This page is read only. You can view the source, but not change it. Ask your administrator if you think this is wrong.
Present: Corey, Ramona, Hannah, Ashli, Sarah W, Nolan, Ryan, Dusana, Dane, Eric, Rachel, Dane
Eric: Found us on craigslist
Rachel: Teaches elementary school
Dane: Into filmmaking, has a few friends here
~~ FORM START DO NOT EDIT BELOW THIS LINE ~~
<hidden onHidden="Click to open form" onVisible="Click to hide form (useful for printing)" initialState="visible" -noprint>
Action pagemod _self addagenda
Thanks "Agenda Item added"
textbox "Proposer" /^[^<>]+$/
textarea "Proposal Text" /^[^<>]+$/
static "Note: $ must be escaped by preceding with a \. Example: \$100"
number "La Reunion's Street Number" <7911 >7909
hiddenautoinc "itemnumber" "=1"
submit "Add to Agenda"
~~ FORM END DO NOT EDIT ABOVE THIS LINE ~~
~~ AGENDA ITEM TEMPLATE START DO NOT EDIT BELOW THIS LINE ~~
(Ashli) 1) Give Ashli retroactive disability credit for the months of February, March, and April i.e. waive all of the no-shows for those 3 months, 2) Give her a 6-month makeup labor plan, and 3) Exempt her from the automatic no-show membership review for January through July
Ashli: I'm asking for January-April to be waived. I got Chron's back in January. It took a very long time to get a diagnosis or any treatment. When I originally put this item on the agenda I wasn't sure what I wanted to ask for. At the time I thought my health was improving, but I'm having another flare-up again. It's going to take me some time to make up the labor. When I first got Chron's symptoms, I was admitted to the hospital in February and June: It took that long to be referred to a specialist. In that time I was not medicated or treated for pain. We waive labor for people in the hospital, so it's not exactly relevant, but I think it's comparable since I would have been in the hospital would I had been able to afford it.
Hannah: Just to clarify, it's February, March, and April that are waived and January, May, June, and July that is given extra time to makeup.
Ryan: How many no-shows are being waived? (Richard fiddles with phone to figure that out) … ~9
Ryan: If we count this as a retroactive labor credit, it would cut even more.
FA: Instead of wiping labor from the three months, retroactively apply a one-hour labor credit.
(Richard, Paul) Given that:
* Carey claimed in his original statement and during the last meeting that there were times he didn't clean the bathroom,
* Carey didn't sign the sheet for over 19 weeks,
* Other people have claimed that the bathroom was dirty ("filthy") at least part of that time,
* A labor that includes two tasks because one does not constitute an hour does not mean "do one or the other," but "do both as needed" - just because we have bread does not mean that a dirty bathroom is acceptable,
* Given that at least some members felt they had to vote for last week's no-show wipe because otherwise they'd upset Carey,
* Carey has the ability to claim labor credit for his extra time spent hauling the bread,
it was not appropriate to give Carey zero no-shows for his combined bathroom/bread labor. Recind last week's agenda item that did this.
Dusana: Is Carey aware he can give himself additional labor credit for bread deliveries?
Paul: I've told him directly that he can claim credit for extra hours on weeks that it took more than 2 hours to deliver bread.
Hannah: When this came up in conversation, it was brought up as a concern that this
Richard: I think this was a circumstances where some people may've felt intimidated with respect to the proposal. People expressed concerns they didn't want to upset Carey.
Corey: Agrees in principle that something else should've happened, but since we already voted on this last week, voting again a week later is sketchy and we should stick to our previous decision.
Ryan: If we make a bad decision, we should remedy it as soon as possible.
Richard: It's relevant that some members may've felt intimidated and needs to be addressed as soon as possible.
Ramona: I may've felt swayed by not wanting to upset him, but I'm kinda with Corey - and it seems like singling him out. I feel like this will just be on the agenda again next week.
Ryan: Not saying it is, but if concerns about intimidation are actually the issue, a membership review may be more appropriate
Paul: I'm amenable to reducing the number if that's a sticking issue
(Paul) Change threshold to labor backlog labor hours that trigger an automatic membership review from 15 to 25. This is still more stringent than our usual automatic membership review process.
Paul: Wants the number of no-shows it's possible to accummulate (over the period of the no-show backlog) to be equal or lower, not higher than our normal number (5)
Ryan: Disputes that what we have at the moment is making it more stringent, nothing has changed in our policy
Paul: But we're now requiring people to make up 6 months' labor
Ryan: How many people are above or below the threshold?
Richard: Assuming nobody does any more makeup labor, this would take our number of people from 9 to 5
(Paul) Grant Dusana a contract break for the end of September. Since she believed she was on a month-to-month contract, and she gave thirty days notice, waive her contract break fee.
(Dusana) Allow Dusana to end month-to-month contract at end of September.
(Agenda items #4 and #6 combined)
Statement: I have already put in my 30 day notice. When I put in my notice, Paul, our membership coordinator, told me that I had signed a year contract. This is not what I was told when I signed the contract. I was told we were simply appending my original contract to be on a month-by-month basis, and Paul explicitly told me this isn't house preference but would be okay since we do not currently have anyone else on month to month. Paul told me that we would want to switch it over at some point in time, after x amount of months, he said, and have me resign then. Paul had me sign my old contract, saying he'd ammed later. I do not know why the very explicit worlds I was told directly conflict with the changes paul later (not in my pressence(which is illegal)) made to my contract, but I do know this does not conform to common contract (verbally binding contract) law or fair housing practices. I have really enjoyed my time at the co-op and do not want any issues, just to end my contract as expected.
Paul: I think this was a miscommunication and a bad one, I take full responsibility. What I told Dusana was that we need to go to the house to get month-to-month approval. I can't as MemCo give month-to-month contracts myself. I'm sorrry for the miscommunication
Richard: Do we have people lined up to fill the empty room?
Paul: Yes, one way or another
(Corey) Discuss and potentially modify Ramona's Payment plan terms
Ramona: Originally thought that she was going to get help from Texas Workforce Commission. Unemployed, desperately looking for work. Asking instead for rent abatement because she's had to go to the commons bathroom pretty much every time, she's had to use the gym shower. Sanitation issues qualify for rent abatement according to fair housing laws. Asking not to pay rent for August ($~293)
Paul: The shower down here was available. There's a separate financial issue, that Ramona moved from a lower-rent lease (3-people unit) to a higher-rent (2-person) one, so she has more deposit to pay in. Ramona moved again part way through the month, so she had access to a working bathroom for at least part of the month.
Corey: There was a good solid month that the bathroom wasn't functional. The toiletries worked but I'd understand if people didn't want to use them. The shower wasn't working for a good solid month
Hannah: Will other people be eligible for rent abatement as well, and will we be able to absorb it
Corey: Yes and yes. If we're going to, we should just make it part of the proposal and pass it or not now.
Ramona: It was a condition that materially affected the health and safety of the ordinary resident.
Paul: There was a payment plan where you were supposed to owe something by the 1st, right?
Corey: One month's rent. This would nullify it.
Ryan: I understand that it was a huge inconvenience, but it's not like there wasn't a bathroom available. I think we should figure out the number of actual days and make a decision based on that
Richard: I don't think we'd look good if this came in front of a court. We should count the number of days Ramona was residing and the bathroom was under maintenance, and give full rent abatement.
Friendly amendment: Cover rent abatement from July 4th to August 27th for all residents of Unit 209
Ryan: It'd be about $1550 to come out of our vacancy fund and go to (ex-)resident(s) of 209
(Dusana) Allow Dusana to end month-to-month contract at end of September.
Combined into Agenda Item #4
<pagemod addagenda output_before>
(@@Proposer@@) @@Proposal Text@@
~~ AGENDA ITEM TEMPLATE END DO NOT EDIT ABOVE THIS LINE ~~
Richard: Judging based on the amount of makeup labor, I think we're only ultimately going to have 4 people reviewed. People still have until the 8th to get in makeup labor and avoid a review
Paul: Bike Wrangler Update - We’re getting a $200 bike toolkit from Yellow Bike. It turned out there was only one unclaimed bike during the round-up