Please Donate and help us:
Present: Serene, Russ (facilitating), Burgess, Paul, Victor, Richard, Marilyn (minutes)
Accepted as corrected
(Paul) Dispute Richard's no-show of the Membership Coordinator for respecting requests for anonymity from residents wishing to move within the co-op.
Paul: Richard criticized Paul for not showing the waiting list. There may be a resident who is asking for a change of roommates but doesn't want to reveal it.
Points of information: That was the reason given, but it turns out there was no waiting list on a Google drive spread sheet
Clarifying question: to Richard: would you give up the no-show
Richard: There is no requirement in the rules that members see the list.
CQ: What is the no-show
Richard: He requested to see the document and it was withheld. And he wants to address this because the application of the waiting list rules have not always been consistent.
Paul: The waiting list existed but was out of date, so I don't want to share this.
CQ: When was the waiting list implied to be viewable by other members?
Answer: When a former MemCo was suspected of manipulating the list, about two years ago.
Paul: I would like to have the no-show dismissed.
Concern: Support for the proposal based on this being a misunderstanding and no clear list.
Richard: How many people have requested anonymity?
Paul: There were three originally, and now there are only two. When one had the potential of their names no longer being anonymous the person dropped off the list.
Richard: There was no up-to-date list, and Paul was not in a position to provide a redacted, and I have waited a week and a half to see it. And I asked Paul to bring it up with the house, but he chose instead to be no-showed and address it by contesting the no-show.
Item does not pass.
(Paul) Determine whether the co-op wishes me to respect requests for anonymity from residents wishing to move within the co-op, or whether to keep the waiting list completely transparent.
Paul: We have discussed this. I am neutral about this.
POI: It seems that both people in an apt. might both request new roommates, and then we would have two people leaving an apt empty if both get their way, or one or the other might find out when one might have had a chance to stay. Can MemCo see such a possibility occurring.
Paul: Yes. Full transparency would prevent these situations and MemCo would not
CQ: Do we still have a Mediator?
Concerns: In favor of transparency: It might be uncomfortable at times, but we all live together and with transparency there will be more free and open dialogue. If the roommate is staying and this information is being withheld from them, MemCo can't ask for an opinion on the (moving) perspective roommate until the last minute. It's true that someone might take offense at finding out their roommate doesn't want to be there. I don't think we should cater to someone who is uncomfortable. We don't have to send out the news every time someone requests a change of roommates; we could just continue to make it upon-request.
Friendly amendment: If a member asks MemCo for anonymity when seeking a room change, MemCo may consider suggesting that the Mediator to try to resolve the roommate situation. Accepted by Paul, though it means one more step by MemCo.
Discussion: Someone should not be required to see the Mediator. Paul can agree to this, but the next MemCo may need some advice about how to handle this.
The amendment passes.
Amendment from Paul: Replace the original proposal with: “The waiting list should be available upon request of members.” Amended proposal passes.
(Paul) Remove entire paragraph of Membership Coordinator description beginning with, “Make sure that people with no money and no job don’t move in …” It describes practices that are discriminatory, impossible to perform, not our practice, and don't even make sense under our rules.
Paul: We never require proof of income; we can't deny someone membership for lack of a job. We already ask for a deposit and the rent or the pro-rated rent. This paragraph makes no sense in our context. It came from Sasona's rules.
POI: As part of open membership screening process we ask if they foresee any problems paying rent.
Serene: Representing Melissa with a question about the status of 103. Painting was being done today, but we need a contractor to replace the furnace door. It is an oddball height which will require custom-building.
Burgess: Natalie said she would take the question of the Fixer position to the CHEA board. Russ has an e-mail from her: The Board recommended making this a 1099 position; we might need to make it a W2 or W4 employee position if there is a requirement that the Fixer live in the co-op but for various reasons it would be better to make it a 1099 position. Russ will put this on the agenda for next week for full discussion.
Victor: How can I find out the situation with Robbie's labor contract. Answer: contact Labor Czar
Russ: He is distributing the ballots for the special election for one month replacements for three positions (Labor Czar, Food Buyer, and Event Planner), and there is a ballot box on top of the leftover refrigerator. The election will go forward this week with ballots due back next week.
Russ: The broken step will be replaced tomorrow. The staircase is rusty, and the repair will include patching, bolting, etc. Kyle will do the work, and Russ will ask him for the cost of replacing each of the steps.Corey: Less welding and patching will be required on the stairs in front of the Commons. And work will start on the gutters tomorrow; Scarlett has cleared the way.