2010-12-12 Meeting

Re-energizing Community through Action: LAEV Retreat December 12, 2010 (Day 2)
Session one starting 10am.

Facilitator: Kate Sassoon from http://sassycooperates.org/
Present (at different times): Yuki, Aurisha, Dave, Federico, Ianne, Jimmy, Lara, Joe, Heather, Johnny, Zoe, Josh, Bobby, Andrea, Ann, Somerset.

Agenda:

• Affirm bylaws-section 2, definitions
• CMD Process
• Discuss Opening POG
• Transition Conceptions
• LEHC seen as a tool to govern housing, not to be used as something that governs everything else. (Federico)
• Share Pricing
• Finish road map
• Checkouts/ Evals

Definitions and bylaws updates

Dave took detailed notes on the changes that were made to the definitions- please reference
Dave reviewed the definitions that were considered non-contentious:
- Change made to the term family, now using household in the bylaws
- Change made to the definition of expulsion decision
- Consensus reached on accepting these definitions considered to be non-contentious!!!

Review of more complex definitions:
- Vote removed from the definitions, only taking into account consensus
- Cooperative Rules (in section 3.2 of bylaws)
- Legally enforceable governing structures, this does not account for all of the community agreements.
- Co-op Rules would be legally binding for both renters and owners.
- Difference between co-op rules (e.x. rent…) vs. community agreements (e.x. harvesting policies, etc…)
- Difficulty with enforcing some rules vs. others.
- When developing long term rental lease agreement it should be materially the same as cooperative rules (e.x. pets, parking…)

Proprietary Lease:
- Same as occupancy agreement for owner members.
- Proprietary lease means that an owner has the right to occupy a certain unit. Thus, Johnny recommends that we use the term proprietary lease in the bylaws.
- Proprietary Agreement b/w owner member and LEHC
- Occupancy agreement b/w renter member and LEHC
- Rental agreement b/w long term renters and LEHC (not to have in the bylaws)
- The term “exclusive use common area” will be taken out of the bylaws.
- The definition for proprietary lease was consensed on.

2.8 Member:
- Need to clarify definition of owner member: currently, has been living at the project for at least 18 months
- Renter member: has been living at the project for at least six months
- Provisional renter member: has been living at the project for at least six months.
- Consensed on definition of member- Dave has written up any language changes.

Process of Consensus Decision Making

2.35. Consensus Decision-Making Process. A process of making decisions, wherein the following steps are taken:

1. Presentation of a Proposed Decision/Action (10-minute time limit)
2. Questions Regarding, and Clarification of, the Proposed Decision/Action (10-minute time limit)
3. General Discussion of the Proposed Decision/Action (30-minute time limit)
4. Go Around - Each Member Has 5 Minutes (maximum) to Express Their Views
5. Straw Poll on the Proposed Decision/Action (10-minute time limit)
6. Stand-Asides and Blocks - Each Member Who has Indicated That They Would Stand-Aside or Block the Proposed Decision/Action Has 5 Minutes (maximum) to Express Their Views
7. General Discussion of the Proposed Decision/Action as Modified in Light of Views Expressed (30-minute time limit)
8. Determine Whether Consensus Has Been Reached on the Proposed Action (as Modified) (10-minute time limit)
9. a) See wording from Dave
b) (see wording as changed by Johnny)

(A). Block(s). A situation in the Consensus Decision-Making Process in which: (i) a Member objects to a proposed decision/action because the Member believes, in good faith, that the decision/action is in conflict with the the Cooperative’s mission, values or consensed-upon policies; and (ii) another Member acknowledges, in good faith that the objecting Member’s objection is based on the Cooperative’s mission, values or consensed-upon policies.

(D). Facilitator.

(E). Note-Taker.

Should stand asides be recorded internally and informally, but not including it in the legal document.
- Should stand asides be formally documented for board decisions?
- By formally recording stand asides it could make us more vulnerable if opened
- Proposal: Make it a practice for the note taker to record the number affirming and the number standing aside.
- need to define stand aside: “serious personal disagreement or other wise is not registering a block, but does not directly support a proposed decision/ action.”

Consensed on wording for this definition.

Sassy proposes that we make a polishing provision whereby no major changes will be made to the bylaws, but any changes made by the lawyers to ensure that the bylaws meet legal standard will be communicated through Lara, Johnny and Zoe to the community. _Consensed on!

Bylaws Done!!!

Notes from Kate:
Bylaws updates: change all wording in global bylaws document replace old definitions section with new definitions section (dave’s googledoc titled “New ByLaw? definitions”)

add new language for (c) decision making process, section 5.45, 5.46, 6.20 (in johnny’s gogledoc titled “CDMP in ByLaws?)

Add to policy: make it practice for note-taker to record #support, #stand aside for each consensus decision

Discussion on Opening POG

Eligibility criteria for LAEV members to enter the POG-
1. lived at the project for at least 18 months (agreed to)
2. good rent payment record (agreed to)
3. “good” participation ( = better than existing minimum requirement? Will be discussed in more detail)
4. abides by community agreements (agreed to)
5. Agrees to MOU with CRSP and sign (agreed to)
6. Non-refundable payment of $300 (agreed to)
7. Read, understands and agrees to bylaws (be prepared to sign off annually, per CA law)
8. Has intent to remain on the premises for at least another calendar year (agreed to)
9. Decision made by existing POG (agreed to)

- Proposal that people nominate themselves based on meeting the eligibility criteria. Final decision made by existing POG.
- How are personal preferences (interpersonal relationships) taken into account when nominating new POG member?
- “Good” participation needs more clarification. Could use minimum requirement as baseline from which to examine member participation.
- Be clear about added responsibility of being a member of the POG.
- Should strive to have as many owner members as possible…
- All POG members should be meet the eligibility criteria that they will be imposing on others
- The question came up about waiting to add people as owners, rather than adding more people to the POG. By allowing more members into the POG there is more buy-in with the ongoing process of developing the LEHC framework.

Nominees:
Jimmy (not including household) — CONSENSUS to bring into POG! (those present: Dave, Federico, Angel, Lara, Ann, Joe, Yuki)

Potential POG Nominees:
Zoe
Adonia
Becca
Bobby
Heather

• For folks that are interested in becoming POG members and are eligible, please e-mail the POG and the nomination will be considered.

Notes from Kate:
Jimmy:

awesome contributer! sexxxiest member of community in any gender. very excited to have your energy invested in the community.

concerns: space use negotiation (as a community this larger conversation needs to be resolved)

intent to go to portland; how does this play into commitment to the community and timeline?

decision: POGify!

Second Session: Starting 2:20 pm.
Present: Kate or Sassy (facilitator), federico (notes), dave, Ianne, Aurisha, Bobby, Jimmy, Josh, Zoe, Joe, Lara, Heather, Yuki, Leslie,

Transitions Concepts

Exercise in pairs: active listening:
Person A speaks
Person B listens actively
Person B Responds paraphrasing.

What came up in the conversations:
(Acronyms used: IC=intentional community, LEHC=Limited Equity Housing Coop, CRSP=Cooperative and Resources Services project, USTU=Urban Soil/Tierra Urbana)

• Coop will provide manifestation station for the ecovillage to fully realize itself.
• Coop is a flatter more inclusive structure.
• Fear of balancing responsible landlord/tenant roles.
• Would like to see a graceful and empowering exit strategy for the current landlord (linked to fear of this not happening).
• Legal entity provides work requirements clearly including participation.
• Time for new people to take it over and generational transition and longevity planning of the project.
• We could become inspiration to other people through the vehicle of becoming a coop.
• Concern: LEHC relates to housing and property, are we asking it to encode the Intentional Community, are we using/designing the right tools correctly.
• LEHC is it Intentional Community + CRSP entity? CRSP owner.
• LEHC will serve the intentional community by keeping the housing aspect of it going.
• Provides self-governance and ownership. Seems necessary.
• Multiple centers of initiative culture could be hindered by certain structures, but some structures can
  free us up. It doesn’t need to micromanage that.
• The Ecovillage is not the LEHC. What’s the difference?
• The process of incorporating as an LEHC seems to be threatening some other aspects of what we’ve done in the past.
• LEHC could serve as an entity that fosters activities that benefit its values.
• We currently have an unsustainable model, we are on Lois’s Shoulders, yet there is some continuity we want to keep.
• One perspective is: when LEHC is formed the LAEV-IC ceases to exist.

Next steps: read the governance section of the bylaws and continue the conversation about what is the goal of the LEHC project/entity. Get together with 95% of the POG members to get on the same page.
Link here: USTU Rewritten Draft Bylaws Section 3

5 min Break.

Share Pricing

Option 1:
Share price $15,000 not tied to units…

Option 2:

• Shares tied to specific unit.
• Pricing Dependent on unit size
• Voting and representation separate from shares
• Total shares = 10% of buildings value
• Shares appreciate in value
• Proprietary lease = stronger right to your unit
• each unit has a certificate

Reasons for option 2:

• established=streamlined
• fairness in pricing based in unit size
• clearer, less ambiguity
• faster bylaws completion
• we have limited capacity and expertise to create a new system
• meets requirements for LEHC.
• can transfer share/certificate

Comments, questions, concerns:

• who’s responsible for maintenance under proprietary lease? the coop. If pipes or toilet break coop pays for it because coop owns it.
• Are we assuming downpayments? not discussed yet.
• Is vesting the same as in option 1? to be determined.
• Is CRSP asking for downpayment? No.
• This model appears more flexible for this kind of building according to sassy’s friend who has
  lots of experience with housing coops. the one share one payment has been done but it’s uncommon and not as flexible.
• Could and Owner Member kick out a Renter Member? not discussed yet. not a system set up for such thing. more like a cue since it takes a long time to get in. another answer: any process that we are not explicitly changing remains the same and we have a clear process for that.
• carrying charges (owner equivalent of rent) are paying for expenses of the coop, it could be that less cost in the share will imply more carrying charges.
• Month to month: pay carrying charges and a portion towards your share until you pay it off, as an option. you can also pay share upfront.
• when two people live on the same place? shared shares? you can co-own shares.
• will carrying charges be tied to unit size(in other words, will rent correspond to square footage)? we need to decide, to be done. Perhaps we need to redefine rent based on area.
• This ties units to shares, not to owners. Limited equity means it cannot grow more than 10% a year. more shares cannot be created.
• having the goal to have all owner members can guarantee the longevity of the community.

The decision is to adopt the proposal of the finance committee as presented: consensus!

Finish Road Map Matrix

see table on this page http://urbansoil.net/wiki.cgi/2010-12-11_Meeting

Eval

a word that is challenge and a highlight

• bylaws, bylaws
• intentional, community
• frustration, progress (ditto)
• trusting, unity
• share, price
• labeling, drama(good part)
• clarity, clarity
• seaweed, vibrations
• beer, beer
• beer, 10am
• engagement, control
• preparation(challenging), passion
• ambiguity, honesty