RMA won't extend vote on motorcycle CC&R
At its meeting Tuesday, the Rancho Murieta Association board voted not to extend the voting deadline for the election to amend the motorcycle CC&R for the North beyond the Oct. 6 deadline. The board announced the three candidates for two board seats -- Lou Lopez, Tom Landwehr and incumbent Randy Jenco -- and set Oct. 11 for Candidates’ Night and Nov. 15 for the annual meeting and election.
The board revisited the Community Services District’s draft policy for DUI vehicle stops and repeated some of the objections raised last month. Although DUI arrests currently take place in the community, the policy would allow Security patrol officers to attempt a voluntary vehicle stop in the gated community when they observe erratic driving that “presents an imminent threat to public safety or property.” The DUI discussion continued at the CSD board meeting the following day.
Coverage of the topic from CSD and RMA board meetings and the RMA Compliance Committee meeting is available here.
Vote on motorcycle CC&R
The board voted unanimously not to extend the motorcycle vote beyond the Oct. 6 deadline after General Manager Nick Arther reported the RMA had received 1,300 ballots and fewer than one a day were still coming in. The 30-day extension would have taken the deadline to Nov. 5.
Arther said an approval vote of 60 percent plus one was needed for passage, "which would be 1,300."
"Seems to me that even if we did extend it, it won't be enough ballots to make a difference," President Jim Moore remarked.
"This thing has lost all its momentum and there's absolutely no way it's going to be approved. We're just at the number that we need to pass and they all have to be 'yes' votes," Director Scott Adams said.
The vote count is scheduled to begin at 10 a.m. Oct. 9 at the RMA Building. Members can attend the count.
Community center and pool vote
Assistant General Manager Danise Hetland presented the results of the community center and pool vote, saying the project received a total of 1,559 votes. Of these, 580 were in favor of the project and 979 voted against it. Hetland said the project needed 1,064 yes votes to pass.
Ballots went out in June, and the initial 30-day voting period was extended twice.
The center was proposed for a 14-acre site across from Stonehouse Park on Escuela Drive, with acquisition of the site contingent on approval of the project. Members voted on a plan for a $1,200 assessment for construction costs and ongoing charges of $12 a month for operation and maintenance.
Director Sam Somers noted that about 73 percent of the 2,300 membership had voted, and said he only wished the rest of the members had voted "so their voices could be heard also."
- RMA voters reject community center proposal (Sept. 4, 2012)
- The workshop for the 2013 budget will be held 6 p.m. Sept. 27 at the RMA Building.
- In his president's report on the executive session that preceded the open meeting, Jim Moore said the board discussed a contract for the purchase of land near Stonehouse Park and collection activity for Lot 170 Murieta South.
- The board approved an amendment to an existing exclusive-use lease for construction of a pool.
- Architectural Review Committee chair Sam Somers reported the committee approved an unspecified number of driveway parking variances.
- Basic digital TV programming costs will increase $2 a month Oct. 1 with the addition of the Pac-12 sports package. The NFL Network and RedZone Channel cannot be added at this time since the number of digital customers doesn't meet the required threshold of 20 percent of total RMA cable TV customers.
- A bus trip to San Francisco is planned for Dec. 5. The cost is $35. Contact the RMA at 354-3500 for reservations.
- The autumn bingo event takes place 6 p.m. Oct. 26 at the RMA Building. For reservations, call the RMA at 354-3500.
OK, what exactly is the criteria for extending a voting deadline or not extending a voting deadline??? If the Board is in favor of the proposal do they extend it (can you say swimming pool) and if they are not in favor of the proposal do they hold the deadline firm????? Seems the system can/may be a little biased????? I think there needs to be some consistency.
Jeff, this should come as no surprise to any of us. I think that you hit the nail squarely on the head!
And we should applaud for the RMA not doing the wrong thing again? Where are the results from the pool vote?
Really Steve - You don't know the results of the community center vote?
Really Mac! Reallllly!
If you know the results why don't you share them. Last I heard the RMA had decided to extend the voting period into 2016 just in case someone new moved in and voted YES. ; )
What's the deal?
I share Jeff's concern that the existing practice regarding extending voting periods is standardless and susceptible to political manipulation. I am NOT accusing this Board of doing that; but the question of these disparate decisions regarding a Board-sponsored measure and a member-sponsored measure points out a flaw in our documents which invites result-oriented manipulation of voting periods which perhaps should be addressed NOW while there are no measures pending which could polarize the procedural policy question.-0.
The inclination of Boards to try to influence outcomes has been dramatically proven by past events. When we circulated the proxies for the voting on the cable Bylaws amendment granting residents the opt-out option, we faced off against a Board majority which was highly hostile to the measure and repeatedly illegally violated members' voting rights, both blocking the vote illegally till we had a judge spank them and order the vote, and THEN turned around illegally disenfranchising hundreds of voters without following RMA's own binding due process requirements (because there wasn't enough time to do notices and hearings in time to accomplish their goal of suppressing the vote to try to keep us below 50% of membership.).
The measure passed overwhelmingly anyway despite all the illegal obstructionism and slander, the cable system is GREAT now, and those obstructionists are gone from the board. But that episode demonstrates how far a hostile board in fact WILL go to block a grassroots initiative it doesn't like, whereas they can be very quick to extend voting and maximize voter turnout (e.g. to get the Second Restated CC&Rs passed phoning all non-voters to encourage them to vote) when it is THEIR bright idea on the ballot.
I think it would be better if the Board by resolution adopted a policy stating that the default preference is to extend the vote unless the matter is an urgent/emergency measure - and the impatience of those opposing the measure doesn't count as "urgency."
As it stands now, the unrestricted option gives the Board a very heavy discretionary thumb to put on the scales whenever a majority feels like manipulating the process.
AGAIN, lest the usual mischaracterizations commence, I am NOT accusing THIS Board of an improper motive. IMNSHO this Board has been conscientious and straight-shooting. But not all ijn the past have been, and not all in the future will be. We would be werll advised to cabin in that presently unbridled discretion over the fate of pending initiatives and require more uniformity in practice.
Steven, where did you get that grossly erroneous information? In D'Souza's propaganda flick?. Was Soros behind the community center effort??
Go a couple of pages beyond the front page of RM.COM and you'll find the story of the measure's failure by the expected broad margin. Yes, there's talk of asking again in a few years when folks are less panicked by Fiscal Armageddon fantasies, but THIS vote on THIS measure is deader than a doornail.
The vote closes on October 6, so you still have time to vote if you are inclined to do so. Approximatey 1300 have voted to date, and RMA is receiving less that one ballot in per day currently. It appears all those that want to vote have voted, but if not you still have 17 days to do so.
Wilbur, I have only one comment.........LOL!!! I couldn't stop and am still laughing. Gotta love your colorful writing skills!
John, glad you could tell it was just a joke. We've gotta have a LITTLE fun with this stuff or there's no hope for any of us
As I recall the intent of the petition to opt out of the TV was to gut and eliminate the program. So much for honesty.
With you Wil.....become to heated for no real reason other than difference of opinion. And we should be able to have that!
You're repeating the slanderous lie that the opponents hurled, Ed.
This is what the amendment says:
"Effective January 1, 2009 The Association may provide television service to its members solely on an optional, voluntary basis. All costs of providing television service, including maintenance and equipment, must be borne solely by user fees paid by voluntary subscribers, and may not be subsidized with regular assessment revenue unless approved by the members by the affirmative vote by written ballot of a majority of the Voting Power of the Association"
Nothing in there about shutting it down. It just forced the system to be self-supporting, and participation optional. The system, then dysfunctional, not very responsive to captive customers, the Board paralyzed for years by indecision, and its revenues used as a cookie jar by alternating boards instead of investing in maintenance, is now high quality and extremely customer service oriented because now it operates under competitive reality that dissatisfied customers can now WALK.
Does ANYBODY believe the cable system is no better now than it was in 2009?
Boy did I call this or what - from Aug 20:
If this had been the opposite and the Board was not extending the motorcycle vote, you'd hear people whining that they didn't give it the same opportunity as the Community Center.
So give them a break, whatever the RMA Board does residents will always complain.
Can anyone tell me which members on the RMA Board voted in favor to fund the community center vote, brochures,feasability studies, etc.? Also which members voted in favor to hold the motorcycle vote?
C'mon Wilbur how many meetings did John Weatherford advocate the disbanding of the TV System. I believe it was the intent and hope of he and his advocates (you by association) that the the opt out would have enough people to gut the system.
I believe you believe what you CHOOSE to believe, Ed. Lots of that going around.
Our secret hopes of making the system fail certainly would account for the following year during which several of us worked on the Board's advisory committee designing the successful business model which now produces the vastly superior product and service which you now enjoy.
Wilbur I believe and you to are welcome