CSD Ad Hoc Governance Report

[Matthew]

Karen posted a story about CSD's Ad Hoc Governance Committee's final report on how the community operates.

Committee releases study on Murieta's governmental structure | RanchoMurieta.com -- Rancho Murieta news, homes, golf, forums and people

The report itself is found here.

http://www.ranchomurieta.com/localne...report0609.pdf

I have not read all 111 pages, but there is some good stuff in there. I am also finding a lot of agenda driven content. One quote from Karen that I found interesting was:

The gates are considered a “major stumbling block” to pseudo-incorporation. “The initial response from our legal advisors would lead us to assume that the gates must be opened to all who wish to enter … for streets that have never been public, provisions of the Community Service District Law may provide a legislative process to retain them.”

I really don't believe the gates are a "major stumbling block". In reality they are partially why I moved here.

[Mama Mia]

Originally Posted by Matthew

I have not read all 111 pages, but there is some good stuff in there. I am also finding a lot of agenda driven content. One quote from Karen that I found interesting was:



I really don't believe the gates are a "major stumbling block". In reality they are partially why I moved here.

I agree...that was one of the features that we liked also.

[Martha]

Originally Posted by Matthew

Karen posted a story about CSD's Ad Hoc Governance Committee's final report on how the community operates.

Committee releases study on Murieta's governmental structure | RanchoMurieta.com -- Rancho Murieta news, homes, golf, forums and people

The report itself is found here.

http://www.ranchomurieta.com/localne...report0609.pdf

I have not read all 111 pages, but there is some good stuff in there. I am also finding a lot of agenda driven content. One quote from Karen that I found interesting was:



I really don't believe the gates are a "major stumbling block". In reality they are partially why I moved here.

My thoughts too, Matt. I didn't, and doubt that I will, read the 111-page document. What I saw on the front page made me think, "it's a shame those people wasted all that time to come up with this." And, I'm not sure there are 12 people on salary at RMA...I think it's more like 4, currently.

Ugh...I started reading. Got to page 3. Several typos. Hard to take them seriously when they can't proof/correct such an "important" document.

[Zebra Top]

Oh boy, I stopped when I read that the Chairperson was Lisa Taylor and this is one of the recommendations. (from RM.com)

The committee recommends that the CSD board seek legislative changes to state law to allow Security to enforce state and county laws within the boundaries of the district. Enforcement is now limited to property the district owns or manages.

From my recollection, only a very small minority of the community held this view, yet it made it into the committee's report. This type of recommendation makes me question ALL the recommendations and the motives behind them.

[pingtheduck]

Thanks for bringing this up Matt. I'm really happy people are reading it and commenting on it here. We have so many good minds and I appreciate the analysis. I'll take a peak...

[Martha]

Originally Posted by zebra top

oh boy, i stopped when i read that the chairperson was lisa taylor and this is one of the recommendations. (from rm.com)



from my recollection, only a very small minority of the community held this view, yet it made it into the committee's report. This type of recommendation makes me question all the recommendations and the motives behind them.

exactly!!

[BethB]

Sorry, but I'm one of the few that think Security should have police powers...especially now with the cuts to the Sheriff's Dept. 370 personnel to be cut (300 deputies).

When and will they arrive, if they come at all, when called out to R.M. I alreay heard they have cut responses to non-violent calls in Sac County, you have to go in and make a report.

Ok, I guess that's why we have the VIPS out here. But are they going to investigate and take fingerprints if needed?

[Matthew]

Originally Posted by BethB

Sorry, but I'm one of the few that think Security should have police powers...especially now with the cuts to the Sheriff's Dept. 370 personnel to be cut (300 deputies).

When and will they arrive, if they come at all, when called out to R.M. I alreay heard they have cut responses to non-violent calls in Sac County, you have to go in and make a report.

Ok, I guess that's why we have the VIPS out here. But are they going to investigate and take fingerprints if needed?

Beth I can appreciate that point of view. Thanks for posting it. I have a couple of issues with police powers for our security personnel. We don't have a crime problem that warrants this level of police powers. The crime we do have is handled just fine by security, CHP, or SSD. Possibly in the future when there is additional development we will need to look at this again, but development is at a minimum many years away.

The other issue I have is training. I am not willing to give our security police powers without the proper training and command structure. That training costs a lot of money. Additionally, higher trained employees require higher salaries assuming you want to retain them.

For me I could summarize my issues as: One we do not need it and two we cannot afford it.

[Matthew]

Another issue I am having with the report in general is the report does not seem to reflect the purpose of the committee.

from rm.com

The nine-member committee is looking at how the community is now managed and what options there are for reducing costs and consolidating services. Among the options being looked at is incorporating as a city.
Over the next few months the committee will formulate recommendations for the community’s various boards “to make things more efficient or a better way of operating,” said CSD Director Jerry Pasek, who heads the committee. “One of the major expenses around here is maintenance of either common area or … parks and roads.”

Committee looks at cutting Murieta's costs by using public money | RanchoMurieta.com -- Rancho Murieta news, homes, golf, forums and people

It appears that about 30% of the report addresses security and what it will take to give them police powers. I think we can all agree that police powers will increase costs. Why did a committee that was tasked with looking at "reducing costs and consolidating services" devote 30% of their final report to an item that increases costs?

[Martha]

"One of the major expenses around here is maintenance of either common area or … parks and roads"

Ummmmm...I hate to state the obvious but, the above is what HOA's are supposed to do!