Cable fight heats up as RMA board shows it's split on the issue
The community's Freedom of Choice Committee is stepping up its fight to make participation in the Rancho Murieta Association's cable system voluntary. At the same time, a straw vote of the RMA board showed it's split on the issue.
At Tuesday night's RMA meeting, neighbor Blake Carmichael read a statement from the Freedom of Choice group, outlining plans for a member-sponsored special meeting to amend the bylaws to force the RMA to act on the issue.
The bylaws change would be much like the RMA's current effort to lower the quorum necessary to elect directors.
Carmichael, a former RMA director, said he once believed in the RMA's ability to run the system, but no more.
"If you were to ask me five years ago what my opinion was, it was much different back then, when I was on the board..." he said. "My position back then was one of hope, and one that firmly believed that we could make it work. But as time has gone on, I have been kind of disappointed with the lack of progress and the short steps that we've taken in such a long period of time."
Blake Carmichael reads the statement that outlines the new approach to ending forced subscription to RMA cable.
Referring to the bylaws change, he read from a statement, "Starting January 2009, this amendment will prohibit the Rancho Murieta Association from including any cable television costs as part of our dues."
Cable costs represent about $30 of a member's monthly RMA bill.
The Freedom of Choice Committee, working with the RMA, solicited member votes on the issue over the winter. The vote was 806-224 for a voluntary system.
Opponents of the RMA system have grown impatient waiting for the board to act on the community's vote and watched as the RMA continued spending to relaunch the system.
"I think it's great that this committee got together and is going to do this and force this board to do something," Director Dick Cox said after Carmichael's remarks.
Cox said there aren't enough votes on the board to make the cable system optional.
"This board is not going to do anything about making this cable optional, in my opinion, so I'm glad to see you guys are taking the action you're taking. It's too bad you have to.
"I think the membership has spoken on this issue, and even though we may have -- we do have -- legal opinions that say it's part of the common (property) I think this board can do what they want to do in regards to the television system in Rancho Murieta."
Later in the meeting, Director Mel Standart, head of the Communications Committee, called for the board to vote its feelings on making cable optional.
"I believe the community has a right to know which directors favor voluntary TV and which do not," he said, asking for a yes-no roll-call vote on the issue.
Director Mike Martel asked for five minutes to explain his views. In the end, he said he feels the association is obliged to provide the service, but the revenue is another reason to keep the system in place.
He said given the economy, and housing market and gasoline prices and the association's revenue picture for at least the next several years, "I'm not quite sure ... that I would get rid of income or change the dollar flow into this organization at a time when I think our association is not as stable as I would like to see it."
Martel said he wishes the RMA had gotten out of cable several years ago, but now, "I think we're pregnant, and I'm not sure it's the right time."
Board President Jack Cooper read from a legal opinion that said the board can't back away from the cable responsibility.
"So when you ask me do I say yes or no, I have to say no," he said in summary. "I can't fly in the face of the legal opinion."
Director Chris Pedersen said, "We should not have a voluntary system and try to compete with all the companies that are out there offering God-knows-what to get everyone's business. That's my opinion." He said the system should either be kept and run as an asset to members or sold. (Later, during a break, he told two reporters he wanted to see the system sold intact, which requires that it be kept up until it can be sold.)
Director Paul Gumbinger said he objected to Standart's request for a roll-call vote on the issue, and he blamed the system's troubles on the previous general manager, who wouldn't put money into maintenance.
"Until there's an alternative -- two basic alternatives here, Dish and DirecTV -- but those aren't satisfactory to our broadband customers," Gumbinger said.
Said Cox, "RMA has proven over the years we do not have the mentality or the ability to run this TV system." He added, "We've probably poured over a million dollars into the system in the last three or four years. A million dollars that could have built a community center or a community pool or some other asset for the community."
Director Bonita Jones was not present.
Standart reported from this month's Communications Committee meeting, adjusting the committee's proposal to launch a 60-day free trial of the system in mid-March, pushing the launch back to the end of March. Standart said the RMA doesn't have enough set-top cable boxes to let the whole community sample the system at the same time.
He also reported on the committee's work on "Plan B" -- the effort to sell or lease the system instead of operating it. He referred vaguely to a conversation with Cooper about putting together information to find a broker to help market the system.
Earlier, neighbor John T. Weatherford, the most public face of the cable opposition, said he wanted to make sure that if the RMA manages to sell the system that members aren't "sold into slavery" as involuntary members of the new system.
Standart said conversations with possible buyers have made it clear that subscribers would not be handed over in a sale.
The text of Blake Carmichael's statement, Plan C
I am here this evening to read this statement by the Freedom of Choice Committee.
In January, the Rancho Murieta Association membership was given the opportunity to vote on the Freedom of Choice initiative. The results were that 78% of the 1030 respondents voted in the affirmative, signaling an overwhelmingly strong desire for RMA to discontinue using membership dues to subsidize cable TV operations.
Given the lack of action by the RMA Board, the Freedom of Choice Committee strongly believes that this board has ignored the recent vote on Freedom of Choice.
As a result of the 78% of voting association members who voted for choice, the Freedom of Choice Committee is initiating the process by which the membership will be heard on the cable issue.
A member sponsored special meeting will be requested, for the express purpose of amending the bylaws. Starting January 2009 this amendment will prohibit the Rancho Murieta Association from including any cable television costs as part of our dues.
The RMA Board is currently attempting to obtain a majority vote of the membership for the purpose of lowering the quorum required to elect board members. However, in this instance, PLAN C For Cable Operations will be member driven. It is our hope that the Association will THEN be responsive to the overwhelming mandate for change in cable operations. Thank you
Martel's comments are valid.
Mike Martel’s concern about revenue at this fiscally “pregnant” time is valid. The Association like everyone else is facing some rough times ahead. That fact will become very apparent during next month’s Communication’s Committee meeting when they wrestle with how to get enough set-top boxes to kick off the new digital service. At this month’s Finance Committee’s meeting that subject was broached when Stiffler admitted they did not have enough boxes on hand. To be competitive with satellite providers a two channel recording set-top box is the preferred choice. When asked by Chairman Cox what these boxes cost, a figure in excess of 400 dollars was given. “And how many do you need” Cox asked, answer “maybe 1000” (you do the math). Yes Mike’s statement was appropriate. Our cable system is a very hungry 400-pound gorilla that has an insatiable appetite for our reserves and dues.
Loss, not profit
What Mike seems not to understand is that RMA operates the cable empire at a net LOSS of nearly a million dollars each year, NOT counting the hundreds of thousands in reserve monies dumped into the system in the past two years. We're not "making money." We're offsetting overall costs of over a million with broadband and premium revenues, coming out with a net cost to each home of about thirty dollars a month of your dues (watch Treasurer Cox's report on Ch. 5).
$30 x 2,340 members x 12 mo = $842,400 in red ink.
That's some golden goose being offered as the reason for rejecting the members' very clearly expressed desires.
The complete picture
Hello Wilber!
First off I have no particular opinion on this matter but wanted to ask a few questions out of pure curiosity:
1. Are you also proposing that the entire monthly fee be wiped from the member dues paid each month, thus lowering the dues for every member if this action is successful?
2. Do you anticipate any repurcussions or ripples from this action to carry over into other services offered by RMA?
I am curious as to your thoughts on these two topics.
Take care!
Todd
Scope of the amendment
Todd, the proposed amendment doesn't mandate the dues reduction. Politics will resolve that. There are those who argue reasonably that some of the revenue savings should be set aside in a capital improvement fund or to further strenghten capital reserves. That's a debate for another day.
I don't foresee any impact on other RMA operations or services. The amendment is narrowly specific to the use of dues revenues to support cable operations.
Martel's Comments are NOT valid
George,
I think you misinterpreted Mike's comments. Your statements are correct as they relate to the Cable Operations.
However, Mike Martel is thinking more about using Cable Revenue's to offset "other" RMA costs. This is the same trap that all Director's seem to fall into. Mike believes the Cable services will generate revenues that the RMA can benefit from.
In my opinion, this is in direct violation of the Code of Corporations whereby we can't run a for profit business as a mutual benefit corporation. The past BOD's have been sucking revenues from the Cable Operations in direct violation of their Charter to manage the Cable Services in accordance with the Cable Television Agreement.
The legal opinion that Jack Cooper likes to throw around is based on a fallacy that the Cable Assets are RMA's common property. They are not! RMA can not own common property outside of our Association Boundaries. So what are all the other Cable Assets across Jackson Highway and on the PTF's property? This is all Smoke and Mirrors orchestrated by members of the BOD's that can't see the forest thru the trees!
My tongue-in-cheek comment?
Mike, you missed the levity of my post. Sorry if my tongue-in-cheek comment missed its target. I fully agree with your characterization of what he said. The biggest laugh during last night's meeting came when Director Cox objected to removing channel 5 broadcasts of Board meetings. Dick's comment, "It's the best sit-com around." We all need a little laughter from time to time.
Channel 5 going?
That's something I forgot to mention last night. I totally agree with Ted Hart's comments during the public comment section of the meeting.
It would be a bad move if they pulled Channel 5 broadcasts. I can understand why Board Members don't like it so much, as it COULD encourage grand standing from residents and Board Members alike.
However, working stiffs such as myself and many others out here, have a hard enough time keeping up to date on Association Matters as it is.
I'd actually like to see the meetings posted on the official RMA site so that we can more conveniently access meeting broadcasts, and not guess what time we're supposed to tune in or tape in the week after a meeting.
The technology is there. RMA should use it to create member interest, not discourage it.
Martel's Accusation
Mike,
As I watch bits and pieces of the last BOD meeting, I happened to catch an accusation you made that I "ratted RMA out". Since you blurted this out without substantiating your comments, let me help you understand.
When I was on the BOD and Chairman of the Communications Committee, Greg Vorster and Doug Mack had been telling the Committee for months that we were compliant with Federal, State and County regulations as it pertained to the Cable Television Operations. This was an outright lie. Both Greg and Doug knew that they hadn't filed the requisite reports in years.
The way I found this out was by performing my own due diligence. I started with the Sacramento Metropolitan Cable Television Commission (MCTC) and ended with the Federal Communications Commission (FCC). What I found out was that RMA did not file the reports as required and that the local oversight that was supposed to be performed by MCTC was turned over to RMCSD. This was gross negligence on the part of the RMA General Manager. I reported this to the BOD in Executive Session and nothing was done to rectify the situation and Greg Vorster was never reprimanded. I believe he got a sizable raise the following year.
The FCC representative provided me with a report of RMA's filings which I provided to Greg Vorster and the BOD. There was no "ratting out" as Mike Martel blurted out during the last BOD meeting. The FCC knew what reports were missing and expected the Franchise Authority to provide the oversight to ensure RMA was performing as required. RMCSD has never audited or reviewed RMA's performance in management of the Cable Television Services.
This was the primary reason I decided to resign and then made this information public by posting on RM.com and in front of the BOD at the Podium. Still nothing was done about it.
The second reason I resigned was because Jack Copeland, RMA Vice President at the time, sent me a letter threatening to have me removed from the BOD if I didn't get in line and act a certain way. I took this letter to Paul Gumbinger, President of the Board at the time, and told him that I could no longer serve on the BOD. This action by Jack Copeland was intended to be harassing and intimidating. As an officer of the BOD, Jack Copeland put the corporation at risk and I would have been well within my rights to bring a lawsuit. I simply decided to resign and remove myself from any direct association with an inept BOD and RMA Staff.
Mike, your comments are a perfect example of not seeing the forest thru the trees. Instead of focusing on the fact that RMA is not compliant with FCC Regulations, you are trying trying to cast prevarications (look it up Mike) on a former member of the BOD's. Do you know where your responsibilities are sitting on the Board?
I hear so much blame cast on the teenagers in our community and here we have an adult sitting on our BOD's who makes his living in law enforcement blaming a Board Member because the RMA Staff was and still is grossly mismanaging the Cable Television Services. What kind of example does this set?
FCC Compliance issue
For anyone who doesn't understand the FCC compliance issue, it pertains to RF leakage from the Cable Television Network.
The Cable Television Management (RMA) is required annually to perform a "sweep analysis" and file the report with the FCC. This is to ensure that the network is maintained properly so the RF losses are not at the point whereby it would over power another communication system, such as the RM Airport, FAA, Fire Department, or any communication network.
"The FCC mandates that the cable company deliver a minimum signal level of 0 dBmV (decibels per millivolt) on all NTSC (National Television System Committee) cable channels. Furthermore, the dBmV level difference between adjacent channels is to be no more than 3 dB and a level difference between all channels can be no more than 10 dB."
I believe the last sweep was performed by Phil Jarvis in 2002/3 time frame and found RF losses that exceeded the threshold. This required RMA to perform the necessary corrective measures to improve the operational characteristics of the network thereby bringing the RF losses within tolerance. To the best of my knowledge this was never done and no other “Sweep Analysis" was completed.
So there you have it! We tend to criticize the Developers, County, and RMCSD all for not following Federal, State and County requirements and we don’t have our house in order. RMA is a corporation that represents its members. If the Corporation is found liable for negligence then the members will be the ones footing the bill. Would you rather have a responsible RMA Staff that performs their work in accordance with laws and regulations or one that simply buries their head in the sand and says “it ain’t so, Joe!”