Who’s here: All Coordinating Council members. Fitz R, Emanuel C, Sam B, Alex L.

 

Summary: After a conversation about community workgroups, members, and meetings, a proposal was voted yes to abolish community workgroups. Another proposal was voted yes to add another scholarship tier for people earning up to $35,000/year. These will be up for vote by all members at the civics meetings April 16 6pm and April 17 3:30pm, and will pass if there is 2/3rds majority vote.

 

– Fitz and Emanuel met to talk about community workgroups

  • tried to bring membership changes to workgroups
  • all of our proposals in past have been shot down by community workgroups

– [Group 1] is a good model of what we want

  • patron to the place and wants to be involved
  • pays for the space they use and wants to vote

– [Group 2] -> by policy will not pay for space

  • fitz -> nomadic group

– meetings membership -> rental rates are the same, but you get a vote

  • there need be no incentive other than voting privileges to be a meetings member
– Reasons:
  • content of meeting is hard to define
  • public vs. private really blurry lines
  • many public meetings are not actively inclusive
  • would like to remove the review process

– sam – could there be subsidies for these groups?
– emanuel – maybe if we were rollin’ in dough
– emanuel – we are all challenged by the idea of not burning bridges, but things are unequal and someone is going to get burnt. -> as the mission of community workgroups to be educational skillsharing supportive program it is failing.
– fitz – i am not sure free things are supportive for groups

  • we need something back from groups -> although in kind (services or things) would be great almost all of our costs here are in cash
  • costs here are almost all rent and staff stipends

– sam – seem things to be moving slightly against the original mission

  • “when things boil down to more easily understandable of metrics gives me the idea of the idea that the natural evolution of the coop is to move towards a more capitalist model”
  • by require payment removes people that cant/wont pay
  • by getting rid of workgroups we could hurt diversity

– alex – statistically not true

  • groups that pay refer more
  • there is an assumption that there will be more events here if there is a free option

– sam – I feel like we are moving towards a mentality that says “if you are not paying you are not contributing”
– alex – those who pay contribute more
– emanuel – I dont know of any coop where you dont buy in
– alex – there is an index of how democratic countries we should try that here
– alex – I dont want to decide whos cool enough
– emanuel – opensource software is run on a benevolent dictatorship which is one great model

  • meritocracy is run by benevolent fascists
  • this is not us -> we are a democracy

– sam – could directed free space giving encourage diversity?
– alex – from the beginning as founder, community organizer, coordinating council member: is there any way to get someone to come to this empty room?

  • equal terms for everyone are really important
  • diversity -> the best way to do that is to go find those people yourself and convince them to be here. -> alex chose software

– fitz – giving space away devalues it
– emanuel – we have brought proposals to workgroups first. lets take it to the whole community

 

-Proposal #1: abolish workgroups as they currently exist: we all vote yes.

  • Reason why: We have memberships. We have meetings.
  • Terms: to go into effect 30 days after being voted yes.

Voting process: All Council members (4 out of 4) voted yes on April 10th; with more than 2/3rds majority, it passes the Council. Next steps: will be voted on at the members meetings: Monday April 16th 6pm and Tuesday April 17th 3:30pm. If it gets 2/3rds majority at both meetings combined, then it passes.

– Proposal #2: meeting membership: pay regular rate but have voting rights

  • sam – is there a threshold that qualifies you?
  • alex – a measurable threshold is important
  • needs a person, individual that is accountable
  • Not voted on; will be clarified.

– Proposal #3: add additional tier to scholarships: we all vote yes

  • if making between $20K and $35K/year you qualify for $160/month rate

Voting process: All Council members (4 out of 4) voted yes on April 10th; with more than 2/3rds majority, it passes the Council. Next steps: will be voted on at the members meetings: Monday April 16th 6pm and Tuesday April 17th 3:30pm. If it gets 2/3rds majority at both meetings combined, then it passes.

– Meeting room rates – brainstorm, decided to do more research on market rate

– Current

  • C. Rooms < 16 people = $35/hr
  • Main Loft < 45 people = $75/hr
  • Main Loft < 125 people = $125/hr

– 70% increase

  • C. Rooms < 16 people = $59.5/hr
  • Main Loft < 45 people = $127.5/hr
  • Main Loft < 125 people = $212.5/hr

– Rounded

  • C. Rooms < 16 people = $50/hr
  • Main Loft < 45 people = $135/hr
  • Main Loft < 125 people = $225/hr

– reasons – discounts for members – sam – do members have any trouble paying current rates? no -> no need to lower rates for members -> just raise rates for non-members
– fitz – we can just do the research on explicit numbers -> our meeting rates for non-members should be market standard with current rates for members.

Written by Resh Inanna