I actually don’t think we’re very far apart, Alan.

My post really isn’t about whether Steve should ultimately be allowed on the property or whether he’s a benefit or a detriment to the club. Reasonable people can disagree about that, and I’m not trying to convince anyone to change their opinion.

My concern is much more narrow and it’s about the process.

If the Board had followed our bylaws, provided Steve with the hearing they require, and then decided to suspend or expel him, I would have accepted that decision, even if I personally disagreed with it.

What worries me is the idea that the Board can simply bypass the procedures in our own governing documents because it believes this situation is unique or because it believes the outcome is obvious.

Bylaws exist precisely for the difficult cases. They’re there to ensure everyone is treated consistently, especially when emotions are running high and people disagree about the right outcome.

The same is true of the questions that have been raised about California nonprofit law. I don’t practice in that area, so I’m not offering a legal opinion. But when multiple members raise thoughtful questions about whether the Board acted within its authority, I think those questions deserve careful consideration—not because they’re necessarily right, but because that’s what good governance looks like.

One of the things I admire most in a leader, or in any governing body, is the willingness to genuinely listen and ask, “Did we get this right?” Reconsidering a decision isn’t a sign of weakness. It doesn’t mean changing your mind. It simply means being willing to examine whether the process was fair, whether all the facts were considered, and whether there’s anything to be learned from opposing viewpoints.

For me, this has never really been about Steve. It’s about whether we expect our Board to follow the same rules that govern the rest of the club. If the Board ultimately reaches the same conclusion after following those rules, I’ll respect that. I just want to know that the process was followed and that the members who have raised legitimate concerns were truly heard.

Jana,

You are simply a liar, point blank.  I never threatened Stephen’s instructor status at any point, asking him to provide his insurance documentation was a completely different topic after you yelled at me for 45 minutes over Steve’s membership.  All instructors are required to submit full insurance documentation to the BOD, this standard was emailed to all members on October 31st, 2025, posted on this forum the same day, and a reminder email was sent directly to instructors in May of 2026.

Your purchase of Steve’s membership was fraudulent, period.  His name appeared on it, but it was your email, your phone number, your payment method, and your mailing address on the membership.  The worst part is, you accepted the CSS waiver on his behalf. The Release of Liability Waiver is not a document that can be submitted on behalf of anyone else unless it is a minor child or for associate members who are of the same household as a regular member.

The only unilateral action here was by YOU, in an attempt to shoulder the burden of allowing Steve access to club resources on all Club Members without their consent.  If you want to take of care Steve’s needs, you can do so privately and at your own expense, not at the expense of members in good standing who are qualified pilots.

Article II – Purposes of the SOCIETY
Section 1. The SOCIETY shall:

D. Protect, regulate, maintain, and improve flying sites for pilots’ use.

Jana had mentioned before that this whole issue has the negative side effect of blowing up friendships, that is completely true.  I was going to keep my responses private between Jamie and I, but since she insists on adding fuel to the fire, I’ll just make it as public as she has.

These are my personal responses and not on behalf of the BOD.  Jana is certainly making this all about me and I get the impression that Jamie is doing everything she can to support the ‘Big, Mean Luke’ campaign.

Jamie’s statements are in italics below, my responses follow in standard typeface;

First, I want to make one thing very clear. I have tremendous respect for the amount of volunteer time that every member of the Board contributes. Serving on the Board is frustrating, thankless, and almost always more work than people realize. I sincerely appreciate the effort every Board member puts into trying to do what they believe is best for the club.
This is lip service and incredibly disappointing considering the way have treated me over the past two months. Your actions and comments are completely disrespectful to the time and commitment I have given this club over the last 4 years, while simultaneously NO ONE has supported YOU to the degree that I have with respect to YOUR time and in consideration of your professional obligations, travel schedule, and family events.

My resignation was not about one disagreement or one vote. Boards are supposed to disagree. Healthy debate is how good decisions get made, and I have never had a problem being outvoted. Once the Board makes a decision, I move on.
Well, clearly, you haven’t. You argued extensively after the vote was finalized and you continue to argue it here.

My concern has been with governance.
Over the past several months, I have become more and more uncomfortable with a pattern of unilateral action. Decisions that, in my opinion, should have been discussed by the Board were instead acted upon without the Board’s input. Even when the Board had reached a consensus on a strategy, there were times when individual actions were taken without first coming back to the Board.
There is no ‘pattern of unilateral action’.  I challenge you to name more than one, because we both know which single issue it was that you disagree with, and it has nothing to do with this situation (Steve).  The consensus you speak of happened after the fact, and it was not the consensus that you wanted (because that was unreasonable).  There were ZERO actions taken by anyone that compromised our position and everything was discussed with the BOD.

That is not how I believe this Board should function.
I also became concerned that Board discussions were becoming increasingly personal rather than focused on the issues themselves. I care deeply about this club, and when I believe something is important, I can be very direct and very persistent in expressing my views. I know not everyone enjoys that style, and that’s okay. But I also don’t believe Board members should feel like they must stay silent just to avoid conflict.

Nobody on the BOD feels that way. You and I have communicated probably more than anyone else.  Is there something you aren’t telling me?

Another real concern for me was the way important negotiations and communications were being handled. Throughout the process with Encore and the city planning department, I consistently believed that all substantive communications should be in writing. I’m sure it’s just the lawyer in me, but written communications are clearer, create a more accurate record, reduce misunderstandings and miscommunications, and protect the club’s interests. It wasn’t because I thought anyone on our side had bad intentions. I just thought that with negotiations this important, there was nothing to be gained – and everything to be lost – by having conversations that weren’t documented.
This is the only ‘unilateral’ action you raised a concern with, and it’s disingenuous because there was no action taken, only communications.  You were upset that when Encore called me, I answered the phone, yet I specifically told them that any requests they had needed to be emailed to the BOD.  They called me because I was available when you were consistently not available.  I also find this entire issue hypocritical on your part because most of the communications with Encore and the DWR that you had prior to the Planning Commission meeting in January were all CALLS, very little was ever documented.  We trusted you with those communications and never questioned your intent or capability, but when it came the club President handling any communications with these concerns you suddenly took issue and told me, during a board meeting, that you didn’t trust me.  So, excuse me for not being a little offended by the double standard.

I eventually reached the point that I didn’t feel I could be an effective member of the Board under the existing club governance. Rather than remain incredibly frustrated or become a distraction, I felt like all I could do was step aside.
You quit.  You quit for reasons that I don’t think you are being honest about.

I’ve also seen some comments suggesting that former Board members or others are somehow speaking on my behalf. Since resigning, I have talked with several club members—including Jana. She has been respectful of the conversations we’ve had and has not disclosed any private discussions. Whatever opinions she has expressed are her own. There is no need for anyone to criticize her for speaking on issues she cares about.
I’ve stayed quiet until now because, while I was on the Board, I didn’t feel it was appropriate to speak out against a Board’s decision once it was made, even if I disagreed with it and voted against the decision.  But, that’s no longer my role.
It wasn’t appropriate then, and it’s not really appropriate now.  You’re free to discuss your feelings about Steve in the context of the scope of this discussion, but you’ve brought up with Jana and within your responses here, your claimed issues with governance which is a pretty low blow.  All of this has to do with your dissatisfaction that I answered my phone when Encore called, or has to do with other things that I don’t feel you are being honest about. You’ve blown it up into a much bigger issue than it is, which is also unrelated the topic of this discussion.

One thing that has really struck me throughout this discussion is how many legal terms are being thrown around. I don’t practice nonprofit corporate law, so I’m certainly not claiming to be an expert in that area. But I am a lawyer, and I think we should all be careful about attaching legal labels to conduct unless we actually understand what those labels mean.
For example, I’ve repeatedly seen Jana’s purchase of Steve’s membership described as being in “bad faith.” I simply don’t see it. Members buy memberships for other people all the time. (No, they don’t) There is nothing inherently improper about paying another person’s dues. (there is something improper about accepting the waiver for someone else who is not your minor child or a member of the same household)  Jana didn’t hide what she was doing. (yes, she did) She didn’t deceive anyone. (she accepted the waiver for him, that’s deceiving) She believed Steve should be a member and paid his dues (She can believe that, but she can’t force that upon the entire membership). People can disagree with that decision, but disagreement is not “bad faith.” (I can’t think of a better example of ‘bad faith’)

The same is true of the word “fraud.” Fraud isn’t just doing something someone else disagrees with. It generally involves intentionally deceiving someone in order to obtain money, property, or some other benefit. I don’t see those elements here, either.
Jamie, you have repeatedly stated that these areas of law you are commenting on are not your area of expertise.  Your role was as the club Secretary and a Board member, you were not retained as the Club’s attorney. We have all respected your experience and insight for last 4 years on the BOD on numerous issues, but on this one you simply want to argue until you get your way.  We voted, the issue was closed, yet you continued to argue and still persist with these comments.  We are not in court, we can use whatever terms we see fit and ‘fraudulent’ certainly seems to fit the bill when it comes to accepting the liability waiver for a 3rd party, and what Steve obtains is access to the Club’s amenities to continue supporting his lifestyle.

More importantly, I think we’ve lost sight of the real issue. (yeah, the whole concept of what the CSS is for and what it is NOT for).

Steve became a problem because he was living on Encore’s property. Encore understandably wanted him removed and, during that process, tried to tie Steve to the CSS and suggest that the club was somehow responsible for his actions. I never agreed with that position. Whether Steve was a member or not, I did not believe the CSS was legally responsible for him choosing to squat on someone else’s property.
Encore has threatened litigation over the cost of evicting Steve, you know this.  I will also use your own ‘legal advice’ that you have said in the past; it doesn’t matter if you agree or not, anyone can sue anyone else for whatever they want.

That issue has now been resolved.
It’s been resolved for Encore when he was finally evicted from their property.  Steve immediately blew up the situation by moving his RV back onto CSS property.  He forced the BOD to consider the whole situation, not just the ‘camping’ issue, but his continued ‘residence’ in the LZ.

Steve was removed from Encore’s property months ago. As far as I know, Encore’s concern was getting him off their land. They accomplished that. I honestly don’t understand why the CSS still needs to be treating this as an ongoing emergency.
Because Steve immediately moved onto the Conservancy property, then onto CSS property.  Steve has shown this pattern of behavior for the last 8 years and there seems to be no end in sight, especially when he has proclaimed to numerous people that he will never leave.  The CSS is not a place for Steve to get free stuff.

I’ve also seen repeated references to Steve “illegally dumping on Encore property. Based on what I know, that’s simply not an accurate description of what happened. Steve was removed from the property by the Sheriff and, from my understanding, was told that if he returned he could be arrested. He couldn’t simply go back and retrieve his belongings himself.
He was ordered to remove all his belongings; he had a very long time to accomplish that task and refused to do so. He left a bunch of trash.  How else is anyone supposed to look at the mess left behind?

Sandy and Dale even offered to go get the rest of his belongings for him. Instead, the Board decided that only the Board should be allowed to handle removing Steve’s things. If Encore specifically requested that the Board do that, the request was never disclosed to me while I was serving on the Board.
That is NOT what we decided. We never actually took any official action, but the suggestion was to get permission from Ecore before doing anything on their property.  This request got lost in preparation for more pressing issues (the City Council Meeting).

My biggest concern, however, has very little to do with Steve personally.
I want Steve’s membership to be treated exactly the same as every other member’s membership.
Steve is not ‘exactly the same’ as every other member and the circumstances of his ‘membership’ were fraudulent.  You are stuck on this issue of Steve as an individual, the BOD looked at the circumstances, the history, the cause and effect.

Our bylaws don’t give the Board authority to reject or revoke a membership simply because it disagrees with who purchased it or because it believes the member should not belong. Once Steve’s dues were paid and his waiver was signed, he should have been treated like every other member of this club.
His waiver wasn’t signed by him, his membership record had the email address, phone number, mailing address, and method of payment belonging to Jana.  Steve was NOT a member.

If the Board believes Steve has engaged in conduct that justifies discipline, then our bylaws already provide a process for that. In fact, we’ve used that process before. Gene’s membership was suspended for a year following allegations of misconduct. Steve should be afforded the same process, including the hearing required by our bylaws.
Steve was not a member and was never a member for the preceding 8 years.  Comparing this situation to Gene’s is disingenuous.

Maybe the outcome would be the same. Maybe, after a hearing, the Board would decide that suspension or expulsion is warranted. That’s not really my point. My point is that the rules should apply equally to everyone.
We don’t have rules that cover vagrancy.  Our Bylaws need to be updated, and everyone understands this. The CSS is an HG/PG Club, and its facilities are for the use of member Pilots and the available amenities are paid for by the dues of Club Members.

When we start making exceptions because we believe a particular person’s situation is unique, we stop being governed by bylaws and start being governed by discretion. That’s not a precedent I think is healthy for us.
We’ve been making a HUGE exception for Steve over the last EIGHT YEARS! That is the precedent that got us to where we are, so yes, that’s never a precedent that should have been set.  At the same time, Steve’s situation is not totally unique.  As many people have pointed out, over the years there have been numerous people that were ‘living’ on either CSS property or the XC Ranch property.  What you are conveniently forgetting is that every single one of those situations ended badly.

Reasonable people can disagree about Steve.
But I hope we can all agree that the club is strongest when we follow our own rules consistently, apply the same rules to everyone, and are willing to revisit decisions if legitimate questions are raised about whether we got the process right.
Reasonable people can disagree, but reasonable people also understand that the CSS is an HG/PG club.  When the Bylaws don’t cover every possible scenario that we may face in exacting detail, it’s up to the adults in the room to make reasonable judgments about how to proceed.  Allowing Steve to continue taking advantage of CSS resources to support his living situation is not consistent with the Club’s purpose or fair to the membership. The process that we got wrong was allowing the situation to continue for the 8 years that it did.