The Rancho Santa Fe Post

Op-Ed: Stay Positive

As a former RSFA Director, I learned about politics here. I don’t often submit editorials, but recent published opinions by the same negative people, compel me to write. With our Election, voters need to see the connection among this disgruntled minority, our ex-manager who left under controversial circumstances, leaders of the RSF Public Interest Committee (“PIC”), a closed political organization dominating elections until 2014, their candidates, and goals.

The disgruntled members, many of whom belong to PIC, include former Board members who purchased Osuna Ranch for $12 million without a vote of the membership. The ex-manager was in charge then. With his predecessor, the ex- manager currently has a consulting firm whose clients have two controversial real estate developments in process in RSFA. He also has a contract dispute with us.

PIC’s recent Bylaws presentation illustrates the connection among these parties.

Contrary to its name “Public Interest,” PIC’s meetings are historically private. PIC made this meeting open. It chose this ex-manager, a resident of Ramona, not RSF, with financial and personal interests at odds with RSFA, to lead its Bylaws discussion, including who should have the right to vote.

Not surprisingly, the ex-manager said the Bylaws, carefully constructed under his and his current partner’s tenure, generally should remain unchanged. PIC was never concerned when the Bylaws were amended twelve times since 1990 without much discussion, consolidating their power. Now, PIC has issues. Twelve chances to make voting fair, but PIC did not want to correct the cumbersome, confusing and expensive Registration procedure that deterred new Members from voting. In 2013 only 561 ballots were returned, down from 1,305 in 2001. PIC did nothing because their minority influence is greater with less participation.

The ex-manager’s apparent purpose is to complicate, confuse, imply changes were sloppy, and the process flawed. Ironically, a member-attorney of the Governing Documents Committee who is endorsed by PIC, was not chosen to lead the discussion, indicating PIC doesn’t want anything changed or accomplished. PIC doesn’t serve “public” interests, it serves private ones including the narrow agenda of its leaders and its operative the ex-manager.

By now this group’s goal is apparent to readers: They want to regain political power and management of our HOA. To do so, they fill the pages of the Review with divisive politics, complaining about projects and leaders not under their control, endorsing
candidates to meet their ends.

Please join me in turning away from this group’s negative focus. Let’s stay positive by voting for candidates who want members, not just Directors, to vote on major projects; who honor fiduciary duties to all members, not just an interested few or outsiders.