OCP Workshop 12/12/2012

• Daniel:  could get behind having six teams but that means we need 6 leaders and do we feel like we can get 6 leader types
• Ron:  There could be an argument for imagining what we want and then getting there – if we want to have six teams, maybe we need to work on the leadership;  maybe we already have the people who can lead these teams
• Heather:  we need a cockroach team
• Mike:  There is overlap between teams, so this will need coordination;  sanitation always comes up – can it fit under some other team for now;  we need these teams to work from the start;  
• Ron:  tried to break out volunteers and services;  seems very different – some people coming in to volunteer and some people coming in because they need help with something – some kind of service
• Mike:  on the topic of volunteers/services, seems like the whole effort relates to volunteers;  kind of looks like an individual responsibility to coordinate volunteers – what would a team do with
• Ron:  persuaded by Mike’s speech – one thing that we want teams for is so that people can plug in – so maybe the volunteer person is simply funneling people to teams;  finding people’s gifts and putting them to use could be a useful thing for the volunteer team;  
• Daniel:  swayed by Mike’s thoughts on the whole system being created for volunteers;  maintenance includes sanitation, so it seems like we have a space for sanitation already;
• Ron:  there has been a time where we consider not having volunteers – we want community members – but it seems like we really want to welcome anyone and then be clear about the differences about various people – some people just are short-term volunteers;  there does seem to be a difference;  name tags might help us differentiate between visitor, volunteer, community member, staff
• Mike:  there do seem to be differences between types of volunteers;  one of our key priorities is serving the community – this is broad enough that anyone who comes through who isn’t tapped for some other team, services seems like a very broad way to get someone involved;  the whole system is set up to capture volunteer energy;  when the membership meets, they will be working with all the aspects of volunteers at OCP
• Teig:  thinks that sanitation needs to be a separate thing – different from maintenance;
• Matt:  agrees with Mike;  feels like in order to get more people interested in OCP, by having some people be part of things but not part of other things, might turn people off;  to make a separate category seems wrong
• Ron:  we are separating things in one way by creating a membership;  almost every organization – nonprofit – has volunteer coordination;  is it one person or a team?;  we currently don’t have the money to pay someone to do this full-time;  agrees that the differences between maintenance and sanitation does exist, and we probably do need more focus on sanitation;  maintenance is more like fixing things and not really regular cleaning;  
• Mike:  maybe the first maintenance/grounds meeting would be to consider a breakout of sanitation;  lets kill the roaches and have the smell of bleach in the air at all times;  maybe right now is just not the time to break out all the teams that we might want;  doesn’t feel like people on a volunteer team would really be doing actual work
• Ron:  would like to see us move towards some resolution, and an absolute maybe isn’t that important right now;  we may not have to get it perfect right now;  can we move towards some vote?;  we wanted to have some sort of list of teams in order to help our other discussions move forward;  maybe we have gotten a little to deep and philosophical
• Mike:  to move things along, propose to adopt this list of six teams:  maintenance & grounds, kitchen, programming, services, recovery/spiritual, sanitation; seconded by jonathan
• Vote:  all in favor – 10, opposed – 0, stand asides – 3 – this proposal does not carry
• Anna:  there are very legitimate reasons to abstain – no one should have to explain their vote one way or another
• Mike:  an abstention is a time honored tradition – people have a right to abstain;  people might not have known that the vote may not pass because
• Philip:  doesn’t think Daniel was trying to call anyone here stupid;  
• Mark:  doesn’t think an abstention should not
• Mike:  we need to decide that 80% is of what – all voting members, everyone present, or people who voted yes or no;  
• Teig:  thinks that it should be 80% of the voting members present;  
• Ron:  we need to figure out what an abstention means before we can determine whether or not the vote passes
• Daniel:  if abstaining, would like to not stop something from moving forward but still be able to be part of the discussion;  if someone doesn’t want to
• Greigh:  do abstentions count towards the majority;  feels like we should revote on the list of teams after we understand what abstain means
• Mark:  agrees with Greigh – if abstain doesn’t count, then he will vote no;  
• Ron:  agrees with Daniel
• Matt:  not sure why there is an option to abstain – wouldn’t this just be people who didn’t come to three meetings
• Anna:  wanted to speak to why someone would abstain:  someone might have a sort of conflict of interest, maybe you just don’t know enough,
• Mike:  maybe we can look into reasons why people abstain;  if we talk through some of these topics, we can get through this pretty quickly
• Greigh:  propose we take a vote on how to vote
• Heather:  proposes:  in order for a proposal to pass, 80% of those voting yes or no are needed for something to pass;  seconded;
• Matt:  if someone doesn’t want to be a part of the vote, they should just not raise their hand;  
• Greigh:  normally, someone abstaining would be counted just to make sure that we got a vote from everyone present
• Daniel:  what someone is doing when abstaining is the same as not raising their hand
• Mike:  wishes to have the option to abstain on this vote so will vote no
• Heather:  people are abstaining because they don’t care
• Philip:  thinks people should say they are going to vote no and why during the discussion;  if you abstain it doesn’t count
• Daniel:  thinks that speaking to why I want this to pass:  if he was really busy and hadn’t been here for three weeks and finally came just before a vote – wants an option to be here but not be counted in a way that would end up stopping something from passing;  
• Matt:  thinks people should speak for reasons for not voting – people can pick reasons why they abstain and should have a right not to say
• Anna:  wants to repeat that there are legitimate reasons for abstaining;  not caring might be a legitimate reason to abstain
• Ron:  really feels passionately about this topic – daniel’s reason is a great one – what about members who may be in the room but not voting because they aren’t paying attention
• Greigh:  has it been called into question about why someone might abstain;  if this was 30 people voting, it wouldn’t matter so much if the abstainers are counted
• Mike:  need to move smartly to a vote after Daniel’s plea and Ron added a very practical comment;  we need to make it clear that people abstaining are not counted in the majority
• Vote:  14 in favor, 0 opposed

OCP Workshop 12/05/2012

•    Ron:  we are currently in the middle of a discussion about membership and what it looks like
• Teams Discussion
•           Mike:  sensing that we ought to put some names to some teams – hoping we can get to that – do think we need to be careful how we name them
•           Mike:  the rationale behind creating some teams is that if we are making it a central part of OCP, we should have a couple named;  maybe we can take some suggestions – read our old list;  probably in 10 or 15 minutes, we could come up with a couple of teams with adequate names
•           Daniel:  has an idea for three core teams that have worked at other community center type places:  1. Maintenance/Grounds, 2. Clerical/Administration/Program Development, 3. Kitchen
•           Mike:  this seems like a good start, but it seems like programming might be in its own world
•           Ron:  wants to add that programming is a lot for day to day stuff, but then the execution of programming is more like promotions – does promotions overlap events?  Or is there an event team
•           Daniel:  ok with the list and wonders if we could have an events/promotions team – this team will probably have impact on all of the other teams;  maybe events/promotions could be a fourth team
•           Zach:  feel like we should develop a set number of teams so we have somewhere to grow to;  then we can decide what core groups we have
•           Ron:  at OCP, it seems like clerical/administration is almost completely taken care of by the staff;  what does this team do in other places
•           Daniel:  answer phones, get mail organized;  maybe there isn’t that much in this category at OCP;
•           Mike:  years ago, staff could be a part of the clerical team but others could also be part of this group as volunteers – not sure if we need a core number of teams, but what if we come up with 3-5 right now, and then we have a team that just captures all the other needs, that might cover us
•           Ron:  worried that we are forgetting a major issue
•           Philip:  thinks we should leave out clerical/admin for now and have maint/grounds, kitchen, programming;  what is volunteers?
•           Ron:  likes those main three, and we have a lot of volunteers, and if a team could help with this, that could be great;  sanitation and spiritual and recovery seem like big ones too
•           Daniel:  feeling like clerical/admin would also include programming;  does think clerical/admin is important – what is this if we don’t call it that;  maybe some of this work could fall under volunteers;  clerical/admin would come out of programming – getting at the implementation;  technology could fall under maintenance and grounds;  spiritual/recovery – this is sort of included in everything;  seems like we are splitting this up in to too many teams;  seems like 5 or less teams otherwise there will only be one person on each team;  we should have sub-categories for each of the main categories;  governance is a tricky one; 
•           Mike:  on boiling down – if we take the ones that are irreducible, spiritual/recovery can’t really fit under another category but does seem like a big part;  sanitation is very key but could go under maintenance;  services is huge – could be the volunteer catch-all category – it is always expanding;  not seeing outreach as a separate thing – maybe this comes under spiritual because it sounds churchy; 
•           Philip:  likes combining services with hospitality;  was thinking about putting spiritual/recovery under programming since all programming should include that – maybe even if programming wasn’t happening, there could be spiritual/recovery
•           Ron:  teams are not made of members only and this group is not the membership – but some people hate meetings and don’t come but do a lot around OCP – would probably be thrilled to be on a team;  between volunteers from the outside world and people who don’t like meetings, there could be a lot of people on these teams;  volunteer coordination is a big topic – we plug people into teams, we find out people’s gifts, and get them involved;  volunteers are a huge resource and there are always a lot;  seems like we have to always be focused on spiritual/recovery
•           Daniel:  still doesn’t seem like we have that many people to be on teams;  really feels like clerical/admin is very important if others can get behind it;  spiritual/recovery should be a part of everything – what would this team actually do that doesn’t fall under the other categories?;  seems like there should be a team dedicated to leg-work of programming and helping with staff tasks;
•           Mike:  sounds like we are getting close on some kind of consensus;  seems like there is a lot for spiritual/recovery;  seems like spiritual/recovery could be something;  seems like we could call volunteer/community services; 
•           Philip:  more than seven people involved in this meeting right now than seven; 
•           Ron:  the big three:  maintenance/grounds, kitchen, and programming seem like survival teams and maybe we could start with these;  we could seemingly have good leadership for these initial three
•           Mike:  seems like Philip was trying to counterbalance the thought that there are only a few of us sitting around now;  would be optimistic about the number of people regularly volunteering now;  could get behind the spiritual/recovery work that is already being done;  some people might not fit into the big three;  “services” could meet some real key needs and could be a place to have other volunteers plug in à we need people to come up with the services that our community needs
•           Ron:  if we had leadership and creativity, we could have 30 people here right now;  seems like we need a good infrastructure – three seems nice;  volunteers and donations are a huge piece of OCP that doesn’t have a good infrastructure right now
•           Daniel:  how many people are there that really have a sense of where things are and where to go to get things – there are not that many of people in that group;  these people will be the foundation of these teams;  there is always stuff that doesn’t fit somewhere else – the idea that we have a fourth team that is kind of a catch-all – like a trash drawer; 
•           Seems like we are settling in around:  1. Maintenance/Grounds, 2. Kitchen, 3. Programming, 4. Volunteers/Services
•           Philip:  seems like having a fourth category is helpful
•           Ron:  one of our purposes – to be a resource for other services in the community – this could fit under;  wants to make a small speech for comeback of spiritual/recovery – there are a few people who ron can think of that could be interested in such a group that ron could give leadership to – the team would think about what people’s needs are in this category – to make this a small category is like what we do in life with making our spiritual life small – we need to make it the center – instead of making the programming of bands, events, etc as being the main thing; 
•           Daniel BK:  what are we trying to do and wanting to do – do these teams fit into our purposes – would separate volunteers and services – services are something we are trying to do and having a bunch of people who want to help is different
•           Mike:  not going to be a lack of leadership with spiritual/recovery;  could we call the fourth a “community service team” – shelter, food, clothing could fall under this; 
•           Daniel:  spiritual/recovery is a part of daniel’s whole life, so how can we make it separate on our list;  it is a part of everything we do; 
•           Sadie:  agrees with Daniel BK, we shouldn’t call something a community service team – someone coming from the courts should not be allowed to count their work as volunteer hours
•           Philip:  doesn’t like the name of community service for a team
•           Daniel:  volunteer team is thinking about volunteers and services team is thinking about helping someone find a place to live; 
•           Ron:  thinks volunteers and service are very different and maybe both should be teams;  spirituality and recovery are not on Ron’s mind all the time, so having a team to focus on this and keep it one of our focuses seems very important; 
•           Alex:  agrees with the idea that the spiritual/recovery team is important – just because it has influence on all the other teams doesn’t mean it shouldn’t have its own team;
•           Mike:  thinks we should wait on a vote in order to think some more – save it until next week
•           Ron:  we aren’t starting this tomorrow – we are developing this for the membership;  the membership might not actually start for months;  we should have a vision and maybe have 5-6 teams so we are looking forward to what we want ocp to look like;
•           Daniel:  maybe spiritual/recovery could fall under programming and we could have only four major groupings to keep things orderly

OCP Workshop 11/28/2012

• Ron:  reminds us how last week went and that we ended by wanting to identify some of the teams we might have
• Peter:  last week, we haven’t officially decided to have teams
• Ron:  we do have a definition and a way for them to exist, so it seems that they can exist
• Peter:  just adding that this was an issue that came up, it might be hard to clarify
• Mark:  found it awkward and inappropriate to be talking about teams and the way that we were talking about what they might do, without having decided if teams are something we are actually going to do;  
• Matt: kind of lost;  trying to understand if it is weird that we are discussing teams without knowing whether or not we are going to have them
• Ron:  we had a list of things on the board that shows what a person might need to do to become a member;  there were things that we talked about but didn’t have consensus on some of them – teams;  the ones that we had consensus on are on a list as requirements for someone to be a member;  what makes the topic of teams a little confusing is that we have not yet reached consensus about having teams or not;  we could go to the deliverable about having teams or not and then come back
• Matt:  shouldn’t we stick to the idea that we should have a vote before discussing things
• Mike:  we do have teams;  one that is functioning now, if we want to go there, we would be talking about reviving teams;
• Ron:  no one has given us a game plan for these discussions – we are trying to find out way – we might get to a spot and figure out we need to change direction or move on to a different idea;  because teams are a deliverable, lets pause and have the discussion about whether to make them official;
• Matt:  never a concern for matt about having a kitchen team for Sadie, but is wondering if the discussion is about adding more teams;  do we want to add more teams that could help ocp?;  
• Ron:  right now, teams are only the responsibility of the staff;  if we decide to have teams as a membership, it would be on the membership to help deal with and run
• Mike: proposal: We commit to developing teams as an essential force in the operation of OCP. – Seconded by Matt
• Ron:  thinks he could get behind it, but the language puts teams in a sort of central place for ocp;  seems like it is important for ocp, but the language is somewhat strong
• Mike:  we could cut a few words out to make the language not so strong;  
• Matt:  seems like we shouldn’t focus on the words so much because we did go back on using the word membership
• Ron:  the word essential means we couldn’t live without teams, and we probably can live without them;  more comfortable if the language wasn’t so strong
• Matt:  likes the language/idea
• James:  when the word expanding is used, it seems like there are already essential teams, sounds like we would add more in order to get more volunteers involved;  
• Ron:  wonder about developing – committing to developing teams as an essential force – they aren’t that well developed – one that currently works;  
• Matt:  likes that volunteers could be assigned to a team in order to get work done
• Daniel:  likes the essential language – when ocp has an issue, we look to teams to be the core of how to deal with issues;
• Mike:  changed the word from fundamental to essential because the words are important;  started out by saying developing which is the word ron used;  seems like we are close to getting something;  we do have a definition of teams already;  do we need to put that definition in this proposal
• Heather:  wouldn’t it be nice if we had some teams that could take some stress away from Ron;  Philip and Ron answer a lot of questions – teams could help with this
• Matt:  thinks we should change some of the words that we are uncomfortable with and then go ahead and vote;
• Ron:  ron is very much in support of teams – thinks it would be great if we had teams up and running – this would help create opportunities for people who want to do things around here;  seems like ron’s stress comes from inside himself, and teams probably wont help
• Philip:  seems like teams might help and would help have people that could be trusted to get various things done around ocp;  seems like we the definition of teams would be connected to this proposal if we officially sanction teams
• Khaleel:  might be nice to have a team help sell wreathes when we need help;  we don’t have a clear structure right now about how to implement teams;  a proposal about a certain number of hours might relate to how to get people to volunteer;  maybe there is a sub-team that just looks for volunteers to help sell wreaths
• Voting:  9 in favor, 1 opposed, 1 abstain;  motion carries – no does not want to block
• Matt:  wonders why people wouldn’t vote for;  would like to know why mark votes no;  
• Mark:  teams have been talked about a lot – where are all these people to be on teams going to come from;  concept sounds good on paper;  understands that nothing here is written in stone, but doesn’t want to go along if he doesn’t feel like it is going to work;  going to have the same core group of people who are going to do the work;  
• Ron:  loves the ability we have for people to disagree
• Peter:  thanks Matt for requesting people to talk – just didn’t want to vote
• Ron:  we are in the middle of a discussion about volunteer hours – the vibe from the group has been to get away from setting a number of hours – members are people who volunteer at OCP – have a spirit of volunteerism;  another direction is that members have a spirit of volunteerism and are a member of a team;  
• Matt:  thinks we should call it a day after this proposal has passed and then think about the direction we should move forward with;  we shouldn’t be hasty before making proposals
• Gary:  wonders how someone could be a member and have a vote if they cant be here a lot during the day;  
• Ron:  there was a lot of talk about having the word “participates” included in a proposal about volunteering;  as we are developing the membership, we are thinking about those who cant make it very much during the day;  this is a think-tank, and membership is one way;  
• Matt:  proposes we stop the meeting early, and heather seconds – all in favor

OCP Workshop 11/21/2012

Proposal currently on the floor – volunteer 20 hours a month for three months

Ideas for what might count as a volunteer hour:  work on teams, membership, or staff

Could people doing required volunteer work, Tuesday workday work, community service, or staff work count towards hours needed to be a member or become a member

An idea to change the proposal to:  a person must volunteer 20 hours a month during their trial period

Mark:  if there is a proposal on the table, we should follow through with the proposal on the table and see that through

Philip:  not quite sure about the procedures for changing a proposal, but seems like if the person who made the proposal has dropped out of the group (Matthew) then maybe we should drop that proposal

Jonathan:  we could go ahead and vote and let this fail if it goes this direction and then move on

Ron:  one topic would be that if someone quits the group, how do they join again

Kris:  clarifies that this proposal is only a part of the trial period

Ron:  proposal that we are voting on now is:  to become a member, a person needs to volunteer 20 hours a month for three months

Heather:  likes the idea of 15 hours but likes 20 hours because it is an even number

For:  4, Against:  7 – motion doesn’t carry

Ron:  lets return to the discussion of what a volunteer hour is

Kris:  does like the 3 months but thinks we should consider 20 hours;  maybe there shouldn’t even be a set amount of hours

Daniel:  without defining a volunteer hour, not sure how many hours a month would be ok with;  Daniel owes court fines, any hour volunteered at a non-profit would help pay off court fines, and would there maybe be a rule – lets talk about some of these details before deciding how many volunteer hours;

Ron:  hopes that Jonathan withholds proposal until we have a package of information to present as a full proposal;   anyone in this building should be able to count hours, no matter what they are doing these hours for;  staff is certainly doing things to further OCP;  the staff has asked the group for help in running the building – inviting people into something – they should be able to count their hours;  if you stick it out for a trial period, you should be able to become a member;  you have to come to meetings, work out problems in mediation;

Jonathan:  would like to see someone present themselves to the membership as desiring to become a member and then all hours begin to count

Ron:  maybe the staff wouldn’t automatically be members – they might have to request to become a member and then those hours start counting – you still have to come to meetings, etc;  if a staff member never came to membership meetings, they may never become a member;  likes the idea that someone has to ask to become a member and then starts counting hours;  thinks that workday should definitely count as volunteer hours

Ron:  the topic is volunteer hours – a proposal could emerge – maybe we should add that the executive director and the board could also create tasks that would count as volunteer hours;  what about tracking volunteer hours?;  thinks that the hours number should apply to everyone and that we shouldn’t be of the mind that once we get our hours, we are done;

Daniel:  likes nice even things – would like to see 16 hours – 4 weeks in a month, 4 hours a week;  if ocp is open 4 days a week, you could make one day be a day that you come to ocp to volunteer;  thinks everyone should be able to come for one day;  if you were here for morning worship, you could start working after that and get in 4 hours;  

Ron:  is 16 hours a month too much;  what about someone with a full-time job;  this draws to mind the idea of participation vs. volunteer work;  someone might be around all day and be involved but only volunteer for 15 minutes and be thought of as totally plugged in;  maybe we just aren’t open enough for people to get so many hours;  

Daniel:  a little misleading about not counting morning worship – thinks that participation should count as volunteer hours;  if its good enough for the courts, it should be good enough for membership;  maybe we should have a form that can be signed – if you help setup, do the event, and help cleanup, maybe that whole time should count;  maybe it is up to the person signing someones hours as to what counts and what doesn’t;  stands behind 16 hours a month – if you can’t be here for 4 hours a week, you just start to lose what is happening here;  maybe there is a week you can’t come at all;  let staff decide what does and doesn’t count

Heather:  schrag is only here one day a week, maybe he can’t be here more;  gary sheets doesn’t come much, be he is part of the play;  it should be up to the staff to negotiate with people about what does and doesn’t count;  participation does seem to count or be important in some cases

Peter:  happy we’ve had this discussion because it has brought to light a lot of various topics – what about people contribute by making you laugh, what about people who are handicapped, what about people who work;  counting of volunteer hours seems to take away a bit;  maybe volunteering and participation are part of code of conduct and we don’t want to have a set hour amount;  

Kris:  totally agree with Peter’s thoughts;  someone who wants to be a member is totally plugged in and wants to be here;  thinks it should all count and should all be about the spirit – this is the way to go

Philip:  keep the barrier low if we do volunteer hours and count them;  we don’t want to have such high barriers that people have to do so much – maybe between 10 and 15 if we go this route

Ron:  really behind the idea of not counting hours – we have already reached consensus on members doing volunteer hours – maybe we don’t count hours;  people involved in these meetings are the group that will probably become members;  this is why ron likes the idea of a member needing to be on a team – a member would be plugging in to something particular in some way;  your involved in something that is moving this place forward;  if we are going to have a say here, we are also going to be moving this place forward;  teams can try to work around people’s schedules;  just the thought that some people – maybe participation is the most someone can do because of where there are at,

Daniel:  definitely get behind the idea of not having a set number of hours but there does need to be something in the case of a person who may not really do anything;  wants to have pride in membership – need to have some standard and if this isn’t a specific number of volunteer hours, what is it;  if there is a judiciary, maybe this is how we address issues of people not helping – not having a good spirit about the place;  

Ron:  looking back over basic requirements;  volunteer hours is really the only thing that kind of sets things apart of a member and non-member;  also meeting attendance seems important;  maybe that is enough;  like the idea that a person would sign up to participate with some team – show up for things that team has going on;  maybe we say that members have a spirit of volunteerism – and every member has signed up for a team;  staff would also have to be on teams;  likes the idea also that there is a membership and then someone presents themselves as having a desire to become a member and then we ask what team the person would like to be a part of;

Zach:  because not everyone can’t meet the requirements of being a member; as long as a person is able to do one of the six things required of meeting basic requirements – that person should be able to be a member;  agrees that maybe we shouldn’t have a total number of hours

Daniel:  agrees that something likes three specific teams:  maintenance, kitchen, clerical(programming) – these three teams have been used in other places with success – likes people being accountable to a team – helps people be accountable to the community by being on a team;  let the team be part of deciding whether someone has done enough with their team to be a member;  could get behind a proposal that someone is accountable to a team without a set number of hours;  for trial period, maybe we have a 90 day trial period;

Ron:  with teams, do we want to say that you have to be on a team when we have really created them yet;  the creative dynamic to create teams would exist if all members need to be on a team;  not totally into the three team style – less inclined towards let make teams perfect than lets try some teams out and see how they go;  someone might have a particular gift for some type of work that could develop a team, so maybe we shouldn’t be limited to only three teams;  

Matthew:  this is what Mike Farrand was trying to get people to realize about teams – everyone was against the team idea last week, now that Mike isn’t here, we are talking about making teams

Zach:  agree with Schrag about having three major teams – starting off small to see how they work;  if we have too much at once, it might be chaotic

Daniel:  lets call is three teams for now, and we can grow from there;  this gives us a place to start and a place to go back to

Ron:  in one way, the insight on Mike’s part might have helped us avoid some time spent, but without the discussion, not sure if we could have gotten here

Ron:  maybe we close the meeting and start working next week on defining teams and then create a proposal about a person having a volunteering spirit and is a member of a team;  seems like we would need to have some discussion about what it takes to be a team;  the initial membership could then join a team;  this would address the concern that someone needs to do something more than follow a code of behavior and come to membership meetings

Mark:  doesn’t see anything about being on a team of having teams on our list of requirements for membership

OCP Workshop 11/14/2012

·         Ron:  right now we are in the middle of a discussion about membership – things that people might have to do to become a member – we have had consensus around 6 of these topics:  volunteer hours, trial period, code of behavior, meeting attendance, mediation/honesty work/conflict resolution, new member orientation

·         Proposal on the floor:  teams:  1. Have a coordinator – a staff member or OCP member, 2. Approved by membership – name, function, and parameters, 3. Report to membership regularly

·         For:  12, Opposed:  2; neither opposed want to block – passed

·         We are trying to decide where to go next

·         Mike:  why not figure out a few that we want for now and then we can figure out what to do with these couple;  before we leave the team topic, we can let people know that if there is a team idea, it could be brought to this meeting

·         Ron:  lets get the membership idea hashed out so that we can begin use some of our new ideas

·         Matthew:  likes Mike’s idea, and why can’t we just talk about them now so that we know what we are looking at for the future a bit

·         Mike:  nothing is really clear right now – maybe we can have the Friends be the membership

·         Ron:  we have talked about melding the two:  membership and Friends, but Mike has been so opposed before – why does he want to make the two one for now;  if we mesh the two, so that we can talk about teams doesn’t make a lot of sense

·         Mike:  things are just confusing right now, because we don’t have a membership – if it takes 5-6 weeks to get the membership piece hashed out, we could have a provisional decision making group about teams

·         Heather:  what if a few people here started a small group to work on teams for now – this group could still talk about these topics with the staff

·         Peter:  doesn’t see any problem with a group of people getting together to talk;  why has membership been jumped over and now we are talking about teams;  if we need membership, why not go back and talk about this

·         Ron:  the reason we jumped to teams is because we were discussing volunteer hours – and we started to get to a teams discussion – so we were trying to help us define what counts as volunteer hours;  agrees that if anyone wants to start functioning as a team, that is great, but there is no membership yet;  the next thing we might talk about after membership, is what might we do with this group of people;  5-6 weeks is a tiny amount of time, we should continue on our track

·         Matthew:  thought we established that this group is Friends of OCP and maybe this is the beginning of a membership

·         Ron:  Friends of OCP set out to discuss how we could run this place and how this place could/should function;  during the discussion, some people felt like Friends was the membership and some people said no this was just a workshop to figure out OCP;  some have suggested that when the workshop has done its task, it would end, but not everyone might agree

·         Mike:  there is a lot going on around the holidays, and there lots of potential volunteer hour opportunities;  Mike would feel more comfortable have a provisional set of core teams – so that people interested in membership could have an idea of where we were going;  when the membership vote comes down, we would be pretty close on teams at that point – maybe one of the first matters of business would be to officially establish teams

·         Peter:  if we went this way, the last team name should be “all the other teams” so that we weren’t blocked off by a limited set of teams

·         Ron:  creating a float team or building a float, the float will get done;  ron would like to see where the room is, so he would like a show of hands for who wants to talk more about core teams or who wants to talk more about membership requirements; 

·         No clear direction after a show of hands

·         Peter:  maybe a way to break the impasse – how about having a group who wants to talk about a core group get together and talk and then have that group come back a present something to the main group

·         Ron:  what do we mean by volunteer hours – definition, how many hours, how do we track these, volunteering vs. participation;  just because someone is washing dishes doesn’t mean someone is on a team;  doing teamwork is one thing a person could do to volunteer but being on a team is currently not a requirement for being a member

·         Matthew:  thinking about volunteer hours without thinking about teams seems crazy because the teams could really help track

·         Anna:  in terms of what counts as volunteer hours, hopes that ocp would always be a place for college students to come and do volunteer work for class, or where a person with court needs to do certain hours  - this doesn’t count otherwise we end up with members who might not really care about OCP but just needed hours – hours people need for community service

·         Peter:  expiration – you don’t get it for life – you have to continue

·         Nick:  does workday count as volunteer hours – you should have to do work to get fed

·         Mike:  in terms of the grid about what it takes to become, to stay, and to be removed from membership, mike has come up with another way to think about this

·         Philip:  doesn’t see a problem with people doing some sort of required volunteer work wouldn’t automatically have their hours counted, but they would have to come to the group and make a case for why they should count – legitimize their desire to become a member;  how many hours are we talking about

·         Mark:  if there was a college student coming in to help, or someone doing community service, ask them if the person would like to have hours counted; 

·         Ron:  agree with this line of thinking – anyone putting time into ocp should be a member – agrees with Jonathan’s staff idea of staff automatically being a member;  Kris and Ron have made different lifestyle choices – Kris’ choice is cool, but Ron chooses to maintain a house – because of the trial period (3 months is Ron’s idea) – want the folks in the building to have a say;  membership can even help define the role of staff – anyone who does any work for ocp, as long as it fits in our definition of what should count, should count;  maybe we use the word “contribution” instead of volunteer hours so that anyone’s hours count;  maybe we can trust the membership to track their own hours;  if someone doesn’t seem to be counting their hours properly, maybe the person gets called in front of a judiciary group;

·         Daniel:  as far as self tracking, most people might not remember what they have or haven’t done – we should have sheets so people can write them down;  staff should be members, but maybe staff need to be a member before being a staff;  probably would have other membership requirements

·         Todd:  doesn’t matter about keeping track of who did the most hours, but who helped is the most important, and maybe someone who gave 5 hours might be the most important hours of their lives; 

·         Kris:  would hate to see us get to the point where we get our hours and then we just sit back and don’t do anything;  maybe this would come back to the idea of spirit;  maybe someone couldn’t do all the volunteer hours but can really give a lot when they are here – maybe the minimum should be low (or maybe high??)

·         Heather:  if something needs to be done, even if your hours are done, you should still help;  20 hours a month – one day a week each month;

·         Matthew:  don’t agree with daniel’s idea with staff having their hours count;  work and volunteering are different;  what about people who have been around for a long time and have volunteered a lot in the past – would these be counted towards being a member;  workday should not count because you are sort of be required to work if you are here

·         Mike:  previously there was a word about 15 hours a month or 3 a week – which would take some math;  staff issue is a tricky one;  to the degree that staff is involved in membership or team meetings, this might count towards hours;  the idea of being taken to the adjudication board, this fits in with Mike’s idea, if someone challenges your membership standing;  this also relates to if one puts in more hours one month, can these hours carry over

·         Ron:  we see our hours as a low threshold minimum, but we want people to come to meetings;  setting this up now could be the basis for some idea in the future like housing – a low threshold to be a member, but maybe a larger number of hours for housing or something;  spirit could be a big issue;  staff should be a member – a lot of hours are given;  it is hard to volunteer where you work; 

·         Nick:  agrees that staff should always be members;  what if a staff person is lazy one month – are there consequences for this?

·         Peter:  doesn’t like the sound of membership having benefits outside of having say about how this building should be run – no extra cookies or coffee;  you have a say in how things operate;  its ok for people to participate without this responsibility

·         Matthew:  really disagrees with the idea that staff would automatically be a part of membership;  what if we look at hours in the past for people that are currently staff – people who have continuously volunteered over the years that OCP has been open

·         Proposal:  volunteer 20 hours a month for three months

·         Heather seconds the proposal

·         Matthew:  a total of 60 hours over 3 months (20 hours a month), during a trial period

·         Heather:  staff shouldn’t automatically be a member, but staff might have to evaluate others

·         Daniel:  comments about staff being members àwhoever is here should be members, mostly people here should be members no matter why they are here;  might mean that staff that are not here are not members; 

·         Kris:  staff does do a lot in terms of volunteering – there is a lot that the staff does that could be considered volunteer even when the building isn’t open

·         Peter:  during the discussion, we are trying to clarify the proposal – can we just modify the proposal to just be 20 hours a month during a trial period and we can determine the length of the trial period later; 

·         Ron:  Michael Campbell and Christina have some strong opposition to staff being members, but the staff currently has an idea to involve more community, but right now, the staff could cancel the process;  staff isn’t trying to get anything over on people, but they are intimately involved in the process; 

·         Anna:  agree with Matt in some ways – but would want to know what the definition of a contribution hour is first – does it need to be something done when the building is open – Philip could never do a volunteer hour because every hour the building is open, he is doing work for ocp, but not in the building –

·         Ron:  feels like Anna’s point is what has caused confusion – we have been trying to define the definition of a volunteer hour – without this definition, how can we vote on something before we have defined

·         Kris:  agrees with Jonathan;  also doesn’t think you can cuss and people and walk out and then be welcome back to the group like nothing happened – not fair to the rest of the group of us who are sitting through these; 

·         Mike:  the ones of us who haven’t stormed out are probably in support of ron’s facilitation;  we want to hear people’s disagreements; 

·         We will carry the proposal over until next meeting to talk more

Does count hours:  work on teams, members, staff

Doesn’t count:  court appointed hours, community service hours, school required hours, workday