Court sides with neighbors in dispute over RMA cable vote
In a ruling released Wednesday, Sacramento County Superior Court agreed with a group of Murieta neighbors in a dispute with the Rancho Murieta Association over whether an election can be held to challenge the RMA's practice of forcing participation in the community's cable system.
"We won," one of the neighbors, George Roper, said Wednesday afternoon. "We're going to have an election."
In April, Roper and others organized a signature-gathering challenge to the RMA's practice of requiring participation in the cable system.
The group, called the Freedom of Choice Committee, asked members to sign proxy votes requiring the association to change its bylaws to prohibit the use of dues for the cable system. RMA members pay about $31 a month for the cable system as part of their dues. The cost covers basic programming, a reserve contribution for maintenance, and operating expenses.
In May, after getting an opinion from its lawyer, the RMA said it would not honor the request for a special election because the association is required to provide the service under the terms of the Mutual Benefit Agreement and the Cable Agreement.
Said Wednesday's ruling, by Judge Shellyanne Chang: "Corp. Code section 7510(c) provides that special meetings of members for any lawful purpose may be called by 5% or more of the members. While the conflicts asserted by respondent may present issues as to the ultimate validity of the proposed amendment within the context of other corporate instruments, respondent has not shown that voting on the proposed amendment would be 'unlawful.'"
It added, "The question of whether any amendment is valid in light of other governing documents can be resolved later, when and if the homeowners approve the proposed amendment."
There will be a hearing in the case 9 a.m. Thursday.
RMA General Manager David Stiffler said the RMA had just received the opinion Wednesday and it would discuss the matter internally before reacting publicly.
Board President Dick Cox has estimated the legal action would cost the association between $5,000 and $25,000.
Key past coverage:
- RMA says it cannot honor proxy effort on cable system (May 8, 2008)
- Effort to make RMA cable voluntary hits the streets (April 27, 2008)
- Cable fight heats up as RMA board shows it's split on the issue (March 19, 2008)
Member since: 07/31/2007
This ruling puts us on a path to finally make subscription to the Cable Television Services optional as it is for everyone else outside of RMA. However, we need to complete the process first. I would encourage everyone who signed the proxies to make the subscription optional to pay close attention as the RMA Staff conducts the election. Basically it is the proverbial Fox watching the Hen-house. RMA BOD and Staff fought this issue and I believe will continue to fight it all the way until they have to actually take it out of the dues.
RMA better begin to make provisional plans for 2009's budget now rather than wait until January. They have used up precious time in 2008 and are running out of time fast.
Member since: 10/02/2007
Dick Cox
THE FOLLOWING OPINIONS ARE MY PERSONAL OPINIONS AND DO NOT REFLECT THE OPINIONS OR POSITIONS OF OTHER RMA BOARD MEMBERS.
Mike you're right it's not over until the nice lady sings. The judge only ruled on the right to have a vote. She specifically stated the other issues could be resolved later depending on the out come of the vote. We still have contractual agreements with the MBA and Cable Agreement that need to be solved. This whole thing could have been avoided if the Freedom of Choice Committee would have given this board time to clear up the contract situation, however, that didn't seem to fit with their agenda. So do you think the decision to sue RMA was made by the people who signed those proxies? No it was made by four or five people who decided the association should spend maybe thousands of dollars on more legal fees to satisify their wants and time frame. That's a great way to represent the membership. For your information I signed their petition and at no time did they every memtion there was the possibility of sueing the RMA. I wonder how many people would have signed that petition if they knew the FOC had any thoughts of sueing RMA. That also brings up the question of just how much information did the petition gathers share with the people they were soliciting?
THE FREEDOM OF CHOICE COMMITTEE KNEW THERE WERE PROBABLY 4-VOTES ON THE BOARD THAT WERE COMMITTED TO MAKING THE CATV OPTIONAL. THESE BOARD MEMBERS WERE ALSO COMMITTED TO DOING IT IN A LEGAL MANNER. EVEN WITH THIS KNOWLEDGE THE FOC STILL INSTITUTED A LAW SUIT WHICH IS GOING TO COST THIS ASSOCIATION MONEY. THIS WAS A LAW SUIT THAT DIDN'T NEED TO HAPPEN.
You are right Mike, we really are the fox guarding the henhouse. We on the board are just a bunch of non-caring people who are out to destroy RMA just for the enjoyment of doing it. God help us because we're the people who thought up the CATV. Yea, right. We're trying to clean up a mess that has been here for years and do so without breaking the association.
Maybe it's time you bought a new Club because the one you've been beating the RMA Boards with for the past 4-5 years must about be worn out. By the way Mike didn't you resign from the RMA Board instead of staying as communications chairman and helping solve the problem? You didn't seem to have the answers then but you have them all now.
Member since: 09/05/2007
having went to directtv WAY back in 1994 here, i ran into lots of obstacles on this issue and gave up. now, just maybe, we will be able to stop subsidizing the cable system. but, i truely expect that if it is killed, then the board will merely raise everyone's dues to further subsidize this joke. what other options would they have to keep this thing on life support?
Member since: 08/07/2007
Dick, I stood at that podium in July and begged you to not make litigation necessary. I begged you to just mail the notices on behalf of the proponents, rather than as the Association's own action, a process for which the Codes provide. It would have kept the Board's "fingerprints" off the decision to conduct an election and solved your lawyer's fantasy that you could be sued for simply allowing the members' votes to be cast. That fantasy has now been resolved by the judge.
We didn't force this into the courts. Your lawyer did. Your lawyer was dead wrong. Again.
We gave you months after the July meeting in which you asked for time. We waited until you reported at your August meeting that you had had the meeting with the developer - the meeting for which you requested time in our July meeting. We waited and let you have that time. you came back in August and said no way, no how, there's not going to be an election. We're not going to allow the members to vote. Giving you more time was't going to change that; your lawyer had given you your marching orders, and you made it crystal clear that nothing could change that. There was nothing left to give you time for. At your lawyer's instructions you drew the line in the sand, told the members to like it or lump it, the lawyer has spoken and she's our boss.
That action was illegal. it was just overturned by the Court.
I for one do not blame the Board. I think you got painted in the corner by very very misguided legal advice. This is twice now. They did it to you on exclusive use, too, as you recall. Gave you bad legal advice, subsequently shredded twice in the courts, but which in the meanwhile painted you in a corner where you couldn't move because your counsel's bad legal advice put you in that box about having to rely upon counsel's opinions. It just happened again. The court just ruled that concerns that the Bylaw amendment might complicate a contract do not make it an 'unlawful' amendment. Which was what your lawyer insisted was the case. Which is why she ordered you not to allow a vote. i do not blame the Board. I blame a lawyer who keeps giving you bad advice and forcing you into litigation by commanding you that you must follow her (bad) advice or risk being personally sued. She, not we, put this on a track which inevitably led to the courthouse.
If you pay $25,000 for what you got you will have been fleeced. Your lawyers filed a huge stack of paper produced by a legislative history consulting firm which essentially had nothing to do with the case. This simple petition was overlitigated. with a zip return on your investment.
Now that your law firm is 0-2 against members who call their bluffs, I suggest the Board consider the very real possibility that their advice that the amendment breaches the MBA might also not be credible and deserving of further blind allegiance at the members' expense. Before spending more of the members' money on fruitless litigation in reliance upon their advice, to which they are now wedded (how can you take a client this far down the primrose path, pick their pocket and then say "oops, I was wrong all along"?), maybe it's time for the BOD to get a new independent legal opinion about your own lawyer's accusation that you would be breaching a contract. I think that you'll find that the next lawyer will tell you not only is the amendment not a breach, but that it was imprudent for your counsel to publicly state such an opinion if they sincerely thought you might be confronted with a lawsuit for breach. What lawyer publicly states that their client is liable if they do something they might want to do? I missed that class in law school.
Dick, the decision to take that legal position was made before you returned to the Board. Neither you nor I can know exactly who said what to Mary to make her think she needed to write that bluff. But that's what it is, a bluff. The members were supposed to tuck their tails between their legs and slink away, dominated and defeated. Instead we called her bluff. Twice now, in two separate cases, she's been called on her bluffs and twice judges have said she was wrong. think about it. She was betting nobody'd call. She bet wrong. She bet with RMA's chips. This expense does not lie at FOC's feet. It lies at hers. But if the Board gives her more chips to play with, knowing what it now knows, accountability will rest with the Board.
Member since: 07/31/2007
Dick,
I agree with Wibur's comments, but take exception to one thing. The RMA BOD hires, fires and provides direction to legal council. It is the BOD's responsibility to make decisions and not let attorney's make decisions for you. You could have simply obtained a second opinion from another legal council and I believe it was strongly suggested that you do solicit a second opinion.
I believe the RMA's attorney tipped her hand when you had the teleconference and she stated that she wasn't asked to help bring this to a favorable resolution (FOC). If you turn that around, she was directed to fight the FOC. As Wilbur stated, you inherited this from your predecessor and may not have fully understood the RMA's direction they gave the attorney.
The rest of your comments don't deserve a response. They are simply more of the same background noise.
Member since: 07/31/2007
OK, now what? RMA was instructed by the Judge in the Superior Court of California to conduct the process to have a vote. This is a court order.
The RMA should respond officially to the RMA membership as to how they will comply with the court order so RMA members understand how the vote will be conducted and when. RMA needs to proceed diligently and timely to ensure the vote is not unduly biased which may land them right back in front of the Judge. The existing Director of Elections has made comments that makes him biased. If this is true, then the RMA should seek to replace him.
RMA members provided a petition that was ignored by the BOD, then proxies were obtained to override the BOD, finally it was taken to court to get the BOD to comply with the wishes of the members. The PRESIDENT AND BOD's SIMPLY DO NOT GET IT!
There is a great quote that I adopted a long time ago, ""A man has got to know his limitations." -- Clint Eastwood 1973. The RMA President, General Manager and BOD's need to listen to the Judge and ignore their counsel. Stop trying to fight this ruling and get it done so we can move on to other important business!