- From last week: how do we know that the staff won’t veto decisions – Philip pointed out that we will be making decisions that are in line with our vision and mission, and staff will be involved in these meetings; ultimately, the board does have some veto power, but the board likes this idea and encourages us to move on; ron has on the board agenda – what might be non-negotiables;
- Also from last week: Heather points out that we don’t currently have community meetings, but we may need them for making community decisions and talking about community issues
- Today: plan to talk about the process for these meetings – who is part of the group? Who has a voice? Who has say? How do we know when we have reached a decision?
- Ron wonders if we want to talk about the idea of creating a membership that might answer some of our other questions?
- Mike: suggests the add the topic of membership under the heading of “Who can take part?”, but that we should go ahead with the original questions that we planned to start with today; lets leave the topic of membership for some other discussion
- Ron wonders if anyone objects to the idea that anyone in the room can be a part of the discussion and be around to listen, etc;
- Heather: agrees with this
- Group: seems we have consensus around the idea that anyone in the world can be a part of the group for discussion
- WHO CAN BE PART OF VOTING?
- Sadie thinks people should be around for ninety days
- Christina: in line with the idea of people being present at meetings
- Heather: thinks around for a while, attendance at meetings, and volunteering should all be requirements for meeting voting
- Sadie: people need to show some interest in the meetings
- Mike: suggests that members can vote
- Sigi: ninety days might be too long; what about a declaration to the group from someone who wants to become a member
- Jonathan: wants to make sure we have a plan to track things about who can vote before we decide something that will be difficult
- Philip: 90 days at OCP seems like a long time;
- Chris: about the same people have been in the room at these meetings
- Jonathan: would like to see us keep it simple for now – people who have been to 5 of these meetings and volunteers some at OCP
- Ron: maybe starting simple – with the group that seems to be coming right now is the first voting group – ron likes the membership idea ultimately – right now we are presenting to pros and cons and who can vote
- Philip: suggests that we should vote today on who can be a part of the voting right now – wants to see us walk through this door today
- Mike: proposes we have a rolling vote – if you show up once, that is enough to vote and it is up to the facilitator (Ron) to determine who can vote – anyone who is here can have say, the facilitator will have some power over who can vote; if you disagree with what comes out of these meetings, the minority has a process for making a statement to be included with decision;
- Heather: agrees with Philip – most of us come regularly and this group should be part of the vote on decisions
- Ron: Mike has made a suggestion to go with who is in the room with the facilitator having the most power but very friendly with whoever might show up;
- Chris: doesn’t agree with someone having to be around for a certain amount of time volunteering in order to be a part of the group;
- Mike would like to add this to part of the suggested idea;
- Ron: likes the idea that others could facilitate meetings and doesn’t really like that his particular knowledge would be necessary; ron likes that a person needs to be at 3 of these meetings ever and that we go with 80/20 super majority – someone on the losing side could block once until the next meeting; ron wonders about people who can’t be here because of jobs, etc; how do we consider this?
- Philip: felt like mike’s idea was too complicated – likes ron’s idea of starting with three times at these meetings – we could announce that certain decisions could be made on Thursday nights; feels like we can really act on decisions since staff is here
- Mike: concerns are about how OCP works – wondering if we need votes on all these various topics; worries about how to track someone who has been here three times;
- Jonathan: would like to add to ron’s proposal that one would have to have volunteered once ever at OCP
- Daniel: would like to see us track these decisions that we make so that if something isn’t working we can make changes; would like to see us stick with simplicity knowing that we can make changes in the future – feels like generally there is a lot more talking than actually doing and would like to see us keep it simple and move forward; agrees with three meeting attendance and volunteered sometime;
- Chris: the idea of having some time to share decisions that have been made with the greater community to hear feedback;
- Ron: just the idea that Wed at 10 am might be a bad idea; another time and date might work a lot better; ron likes the idea of making a decision and getting started because we can change things as we go – for now, the best we have is the group that is here on Wed – lets go with this group for now; down the road, the membership would trust itself to make decisions to get them done
- Heather: looks forward to these meetings every week – wants to see this process work so we can get back to programs and activities that are good for the community;
- Philip: for the people that aren’t here – how much weight should we give to these people since they just aren’t a part of our daily life;
- Mike: worries about the math of 80% and figuring out how something passes; mike feels like someone attending these meetings meets the need for volunteering; mike is thinking that whatever words come out of these decisions might be recorded in a way that some don’t agree with – how should we address this
- Sigi: maybe there should be a difference between a member who can vote and someone who just comes and helps at OCP; feels like on a bi-monthly basis, the board should be here
- Jonathan: feels like we should take into consideration those who come tomorrow night because they can’t come on Wed AM – can those who come for the meeting tomorrow have a vote; right now, we could make a list of those who have come to three meetings; ron also thinks that a desire to be on a list of voters and having been to three meetings; ron reminds us that agreement doesn’t have to be enthusiastic but could just be a desire to let the group move forward; ron also wonders about other ways to engage the group since some people might not have like someone up front
- Mike: jonathan and ron are far more comfortable with the 80/20 idea – is willing to go along with the idea but wonders about rounding up on the 20% side when taking a vote; mike wonders about a highly vocal minority group
- Ron: “sleep-on-it” part of the 80/20 is that any part of the minority can block a decision only once – until the next meeting; this gives someone time to talk with others in the group
- Chris: wonders about only blocking once – ron clarifies that it is only one block on each issue
- Christina: the idea of someone having been here three times – what if you only come three times but not really that often – this is where the 80% helps – a random person with a random idea who isn’t really around might not get their idea passed;
- Daniel: would like to see us clarify the rounding – up or down; Daniel would like to see a time set for when someone can bring a topic up again after a vote hasn’t passed
- Ron: Suggestion: a person will have a vote if s/he has been at three of these meetings – tracked the best we can and names on a list; if something comes to a vote, we will use an 80/20 sleep on it method – it takes 80% of the voting group here to pass, anyone in the 20% can block one time to be brought back up at the next meeting; ron would like to address the quorum issue – this we will do next time; rounding to determine 80% will be based on rounding – below .5 rounds down – everything else rounds up
- Thursday we will mostly update people on where we are and not really deal with voting rights of those who can’t
- All in the room agreed to the decision – come to three meetings and your name will be on a list to vote – at a vote, 80% needs to agree to pass a vote, 20% has the right to block until the next meeting, in order to determine 80%, we will round – anything below .5 rounds down, everything else rounds up
Left Over: What constitutes a quorum? Set time someone could be bring up a topic
that does not pass. Lingering concern
about folks who cannot make the Wednesday meetings but who would like to be a
part of Workshops.
Other ideas:
- Better engagement/other ideas for engagement for those who don’t like having someone stand in the front of the room
No comments:
Post a Comment