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