User Tools

Site Tools


September 12, 2018

Present: Corey, Richard, Paul (minutes), Donny (facilitator), Yarrow, Joshua, Serene, Hannah, Vaidy, Catty, Daniel, Walter, Russ

Meet and Greet


Review of Minutes


Wiki Updates


(Pre-agenda discussion about what order to go in. We discuss doing agenda item 5 first, since it might affect the reviews, but decide against it.)

Agenda Item 1

(Automatic) Member review of Yarrow for accruing 13.5 no-shows in April.

Labor czar: 13.5 no-shows from April. Most are from grounds, when McAllen was grounds coordinator. The other 2 were courtyard cleans.

Yarrow: I was on 3 hours a week. This may have been before we had assignments, or before I had a key.

Labor czar: You got a small number of hours for grounds. Were you able to talk to McAllen at all?

Yarrow: No.

CQ: When did you become aware of these no-shows?

Yarrow: When I saw this member review.

Labor czar: They were put out in May.

Yarrow: Can I make these up?

Labor czar: I think they've already gone through the grace period and converted to fines.

POI: I think it's fair to allow people to make up labor with labor rather than fines.

Labor czar: We do allow people to make up labor in the 30 days after the labor report, or get on a labor plan during that time.

Yarrow: With my classes and other commitments, I don't think making it up is realistic.

Labor czar: Usually the first time we hit an automatic labor review for someone, we'll give them a behavior contract to have no more than 5 no-shows a month for several months.

<Yarrow leaves.>

POI: Standard contract, pay the fines.

Labor czar: Concur.

CQ: Does the standard contract have anything about fines

Labor czar: Not usually. Those happen automatically.

POI: I'd like her to be able to have 30 days to make up labor, and pay the fines after that.

Labor czar: The standard 30-day make-up time expired in mid-June, 30 days after the report.

Unanimous straw poll for behavior contract.

Behavior contract:
No more than 5 hours of gross no-shows for three months after signing the contract (probably Oct-Nov-Dec).

CQ: She's currently in two officer positions. How do people feel about asking her to resign?

POI: We've done it in the past - we required someone who was not being responsible to not have officer positions during the behavior contract.

<We agree that Yarrow should be back for this discussion.>

CQ: So how's grounds coordinator doing?

Yarrow: I haven't really spoken to the previous grounds coordinator. I don't really know what I'm doing and I honestly just took it because no one else was. I'll step down.

Serene: I'd take the position in the meantime.

Individual contract items pass, contract overall passes.

<Steward appoints Serene as temporary grounds coordinator, special election to follow.>

Agenda Item 2

(Automatic) Member review of Joshua for accruing 10 no-shows in April.

Labor czar: They are 100% maintenance.

Joshua: Huh.

Labor czar: You were supposed to be working on your floor but nothing happened. When we talked about it you agreed to be removed from maintenance. You also have 16 hours of no-shows in May. Usually when someone's at that level I ask if they even want to be here.

Joshua: My theory of cooperative labor is saving labor by combining household chores. We have our own units here though so I end up doing all my household chores, and I can't eat co-op meals often due to dietary restrictions. So what can we do here?

CQ: When does your lease expire?

Joshua: November.

CQ: We could agree to not renew your contract.

POI: I'd vote for a behavioral contract, but if us deciding on eviction (which is not a formal legal eviction until it comes to that) works for your purposes, I'd be fine with that.

Joshua: If it's a decision to not renew the contract, I'm fine with that.

Labor: Technically this would be membership termination, with an end-of-contract timeframe to leave.

Joshua: OK.

<Joshua leaves.>

Unanimous straw poll for eviction.

Vote for eviction succeeds.

Term: End of contract or end of November, whichever comes first.

Agenda Item 3

(Automatic) Member review of Catty for accruing 12.5 no-shows over the course of February and March.

Labor czar: She's aware of the review. She didn't tell me she wouldn't be here. She was on a labor plan that expired in July. She made up 2 out of 9 hours. I added up February and March after that and she hit the two-month threshold of 12 total.

CQ: It's a breaking of a behavior contract?

POI: No, it was a labor plan, which allows people to extend their make-up time. It's different.

CQ: What were the labors?

POI: Mostly cleaning of various kinds - commons clean, courtyard clean.

<Catty arrives.>

Catty: What were the 2 hours for? I got time and a half for cleaning #103 after someone made an awful mess in there.

Labor czar: You had a surplus for that, but eventually your surplus ran out.

Labor czar: Usually the first time we hit an automatic labor review for someone, we'll give them a behavior contract to have no more than 5 no-shows a month for several months.

Catty: OK. When's the next painting party? I want to make them up.

Labor czar: These have already converted to fines, since they were from a while ago. It'd be $70 total. At least one person has negotiated extra make-up time instead of fines, for what it's worth.

POI: There may be some painting make-up opportunities soon.

<Behavioral contract has the straw poll.>

Behavior contract:
No more than 5 hours of gross no-shows for three months after signing the contract (probably Oct-Nov-Dec).

Agenda Item 4

(Automatic) Member review of Corey for accruing 15 no-shows in March.

Labor czar: His labor plan expired in July. I got the number wrong - it's 11.5 no-shows in March. It is mostly maintenance.

POI: I remember Corey doing an insane number of hours.

Labor czar: Matched by an insane number of no-shows going back to December. In January there was a labor plan that expired in May. 13 labor hours. In February there were 6.5 no-shows and 7.5 no-shows - one surplus hour. That carried over to March.

Corey: I can't find any discussion of this labor plan at all. I searched for these no-shows and couldn't find them. The agenda item last week was the first I'd heard of them. I've done 7.5 hours of make-up labor since I hear about it.

Labor czar: On March 9th I told you you were at risk of review, asked if you wanted labor plan. You said sure. May 1st I sent out the March no-show report, and I said in that report that I put everyone potentially up for review on an extension.

Corey: I haven't had good access to email since my computer died.

CQ: Corey, are you OK with the typical behavioral contract for labor reviews, or do you want a more generous one, since you had trouble getting the info?

CQ: Why not amend his behavioral contract to allow him to make up the remaining labor?

POI: Not sure that would be useful. It kind of sounds like a late labor plan.

<Corey leaves.>

POI: Corey is extremely productive and I don't think he should be kicked out.

POI: I think that it's a mitigating factor that Corey wasn't aware of these no-shows. I think we should give him an extremely generous deadline to make up these hours.

Labor czar: I don't think that's a mitigating factors. The last time Corey emailed labor was a year ago next week. He has the same access everyone else does. He's been struggling with labor. He'd have been up for review if I hadn't gifted him with an extension.

POI: I think we should give him a pass not for the reasons he stated, but because he used to be at our labor cap, and all his make-up labor at that time was going into a black hole - maybe 100 hours.

POI: I've seen his decline, but I agree that we should respect his heroic amount of labor. He built our boiler room. Also, we should think about notification requirements for no-shows or for being at risk of labor review.

CQ: Can we go all the way and forgive his fines too?

POI: That kind of makes sense as a behavior contract item, but it'd be a little weird to do if we're deciding no-action.

Unanimous straw-poll for No Action.

Agenda Item 5

(Corey ) Dismiss all general maintenance labor no-shows from March until present due to the house's consistent failure to assign maintenance laborers work.

<Corey tables in favor of agenda item 8 because we're close to meeting time limits.>

Agenda Item 1

(Corey) Remove 2 month and 3 month time periods of automatic membership reviews for labor. Consider potentially reducing the number of no-show hours accrued in 1 month required for automatic membership review.

<Corey tables in favor of agenda item 8 because we're close to meeting time limits.>

Agenda Item 2

(Corey) Any no-shows not reported to the house within 90 days shall be considered invalid and shall automatically be immediately dismissed.

<Corey tables in favor of agenda item 8 because we're close to meeting time limits.>

Agenda Item 3

(Hannah) Move meetings back to Sunday nights.

Hannah: This was an experiment to see if we could get more members in meetings during weekday evenings rather than Sunday meetings, to try to accomodate our folks with non-standard schedules. I think there might have been fewer people attending meetings. Anyway, it's been a useful experiment.

POI: I was a prime mover on the original Wednesday meeting time decision. I don't want Wednesday meetings to go away but I'm OK with changing it in different way. I heard an interesting proposal for a rolling 8-day meeting time.

POI: I agree with the rolling time but it should be fewer than 7 days. I'm also OK with a Sunday meeting time.

Hannah: I don't trust our ability to keep up with a rotating schedule. I wouldn't do that, I don't know of anyone who would. Officers can call meetings with 48-hour notice, at the behest of other members if necessary.

POI: I think the number of members attending Wednesday has produced evidence, so yeah, successful experiment.

POI: We could do 7th, 14th, 21st, 28th of every month.

POI: I wouldn't want to cause confusion by switching back. I think it's true that meeting attendance has fallen on Wednesdays.

POI: Sunday makes sense. We have minutes if people can't make that, and they can request officers schedule a meeting if they can't be available on our regular times.

POI: I think we should allow every member to call 48-hour meetings. People can object to the meeting and ask that it be discussed at a full meeting, and there are other restrictions that would continue to apply.

Concerns / friendly amendments

Amendment: Just repeal the original agenda item that put the Wednesday meeting in place.

<Amendment accepted by Hannah and the gang.>

Reverting to the original times: House meetings are Sundays at 7 pm. Members must post agenda items by Friday at noon. The Steward must post the agenda on the wiki and on the commons door by Saturday at noon. Wednesday dinner will return to 7:30 pm.

<Agenda item passes.>

New business

Barak: We discuss optimizing our labor system a lot. If you have opinions on this you're invited to talk to me. On the CHEA board we're beefing up the rigor of our internal systems. Committees on different things, like best practices for labor, or how to do certain officer positions. One of the goals of our strategic plan is to strengthen our internal consistency. Every member is invited to attend all our committees. Soon the board will report what committees there will be. I'll probably create some meetings during the week in order to start some of these committees.

Paul: There's a new co-op bike. Victor donated his bike. I still need to do a final check-up. It'll be locked; talk to me if you want to use it.

Richard: I want to abolish no-show fines, or severely cap them. I think with our member review thresholds, that's really all we need. Some people can just eat no-show fines all day, so we can end up targeting the wrong people. Fines beyond the point that would trigger member reviews seem punitive to me.

POI: They're the most obtuse financial instrument to have to explain to a judge.

POI: I'd like to see how much money they bring us, and the quality of life improvements we can make with that money. If our more affluent members are subsidizing us, I'm OK with that. I'd be more OK with capping than abolishing, since the tendency is for people to push right up to the limit if there's no other consequence.

POI: Financial costs affect the wrong people, which is why I'm OK with abolishing them.

POI: But people can get fines dropped almost for the asking; they just have to come to the house.

Richard: People hover at the thresholds already, but the thresholds for member review, not for labor fines. Automatic member reviews for labor will still exist. I don't think we give people leeway for the asking. I think we should reform this.

POI: Maybe we can just post information about people's options if the fines are a substantial burden. Make it as public as possible, post it on the labor bulletin board.

POI: I'd love for us to have hard numbers on this.

Walter: I've been working on adopting a manual for preventing sexual assault for the co-op. I'm leaving the co-op, but this will be my parting gift.

Events coordinator: Great painting party this weekend! We painted the whole first floor of the courtyard, and it looks nice. I'll be gone until early October, but we'll have an event after that. Early Halloween party?

meetings/2018-09-12.txt · Last modified: 2018/09/13 02:46 by paulwuersig