Present: Philip, Carl, Paul (minutes), Donny (facilitator), Ryan, Yarrow, Bernard, Corey, Serene, Barak
Jose (second meeting, approved)
(Richard) Approve behavior contract for Phillip.
(Richard was not at the meeting, and nobody else had the contract text to approve. Tabled.)
(Richard) Drop the member floor rule, keeping the exemption list. Replace the rule with a requirement that any non-exempt member occupying a whole unit either perform an additional four hours of labor weekly or otherwise pay an extra $180/month (4 hours * 4.5 weeks * $10). Update the lease to reflect this change. Allow Christian a one-time, six-month lease exempting him from this change.
Ryan: I'm pretty sure this would violate the Fair Housing Act because the exemption list mentions things like household size. As soon as we start charging people different amounts of money or different amounts of labor, things start to get really sticky. I'm probably going to block this.
Clarifying question: There's already an exemption list?
Point of interest: If this is to compensate for the loss of labor when someone takes two rooms, this seems fine. I'm not sure about Ryan's point.
Serene: I helped develop this agenda item with Richard. The idea is to discourage the behavior, in line with our mission of providing affordable housing to as many people as possible. Housing is becoming way more limited in Austin, and our mission is important.
Bernard: I don't think this is fair. I don't want this to apply to me.
POI: I don't think this would apply to you, Bernard, since you have member roommates that also do labor.
Serene: And of course, you can always come to the house and appeal for an exemption. You'd have to appeal to your peers. I think that's fine.
Concerns / friendly amendments
Corey: My concern is that the original proposal contains an exemption for Christian and only Christian. If we do it for one person we should do it for every person currently under that contract. Another concern is that the floor rule will do a better job of preserving member capacity and therefore maintaining our labor pool.
Ryan: I'm not too concerned about the floor. And single-occupancy units change other issues in good ways, e.g. they contribute twice as much to the food budget per person.
Serene: I did not think about the fact that we could have fewer members with this proposed rule. I do think it's important that the co-op has official ways to reduce this behavior.
Donny: I never got anyone to agree to represent the item in Richard's absence, which is necessary for amendments.
Carl: It makes sense that the co-op could have a veto over someone signing a single-occupancy unit.
POI: It does, but it's not really part of our process, which is done by the membership coordinator and doesn't usually rise to the level of co-op discussion.
Corey: The old camera were woefully crappy - 0.25 MP resolution, <45 ft night view. With Donny I've looked into both a solid analog system and a future-proof digital system. The analog system requires splicing with old coax connectors, painful to install. The digital recorders would also have audio and 20x resolution.
Barak: I say we go highest-resolution if we're going to put in the labor. Also, who would have access to the footage?
POI: We used to have rules about this - we still might, although maybe they're obsolete. Access to footage would be restricted for privacy reasons.
Barak: I thought Richard was going to be here, and that he would have ballots. It's important to have ballots and finally get these elections done. We've been without membership coordinator and steward for too long.
POI: I think it's within your duty as board representative to do that.
Ryan: I've been working on the land development code changes with the city. We're going to update the definition of cooperatives in the city code.
Barak: We've hired a program manager for the CTAP project - that's Ryan. It's going to be great.