User Tools

Site Tools


meetings:2017-07-16

Differences

This shows you the differences between two versions of the page.

Link to this comparison view

Both sides previous revision Previous revision
meetings:2017-07-16 [2017/07/14 15:35]
108.210.41.17 Modified from the form at meetings:2017-07-16
meetings:2017-07-16 [2017/07/30 20:11] (current)
ehochbaum
Line 1: Line 1:
 ====== July 16, 2017 ====== ====== July 16, 2017 ======
  
-Present:+**July 16, 2017**
  
-===== Meet and Greet =====+**Attendees:​ Paul, Richard, Chris, Joshua, Russ, Hannah, Ryan**
  
-===== Review of Minutes =====+**Review of July 9, 2017 minutes**
  
-===== Wiki Updates =====+**Minutes are accepted**
  
-~~ FORM START DO NOT EDIT BELOW THIS LINE ~~+**Agenda Item 1 Hannah discusses partner program considerations and concerns**
  
-<hidden onHidden="​Click ​to open form" onVisible="​Click to hide form (useful for printing)"​ initialState="​visible"​ -noprint>​+**“Tip hat” ​to potential concerns about partner program;**
  
-<​form>​+**No plans to do things differently now**
  
-Action pagemod _self addagenda+**A few things to think about as more partner programs come on-board**
  
-Thanks "​Agenda Item added"+**Hannah of the mind that, “let’s wait and see” what actual effect is of on-boarding these programs**
  
-textbox "​Proposer"​ /​^[^<>​]+$/​+**If we get a partner-program applicant for every room, then we’ll consider that concern**
  
-textarea "​Proposal Text" /​^[^<>​]+$/​+**Chris: Paul related to Chris, but where do current residents moving rooms fit in to this?**
  
-static "Note$ must be escaped by preceding with a \. Example: \$100"+**Hannahthinks it takes priority **
  
-number ​"La Reunion'​s Street Number"​ <7911 >7909+**Paul: disagrees - residents entering through assistance programs are number ​one priority**
  
-hiddenautoinc "​itemnumber"​ "​=1"​+**Hannah: maybe that’s something we should tweak. ​ Maybe this wasn’t intentional**
  
-submit "Add to Agenda"​+**Paul: thinks it was intentional**
  
-</​form>​+**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.**
  
-</​hidden>​+**In practice, this is about moving from half-units to full units, not half-units to other half-units.**
  
-~~ FORM END DO NOT EDIT ABOVE THIS LINE ~~+**Hannah: has a different take.  Concerned about welfare of current residents. ​ Concerned about impact on morale of current residents.**
  
-~~ AGENDA ITEM TEMPLATE START DO NOT EDIT BELOW THIS LINE ~~+**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. ​ **
  
-===== Agenda Item 1 =====+**Hannah: on-board with Richard**
  
-(Hannah) Discuss partner program considerations and concerns.+**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.**
  
-===== Agenda Item 2 =====+**Joshua: Outreach coordinator shall provide a list.  If position not filled, then Memco.**
  
-(David) Curious about my first month'​s rent check counting toward my first full month residing at the coop (August) and paying ​prorated amount for this month once a room opens upThank you for considering.+**Richard: I’d like 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.**
  
-===== Agenda Item 3 =====+**Chris: POI, will a case worker be inspecting my apartment?​**
  
-(Joshua) Allow a payment plan for Joshua.+**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?​**
  
-===== Agenda Item 4 =====+**Hannah: it’s not that nobody would know.  Estimates 9/10 will be “open” about their involvement. ​ You will know.  **
  
-(Ryan Nill) Add the following language to the Expense Bookkeeper job description.+**Ryan: how many people have we admitted from these programs, things like that?  **
  
-"This position is a house officer positionIf the position cannot be filled it may be done by CHEA staff."​+**Richard: site-visit requires 48-hour notice How about after-the-fact notice? ​ **
  
-<pagemod addagenda output_before>​+**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.**
  
-===== Agenda Item @@itemnumber@@ =====+**Richard: the rule has the effect of complicating some cases. ​ But site-visit logistics is off-topic.**
  
-(@@Proposer@@) @@Proposal Text@@+**Paul: would be open to considering changes of policy here.**
  
-</​pagemod>​+**Ryan: concerns about anonymity of affiliation,​ if we insist on different policies for applicants associated with partnership organizations.**
  
-~~ AGENDA ITEM TEMPLATE END DO NOT EDIT ABOVE THIS LINE ~~+**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.**
  
-===== New business ===== 
  
meetings/2017-07-16.txt · Last modified: 2017/07/30 20:11 by ehochbaum