User Tools

Site Tools


July 16, 2017

July 16, 2017

Attendees: Paul, Richard, Chris, Joshua, Russ, Hannah, Ryan

Review of July 9, 2017 minutes

Minutes are accepted

Agenda Item 1 Hannah discusses partner program considerations and concerns

“Tip hat” to potential concerns about partner program;

No plans to do things differently now

A few things to think about as more partner programs come on-board

Hannah of the mind that, “let’s wait and see” what actual effect is of on-boarding these programs

If we get a partner-program applicant for every room, then we’ll consider that concern

Chris: Paul related to Chris, but where do current residents moving rooms fit in to this?

Hannah: thinks it takes priority

Paul: disagrees - residents entering through assistance programs are number one priority

Hannah: maybe that’s something we should tweak. Maybe this wasn’t intentional

Paul: thinks it was intentional

Paul: would rather prioritize people who need assistance from non-governmental programs. If someone has a voucher, that should take priority over someone who already lives here.

In practice, this is about moving from half-units to full units, not half-units to other half-units.

Hannah: has a different take. Concerned about welfare of current residents. Concerned about impact on morale of current residents.

Paul: happy about outreach efforts, and this work generally. Worried about system for adding people and groups to outreach process.

Hannah: it’s a bit “squishy,” has similar concerns about process. What do people want?

Richard: All of the candidate groups seem reasonable. Suggests a blanket-approval.

Hannah: on-board with Richard

Joshua: trusts outreach coordinator to perform this work.

Hannah: intent in raising this agenda item was to let people know that facts are evolving on the ground quickly; failing objections, we’ll proceed.

Richard: Proposal that a single list of groups be provided.

Joshua: Outreach coordinator shall provide a list. If position not filled, then Memco.

Richard: I’d like a formal announcement, e.g., on web site

Chris: Have we just added new organizations recently?

Hannah: yes, more than ever before. Earlier, we had very few. Now, we’re facing the possibility of a point in the future where this program is very significant in influencing membership. But we don’t know yet - we haven’t seen this play out.

Chris: POI, will a case worker be inspecting my apartment?

Hannah: the only agency I’m aware does any inspections is section-8, and they require individual units. So it would only affect that tenant. Referral from other agencies likely wouldn’t involve an inspection visible to the existing roommate. No on-sight requirements.

Hannah: the kind thing to do is to be very sensitive about people’s status as referrals of a partner program. People may wish for this to not be known.

Ryan: if it’s not clear who’s coming from partner programs, how does that impact our ability to evaluate effectiveness of these partnerships?

Hannah: it’s not that nobody would know. Estimates 9/10 will be “open” about their involvement. You will know.

Ryan: how many people have we admitted from these programs, things like that?

Richard: site-visit requires 48-hour notice. How about after-the-fact notice?

Paul: the 48-hour visit addresses concerns about ability for people to block the membership of an applicant with whom they have (e.g.) a problematic personal history.

Richard: the rule has the effect of complicating some cases. But site-visit logistics is off-topic.

Paul: would be open to considering changes of policy here.

Ryan: concerns about anonymity of affiliation, if we insist on different policies for applicants associated with partnership organizations.

Hannah: case-worker is acting as an agent of the applicant, in the initial visit.

Paul: This is not a gag rule.

Hannah: more case-workers come; I’ll send out information about this to the house, at my discretion

Richard: closes discussion

Agenda Item 2 Pro-rating David rent

David - rent check counting toward first full month residing at coop (August) and paying a prorated amount for this month (July?) once a room opens

Paul and Joshua decide to take this up, despite David not being present.

David cannot reside in 101, because his roommate is constantly smoking cigarettes. He’s asked roommate to stop, but behavior continues. Smoking in-unit is not permitted. David requests pro-ration of rent, as he’s been unable to live in-unit in the interim.

Joshua: I think we should pro-rate. We’ve done this before, under similar conditions (a roommate’s behavioral issues.) Someone’s been violating our rules (by smoking), we have the “vacancy” reserved for that.

Paul: has anyone discussed issue with roommate? Has anyone confirmed this is an ongoing issue?

Chris: suggests positions that should become involved.

Paul: has suggested mediation.

Richard: doesn’t think violation of house rule should be subject to mediation.

Ryan: will he be able to move into a different space?

Paul: yes, but we’ll still have an empty half-unit.

Ryan: first priority should be talking to the roommate.

Paul: maintains that roommate seems happy to rent out the entire unit, although no lease has been signed.

Paul: uncertainty surrounding boundaries of no-smoking-in-residence provisions of contracts / coop rules.

[some investigation of contract language ensues]

Joshua: maintains limited under various occupancy provisions.

Chris: we should make sure we’re on the same page about what’s permitted (vis-a-vis cigarette smoking in-residence), and ensure that the contract language is in line with this understanding

[some discussion ensues about permissibility of smoking in-residence under various conditions.]

Richard: This is a proposal to pro-rate for the month of July.

Ryan: we should pro-rate until David can move-in to La Re.

Richard: proposal is to pro-rate rent until David can move-in to La Re.

Hannah: confirms that a separate unit (103) is expected to be available on August 1.

Russ: discussion of state of unit 103, and work remaining to be done. Agrees that unit is expected to be in a rentable condition by August 1.

[some discussion ensues about what remains to be done in 103, and what process is for putting unit on-line.]

Chris: it might be useful to make sure David does still want to live in La Re.

Several members: general consensus is that he does still wish to move to La Re.

Richard: proposal is to pro-rate David’s rent until he can move-in to La Re.

Proposal passes unanimously.

Agenda Item 3 - payment plan for Joshua

Joshua: reviews notice to vacate and current balance. Remainder on his account is July rent, invoiced at $440. Would like to sign a payment-plan to extend that over 5 months including July, meaning $88 / month increase.

Ryan: clarifies this month is over-due.

Ryan: as long as you haven’t been issued a notice on the overdue balance (which you haven’t), then as long as you pay off the more-than-30-days overdue balance, you should be able to enter a payment plan without house approval.

Richard: Joshua has until July 21 to get on payment plan, without needing to bring this to house approval.

Joshua agrees to table.

Agenda Item 4 - Ryan suggests change language of the expense bookkeeper job description

Ryan: we don’t have an expense bookkeeper.

Paul: Corey has signed up.

Paul: clarifies procedure for appointing an expense bookkeeper.

Ryan: concerns about a house-appointed non-officer being granted access to members’ sensitive financial documents. (Social Security numbers, checking account numbers, etc.)

Paul: should this be applied to more positions?

Ryan: there are reasons to recommend that some officer position roles be assigned to higher-ups.

Paul: so should this be expanded to other finance officers?

Richard: that would require a separate amendment.

Ryan: doesn’t wish to address systemic problems; just wants a quick fix here.

Russ: thinks this hits the nail-on-the-head. Is narrowly focused: addresses concerns, and keeps us moving forward.

Ryan: reflects on possible future enhancements of change to regulations

Joshua: thinks it’s important for houses always to have a treasurer. If we expand more, it’s conceivable that in the future, all financial activities will be “owned” by administrators at CHEA.

Proposal passed.

New business:

Hannah: on behalf of Victor, next weekend is labor holiday.

Chris: how do we get stuff on labor holiday agenda?

Paul: this was done a long time ago.

Joshua: you can also just paint your own room, and ask for reimbursements.

Ryan: please don’t ask for reimbursements retroactively - it’s a process challenge, and is risky. Get expenses approved in advance.

Richard: concerned that some of the normal steps for labor holiday weren’t seen this iteration; looking at list, some of the auditing evaluations don’t appear to have been completed.

Joshua: don’t we usually have project leaders?

Richard: that’s primarily reserved for the more skilled labor activities. Also, when someone wants to do this.

Richard: any other new business?

Joshua: I’d like to have a little free library.

Hannah: we have an old newspaper machines; one of those might be re-purposed as a library.

Richard: Closes meeting.

meetings/2017-07-16.txt · Last modified: 2017/07/30 20:11 by ehochbaum