RANCHO MURIETA, CA (MPG) - Questions about transparency, communication and member participation surfaced during public comment at the June 16 Rancho Murieta Association Board meeting, where resident Tom Shewchuk said several recent board actions have created a perception that community involvement is becoming less important in association governance.

Speaking during the meeting’s public comment period, Shewchuk said a series of recent decisions has reduced opportunities for members to participate in board discussions and stay informed about issues before the board.

“It seems over the course of the last, call it four to six to eight months, that this board has been making decisions or policies or changes that are reducing the amount of community involvement and interest in attending the board meeting,” Shewchuk said.

He pointed to three examples: the elimination of the Communications Committee, a change in public-comment procedures that no longer allows residents to speak on agenda items during board discussion, and difficulties obtaining information contained in board meeting packets.

Shewchuk noted that only a handful of people were present in the audience and suggested declining attendance may reflect growing disengagement among members.

“The perception that one might get is that this board is happy working with the board and staff without community input and community involvement,” he said. “Call it just a perception based on decisions that have been made.”

Access to Board Packets

The third issue raised by Shewchuk involved access to board meeting packets.

During public comments at the May 19 board meeting, the River Valley Times reported that it had requested a copy of the member packet but did not receive one. Resident Jim Moore also told the newspaper before the meeting that he had unsuccessfully requested a member packet.

Shewchuk told the board on June 16 that without access to packet materials, members may have difficulty understanding issues before they come before directors.

“So, how do members even know what’s going to be discussed?” Shewchuk asked. “And just looking at the agenda, it’s hard to see.”

Following the June 16 meeting, the River Valley Times learned that a member packet had been made available in a notebook at the association office and that Shewchuk had received a copy after requesting it.

Under past association practice, residents who requested a member packet received a redacted version of the board packet, with information involving resident privacy – such as Compliance Committee and Architectural Review Committee matters – removed before distribution.

However, in a text message exchange with the newspaper, Shewchuk said the packet he received consisted of only 17 pages, while the full board packet was 143 pages. He noted that supporting materials for several agenda items, including volleyball court design plans and gazebo ramp details, were not included in the member packet he received.

The River Valley Times independently confirmed that the proposed scooter rule discussed by directors was not included in the member packet. The agenda referenced supporting material elsewhere in the board packet, but that material was not part of the packet available to members.

The newspaper subsequently emailed General Manager Vicky Lentz on June 17, requesting a copy of the member packet and left a voicemail on June 18, but did not receive a response before press time.

Public Comment Policy

Shewchuk also criticized the board’s decision to revise public-comment procedures, which it put into place in September 2025.

Under the current format, residents may speak only during a single open-forum period at the beginning of each meeting. The previous practice of allowing comments on individual agenda items after board discussion and before a vote was eliminated. As a result, residents must now make their comments before hearing the board’s deliberations.

When asked about the change after it was implemented, Board President Patrick O’Hern said the policy was intended to keep meetings orderly and prevent a small number of speakers from monopolizing discussions. He and Director Scott Adams said the association had researched the issue and believed the revised procedures complied with the Davis-Stirling Act governing homeowners associations.

At the June 16 meeting, Shewchuk argued that the change reduced opportunities for meaningful public participation.

As an example, he cited the board’s May review of conceptual plans for the South Gate renovation project.

“It would have been great if all that data had been out in public, if people could have come with their inputs at the meeting,” Shewchuk said.

He said he would have expressed concerns about a proposed water feature because it could send the wrong message while Rancho Murieta continues to discuss long-term water-supply challenges.

Question About the Process

After the meeting, the River Valley Times contacted O’Hern regarding a question that had not been explored when the public-comment policy was first reported in January: why a longstanding meeting practice affecting member participation was changed without a public board discussion explaining the reasons for the change before it was implemented.

O’Hern, who was absent from the June 16 meeting due to a family emergency, said he had not yet had an opportunity to research the issue but indicated he may address the issue at a future board meeting.

“What I’ll do is I’ll do some research on that, and I might comment on that next meeting,” O’Hern said. “I can’t say anything right now.”

He added that the board does not make such decisions casually and typically seeks guidance from legal counsel before implementing procedural changes.

“We don’t just do these things,” O’Hern said. “We get input from our legal counsel.”

Communications Committee

The final example cited by Shewchuk was the board’s December decision to eliminate the Communications Committee following the resignation of Director Danny Carrillo.

At the time, O’Hern said the committee had largely fulfilled its original purpose of assisting with the transition to Greenfield Communications and that much of its work was being handled by staff. Administrative Assistant Matt Matisse had assumed responsibility for many communication functions, including e-blasts and written materials distributed to residents.

During the December discussion, Shewchuk urged the board not to lose what he described as a valuable “brain trust” of resident volunteers who had contributed ideas and feedback through the committee.

“I attended three or four of those meetings, and there’s a lot of good input from that team,” Shewchuk said at the time.

He said he believed the group continued to provide useful input even if its role had evolved beyond its original charter.

Whether the concerns raised by Shewchuk represent a broader sentiment among association members remains unclear. However, his comments highlighted an ongoing debate over how much resident participation should be incorporated into board deliberations and how best to keep members informed about decisions affecting the community.