Present: Paul (minutes), Corey (facilitator), Anne, Hannah (facilitator), Christian, Richard, Donny
Lunar, first meeting.
(Corey) Dismiss all general maintenance labor no-shows/fines from March until present due to the house's consistent failure to assign maintenance laborers work.
Corey: We've had numerous maintenance coordinators with this problem, but delegating labor to people on the maintenance team just hasn't really happened in 6 months. I don't think this should hit the people on the maintenance team.
Labor czar/former maintenance czar: I know most of these no-shows were from labor assigned and not done.
Corey: I know from personal experience that most labor just wasn't assigned.
Labor czar/former maintenance czar: In general, if someone is not doing an assignment, with no explanation, I tend to not assign them more jobs.
Labor czar/former maintenance czar: e.g. I don't think you were assigned no-shows in April at all.
Corey: I know that I've had to hunt for jobs to do from other people, because I just wasn't getting jobs. There have been times I haven't heard from maintenance for a long time.
Labor czar/former maintenance czar: I'm sorry, but there were assignments.
Corey: I've gotten a few very large jobs, but no small ones. I got the key thing, and that was it.
Labor czar/former maintenance czar: That's not the case, sorry.
CQ: How many no-shows/fines from March-present?
Labor czar/former maintenance czar: 2 no-shows from March that were mostly maintenance. 13 & 11 just in March. In April, Joshua & Barak got hit with more no-shows. Barak was also expecting other labor after not doing inspections, but said nothing to me.
Corey: This seems like an institutional failure. One person was doing three officerships.
Labor czar/former maintenance czar: If people weren't assigned things, I'd be OK with this. People were given assignments, didn't do them, and didn't contest them.
CQ: Isn't this a contesting of them?
Labor czar/former maintenance czar: Yes.
Concerns / amendments phase
Labor czar: Concern: I don't think this is a legitimate proposal.
Corey: I was only assigned one large task that took me forever to schedule, and I told you that. I did get that large project done when I found the time for it, and otherwise I got no other work.
Labor czar: You were doing other things, which is why you weren't totally no-showed in March for your maintenance hours.
Labor czar: You weren't no-showed.
Corey: I could've done other maintenance, but it wasn't given to me.
Labor czar: Joshua just stopped doing other things. Barak just stopped doing what he was assigned, and I'm not going to assign more labor to those people. I'm not on a mission to no-show people.
Corey: I believe you've expressed direct desire to get people out of here using your officer positions.
Labor czar: So this is just March, really. It was 11.5 no-shows.
POI: It looks a lot like a communication error, where people weren't clear.
Labor czar: Concern: I haven't heard why other no-shows should be dismissed.
Corey: This seems like a failure of the czar. The other people also seemed to have large projects that they didn't tackle.
Labor czar: He just stopped doing it, and there was a several-week gap before he even talked to me about it.
CQ: Maybe honor a percentage of the no-shows?
Labor czar: This already resulted in a member review, and the fines boil down to $50 in that month due to the one-month labor cap.
Corey: I owe something like $300 in fines. Something's wrong between labor and finance then.
POI: There's no transparency in the fines.
POI: Should we table this until we can learn more about the fines?
Corey: Even if I got on a payment plan, that would be 80% of my income.
POI: Maybe we can address the fines separately and drop the no-show issues.
(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: Talking with members, the 2-mo and 3-mo thresholds for labor reviews is harder for people to keep track of. I've asked people if they'd rather just have one threshold of 6 hours in a month, and they want that because they want more timely feedback on their behavior, and people seem to like the idea of having one threshold they can personally track.
Labor czar: We are loosening the requirements overall.
Corey: Overall, yeah, but 6 seems like a reasonable number.
CQ: Would this cause more member reviews?
POI: I think people would adjust. Some people might just have an extra no-show/mo and stay below the threshold, but we can always member review them if necessary.
Concerns / amendments phase
Labor czar: Concern: I don't think we should let people get away with 6 no-shows/mo. The idea behind the multiple thresholds is to allow people to have off-months. The 3-month threshold is rarely hit; it's only been hit once. I haven't gotten any complaints for the most part.
Corey: Our current thresholds just aren't transparent to people, especially new members. Explaining one threshold would be much easier.
Labor czar: If our threshold is only 5, sometimes half the house hits that. Simplifying it is generally good though, and especially dropping the 3-mo threshold wouldn't impact much.
Corey: Maybe we could just drop the 3-mo threshold.
Labor czar: The one-month threshold's 8, so people could just get 7 in a month and fly below the threshold.
Amendment: Only drop the 3-mo tier, and change the threshold of the 2-month tier, i.e. 8 in one month or 10 (5/mo) in two consecutive months will trigger a automatic labor membership review.
Labor czar: I'm about to finalize May. I can apply this going forward, whenever the next batch comes through.
Passes as amended.
(Corey) Any no-shows not reported to the house within 90 days shall be considered invalid and shall automatically be immediately dismissed.
Corey: Just trying to put a cap on our backlog of labor. I think once it gets to a certain point we shouldn't be worrying about it. I'd rather catch up on recent information than clearing out ancient no-shows.
Labor czar: I won't oppose this.
POI: It'd be hard to prove no-shows after 90 days.
POI: I have mixed feelings. Since we're all-volunteer, our administrative capacities are dubious at best. Behavior contracts have been enacted tonight based on no-shows that are that old. I don't think we get bogged down in the old data.
CQ: When was the last month's no-show report?
Labor czar: July.
Corey: Three months is half an officer's term. If you're that far behind, I don't expect catch-up. This still allows for member reviews 5 months after labor happens, once you allow for officer processing and labor plans that can delay no-shows hitting for review purposes. It's really hard to have a productive discussion about no-shows from 5 months ago.
CQ: When would this start applying? Because I don't want to let people off the hook who are currently on the hook.
Corey: We'd be looking at nothing being done until mid-December.
CQ: 90 days from what?
Corey: 90 days from when the no-show reports are supposed to be reported.
Labor czar: OK, so this wouldn't have hit any of the no-show reports this year, although the June no-show report got close.
Corey: I think this is about the longest we can go without no-shows, and we have gone past this threshold in past years. I think it's unfair for people when we get that far behind; it's a burden in a bunch of fines landing at once.
CQ: How far?
POI: About 6 months. And that's terrible.
Labor czar: I'm not going to oppose this simply because I do think it's unfair to have to contest no-shows from that far back. I'd be OK with an amendment to no-show the labor czar the whole month.
Corey: I'd be OK with a officer review.
Labor czar: It'd be a $50 fine and a member review at that point.
Concerns / amendments phase.
Labor czar: Amendment: Specify that this is 3 months from the date the no-show report is due, usually the 15th.
Labor czar: Amendment: Automatic officer review for labor czar when this happens.
Passes as amended.
(Anne) Request 30 day lease break option.
Anne: Requesting to break the contract and a waiver of the contract break fee. I plan to move around the 9th of November. I'm not behind on labor or rent.
POI: We have people ready to move in, so I don't see a problem here.
POI: This is pretty standard.
(Ryan) Discuss Budget
Ryan the treasurer: Standard 3 options. I've highlighted the differences between the different budgets. I want to hear feedback so I can come back with a specific proposal next week.
CQ: When would these take effect?
Treasurer: We'd pick a date. We can increase the rent in the middle of a contract if necessary.
POI: We'll also need to update the Section 8 rents. That might take a while.
POI: The rent for a whole unit goes up by $14, 18, or $22 in these proposals. That's divided by 2 or 3 if people have roommates.
Treasurer: The grounds budget went up from $400 to $800, since we've historically underbudgeted for that. That's for the whole year though.
Treasurer: The grocery budget goes down, and the kitchen budget goes up a little. These are just matching what we spent last year. Overall they go down.
POI: Pantry's been consistent. No complaints here.
Treasurer: I raised the utilities budget $1000. We should modify our garbage contract for additional pickup or a bigger dumpster.
POI: I'd rather get an additional pickup.
POI: This might just because of dumping.
Treasurer: The trash budget is $4000; that's $360/mo.
CQ: Are we missing $11000 in rent?
Treasurer: We almost never hit the rent number. The vacancy reserve is a separate item that covers vacancies/damage.
Treasurer: We need to work better with the membership coordinator, because from the data we have we don't know when entire units are unfilled. Some sort of vacancy report from membership would be great. I've talked to her about it before but haven't followed up.
Treasurer: We don't have a good system for units that are vacant, just for people who don't pay. Claiming vacancy isn't income, just part of the cashflow report.
POI: Main expense changes are kitchen, office, grounds. Main income changes are just the rent change, labor & late fine fees. The rent increase offsets the changes in the other fees.
Treasurer: The CHEA contributions change significantly, and there's not much we can do about it. That's both property tax and the increased expenses of the board.
CQ: Bad debt?
POI: Debt owed that we didn't claim. When people leave without paying, their security deposit is eaten first, then if they owe other money like late fees or labor fines or damages, those come out of the vacancy reserve fund.
POI: I'm OK with these budgetary changes.
(Richard) Approve behavior contracts for Yarrow and Catty
CQ: Do we have the text of these contracts?
Labor czar: Standard labor contracts. They can't exceed 5 gross no-shows a month for three months: November, December, January.
Labor czar: Normally the Steward gets behavior contract signatures. I can co-sign for Yarrow, since she's the Steward. This just needs a majority vote.
Events coordinator: Trying to schedule events! Want to make this Bingo thing happen, maybe late in the month. It's BYOB, and right down the road!
POI: We wanted to paint the top floor in October.
Events: Maybe November for that. I think there'll be less enthusiasm for working for fun two events in a row. November 4th there should be a party. I need musical acts if anyone knows any. If we can pay a band (with money!) we could broaden our musical horizons. Anything anyone wants to donate to that cause would be great.
POI: We had a fund, but we mostly spent it on our Birthday.
We passed a parking limit, and there are more spaces now. Great!