User Tools

Site Tools


meetings:2017-02-05

February 5, 2017

Present: Ryan, Hannah, Amanda, Marilyn, Anne, Corey, Ashli, Paul, Richard, Chris, Gatlin

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

Y F T N V

Agenda Item 1

(Chris) Designate the front room as a Multi-Use Room.

Designate the Commons front room (adjoining the dining room) as the Multi-Use Room:

1. Members may reserve the room with 24-hours notice to the list, in a spirit of cooperation.

2. Members may not leave any house or personal property in the room overnight, with the exception of dining room chairs and the large plant currently there, in order to keep the room truly Multi-Use.

Chris: I want it to be kept empty and have a space for events, meetings, etc. that can be reserved by anybody.

Anne: Would you think about putting a curtain across, in case there's something going on in the dining room?

Burgess: I'd like to know how this will impact people who do activities in here.

Corey: Maintenance wouldn't be able to cut keys.

Gatlin: Is it possible to relocate it to the shed, or can it be taken out and put back as needed?

Corey: It could, but it's a pain in the ass.

Paul: Don't we already have a rule that says we can't store stuff in the commons?

Gatlin: I don't know if it's a rule but it's a widely held sentiment, and a good one.

Corey: The reason people feel this is necessary is because Michael, a new member moving in, owns a couch, and he left it in the front room for about a week for Jessica to take when there was room in her unit. This conflicted with the activities Melissa was putting on in the room.

Ryan: I have a question. As a non-profit, are we comfortable with the commons being used for profit-making activities?

Corey: I have a problem with the house setting a hard rule about what a space is to be used for. There's been a common notion that the library's there for events that need to be separated or a quieter space, but there's no rules saying so.

Burgess: My concern is with the room being used for just one purpose, so I'm relieved to see it says multi-use.

Corey: To give an example, we sometimes put furniture in that room when there's a party. As I read it, we wouldn't be allowed to do that.

Richard: As I read the agenda item, I'm not sure it would really change anything.

Paul: The normal procedure for using a space is the interested member will take it to the house.

Chris: I think we have to do something, because what we have isn't working. I appreciate and respect what maintenance does, I think the keymaker should be included, but I think we should have an understanding of the boundaries of how much space maintenance needs.

Ryan: If we make reserving it part of the item, I'd encourage you to put in a restriction on using the space for for-profit purposes.

Chris: My main interest in to start seeing people in the room, not just things. I'd also like to see the room being used as a hub of resistance.

Amanda: Some of us living here don't want to draw attention to ourselves. I don't want to be at the center of anything controversial.

Richard: Could we maybe whittle the item down just to #2?

Corey: If we're doing that, why not expand it to the entire commons space? It seems to me like the real problem here is clutter in the commons. It's starting to go off a different tangent than what's on the agenda, but I think it's one we need to address.

Paul: I'd also like to see us be a hub of resistance, but like Amanda pointed out, we need to have a house conversation about that.

Chris: I want to wrap it up and just see something passed tonight.

Richard: How about whittle it down to #2 and not expand it to the entire commons? So: keeping the room empty with the exception of the dining room chairs, house plant, keycutter and keycutter table.

Friendly amendment accepted

Paul: What's the penalty for leaving house or personal property in the room overnight? Is that a yellow card offense?

House: Yes

Corey: This item strikes me as a little bit of a personal attack considering the things that are currently in the room and that I was chewed out over the couch being there even though I wasn't a part of that.

Item fails

Agenda Item 2

(Ryan Nill) Labor Czar/Officer Accountability Process(Discussion)

Labor Reports are due on the 15th of the month, for the previous month. (I.e. January no-show are due February 15th.) If on the 16th a labor report is not released the Treasurer will release a report no-showing the Labor Czar for half of the hours of the previous month. The labor czar will have 30 days to make up the labor and release the reports. If no report is released no-shows will convert to fines and the Treasurer should attempt to officer review the Labor Czar.

I think this process can be applied by any member to any officer in this fashion, but should not need to be invoked if we have a good labor practices: If an officer does not release a report by their scheduled due date, any member may release a public report no-showing said officer. The officer will have 30 days to complete the report. If they do not their no shows will convert to fines and they should be officer reviewed.

Proposal: If an officer does not release a report by their scheduled due date, any member may release a public report no-showing said officer. The officer will have 1 week to complete the report. If they do not their no shows will convert to fines and will be brought up for an automatic officer reviewed.

Ryan: I think we've been pretty bad about officer accountability so I think this will be a step in that direction that could be applied to other officers.

Anne: Does Bookkeeper have a report?

Ryan: There's payment plan reports and an annual financial report?

Anne: Have other Labor Czars had this problem also?

Paul: Not this specific problem, but there's been a similar lack of accountability.

Ryan: I want to give Richard credit for basically creating a labor system when we didn't have one before.

Corey: If a Labor Czar sends these reports on schedule, it more or less suffices to show that they're fulfilling their responsibilities.

Paul: All officers are expected to supply the house with a monthly officer review. We haven't been doing that. I like the idea of having report accountability, but I have a question? Why does it say the officer will have 30 days in one place and one week in another place?

Ryan: The earlier paragraphs up to “Proposal” are meant as a discussion item.

Anne: Is there an exception for extraneous circumstances?

Ryan: Yes, we give leniency when it's brought up to the house. I'm not sold on every part of the agenda item as written, I just wanted to show a range of options.

Corey: It seems fair to me as written, giving the Labor Czar a week.

Richard: Hannah one week no-showed all the officers for not doing officer reviews. Can we just do that automatically?

Ryan: Yes, but I think it's more of a house culture thing.

Anne: Friendly amendment: You saw that there will be automatic no-shows for half of the hours on the 16th after they're due on the 15th. Shouldn't they be given more time?

Ryan: Yes, but they basically have two weeks to do this job, from the beginning of the month to the 15th. I'm okay tabling the item, I think the discussion was most important.

Gatlin: It sounds like when we come back, we need to define what exactly needs to be in the report.

Item tabled

Agenda Item 3

(Paul) Remove the sentence, “Ballots must be distributed individually or to the roommate of each member.” from our voting rules, and leave ballot distribution to the discretion of the Steward.

Paul: Before we codified voting rules, the entire election process was at the discretion of the Steward. Robbie found this sentence in the manual an impediment to carrying out the election tasks, so I'd like to remove that impediment.

Corey: The language that's currently in the manual is taken from how the state is required to hand out ballots, so I don't think we need to be imitating it.

Richard: “Steward discretion” is how the current Steward ran into problems, so this item doesn't resolve that.

Corey: But this doesn't remove the requirement for the Steward to get a ballot to everyone.

Item passed

Agenda Item 4

(Gatlin) Discussion - Presentation by Kim Garmany of College Houses about Amplify Austin.

Item tabled

New business

Paul: We've got 34 resident members, 4 new associates. I think Russ is going to move into William's room and Melissa is going to take over the whole unit. We're below the single-unit occupancy threshold, also that cap doesn't apply to her because she has family.

Richard: I'm going to send out no-show reports for August and September tonight.

Corey: I spent about 3 hours tearing out mold today. There's a mold infestation in 103. It looks like there may've been a flood at one point. We need to see how much work we can get done in-house and possibly find a contractor to finish so we can get somebody new moved in.

meetings/2017-02-05.txt · Last modified: 2017/06/28 18:06 (external edit)