Differences

This shows you the differences between two versions of the page.

--- meetings:2025-12-21 [2025/12/17 17:53] – Modified from the form at meetings:2025-12-21 172.68.70.100
+++ meetings:2025-12-21 [2025/12/22 01:38] (current) – [December 21, 2025] jeb
@@ Line 1: / Line 1: @@
 ====== December 21, 2025 ======
-Present:
+Present: Serenity, Jennifer, Leah, Jeb (minutes), Bernard (facilitator), Reyna, Lorenzo, Diana, Colby, Jessica (late)
 ====== Meet and Greet ======
+No one present for meet and greet.
 ====== Review of Minutes ======
+/14 Minutes were not posted, and so they will be reviewed on the 12/28 meeting.
 ====== Wiki Updates & Announcements ======
+Member review posted for Leah Holleran for:
+) Violating CHEA harassment policy
+-harassment of members
+-sexual harrassment of an associate member
+-creating a hostile living environment
+-bullying members
+) Uncooperative behavior
+-disrupting a member review
+Leah: Specifics of violations were not stated would appreciate if specifics were posted and then member review posted to collect signatures.
+Serenity: I will do that.
+Jeb: Magic Pest and Lawn will begin rodent extermination tomorrow, Monday 12/21 between 3-5pm. The quote was for $1096, and is good for 12 months to seal exterior entry points, set and maintain outside bait stations, set and maintain 15 interior snap traps. If you have specific scheduling needs regarding setting interior traps, please contact Serenity.
 ====== Agenda Items ======
@@ Line 37: / Line 63: @@
 ===== Agenda Item 1 =====
-(standing) rat updates
+(standing) rat updates (see above)
+===== Agenda Item 2 =====
+(Jeb) bring back tech officer house position
-===== Agenda Item 2 =====
+Jeb: Sometimes the printer doesn't work, and after talking to people I thought to suggest bringing back this officer position. After hearing from some long-standing members, I heard that this is not a consistent amount of labor, and so I was thinking this could be a maintenance assignment.
-(Jeb) bring back tech officer house position
+Leah: This was something discussed at CHEA level, since we share web services.
-<pagemod addagenda output_before>
+Richard: This officer position was dissolved and we decided to make it a maintenance assignment.
-===== Agenda Item @@itemnumber@@ =====
+Jeb: Could also help with Google Fiber installation, staying on top of things.
-(@@Proposer@@) @@Proposal Text@@
+Bernard: Is the proposal to vote on it, or just discuss?
-</pagemod>
+Jeb: Just discuss - now that I'm hearing it's a maintenance assignment, it makes more sense to assign someone to that.
+Richard: I have some recollection of when this position was dissolved. The point was raised that if two people run, we don't know how to pick the best option. This position requires general co-op aptittude.
+No further discussion.
+===== Agenda Item 3 =====
+(Serenity) Member Review for Leah Holleran has been posted
+Serenity: Seeing as Leah doesn't think it's specific enough, I'm going to be re-writing it and announcing it at the next meeting.
+Leah: Understood. It's been clear in the rules to be specific about the incidents alleged that are in breach of contract. Just stating the rules is not sufficient. Would have to explain how I'm breaking the rules, and how I'm creating a hostile environment, and put that in writing for 3 people to sign.
+Lorenzo: Is this something that will have to be explained? This is serious, and something that people frown upon.
+Leah: The way it's conducted, they should present the allegations in full, and only those that are posted will be discussed, and then I will have a chance to respond to the allegations. Then, the people who stay for that discussion will then vote on next steps. May I ask person-to-person what the specific, inciting incident is? I'm curious about the urgency of it, and now that it's the holidays and I'm recovering from surgery.
+Serenity: I wrote the member review in the hopes that we could discuss -
+Leah: It's a pretty loaded way to discuss this, given that we have talked about it.
+Serenity: I don't think it's the appropriate time to discuss it.
+Leah: I would hope that it's apparent in the re-write itself why this is now a co-op issue and not simply an interpersonal matter between people who live at the co-op.
+===== Agenda Item 4 =====
+(Richard) Identify cases of non-members and associates living at coop and suggest courses of action to appropriate house officers.
+Richard: This came up tangentially last week when we were trying to figure out who owes what on back rent. At least one case was identified as an associate or non-member living at a unit. These often require some nudging, and I'm not sure if the house rules name an officer charged with clearing those out, so I figure we can identify units who are in this situation, and what needs to be done. Perhaps MemCo to carry out recommendations?
+Leah: I don't know if it should be left up to them if they're not acting on things already.
+Richard: Sometimes these things go under the radar - I posted them to bring them up in the clear.
+Leah: What do you think should be done?
+Richard: I think we should identify them first.
+Bernard: Last week, when we went through people who were delinquent on rent this came up: when we have people who are coming here to supposedly help out on rent, I'm pissed off about this happening. If someone is living here rent-free for months, no contract, just living here, that's not fair if I'm scrounging up for rent every month. That's what I was getting at last Sunday when everyone was wanting me to be quiet about it. We have rules, regulations, and contracts for a reason. If I have to follow it, why shouldn't everyone else follow it? When I had friends come over, it was made a big deal, we were watched, we were told, you need to bring them to a meeting and get them on a contract. It needs to be dealt with.
+Leah: Are we proposing that people get on a contract or get dropped as prospective members or associates?
+Bernard: Yes.
+Richard: First identifying, and then coming up with recommendations for each, and then forward these recommendations. I didn't even know about the one case that was brought up.
+Bernard: The whole thing was that the individual was going to come to 2 meetings, sign a contract, and help out with the rent. It's not the fault of MemCo, because MemCo tried to reach this person and did not get a response.
+Reyna: If you're talking about 204, I'm having a meeting with Jill in the next couple days, and if there are others, can bring it up then.
+Leah: 111 was occupied with 3 people for much of this year. There needs to be some action on people who are not following these rules.
+Richard: Instead of talking about what shouldn't be done, let's do it here. Do we know their name? Are there any other current, actionable cases?
+Leah: I think associate status should be taken away if that is the case.
+Richard: As far as we know, 204 is it. How should we handle that?
+Reyna: I'm supposed to meet with them in the next couple days.
+Richard: If by next meeting, there's no sign contract, posted notice to vacate for Duff, at the very least we can do a yellow card for Jill. If not, a member review for harboring.
+Leah: If someone is an associate, we can directly member review them for violating the policy.
+Bernard: I didn't know that an associate membership meant you can live on the property.
+Leah: It doesn't, but it does bind you to following house policy in these cases. I think it would be prudent to bring member reivews against these people if they are not willing to comply with that.
+Bernard: We would also have to member review the person they're living with, because that is a violation of the policy itself.
+Diana: I'm a big fan of letting people know about things. There's only a few of us here at this meeting, so maybe putting out a notice that this will be brought up at the next meeting, and clearly state it, so no one has any doubt. It's reasonable and I'm not disputing it, but I think people may not be aware, and before jumping to taking action, we should post a notice that these are the rules, this has been brought up, and if you're not in compliance with the rules, please attend the next meeting. That's just what I think.
+Jeb. I'm happy to send an aside in the next email when I post minutes, along with the relevant rule, that states the guest policy, and that if it applies to you, please plan to attend the next meeting to get clear on the rules.
+Leah: Is this something that will be brought to the house to deliberate?
+Richard: We can discuss bringing member reviews if applicable. I will post the agenda item on Christmas day, to give it a few days.
 ====== New business ======
+No new business.