OCP Workshop 09/12/2012

• Currently this is proposal on the floor:  Spend time talking at our meetings talking about membership, funding, and programming
• We did agree to spend the first 15 minutes talking about purposes, so we will start there
• Ron reviews some of the discussion about things that people here feel like we wouldn’t want changed
• Purposes:
• Mike:  agrees that if we continue on the deliverables, these will help us figure out what is missing from our purposes;  mike feels like nothing is really non-negotiable, we can talk about whatever we want and make decisions;
• Ron:  this idea doesn’t seem true, so we need some clarity
• Mike:  wants to get some clarity on what happens when a decision is made by this group;  has never felt that this group could change things without an approval process, but seems to have heard that as long as there is a staff person around, then it sounds like there would be some sort of proposal process up to someone
• Ron:  the board didn’t really have time at our last meeting to get a list of non-negotiables so the board asked the group to brainstorm a list to bring back to the board for review;  it is hard to have full clarity on such a topic quickly – it may just take time to come up with this list;  
• Jonathan:  if the group decided to spend the first 15 minutes on purposes why aren’t we doing that
• Matthew:  thought that we would come in and have a vote right away on the proposal
• Ron:  helps explain what happened to get us to the point of deciding to spend the first 15 minutes of each meeting talking about purposes
• Matthew:  thinks that this is part of what we are talking about – what is more important to talk about – lets figure out a plan to help us not get sidetracked
• Sadie:  agrees with Jonathan that if we decided to talk about purposes
• Ron:  feels like we shouldn’t talk about purposes at the beginning of each meeting because that kind of discussion seems like it might take a full 1 ½ with a very focused discussion
• Mike:  maybe sometime we could break up into groups to talk about things like purposes;  would agree with Ron that talking about purposes in small amounts of time might not be very productive;  
• Ron:  think we could go ahead and vote on this proposal on the floor and then move on with changes if we want it to say something else
• Proposal on the floor:  Spend time talking at each meeting about membership, funding, and programming
• Jonathan:  thought there was some group sense that this would be a decent idea, but not attached to the idea
• Ron:  likes the idea that we focus on one idea at a time instead of  having multiple topics;  seems like it could be too constraining and would like to see us have more flexibility
• Matthew:  thought that this was just the order that we would begin with and that we wouldn’t talk about each of these all in one day;
• Philip:  agrees with Ron that three different things might cause us to play catch-up at each meeting;  
• Mike:  supports Ron idea that we should focus on one thing at a time;  sees a lot of inter-related issues but still thinks we should talk about one at a time
• Kris:  remembers that there would be one main area of focus but that we would touch on some of the other topics
• In favor:  two; opposed:  ;  overwhelming voted down
• Where to go next:
• Mike would like to see us start with the idea of membership – maybe we can think of somethin44Mike would like to see us start with the idea of membership – maybe we can think of something else to call it but for now to talk about it
• Ron:  could the topic be to talk about the idea of membership
• Mike:  Proposes:  Open up a discussion of membership; seconded by Teig
• In favor:  14, Opposed:  0 – unanimously passed
• MEMBERSHIP
• Ron:  been talked about for years;  teig has said before that having a membership would make some people feel unwelcome;  there has been a lot of getting excited and then not feeling excited about it
• Mike:  wonders if it might help to break it into, 1. The term membership and 2. The concept of membership;  in terms of concept, how best can be harness the volunteer energy around OCP – in some ways this would mean rewarding those who participate;
• Jonathan:  would like to see us continue on this path without ever excluding anyone
• Teig:  sees a lot of problems;  giving some people power can be bad
• Heather:  agrees with Jonathan, people aren’t going to let power go to their heads – we have very little power compared to the staff and board;  who cares what the word “membership” sounds like to the rest of the world
• Matthew:  why try to make this more complicated, we have this, we have voters; what is the difference and what we are doing already;  if people want to be a part of this group, they can be;  there are new people here today
• Kris:  mentions “friendship” – who is a friend to ocp, acquaintances are still and always welcome;  we are kind of getting at who is a friend and who is an acquaintance;  if Kris is setting up a house, he would set up the house how the people in the house wanted, not go to the street and ask people out there\
• Sadie:  some people want to know why these meetings go around in circles
• Jonathan:  agrees with Matthew that we already have a “membership” but would like to see us get a better name
• Ron:  there is a term in the bylaws called “friends of ocp”;  the board would run things by the friends of ocp before making lots of decisions;  doesn’t appreciate the comments that someone made to Sadie about not getting anywhere – we have done a lot and we are doing good work and moving forward;  Ron pictures that someone would do some sort of hours per month, but maybe we don’t want to deal with this issue – maybe we don’t need to add much;  does want to support teig’s point because it is impossible to tell what any human beings will do with power – some people left alone at OCP for two minutes will take over the group and yell;  there may come a time when we might come up with something like, “you need to be a friend of ocp to be on the property”;  maybe the term “core volunteer” but we are more than that;  maybe there is some rule like in order to have the building open, there needs to be one staff person and two members;  ron also wonders if this “membership” means just coming to this meeting or supporting the ocp in rules, etc; circling up?;  some kind of pledge
• David:  wonders why he would want to to come to these workshops – we keep talking about the same things – if we vote some things, we don’t even follow these votes;  where will we be in a month or two
• Philip:  what is exciting about membership?;  others are here more than staff members;  how do we decide to let people back on the property who have been kicked off?;  how can we come up with more open times?;  
• Matthew:  worries that we come up with rules and requirements for membership, you might lose many of the people who are currently a part of the community
• Mark:  we are getting sidetracked by a word, and we don’t even know if we know if we are going to have a membership;  not all stockholders have as much stock as others;  just come on a Tuesday and see who is doing the work;  
• Peter:  being an “a” personality who pushes things forward; nothing wrong with talking things out
• Sadie:  the person who said that these meetings are just going around in circles has been at these meetings;  either we are going to call it a membership or we aren’t
• Teig:  what if one guy wants to light the woodstove, would a member be able to say no;  what about keys to the shed or pantry – an “a” class member might be able to ok this;  there may be different degrees – like the “core” membership;  what about “associate” – class a or class b associate;  the more you give, the more say you should have;  some people have to have more power than others in order to make these decisions
• Kris:  things have been getting done, we don’t need to rush;  we will see more things change as we move forward;  maybe we shouldn’t worry about the name so much right now;  would like to see this come about – so that there is a group outside of staff that can make decisions and help out;  lets have a discussion about what a member would be;
• Jonathan:  wants a membership that can make decisions about a staff, money, and programming
• Ron:  wonders what would happen when people in the seats here might get some power and help be involved;  other ways of governance might be options, but are they the best;  the little grill has been worker owed for almost 10 years;  the two concepts are that we have to be loving and welcoming – infuse into our persons – you don’t know what someone is going through; on the other side, people who plug in and participate – shouldn’t be abused by people who don’t participate and won’t plug in and won’t follow the rules;  we need to find a balance between these concepts
• Heather:  one thing that people are forgetting is that we need to have patience with these meetings;  nothing happens over night – you want it done, work at it;  if you want to complain and complain and complain, go somewhere else;  we are trying – there are some of us here that don’t get paid and come anyway;  shouldn’t a member be able to say something to people who aren’t doing anything;  if everyone in this room was a member, we have a right to say something to someone who is doing something wrong, people don’t listen, what is the point;  
• Matthew:  very opposed to this talk of membership;  what about everyone having a voice who comes in;  to sit here and have only a certain group of people – if the membership can have a special meeting and other people can’t attend, what is ocp
• Mike:  these are Mike’s concerns too – that we don’t need to classify people differently, but maybe there does need to be some sort of reward structure to keep ocp being something that we like;  in terms of facilitating the discussion, we could use a term like “friends of ocp” in order for the word not to get in the way;  we need to break things out
• Jonathan:  we could move on with what we have for membership and we can call it “friends of ocp”
• Mark:  feels like we have some concern about separating people but we haven’t even decided to have a membership or not;  if people want to be involved they can be;  
• Kris:  agrees with Mark, no one is going to be kept off the property
• Ron:  what can we do – people come to ron with idea after idea and then move away after four months – who will help make sure that things are sustainable – who will help enforce ideas and new concepts – we want anyone to be involved who wants to be involved – maybe “friends of ocp” people are on at least one team – maybe friends of ocp agree to try to volunteer some amount of time each month;  maybe we create a judiciary team to deal with issues that come up;  worries about the way these meetings are run – two black people think these meetings are stupid and there are a bunch of white people sitting around?;  maybe there are some cultural, race, or gender issues that cause some people to not want to be involved;  we can always improve here, but they people making decisions takes time
• Jonathan:  is interested in having this group called “friends of ocp”
• Ron:  we could break out into small groups and then report back