User Tools

Site Tools


meetings:2015-07-26

July 26, 2015

Present: Rebecca (minutes), Andy (facilitator), Burgess, Dusana, Hannah, Donnie, Corey, Carey, Richard, Lisa

Meet and Greet

Review of Minutes

Reviewed, no changes

Wiki Updates

Changed all references to new rent amount.

Agenda Item 1

(Richard) An associate must be a member in good standing for at least a month in order to receive a higher priority on the waiting list. Additionally, the associate must request the higher priority placement at a house meeting. This policy is effective for all associate contracts signed after July 26, 2015.

Richard: response to some advice that Meg brought back from NASCO. a couple applied here over the phone and didn't know about the associateship and how that would impact their status on the waiting list. the associateship has a way of making it harder for people outside of the state to do their labor. this might be worth dropping or suspending.

POI or CQ:

Carey: So this is someone who actually applied here?

Richard: Yes. there was a concern that this could aggravate complaints of discrimination.

Burgess: Ppl in Austin that can do labor and pay associate fee, and we're concerned that people outside of the state that can't do the labor?….

Corey: associate members that don't do their labor do not get admission.

Richard: Most of our associateship cases are people asking to get to the top of the list if they do

Hannah: They have to be an associate at least a month before getting the benefit of getting to the top of the list?

Richard: bumping to the full membership list. they would have their place in line. after a month of being an associate in good standing, then they can be bumped to the top of the list.

Concerns and FA:

Carey: this seems like this is making associates pointless. what's the point of having an associate program?

Richard: some people simply want to be associates.

Corey: alternative way to go, we can just say an associate

Richard: does this amount to an unintentional form of discrimination?

creating hardship on associate members, by forcing them to wait a month and do labor.

Burgess: it would require a third meeting to come back and request.

Richard: not at all proposing that associates have to be associates for a month to move in, just that they need to be to be bumped.

Donnie: we are basically selecting for people who are nearby and have time or money to pay the fee and who show up here and moving them to the top of the list.

Corey: livng in a coop already limits the type of people who can move in here for those same reasons. i don't think we hold associates accountable enough. i don't think we keep track of the finances well enough, don't get them on the labor schedule as fast as members who live here…

Carey: giving the house more leniency to waive the fees and costs, instead of gut the whole associateship system anyway.

Richard: this is one of the ways that we unintentionally discriminate and less ways is better than more.

Donnie: it's true they are expected to labor and pay money when they get here. someone from Idaho basically can't be on the waiting list, bc they cant do labor. the bump is pretty much required if you want to get in here.

Carey: if we are still concerning ourselves with these issues, do we really want ot be placing people that already have privilege and live outside of state instead of letting people inside the city that are trying to stay here and maybe having trouble staying here.

Burgess: on an individual basis waive certain things based on geographical circumstance. people from out of state have a right to waive requirement to do labor, if they can give us a definite date that they can move to austin, jobs they will have, etc…

Richard: simplify it to There is no priority bump, at all, ever.

Corey: the nature of our waiting list is an inherent hardship already. granting people free associates from out of state would make it more accessible for them to move in here.

Donnie: make the meaning of associateship just for people that wanna come and hang out at the coop. Propose that there is no longer a bump in priority for associates on the members list, to move in. the more that we make individual decisions like that in meetings, the more we open up ourselves to accusations of discriminations.

Richard: accepts friendly amendment.

5 up votes, 2 down, no blocks. for amendment. So amendment is tabled.

Corey: there are other ways that we could mitigate these concerns about the amendment. we don't need to get rid of the bump completely. i think this is a bad way to solve this problem.

Richard: the argument that the policy that allowed me to move here is not a good argument. we can't decide rules based on how they will benefit a specific person?

Carey: we are the coop. even if you dont think we're making the best decisions, you can't just argue us out of being able to vote against it.

Corey: I think there are other things we can do.

Lisa: I don;t think its right to charge people to have access to commons and do labor for us. I think its gentrification.

Corey: 1.associate membership contract will only be offered one week after a member has been through membership acceptance process. 2. any associate member with an outstanding balance (or balance due) at the coop will not be able to move in if it's their turn on the waiting list. 3. all out of town applicants have the same priority on the waiting list as an associate member. 4. associate members must be put on the labor chart within one week of signing their associate member contract.

1. Denied as FA

2. Denied as FA

3. Denied as FA.

4. seems a little too distant. Denied as FA.

Richard: what's being proposed is better than the status quo. it's limited to people we know or someone in here knows, and we ought to avoid that.

1 down wiggle, most up wiggles, 2 blocks.

Lisa: i dont think there is a purpose for the associate program if we do this. by forcing associates to be here for an entire month performing labor for us, narrowing down demographic to people with cars.

Carey: Lisa covered it. makes the program useless.

Proposal/agenda item is blocked.

Agenda Item 2

(Burgess) Discuss ramification of non-members staying with members, beyond the 7 days allowed by the resident lease.

Burgess: Roommates let people in without talking to the roommate first. not consistent with definition of shared space. really uncomfortable for a roommate to raise the issues. in the horse manual, there is one item about this issue. no one knows how many people are in sam and delia's apartment. they're using our gas, water, space, access to commons keys just by being in an apartment. i think there should be notice prior to the person coming. it's very rare that this happens. we have a 14 day rule in the manual. after 7 days, what are we supposed to do? How is the coop supposed to care on the subject? It's a coop and we know our neighbors. allowing someone membership benefits by proxy is really unacceptable. i will bring agenda item next week.

Discussion:

Richard: until we do have a policy on this, tossing out some yellow cards would be a fine solution until then.

Burgess: has notice to vacate been given to 105?

Andy: I have heard that there will be one. Not sure if it's gone out yet.

Dusana: maybe make clarifying details that the house will follow

Corey: And the manual says 14 days, doesn't say consecutive, in general,…

Burgess: I'm gonna come up with an agenda item, looking for ideas if people have them about this issue. I would like this to be common knowledge that this is a coop and we are all members, and friends of member, not additional tenants.

Andy: Get memco or steward to verify breaking terms with lease, clear violation of the contract

Lisa: suggest maybe if someone is going to have a guest for 48 hours, sit down with security officer and just get to know this person a little, make sure they are okay to stay here.

Dusana: and the officer would recognize that face. it's a good point.

Andy: or even if they come to a meeting and just show their face. that would be cool.

Agenda Item 3

(Andy) Vote to allow filming of Oscillate Wildly with the minimum following dates and times, subject to change: 8/12 from 6 AM to 6:30 PM. 8/13 from 6 AM to 6:30 PM. 8/14 from 7 AM to 7 PM. 8/15 from 7 AM to 12 PM. 8/19 from 7 AM to 7:30 PM. 8/20 from 7 AM to 7:30 PM. 8/21 from 7 AM to 7 PM. 9/2 from 2 PM to 2 AM. 9/3 from 2 PM to 1 AM. 9/6 from 8 PM to 8 AM. 9/9 from 11 AM to 11 PM. 9/10 from 11 AM to 11 PM. So long as there are at least two apartments willing to allow use of their living space.

Donnie: (facilitator)

POI and CQ:

Andy: nobody actually signed up for the two apartments. nobody really seems to want this to happen. let them know that they need to start looking elsewhere for filming.

Concerns and FA:

Corey: nobody has signed up to offer their apartment. if there's not a place to film, there's no point in allowing them to film

Hannah: FA to see if they can offer a price raise for the apt.

Andy: if someone wants to offer their apartment and then negotiate with the crew themselves, that's an option. FA not accepted.

Lisa: going to have a crew of about 30 people. that's too many people in such a small space. property destruction would happen.

Corey: sounds like they wanna start filming in about 2 weeks. and we still haven't seen a contract as a house.

Hannah: it's a really cool opportunity for us, but if no one wants to offer up their apartment, then we can't do anything about that.

No support. Item does not pass. Not going to allow filming here.

Agenda Item 4

(Corey) Proposal to amend Officer section of House manual:

“Officers must conduct all House business on House accounts that will be passed on to future holders of office.”

Willing to work with tech officer to get this set up.

Corey: We don't always use officer accounts and emails. It would be nice to have these things passed down officer to officer.

POI and CQ:

Burgess: I like what Corey is doing. not having continuity is incongruous.

Concerns and FA:

Donnie: Make it say email accounts rather than just accounts.

Corey: i don't want to limit it to just email accounts. wanted to make it vague enough to cover other things. I'd be willing to accept it, but i wanna see what everyone else things. Accepts FA of wording “email or other accounts”.

Richard: How would privacy be protected in a public account? there is a limited amount of privacy. things like harassment issues.

Corey: theres a certain level of sensitive info that gets passed down to officers in other scenarios. its useful for officers to go back and look at how the previous officer handled certain things.

Andy: They could just delete certain things that are sensitive and wouldn't be passed to other officers.

Richard: that might create other problems, deleting records is a bad idea.

Corey: conducting business on a personal account is worse. they could move out and take this personal info with them.

Richard: FA to require signatures in email correspondence using official accounts.

Corey: accepts this FA.

Proposal passes as amended. 2 amendments: FA of wording “email or other accounts” and FA to require signatures in email correspondence using official accounts

Agenda Item 5

(Beth/Jess) Beth and Jess of unit 203 would like to break their current contract and switch to a month-to-month contract while they are searching for a new place.

Andy reads letter from Beth and Jess.

Hannah takes up proposal on their behalf.

Hannah: we've done this in the past for folks, that is a freedom we enjoy as a coop to be flexible with people.

Richard: When does their current contract expires?….. May 31, 2015. not been updated?

Corey: It didn't mention the contract break fee, I don't know if they're trying to get out of paying it or not.

Concerns and FA:

Donnie: it's not a win win when someone goes on month to month, you have to contact people letting them know that an apt might be up or not, monthly. But Beth and Jess are awesome. Jess did a lot of work to help us get accepted in this neighborhood. How long has it been since they have participated in stuff for the coop though? I'd like to see a deadline on this.

Corey: in the past to avoid month to months, we've done 3 month contracts. FA to allow them to break current contract without the fee, and switch them to 3 month lease.

Hannah: does not accept.

Andy: Concern: based off what we've seen in the past, much rather prefer them finding a new place, then coming to us and asking to get out of their contract without the fee.

Hannah: I accept that. I think they should pay the fee, they are “breaking their contract”. Your FA is as effective as going on a month to month.

Dusana: They need to come back with at least a 14 day notice that they are moving out. Not just letting us know that they are moving in a couple days.

Richard: if we're gonna make them pay the fee, then what are we giving them? Beth does her labor, but Jess does not. They checked out of labor czar about halfway into it. Are they asking for favors? If so, we shouldn't give them any favors.

Donnie: If we don't grant them a contract break, they are responsible for rent on that apartment. What they are asking us is for them to not be responsible for rent on that apartment after they move out.

Hannah: It's kind of automatically self reinforcing mechanism that they can give us 3 days notice, but we would bill them and stuff.

Lisa: Zoe is effectively homeless right now and we and Robbie want to move in together. We do have people that wanna fill that room.

Item is denied/tabled. But it's a nice tabled!

New business

Hannah: MOVIE NIGHT ON THURSDAY! We don't know what movie it is yet. But we will vote! Also, pesto popcorn!

Andy: Tuesday, the 4th of August, 8 pm there will be a coordinators meeting.

Corey: Board meeting on Tuesday, it will be long. At Sasona at 8:45. Bookkeeper stuff: basically everyone has paid their shit. New rent amount starting this month: $860 and $430.

Hannah:Some of us on park committee for neighborhood association: 8 on Wednesday, planning meeting.

meetings/2015-07-26.txt · Last modified: 2016/01/03 23:35 (external edit)