The “free stuff” area is not being managed
- Keep the “free stuff” area clear until some guidelines are established for managing
- when you leave something for donation and it’s NOT taken after some time you should consider it “Not Wanted” and donate or throw it in the trash yourself
- additional labor credit for managing the removal and donation of items should be added to laundry room duties
- separate labor be created to manage donation and “free items”
Serene: have people vote on if that space is necessary or if we collectively want to keep it around.
Carey: the free box was started as a particular member’s passion project and got corralled into laundry room labor. Can kind of see it going the same direction as compost where the passions sort of fizzled out. Could be more of a problem than its worth.
Russ: agrees. Could be more than it started as. Likes the idea of it because it’s a way to interact with others in the neighborhood, making it a valuable resource. However, doesn’t find it practical where its located.
Serene: doesn’t mind the energy it takes to manage. Has the time and would want the authority to manage whether keep or get rid of items.
I.e. 30 min add on labor.
Out in 7 days type of thing.
Hannah: likes free pile but no one wants to dig through a bunch of things that may not be useful. Doesn’t think people managing their own items is a good idea
Carey: if kept, we should create guidelines. His experience was frustrating because people put things there that people may not really want or use. i.e. extra fabric clippings and 1 left shoe.
Serene: rescinds the 30 mina. If someone has a passion for it , they can do it.
Russ: after 7 days we could take items to goodwill or other places that accept donations.
Donny: Thinks it has function but believes labor assigned to it to make sure it gets tended to.
Okay either way
Carey: point of concern- if someone doesn’t have a passion for it will it just go away? Or are we going to have to wait around for someone to take up this labor.
Perhaps if brought back next week, it would be a better discussion to see who would be appointed to this labor.
Hannah: if we got rid of it and retired it for now, someone on laundry room duty should put a sign up to not leave items there.
Donny: add it to laundry room clean and maybe add more credit depending on how long it takes.
To be continued next week.
(Carey) Proposal: Eliminate Outreach Coordinator Position
Permanently eliminate the position of Outreach Coordinator. Allow co-op members to claim labor hours for outreach projects with prior approval at a house meeting.
Carey: this is coming from a few angles. We’ve been having issues with labor. People don’t seem to be interested in signing up for these positions. During election times we wonder What do we do since no one wants to do this?
Wants to bring solutions to if we still want to do these things if we want to rather than having someone assigned to it permanently.
Point of information:
Hannah: does plan on running for outreach.
Approved for proposal
Hannah: Glad it was brought up because its not always something that is utilized. Feels she’’s got motion going on this project and has forwarded emails on the subject.
Helps to say that “ I have this title at La-Re because it gives them a title.
Carey: understands. Asked if its 2 hours a week or what?
Hannah said it’s something that you sign off as its worked on. Was administratively resolved.
Should be elected position because IN SOME WAYS SHE REPS THE CO-OP AND FEELS WEIRD doing that if theres not confidence behind it.
Russ: Agrees. It does give you some standing and over time Hannah had built momentum and a position of this nature takes longevity and people get to know who we are thought “you.”
Donny: Likes the idea of the house choosing this person. Okay with it being a zero hour position that you volunteer for.
Carey: It’s a nebulous enough position that has historically left people wondering how much is actually getting accomplished. Happy to table this if things are getting done.
(Carey) Proposal: Eliminate Mediator Position
Eliminate the elected mediator position. Allow the Steward or Membership coordinator to appoint a member as mediator. That member will receive labor credit for mediation.
Carey: This is similar to the point made of the previous agenda item.
Mediation is usually a roommate issue and is suggested by steward or memco. It also addresses some points like people going through the process unsuccessfully and perhaps feeling the mediator wasn’t being fair. Suggests that perhaps a new person to be the mediator if this happens.
Hannah: Has had to do that before where shes had to call someone else in.
Russ: this is a skilled position and sees it as a skill set. We’re lucky to have Hannah to fulfill this position because she has the kills to do so.
Carey: suggest officers appoint a mediator they trust. Not sure how regularly it needs to happen and feels this solves a lot of the issues from the labor end and some of the messiness that gets into mediation.
Clarifying questions: Was your intention of having someone appointed on an as needed basis?
Hannah: I don’t mind this being sign off appointed labor. I will say that I have considered the regularity of this labor.
I.E. If Russ comes to me asking me to mediate maybe it could count as extra labor.
It usually needs to happen fast which means that I’d need to manipulate my schedule. Sometimes I have a limited amount of down time and it’s valuable to me.
Point 2: it gets messy. Mostly it ends well, but its more in the pressure of coming forward with needs before the mediation and sometimes I wonder it’ll impact my relationship as mediator with this person.
If I was getting regular sign off for it, I might not be inclined to say yes every time
Carey: Would you consider double time labor as a friendly amendment?
Amendment: mediator would get double labor time for the difficulty of the job.
Hannah: supportive comment that this role hasn’t always been popular with people not confident in being able to do it. Double time might entice people to try it.
(Carey) Proposal: Eliminate Tech Officer Position
Eliminate the Tech Officer position. Wrap maintenance of La Reunions technical resources such as wireless Internet and commons computers into maintenance. Allow the maintenance coordinator to appoint a tech coordinator if necessary.
Carey: Similar to the others. Like outreach, it’s not a position that’s always been good. More about the position itself rather than those occupying it. We’ve had poor tech coordinators because some of these things are more related to maintenance type duties. Makes more sense to be considered a maintenance issue. Hopes it’ll help expand the maintenance pool to those who are more tech oriented.
Donny: Given how maintenance has had trouble getting their current list of tasks done, I don’t think it’ll make tech more responsive. I think it’ll make them less responsive.
Russ: the way the proposal is written leaves it o
Carey: Taking this from a contract coordinator position. They’d pick someone on the maintenance team for tech specific tasks . We could also potentially move tech into a position where if it is something more than one person need to be on, this could potentially be a way to make sure things are getting done.
I’d like to solve this issue before it becomes a bigger problem by the position going vacant.
Russ: Proposes rewording it to say if there is no tech coordinator elected, then find a way to figure out who is appointed to what duties. It needs to be a system. Doesn’t know if it needs to be an officer’s job.
Donny: it would say that if there is no officer then one would be appointed.
Carey: Not what I meant. Would you like to see this potentially adopted in the event that no one signs up last minute or a rewording that the officer position is eliminated or an appointed position.
Russ: thinks it should be an officer position
Carey: transfer from elected to appointed by the maintenance coordinator.
Donny: Eliminating the tech officer position?
No longer have tech officer as an elected officer position and rather have one be appointed.
Russ: Nolan has done research and found a website that we can use for voting ( used by CHEA).
Not sure if the house wants to do that because some people don’t have as much accessability as others to internet. Russ wants to do it for this election by sending links through this website to the house. Its called ballotbin if anyone wants to look into it.
Lauren: How do you know if someone has voted already?
Individual is given a link to identify if they’ve voted or not.
L: will some people get a paper ballot?
R: Yes, seems that it has to be that way.
L: if the links were attached to a number and then the number attached to a person it could make more sense?
R: my understanding is that once the election is set, I could get links with a one use function.
L: what if they lie and say they didn’t do it online when they did and fill a paper ballot too.
Carey: in tallying, would there be a way for a 3rd party to verify if those are actually the numbers that were received? Because I’m wondering how necessary this is. Seems to raise more questions than issues for us.
R: We have to consider accessability for the blind indivisuals here. There’s room for error with anyone who has this task.
I make a list to everyone n the co-op and cross their names off the list which took 4 days.
It would be more efficiant to do it this way.
Donny: We had trouble last election handing ballots out. It took 2 months. IT’s also true that e-voting wont cover everyone here, because of various reasons (language barriers etc.) We will definitely need a hybrid system moving forward.
L: It would be easier for the steward to fill out an e-ballot for the individuals without access with them.
Hannah: It could increase voting rates.
Other new business:
Russ: is taking this election to an electronic format a job for the steward?
Carey: Cant say, but does know that the running of the elections and how the steward handles it is in the house manual and if it is very different it would have more to do with house policy rather than steward responsibility. It should probably be referred to the house because our rules are set and important to how elections are run.
Russ: I checked and it doesn’t say anything about electronic format.