Community meeting Agenda 6. Oct 2014
attending joe ( fac) lara, carol (notes, yuki, adewole, mayi, john, somerset, elya, daniel, sandy, claire, josh, zoë, randy, becca, jordan
Agenda review 5 min
introductions and heat breaker what animal represents laev role 15min
SCHEDULING Jordan’s full membership interview and decision - josh & jordan 5 min.
greenlight x 3 1/2 mo./ mo.; feels ready; knows people. plan, if not trumped by board meeting business next week (13th) - questions , decision 20th; make-up 27th .
some discussion about protocol for time frames. the proposal satisfies policy.
consensed - community feels ready to make decision about Jordan’s full membership.
- decision* on new proposed language for community meeting agenda requests and agenda posting josh (20 min)
“Although it is the facilitators’ right and responsibility to put forth an agenda as they see fit, it is the understood expectation that agenda items should be submitted to facilitators by noon on the Friday before the weekly Community Meeting, and facilitators should post agendas by noon on the Saturday before that Meeting.
Furthermore, it is not possible to come to consensus on any item which has not been posted as part of an agenda put forth by the facilitators as of 7:30 pm on the Sunday (24 hours) before the weekly Community Meeting.”
explantion: My impression of the concerns raised, and hence my reasoning for this language and this resubmission, is as follows.
The main concern seemed to be that we already have a policy in place which we’re simply not following. At the risk of being confrontational, this doesn’t seem valid to me, as we can always consense over previous decisions, and no one knows where this policy is anyway. If people feel the time frame put forth in that policy (wherever it is) is superior to mine, that’s fine; however not knowing what that is I am resubmitting the time frame as before.
It was requested that I review the bylaws and I have done so. I did not see a requirement for meeting agenda notification, only notification of meeting times and places. Therefore I still believe this policy is necessary.
A concern was raised that sometimes emergencies arise and items may then be submitted over the weekend, and also that in general we need to give facilitators flexibility. Indeed I had intended to allow this flexibility before, and I have reworded the language to emphasis that this time frame is an expectation and not a requirement. However I have retained the 24 hour cutoff for consensus decision, as I still maintain that some reasonable level of notification is required to obtain consensus.
Finally it was brought up that it is variously the responsibility of the facilitators or the item submitters to assess if proper notification was given and if an item can be decided or not - fine and good, but how is that responsibly enforced? By putting forth guidelines, I submit that it will allow individuals to understand what their expected rights and obligations are, and empower people to ‘nudge’ others when obligations aren’t being met.
current policy - includes introduce a week before decision.
sandy- would prefer more positive language.
concerned that only items posted by 7:30 sun are eligible for vote in mon. meet; sites possible emergency situation.
that concern was raised by a few others.
lara - noted: old policy: only a provisional decision could be made on any proposal not properly noticed until publisied or brought to meeting again.
currently - we usualy introduce policy proposal & vote at least 1 week later.
yuki- concerned about need for more flex. when facillitator’s schedule conflicts; seemed to prefer this be guideline v. policy
becca - what problem does policy address?
josh - getting agenda on time. for example members recently consensed on an issue that didn’t have (sufficient or any) notice. no opportunity to say something about it.
becca - interprets as trying to create cultural shift to respect people’s time, and a cultural norm; you’re empowered to make decisions if you’re here.
josh - re emergencies: bylaws allow for meeting with 2 day notice.
joe - wants to distinguish between policy applications to mundane or low level decisions such as space request that don’t require much advance notice and important issues that require advanced notice.
understands that the proposal is coming from a place of “getting (it) together, and foresees potential for conflict / frustration if, for example, a facilitator misses someone’s agenda item and it can’t be squeezed in because of the policy.
believes proposal may have more risks than benefits.
john - important to distinguish between board / com meeting agenda policy requirements. believes these are stated in by-laws
lara - says she was mosquito for early agenda planning team and believes that influenced more timely agendas,
zoê - wants to discourage having watch dog . process of getting to decision more about community / trust building. policy provides point of process to come back to.
favors intention to frame it that way.
somer - structure of deadlines helps him. believes quality of note taking has gone down.
john - board - legal responsibility to doc. board meet. may not be same for community.
becca - bike rack john’s comment
joe - 2 days notice for board. not clear by-laws - believes current process within legal limits
suggest try proposal for year with sunset.
will stand aside - even sunset clause
review concerns:
suggest modify to positive language
dintinguish between levels
not properly noticed
frame to clarify intent
josh - other language already exists. this proposal moves deadline to fri. noon. likes sunset clause. can make holistic process that integrates current policy with this proposal
propose: approve spirit of intention to integrate policies, add that only proposals with 24 hour notice can be consensed at Mon. night meeting. include sunset on nov. 1, 2015
josh and others will word smith it, post on list serv & let it stand if no concerns expressed. if concerns, those people can help with draft.if there is lack of understanding, do an informational presentation
consense with 2 stand-asides who are concerned about potential for conflict and frustration.
followed by suggestion to add that facilitator will let community know if early agenda submission necessary.
- final proposal for Managers attending member-only closed sessions
Consideration of voting status and attendance at closed sessions of the managers for items relating to occupancy/tenancy in units. zoë /joe ( 20 min)
Draft language for proposal:
The USTU community agrees to extend access to the hidden pages on the wiki and the closed sessions of meetings to the current USTU managers, with the exception of decisions in closed session that may involve a conflict of interest and the community agrees to hold a closed session without the USTU managers present.
default - managers will be in closed session unless community asks them not to participate.
The USTU managers have not been approved for USTU membership in part to create a healthy check and balance for the community. The USTU managers do however serve a unique and important role in the community and their participation in closed sessions is encouraged subject to some parameters. They are invited to raise observations, input and advise as it pertains to community discussions. The USTU managers are not formal participants in the consensus decision-making process and therefore would not have the ability to block a community decision. In the event that the managers raise a concern about a particular decision moving forward, the community is not required to address the concern through the consensus process before moving forward.
underlying concept is clarity - understand distinction between addressing manager and member concerns and to outline distinctions.
becca - good on whole. might managers might see what we don’t see.
if managers - or any member identifies conflict interest, should recluse themselves.
john - good language.
managers currently know what’s going on even without attending closed meetings & accessing hidden wiki.
it seems too restrictive - would prefer more of an agreement that if members or managers think it’s not advantageous to have managers at closed session - won’t be invited.
carol - current managers are well informed about and experienced with meeting process; another manager might not be. best to write a policy that will be specific.
joe: there are specific reasons: to avoid manipulation/ politic-ing / conflict.
it serves us to keep it tight.
concerns
zoê - bike rack - how take notes closed session. whatever is in notes is available to managers .
consensed on proposal as written
Mayi update (she’ll send relevant info to community prior to meeting) 15 min.
mayi: hasn’t done provisional membership.
wants to live elsewhere.
plans to move last july didn’t work.
traveling - plans to be back by nov.
why moving?
m. looking for better fit. hangs out outside eco village.
joe: plans to sublet?
m. no one wants to.
john mayi gave - gave 2 wks notice - lease requires 1 mo.
carol what plans to participate while continuing to live here? -
m. maybe garden. haven’t been active. won’t commit because hasn’t participated much. will give notice when locates something.
time frame - indefinite.
next 4 s 5min
facilitators: jimmy/ adewole
supah suppah
meetings - garden sat 10/11 4 pm
work party - garden 10/11 5 pm
bienvenidos 10/12 5 pm
health fair, bresee, sat. 10-1, john, ernesto, julio sr, will represent laev. carol & michelle will offer massage & acupuncture.
sunday- claire’s birthday plans tba.
carrie / maeve → oregon until thur
lara - plans to attend sustainability forum
aurisha - kevin re-entered membership process - supah suppah tba.
yard sale thur.
eval 5 min
kept it on time
put a lot into pitching in
steered group in direction member purpose
ok
good
thanks for keeping it moving
elya entertaining
elya contributed
good timing
thanks stepping in
send thoughts - irma during family emergency
sticky process points -
thanks for stepping in. thanks to zoê & josh for proposals.
ditto
frustrated - all feedback to proposals came at meeting instead of during week - when they could be integrated into proposal
appreciate hashing out in community v. internet; feels strongly that list not good forum for hashing.
thanks for stepping in . consider asking someone to facilitate when have strong opinion about issue.
confused about what we consensed on
good.
joe: had a bias toward an agenda item & it was awkward working through it. got through ok, but it may have worked out more efficiently if stood aside.