RMA Cable News

[Luke]

Lost in the debate over the curfew fines, I see in the RM.com article that RMA has now decided to throw Justin under the bus for their continued failings with cable.

[Birdieman]

I also saw over on RM.com that Wilbur is threatening another lawsuit. Way to go Wil, big man on campus again, I see.

[Wilbur]

So glad I've got you in my corner, Bird.

Yes, Justin took the heat for the fact all the channels aren't hot yet, which is a bit mis-aimed since the problem is that the contracts haven't been signed. They're not on Justin's desk. His stuff works. I plugged our new XBR in and the images are stunning and the content in basic is pretty rich. King Kong in 1081i on TNT-HD was a big WOW.

[Martha]

I'm confused.

RM.com says: Neighbors who have worked to end the requirement that members pay for RMA cable TV as part of their dues met with the board during its executive session to discuss the legal opinion...

What? Executive session? I thought that was reserved for legal stuff, personnel, and contracts. Discussing a legal opinion that (I thought) we've already heard about in Exec Session?

Huh?

Can someone 'splain that one to me?

[Wilbur]

We questioned this amongst ourselves before accepting their invitation and I concluded it was a combination of negotiation with us to try to avoid litigation (mainly by buying time, it turned out, which we couldn't agree to) and mutual discussion in that context of negotiating strategies and litigation avoidance re: their attempt to renegotiate with PTF the TV payment language in the MBA, which is what their counsel is all excited about in trying to say it's an "illegal amendment" which they must not "sanction" in any way (actually she's giving them orders which amount to orders to stonewall, though I'm not sure that is the entire board's intent nor that they all understand that's what she's up to). Boards can discuss contract negotiations and looming litigation in executive session so long as they are real (in the old days everything anybody was griping about was taken in the back room as "potential litigation" even when there was no real prospect. Boards don't have to conduct such negotiations on television. Here there is a very real prospect of litigation, since their counsel is essentially daring us to sue, thinking that will deter us from going forward with the meeting and election. Wrong.

Civil Code §1363.05. Open Meeting Act

(a) This section shall be known and may be cited as the Common Interest Development Open Meeting Act.
(b) Any member of the association may attend meetings of the board of directors of the association, except when the board adjourns to executive session to consider litigation, matters relating to the formation of contracts with third parties, member discipline, personnel matters, or to meet with a member, upon the member's request, regarding the member's payment of assessments, as specified in Section 1367 or 1367.1. The board of directors of the association shall meet in executive session, if requested by a member who may be subject to a fine, penalty, or other form of discipline, and the member shall be entitled to attend the executive session.

Nobody asked us to take an oath of secrecy and now it's not clear whether we actually were in executive session, for procedural reasons I didn't quite follow. I thought we were because their agenda said Exec Session starts at 5 and we were brought in at 5:10 or so.

If Mike had simply spoken his mind then and there, instead of pulling this stunt of excusing himself without explanation and then grandstanding later for the cameras I think I would have pulled the plug on the meeting and I suspect the Board would have too. We also didn't know the GM was recording the meeting, which I don't think was anything deliberately sneaky but, um, you don't do that without telling folks.

But in hindsight perhaps it's good that there is a recording since Mike's pulled this stunt. The BOD wants to release it but feels constrained to check with their lawyer again. Foreseeably RMA's lawyer, who is much better at explaining why her client can't do anything than how they can, is going to say no. But I believe that having been illegally taped without my knowledge I am at least entitled to a copy of the tape, and if RMA can decide whether to release it so can I, so I've requested a copy. I'll let you know how that goes.

The only thing about releasing it which makes me a little queasy was comments about how to deal with the PTF negotiation and purported MBA "breach" side of the equation (which is b.s.), but come to think of it the only intemperate remarks about that which I can recall came out of my mouth, and my remarks aren't attributable to RMA, so what the hell. If y'all do get to hear the whole conversation and their counsel's weak arguments we'll pick up another 200 votes.

[Luke]

Originally Posted by Wilbur

We also didn't know the GM was recording the meeting, which I don't think was anything deliberately sneaky but, um, you don't do that without telling folks.

It's kind of against the law, especially since this was supposedly designed to be a confidential, executive session. Penal Code 632.

[Wilbur]

Yeah, I know. Not inclined to rip anybody for it, but I think it puts me on pretty firm ground to demand my own copy to do with as I please, don'tcha think?

My impression from the brief exchange when the recording practice came to light was that they've started recording executive sessions as a matter of routine - but apparently not even all (any?) directors knew it either. RMA's own "Butterfield moment."

Heck of a way to run a railroad, but I still say at least they're trying and we ought to give them credit for that.

[Luke]

At the very least, you should be able to share it with all your proxies.

[Wilbur]

I don't see why I'm not entitled to share it with anyone I wish to. We didn't sign a confidentiality agreement, nobody even asked that. They just wanted to be able to talk to us and their lawyer at the same time about how to unsnarl this and not have it on TV for PTF to watch, which I think is within the spirit of the Code. But under those circumstances the "other party" who may be legitimately in the room due to the subject matter is not automatically bound to secrecy. If the folks on calendar behind us for a Compliance appeal had shown up, for example,they would not have been under any legal compulsion to stay mum after their hearing, they could have gone outside and given Karen a press conference if they wished. Given that they all indicated last night that they were OK with releasing if their lawyer was, I'd have no compunction about releasing it and I don't think their lawyer has very good standing to order them to deny me a copy (I'd call it "preserving evidence" if I were in a mean mood) nor to tell me what I can do with it. They don't have any attorney-client privilege with us in the room, nor she any work product, so I say it's not her call.

[wakeupcall]

As I stated in earlier posts, I did not give my vote away to Weatherford and his band of merry men. I do not like the kind of subtle coercion that took place when the "proxy collectors" went door to door asking for only one point of view. If there is only one RMA member who felt "pressure to sign", then it is too many.

The executive session thing stinks to high heaven. What kind of game are you and the RMA board playing? Wilbur's letter full of legal threats to sue you and me and even "he" is out of control ,mockery.

I have not heard about Martel's "stunt" yet, but I am waiting for the board and Weatherford's merry men to explain to those of us who apparently are on the short side of the vote what the hell is really going on.

I contend again and again that it is RMA's responsibility to provide cable service for me and everyone in the community. Is Weatherford going to steal that from me? too?