Present: Burgess, Richard (facilitator), Cynthia, Serene, Nolan, Hannah, Jamie, David, Paul (minutes), Corey, Hannah, Vaidy, Yarrow
Nobody for meet & greet.
(David) The maintenance coordinator shall be credited with 4 hours of labor a week for their efforts.
David: It's a big undertaking. I want whoever takes this over to be able to put all their labor into this without having to document other labor, and hopefully help get this house in order.
CQ: What's the difference between this and having 3 hours as an officer and an hour of maintenance?
David: I've treated the one hour of maintenance as separate, to be documented as formal maintenance rather than the coordinator.
POI from Labor Czar: There's no formalization of how maintenance is delegated.
POI from former Maintenance Coordinator: This is the only job where if it's not done correctly the building can fail in all kinds of ways. I support this.
Concerns / friendly amendments phase
Concern: This is not a solution to any maintenance problem - the maintenance coordinator job will not change in any way. Arguably, the four-hour limit doesn't cover everything being done, like contract coordinator, which used to be a separate position. Delegation is important.
Response: This does solve a problem - best practices that we do but don't have codified, that we can keep with this.
Agenda item passes.
(David) In order for proper communication and cooperation to take place residents should consider attendance of weekly house meetings obligatory. Failure to attend 3 or more meetings in a calendar month will result in a member review, yellow card, or more labor hours tacked onto their existing labor obligations. Exceptions will be made on a case by case basis for extenuating circumstances that are out of reasonable control of the resident. In order to ensure job schedules don’t get in the way, the house should vote on the best time during the week to have the house meeting after receiving input from everyone.
David: This is more of an idea. I'm just trying to come up with ways to improve house attendance. Joshua sent me a letter about how it's not addressing the root cause - chasing the fire instead of the source. This came up from a discussion at Sasona.
Steward declaration: Concerns and friendly amendments in this phase will be shut down in this phase.
POI: In terms of root cause, I think for starters it's that no single day of the week works for everyone. Lots of people, lots of different industries, lots of different schedules.
POI: Three house meetings a month?
David: Yeah. I was just throwing numbers out there to start a discussion about our participation.
Concerns / friendly amendments phase
Concerns: This comes off to me as authoritarian. It hurts everyone with alternate schedules, and anyone with social anxiety. Using this as a springboard to discussion by essentially forcing people to come to the meeting to defend themselves is deeply manipulative.
Concern: I think people not coming to meetings for months is perfectly fine. I think there are many other ways that people can contribute to the co-op rather than attending meetings.
Concern: I've lived in student co-ops with mandatory meetings. That's easier with a bunch of college students on mostly the same schedule, too. I think this is a legitimate suggestion but this is one of those issues where the first phase should be a broader discussion over email or face-to-face, not by agenda item.
David: I didn't put this forward to be manipulative or authoritarian. We're this awesome group of people and it was just a suggestion to improve.
POI: Threatening with a membership review is a little insane. You can't go from “not attending meetings” to being homeless. It's confusing as hell and I'm here to block it.
POI: I appreciate the intentions behind what David is trying to do.
POI: You had to attend one meeting every two weeks. Invariably at the end of every semester we had a ton of people being member-reviewed for not attending meetings. It helped meeting attendance but screwed over a lot of people.
POI: I attend many hours of meetings during the week. I don't want more mandatory meetings from my co-op. I think it's valid to be able to step back and be less invested in how decisions are made - I still agree with most of the decisions, after all, and if all I do besides my labor obligations is pay rent to a group working to fund new co-ops, that's enough.
(David) The maintenance coordinator will be the sole person in possession of bedroom keys to ensure maximum security of ones personal space and yet still allow access for maintenance including smoke detector tests.
David: Smoke detector tests, general inspections, and so on. I was hesitant to send out the email warning people about the bedroom keys, but it needs to happen. I want to address people's right to privacy with this item. The keybox is not secure.
POI: If the maintenance coordinator isn't here, and if you're not around to open your door, that would mean if the co-op needs access we'd have to break the lock and charge the people anyway.
CQ: How would we differentiate by having a separate ring under the control of maintenance.
CQ: You'd have the only copies of the bedroom doors?
POI: I'd have the only copies that the co-op has.
POI: We don't install bedroom locks; tenants do. You're not allowed to install locks, per our contracts.
POI: I've been here 6 years and I've never had a problem with getting access to doors. If they don't give us access that's an issue.
David: Barak was doing inspections and a door was locked and we couldn't inspect a smoke detector. That's important.
Concerns / friendly amendments phase
Concern: This runs contrary to the expectation that personal locks are personal investments, not the co-ops. This takes ownership of the locks.
David: I'm trying to protect the sovereignty / privacy of the bedrooms here. I just want to make maintenance easier.
Friendly amendment: In the event the co-op has to force entry past a privacy lock on a bedroom door, any cost is born by the resident of that bedroom.
POI: I think that's already the case, based on our contract.
CQ: People have been charged before?
POI: We can replace their doorknob for free; we've got a big box. If we have to fix damages that still costs.
POI: I don't think bedroom door locks are a luxury, like someone else said. I'm a victim of assault, and we need to have consideration for people's security needs.
POI: I don't want people to have to give up their keys either.
David: I thought that was already the case. My agenda item is about limiting members of the co-op's access to the bedroom keys.
POI: I don't know that we have to have all the keys. We can bust down a door real quick. I understand the legal side of it, but I think we should listen to our members and not expect that for bedrooms.
David: It creates an extra burden on the maintenance coordinator.
Facilitator: This is not really about the agenda item, which is quite narrow.
David: If we do have everyone's keys, we should have only one person responsible for those keys.
Friendly amendment: change “the sole person in possession of bedroom keys” to “the sole person in possession of the copy of the bedroom keys”
CQ: Has there been a case where someone has been locked out of their bedroom and requested access?
David: Not to my knowledge.
CQ: Have inspections had to break in, or have they just moved on?
David: Someone was unable to access a bedroom to check the smoke detector. We moved on.
POI: I don't know that anyone falls into the, “I'm just willing to give one person my room key.” I can see being OK with the co-op coming into one's room, and I can see not being OK with anyone coming into one's room. I don't see the in-between.
David: This is not a referendum on bedroom keys. This is about limiting it to one person, which seems to make several people more OK with it. What if we have an officer that squeaks through that people don't trust? I'd be OK with having it in one
POI: You talk about if we have an officer that nobody trusts that squeaks through - what if it's maintenance.
POI: We've never had a problem with this.
POI: Routine inspection hasn't been done in a year, so there weren't concerns like this.
CQ: David, do you think the maintenance coordinator having to be at many bedroom inspections makes the job easier?
David: I can pass the keyring to the person making inspections.
CQ: So is this so people will be more amenable to handing over keys?
David: The main reason is to address the privacy and security concerns of our members. The more we limit who has key access the more we can avoid untrusted people handling the keys.
POI: I thought the question was more about having key access to the UNIT, not to the bedrooms. I'm not sure we can have a productive discussion.
POI: I definitely feel it's a separate discussion that matters - you're sharing a space with someone you don't necessarily know. Unless there's an emergency or a serious maintenance issue, If attempts to contact the resident fail repeatedly, then the property owner has to do what it has to do. My privacy matters a lot.
POI from former Steward: I didn't even like going into units unless I wasn't alone; I didn't want to make anyone feel weird.
Agenda item does not pass.
Graffiti on the south wall. Maintenance, fix!
Hannah: I have a goal of painting the exterior wall a vibranter color of the yellow we have.
- Do we have a bin for trash?
- We do, but it moves around.
Make putting the bin in the same place a courtyard clean labor, maybe?
Maintenance: We've identified some more pest issues in a single unit. Contractors coming out soon.
Maintenance: I've heard water-heating issues. Low-flow shower heads for everyone?
We probably spend more water on the washers, which are first consumers.
Steward: I might resign if someone will fill the role. I'm going to put up a nomination sheet.
I think we should test a meeting during the week sometimes. It'd be a full switch, temporary.
I think it might be confusing but I think it'd be best to alternate.
Perhaps based on the month - first Wednesday of the month, say, plus every Sunday.
I think it's valuable to see a third or more of the co-op at Sunday meetings. People have casual connections that can be important.
One last thing on meeting attendance in general: I think we'd get more involvement with benefits instead of punishments. We've floated offering labor credit for attending meetings before.