| Filed under

The Community Services District will continue its participation in the Joint Security Committee even though the Rancho Murieta Association voted last month to quit the committee. Friday's CSD Security Committee also heard reports on thefts from unlocked cars in the North and vandalism at the Murieta Equestrian Center.

“It was sort of a shock,” CSD Director Betty Ferraro said of the RMA's vote to step out of the Joint Security meetings. “... What we were trying to convey was that this was a community effort, doing this all together for discussion.”

RMA directors criticized the quarterly meetings with representatives of the CSD, Country Club, Murieta Village and Murieta Plaza as redundant and lacking a security-issue focus. The board voted 4-2 to end RMA participation.

“I think it’s valuable that we have this,” said Director Steve Mobley, who serves on the CSD Security Committee with Ferraro.

Country Club Vice President Dennis Martel, who represents the club on the Joint Security Committee, attended the CSD Security Committee meeting because he wanted to know what was happening with Joint Security. He said the information he brings back from Joint Security Committee meetings is helpful to Country Club committees and “we’re more than willing to continue to participate.”

District Secretary Suzanne Lindenfeld said other participants have indicated they wanted to continue the meetings, although that was before RMA took its action. The RMA hasn’t notified the CSD of its intention to quit the committee, which is scheduled to meet again July 7 at the Country Club.

General Manager Ed Crouse summed up Friday's brief discussion: “The consensus, at least from the CSD and everyone else, is to continue moving forward and go ahead, schedule it and invite RMA, and if they want to come, they’re welcome to come. We’d like their participation.”

This isn’t the first time the RMA has shown its dissatisfaction with Joint Security. In 2005, RMA officials suggested restructuring the committee, complaining that it addressed issues that were already being handled by CSD Security and RMA Compliance committees. It was thought that changing the membership of the committee to three RMA directors, two CSD directors and the general managers of both organizations would open up a dialogue between the two organizations on "burning issues" such as which agency operates the gate and gate policy issues. The restructured committee would meet quarterly or more often, depending on the urgency of the issues, according to a proposal by the RMA.

Joint Security went from holding monthly meetings that, for better or worse, attracted community participation, to a quarterly meeting of RMA and CSD directors that was supposed to address "global issues" affecting the two entities. After a proposal to close the meetings was voted down by the CSD board, the meetings remained open to residents to attend.

The reconstituted committee suffered from an ongoing identity crisis that caused members to ponder what its purpose was and whether topics on the agenda were sufficiently global. Sniping about which organization was better able to provide security continued, and in 2007, the RMA board voted to disband the committee.

In 2008, the committee was revitalized and expanded in response to the legal opinion the CSD presented in May of that year about limitations on the CSD Security Department.

Crouse said the district's reason for participating in the committee was to get input on what the community wants in the way of security services and "what issues are important to them so that we can go back and reconfigure the Security Department to meet the needs of the community.” RMA  eventually adopted non-architectural rules for curfew, graffiti, and skateboarding that could be enforced by Security and RMA Compliance in place of CSD ordinances, which no longer applied.

 At Friday’s meeting, Security Chief Greg Remson reported to the Security Committee on the following:

  • He reminded residents to remove valuables and lock their vehicles to prevent thefts. “Over the past probably three or four weeks, there’ve been four cars at the upper end of the North area that have had property removed ... It’s another reminder to keep your cars locked and don’t leave valuables inside them.”
  • Speeding led RMA rule violations citations issued in April with 56 citations. Driveway parking followed with 54 citations. There was one citation for an unlicensed driver.
  • A hay barn at Murieta Equestrian Center was “pretty substantially vandalized” with windows and lights broken overnight April 26-27. The vandals came back the next night and were caught by a stable employee, Remson said. “They admitted to doing the vandalism, the Sheriff’s Department was called, and an agreement has been made between the parents of the juveniles and the stable’s owners for restitution.”

Wilbur Haines's picture
Joined: 08/07/2007
Posts: 474
Post rating: 470

Unclear on the concept again

We all know there's a communication disconnect between CSD and RMA, in my opinion because some RMA drectors past and present view CSD as subservient to RMA or somehow in competition with RMA for "turf."  The Joint Security Committee periodically becomes the focal point for those frustrations because it is the forum in which RMA experiences the frustration of not being able to call all the shots.

But how in Earth can the correct solution be to stop talking?

Andy Keyes's picture
Joined: 08/22/2007
Posts: 289
Post rating: 120

Myopia 101

Wilbur your observation is clear.  Security simply isnt a problem worthy of participating in the JSC in the opinion of the present board majority.  How much more clear would you like the board to be?

Nellie Bloom's picture
Joined: 08/03/2007
Posts: 362
Post rating: 587

Nowhere good..

The board room is a better place for that commentary Director Keyes. Especially after casting the whole "disparaging" stone.

Lisa Taylor's picture
Joined: 01/09/2008
Posts: 365
Post rating: 30

*sigh*

Disappointing that some folks keep with the personal attacks rather than focus on the topic at hand....substance please Nellie instead of the cheap shots?

Wilbur, I think that it's easy to come to the conclusion to stop talking.  Once the communication continues, it becomes pretty clear that there is a whole lot around here that doesn't make sense, and it would take some out of the box thinking to put all the pieces together correctly.

This way everyone can keep making the same complaints.  Every 6 months or so RMA can talk about taking over security (which makes no sense whatsoever), or they can try to pass their own CC&Rs which intend to mimic ordinances, which can't be enforced, and then they can claim that security isn't doing their job.  It's only a matter of time before the entire circle starts repeating again!

 

Doug Lewis's picture
Joined: 08/08/2007
Posts: 165
Post rating: 322

Odd concept

 Hmm let me get this straight....... RMA hires CSD for security.  RMA doesnt like CSD for some reason but no one can really say why and complains about CSD not doing the job while not giving them the power to do so.  .Meanwhile,   RMA feels they should fire CSD and take over a job they hired CSD for because they couldnt do it.  RMA believes private contracted security might do it better but they would only be able to perform as CSD security does with less training, oversight and perhaps more liability.  And while all this is up in the air its decided by RMA  that there isnt any reason to attend meetings to discuss it all.  Odd management concept.  

 

Doug Lewis

 

Doug Lewis

Martha Glunt's picture
Joined: 07/29/2007
Posts: 192
Post rating: 418

Joint Security Meeting Minutes...

Any idea where we can see the meeting minutes?  Couldn't find them doing a search at ranchomurietaweb.org. 

That might be a better indicator of the substance of the meetings rather than anecdotal info.

Andy Keyes's picture
Joined: 08/22/2007
Posts: 289
Post rating: 120

Odd indeed

Welcome to the future Doug.  Courageous, some would say but rudderless indeed.  Kinda reminds me of watching MTI flail around a few years back just before their dues went through the roof.

RM.com's picture
Joined: 06/19/2007
Posts: 27727
Post rating: 1387

Joint Security meeting minutes

Martha,

Usually the minutes are available as part of the CSD board packet for the monthly board meeting following the Joint Security meeting. You can see the April meeting minutes here or below.


 

Rancho Murieta Joint Security Committee Meeting Minutes
April 7, 2010

Present
Roberta Belton, RMCSD
Betty Ferraro, RMCSD
Darlene Gillum, RMCSD
Chief Remson, RMCSD
Suzanne Lindenfeld, RMCSD
Judy Musgrove, Murieta Plaza
Vicky Lentz, RMA
Nick Arther, RMA
Danise Hetland, RMA
Darlene Myers, RMA

Absent
Jim Moore, RMA
Vince Lepera, RMCC
Dennis Martel, RMCC
Stan Korich, RMCC
Edward R. Crouse, RMCSD
Zoe Lasater, Murieta Village
Brian Morgan, D.A.

Public
Karen Muldoon, Press
Sheri Barile, Press
Joe Mazzoni, RMYEA
Jackie Villa, Resident

The meeting was called to order at 9:00 a.m.

Comments from the Public

There were no comments at this time.

New North Gate Update

Nick Arther related that the required documents were sent to PTF and his correspondence with McMorgan has been that they have what they need. PTF has 60 days to respond.

Betty Ferraro asked Mr. Arther about the median in front of the gate which has recently had the vegetation removed. Mr. Arther reported that the grass will be replaced and the irrigation system will be replaced with a more water efficient system.

Rancho Murieta Youth Enrichment Advocacy, Inc.

Joe Mazzoni reported that this organization is continuing with their plans to erect a skateboard park within Rancho Murieta gates. Mr. Mazzoni said that Kiwanis donated $9,400 and RMA $600 for plans. An architect has drawn up a conceptual design for the skateboard park and this design was approved by the RMA Board. In June 2007, the RMA Board authorized RMYEA to raise funds and construct a skateboard park. Mr. Mazzoni said that $178,000 is still needed to fund this project. He said he was reluctant to begin a community‐wide fund raising endeavor in this economic climate. He asked Ms. Ferraro if there were any Parks Funds available and she said that there were not.

Security Services and Agreements

Betty Ferraro stated that she requested this item be on the agenda for the Committee members to know what services the Security Department provides. Ms. Ferraro stated she would like for the RMA Compliance Committee and the District’s Security Committee to review the agreement and make any changes/updates needed. Roberta Belton agreed, adding that the agreement is ten (10) years old and may need to be updated.

Vicky Lentz stated the Joint Security Committee is not the proper place to discuss the security agreements between RMA and the District. Danise Hetland stated that if the District wants to have the Compliance Committee review the contract, then the District can send a letter to RMA requesting the Compliance Committee review the contract.

Reporting of RMA Non‐Architectural Rule Violations

Betty Ferraro stated that she wanted the Committee to discuss what the ramifications are for a non‐ARC rule violation.
Vicky Lentz stated that the Joint Security Committee is not the proper place to discuss this matter. The purpose of the Joint Security Committee is to discuss items/issues that affect all of the community, not only certain areas or entities of the community. Ms. Lentz noted that in the past this committee was disbanded and then reconstituted, but its initial creation was for discussions between RMA and the District only. Now the committee is made up of representatives from several entities within the community and the District Attorney’s office. She does not feel that certain items are appropriate for this forum.

Ms. Belton stated that she had asked for this item to be placed on the agenda because she wanted to remind the public on how to report any rule violations that they may observe.

Vicky Lentz stated the “Pink Form” is only for RMA members.

Judy Musgrove stated that the Joint Security Committee is a place to have discussions regarding all aspects of security.

Danise Hetland stated that members can also email or call in their complaints to RMA.

Other Items/Issues

The next meeting will be held on Wednesday, July 7, 2010 at Rancho Murieta Country Club.

Adjournment

The meeting was adjourned at 9:55 a.m.

Martha Glunt's picture
Joined: 07/29/2007
Posts: 192
Post rating: 418

Thanks, Karen...

I got copies of a few months of meetings today but haven't had time to review any.  However, from what you posted (and bearing in mind this is the DRAFT meeting minutes):

Thought we weren't doing grass at front gate after the took grass out due to the cost of irrigation/maintenance.  Is it cheaper now that it's new grass?  Cheaper to use irrigation doesn't negate the cost of water or time spent maintaining the grass (thought we were going for drought tolerant...which turf most definitely IS NOT...nevermind the cost of labor to remove initially, re-install, and then remove again when the wind changes...)

Heard the skatepark stuff at RMA meeting (and this is old info...joint security shouldn't have a budget, so of course there would be no money to be gotten, and it was long-ago determined the Parks Committee won't be funding).  Nothing new there.  This was joint security, not parks, so not sure that's the place for info that can be gotten on ch 5/RMA board minutes/put a blurb in RVT and post on the two local websites in addition to RMYEA's site.

Joint Security Committee doesn't get to do Agreements - that's a Board Action...not the place for that discussion...

Any violations that someone observes doesn't mean it's security-related so, again, not the place to discuss that.  Having the committee ask the RMA reps to have such a thing considered by the board is appropriate.  Nothing else, however, is within the pervue of this committee.  Which begs the question, do they have a charter?  Don't recall hearing about one.

Absent Committee members... Someone from the D.A.'s office?  Are you kidding me?  Why?  So let's look at how many salaries are/or are supposed to be at this meeting... Is that NINE people GETTING PAID BY US to be at this committee meeting?  Say WHAT??  Looks like everyone from CSD is represented.  Looks more like a staff meeting of theirs than anything else.

Reading this recap only tells me the board's decision was the right one.  I'll look at the other minutes in the near future.

Doug Lewis's picture
Joined: 08/08/2007
Posts: 165
Post rating: 322

security meetings

  The minutes for the security committee meeting reads sort of like a scene out of Yours, Mine and Ours.  The reality is that currently there is a disconnect between RMA and CSD that needs to be discussed and resolved.  Either through some type of security meeting discussion or by getting together in some other form or fashion to figure it out and satisfy both  RMA and CSD.  To just say nope, cant talk about this or cant talk about that results in zero exchange of information and nothing goes back to the board.  While its the board that  has the power to impliment changes, they still need some forum to have dicussions and exchange ideas and information  between RMA and CSD.  It seems like RMA is in one building and CSD in another without anyway to talk to each other.  Maybe the membership should sponser a brunch or picnic or hold a Leadership night out  (puns intended) so these folks can get together and  hash it all out.     I realize that there are required formalities in government but when it takes months to relate things nothing gets resolved.

At least let the membership know if this friction is a turf war, economic issue, power dispute, employee performance issue or what.  Maybe start with RMA defining the expections of security (job description) based on the needs of the community and  what they are willing to pay vs this is what CSD  can provide under the current contract and constraints at X dollars.  If this is already in place then whats not working and why?

Police work or in this case security work is a strange task.  The better they do their job the less they have to enforce and just being there often creates less of a need for them to be there????  Bottom line is we have patrol and gates in our community to give us a greater degree of security than most communities have.  Either we want this greater degree at a cost or we dont.   

Doug Lewis

 

Doug Lewis

Martha Glunt's picture
Joined: 07/29/2007
Posts: 192
Post rating: 418

Up to the ratepayers...

RMA only pays CSD for the things that "we" (the association otherwise known as RMA) own.  And that isn't much.  Any changes WE, the ratepaying CSD customers, want to have it's up to US, the ratepayers, to direct them.  The addition to what RMA pays to CSD is for (stupid) things like driveway parking which should be done by Compliance.

If we're going to have NINE PAID STAFF (read: money coming directly out of our pockets) at a meeting, it would seem to me that WE (essentially the employers of that staff) can direct the two GM's to discuss things between RMA and CSD.  To me, the current "system" isn't working, and you can see that reflected in the minutes.

Lisa Taylor's picture
Joined: 01/09/2008
Posts: 365
Post rating: 30

They are our advocates

Outstanding post Doug

 

While CSD does "work" for us, the taxpayers, these other entities also act as our advocates.  They have the power to hold CSD's collective feet to the fire, if they so choose.  By pulling out of the talks, they give further license to CSD to continue operating without much needed community and organizational input.

For example, CSD used to report *monthly* in the Pipeline, monthly and year-to-date totals the following statistics:

 

*********

Grand Theft
Petty Theft
Robbery
Vandalism
Trespass

RMA Rule Violations
Speeding
Stop Sign
Street/Driveway Parking

North Gate Passes
South Gate Passes

*********

 

It used to be that we knew about our local crime because CSD patrol officers actually took the crime reports.  They don't do that anymore, so as a community, we don't know what is happening, and residents are not reporting it to the SSD. Why are these local entities not trying to put together some way to get a handle on what is happening in the community, whether or not it is officially reported?  Why isn't there more effort to get reporting so that the SSD can have that data?  I hear a lone VIP officer promoting this on a regular basis - why isn't in each and every Pipeline?  Why doesn't RMA get on this bandwagon and continually promote the need to report?  Why don't all the entities in that meeting push CSD for more honest reporting of the actual security issues that they handle on a monthly basis?

There will be problems with implementation of some of the new security non-ARC rules that RMA passed.  That *should* be discusses at some level, because it's representative of what the other organizations could or could not do.  Parameters for those types of rules should be discussed so that directors of both boards are made aware.  RMA needs feedback on what can and can't be accomplished, and CSD needs to be honest about their authority (or lack therof) in those situations. 

When a CSD director, in a public forum, calls this issue "much ado about nothing"  and that they don't need a ""meeting" to talk to each other" , that just opens the door to more back door deals, with no input from the community.

Your comments