User Tools

Site Tools


September 11, 2016

Present: Corey, Miss Cynthia, William, Richard, Ashli, Burgess, Nolan, Hannah, Ryan, Carey, Paul

Meet and Greet

Review of Minutes

Wiki Updates

Click to open form

Click to hide form (useful for printing)

Note: $ must be escaped by preceding with a \. Example: \$100

Agenda Item 1

(Corey) Reintroduce rescinding Carey's no shows for bread/bathroom labor on the grounds that constant rescission and reintroduction of no shows presents a fairness issue.

Corey: It's a bad way to conduct business and govern ourselves to reinstate labor debt after we've already passed a proposal to rescind it. Agrees in principle with the earlier decision, but going back on it isn't appropriate and it's not doing right by our tenants.

Ryan: How many times have we met over this?

Corey: 4 times

William: Do we have any policy to prevent this from happening, making a house decision and then going back on it at next meeting?

Ryan: I get the principle of not going back on decisions, but could we have met over this issue twice?

Corey: That's more a question for the policy decision (next item)

Concerns/Friendly Amendments

Richard: When people feeling bullied to go with a decision, it's an important exception

Carey: How did people feel coerced?

Richard: You raised your voice at meeting, at least one person said at meeting that they didn't want to upset you.

Corey: Maybe we need to institute paper ballots for these situations. But I don't think that resolves this problem of just going back and forth on decisions.

Hannah: I think this is a good point that new information comes up. It's not realistic to draw a line around the house's ability to re-address decisions.

Ryan: I'm probably going to block this because I don't think this is how our decision process should go.

William: I think you should be able to come to a second meeting and bring up an issue we made a decision on again.

Corey: If we took the option of rolling it back to our first decision like Ryan's suggesting, then Carey could also just roll it back to when his no-shows were first rescinded.

Carey: I don't feel like the person who brought up my item at last meeting, when I couldn't be present, fairly represented my interests. So that's why I'm bringing it back.

Hannah: I think the benefits outweight the cons of us being able to revisit earlier decisions.

Ryan: What do you think would've been the appropriate means to bring up the concerns people had?

Corey: Not passing the decision last week. I was the only person who voted against it last week.

Richard: I think the question (for Corey) is that the issue of coercion egregiously impacted our process.

Corey: On the other hand, can I just keep bringing up an decision I don't like over and over again?

Carey: Was there anyone here in favor of my request to rescind the no-shows, who felt coerced, at the second meeting?

Burgess: I didn't feel coerced, but I have an issue with this being revisited ad nauseum.

Corey: I just want to reiterate that this is a fairness issue, it looks retaliatory. I'm not saying that's what's going on necessarily, but it doesn't look good.

Hannah: I feel like if people feel bullied or coerced, we should have another system for dealing with that, not just at meeting. But our consensus process is our fall-back system for when we don't have a system. If people didn't feel like they could freely speak their mind, this meeting process is how we deal with it.

Ryan: Blocks

Hannah: Blocks. I think it's regulatory creep.

Proposal doesn't pass

Agenda Item 2

(Corey, Paul) Decisions made as a result of a member contesting at a house meeting the validity of a no show, a fine or expense invoiced, or additional contractual obligations, of themselves or other members shall be considered final unless otherwise further contested by the member liable for the no show/fine/etc. As always the CHEA board has final appeal authority in all matters.

Paul: The reasoning behind this is if somebody comes to the house with no-shows or a fine, they've been given assurance by the house, they have an expectation, so reversing that decision is unfair to members.

Corey: To explain, if I contested for example somebody's no-show of Paul but only for a few hours, it passed, but then Paul came back and asked for those no-shows to be rescinded more fully, more hours, then that would still be acceptable under this proposal.

William: Is a behavioral contract covered in this?

Corey: Yes

Corey: I don't think we should be doing additional meetings because people aren't able to make up their mind at the first one. If there's concerns of coercion, that needs to be taken seriously and addressed by itself, not through repetitive meeting process.

Ryan: This would have a ratchet effect where somebody can keep pushing for concessions to be made for them, but it would bar somebody opposed to that from pushing back in the other direction. So I'm fine with the proposal in general, but I'd get rid of the final piece of the proposal.

Corey: It's not that hard to make a proposal not pass (blocking, etc.) So I'm not very concerned about the ratcheting effect, I think the house will get tired of hearing it and oppose it.

Paul: I hear you (Ryan) that this has the potential for abuse, but your amendment makes it even more restrictive in what it allows people to do.

Corey: Outside forces are going to care more about how we treat tenants than how we treat our organization, so we should err on giving members more lee-way.

William: I agree with Corey, I think the house will deal with people clearly getting out of line pushing a proposal in their interest, without us needing a policy to prevent that.

Friendly amendment not accepted

Corey: If we resolved an issue on a particular situation, e.g. contesting a no-show or a fine, once that decision's made it's final, unless the person who's impacted by it brings it back. Beyond that, it's in the Board's hands if it comes to that.

Hannah: I could be okay with this proposal with some modification. I think jerking people around when it comes to money, e.g., is not okay. But I think no-shows are different from fines, and “additional contractual obligations” is too general. I see no-shows as something that's open for discussion, and unless you have a ton of them it's not a huge impact on people.

Corey: I disagree, it still hurts just as much, it's just delayed. When no-shows add up and convert into fines, people can get hit with a very large fine all at once.

Hannah: But they have more time to process and deal with that.

Richard: There's some absurdity to deciding that the house can't do a certain thing at meeting, through our decision-making process.

Nolan: Responding to Hannah on no-shows, to some extent I agree, but part of why I do my scheduled labor is because it's easier to do what I'm assigned than it is to seek out and do labor that also, e.g. might not be accessible. Responding to the comment that we can temporarily rescind a rule, it's going to look really bad with fair housing to do that when it concerns fairness to one member.

Lauren: I agree with Richard.

Hannah: I don't want to do things, make decisions, that aren't generally accepted by the house, if not consented on. Responding to the fair housing concern, I don't see it having substance because we have documentation of this process that will show the house acted fairly.

Ryan: I think Richard's concern is that e.g., next week we could just come back and delete this rule from the manual. I think Hannah's point is that while no-shows do translate into dollars, they're not the same thing until that happens.

Corey: If you want to talk about documentation, I think there's things that will come up, e.g. Richard saying that the bread/bathroom labor was an “or” not an “and” thing, that will definitely not look in our favor.

Hannah: This proposal would've stopped us from being able to have and block the previous agenda item.

Corey: No, any time a proposal is brought up it can always be opposed and not passed, blocked, etc.

Richard: So why didn't you (Corey) block the first time?

Corey: I was conflicted myself, and didn't realize how much support there would be for it.

(Paul) Friendly amendment: Remove “additional contractual obligations”

Hannah: We keep coming back to the question of if the house has the right to revisit, reconsider, and change our minds. I think this is good for us to have.

(Ryan) Friendly amendment: Instead of remove “additional contractual obligations”, specify what they are, i.e. behavioral contract

Corey: I'm still fine with dropping the whole phrase.

Hannah: I still have a sticking point with the labor, because I feel like there's so many opportunities to deal with labor.

Richard: I think we need to trust ourselves to work with members and not put undue burdens on them.

Corey: This is a common practice, and it just adds more weight and gravity to when we make these decisions. I'm totally in agreement that if we pass this, we need to take steps to take issues like coercion extra seriously. We have to be active participants, but that's not a bad thing.

Ryan: I don't think this could potentially be a fair housing issue. That would only come up if it went so far that Carey was membership reviewed for not doing labor.

Hannah: I'm leaning towards being in support of language covering no-shows.

Richard: The only case we have is the one that we're talking about, that this is meant to address. If we're trying to anticipate consequences, we don't have a good precedent or example.

Ryan: There's a bunch of concerns wrapped up in this proposal, but as for scheduling, people being able to attending meetings concerning them, that can be addressed so that we accommodate people. Letting people bring the same proposal over and over again isn't the solution.

Corey: There's several concerns that I don't think we're going to be able to resolve here, right now.

Proposal tabled

Agenda Item 3

(Cynthia, Alex, Nolan, Paul, Corey) Officer Review of Chris (Food Buyer) 1. Irresponsible use of limited house funds. 2. Failure to communicate with the house in regards to planned purchases. 3. Not responsive to constructive feedback. 4. Failure to buy necessary staples and supplies. 5. Doesn't do inventory before shopping. 6. Not following La Reunion receipt turn-in policies properly, generating more work for Bookkeeper.

Paul reads Chris' email to the list saying he's resigning “effective as soon as a replacement can be elected.”

Paul: I'd rather have somebody new elected immediately, which is what an officer review allows us to do.

Hannah: Is there somebody willing to step up to replace as Food Buyer.

Richard: Yes, I will for 2 weeks until a new election.

Hannah: I'd like us to refrain from unnecessary character-bashing. If it's germane, go ahead, but if you can hold back and we can stick to what's relevant to the membership review, that's better.

Paul: Point - “Irresponsible use of house funds”

Burgess: He doesn't buy food in a way that makes good sense or effectively meets our needs, and he won't listen to criticism around this.

Miss Cynthia: He went over $200 over house budget, and I don't even know where it all went.

Richard: In his defense, I think all food buyers have bought the same thing (i.e. tomato paste, what Burgess specifically mentioned)

Hannah: Point - “Failure to communicate with the house in regards to planned purchases.”

Corey: One thing that comes to mind is he ignored the feedback given to him at the last officer meeting.

Hannah: Let's merge this with “not responsive to constructive feedback.”

Paul: He's gotten extremely defensive when given suggestions about other ways to go about food buying.

Ryan: In his defense, there's no way to be food buyer and make everybody happy. He did a good job with getting out surveys re: people's food preferences.

Corey: I think it was a good idea but executed poorly.

Hannah: Point - “Failure to buy necessary staples and supplies”

Nolan: We had an interaction where I tried to give feedback about buying new drainers, and he was very blaise about it. In response, he told me that if we got rid of the $50/month paper towel expense it wouldn't be an issue.

Burgess: Point - “Doesn't do inventory before shopping.” There's something peculiar about having tons of carrots but no potatoes. It speaks to not having an inventory.

Corey: I could speak all night to all of the illogical expenses in the receipts.

Corey: Point - “Not following La Reunion receipt turn-in policies properly, generating more work for Bookkeeper.” It means for every receipt I get, I have to read through it and parse out which expenses belong to which budget.

Officer review results in removal by vote

New business

Hannah: Neighborhood association meeting tomorrow, 7pm at Redeemer Cafeteria

Hannah: I got a newspaper dispenser we can place somewhere and use for something. If people hate it, let me know.

Paul: I got a bike maintenance kit for community use. I'm going to keep it in my unit until we can find a longer-time solution.

Richard: We have two membership reviews for next week, after the threshold was raised (Lauren and Jessica).

Richard: I'm going to post dates for the labor holiday. I'll put three November dates up and give people time to respond.

Corey: The picnic table is finished and painted. There's still a few sorta wet spots so be careful sitting.

Burgess: Reminder that we need 3 gallons of milk a week for Victor.

meetings/2016-09-11.txt · Last modified: 2017/06/28 18:06 (external edit)