Membership Committee Meeting
Wed, February 7, 2007
Attendance: lara, yuki, Federico (note taking), randy, dave, ann.
- Meeting For the Membership Process Update : didn’t happen, Joe couldn’t show up.
- New Member Committee Proposal: Update, Aurisha and yuki haven’t met. People are invited to join or take yuki’s place. Proposal, name the committee, “The New Member Committee” . Proposal: the “bienvenidos committee”-which was the old name. The idea is to get a newer draft and present it at Mondays meeting and see if we can get it approved.
Yuki will ask aurisha to be the point person with the bienvenidos committee.
Yuki will be the point person with the draft of the new membership process.
- Pog Membership Stuff: working on the types/categories of community members.
Discussion: Intentional Neighbors, since they are not residents they wouldn’t have to abide to the resident guidelines. There could be two levels (regarding decision members). Example: pet’s policy – intentional neighbors not living in crsp owned buildings wouldn’t have “blocking power”.
Discussion: “Non resident intentional members” shouldn’t have blocking power over new members becoming residents. Being a member (simply) should answer that question.
What does it get you –what are your benefits- to be a member(even if you live down the street):
- attendance to crsp event at rate of ecovillager
- access to community spaces
- work in the communal garden space
- included in the listserve
- you can attend and invite guests to attend all eco-village activities (clarification we are writing in the affirmative – there is no mention to exclusion) – we want the put the issue of potluck access in the bike rack for discussion.
- privilege to request a rental space in the building
(this last one would allow us to have ONE membership process regardless of their intention to move or not – this is up for discussion, some want different process depending) - ability to initiate eco-village projects
- have blocking power/make decisions in your corresponding category.
Responsibilities listed in the document
Participation Requirements.
- should shared owners have additional participation requirements?
- this could merit a really long discussion
- there is not a collective analysis
- what are the community goals that the participation requirements should meet?
- what level of flexibility are we going to have?
- the question could be about tracking. A system that puts accountability in front would solve more things – and transparency. A good system that people use should be put in place BEFORE worrying about enforcing. - maybe is not about enforcement, but about having a conversation and figuring out how to encourage and recognize (“a welcoming space, instead of a stick”) – a good system could incorporate “perception” of participation – we’ve come a long way since the last discussion about enforcing participation; maybe the next step is to revisit that - next step is also community input, and to see where everyone perceive themselves, maybe the opt out option -
- participating in meetings to maintain blocking power (we need a policy, we have records) your right to block decision is based upon your participation in meetings. (we want to put language to this).
- We’ll have a break and not meet next week (Wednesday is valentines day).
- next steps will be updates.
- Dave will try and put a framework for the following agenda.