While it is an Ad Hoc Committee, I don't think that anything the Ad Hoc Cable Committee recommends to the Board should even be entertained when what they're sending over is NOT what they were tasked to do.  My recollection is the same as was reported in the story above, "The ad hoc committee was formed to investigate whether a bylaw amendment making participation in the cable system voluntary could be implemented without violating the RMA CC&Rs and legally binding agreements with the Pension Trust Fund for Operating Engineers, the developer of the community. "  I don't have time right now to go look up their charter, but I'm pretty sure it didn't state they were going to figure out how to increase staffing/salary expense, just as an example. 

To really make matters worse, when you look at the compostion of folks on the Ad Hoc Committee, then you look at who sits on Communications and Finance Committees, it smells an awful lot like the fox watching the hen-house. 

The election will soon be here.   It's time for a change folks!  Before it hits you even harder in the pocketbook.

The first part of this article talked about the Freedom of Choice Committee.  There is no Freedom of Choice Committee.  There was a group of neighbors that helped to drive the initiative, but that no longer exists and was never a committee.  the definition of committee is "A group of people officially delegated to perform a function, such as investigating, considering, reporting, or acting on a matter. ..."  The FOC was never acting on behalf of any official organization, we were simply representing concerned RMA members.
 

Reporting on the fact that the RMA's position was challenged in Court, does not explain why the decision of the judge allowed the vote to make the subscription to the Cable System optional. Karen has pointed out that "A legal opinion the RMA sent to members last year maintains that “the provisions of the CC&Rs and (the Mutual Benefit Agreement) require that basic cable charges be paid by RMA members as part of the regular assessment.”  What Karen doesn't report is that this legal opinion was the same opinion that directed the Board not to allow the vote, which was overturned by the Judge!  So what value do you place on this opinion!  My opinion is that it is worthless.

Look folks, even Dick Cox was using the MBA to justify not having a vote to make subscription optional, right!  So lets be pragmatic and look at what could happen if the development occurs and they want to connect to our Cable System.  We need to be able to show what we pay for cable services to charge the new development the SAME costs we pay.  If we comingle the funds as we have been doing for more than twenty years, it will be a nightmare to understand all the costs.  Anything we subsidise out of our general fund can't be counted for to charge the new residents.  The MBA allows for the new CID's to audit our books.  Separating the costs is the best way to track them, report them and account for them.  As a matter of fact the Cable Television Agreement requires us to manage this service independently and turn over the assets and costs to a separate management company under certain conditions.  RMA's staff and Boards over the years simply felt we own this system and we don't.  If we don'taccurately account for the TRUE costs of the Cable System we risk undercharging any subscriber outside of RMA whether it is under the T&C's of the MBA or across the street where the new development is slowly progressing. 

"As a matter of fact the Cable Television Agreement requires us to manage this service independently"

"RMA's staff and Boards over the years simply felt we own this system and we don't."

The Facts.  (All cites are from the Cable Agreement)

1.  RMA is not required to manage the Cable Service independently. 

(bold emphasis mine)

9. Nonprofit Operations. RMA shall, prior to any transfer of the Cable Facility to a nonprofit corporation pursuant to the provisions of this Agreement, be solely responsible for payment of all costs incurred in the maintenance, repair, operation and improvement of the Cable Facility, subject to the right of RMA to require third parties to pay for the installation costs incurred in the extension of the Cable Facility to additional locations within the Service Area, and to charge user fees for the Cable Service, all in accordance with the provisions of Paragraph 8 of this Agreement. Notwithstanding the foregoing, in further consideration for the transfer of the Cable Facility and the other commitments of RMPI pursuant to this Agreement, RMA shall operate the Cable Facility on a nonprofit basis. In that regard, the total fees collected by RMA for any aspect of the Cable Facility and the Cable Service shall not exceed all maintenance, repair, operating and improvement expenses incurred by RMA with respect to the Cable Facility, the Property and/or the Cable Service, plus a reasonable reserve for ongoing expenses. All operating decisions relating to the Cable Facility, the Cable Service and the Property shall be made by RMA unless and until a separate nonprofit corporation is formed for the operation of the Cable Facility pursuant to the provisions of this Agreement. RMA shall not be obligated to segregate funds relating to the Cable Service from other funds of RMA; provided, however, that RMA shall keep sufficient accounting records to be able to identify separately all income and expenses relating thereto from and after January 1, 1989, and the amount of any unrecovered costs of, or the amount of any reserve held by, RMA with respect thereto.

2. RMA owns title to the Cable Facility.

3. Transfer of Cable Facility. By execution of this Agreement, RMPI does hereby formally transfer to RMA all rights, title and interest of RMPI in and to the Cable Facility, and all equipment and personal property associated therewith, and does hereby release to RMA any and all easements claimed by RMPI for maintenance of cables or related items in, on or under real property owned by RMA.

3.  It is also important to point out that the Court only decided that it was lawful to hold the election. It did not decide on the validity of the Bylaw Amendment. The decision stated that the validity of the Bylaw Amendment could be decided at another time.

Mike,

The source for the name Freedom of Choice Committee is the group itself. (For example, see one of  George Roper's blog posts.)  And not to make a big deal of it, but many groups of citizens call themselves committees, as this one does (or did).

After the court ruling, RMA attorneys Berding & Weil reaffirmed, in a one-page letter to members in October 2008, the legal opinion mailed to RMA members in May 2008.

Superior Court Judge Shellyanne Chang's ruling in favor of holding the election specifically didn't address the legality of the bylaw amendment. Coverage of the ruling from Oct. 1, 2008 quotes from the ruling as follows: "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.' ... 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."

Mike, the story is accurate. You say there is “no Freedom of Choice Committee.” Have you read the October 3, 2007 story stating that John Weatherford said the group’s petition was circulated by the “Committee for Freedom of Choice”? Did you read the June 20, 2008 story on the controversial door-to-door-solicitation by the “Freedom of Choice Committee”? How about the March 19, 2008 story where your group is described as the “Freedom of Choice Committee” twice? Your group is also described as “Freedom of Choice members” on April 27, 2008, and as “the Freedom of Choice group” on March 19, 2008, April 3, 2008 and April 22, 2008. All of these stories are on RanchoMurieta.com. You didn’t complain about any of those descriptions then, so why is it so offensive to you now?

The rest of your post is replete with errors, mischaracterizations, inaccurate descriptions of our Governing documents and faulty conclusions. RMA has title to the cable facility and they have the right to sell it. To me, and anyone else who objectively reads our Governing Documents, that means RMA owns the cable facility. The lawsuit you refer to pertained only to the election, and RMA cannot support an election which could result in an outcome which violates RMA’s own Governing Documents, even if the election itself doesn’t violate the law. That put RMA between a rock and a hard place. The future of our cable system had nothing to do with the suit itself and you should know that.

Scott,

I would say that if the FOC used the word committee, then that is inaccurate.  Using the phrase FOC Group would be more accurate.  I don't live and die by every word on this website, but reasding Karen's post I felt the description of a committee was inaccurate.

Some of these points that we tend to bicker over, depending on the perspective of the discussion, can be correct either way.  For instance when I hire a management company to handle Fleet Services, we turn over title, registration and insurance authority to the Leasing Agency.  Do they then own the Fleet, of course not.  The contract is written such that ownership reverts back if and when the Leasing Agency ceases to perform work under the contract.  The contract allows the Leasing Agency the necessary rights that is required to properly manage the business.

The Cable Television Agreement is basically the same.  The agreement was set up to ensure a management company (in this case RMA) was managing this service for all of the businesses and residents within the RMCSD serving area.  Should any CID challenge RMA's managment of the Cable Service, then they could force RMA to turn over all assets and funds to another NON- Profit organization which is representative of the CID's within the serving area.  So it's a matter of seeing the forest thru the trees.  You, Vicky, and some supportes like to look at the bark on the tree and develop your perspective from that vantage point.  I am describing it from the larger point of view and believe RMA should manage it as a separate business as was intended by the Cable Television Service Agreement.

Mike, your example is off point because you inserted a “middle man” in to your analogy. The cable agreement classifies RMA more like the owner of a car, and not a “leasing company” that manages cars owned by somebody else.  If you hold title to a car and you have the right to sell the car, you own the car. RMA owns the cable facility. Your comments not only attempt to deprecate the nature and value of an Association asset, they also contradict the characterization of the cable facility as set forth in our CC&R definitions as an RMA “common area” and an RMA “common facility.”  The cable facility is both. Exactly how our Association protects, manages, operates, maintains and reserves for the cable facility is explained in the CC&Rs.  

The MBA and the CC&Rs clearly explain how those documents shall be interpreted. (I can cite the sections if necessary.) My reading of those and other Governing Documents is consistent with those provisions and fits perfectly like a puzzle. And that puzzle makes up that “forest” you refer to. Your views appear to be based, in part, on anecdotal information (i.e. what the Department of Real Estate told you) and an inaccurate reading of the compulsory provisions of the Governing Documents that guide our Association. My reading also follows the canons of contract/statutory interpretation, and runs parallel (or about 95% of it anyway) to the opinion of RMA’s own counsel.

Sorry Mike, but you can’t fit the square peg in to the round hole.

The CC&R's have no mention of the Cable Television System.  The Cable Television Agreement and the MBA are the only documents that mention this system.

Mike, you tried to run that one up the flagpole back in June.  Do you remember that?  This was my response to you back then on June 30th, after you said the Department of Real Estate said the cable facility has to be specifically mentioned in the CC&Rs. You didn't repsond back then, so maybe you will this time:

Mike, there is no such rule, statute or case that supports your latest post. Even the most vocal proponent of the bylaw amendment, Wilbur, understands the cable facility is an “Association Common Facility” as defined in the CC&Rs. At the most recent ad Hoc committee meeting, I asked Wilbur if he still believed that the cable facility was a “Common Facility” and he confirmed that he did. Given your line of reasoning, RMA should immediately stop operating, managing and maintaining the North Gazebo, and the RMA building, and the front gates because none of those structures are specifically mentioned in Article I, section 9.  

Having been on the Board at the time you heard this eye-opening news from the DRE, I am sure you moved to cut all spending on a variety of facilities in Rancho Murieta which aren’t specifically mentioned.  In fact, please confirm that as a Director, you moved to cut any and all spending, which was collected through the Regular Assessment, on Rancho Murieta cable.  Also, please give us details on this mystical and unsupported DRE position. Who, when and was it put in writing?