Please Donate and help us:
Present: McAllen, Rebecca, Donny, Jesse, Tim, Paul, Claude, Richard, Chase, Ryan, Andy, Torey, Joshua, Jack, Carey, Corey, Don, Corretta, Nolan
Dan and Megan from Michigan state coop.
(Tim) Revisit and revise the limitations on his guests.
Tim: 3 things: 1) would like to be able to host guests on these couches. 2) not alright with not being able to enter and exit through window. Would like to use as back up method to get inside apt if keys are locked in there or if friends left something over here. 3) need consent to have more than 4 guests over, would like to change number to 6.
CQ and POI:
Andy: number of people that you had staying over at any particular time, a lot of people and potentially a lot of noise, lots of clean up
Richard: there were enough guests often enough they were sort of turning into semi-members.
Torey: I stayed here from Jan. to March. And when Gatlin was staying here, me and Joshua could crash here for one or two nights. That was cool.
Concerns about guests:
Ryan: I think the changes are fine. But if your friends leave the front door in commons open by opening the deadbolt, that’s a waste of energy and also the flies.
Corey: Amendment of language: no entry or exit through window at all during quiet hours. There have been times there are 4 or 5 people in here and it gets a little awkward to move around room. Maybe just keep them to the couches?
Carey: reasonable for people to come retrieve their own property if they left it here, without Tim being here.
Chase: I don’t really take issue with entry or exit through window. Just because Tim doesn’t have a private entrance into his own room like everyone else does.
Tim: and if I damaged the window, I would fix it.
Ryan: Amendment: only 2 overnight guests on couches. Tim accepts.
(Tim) Discuss the possibility of “loud hours” 2-5 pm
Just try it out: we would expect it to be a little louder than usual. I’d like for there to be a space in time when we could all have a chance to be loud. Inside confined spaces. Not necessarily outside.
Richard: We cannot get a sound permit in a residential zone. If 75 decibels crosses a property line, that’s illegal.
Tim: would it be okay if I could figure out a day where I can test for decibel levels
Next Saturday from 2-4 PM, could I have that time to read decibel levels?
Jack: concerts in this room, standing outside in the parking lot we can barely hear it. Not so much an issue of if people outside the coop can hear it, more of a concern if people inside the coop are bothered by it.
Nolan: Hear people say 21st street this and 21st street that. I like that this place is NOT 21st street. I don’t like all the noise there. There’s not a quiet place to go if your home is not quiet. That really bothers me.
Andy: agree with Nolan. I’m right above the commons.
Tim accepts the repurposing of this amendment to do a test and then bring it up again with that info.
Jack: Who specifically would be negatively impacted? The rest of the complex might not be affected as much as say the people living right above the commons.
Carey: There are a lot of quiet introverts that live here, but one of our goals is to be inclusive. Let’s see how we can handle people that are not so quiet and introverted. I like the fact that there are different kinds of people here. Specific hours could fit work schedules so that ppl are gone when it’s loud.
Jesse: friendly amendment: take a sound test for commons and fence line, but also the adjoining suites to see how it affects neighbors of the commons.
Corey: house policy, we have only quiet hours. By defacto, all of our non-quiet hours are loud hours.
Andy: in contract, everyone has right to quiet contemplation. So not all non-quiet hours are considered loud hours. If you are bothering someone with noise, that against the contract.
Nolan: quiet enjoyment is actually a legal term.
Donny: let’s talk about the test. Just vote on that.
Test on Saturday from 2-4 pm to check decibel levels. Modified agenda item passes.
(Tim) Host a show in early January of 2015.
(Tim) Allow Tim to shelter a cat for a week without paying a pet deposit
Tim: friend has a cat that friend abandoned, and so Tim took it and rescued it from the shelter. Can’t afford pet deposit right now and wants time to save $50 for deposit.
Carey: has offered to take cat if okay with Andy.
Andy: not okay with cat.
Ryan: penalty would be to bill you $50 if you don’t pay deposit upon move in.
Richard: How long do you expect to have the cat?
Tim: not sure, I was just trying to keep it from going to the shelter. Trying to find another spot for it.
Paul: we have had cats in the commons before. We had a rule that the cat was strictly not allowed out of the bedroom.
Richard: concerns about cat being stuck in one room. Tim: I’ve been letting it out in the alley some.
Torey: there are filters that you could buy to clean air
Richard: friendly amendment to set a time limit to bring to house again?
Tim: til first meeting in January. Accepted.
Ryan: either pay deposit or get rid of the cat in that time line. Tim: yeah, that’s fine.
Accepted: Tim has until the first meeting in January to get rid of the cat. If the room is damaged, the money will come from Tim’s deposit.
(Richard) Appeal yellow card
Carey and Robbie yellowcarded Richard about improper moderation and failure to be impartial.
Number of ppl voiced concerns about how meeting was handled. Richard thinks this yellowcard breaks the rules and it does not have a specific behavior. The card does not say what I did that was impartial.
CQ and POI:
Andy: Did you have a conversation with Richard about his competency in his running a meeting before you gave him a yellowcard? Carey: yes.
Carey: a lot of our processes about consensus have not made it on to our wiki. Moderators should be impartial. We don’t really have a system if someone thinks that the moderator is not impartial.
Z: Tim tried to call in to discuss some changes to his contract, he was basically told that there is no time on the stack for you. Then I see that Richard wanted to evict Tim for not signing his contract. It felt like he was trying to stop Tim from being able to change his contract, and then try to kick him out right after that.
Jesse: Did you (Z) speak with him (Richard) about that?
Z: I addressed it during the meeting.
Richard: This is not a legit yellowcard bc it is not following the rules of yellowcarding. There is no specific behavior reported.
Ryan: was not happy when I walked in on the meeting. I think he made the attempt to find another mediator and no one stepped up. I think this yellowcard is not legit either.
Richard: Paul came into meeting late. He also thought the meeting would be going by consensus. Andy and I coin flipped to not be mediator and Richard lost. People that were objecting me being mediator came into meeting after a whole item had been discussed.
Ryan: there is a lack of clarity on what our process is exactly. Another reason this is not valid.
Continue meeting 15 after 9:00
Proposal: to dismiss yellowcard for Richard. No blocks, yellowcard is dismissed.
(Hannah) Clarify that going forward a behavioral contract does not have to be signed to be binding, until/unless the person under contract passes amendments at a house meeting.
CQ and POI:
Richard: the only other case was when Peter did not sign his contract and then we voted that the contract was broken. Not signing amounts to a violation of the contract. The house considers it binding whether or not it is signed.
Paul: Is there any language in the current rules that even mentions signing? Richard: the word contract gives a clear idea about that. Paul: maybe we shouldn’t call it a behavioral contract.
Ryan: A contract is not enforceable unless both parties come to an agreement. We would really have to run it by a lawyer before we call it something different.
Jack: If this came in front of a judge, what would they say? What does the law say? We should talk to a lawyer to know what to do in this situation.
Ryan: If it’s a contract, there are things that make it a contract. This extra language kind of not makes it a contract. I think the way we handled it with Peter was appropriate. We should set in place a process to take care of these matters.
Carey: I don’t know about letting the house be in charge of changing something on the contract without consent from the other party.
Ryan: amendment: people who have been asked to sign a behavioral contract, they should have two weeks to bring any amendments to the house about the contract
Richard: could not come to agreement on friendly amendment. I would like to table or have someone else take it up.
(Hannah) Allow Hannah and Ryan to store Caja China in 106 garage. Cooperative members may use the Caja China, though we'd like to be notified just so we're aware.
Questions: Do you own it? Ryan- yes, so no real time limit on storing it there.
Paul: we as a house should have the say in when it is no longer feasible to store it there.
Andy: concern- hoping this year we could optimize the space in the garage, this seems like this might be an obstacle for that.
Corey: we could just shift things around
Jesse: we have many ways to store it rather than just kicking it to the curb.
Ryan: It wouldn’t fit in any of the other closets, too big. Andy can tell me we need to find somewhere else to put it.
Passes: the pig box can be stored in 106 garage
(Hannah) Approve Chase's behavioral contract.
Richard: Reads Chases’ behavioral contract
Concerns- friendly amendment to drop mention of Frankkie in contract
Accepted: Frankkie’s name is taken out of contract.
All in favor of approving Chase’s behavior contract: none in favor, 6 opposed, 6 abstaining
Motion does not pass
(Meg) Request that her and DJ's late fees be waived.
Richard: It’s the first time for them to be late.
Andy: Concern- if we pass it, then we’re making okay for people to turn in rent late.
Richard: Everyone should have one pass.
Proposal passes. Meg and DJ’s late fee is waived.
(Azzurra) Discuss Torey's behavioral contract. I do not agree to a 6-month associateship being required for entrance at all much less without an announced Sunday meeting discussion or an advertised membership review. I move we change these terms, especially because Torey's labor requirements were misreported.
(Azzurra) Concerns that there are inconsistencies with acceptance policies.
(Carey) Proposal: If a member voices that they believe a moderator is not objective or impartial then the moderator must:
1. Ask if anyone else is willing to facilitate the meeting.
2. Get the group's consent for the new moderator.
If two or more members voice that they do not think a moderator is objective then the moderator must step back. In the event the group does not consent to a new moderator, of only one objection has been voiced, the moderator may ask the group's consent to continue moderation. If more people have voiced objection and no replacement moderator can be consented on, the meeting is concluded and all items tabled. Similarly if there is no replacement moderator and the group does not consent the meeting is concluded and all items are tabled.
CQ and POI:
Carey: There’s a tendency in the house to take whatever action we can in order to make something happen instead of doing the right thing and following processes and rules. I don’t think that always taking action is always the right thing to do.
Tim: Can a single person object? Donny: yes
Consider it an item.
Andy: there could be ppl that come in and shut down our meetings to prevent any advancement.
Carey: we already have the ability to block proposals. This isn’t really anything new.
Andy: none of us are completely impartial. If there are those individuals that don’t want to see anything change or move forward, they could potentially filibuster.
Richard: this seems like a tool that would shut down agenda items.
Nolan: unfair to say that if you are impartial with this one item, then shut down the entire meeting. We are all not impartial. What’s more important to me is the outcome instead of if someone is impartial or not.
Corey: this is long and complicated. Based on a block type of process, which should not be done frequently. Friendly amendment, if someone raises a point of process about the moderator being impartial, we should do a simple temp check (majority vote to change moderator) to see what people at the meeting are thinking about that moderator.
Carey does not accept friendly amendment.
Agenda items tabled, meeting adjourned.