OCP Workshop 02/27/2013

Ron:  we should talk about the code of behavior/motto – strive to maintain an atmosphere
Jonathan:  like the phrase mike farrand gave us;  would like to add “family-friendly” wording
Nathan:  something about basic human dignity in all of us – or the image of God in all of us and that leads to respect for all;  that all people have a basic dignity to be respected, treated fairly and justly
Mark:  agree with Nathan, respect for others, others feelings, and the group needs respect;  
Ron:  not just respecting each other but respecting OCP programming/culture that is happening;  
Kris:  if we are still talking about membership and a code of behavior – the members would strive to influence others to better themselves – to help people respect others;  influencing others to help more
Ron:  what are we talking about – under membership and code of behavior – a code of behavior for OCP – everyone who walks thru the door should be made aware of and asked to follow;  members are plugged in in a different way – maybe through our volunteer statement for members;  original thought was that as members, we pledge to follow the code of behavior for ocp
Kris:  the people who are here do encourage people – but probably as far as we can take it;  
Anna:  think we can adopt something that could be worded in a way that we don’t use the word law;  
Alex:  Don’t understand the difference between what we are trying to write and what is written on the wall as the vision statement for ocp;  why do we need another motto
Ron:  not sure the way that the vision statement is written is right – it is just as it was written from the beginning;  its never been a rule that someone must help out when they can;  
Mark:  a very specific event – at night out, if you aren’t here to help out, why are you here;  people have been here drunk, cornering student volunteers;  its embarrassing and counterproductive;  respect for ocp sanctioned or sponsored events;  sometimes you just cant move in the back
Ron:  at a staff level, we have tried to address night out people hanging around;  we should own what we believe;  if we have a free meal, no strings attached;  seems like there has been some dividing as we have done these workshops;  maybe we have free meals sometimes and other times we are doing something else;  
Kris:  if we do go in the direction of asking all people to step up and help if possible, we need to do our part to help;  every once in a while, people help out in lots of small, unique ways;  maybe there is a way we can approach creating a place where all people help that we can help people understand how important helping is;  
Matt:  can admit that I mostly come around and help out a little but not a lot;  I come especially in the winter to get out of the cold;  seems like it would be weird to have a membership that only lets people in sometimes;  seems like Harrisonburg is getting more unwelcome to homeless people
Kris:  having a place to come to like ocp – isn’t it encouraging to help out so that we can have that place;  at your own home, you would have to help out;  
Ron:  Jonathan once said, “its actually not a free meal”;  everything costs time and money;  its it helpful or destructive to have someone be somewhere without doing anything;  does that crush the human spirit;  it seems wonderful and fun to get stuff for doing nothing;  maybe we need some recognition that there is a need for helping;  maybe we have something that is
Nathan:  if we take the first sentence of the vision statement and make it two – if “a community center that treats people with dignity and respect where is anyone is welcome to help or participate
Zach:  don’t mind trading a little work for a place that is helping;  seems like we don’t want to instill in peoples minds that they would have to trade work to receive something instead of out of the goodness of their hearts receiving something;  instead of just plugging into to something that a person believes in
Matt:  everything that I am hearing from homeless feel like there aren’t enough resources and enough help from ocp;  thought this place was here to help people with and without housing;  people come in here and help and sometimes ask for a ride or something;  what is this place going to turn into with the membership;  there is nothing wrong – some people are getting upset because people say ocp is for helping people that are homeless, but ocp doesn’t always seem able to do this kind of thing;  
Kris:  it depends on how you ask;  staff is willing to help in whatever way;  doesn’t seem like the staff can do everything, but can at least point people in the right direction;  maybe we don’t need a rule – if someone is misbehaving, we see that;  if someone is here for a long time, and they never help, maybe there is a time to confront a person or ask how we can help;  seen a lot of people sit around for months and then start helping;  
Heather:  brought up to Philip and ron – maybe we should offer something more for the community;  supposed to be helping people but these things don’t seem to be happening;  tried to bring yoga here on Friday nights, but this never happened;  why don’t we open something better – more than a meal and
Ron:  is there value- people say they are glad to have a place to be, to have nice people around;   we had a rough time when we tried to do everything;  this got to be unsustainable – the purpose of the workshop is to address what we can do as a community – hey everybody- what is this place, how can we accomplish our purposes;  cant manifest things that everyone in this room needs;  a lot of people here need an apartment;  we have visions and ideas for creating a community;  we are trying something new – trying to create something together;  critique is always good, but sometimes it feels a little rough;  some people could get a car, house , and money right now and all of it would be gone and destroyed without
Kris:  heard a lot of ideas about how to utilize this space when it isn’t being used;  someone who has lived on the streets for a lifetime may not know how to get a job;  when can we start talking about trying various things;  is there a way to approach good ideas?  - someone may have taken the time to do something positive – this might be a lot of the frustration
Ron:  on the paper that we all have, one item is :  plan for programming/entertainment;  we are moving in the direction of figuring this stuff out;  lets play out the workshop plan – who’s going to be accountable;  
Kris:  we are making progess – the wants and needs of people are important now though;  
Tom:  what ocp gives to us, we should give back what we can as we can – this should be an expectation – otherwise ocp will cease to exist, grow, and thrive
Sigi:  was here in the insane days – loved it but sometimes got sick over this place;  this used to be an old abandoned building, and now it is bringing fruit;  think we are on the right track;  
Matt:  would like to touch up on something about ocp – when someone has an idea – if it isn’t getting talked about, it gets tossed aside;  had a good idea about an event on Friday, and the idea has gotten tossed out;
Ron:  creating structure for things can seem tedious and difficult – hearing ideas without a plan for execution is not an idea for how things can last;  this is hard/tedious work right now;  the staff has invited the community to participate in this workshop – to help create a structure that can work for the future;  100 years from now, there are going to be homeless people and people in need;  if this ocp idea can be something that can last, chances are that in 100 years, ocp could be a model for people who need help;  when we tried things like job training in the past, people didn’t come;  
Heather:  understand this is going to take a while, the words on the wall are just words – are we actually going to accomplish these goals;  if we aren’t all going to follow, believe in, and try, what do these words mean;  have a yearning/void that cant be filled by ocp;  
Teig:  seems like we have the water here at ocp, but we can’t force people to drink;  classes like knot tying and other classes were real resources;  
Sadie:  it is hard to hold someone’s attention very long;  most people sat outside and didn’t participate in educational things;  
Philip:  if the csb is answering problems and with issues, that is great, but remembers Anna helping Heather to find resources;  
Kris:  if you feel ocp isn’t working for you, either decide to plug in and make it your place or find somewhere else to be;  having been through hard times, I remember those who have helped in the past;  the staff here will help you if you need help;   maybe just plug in or say thank you for the help provided – or just move on
Ron:  our first two purposes seem to be a real mandate for what ocp should be;  for about a month and a half, we had classes almost everyday – we had two people on staff – people in the parking lot would be cursing people out when the teachers arrived;  if someone starts a business, there is no law that says that someone is supposed to allow people to be there; the little grill had three stools where people could be;  then ocp opened and allowed more people to be around more often;  maybe in our limited hours, it is revolutionary;  
Sigi:  ron said if he gave someone their house, car, and 10k, the person would waste it all;  also, ron said, that which has been long neglected cannot be restored immediately;  things take time;  the saddest thing at ocp is hard working people, after 5 years, still being homeless;  talented people who can’t get a place or a job because that person drinks;  we have nothing for the person who doesn’t want to stop drinking or getting high;
Mike:  a system is failing or has failed – or not publicized enough;  maybe the ocp hasn’t looked into state or federal funding – what about a “second chance” program for people that are homeless;  being bonded – provides a company some insurance for someone who has been incarcerated who might not work out;  people just need a chance to get a foothold
Matt:  like to talk to Jonathan – about 50% of the people in here are homeless;  there are people with problems with homes and without homes;  
Kris:  when Kris first got here, there was a free store;  then there was some talk about getting rid of it;  then Kris felt like it was important to people and starting straightening it once a week, but two days later, it was destroyed – helping people to be thankful for resources – how can we get people here;

OCP Workshop 02/20/2013

Gary:  Jasmine has been here a long time – since the ocp was open;  jasmine has never really been a problem;  doesn’t seem like we need to make a big change – although the health department does have strict rules;  people learning to get along with animals is a good thing;  how much control can we have over animals that are outside
Ron:  is anyone not ready to move on with the statement:  No animals in the building except Jasmine
Kris:  as far as animals outside the building, seems like we should only allow pets that are safe around humans and we shouldn’t let people tie their animals up outside;  maybe we should ask the spca what they think about animals staying outside for an extended period of time;  make sure people clean up after them;  
Ron:  other possibilities for rules:  animals outside the building
Ron:  next issue we are talking about is:  if a person isn’t willing to sit down and talk about a conflict, you aren’t allowed to stay at ocp – doesn’t mean someone is wrong of right;  have been a champion of this rule in the past;  any questions or thoughts on this
Jonathan:  seems like a rule might be something like:  if any staff person feels like a conflict is great enough to need mediation, people must participate
Nathan:  as a rule, commitment to resolve conflicts non-violently
Ron:  maybe we need something about someone needing to participate in some sort of process;   maybe the rule could be – must be willing to engage in conflict resolution process outlined in
Peter:  could we just say – No violent behavior;  
Ron:  seems like a lot of people aren’t going to be aware that not going to a mediation could be considered violent;  
Jonathan:  when conflict arises, those involved must be willing to participate in the conflict resolution process as outlined by OCP
Philip:  its good to remember why this is important
Mark:  are we going on an assumption that Ron will be the mediator;  we went down this road before, on how people need to relate to each other
Philip:  think we often start these things by talking about what the current rule is – currently we try to get a staff member (or more) to be involved;  
Christina:  would like to be involved in mediations so everyone is on the same level
Ron:  there is a staff because the buck stops somewhere;  understand mark’s feelings about not wanting to walk into something that could be run by someone who doesn’t or can’t do it well;  right now, the staff is responsible to Philip;  adding something about – if a staff member so requests
J: even after membership is created it seems like we’re saying there will still be a staff. No matter what that looks like there will still be a staff. I’m with that idea that the mediation will be called by the staff and mediated by the staff. Even if the staff isn’t the same it will still be people we trust.
Ron:  we don’t know what is going to happen in the future – what we do know is that we have a staff now and we can trust them and because we have a dynamic democracy, we

J: I supposed what you’re saying is hey mark, the staff will be involved in the mediation process
Ron:  adding the words:  “must be willing to participate in a staff-led mediation process”;  When a conflict arises, those involved must be willing to participate in a staff-led mediation process
Peter:  agrees completely – some mention of staff being trained
J: my response is that for me to lead a mediation is far from my ideal. I would pull in the staff person I’m most comfortable. Even with training I don’t feel like I want to be that guy. I picture it being like that. I would certainly look for help.
Philip:  likes the idea of all of the staff being trained – maybe we make a rule that all the staff are trained – maybe Nathan Barge could help us with this
Ron:  so far we have sort of winged it, but maybe we want to require staff to have some training in various topics like drug/alcohol addiction, mediation, etc – issues that effect us daily
Ron:  said we would return to the topic of no sexually explicit images…. Since anna was sort of the one that did
Anna:  have personally witnessed conversations that use purposefully vague language but designed to make the person hearing it feel uncomfortable;  this wasn’t sexual harassment either, so if the rule about explicit sexual things doesn’t cover innuendo too, what do we do with this
Philip:  could this fit under another rule;  
Ron:  seems like we don’t really want a rule based scene – these six rules seem like rules that good ones, but we need to come up with ways to deal with other things that come up;  if people are upset with each other, seems like we need more than just relying on rules to deal with conflicts and issues that arise
Peter:  haven’t been around for a while – seems like we probably have more than 6 rules – are we saying we will only have this 6
Charles:  while it seems good to have a rule about sexual innuendo – maybe we could use the word sexual ????
Ron:  maybe we can move on – should be talk about some of the other
Charles:  how about “stop when someone says stop”
Kris:  if someone is saying something that makes you feel uncomfortable, you should have to stop;  if we don’t have a rule about this, a conflict would arise, and we would have to deal with this through conflict resolution process
Ron:  a problem – someone doing something that effects a large number of people in the room – stopping when someone says stop;  like Khaleel playing on the piano – some wanted him to stop and some didn’t mind;  does “stop mean stop” giving too much power to the individual
Nathan:  thinking maybe we could switch to another topic – showing respect for each other relates to all of our other processes – we want to be a community that shows respect to each other and when there are conflicts, we need to discuss them
Philip:  there are lots of unspoken rules in various cultures – if we wrote down all the kitchen rules, there would be a ton of them – maybe we don’t want to put all of them into writing – cultures have written and spoken rules;  mike farrand has always been about a positive rule;  wondering about peters thoughts on rules
Peter:  been trying to figure this out:  you need an overriding statement of who you are and that is the overarching way that defines behavior;  the rules get to the nit-picky stuff;  tried to get a rule in a Native American community about no loose dogs and then discovered there were already rules about this, they just weren’t followed;  in island cultures, there are lots of taboos
Ron:  seems like this community does need to do what is best for itself – for this community;  like the idea that through dynamic democracy, a person with a grievance can be heard or an idea can be brought forth; what about the intoxication issue – maybe we could talk about this – what about cursing;  in both cases, a hard and fast rule might not be held up and might be impractical;  seems like cursing is just part of human society, and related to intoxication, I don’t want to be breathalizing people at the door;  if someone is being obnoxious, 3 options seem to be – sit down, leave, or the police are coming;  also, sexual harassment – if we need to talk about this being a rule, we can talk about this;
Ron:  it is our responsibility to speak if we have something to say on the topic;  can we vote on the six rules that we have come up with words for;  we are going to vote on these six rules that have been discussed as official rules sanctioned by the Friends of OCP;  
Peter:  Motion we accept the six rules as stated;  jonathan seconds; 12 votes yes, 2 votes no – 83% yes; no votes do not want to block
Mike:  would like to see us call these a “code of conduct” instead of “rules”;  seems like “do unto others…” could be the guideline;  as far as rules for every situation, it seems like we should take things case by case and people can resolve issues through staff run mediation;  as far as coming in intoxicated, there was a guy who always came to AA and was drunk but he didn’t cause problems, and some people really need help – not sure we want to exclude drug people from ocp unless they are causing a disturbance; 

OCP Workshop 02/13/2013

• 2 current rules that we still need to dicuss – no animals in the building except Jazmine the cat and if there is a conflict and a staff requests a mediation, a person needs to come or not stay at OCP
• Health department said that no animals could be in the building and Sadie and Philip stood up for Jazmine but no others are allowed
• Ron:  if we thought it was super important to have animals in the building, we could discuss whether or not we want to make food in the building to sell
• Philip:  staying within the law is important to exec dir and OC Boxes is moving us in a direction that we have been working towards for a long time;  besides, animals running around here seems like it would be unsanitary;  sometimes there are smells and fleas;  also, other animals end up eating cat food that we buy for jasmine;  lets focus on people here – there are other places that focus on animals
• Teig:  animals are very therapeutic for the community;  animals are allowed in restaurants if they are approved service dogs;  how much money do we actually bring in from box lunches – if we weigh this against having animals here, some people have been very distressed about not being able to have animals around;  animals were allowed here before;  if a doctor gave teig a note about needing to have his dog with him, would it be allowed;  not sure why one animal is ok by the health department
• Sadie:  don’t know of any community center where animals are allowed, period;  the only reason health department made an exception;  no dogs, no other animals;  
• Ron:  in the old days, we would have regular community meetings, and sometimes we would discuss animals, and the reason people didn’t want animals was because people didn’t want animals begging for food/around while people were eating;  have a prejudice about people becoming homeless and then decide to get an animal;  animals seem to be left sometimes while people stay at HARTS;  teig has a good point about boxes and the revenue source;  imagine industries that create jobs for people and help people get money;  there was a time when we catered weddings and getting above board with the health department
• Teig:  animals not being in the building during meal time is a good idea;  tried to train smokey not to beg;  maybe we could do something along the lines of a case by case basis;  also about box lunches, what about those stands that are never used with rope to block off the area
• Daniel:  as far as therapeutic animals – this is an interesting idea, but it doesn’t seem like that has been the case here;  seems like the health department allowed us to keep the cat and Daniel wants to express his thankfulness for that
• Kris:  there are times when there are a lot of animals that don’t seem to be taken care of;  never had a problem with smokey;  maybe a case by case thing could be what we go with;  if a person is here and not following the rules, a person is asked to leave – seems like animals should be treated the same way;  people do have friendly animals that don’t attack people and don’t beg for food;  
• Ron:  for one, don’t like the idea of giving up the health inspection card that we have right now;  we haven’t really figured out how to deal with all the humans in this space yet – there is only 1500 sq feet in the front part of the building;  some people are afraid or allergic to animals;  there are no public stores, restaurants, etc that people regularly take animals;  seems like adding animals inside the building is a place we just don’t want to go right now;  
• Mark:  just had a very successful night out on Saturday Night – health department probably cut OCP a break by allowing a cat;  if we wish to keep operating as a kitchen for night out, we just need to keep animals away;  as far as service animals, service animals are a state law, so we cant actually tell someone that they cant bring their service animal here;  
• Kris:  anyone can get approval to get a service animal;  
• Ron:  if people can bring service animals, people should go through the steps to get a service animal
• Philip:  the way teig was talking about animals feels like an unhelpful way to be in community;  one could probably get a service animal,
• Kris:  we spent a long time talking about how to keep the police from bringing guns into the building, and if people feel strongly about having animals around, we should listen to that
• Gary:  know what rons original belief was and it was very impressionable on gary;  ron has had problems because of everything that has happened at ocp over the last few years;  ron is not perfect;  we all know how to take care of animals;  ron started a great thing;  
• Matt:  if we are a community that cares about people;  all animals should be welcome as long as they can get along with another pet (or people);  don’t think we should discredit someone for a dog;  all animals should be accepted;
• Ron:  gives a recap for some newcomers;  realistically we could be in violation of the law for night out if we let other animals in;  definition of clean and on a leash seems helpful;  asks Kris or Teig to consider the other side – who gets to have an animal here and who doesn’t – animals that are dirty;  just consider what it would mean to open the doors to having animals here
• Bill – couldn’t we have something like a kennel out back?;  animals could be out back
• Sadie:  ocp is not a kennel – the goal is for the kitchen is fully funded – for the kitchen to be licensed;  if the kitchen is licensed, how long would we keep are license;  if you are homeless and can very hardly take care of yourself,
• Teig:  are we trying to build a community or being a licensed certified business to pay our salaries – we sacrifice animals, which are an intricate part of our lives, we need to look at this
• Daniel:  seems like the real issue is – don’t believe animals make a great difference at ocp, but they seem to make a difference to people here;  we need to question – given this choice, do the people who care about animals being at ocp – are animals being here more important than some of the things that
• Matt: animals are just as important as people; it’s sad if people don’t think that; it’s a community center, and Jasmine’s here, so why can’t all other animals be here?  If people can’t control their animals, they shouldn’t be in the OCP.  Smokey is obedient to Teig, he has control.  Ellie also is fine.  This place won’t be the same without animals.  
• Tom: OCP is a great service to all of us; it is a great service to humans, not animals.  I love animals, have had many; they will fight with other animals; I think it’s fine to have them outside, but not inside; having animals inside is detrimental to the center and to the animals themselves.
• Teig: Daniel’s point; is it more important to have animals or to make money at special events, except we need money; I would be happy to have Smokey outside, but in the winter he had to stay outside in Anna’s care all day; is our mission to make money or help the homeless in this community?  Why don’t we just make this think a big commercial business?  How much money do we really need?  What are our priorities, and what are our goals?
• Ron:  never seen an event we do that people enjoy to help up with as much as night out;  we do use money for staff, but it seems like
• Kris:  if the topic is animals and pets, even if we say no animals and pets inside, maybe we need to talk about people’s responsibilities for animals outside;
• Matt:  this is a community center, and if people with pets cant be accepted, that is a big problem;  if pets aren’t allowed, jasmine shouldn’t be allowed in either
• Teig:  like Kris’ point about establishing rules for outside the building;  got smokey when had a good job and a place – through no fault of own, lost job and became homeless
• Daniel:  motion to vote on two points – 1.  If in keeping with health dept rules, is it more important to keep doing night out, etc;  2. Should jasmine be allowed in the building;  if we value animals more than events with food, we could vote on that and move there
• Ron:  very interesting points have been brought up – need for people to bring animals into the building more important than night out, etc;  there are lots of non-profits that provide kitchen related experience that don’t allow animals;  in the case of smokey, he is currently getting things he might not be getting;  the cat does keep rodents out of the building;  
• Matt:  don’t agree with a lot of what Ron said;  if someone cant bring animals in the building, jasmine shouldn’t be allowed;  obviously we want to keep night out – do people want a cat around while they are eating dinner;  
• Philip:  seems like we need to take better care if jasmine
• Teig: I do like to be with Smokey all the time, and it’s not all winter, it’s really just an hour or two when I like to be at OCP; I like Night Out a lot and think good things come out of it; I’ve learned a lot, and feel like I’ve been swayed by your arguments. I appreciate all the services OCP offers, and I think it is best, after all this that the animals stay outside.
• George: I have seen dead mice in here that I’ve thrown away, and the one outside too.  Jasmine couldn’t survive outside.  Just put Jasmine in the back room during Night Out.
• Ron:  next time maybe we’ll put some clear language about this.  Lots of good has come out of this discussion.  Let’s be honest with each other and work out things that people may have had emotions about.
• Daniel:  I think we should vote and affirm that Night Out and Boxed Lunches are important to this community.  
• Kris: We haven’t been voting on this these yet, we’ll wait until the end to vote on them, just getting them down for now.
• Ron: Daniel wants to know if we value Jasmine being here and Night Out and boxed lunches being appreciated.  
• Lots of consensus that we should continue this conversation.

OCP Workshop 02/06/2013

• Michael:  if someone gets caught looking at porn once, you should be kicked off the computer but not kicked out of ocp;  if it is the second time, maybe you should be kicked out of ocp;  someone should have 2-4 chances before being banned from ocp;  porn is not hurting someone physically; 
• Ron:  we need to focus on the rule and let the enforcement be an issue for another time
• Gary:  obviously a person wouldn’t be looking at a porno magazine, but the same should be for the computer
• Kris:  seems like we could block this on the computer
• Matt:  we have had to deal with this before, and seems like we can figure out a way to block
• Ron:  seems like people still have laptops, and we should have some sort of rule – maybe the rule should be “no porn”;  we superbowl halftime show was almost soft-porn;  seems like we know what porn is when we see it – nudity;  khaleel watching shakira is borderline
• Michael:  what is borderline – a lot of the reason people watch porn is because it is in their minds – if someone has a problem, compassion would have you get them off the computer;  everyone’s view of “porn” might be different;  for compassion for someone who is addicted to porn;  its one thing if you look at porn in your own space, but ocp is a public space;  maybe someone needs counseling
• Mark:  whatever the rule is, there should be none on the premises period
• Matt:  clearly people know whats wrong and whats not right to be shown;  not too worried about girl in bikini, but breasts exposed with children in the building;  more significantly, what should be the consequences
• Gary:  there is a borderline between what is porn and what isn’t;  would have to go with a no tolerance for any type of pornography
• Ron:  helpful words for using simplicity with the wording;  is “no porn” sufficient?;  staff/community discretion could be used if something is questionable
• Sadie:  if ocp stands for Christian values, we shouldn’t tolerate porn of any kinds – if someone comes in not wearing enough clothes, they should have to leave or put on more clothing
• Michael:  anything that demeans women in an explicit way or anything that is misogynistic or any dress that you can see your private body parts
• Matt:  don’t think it is just internet that we need to think about;  we should consider movies that we bring into the ocp;
• Mike:  seems like we aren’t just dealing with images – we have dress code and language to consider
• Gary:  language would have to do with people talking in a pornographic way;  thinking about portraying pornography; 
• Jared:  should be simple:  “no porn”;  or there could be a rating attached to the statement;
• Teig:  don’t know why we cover everything up – there is art and statues – is this porn or art?
• Christina:  feel like women wearing provocative clothing and porn are sort of mixing into one topic;  see a lot of guys staring at JMu girls with tight pants, v-neck shirts, etc;  
• Ron:  if we want to combine topics, we can, but otherwise we should stick with the topic of pornography;  we are dealing with OCP – a public place – dealing with the time period we are in right now;  the same way that drinking beer might be immoral but not here might apply to porn;  sexual harassment is something that has maybe been missed and maybe should be a topic to discuss;  in line with having pornography, dress, and language split into different categories;  if someone has a good way for bringing porn, language, and dress together, we could think about one statement to cover them all
• Matt:  t-shirts showing explicit sex positions are porno too – we need to consider this during the porn discussion
• Michael:  definition of porn as related to videos – in some videos, a person may be wearing a bikini that barely covers, and other times, a bikini may be covering a lot
• Alex:  seems like we are talking about 2 or 3 different issues;  with pornography, either saying “no viewing of pornography” or “no viewing of pornography or sexually explicit images” – this second statement might be better
• Heather:  I have worn a bikini top playing volleyball and has this offended people;  we have talked about this topic for a while, and maybe we can just agree that no porn on the property
• Kris:  we are trying to find out what the definition of porn is;  Kris reads definition;  the definition talks about images that are “sexually arousing”;  even with art, there are some images that are meant for sexual arousal and some that aren’t and they are all art
• Gary:  the greeks would worship the body and the way it was created;  want to talk about jmu students – dress code/spandex – someone wearing short shorts may be similar to pornography
• Mike:  if we consider images (now called pornography), language, dress, and behavior as four different categories – maybe we consider all of these topics under a sexually explicit category – simplicity is better;  consider a way to combine:  “maintain a family friendly decorum regarding sexually explicit images, language, dress, and behavior”
• Ron:  all the other rules are “no-oriented”
• Matt:  like Mike’s but would like to change “decorum” to “atmosphere”
• Gary:  wondering if after we are done with this, could we move on to something else;  maybe a proposal to vote “no porn”
• Anna:  really likes what Mike said, but would like to take out the word “explicit” and just leave “sexual” – there are definitely things that have had sexual innuendo’s that aren’t explicit
• Ron:  maybe getting rid of the “family friendly” language and just say “no sexually explicit….”;  there have been a number of sexual innuendo’s in this conversation and they have all been ok in this conversation;  would hate to have the mentality that sexual things can’t be talked about;  not sure the definition of explicit, but would like to see the language changed to a “no” language for the sake of the rules
• Philip:  fairly passionate about this topic, look forward to talking about this more than this forum – maybe a lot of us have issues that we need to get out;  would be happy to share how Philip deals with issues relating to sex or sexuality;  simplicity of it might be fine;  we need to talk about sexuality
• Matt:  wants people to keep in mind that this is a community center and not an adult porn shop;  do not like when movies are made with children that are naked;  anything sexual should not be tolerated here -  this is a community center;  this is partly a church too – no sexual contact or
• Ron:  like “no sexually explicit images, language, dress, or behavior”;  worry about being too paranoid about sex being talked about;  what about Dead Poets Society – there is about a 2 second playboy centerfold;  pornography is taking something designed to be good an made it into an industry with exploitation;  sex is wonderful and beautiful and a gift from God;  don’t want to vilify;  for people with frustration about the long discussion, sometimes it just takes a while to talk things through to get to the best idea
• Jim:  Thinks it is best for groups/communities to make decisions that are best for the group;  try to look at the positive in everything – when looking at pornographic images, pictures – the positive thing could be that if you never want to be a part of the CIA, keep looking at porn because they have a 0 tolerance policy
• Gary:  thing from the Bible is somewhat educational, if ocp wanted to show a video of something about STD’s, this would be an educational thing; 
• Ron:  maybe we could add the “family friendly” atmosphere part to the beginning of all of the rules
• Matt:  sex is explicit – language can also be explicit
• Mike:  seems like the 3^rd statement about no sexually explicit… seems the cleanest;
• Anna:  just someone recently asked to meet about some sexual things that came up at ocp that were inappropriate even if not explicit;  we need to acknowledge that most of us are adults who have had sex, do have sex, or will have sex;  for women who are survivors or sexual abuse, one of the worst things could be any sexual talk even if not explicit;  we need some language that gets to this
• Ron:  sexual harassment is an issue that maybe we need to also address;  there was another topic – if someone says “no” or “leave me alone” you have to respect this;  these are two topics that maybe need to be rules; these may have been left off;
• Mike:  good luck trying to enforce “inappropriate”;  level of appropriateness would/could be defined by “family friendliness”;  we will be able to vote on all of these as a list with an introduction at some point
• Jim:  want to talk about the word explicit – definition is explicit – administer the facebook page for occupy Harrisonburg and twitter account too;  the rules to follow are explicit – if an uncensored documentary gets posted, things can be blocked and banned;  if something is defined explicit by the ocp community, one would have to abide
• Ron:  seems like general consensus (-1) around “no sexually explicit images, language, dress, or behavior”