Thank you Karen for all the time you spend going to these meetings and reporting on your website.  Owning a home in Rancho Murieta and living out of state we are out of the loop as to what is going on.  Thanks to RanchoMurieta.com we can stay abreast of what is going on in RM. Mike Martel once again showed his true colors. 

Richard Robinson  Thank you Karen. Once the money is deposited it becomes "public money" subject to allocation in a public meeting. It is not a "cookie jar" for a select few of the RMA (and developer) to spend without public oversight. The only exceptions to the "public meeting act"I think are ACTIVE litigation and personnel matters.

Thank you again

In a sense I'm glad Mike raised the question. Although the Parks Committee meetings have always been public in the past, there's nothing on paper that I know of explicitly guaranteeing that.

There should be. This question should be put to rest so that it does not arise again. The Parks Committee, RMA and CSD should each adopt resolutions declaring that Parks Committee meetings are open to the residents and press except when contract negotiations or active litigsation are being discussed. CSD's money matters must by law be discussed in public. RMA's money matters also must be discussed in public. There is no justification for excluding the public from discussion of this pool of money which is held jointly via the Parks Committee for the benefit of those same constituents.

We need more, not less, sunshine on the conduct of those who represent us.

Yes, Thank You Karen.
In a small town like this we would have no clue what was going on if it
weren’t for RanchoMurieta.com.

It looks as if the true colors of the problematic RMA board have again become quite clear.  It is time for those who seek to exclude the membership and govern in secrecy to move on.    If Mike Martel contends that there was justification to take the 88K by 10K + expenditures of funds out of RMA funds then list them and put your hand on the table for all to see. 

I find this exchange troubling:

Crouse: I think that's what Karen's saying is that she's providing a benefit to the people that want to keep track of it, be abreast of it, instead of coming down by themselves she's providing that service. Other than that, I think that's all we've always allowed Karen or the River Valley Times to come in.

Paul Gumbinger: Just as long as the reporting is fair and accurate and doesn't represent an opinion, a private opinion.

I hope Paul didn't mean to say that the press or public are only welcome if what they say about the meeting matches the perceptions and opinions of officials.

That is a frightening thought. I observe and participate in a lot of RMA and CSD meetings, and then I make public statements which often make elected officials uncomfortable. By differing on facts or opinion am I jeopardizing my right to participate and observe? I think not and I certainly hope no official believes "cheerleading" is a condition of participation and observation.

Karen is a resident constituent of both RMA and CSD. As such she has every right to be there, just as you and I do, and, this still being America notwithstanding the gates, to then publish her perceptions and thoughts. I don't always agree with the way Karen characterizes things either, but it would never occur to me that this was a reason to question her right to do so.

Again, I think it should be formally nailed down that these Parks Committee meetings are PUBLIC meetings observable by constituents.

Richard Robinson  The California Cival Code states in part:

sec 1363.05.  (a) This section shall be known and may be cited as the
Common Interest Development Open Meeting Act.
   (b) Any member of the association may attend meetings of the board
of directors of the association, except when the board adjourns to
executive session to consider litigation, matters relating to the
formation of contracts with third parties, member discipline,
personnel matters, or to meet with a member, upon the member's
request, regarding the member's payment of assessments, as specified
in Section 1367 or 1367.1. The board of directors of the association
shall meet in executive session, if requested by a member who may be
subject to a fine, penalty, or other form of discipline, and the
member shall be entitled to attend the executive session.
   (c) Any matter discussed in executive session shall be generally
noted in the minutes of the immediately following meeting that is
open to the entire membership.
   (d) The minutes, minutes proposed for adoption that are marked to
indicate draft status, or a summary of the minutes, of any meeting of
the board of directors of an association, other than an executive
session, shall be available to members within 30 days of the meeting.
The minutes, proposed minutes, or summary minutes shall be
distributed to any member of the association upon request and upon
reimbursement of the association's costs for making that
distribution.
Will on of my lawyer neighbors, or any one else,  explain why this law does not apply to a committee of the RMA?

Richard, that is a point of confusion which appears to be common and contributory to much of the dysfunction.

The Parks Committee is not an RMA Committee, nor is it a CSD Committee. It is "part" of neither organization. Rather, it is a third independent entity, a joint venture created at the County's urging by a contract called the Parks Development Agreement. Under that agreement the developers pay in the money they're required to spend on parks as a condition of development, and the administration of those funds is governed by the Parks Committee. As I understand the history, because the County normally itself approves the details of park development/spending it requires from all subdividers, but because we had and have this extraordinarily long buildout horizon, the County urged the creation of a long term funding and oversight mechanism, and wanted CSD in there to serve the County's normal role of passing on the adequacy of park facilities incorporated into new proposed development. So by the very agreement which created the Committee CSD has one seat, RMA two, and the development community two. CSD can't be kicked off the Parks Committee just because some RMA directors don't like RMA being answerable to anyone else.

But because the Parks Committee isn't really part of RMA nor or CSD, neither the Davis-Stirling provisions you quote nor the Brown Act governing CSD actually applies (other than what the directors were talking about re: multiple directors of either board triggering their OWN board's restrictions on meeting without notice/agenda/etc).

Because Parks is not "part" of either entity nor subject to the notice/agenda/open meeting rules of either entity, I suggest (again, like a broken record) that formal steps need to be taken whereby both of our local elected boards formally declare that it is their entity's position that Parks Committee should follow similar rules to those followed by RMA and CSD re: notices of meetings and openness of meetings.

I would add to that that perhaps the Parks Committee should be controlling its own funds via a bank trustee, there being no apparent remedy for unilateral action by RMA as to Parks money commingled in its own bank account.

What is up with the RMA Board?  Public by definition means, "Maintained for or used by the people or community: a public park."

Parks development is mandated by the County thru the Planning Ordinance.  The establishment of the Parks Committee and membership is wisely comprised of the developer representatives that actually provide the County mandated funds, RMA who will provide the maintenance, and the CSD that provides the utility infrastructure.

Personnaly, I believe that RMCSD should be the agency responsible to oversee construction and provide maintenance to all the Parks, trails and related structures (Bridge) within their serving area.

RMA Board of Directors keeps demonstrating extremely poor decision making as exemplified by their Directors statements and actions.

In my opinion, Dick Taylor was correct in raising this question and bringing it up in the RMA meeting.  Thanks Dick and shame on RMA Board!  The RMA President didn't win any points by criticising Dick Taylor at the RMCSD Board meeting and then acknowledging that RMA mismanaged the Parks Funds.

Where is the RMA Board leadership?

Richard Robinson

Wilbur, Thank you. I agree with you. It seems that the appointing authorities are subject either to the Davis Act or Brown Act then it follows that a committee made up of appointees of both is subject to some  form of "open Meeting"law. I also agree that it appears that the committee holds the funds in some form of "trust" and they should not be spent without community input and debate, and only then consistent with reason the funds were contributed.

Dick Cox

I have worked with Mike for the better part of five years.  He’s a guy that doesn’t need anyone to defend him as he can take care of himself.  That said I believe he’s getting a bum rap from these postings, Mr. Taylor at CSD, and rm.com.

Does Mike have an agenda?  Of course he does as does everyone posting on this and rm.com, as does every member of the RMA BOD and CSD BOD and that surely includes me.

First I will state I believe there was a mistake made by RMA in how they took the $88,000.  It should have been voted on by the RMA BOD and instructions given to the Parks Committee representatives.  This obviously didn’t happen.  My understanding is that this was agreed up by the CSD and RMA Presidents at the time and the action was taken.  The building of the bridge involved CSD, RMA, and RMCC.  All of these organizations ended up spending funds for legal fees that hadn’t been anticipated.  If the Pension Trust Fund had been cooperative as they said they would most of those legal fees would not have been necessary.  Any time you embark on a project such as building this bridge there is the possibility of legal expenses and that is part of the project

Let’s take a look at rm.com.  I believe Karen provides a needed service to our community and overall she does a very good job of reporting happenings and events.  You also have to remember this is a business not just a BLOG donated by Karen.  She derives income from this venture and if the community grows with more business she has a larger market base to draw from which could increase that income.  Does she interject her opinion into reporting?  Only she can answer that question for sure.  However, is there any media outlet that doesn’t interject their opinion into their reporting?  If there is I haven’t yet been privileged to read, watch, or listen to that source.  It has always been my personal opinion that rm.com has been very pro-developer and much in favor of the build out of RM.  I don’t think this is personal, it’s just business.  The bigger the development, the more commercial business the more potential income.  Karen has devoted her resources, time and effort to building her business and she should reap the rewards.  She is also a member of RMA and tax payer to CSD.  Like all of us she has a right to express her opinion and she has created an instrument to do so if she wants.  I for one do not object to her voicing that opinion as it is her constitutional right.  I don’t have to agree with her, but I will always defend her right to do so.

Mike hasn’t asked for private meetings, he has only asked questions concerning the process.  Anyone who has followed Mike’s tenure on the RMA BOD surely has noticed he is always talking about process.  I think he is just trying to establish ground rules for conducting meetings of the Parks Committee.  I believe all RMA board meetings and committee meetings have to be open to the public with the exceptions of personnel matters, contract negations, and disciplinary hearings involving members.  For organizations like Summerfest, and other community organizations, it is their prerogative to establish their own rules concerning public participation.

I have been critical of CSD and how they do business.  I don’t think they should be on the Parks Committee as they don’t contribute financially and therefore shouldn’t participate in deciding how we spend the money.  True they have to provide some infrastructure and supply the water and sewage, but that is part of their function but in it’s self doesn’t give them the right to examine or determine how we spend the money.  The Parks agreement was set up by the county and developers at a time when the developers controlled every action in RM.  Since that was established things have changes and the developers no longer control the votes and are not now able to decide who will sit on the RMA BOD.

Our little piece of paradise becomes more complicated every year. Concerning development within the gates of RM it is my belief that CSD has continually operated directly opposite to the wishes of the majority of residences as have some past RMA BOD’s.  I think this has been driven by the agendas of individual board members who thought the only way to achieve their goals was by having development pay for things like community centers, community pools, etc.  In addition I think there have been key staff members who could envision a larger community directly relating to the size of their income and as a result they have continued to push full build out.  This isn’t special to RM or our Planned Unit Development (PUD) as it is happening at every tax supported agency in the county.  The more development the more money available to spend on political agendas.

As things get more complicated perhaps it’s time we considered making some changes on how we govern and operate our little piece of paradise.  It may be time to consolidate our PUD and create a new governing body by joining the efforts of CSD and RMA under one entity.  CSD has the charter and authority to run this whole place.  It could and should save all of us money thru consolidation of staffs which in many cases duplicate one another.  It would also eliminate the continued disagreements between the two boards and perhaps we could actually have a police agency of some type that could really endeavor to provide services like normal cities. If we consolidate these two bodies we’d all have less to talk about. 

Dick Cox

Richard Robinson First of all I do not intend to continue this debate, but I take exception to the allegation that every one has an agenda. I have been a homeowner in RM  for a little over two years, I am therefore new to these debates between the three organizations. My agenda is that I  believe that all government should operate in the open. I believe that the officials elected should not control the access of the press or members of the association  to their decision making process. This is most important when public money is the subject of debate.  Lastly I have come to depend on rm.com as a valid source of information. In this case rm.com had the actual transcript of the debate. That is not opinion, but appears to be fact as no one has questioned the transcription.

Dick,

Thanks for commenting on rm.com.  I used to comment as a RM Director and it drove some of the other directors crazy.  I believe it is a good public forum to have debates and provide alternative view points.  We just all have to understand that we won't all agree and that's OK!  Thesis vs. antithesis results in synthesis, which is a positive step in transformation.

I totally agree with your last paragraph.  Back in 2003, I made a similar remark to Ed Crouse while at one of the meetings with the county regarding the Yellow Bridge (now the Wooden Bridge).  I think we would all benefit from a new government structure in our PUD.

One exception that I do have with your remarks is regarding the development.  I think that given the ongoing debate the community has had over the undeveloped lands within the PUD, most people would think that I support development.  I support completing the existing plan for Rancho Murieta Planned Unit Development (PUD).  I fully realize that the plan will change as it has over time and that concessions will be made.  Most of the disagreement is really about control.  Some people think that RMA is the sole entity within the PUD and that is simply untrue.  The PUD was never intended to be one Common Interest Development (CID), it was always intended to be multiple CIDs making up a larger community. 

RMA doesn't control anything outside of our boundaries.  We can comment, show support, express disagreement, petition, sue, etc. all we want, but in the end, we don't control it.  Moving in the direction you have stated in your conclusion, is the way for our community to take more control.  However, this discussion is difficult for most people to grasp because they have to be willing to make concessions and that's where the engine stalls.

Mike,

You stated  "The PUD...was always intended to be multiple CIDs making up a larger community".

Please provide the documented source of that statement, i.e., "always intended to be multiple CIDs". This information could be pivotal in the latest annexation issue.

T. Hanson   

Richard Robinson I guess I am missing something. if it is a CID or PUD they are still dealing with "public money". To answer another commenter public money becomes public when contributed. The source does not and should not control the expenditure. I am not anti-growth or pro growth. I am for open government. If we all know what is at stake our representatives will (I trust) make the right decision. I am still "outraged" that an elected official questioned the right of rm.com to cover the meeting where $66,000 was being spent.

Terry,

The 1st CID was the Villages.  We also have the Townhouses as a CID, which also happen to be members of RMA CID.  There are undeveloped lands across Jackson Highway that would be separate CID's.  The governing documents have provisions for new developments to annex to RMA, which by the very nature of recognizing an option to annex, also recognizes the potential for separate CIDs.

I know that some people look at the fact that RMA has the front gate, which requires any new developments behind our gate to access their properties across RMA's property, as RMA's right to require annexation.  The fact that properties are contiguous to RMA or that they have to cross our property, is not the governing factor for annexation.  

Of course this is my opinion and understanding.  Anyone has the right to disagree.  However, you can't dispute the existence of multiple CID already in RMPUD.

ps.  Another document that recognizes additional CIDs is the Mutual Benefit Agreement.

Of course there have been two from the beginning of time, the Villages being its own CID.

As I understand it RMDCCC has dug up both marketing materials and things filed with the Dept. of Real Estate "way back when" which strongly suggested a unitary CID on the North side of the highway.

But then when you look at the early CC&Rs you realize that annexation of those future phases was deliberately designed to be optional on the developer's part, and worse yet, unilateral on their part, with RMA originally having no say in the matter (fixed in subsequent amendments once enough real homeowners existed to win an amendment election).

So you could say the PTF/RMPI was letting everyone believe annexation was a sure thing, while always protecting their option to build separate, unannexed subdivisions.

What? A developer saying one thing and doing another? Unthinkable!

Unless, perhaps, somebody at RMPI recorded an annexation document for other purposes around the time CSD was being formed which incidentally undermined their "separate unannexed subdivision" option. Which is what the lawyers, surveyors and title companies are now scratching their heads over. Kudos to Mike Martel and the Board for pursuing that to find out what it means, which is still up for grabs.

Wil,

I can't remember, but isn't the Villas another CID?  That would make four to date.

Villas is one, they have their own common areas. Not sure whether MTI is technically a CID, which definition implies common area owned or controlled by that entity. Does MTI itself own any common area? I think they more precisely would be referred to a subassociation of a CID.

So i think we're probably at three (and counting.....)