User Tools

Site Tools


meetings:2014-10-12

October 12, 2014

Present:

Meet and greet

Agenda item 1

(Corey) Reimburse $231.11 for maintence supplies bought.

Agenda item 2

(Hannah) Adjust Hannah's 6 hours of Steward no-show (for 3 weeks absence without arranging for duties to be delegated) to 3 hours, as I was available and contributed remotely to eviction processes, posting notice, coordinating with outside entities, etc.

Hannah details her stewardly activity during her time away and requests the six-hour no show be reduced to three. I did do a fair amount of stuff remotely.

Carey: (PoI) I was the one who wrote the no show and am fine reducing the six hours to three.

Donny: (PoI) I can confirm that Hannah did indeed help a lot with the Georgette eviction.

[consensus reached]

Agenda item 3

(Burgess) Concern about the labor impact from Tim’s friends. DCU is undone as soon as it is done, there is frequently mess in the courtyard and Commons.

Agenda item 4

(Hannah) Institute official quiet hours. Suggestion that these run from 11 pm-7 am Sunday night through Thursday night, from 1 am-8 am Friday to Saturday night.

Agenda item 5

(Hannah) Institute Yellow Card system. Will send e-mail out over the weekend fleshing out specific ideas.

Full proposal:

Yellow Cards are to be used as an accountability system and record of behavior that is detrimental to the health of our community.

A yellow card consists of a member writing a short, specific description of problematic behavior that they attribute to a specific member or members. One additional member needs to also sign the yellow card for it to be accepted. It should then be submitted to the Yellow Card envelope in the Commons.

Examples of yellow card-able behavior include but are not limited to:

- leaving messes in Common areas
- taking unfair amounts of common resources
- damaging common property
- being excessively loud
- treating other members in a disrespectful, threatening, or abusive manner

At least two members need to legibly sign off on a yellow card. Yellow cards can only be submitted after communicating concern to the member being yellow-carded and asking them to amend the behavior. This can be done through an intermediary if necessary. If doing so is not possible, the reason should be noted on the yellow card. Each separate instance of behavior is only eligible for one yellow card. Yellow cards carry a $10 fine or an hour of labor as penalty. If a member believes they were given a yellow card unfairly they can appeal the yellow card at a house meeting.

The Steward will check (or coordinate with another coordinator to check) the envelope on a weekly basis. They will inform a member that they have been yellow-carded within a week of seeing the yellow card, along with the Treasurer and Labor Czar. The Steward or other coordinator responsible has the discretion to throw out Yellow Cards they believe to be frivolous. They must report this or arrange to have it reported to the House via a meeting.

Four yellow cards in a month, six in two months, or eight in six months triggers an automatic membership review. Three signatures are not required to go forward with the membership review.

Carey: (PoI) Originally, we just needed guidelines approved for an existing proposal. This new proposal is different on two points: it eliminates the need for a third person to sign on to trigger a membership review, and it adds an automatic money or labor fine to a yellow card.

Richard: (amendment) This was an amendment to the original proposal: there must be three distinct signatories over the course of the accumulated yellow cards to trigger a membership review, so that the same two people can't repeatedly yellow-card someone to trigger the membership review. [accepted]

Nolan: (amendment) Remove one-hour labor penalty. [accepted]

Carey: (concern) I'm concerned about the ability for the Steward to unilaterally decide the validity of a yellow card.

Jesse: (amendment) I just have a small idea to fix problems in the language. The word “or” between “fine or hour of labor” suggests there is a decision there; there are options.

Hannah: (alternative phrasing of the amendment) “Alternative arrangements can be worked out in a house meeting.” [accepted]

Donny: (concern) I have a concern that this is yet more crap for the steward to keep track of. If it doesn't get abused, maybe it won't be a big deal. My biggest concern I've had with it in the past is that it could allow us to fight by post-it note. But if it's required that members talk to each other first, then it becomes a tool of communication.

Corey: (amendment) If the steward drops a yellow card, the members who wrote the yellow card can challenge the steward's decision in a house meeting.

Hannah: (alternative amendment) I would actually like to eliminate the part where I can drop a yellow card. [accepted]

Richard: (amendment) This was another amendment from last time I remember: no retroactive yellow cards, or yellow-cardable incidents must have occurred after this proposal has been passed. [accepted]

[consensus reached]

Agenda item 6

(Anonymous) Approve Halloween party on 10/31.

New business

(Hannah) Ryan and I are hosting a gathering for the city council candidate, Jeb Hoyt, in our apartment. We'll have a keg. It will be Saturday at 5:30 PM.


(Hannah) Rek, the NASCO Director of Operations for NASCO, is going to be here on Tuesday night for dinner. Come by if you'd like to meet her or ask questions about NASCO.


(Carey) I think at some point we need to talk about better-defining our roles at the coop.

(Hannah) I have a job description; this needs to be added to it. My actual job description is pretty vague in ways.

meetings/2014-10-12.txt · Last modified: 2017/06/28 18:06 (external edit)