LAEV 2007 Retreat Notes - Can also be found at 2007-12-02 Meeting
Facilitated by Tree Bressen
Day 2: Sunday, December 2, 2007
Participants: Ann, Angel, Heather, Joe, Somerset, Aurisha, Jimmy,
Kathy, Randy, Dave, Michelle, Andrea, Dale, Julio, Yuki (notes am),
Thiago (notes pm), Federico, Lara, Lois
Stakeholder Document
presented by Ann
All discussion is related to stakeholder document (spreadsheet) in
which share owners, intentional renters, intentional neighbors, and
long-term residents are accorded their respective rights to attend
meetings AND have blocking power regarding various types of decisions.
Questions, Comments, Discussion
- where do intentional eco-villagers who have stopped participating
lay in the organization? Answer: to be determined. Will they be
allowed to just opt out? Or be asked to leave? Will attendance be
linked to decision-making power? - what about people who just don’t comply and use laev-ic’s non-legal
entity status to ignore decisions? - - Clarification: The discussion is regarding blocking power, but all
people are welcome at meetings. – added language to clarify - Expulsion decision refers to both expulsion from coop and ic? Yes.
Needs to be specified in document. There may be more discussion on this. - X means blocking power for decision-making items only. Need to move
“attend community meetings” down to “additional benefits” section. - Clarification: X for blocking power only refers to when decisions are
made by consensus. Discussion followed about whether there would be
other forms of decision-making other than consensus (i.e. voting).
Added language to clarify - We can pass this in general and then figure out how it meshes with
legal requirements. - This document will help us as a guiding document as we create more
detailed documents such as our by-laws etc. - Might need some more clarification in this document to help people
understand what we mean (i.e. describing examples) - Suggestion: Add to the responsibilities section some language about
staying informed about issues. - Need clarification with terms referring to various entities (i.e.
LAEV) in the document. - Where does CLT come into play with regard to changes to the
building/land decisions? In general, what is the relationship between
this document and the CLT? Should we add the CLT as another category
of membership? – this will be figured out with the ground lease. - Clarification: This is a road map as we move forward. For example,
this lays out rights and responsibilities for groups that don’t exist
(share owners) so this doesn’t mean that everything gets implemented
if we approve it today. It just mean this is how we plan to implement
it once these entities are in place. - Change “share payments” to “monthly housing costs”
- Who should have access to private parts of the wiki?
- Want more discussion about who should be included on the listserv.
Proposal: remove the x for long-term residents and have a discussion
at a future meeting about how we want to handle situations where
long-term folks want to be. - Do we need to set a date to review the document in the future? Not
at this point.
CONSENSUS: The stakeholder piece with the revisions made today (Ann
updated document during meeting and will send out to wiki/listserv)
and without the listserv and wiki lines
Proposal for listserv access: All x, with the language reading
“eligible for access to the general listserv, and must abide by
policies pertaining to the listserv. [policies to be developed].
Discussion: concern about creating more work in wanting to send more
sensitive e-mails to active members. But this might not be the best
forum for sensitive communications. Perhaps in the future we could
create a more exclusive list in the future for more sensitive
communications. CONSENSUS.
Proposal: just first 3 x reading “Access to hidden pages on the wiki”
Discussion: doesn’t seem important to have this in this document.
CONSENSUS: leave off this document.
Tree reflection: Right to decision-making should be tied to taking
responsibility. For example rent: the amount of rent does affect
folks living in the building. But does not reflect the responsibility
for it. So Tree would have suggested linking decision-making power to
responsibility in the guiding principles.
Bike Rack Items from morning sessions:
- Opt out and/or asked to leave for folks who came in as IC member,
but are not participation (whether or not living in CRSP-owned buildings) - Link attendance to decision-making power (i.e. responsible for being
informed) - Membership in CLT, IC, Coop -→ need to create a diagram with
stakeholders and these entities (i.e. how different memberships overlap) - Consequences, legal standing, “club” accusation -→ How to hold
people accountable to abide by policies if there are no legal
requirement to do so. Need a definition of what it means to be a
member in good standing and what are the consequences of
noncompliance. Could do some research on how other communities handle
this. Kathy & Dale (with support from Lois) can do some research on this. - Short-term stay category? What are rights & responsibility apply to
them? - Create policy for listserv usage -→ formation of adhoc committee to
discuss electronic access (Dave, Joe, federico, yuki) - Expulsion decisions for IC and Coop -→ IC decisions could be made
by all IC categories? Does expulsion from Coop/IC result in eviction
from building?
Transition Options
Focus on options 2 & 3 from yesterday regarding transition discussion
(option 1 eliminated for lack of interest from group)
OPTION 2 - LEASE/OPTION FOR BIMINI TERRACE & BIMINI APARTMENTS AT
$10,000/MO → ALL TO PURCHASE
OPTION 3 - PURCHASE FINANCED BY CRSP AT $10,000 FROM POG TO CRSP; POG
TO CREATE A 501C3 NPO AS PURCHASER
- Understanding the options:
Similarities:
Monthly payment of less than or equal to10K/mo
Cover mgmt functions itself or hire out
CRSP would donate land to CLT
CRSP acts as a lender
Differences:
Option 2: incorporate to shield members from liability;
Easier to enact by deadline
More time to draw up purchase agreement
Option 3: POG incorporate as non-profit as requirement
Ground lease with CLT
Question:
Had the financial cmte considered any other options (besides 1
through 4)?
No.
Question to CRSP:
can CRSP lease to an org that is not 501c3 (consult real estate person)
CLT could initially have land and bldgs.
Discussion:
We should know of CRSP’s terms before deciding to look for other options.
Revolving loan fund is a possibility. Lois suggests thinking about
friends that can loan at least $5,000 collectively for each of us, for
example. Establishing a local currency, in the event of US monetary
collapse, would enable us to pay back loan.
Timeline on Excel document
Borrowing $ from CRA as part of being recognized as a housing co-op
Meeting schedule:
May need to alternate POG and Building Cmte mtgs in order to move POG
items forward. May fit into cmte accountability discussion.
Proposal: Alternate Bldg Cmte mtgs w/POG mtgs. APPROVED
Exercise for considering options/getting a sense of group process:
Kinetic mapping – people stand along a line representing a spectrum
of the two options. Report out each of the people then stated why they
stood where they stood. Another option would be to pair up people who
were at opposite extremes for discussion and then report.
BIKE RACK from afternoon sessions:
- We should make sure to get the committees discussed yesterday set
meeting times and get general sense of direction - POG invitation and payment
- PROPOSAL: Consistent team of people that plan all POG mtgs/agenda
items for next 6 months