RHRC Quarterly Meeting Minutes - 04/22/2011
Rancho Height Road and Management Committee
Quarterly Meeting Minutes
Date: April 22, 2011
Time: 6:30
Place: Temecula Community Center / Pujol Street / Old Town Temecula
Committee Members Present: D. Eaton, C. Hill, J. Szepkouski, M. Williams, J. Geller
Property-Owners Present: P. Burke, J. Hill, R.&C. Steffey, J. Rising, J.&S. Driscoll, E. Dunnick, R.Barbanell, P. Bullfinch, T. Taufer, T. Prince
Others: P. Rieker
========================================================
This meeting was planned as a special “One Topic” meeting led by a guest facilitator; property-owner Phil Burke. The topic of this meeting was; “Our ability to change our Road Agreement”.
This meeting was designed to be an idea-generating session.
As such, it should be noted that statements documented in these Minutes represent the opinion of the speaker. It was agreed by those in attendance that all concepts and/or ideas would need to be reviewed for legal considerations before anything could be acted upon.
The following is a direct transcription from the poster boards used to record the input of the participants:
- DEFINE ELECTION PROCESS
- “OFFICIAL” PROXY PROCESS
- DEFINITION OF VOTING POWER
- OFFSITE VOTING
- TIMEFRAME
- SECRET BALLOTING
- ACCESS TO ELECTORATE BY CANDIDATE
- ACCESS TO THOSE WHO HAVE/HAVE NOT VOTED (NOT WHO VOTED FOR)
- LIST OF APN #’S / ELIGIBLE VOTERS & VOTES ASSIGNED TO LOTS
1. Time frames for votes
2. What does Agreement bind us to?
3. What can/has to be voted on by Committee vs. Community?
4. Review Agreement for vote references
5. Contract boundaries
6. 50% +1 vs. 65% vs. 100%
7. Clarity about Proxy Voting for members / secret balloting by July meeting
8. More frequent meetings
9. Timeframe between Amendment proposal and voting on that item
10. Large numbers of votes with non-residents
11. Follow Agreement to “letter of the law” or “burn it down”
- Latitude to interpretation of Agreement
12. Role of “guiding principles” / historical practices
- Consistency
- Legal Basis
13. Put Historical Practices to vote
- REVIEW THE AGREEMENT’S BOUNDS ON VOTING
- 100% IF CAUSES FINANCIAL DISTRESS
- NACHAND 100% CHANGES CONTRACT
- EXCEPTIONS TO SINGLE FAMILY AFTER COMMITTEE APPROVAL – 65%
- ADDITIONAL ROADS – 65%
- USE OF FUNDS > 50%
- TOTAL # VOTES IN COMMUNITY
- 1 VOTE + 1 VOTE PER 10 ACRES
- VOTING POWERS IS BY MAJORITY OF VOTES CAST
- 100%....1890 / HOGAN – NOT PRACTICAL
- SHERIFFS UNION
- “UNINCORPORATED ASSOC.”
- IF NO SPECIFIC WAY = 100%
-STATE LAW SAYS 50% + 1 TO DISSOLVE
- WISH LIST LIKE “UNIONS” DO (Bible Study)
- EVERY SINGLE OPINION
- WHAT YOU THINK AGREEMENT ALLOWS US TO DO
- CONCURRENT AGREEMENT TO AVOID A VOID!
- 50% + 1 TO DISSOLVE
- 50% + 1 TO RE-INSTATE NEW
- APN IN DUAL EASEMENTS
- DUES PAYMENT HAVE AN EFFECT ON ELIGIBILITY TO VOTE
- MAIL IN VOTES
- COMMISIONER OF VOTES
- 3RD PARTY VOTE COUNTER
- 23 LAWSUITS….COULD LIFT PRD AND THEREFORE BE A CONSIDERATION
- WORKING MEETING BETWEEN NOW AND “JULY” MEETING TO WORK ON A PROPOSAL FOR ANNUAL MEETING
Topics to Frame and Scope of Meeting regarding; “Our ability to change our Agreement”:
Hill: Time Frames allotted for votes; limiting time frames versus not.
Barbanell: Stuck with Agreement unless we decide to abandon it; very limiting
Burke: What does the original agreement bind us to?
Rising: List of voting frustrations / Additional challenges
What can/has to be voted on by Community vs. Committee Decision?
Dunnick: Re-visit Road Agreement re: review voting per strict Road Agreement designation
Bullfinch: “Condition Precedent”; you can’t not do it….it obligates you
Open Disc: Voting Requirements: what categories require: 50%+1 vs. 65% vs. 100%
More frequent meetings
Time frame between amendment proposal and voting on that item.
Hill:Large numbers of votes vested in large property owners who don’t vote
Bullfinch: We ought to consider more closely linked meetings to try to get through all this before the voting at the next Annual Meeting.
Barbanell: A certain time should be allotted to sharing your perception of “the problem”.
We should establish rules for next election.
Rising: Define proxy rules so everybody can understand election and have level playing field.
Burke: Devote entire meeting to that topic?? “Offering Solutions to Voting Challenges”
Dunnick: Only at Annual Meeting can business be conducted.
Barbanell: Don’t want to go backwards, want to go forwards.
Bullfinch: My opinion: Roads are responsibility of the easement owner.
Barbanell: Isn’t this a useless exercise until we do things based upon strictly legal allowances?
What can we legally do and what can’t we legally do?
Burke: As a way to move forward, we could strike off what we can’t do
Rising: I respectfully disagree…I think the dialogue is invaluable. There’s actually a dialogue here. If we can dialogue “together”, we’ve accomplished a milestone and we know where we are.
Burke: I propose we now hear what interpretation there is regarding two choices as a community:
1. Follow the Road Agreement to the letter of the law or
2. “Burn it” and start over by creating a new document/agreement.
Geller: There’s never been a document that didn’t require interpretation and we have are chartered with a governing body to do so. Thus there is a third option; “allow the latitude to interpret”, as intended with all legal documents and governing bodies.
Barbanell: Role of “Guiding Principles” = Established Practices
Consistency is one issue and Validity is another
Rieker: We should vote; Can historical practices continue?
I have one I’d like to be voted on….
Burke: I’d like to talk about what can we do to either live with the Road Agreement or change it?
Eaton: suggested name of attorney considered to be expert in these matters; Mary Howell
Bullfinch: suggested name of another attorney considered to be expert in these matters;
Robert Monson
Everett: Review the Agreement bounds on voting…as described by Burke
“Takes 100% of the vote to change the Agreement if a change causes financial hardship to any one property-owner…”
Burke: That’s the conversation I want to have…
Burke asks Bullfinch: for his opinion and he answers: Attorney Nachand says, “100%” required when specific issue not described in Agreement or to change contract (Agreement).
Bullfinch: Exceptions to single family; Agreement states 65% of votes required.
Additional roads to be added: Also requires 65%
Use of assessment funds: 50% +1
Eaton: Definition of voting power equals those who vote….only. Votes that are not cast are not factored into the percentages.
Rieker: None of you has any idea of what’s going on, nor does any attorney.
Why should I be angry? I spent 20K and came with a set of ballots…
If you want to say I’m off topic, I’ll walk out
My thoughts are: I was bamboozled by the 2007 Amendment vote.
Geller: Mr. Rieker, if you’re complaining about that the design and implementation of the 2007 Amendment vote, you’re complaining about the amendment designed and administered by your fellow Plaintiff; Tim Prince, not the Committee.
Burke: “You are both off our topic and I am taking the meeting back to our subject at hand”.
Eaton: 100% is based upon 1890 law and would mean the Agreement can not be changed
Bulfinch: If the Agreement doesn’t describe how to amend it, it’s 100% which is contrary to state law which speaks to dissolving associations as requiring only takes 50% +1.
Burke:Emphasis: The Agreement does not state how it can be changed/amended.
Dunnick: It states it runs to perpetuity, which means until its dead.
Burke: You can dissolve with 50% +1 and then you could start a new one or otherwise, it would just result in anarchy.If we burn it down we are then subject to County Law or State Law.
Eaton: Two opinions from lawyers whether we are subject to Davis-Sterling Act.
Bulfinch: There are three conditions and we don’t meet them so I don’t think we are subject.
J. Hill: So what vote is required to establish a new Agreement?
Barbanell: This agreement holds the community together. If you dissolve it, I don’t think you’ll ever put one back together.
Recommends Book: Genius of the People: You can make this agreement work, if people will just work together with it. You’ll have to get all sides happy, all individuals.Have a meeting with attorneys to get agreement on how we could move forward.
Dunnick: Everyone submits wish list for what they’d want a new agreement to do / allow us to do.
Rieker: Everyone takes care of their own property; no mixing of funds from Magee Rd. to Rancho Rd.
J. Hill: What do you mean regarding violating the Agreement?
Barbanell: Just start operating a new way with all of us in agreement and deal with the challenges like taking to long to vote. The issue is to be willing to spend the time.
J Hill: Let’s say we do what you suggest: we agree on definition of voting power? How do we preserve a decision like this?
Driscoll: Keep agreement in place and then replace its parts one at a time.
Burke: Summary: Regardless of what it ends up being: do it concurrently so we avoid a “void”
Dunnick: Go on line and look under ballots for “hidden voting”.
Rieker: Spoke on PRD with the County as the answer for how to move forward.
Dunnick: County not accepting any PRD’s at this time.
Rieker: The existing twenty-three lawsuits might influence the County to consider a PRD
Williams: What twenty-three lawsuits?
Burke: It is time at this point in the meeting to determine exactly the topic of next meeting.
Barbanell: I make a motion, “Prior to next July meeting, whoever is interested get together and just talk without time limits and whatever we end up with, we can decide if it’s worthwhile to continue.
Rising: I think that’s a brilliant idea, take the results into the next quarterly meeting and the critical piece is that both sides need to be at the table.
Discussion followed regarding what should be the topic for the July Quarterly Meeting and the following were identified as priorities for discussion:
- Define the election process for Committee Members:
- what constitutes the physical proxy: the“official Proxy”
- the formal definition of voting power…..
- the instrument of off-site voting, i.e., the ballot
- time frame of mailing, receiving, counting
- access to electorate by candidates
- publishing of who votes and who doesn’t, not who they voted for
Rieker: I want a list of APN numbers and voting powers assigned to those lots and also want to know who has dual easements.
J. Hill: We should discuss eligibility to vote ….if you haven’t paid assessments,
should owners be allowed to vote?
Dunnick: Proposed hiring an independent third party company to provide independent counting of votes. Submitted literature from company for consideration.
Barbanell: Requested Meeting Minutes be sent to all property-owners well in advance of July Meeting.
Facilitator Burke stated he wanted all in attendance to have the opportunity to speak and/or make a closing remark. He specifically asked Mr. Taufer and Mr. Prince if they would like to speak as they had not spoken during the meeting. Mr. Taufer stated, “No Comment” and Mr. Prince stated, “I am here just to observe”.
Attendees expressed their gratitude to Phil Burke for leading a well-controlled and directed discussion where all parties had the opportunity to express themselves without excessive conflict.
Adjournment: 8:50 p.m.
Date Minutes Meeting Held:
Friday, April 22, 2011