here are your meeting minutes. I've put an asterisk in front of a few items. This is to indicate that I was unclear about what exactly the person speaking meant by what they said. If you read one of these itemsthat you contributed and would like to clarify it, please send the revised version to my email address. I'll send an updated version of the minutes with these revisions by Thursday.
Sasona voted to accept our Board proposal for two elected representatives from each house with a community representative elected by the general membership (for a total of 5 members), BUT with the major difference that the community representative does not have a vote. What do we think of this?
> Hannah: Sasona voted for 2 reps from each house and a non-voting community member
- Would like a community member to have a vote - 1 Objection to a 7 person board is that we would end up having to rewrite bylaws
> Mike: Having 3 people from each house on the board sounds good.
> Hannah: Likes the idea of keeping a 3 person system until CHEA expands beyond 2 houses.
Last week McAllen was elected by strawpoll, but anyone can still be nominated (or can self-nominate.) I would like to add the following friendly amendment to the decision on the facilitator per our discussion of the matter at the last meeting: “The facilitator is expected to routinely offer and encourage other members to take on the role of meeting facilitation, but is available as a backup resource if no member volunteers.”
McAllen is elected
At the last meeting we discussed the options of a traditional officer governance structure vs. a committee structure making the decisions that are now done by officers; and the option of some kind of hybrid model. The following are to be discussed depending on the time and folks' availability, or if necessary tabled until next time:
> Hannah: Officer vs commitee system was debated at sasona
- Sasona proposes a centrist system, with elected coordinators
> Nolan: Likes the idea of community vs. officer system
> Gatlin: Asks, “What instances of maintenance co-ordinator transparency have come up?” Thinks that a committee system could be a way for people to hide from labor.
- 3 month officer reviews worked well. - Doesn't know how committe solves problems that Hannah is addressing.
> Molly: Officer reviews are a good way to censor their conduct. We could have automatic reviews rather than ones done on a case by case basis.
> Hannah: *Would like everyone to be involved in macro tasks.* The best way to use labor is to give people more responsibilities, tasks that req more independent thought. A membership coordinator having help would allow more things to get done, for example.
> Nolan: *One thing to keep in mind when dealing with transparency is: emails from someone notifying an officer that they did labor could be called “technical support requests.”
> Mike: Likes the idea of regular, automatic officer reviews.
> Mike: Financially compensation for offices might not be something that works well for everybody. Hiring someone for the role could be another option.
> Sarah: Proposed creating a labor structure that is geared to people's individual talents.
> McAllen: Proposed assigning a different labor task to people who are having trouble with their current one. Said that he discovered an unknown, but major interest in horticulture by being assigned the gardener position at House of Commons after struggling with his position as the mail distributor.
> Donny: has never seen committees do anything but kill tasks.
> Gatlin: *Officer meetings sometime take too much time to make decisions on what tasks to do.
> Nolan: We need a certain amount of labor to maintain the status quo. But what about improving the status quo? How can we improve the fruits of tasks, and how they're executed?
- What if someone has an idea to improve the house? They can get labor credit for that.
> Hannah: *Sees the committee coordinator role as being expected more as a fallback leader than a default leader.
- Committee Coordinator facilitates email discussions. In an unmotivated committe they could take on a more active role, but in a motivated committee, they could think of more ways to improve it beyond its basic functions
Action Item - Add Nolan to listserve
> Hannah: *The coop would elect coordinators, they would be more of a facilitator than an officer
> Molly: To prevent a hierarchy from forming, they should be required to do both desireable and less undesireable labor
> Hannah: There would be no limit to how many people can be officers
> Hannah's proposal: *New housing tasks to be run by elected community coordinators and members.
> Gatlin: How do people get the committee to resolve an issue, ex: maintenance tasks?
> Hannah: What would be difference is that the committee would decide to do something w other committee member's approval
> Hannah: This committee system we're discussing is largely contingent on getting the Gault property.
> Hannah: Each committee member would be able to do all the tasks
> Hillary: Likes the idea of having the committees meet at regular intervals
> Gatlin: Suggests doing without a labor committee
> Molly: *Is concerned that there be enough people moving in who have coop experience
> Bridget: Wants to have committees meet have discussions regularly in order stay focused on long term projects
- Each committee will have an elected facilitator - Committees are expected to meet twice a month - The first committee you join you get labor credit for, any labor credit for additional committees is up to the labor czar - The system will have a 3 month probationary period upon implementation. Subject to review, if the system doesn't serve the coop well, it will revert to a traditional officer structure.
Motion passes, general merriment ensues.