raised to 250 only this year, a 41-family waitlist, 35 deferrals (households that held their spot rather than withdrawing), and record new enrollment in 2026 — the first year after the cap was lifted. In a tight-knit neighborhood where members talk to one another, factual claims that don't hold up to scrutiny are quickly tested.

The presidential vote shows a clear geographic pattern. Darker blue zones voted heavily for Stadnisky; red zones voted for Heine. Mayfield Dr is the only street where Heine-voting households outnumbered Stadnisky-voting households; Lindmoor Dr split evenly. Every other segment of the membership voted for Stadnisky.

Stadnisky led 63–14 on Day 1, when 77 of the 134 ballots were cast. Heine's share of each day's ballots rose from 18% on Day 1 to 29% on Day 2 and 36% on Day 3, lifting his cumulative share from a low of 15% to a final 25%. After the first 30 ballots, his cumulative share never rose above 27%. The Day 3 increase came disproportionately from members living farther from the pool (see §9). It narrowed the gap but did not change the outcome.

In multi-race elections, comparing vote totals across races can reveal how engaged voters were with each contest. The presidential race drew 133 votes from 134 ballots — one household voted elsewhere but skipped the presidential race. The totals for all candidates across all three races are below.

In a small community, board conduct is directly visible to the membership over time — at the pool, through neighborhood conversations, and in written communications spanning multiple seasons. Members evaluate candidates not only on what they say during a campaign but on what they have observed firsthand. Stadnisky's margin held across every demographic segment of the membership, including groups with different views on the renovation itself, which suggests the result reflected a broad personal evaluation rather than a single policy preference.

During the election period, a former club president with more than 20 years of membership and five board positions — including treasurer and president across eleven years of service — submitted written feedback to the board. She wrote that in 21 annual elections she had never seen a candidacy statement like the one submitted, and that the approach it described toward prospective members would be counterproductive. In her experience, she noted, no family declined membership when the person speaking to them was genuinely enthusiastic about the community — framing the question as one of approach rather than facilities.

In response, the candidate compared LWSTC unfavorably to a neighboring facility. She replied that she had loved the club through genuinely lean years — minimal infrastructure, tight finances, DIY facilities — and that the voters would make their own judgment. The exchange illustrated what long-tenured members were weighing: not just the renovation question, but the underlying orientation toward the club and its community.

The evidence cited for facility-driven membership loss consisted of three emails from prospective families who toured but did not join. Against a current waitlist of 41 families actively seeking membership, those data points point in different directions. Members who have watched the club through genuinely difficult years had context for evaluating that gap.

The election ran September 25–27. Members who voted for Heine on Day 3 (the final day) lived much farther from the pool than Day 3 Stadnisky voters — a median of 5,075 ft vs. 1,739 ft (averages: 6,270 ft vs. 2,709 ft). Eight of Heine's 15 Day 3 supporters lived more than 0.9 miles away, including four at 1.7, 2.2, 3.1, and 4.4 miles.

This is notable because proximity to the pool correlates with firsthand exposure to club operations, board conduct, and the members who serve. Day 3 Stadnisky voters were mostly nearby: 25 of 27 lived within 0.9 miles of the pool.

Heine's Day 1–2 voters were a different population: their median distance was 1,253 ft, much closer to the pool. His early base lived nearby and knew the club well. His Day 3 voters were almost entirely members who live significantly farther out — a group whose primary source of information about the candidates would be campaign materials rather than direct observation.

The data cannot say what motivated any individual voter. But it is consistent with a pattern seen in larger elections: candidates who run primarily on written claims rather than observable track records tend to perform best among voters with the least direct exposure to what they are claiming. In a small community where most members live close enough to observe board conduct personally, that population is limited — which may partly explain why the campaign's framing gained less traction than its proponents expected.

The 67-vote margin was consistent across every dimension the data can measure: geography, member tenure, ballot timing, and cross-race comparisons. That consistency is itself the finding — it means the result was not driven by a single group, a late surge, or an outlier precinct.

Members evaluated the renovation question and the presidential race separately. Even households that expressed support for the renovation voted for Stadnisky at a higher rate, indicating the membership assessed the two independently. A platform built entirely around one issue, where that issue doesn't translate to personal trust, leaves a candidate without a floor.

The campaign's central factual premise — that membership was in decline and the club was struggling — was not supported by the club's own data. Members in a small community have access to the same information. The claim was tested and did not hold up.

Board service gives members direct evidence to evaluate — not just a campaign statement. In a community where members interact across multiple seasons, conduct is observable and remembered. Stadnisky's margin held across groups with different views on the renovation itself, which suggests the membership was making a broader evaluation. After the first 30 ballots, Heine's cumulative share never rose above 27%. The outcome was not close at any point after the sample reached a meaningful size.