User Tools

Site Tools


meetings:2019-09-01

Differences

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

Link to this comparison view

Both sides previous revision Previous revision
meetings:2019-09-01 [2019/08/30 06:35]
admin Modified from the form at meetings:2019-09-01
meetings:2019-09-01 [2019/09/09 00:00] (current)
paulwuersig
Line 1: Line 1:
-====== September ​ 1, 2019 ======+====== September 1, 2019 ======
  
-Present:+Present: ​Barak (facilitator),​ Richard, Gatlin, Jaxx, Paul (minutes), Ryan, Bernard
  
 ===== Meet and Greet ===== ===== Meet and Greet =====
 +
 +Nobody for Meet and Greet.
  
 ===== Review of Minutes ===== ===== Review of Minutes =====
 +
 +Minutes approved.
  
 ===== Wiki Updates ===== ===== Wiki Updates =====
  
 +No wiki updates.\\
 +\\
 ~~ FORM START DO NOT EDIT BELOW THIS LINE ~~ ~~ FORM START DO NOT EDIT BELOW THIS LINE ~~
  
Line 39: Line 45:
 ~~ AGENDA ITEM TEMPLATE START DO NOT EDIT BELOW THIS LINE ~~ ~~ AGENDA ITEM TEMPLATE START DO NOT EDIT BELOW THIS LINE ~~
  
 +===== Agenda Item 1 =====
  
 +(Richard) Associates shall receive elevated priority in the move-in waiting list only after four full consecutive weeks of membership in good standing.\\
 +\\
 +Richard: Right now someone can sign an associate contract and then two days later sign a contract to move in.
  
-===== Agenda Item 1 =====+CQ: Can't most people sign associate contracts?
  
-(Richard) Associates shall receive elevated priority in the move-in waiting list only after four full consecutive weeks of membership in good standing.+Richard: Is that a rhetorical question?
  
 +CQ: Is this going to burden the membership coordinator,​ having a threshold after a month?
  
 +Richard: I trust their ability to add.
  
 +CQ: I'm more curious about how we track associate standing.
 +
 +POI: There are a few ways of having elevated priority in the queue. The membership coordinator does it privately, and it could be more public. There was a recent case where someone moved in that shouldn'​t have.
 +
 +CQ: Let's say this passes. What would the consequence be?
 +
 +POI: We'd respect any contracts signed. If it were to happen repeatedly there might be an officer review.
 +
 +POI: I really like the idea of having a visible queue of prospective and associate members. How can we make that happen?
 +
 +POI: Maybe we can make membership coordinator a 4-hour position, with an hour to give another member, especially if we're adding more complicaters. That's a separate item though.
 +
 +**Agenda item passes.**
 ===== Agenda Item 2 ===== ===== Agenda Item 2 =====
  
 (Serene) A member may receive an expense reimbursement from the house only after all receipts are turned in and both the treasurer and the expense bookkeeper have approved. (Serene) A member may receive an expense reimbursement from the house only after all receipts are turned in and both the treasurer and the expense bookkeeper have approved.
  
 +Treasurer: I'm fine with this. I trust Serene to be the second approver. Officers can get checks if necessary.
  
 +Agenda item passes unanimously.
  
 ===== Agenda Item 3 ===== ===== Agenda Item 3 =====
  
 (Gatlin) Automatic labor-related review of Yarrow. (Gatlin) Automatic labor-related review of Yarrow.
 +
 +Gatlin: Yarrow got 8 no-shows in July. She's sent me emails about her labor, so I don't think she's disconnected;​ we just started a new labor czardom and I'm being more militant about sign-offs, so I think she just got no-showed not signing off. I need to talk to her more.
 +
 +CQ: Is she aware?
 +
 +Gatlin: I let her know over email and Facebook. She's aware.
 +
 +Gatlin: I've also talked to her about her labor. We can rearrange her labor to be more in line with her schedule, I think.
 +
 +CQ: Can't you rescind labors for no-signature no-shows?
 +
 +Gatlin: Maybe. Signatures are part of her labor, and we should talk about that, but I'm inclined towards clemency.
 +
 +POI: This is the third time she's been no-showed for labor. The second one, in April, was dismissed for procedural mishaps.
 +
 +**Straw poll**
 +
 +Straw poll is for behavioral contract
 +
 +Standard behavioral contract for labor-related reviews:
 +
 +No more than five gross hours of no-shows a month for three months, starting in September.
 +
 +Gatlin: I'll write up the behavioral contract and get it to Yarrow.
 +
 +**Behavior contract approved.**
  
 <pagemod addagenda output_before>​ <pagemod addagenda output_before>​
Line 66: Line 119:
  
 ~~ AGENDA ITEM TEMPLATE END DO NOT EDIT ABOVE THIS LINE ~~ ~~ AGENDA ITEM TEMPLATE END DO NOT EDIT ABOVE THIS LINE ~~
- 
  
 ===== New business ===== ===== New business =====
 +
 +Ryan: Chelsea withheld rent for August due to a lack of hot water and left on the 28th. It seems that people who withhold their rent are still liable for rent while they were there, but acceleration and other contract penalties are not in effect. The rent is still due. And I believe under Texas law we can use the deposit to pay the last month'​s rent if a resident doesn'​t pay it. I want to talk to Daniel at NASCO and possibly seek legal counsel just so we're sure we're doing everything correctly.
 +
 +--
 +
 +Maintenance:​ One fix for the hot water that I've discussed - the widening of the pipes - will cost $2800.
 +
 +CQ: Do you need house approval for that?
 +
 +Maintenance:​ Nope.
 +
  
meetings/2019-09-01.txt ยท Last modified: 2019/09/09 00:00 by paulwuersig