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;
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;
No comments:
Post a Comment