OCP Workshop 01/30/2013

Ron:  would like to see a change so that it says that no alcohol or drugs on the property – even if you aren’t drinking, you still can’t have alcohol on the property
Gary:  wondering about coming in drunk?; intoxication at OCP
Kris:  what falls under the category of drugs – even legal drugs could be abused;  
Ron:  what about “no alcohol or other intoxicants allowed on the property”
Mike:  rule making is tricky and picking the right words;  would argue for keeping it to a minimum number of words;  no alcohol or other intoxicants is enough;  minimal words, maximum efficiency
Gary:  wonders about the rule of “no slander”
Ron:  no one opposed to “no alcohol or other intoxicants”
Ron:  “no guns or brandishing of weapons”
Philip:  do we need something about “non-law enforcement”
Mike:  there was a lot of discussion about “non-law enforcement”;  had no idea that this applied of police – maybe needs to be discussed separately;  
Philip:  think we should imagine a world in which a police officer could be a part of this community – playing volleyball, doing whatever;  these should all apply to police and everyone else
Gary:  seems like we should have an alternative to calling to police – mediation; instead of hauling people off to jail
Philip:  we could have an asterisk at the bottom to clarify that some people doing their jobs (like police, rescue, etc) might need to excluded from the rules in doing their jobs
Ron:  “being alone with a child that is not your own or your grandchild”;  
Kris:  what about something special going on – does this include outside hours of ocp?;  
Ron:  what about babysitting?;  have seen some pretty shady babysitting situations;
Gary:  what if my sister was watching kobain;  what about this
Kris:  have we decided that it is just children under 18?;  
Mike:  a part of this is to get these things on record, so when the outside world looks in, people know that it is part of OCP – something we think about and value – this might take care of some of the wording;  as soon as you start arranging babysitting, there are a whole different range of issues – if custody is given over to OCP, there are a whole host of issues that could arise;
Ron:  Rachel Farrell would babysit and bring someone else’s child here;  what about this issue?;  what about someone’s aunt;  what about when people start calling other people family but aren’t really blood relatives;  
Gary:  seems like if the people with the child are blood relatives, maybe this should be ok
Kris:  babysitting – no adult is allowed to be alone with a child, without parental permission
Anna:  first I was really against this rule, but got to thinking that there is no reason that someone babysitting should need to be alone with a child – maybe we could just be diligent about finding another person to be with us for diaper changing, screaming/going in the back room;  this would allow us to keep the rule but realize that in a community, we need others to help us with our children sometimes
Philip:  a lot of bad things happen even when a blood relative is involved – like the idea of Anna’s to hold us to a higher standard to keep kids safe
Mike:  is it possible to make this a rule, or should it be in another list – of warnings or promises
Ron:  this rule came about because as a staff, we made a conscious decision to allow sex offenders to be a part of our community because people on the sex offender registry have a very difficult time with many aspects of life;  one incident with a child is too many, so the burden is on OCP to go to extreme lengths to make sure things are safe;  this makes Ron see Anna’s speech about just always going above and beyond;  we just make this the rule and we just always follow it here at OCP;  
Mike:  we could change this to a positive – “preserve and protect the safety of children at all times”;  
Heather:  Greigh babysits here a lot, and people leave their kids alone with her;  sometimes you have to be alone with a child
Ron:  for the church, the goal was always to have two people in the nursery at all times – that is just the rule of thumb now;  as an ethic, if we over protect, we don’t create a situation where
Alex:  agree with plain and simple rule:  no child left alone with a child other than parents;  
Anna:  understanding even in law enforcement – they aren’t even ever alone in a room with a child;  if that is a rule for them, seems like we should too;  hard to imagine any reason that any adult needs to be alone with a child – you can always grab someone;  strongly feel  like we should keep it worded like it is
Gary:  after hearing other comments, agree with the rule
Mike:  the word room is not currently in the definition;  apart from the wording, it is hard to come up with wording to cover everything;  if we are about preserving child, anyone could be the abuser – even parents;  is there a policy that we might adopt that has already been written?
Ron:  culturally what happened with priests in the catholic church  - turned out not to be true;  
James:  is there something that keeps two registered sex offenders from being alone with a child;  asked alex about the camp policy
Mike:  seems like there are lots of opportunities for people to be alone with a child;  are we really going to take this rule seriously if someone calls Ron out about being alone with Rose in the building
Ron:  we have some sort of protocol about people on the sex offender registry – our plan was to meet with a persons PO and make sure the person knows the policy of not being alone with a child;  seems like we should still keep in the ability for a parent or grandparent to be alone with child here at OCP;  “no adults alone with a child unless it is your child or grandchild” – parent, legal guardian, grand parent
Mike:  seems like abuse comes from people closest to child;  right now, the way the rule is written,
Ron:  part of the reason for this rule was to give parents a piece of mind too – that we are thinking about the safety of children – so that law enforcement and social services –
Ron:  the enforcement piece is important – if we don’t say parents can be alone, someone has to bring it up, and if someone has a legitimate reason to be here with a child that isn’t their own,  as a dynamic democracy, we can always make an exception;  
Mark:  one of the things is about protecting children, but a large part is protecting an organization
Mike:  the wording we are working with is:  no adult alone with a child except parents, grandparents, legal guardians
Sadie:  likes the wording that we don’t leave anyone out;  
Ron:  remembers the idea that there is a piece about parental responsibility that we should potentially be saying to all parents bring children here
Ron:  do we need to talk about stealing as a current rule; 

OCP Workshop 01/23/2013

Ron – opens mtg with brief explanation of process to visitors. Decided we do want membership at OCP and are now figuring out what that will look like. Finished discussion about volunteer hours. Mistake with “where we are now:” left out our discussion of what the specific rules of OCP actually are.  Ron purposes we begin today’s discussion with what the rules are, followed by code of behavior and enforcement.

Mike – wants to know in terms of framing are we looking for brainstorming session or are we going to try to lay out some limiting factors regarding rules?

Ron – I think we should start with what are the unspoken rules that are kinda a big deal? What are the rules right now that we can agree on? I’ve mentioned no drinking or drug use on the property and no child alone with an adult.

Daniel – something along the lines of no violence

Ron – are there others? What about if there are already laws prohibiting them?

Daniel – regarding laws: we might not want to call the cops, but we still have the rule here. Because we’re not necessarily going to call the police we should possibly still have rules that reinforce laws of the land.

Teig – I’d like to add no threats of violence or intimidation

Mike – I think calling the police will be part of our enforcement discussion

Kris – would sexual harassment fall under violence or intimidation? I think it is important to include that.

Heather – We have all these rules for not having violence? Isn’t that just common sense?

Mark – I think you should include a rule against theft.

Mike – I did put Ron’s “clean up after yourself” and Jonathan isn’t here and he believes that there shouldn’t be profanity at OCP.

Phil – I think Jonathan actually says there is a right time and a wrong time for profanity.

Daniel B – Are we talking about things that might get you kicked out of OCP? So we should word anything with foul language carefully.

Ron – I thought you were going to ask “is that what we’re talking about now?” Being verbally abusive to a staff member because the staff need to have a certain level of authority.

Mike – I think there is a hard and fast rule about no viewing pornography at OCP.

Sadie – YES!

Daniel B – we probably need to discuss this more I think whatever the conflict resolution process it needs to be mandatory that you respect it and follow it.

Sadie – I think the pornography rule should be rule number 1! There are some people I’d like to strangle.

Teig – Then we have to figure out what constitutes pornography?

Kris – beyond pornography, I’d say no very violent media at OCP. Or anything that is degrading.

Sadie – if it is anything distasteful you shouldn’t be looking at it anyway. Teig, let me address your question – you shouldn’t look at halfnaked women.

Daniel B – if it can’t happen at OCP you can’t look at it at OCP or if anyone is offended by what you are looking at it isn’t ok

Phil – no guns except for police. But no lethal weapons.

Daniel M – are we talking about rules that get you kicked out of OCP? Let me know when the brainstorm part is done?

Teig – what constitutes offensive behavior? What about banging on the piano?

Ron – lets just get the list up then go back and debate the finer points.

Mike – what about suggestive clothing? Dress code?

Ron –1.  no drinking or using illegal drugs on property and 2. no adult alone with child in room (unless your child) I think are serious rules.  3. No pornography. 4. Honor conflict resultion process. 5. No lethal weapons. These seem to be unspoken rules that we’ve seemed to be enforced in the past.

Daniel – I have a problem with no lethal weapons. What is a lethal weapon? How do we define that?

Ron – yeah. Good point. I think no guns and no knives longer than the law of the land allows. I don’t know what to say about tazers and mace.

Mike – lots of things will need help with definitions. I think it should have something to do with brandishing. I think you know it when you see it. If its main purpose is to be lethal you shouldn’t be flashing it around.

Teig – I think that should come under threats of violence.

Daniel M – could we phrase it so that it is “no brandishing of lethal weapons?”

Ron – I can remember an incident of a guy who had a known history of violence who carried a large knife on him and we didn’t let him bring it in. Do we really want people in here with guns even if they have a concealed license?

Daniel -  I would be completely satisfied with no guns allowed at all. But I’m skeptical about no knives. Perhaps on a case by case basis.

Mike – I think we don’t need to make it an issue. We aren’t going to pat people down. I think we should just say no lethal weapons if you are scaring people. The sight of weapons of any sort can make people queasy. I think we left one out – no animals in the building and no dangerous animals on the property.

Ron – I like deferring to freedom. Do we need to create some rule for every bad thing that could possibly happen?

Daniel M – I think we are operating on a slippery slope if we aren’t going to enforce them. If we make something a rule it should be enforced.

Mike – I see it as a rule but we don’t have a metal detector and we aren’t going to pat you down. I want to have the red card on lethal weapons. I resist saying “brandishing” because what if we find out about it and it is making someone uncomfortable?

Ron – what if someone shows a gun to someone but isn’t brandishing it?

Daniel – if its not a hard and fast rule there are lots of things we need to consider. Why does it having a gun have to be a hard and fast rule? I am completely ok with no guns. But how do you enforce or define no lethal weapons? Deal with knives on a case by case basis.

Daniel B – to try to summarize: outside of guns we are saying no threating, branching, or talking about using with sensitivity to peoples issues with them. As to guns: none at all, or no one can know about it.

Ron – no guns at OCP property and no brandishing of weapons is what I’m feeling cooking down.

Karen’s husband – I say no weapons at all.

Mike – I’m wondering on a process basis are we leading up to a proposal?

Ron – I think this has been a topic for years so I’m ok if it takes some time. I’d like to agree with the first six rules we’ve discussed.

Kris – I agree with Ron. We should go through the six.

Phil -  I really want to hear Anna because police come here. I’m curious to know how we address that?

Ron – I want to reserve the possibility that we make the rule and then have a philosophical discussion.

Anna – I just don’t know.  We live in a fallen world, nothings perfect.  So if there’s an emergency and our mediation system won’t work, then we probably can’t permit them from showing up with guns.  But if we’re inviting them to come to us here at OCP, then to have a discussion about what we do and what they do, I don’t think it would be out of line to tell them we have this rule that there are no guns at OCP and we want you to respect that rule.  Why can’t they honor that?  What would they use a gun for in that instance?  Shows a lack of willingness to problem solve if we say “if we make this rule, then no police can come and talk with us”  We could say, “We are a Christian organization heavily influence by non-violence and Mennonite perspective,” then why couldn’t they do that?   If OCP is not willing to make a stand about no guns, then can we expect anyone?  If not us, who?

Charles – I would be more comfortable if the chief of police if he came without his gun.

Daniel B – I have hesitation to passing these rules if they don’t apply to everyone.

Ron – I’m super interested in Mr. Rhodes opinion on this? I’ve never know a police officer to shoot someone in Harrisonburg. If we’re using them we should let them in. But if a cop shows up to talk to someone we shouldn’t escourt them off the property. It sounds self-righteous to me. I don’t know if you can tell them (the police) not to have a gun.

Daniel – I’m really supportive of the idea that if the chief of police wants to come to chat with us and learn about us and NOT bring a gun. Otherwise I think we’re fighting a losing battle if we expect the police to come without a gun. Police are typically involved in emergency situations.

Felicia – why bring the police here? Everyone knows that police do?

Daniel -  I think we want them to learn from us.

Mike – I never thought this had anything to do with the police. What they are doing is completely legal when they come with guns. Or  we could talk about brandishing?

Mr. Rhodes – I like the bias against having weapons here. Or we could send a delegation to send the police office.  I support no weapons at all here.

Ron – can I ask you “it is quite common for police to come here looking for people in full uniform – what do we do about that?”

Mr. Rhodes – don’t invite them but if they show up we can’t do anything about it

Phil – this chief of police I think really wants to do things differently. We need to get to know them and they need to get to know us and how can we all bend a little to make that happen?

Johnny – the Miami police put lock boxes in their cars they are also doing it in Charlottesville, too. Some of us feel safer when we see a police car.

Daniel B – I’m not so worried about a particular event but I know that the police don’t just come here in the event of an emergency and they take people in. Their having a gun is an inherent threat and gives them the power to usurp our process.

Mike – I think the police is a bigger issue than this discussion. When it comes to the police his purpose is to protect us. I don’t think we’re talking about the police issue.

Ron – I don’t think Daniel B’s argument holds water. The fact is that OCP is in the city of Harrisonburg and is very involved in the democratic process and one of the things society has decided is that the police can carry guns. We need to respect the powers that be and the system. OCP isn’t never going to call the police. It seems rude to tell them they can’t bring guns until we need them.
Mike – If it is happening in Charlottesville then it might happen in Hburg several years later. But it is against the rules for them to leave their guns anywhere.

Ron – someone pointed out that this might be a larger discussion than right now. Can we set this aside for now? I think we were headed toward “no guns at OCP and no brandishing weapons for non-law enforcement.” The community can return to the larger discussion at a later time.

Phil – I think the point that the above reflects our rule now is valid.

Kris – its one thing when they are on duty but what if they are off duty.

Ron – it can be a policy for how OCP deals with the police. If they refuse to come without weapons we can go to them, but when they are on duty and doing their job that might be different. It sounds like there is agreement among staff that that is the current policy. Is the rule that there is no guns and no brandishing weapons?

Daniel B – I would like to note in the minutes that it is not entirely resolved.

Claude – what are we trying to vote on?

Ron – I’m proposing that outside of law enforcement no guns at ocp and no brandishing weapons. Setting aside that there is a larger issue that needs to be discussed. Let the minutes reflect that we agree no drinking or illegal drugs on the property and no adult alone in a room with a child that isn’t there own. No guns and no brandishing weapons.

Phil – close in prayer

OCP Workshop 01/16/2013

• Code of behavior discussion
• Mark:  do we need to consider not meeting since Philip isn’t here and the board wanted Philip to attend meetings
• Ron/Jonathan:  the feeling was that generally a time that Philip could make was important, but certainly being on vacation wouldn’t stop a meeting
• Daniel:  when we have a membership, seems like they should not be held back from ron or Philip not being here
• Mike:  wants to thank Daniel for bring up this issue
• Jonathan:  would like to talk about the judiciary committee
• Mike:  maybe we don’t want to put the chicken before the egg;  we need to talk about what before the how;  the code of behavior could be a mix of obeying the laws, a couple things specific to this place, following our own moral code, respecting each other;  see the judiciary committee as less of a tattle tale scene and police state
• Ron:  likes the idea that an individual should try to handle issues alone, then a small group gets together and tries to address it, then the person might come into the judiciary committee;  the mediation is what we do – to deal with problems as a first step – this should be how we live;  confused about how some rule should govern the membership separate from anyone who comes through the door;  feels like we should try to define code of behavior even if it is short
• Daniel:  thinks we should try to define a code of behavior;  members would probably be held to slightly higher standards;  
• Ron:  seems like there are two topics – a code of behavior and a way to address infractions;  seems like we should talk about code of behavior first
• Daniel:  don’t want to lose that members might be held to a slightly higher standard – members might be “expected” to jump up and help if someone brings a food donation – something like this might be brought to the judiciary – the person who doesn’t ever get up and help
• Ron:  some people are in a place in life where being a member might not be a good fit, but just being here might be important – we don’t want to lose this with membership
• Gary:  understands we are trying to straighten things out so they can be the best they can;  it has become more of a government since we are trying to work on membership – sad that we need to resort to these measures
• Ron:  how is behavior here at OCP
• Mike:  thanks Gary for saying that good morals should guide us;  maybe we are looking at a motto of sorts, maybe a slogan – this would be our code – words could include:  we try to obey all laws, show respect to each other, clean up after ourselves, and help out when we can – some people aren’t able to help out for various reasons – we would police ourselves
• Anna:  really like the idea of obeying laws (for the most part);  pretty important history especially if we are going to live as a Christian organization, there may be laws we choose not to follow;  some of us might work to overturn access to abortion;  there could be instances where we don’t follow certain laws
• Ron:  if you are involved in a conflict, you have to attempt to mediation with the other person;  
• Matt:  thinks there should be some better mediator skills available – sometimes people say that because they haven’t heard a threat, it can’t be dealt with
• Ron:  matt’s point brings up at that there needs to be some training for people doing mediation;  non-violence might be a word we want to use in our code of behavior – makes Ron think of the Spirit of Jesus;  maybe there is a something in our vision statement that we could pull out
• Mike:  showing respect for each other covers a lot of ground;  specific OCP rules might need to be included – drinking on the property for one;  ideally, people would obey laws;  we need to present ourselves as a law abiding community;  its best that we operate with our own moral code – this would generally cover most of the ground;  personal moral code might be in conflict with some laws, but we could include words like:  we seek to, or “in general we follow all laws”
• Ron:  would like a better word that “laws”;  in nazi Germany, the government created laws that Christians could not follow;  maybe someone wants to talk to someone selling drugs instead of turning him/her in;  at Summerhill School in England, there are some basic rules, but basically, the community over time develops rules as the community sees fit;  who knows what rules we might come up with that make sense over time – here one cant be alone in a room with a child that isn’t your own – these rules are different from this code of behavior;  Summerhill has a large amount of rules because they have to live together every day
• Heather:  maybe when we start disciplining people, we should start one-on-one;  we shouldn’t call people out in front of the group;  this will just lead to anger and start things off on the wrong path
• Daniel:  think rules that develop will develop organically – it is hard to see what we might need in the future;  would be better to develop process for making rules;  like the idea of talking with someone in private first, maybe there are two or three people who get involved in mediation if one-on-one isn’t working;  then if this doesn’t work, they come in front of the community at large – maybe not a specific judiciary team;  rules will develop organically as things come up;  there are some standard ones that we can decide on right away – no drinking on the property, not being alone in a room with a child
• Ron:  we have talked about a code of behavior that might be a statement, maybe there are five or six rules that already exist, then there is some separation on how to address breaking rules
• Kris:  seems like we need to address some issues like smoking pot in the building or drinking on the property just because someone believes it;
• Daniel:  defining what is and isn’t right would be an ongoing process – we should establish a process for defining right and not;  we might let someone come in stoned or drunk but not come in and smoke pot in the room;
• Ron:  this whole experiment is about dynamic democracy – maybe nothing should be set in stone – when it comes to protocol that we need to establish, it would all be changeable;  confused about laws;  there is no way that we are going to let someone  break the law when it comes to smoking pot;  would like to see something that says we agree to resolve our differences
• Mark:  likes the word protocol:  what is going to make ocp function best on a day to day basis;  we don’t need to look so cosmically about talking about following God’s law;  there are things that we need to set as protocol – this place degenerates on some Thursday nights into mayhem – feels like there should be a rule about people coming here repeatedly drunk;  we should focus on what would make ocp function the most smoothly – there should be some absolutes;  
• Daniel:  the importance of addressing why we are going to have to talk about all of these topics at once:  code of behavior, rules, process for rule making, enforcement;  
• Kris:  when talking about code of behavior, this is about laws, rules;  
• Ron:  we keep talking about Mike’s statement which is illegible;  could we get it on the board readable;  to mark, what it to be the smoothest possible in the context of OCP vision
• Mike:  sometimes we need to go to nuts and bolts and then back up to general;  
• Alex:  does our vision statement already encompass a “code of behavior” statement;  this makes sense
• Mark:  a little uncomfortable with the notion that here at OCP,
• Ron:  not so sure the vision statement speaks to one’s behavior while at OCP;  there could really be something to :  as we are trying to be comprehensive with a statement that we are covering the few things that we feel like are the rules;  maybe we should talk about the rules first
• Daniel:  the rules is for people who don’t know how to act
• Gary:  the word enforcement is important – we spent a whole month on these vary same issues when we shut down in September – we felt we had covered most of it, but this never addressed the enforcement issues, and the laws weren’t typed out and handed to each person;  some people may know about some of the rules but not all of them, and there is nothing written for them to follow;  sometimes it seems like there is a flexibility where rules bend sometimes – we need to rules to be stable and stick;  we need some steady rules – these may need to be typed and handed out so people know what is expected;  enforcement is definitely an issue that has never been addressed – people turn their head, act like they don’t work here

OCP Workshop 01/02/2013

• Because we have changed our rules about abstaining, the vote on the six teams now passes – so the beginning six would be – maintenance and grounds, kitchen, programming, services, recovery/spiritual, sanitation
• Ron:  anyone have a feeling about which direction to go in?;  two ideas are that we could talk about being a member might include a spirit of volunteering/participation or this plus being on a team
• Matt:  maybe we should let go of the concept of members being required to do some volunteer time
• Ron:  seems like we have been moving in this direction – supports the idea that members have a spirit of volunteering and participation and are members of a team so that people who want to be involved are involved – if you leave the teams piece off, it is too nebulous
• Matt:  likes this idea as well – maybe scrap the point of how many hours people do and even also scrapping tracking hours for people wanting to become members
• Ron:  this is only one piece of membership – we will be talking about all the other topics after this topic
• Philip:  having members on a team seems to make people accountable to the group
• Jonathan:  can you have a spirit of participation
• Anna:  would be interested to know – do we need to have a definition of participation – what counts as participation
• Philip:  maybe the word participate is redundant – spirit of volunteerism
• Ron:  feels like he likes keeping the word participation in the sentence – because someone who likes to only volunteer might never participate in the community – not defining it leaves room for people to fit in where they can – keeps us being less judgemental –
• Jonathan:  proposes:  Members exhibit a spirit of volunteerism and participation and serve on at least one team.  Seconded by Mike Farrand;  Yes – 9, No – 1 – motion carries;  no vote does not want to block
• Mike:  after we have talked through a code of behavior for the whole organization, then that would ;  new member orientation – maybe staff can work with this;  
• Teig:  likes the idea of discussing about a code of behavior for the whole organization
• Ron:  the group reached consensus on having these 6 things for members and why would we want to not talk about each item;  there is a crossover with code of behavior – maybe we do want to go the deliverable –
• Barbara:  thinking about code of behavior – is that profanity, sexual behavior – has seen sexual behavior in ocp – are people and things going to be restricted;  
• Phil:  caution to Mike about staff coming up with things and then presenting them – maybe a group here could come up – also agrees that we should go through each item of requirements of membership
• Mike:  appreciates Phil interest in talking about code of behavior;  generally speaking, this group is focused on policy and larger issues;  volunteer hours has come off the list because of our last vote;  understands meeting attendance  - that this means membership meeting attendance – once – membership could come up with this once the membership has been created
• Ron:  the mocking seems like it isn’t appropriate and code of behavior might be a sort of crossover
• Jonathan:  code of behavior seems to be a cross over and maybe we can start there
• Mike:  addicted to forward motion – apologizes for mocking – wants to see us move forward;  code of behavior is very key – this body has been convened to deal with issues like code of behavior
• Philip:  appreciates Mike’s apology; doesn’t think that was mocking; would be interested in pursuing the idea of code of behavior
• Ron:  we have not finished talking about membership – we need to define them;  past discussion has led;  membership has not been defined;  don’t understand never coming back to membership specific
• Mike:  what we already voted on – how we thought membership would evolve – there is a question as to when and how – membership will evolve out of this process;  
• Ron:  seems like there is consensus about moving towards a discussion of code of behavior – where should we start, which direction should we go
• Teig:  would like to talk about violence or threats of violence
• Ron:  we should think about a “do” policy where we think about a “don’t policy”
• Teig:  there should be some penalty when someone breaks a rule
• Barbara:  we closed up before September, we were supposed to reopen and not allow profanity tand sexual matters
• Jonathan:  would like us to talk about the judiciary policy
• Anna:  likes the idea of a “do” policy – in that vein – our code of behavior might say something about community members treating each other non-violently;  there isn’t a law of acting in the spirit on non-violence – this would be broader
• Ron:  interesting that the law won’t allow you to walk up to someone and say you would kill them;  most of the things that we might have on a list of things we aren’t allowed to do might be against the law;  things are so much better than how it used to be in the old days, it sounds like Barbara and Teig are both
• Mark:  if we come up with all the do’s and don’t, we will talk forever – but some specific things can be addressed – like cussing;  when there are ocp meetings going on, we need to have some plan for how people are dealt with;  maybe we could talk about very specific things
• Ron:  tattletailing is a concern;  another concern is someone cursing to make a point and how can we avoid legalism when it comes to rules we make – Mike has said it is more about do then don’t – golden rule type things
• Claude:  agrees that cursing maybe needs to be kept out of the building or the property – common sense
• Schrag:  the judiciary committee is the direction we should move for discussion – we should have a proposal that talks strongly about a “do” policy but when things are causing difficulty there would be a judicary
• Ron:  judiciary – elected in some ways from the membership – made up of membership;  there would need to be some check and balance on power and they convene on a regular basis to hear issues;  maybe after the judiciary discussion is done, we come back to a “do” policy
• Teig:  likes the discussion to talk about a judiciary thing – doesn’t think this group needs to be elected
• Ron:  seems like we are going to want to hold everyone to some of these standards that we create – especially mediation;  maybe we do have something about convening 5 people and doing a sort of meeting;  seems like major issues would need some form of judiciary but smaller conflicts might be resolved on the spot through some sort of mediation
• Mike:  seems like Ron is speaking for a code of behavior that anyone at OCP lives within – has a lot to say about judiciary committee;  maybe it is a little out of order to go straight to judiciary
• Ron:  seems like we have a lot to discuss next week – code of behavior as it applies to ocp in general and membership;  jonathan is talking a lot about judiciary committee;  mike says we should make sure to talk about topics in a proper order