User Tools

Site Tools


November 27, 2016

Present: Corey, Robbie, Russ, Marilyn (minutes), Donny (facilitating), Paul, Richard, Burgess, Meg, Alex, Michelle, Ann, Victor, Mel, William, McAllen

Meet and Greet


Review of Minutes

Ryan brings an amendment to the minutes about the contract break discussion at last meeting: There was no request for a break of contract.

Wiki Updates


Agenda Item 1

(Michelle) Refund Michelle for all rent she is being charged for November (around \$135), when she and her belongings had already vacated her unit.

Michelle: She does not know what unit she was being charged for, and how the 9 days were calculated.

Ryan: Michelle gave about a week's notice that she was vacating the unit at the end of the month. Amanda moved in November 9, but Michelle's contract had not been ended.

Michelle: All her belongings were out of the unit.

Corey: Michelle is being charged rent for the 9 days during which the room was vacant.

Ryan: She had the room under contract still; she did not give sufficient notice. The contract policy requires 6 weeks notice, and then the co-op decides to grant the contract break, but the departing resident remains liable for the rent until the room is filled.

Ashli: What does Amanda moving in on the 9th have to do with it?

Ryan: When Amanda moved in she took over responsibility for the lease vacancy.

Ashli: Why is the resident liable for MemCo's inability to fill the vacancy?

Ryan: Michelle had signed a contract for that period of time.

Garrett: The standard would include a move out inspection and a dated form to verify the inspection. You have a set move out date on your contract to enable MemCo to have time to fill the room. This policy applies in rentals throughout Texas.

Richard: Does Andy signing the contract for the whole vacancy fulfill the contract? Was there another vacancy left when Michelle left 206?

Ryan: There were two vacancies, one for Andy's unit and one for Ashli's unit.

Paul (MemCo): The 205 room was vacant for a month and nine days because there were no females ready to move in until November 9. Amanda's contract for November 1 was prorated to November 9, when she could move in. Michelle spent a few nights in 205 but could not stay there because of complaints about the unit. In other apartments someone leaving on short notice would have to pay several months rent ahead, so one week or so seems fair.

Garrett: We don't have any documentation of where Michelle was during that time.

Michelle: My things were in 206.

Ashli: Richard, Paul, and Garrett are saying that Amanda's move in date was irrelevant; the co-op is asking the members to say we are charging Michelle for a unit she was not living in after she left the unit she was living in.

Ryan: The context is that Dusana moved out of 205, Michelle told Paul she was interested into 206, and the co-op paid for allergy remediation of the unit for MIchelle's move; that money came from Dusana's deposit. She told someone that she was leaving for a better deal, not because of a lack of remediation. She vacated her membership contract for any unit, with the co-op's power to move her anywhere. Her contract continued until Amanda moved into replace her.

Victor: Did Michelle break her contract and what is the penalty?

Paul: Yes, and the penalty is to cover the rent until the member is replaced by another

Richard: What if I had left at the end of October, would I be held accountable?

: We did all the work to make it habitable for Michelle : When the allergy remediation was tried we agreed that Michelle would try it, but there was no stated intent; we were not requiring that she move in, and she had no explicit intent to move in there.

Michelle: My cat allergies are being down-played. I tried to live in 205 and I couldn't tolerate it and 206 was not a welcoming place. I did not think I could afford another place in Austin.

Ashli: Ryan, you just said that Michelle was interested in moving into 205 so you know that she was never a resident, so she had no liability for it. That's like someone signing a contract to move in and then not moving in and being charged.

Ryan and Paul: That is what would happen

Ashli: Making our units livable for people should be seen as necessary, not as a burden on the co-op.

Ryan: Point of information, the charge is $132.

Garrett: Amanda signed on the 9th and she had a delay, so her contract date was changed?

Paul: No, it wasn't changed, she was refunded for the 9 days before she moved in.

Paul: If we had someone willing and able to fill the spot, I would have had Michelle make a final decision about her move-in, but her not moving in did not change the date.

Michelle: I wanted to see if I could live in the apartment, but the filters were filthy and I cleaned them and I was only there for a few days as a guest. I don't think remediation was a waste, just for me.

Mel: The contract says that if a person chooses to move out before the end of their contract they are not liable when their a vacancy is covered, but in this case Andy covered the rent for the whole unit when Andy moved out. And there were verbal discussions, not signed contracts, for Michelle. This tells me we should return Michelle's money.

Meg: It sounds like part of the reason Michelle is being charged is because there wasn't a female ready to move in immediately, which seems unfair.

Paul: If she had been residing there and breaks the contract she would have been liable for the vacancy she left.

Ashli: Two sides – Ryan as Treasurer made independent decisions, forgiving rent for Amanda for the contract she had signed for early November, but he also made the decision to charge Michelle though she had vacated the premises by November. Why choose to charge Michelle and not Amanda?

Garrett: Two interpretations: Michelle claims the 205 vacancy has no relationship to her terminating the 206 contract early, and the co-op claims the opposite. If she were liable for 205 she would have only been liable until the date for which the contract was signed. It comes to $3.90 per resident for us to pay Michelle.

Hannah: She was wondering if Amanda had been given more notice that the room was available would she have been able to move in earlier?

Paul: He thinks she could have been ready to move in November 1.

Russ: The co-op lost no money on 206 because Andy took it over, but we could not say for sure that we had a room that appropriate for her. Even though we ran the air purifier for a month it is not her fault.

Corey: Reads contract, clause 15, which he interprets as meaning that CHEA can charge someone for rent until the end of the contract, without any reason. Both avenues in front of us are legally correct.

Ann: When did Michelle turn in her keys?

Michelle: October 31. Both positions are legally correct; I am still currently an associate member and have been a resident here for 2-1/2 years. Why would it be wrong to help me in this situation?

Item passes by consensus.

Agenda Item 2

(Corey, Robbie, Jessica) Membership review of Garret Mosely for: 1. Use of physical violence against another member’s pet. 2. Threats of violence against another member.

Garrett: Asks to record the session.

Richard: The Steward added the signatures to the membership review request after the deadline, so this makes agenda item not legitimate.

Paul reads the Horse Manual, which is ambiguous about whether or not the agenda was not posted legitimately. Hannah asks what the participants wish to do, and a discussion ensues about what the rules say.

Garrett: I informed NASCO that I had been threatened with a deadly weapon, and that immediately a membership review against him (Garrett) was posted. He has not yet heard back from NASCO. Garrett has also filed criminal charges against Corey and is waiting to hear back from the police investigator.

Robbie: Neither Corey nor I feel safe in the apartment

Donny: If a legal question has to be resolved in the future and NASCO would like to be involved, maybe we should postpone this.

Madeleine: She and Daniel are collecting all the information available from the parties, and she is taking notes for CHEA's board and NASCO properties.

Hannah, speaking as House Mediator: Asks if mediation

Garrett: He thinks that three people being in the unit is creating a problem, and the wall should be removed from the unit after this is resolved. Perhaps we can resolve this

Robbie: Prior to this week there was no conflict in the apt, and is not sure that the problem is the density. He had told Garrett in advance about the loud cat, etc. If we delay this we will have to come to some sort of agreement about where the three residents will reside until it is settled.

Madeleine: If we move ahead on an agreement, even though there is a question about whether or not it is a legal procedure, we need the consent of all parties that they will accept the results of tonight's meeting.

Corey: He is open to having other discussions, as more time might be useful, but he is willing to accept a decision tonight. He would defer to Garrett and asks if he would an acceptable result be a room switch with another tenant temporarily?

Garrett: He has been discussing a possible move into another unit at the end of the year, but in the meantime he doesn't think it would be difficult for them to continue living together until then.

Corey: does not feel comfortable having his pets in the apt. while Garrett is still there.

Madeleine: Once you move to another apt would you accept another roommate. We have someone else on the waiting list, though that person could not move into the potentially open unit.

Corey: Suggest the three roommates move ahead with mediation; there is agreement from Garrett and Robbie.

William: His unit has room for one of the residents or pets in the interim.

The item is tabled.

New business

The Labor Czar has written the new kitchen labor assignments

Marilyn: Has a concern that 2 lbs of honey and 2 lbs of coffee have disappeared in less than a week and asks the members to be conservative with these luxury items.

Hannah: Birthday party starts at 8 p.m. Saturday. Also has a concern that there has not been a recent labor report and there is a backlog. Richard says he will this year. She is trying to set up an automatic notice to La Re members to expect a labor report. She also wants to know ore about the Labor Holiday projects and if it is too late to add a project. She can add something, and he will post the projects tomorrow. She has been given vines to use on a trellis, and would like to see that on the list.

Donny: Travis County employees will be doing unit inspections for our weatherization project, and we need more volunteers to have access to the keys box to open units. Molly reveals that the locks have been changed in her unit, so there is no maintenance access. The members present agree that the units should be accessible at all time, and additional keys need to be made.

meetings/2016-11-27.txt · Last modified: 2017/06/28 18:06 (external edit)