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
No comments:
Post a Comment