Building Community Meeting Notes 11/29/10
In attendance: Jonny (facilitator), Ann (notes), Leslie, Aurisha, Julio 2.0, Lara, Lauren (USC student), Angel, Ianne, Federico, Joe, Jimmy, Josie (in process), Marina (in process), Joaquin, Yuki, Bex (short stay), Melba
Agenda:
- Schedule interview/decision for Leslie’s transition from provisional to full member
- Proposed changes to short stay policy (discussion → decision)
- Consensus decision making in the bylaws
- Announcements and Evaluation
1. Schedule interview/decision for Leslie’s transition from provisional to full member
- Has been provisional member since May
- Did not have a provisional member liaison, Heather was her liaison while in the process
- Some people would like us to have the six months of provisional membership start when the person moves in as opposed to when they were approved as a provisional member
- Three month check-in? Not done, this is not required in the process
- Decision scheduled for next meeting, 12/6/10
2. Proposed changes to short stay policy
- Discussion started in May, tried to make some changes based on community input
- Items incorporated: defining families (defined as adult with child under 18), allows for families to enter process without having to move out if they are currently in a short stay
- First paragraph as proposed (from Aurisha’s email):
In the interests of fairness, short stays may not enter the membership process or be greenlighted while in residence. The community will make this clear to parties interested in short stays.
Comments:
- okay for interested folks to live here?
- very short stays (ie a weekend, a week) should be an exception
- exceptions for partners? See next paragraph
- the point is – short stay is not a vehicle towards membership
- add wording – “short stay is not a short cut to membership” to be more clear about our intentions
- distinction in our current short stay policy between someone who stays less than 2 weeks (don’t need community permission) and over 2 weeks, could use this to address the concern about making an exception for very short stays
- Second paragraph as proposed:
Recognizing that families of at least one parent and one child under 18 years old are underrepresented in our community, we will consider a combined candidacy and provisional membership process for families that are planning to move to Los Angeles and have experience and a commitment to raising children under 18 in intentional communities. This would minimize the challenge that our membership process presents to a family that is already moving. These cases will not take precedence over existing candidates, but this flexibility helps us reach our goal of supporting a diverse community that includes families. We will take existing member families and interested families
in the area into consideration before inviting an interested family from out of
town to enter the membership process. Families must follow the same membership process but may move in anytime during the process OR if already living at LAEV, can enter process without having to move out.
Comments:
- Eliminate the part about “may move in any time in the process”
- This is a membership issue, not a short stay issue, should be its own free standing policy, turns it more into something proactive that we’re trying to do
- Could add to the first sentence “in the interest of minimizing harms to kids”
- Is there an assumption that we will change this policy once families are more well-represented in our community? Or will we continue to have this exception when we have more families?
- Could leave it ambiguous and define it at some future point
- Already have an exception for partners of existing members
- Could be a recurring issue because we are always trying to use our larger units for families
- Should be affirmative and positive, could say “because in the past our process has been difficult for families”
- Could say “in order to make our membership process more welcoming to families”
- Take away the value judgment, start with “we will consider”
- But might be useful to people who come in the future to know why we’re doing it
- Could separate out an introductory paragraph
- What is “out of town”? Do we need to define this?
- Can a family that is in process take up residency?
- This does not guarantee membership
- Short stay policy as consensed:
In the interest of fairness a short stay is generally not a short cut or track toward membership. A short stay of longer than 2 weeks will not be granted to a greenlighted candidate. A person on an approved short stay may not enter the process or be greenlighted while in residence. An exception will be made for families.
Family Policy as consensed:
We will consider a candidacy while in residence for families of at least one parent and one child under 18 years old who are planning to move to Los Angeles and have experience and a commitment to raising children under 18 in intentional communities. This would minimize the challenge that our membership process presents to a family that is already moving. These cases will not take precedence over existing candidates, but this flexibility helps us reach our goal of supporting a diverse community that includes families. We will take existing member families and interested families in the area into consideration before inviting an interested family from out of town to enter the membership process. Families must follow the same membership process as anyone else and if already living at LAEV families can enter the process without moving out.
3. Announcements:
- Free tours of LA river with Joe 12/ and 12/10 at 1 PM
- Julio’s sister will come 1/27, graduating with her master’s degree in nursing
- Julio’s 12/11 at 7PM
- 12/24-1/2 Marina will be out of town
- This Friday at 8 PM, bowling with Yas
- This Saturday 2-6 cookie baking party
- Wednesday: seminar on minimizing risk in affordable housing
- Joaquin will be 7 months old on 12/2
- Artivist film festival at the Egyptian theater coming up
4. Three Nexts:
Next facilitation team: Angel and Bobby on 12/6/10
No supah suppah scheduled
Next work party in January
5. Evaluation:
- Good to actually finish one whole item
- Felt good to finally finish the short stay policy
- Dealt with confusion well, did good job facilitating
- Good job keeping things on track
- Generally a bad idea to do word-smithing in large groups
- Wow, we did it!
- Thanks to Aurisha for doing the prep
- Excellent example of tenacity
- “Concerns” as opposed to “problems”
- Actually cool to do this as a group
- Self criticism: make sure to separate role of facilitation team from role as participants
- Good to have markers that work
- Difficult to let go of being a lawyer