User Tools

Site Tools


July 13, 2014

Present: Andy, Beth, Blair, Carey, Corey, Georgette, Jess, Mike, Nolan, Richard, Vanessa

Meet and greet

Vanessa: Want to learn more about coops, and looking for a place to live. First meeting

(Blair leaves around this time)

Agenda item 1

Permanent or semi-permanent alterations to common areas should be passed by a meeting. (Georgette.)


Agenda item 2

Allow rock painting project to continue (Frankkie)


Agenda item 3

Solicit input regarding upcoming film project at La Reunion (Hannah/Jorge)


Agenda item 4

(Z, Corey) proposal a) blocks must grow out of a concern and be seconded to stop a proposal; b) adopt consensus for all meetings henceforth.


Nolan: We don't have anything written down about consensus. To that end, I'm trying to document.

Seemed like it was a lot of voting: do we feel good about moving forward with the proposal. I like the process of being able to discuss and make updates, but seems like it's just voting without the name.

Sometimes we have to have something decided on with or without consensus. It doesn't seem that the process theoretically allows for that.

Carey: What sorts of things that we need to decide?

Richard: Two weeks ago, we had two alternate proposals. Neither were passed, so they were tabled.

Don't like membership reviews being handled by consensus. If half of the community feels that someone shouldn't be a good fit, we shouldn't wait until 90% feel that the person isn't a good fit.

Georgette: Sometimes you need to just tear off the bandaid and get it over with.

Mike: At HoC, there was a proposal to ban someone from the house (not a member) that passed after a long discussion, with one person standing aside. One person commented that consensus was turned on its head since a person shouldn't be allowed at the house if there isn't consensus that it's okay, but you need consensus to pass a proposal to ban someone.

Richard: I like some aspects of it: dividing an agenda item into a fact-finding section, instead of that being mixed up. I wouldn't mind adopting portions that everybody finds useful.

Carey makes a motion to adopt consensus with the house to amend to fit our needs, exempting membership review.

Passes 9-2.

Corey: Propose that, if someone blocks and that block is seconded, then the proposal is tabled and can be brought back for modification at a further meeting.

Nolan: Are we doing away with the germaneness test? If you have two people who want to disrupt the process, they've killed the proposal. Maybe it has to be a concern brought up during the concern section.

Corey accepts the friendly amendment that a block has to be germane.

Who decides whether a block is germane?

Nolan: I guess it would be the house by consensus.

Proposal: if someone blocks and that block is seconded and considered germane, then the proposal is tabled and can be brought back for modification at a further meeting.

Proposal passes.

New business

Mike: Neighborhood association meeting tomorrow night.

Beth: I've got a new labor chart. it's got the new officers. There are changes to it. I'm probably going to put up a new one next week because associates aren't on it. If you need to adjust your labor, come talk to me.

meetings/2014-07-13.txt · Last modified: 2017/06/28 18:06 (external edit)