OCP Workshop 04/24/2013

Ron:  seems like we have been all over the map with ideas about enforcement;  this topic seems to have a wide range of offenses, so the enforcement may vary greatly;  we talked about staff always having the final say/discretion;  we did talk about having some specific enforcement for this topic, but that could be hard

Philip:  seems like we have some things written down from last time;  

Michael:  gray area – what if someone is very conservative in terms of seeing someones dress and they think it is too risqué and the staff has no problem with it;  seems like it boils down to what the staff says

Ron:  there are subtleties to this rule

Jonathan:  proposes we have no enforcement for this rule;  seconded by John – this proposal is dropped

Philip:  as an action of enforcement, if you have a concern, and you feel like something isn’t right, you bring it to the staff; and the staff has the ability to act or not

Mark:  take each action on an ad hoc basis at the discretion of the staff

Michael:  Any action or participating that seems to be offensive could incur….

Ron:  the staff will deal with any issue brought up

Philip:  we want to empower the community to act, so if we say,

Ron:  does that imply that something would need to be brought to the attention of the staff before the staff would act?;  

Philip:  we should find a way to say that we are being proactive about it

Michael:  what if someone finds something offensive to them, but the staff doesn’t

Mark:  that is why it is at the discretion of the staff;  Anna just got on my nerves about 10 seconds ago;  anything that comes to the attention of the staff is dealt with on a case by case basis

Ron:  if you think about the community, there could be a wide range of opinions, so the staff is left to upheld the ethic that OCP hopes to have

Jonathan:  proposes:  “Any issue that comes to the attention of the staff will be dealt with on a case by case basis with enforcement  being appropriate to the nature of the infraction.”;  seconded by John

Jared:  how about adding the word membership

Alex:  something at the beginning about:  “due to the far reach of this rule”

Jonathan:  likes the open-endedness

Michael:  think it should say something about what the enforcement could be and that the enforcement might be related to the rule breaking – could lead to consequences

David:  level of enforcement matching the broken rule

Jonathan:  “with enforcement being appropriate to the nature of the infraction at the sole discretion of the staff”

Michael:  say a person does something and gets kicked out for a week – can they appeal some decision

Ron:  seems impossible to know exactly how the staff and membership will intermingle in the future;  these are all guidelines and the staff does have the ultimate say;  maybe after this vote, we should add something about these being guidelines and the staff having ultimate discretion

Michael:  what if someone’s offense and is so minor that it doesn’t need much attention but it keeps happening

Philip:  it doesn’t actually say that the staff does anything – is this obvious and understood?

Ron:  thats why the overarching statement at the top of the rules might get to this issue – that the staff is the enforcer – the staff might decide that the members are going to have the final say – maybe we should address this next instead of moving on to the next enforcement

Matthew:  did we get rid of the part about “sole discretion by the staff”

Yes – 11, No – 0

OCP Workshop 04/17/2013

Mark:  thinks we should skip the 2 weeks and go straight to one month

Ron:  what age are we talking about?  The idea of Emmett at 17 not being able to play ping pong with mark inside while others are outside playing volleyball

Sadie:  feels like a lot of parents have come in here with their teenage children recently, and got to thinking about Raven

Mark:  the state gives people the ability to drive at 16, so seems like under normal OCP circumstances, someone at 16 could be at ocp with an adult

Philip:  might we just follow the idea that 18 is what the state says is an adult

Ron:  someone who is young making bad decisions, maybe 18 is good;

Hunter:  it is about the law – if someone is a sex offender, they will get locked up for being around a child;  

Ron:  can anyone not get behind a child in this rule being someone under 18;  seems like we should change the rule to say “minor” instead of “child” to be more specific

Alex:  would like something about resolution or staff follow-up – not just wait three times and then the person gets in trouble

Ron:  seems like it could be 99 times out of 100 the child and adult alone could just be a pure accident or circumstances and the group doesn’t maybe want to be to punitive

Philip:  the sentence about staff following up with child, adult, and parent:  maybe we can add that we will remind people about the rule AND why it is important;  we should change the word child to “minor” in the enforcement

Alex:  with the example of phoebe and kris, maybe a follow-up isn’t necessary, but sometimes since there isn’t any enforcement until the third time

Philip:  there is a check-in each time leading up to the third time;  the enforcement piece sounds like we would talk to the groups separately

Ron:  could we add the word “separately”

Jonathan:  proposes:  “When such a situation comes to a staff member’s attention, then the staff will follow up with the adult separately from the minor and minor’s parents or guardians in order to remind all parties about the rule and its importance.  If any of these parties is involved in three separate incidents, then that person(s) will be banned for one month.  If a person would like to continue to be part of the OCP community after the one month ban, then he/she will have to appear before membership to make such a request, and the membership will decide the next steps.”

Philip:  seconds

Ron:  anyone over 13 who has been told not to be alone with an adult and has been told twice, should listen and if someone is under 13 and continues to be alone with an adult, the parents need the enforcement piece to think about it

Vote:  9 vote for, 1 vote against – against does not want to block

Ron:  next rule that needs some enforcement:  No sexually explicit images, language, dress, or behavior

Peter:  agree that this rule should be left to the discretion of the staff – gives the opportunity for a community member to let a staff person know if they see something that seems inappropriate

Matthew:  don’t think we have too much of a problem with people wearing inappropriate clothing – except for some college students;  

David:  summer will be here soon, and people will want to walk around with no shirt on

Ron:  at the farm they was an issue with Greigh;  emily set up what she couldn’t wear and then wore the same outfit;  cultural standards are pretty low;  

Michael:  everyone has different personalities and differences;  don’t think that any exposed or see through material;  what about spandex;  we aren’t a night club or a bar

Ron:  maybe it is impossible to fully nail this down, so maybe we just know it when we see it and leave it to the staff’s discretion;  we will tell people at orientation to consider to appropriate dress

Peter:  for adopting the same enforcement as we did for the children alone with an adult

Alex:  should be some sort of warning;  more of a gradual process

Philip:  reading a manual from another community center – it says to try not to wear fancy or revealing clothing

Ron:  might not be less serious – depends on the situation;  what if someone pulls up some serious pornography on the computer – would they get banned from the computer;  someone says sexually explicit things to someone – 3 chances in this case?;  seems like the enforcement should be left completely up to the staff

Michael:  if you tell someone they need to dress “appropriately” seems subjective;  

Matthew:  didn’t agree with this not being very serious;  gets uncomfortable when some college girls wear certain things in here;  

Bri:  the rule should be general and flexible for staff – something should be said to volunteers at orientation;  some places, there is a giant t-shirt that someone is “forced” to wear or the person can leave;

Sadie:  if something happens where a female has to be corrected on dress and anna or Sadie is not here, how would that be dealt with;  when Matt was talking about JMU girls coming in here, sometimes Christina dresses just like the jmu girls;  

Peter:  giving staff full discretion on enforcement, we are going back on what we have said – these are all very important issues, and we need to understand that staff has overriding authority to deal with each of these no matter happens

Philip:  for this one, maybe we should have a positive statement – “this rule is important because….”  Maybe we want to respect people’s bodies and Christianity;  

Michael:  people hitting on each other:  what if it isn’t graphic – if someone isn’t interested they should be left alone

Ron:  lets stick with the rule right now that talks about explicit things:  to Philips desire to have a positive here, it is hard to get at a moral ideal – seems like we are getting to a bottom line that cannot be crossed;  something peter said:  something like “in general, the staff may choose to follow the following guidelines:  2 warnings and then a month off, however, they may choose to go with something else as it seems appropriate”;  also, seems like an over-arching statement at the beginning to clearly give the staff overarching

Ron:  when the line is crossed, it is sometimes serious and sometimes not;  

Michael:  week, month

Ron:  keep wanting to add guidelines but the situations could be so varied

Philip:  one action we could state is if you have an issue with something, you bring that to staff – so if anyone has an issue with something being “explicit”, the rule states that a person would come to the staff and let the staff know;  if a community member has a concern or complaint, s/he will bring it to a staff member and the staff with have the discretion to make an appropriate decision

Michael:  have a small group of people – things that are general like pornography – let this small group

Peter:  this reminds me of the gun conversation – we need to set down a basic layout of what will be done and the staff will have discretion afterwards

Ron:  rule being broken is a lot harder to define, and the spectrum of broken rule is large, so the enforcement;  seems like having some sort of guideline about this;  it could be helpful to have something specific so that someone could read it in a handbook

OCP Workshop 04/10/2013

Ron:  OCP has been a place where people who are on the sex offender registry for crimes against children but we also want to make sure that OCP is a safe place for children, so we have a rule about no one being alone with a child except parents, grandparents, or legal guardians.” And people on the sex offender registry will be identified by OCP staff and a meeting and signed contract will exist between PO, offender, and OCP executive director;  seems like there could be innocent times when this rule is broken, so how do we adequately create an enforcement policy

Michael:  seems like a person on the sex offender registry should be in a zero tolerance category;  probably someone who wants to be alone with kids would not be here too much because there are people around;  

Ron:  if a crime actually occurred, we would call the police;  we are talking about a person who is alone with a child – with no crime committed;  

Michael:  we do have Sunday school here and usually there are two people but there are times when someone goes to the bathroom – maybe this would be an exception;  

Bri:  thinking about a while ago doing dishes, and peanut was there – seems like the family members who are around should be the ones to be responsible

Ron:  we don’t need to think about enforcement of people on the sex offender because we have our own larger organization-wide policy for sex offenders;  we need to be aware of people who begin to come to OCP with children and sit down with them to talk with them about ocp and who is around;  what about ages of children – is is true that Emmett or phoebe would not be able to be away from Ron or Mel?

Philip:  levels of enforcement – our community doesn’t know who is and isn’t on the registry, so anytime there is an adult alone with a child should be reported – then we have an extra level of enforcement;  we did go to a family in the neighborhood who has sent their kids alone, and we did tell them they needed to be here with their children; last week, we saw a mother send her child to the bathroom

Bill:  are there signs to look for and how to deal with it;  staff should learn the signs of a sex offender so that they can keep a better eye out – maybe have staff or people in charge attend a class;  if I see someone out of line, might be better equipped if there is a class on this to help see signs;  

Michael:  what about a trusted parental guardian – aunt, uncle, family friend;  

Philip:  sending a child to the bathroom seems scary because it seems like one of the places that something could happen

Ron:  whole other category coming up – people here with their kids – I don’t think we have a rule about a kid here must be with their parent or grandparent;  a friend or family member could come to OCP with a child – we have talked about someone in this situation needing to change a diaper – then maybe you just grab friend to go do that;  you don’t want to ban a youth group because their parent isn’t here;  the piece that needs to be enforced is parents being with their kids

Michael:  what about a kid from a youth group who bumps into someone – hugs? – will we let something like this go

Matt:  there are some kids who come here without their parents – how are we going to get the message to these parents

Ken:  agreeing with what Ron and Jonathan are saying – parents should be responsible for their own children – at least keeping them where they can be seen;  

Mark:  hones needs to be on parents to keep an eye on their kids;  don’t have a differentiation between people on the sex offender list or not;  it could happen accidently anytime that someone is alone with a child;  presumption of innocence needs to exist when it comes to someone not on the sex offender registry;  if it happens a second time, that an adult is alone with a child, then the adult may need to be addressed;  

Ron:  if we unearth that there is another rule inside a rule, then it is ok;  maybe:  any child under 16 must have adult supervision to be at ocp;  if it is not the parent here, then maybe you need parental approval;  ron sat down with some junior high kids who were here at OCP without a parent, and basically they said that it was safer to be here at OCP – it is a complex situation but has happened; maybe it is a similar enforcement if their parents not with their parents or someone alone with a child;  

Philip:  seems like we need to talk with parents when they start coming to OCP with children;  the other concept is to have some enforcement for the adult alone with a child;  we should stick with the idea that no adult is alone with a child except grandparent, parent, or legal guardian;  

Sadie:  when ron was talking about an age, 12 years and under would need a parent to be here, but older could be here without their parent

Michael:  would agree with Sadie, but you legally, you are considered a minor if you are under 18;  

Ron:  what we are saying is that a kid can be here with a babysitter, but no one is allowed to be alone with a child who isn’t their own (except grandparents or legal guardians);  who can kids be here with? – do we generally give people the benefit of the doubt until something seems weird?;  

Ken:  people at 18 can’t buy cigarettes, but they are allowed to go to war

Bill:  thinking that there should be a criteria when someone comes with a child – that they are not a sex offender and parent or legal guardian needs to come here at say that it is ok

Ron:  wonders about Sadie saying 12 year old could be here without a parent – keep thinking 16 could be the threshold;  seems like maybe we should be protecting the 13-14 year old who might be exposed to things here at ocp that may not be if their parent is here;  the idea of having to get permission to bring a child who isn’t their own seems bulky – too hard for OCP;  if someone goes to walmart with a kid, they don’t get stopped at the door;  seems like we might not enforce getting forms signed;  something cool about the age being 12 – the kids in the neighborhood coming down to play volleyball was great;  

Sadie:  some young kids are very responsible

Mark:  seemed cool when kids came down to play volleyball – as long as they aren’t alone, that doesn’t seem like a deal killer;  would hate to have those kids not be here

Ron:  when someone we don’t know calls and wants their kid to come here and volunteer;  maybe we are thinking too much about the old days and we should be thinking about the new days;  way can’t or wouldn’t we be responsible for a 14 year old who wants to be here;  you don’t want to ere on the wrong side – is it the parents responsibility;  

Sadie:  would Jonathan’s wife be able to give us some guidelines

Ron:  we are talking about two different topics – can we focus on the enforcement of the rule that we have;  

Preston:  not everyone alone in a room with a child is guilty of breaking that rule – there should be an opportunity for them to explain themselves

Ron:  “when it comes to a staff members attention then the staff will follow up with the adult, the child, and the parents or guardians for a brief rule reminder” ;  if any of these parties is involved in three separate incidences then the person or child/parents will be banned for one week, then one month – maybe

Mark:  seems like having the child leave is making the child suffer for something someone else did;  

Ron:  but it seems like a parent who isn’t supervising would have to leave with their kid;  

Bill:  we should keep letting the kids come because they would know that this is a safe place or safe-haven;  the adult doing something wrong should know better;  should be one warning and if it happens again, gone;  kids need to know that if they come here, it is their place too;  

OCP Workshop 04/03/2013

Ron: if everyone would look at the very bottom, the 6 bullets, these are our deliverables. We have taken some diversions but I want us to see how many of them we’ve already begun to address. We are well over halfway through.  Last time we agreed on the enforcement of the no alcohol/intoxicants rule. We started talking about the enforcement of the “no guns/brandishing weapons” rule.  I want to clarify that we should talk more about enforcement of the rule, rather than about can you defend yourself in a fight. We don’t have a rule about that. Does anyone have anything to say about how to enforce the rule of no guns/brandishing weapons.

Michael: I agree with the rule that is already stated. The first time you are banned for a month and then need to talk to us before you can come back.

Peter: With firearms aren’t they just going to go to jail?

Ron: Yeah, what is our legal obligation if someone breaks a law has been discussed. We don’t know what our obligation is according to the law

Mark: I don’t think there is an obligation to report, but we do need to be careful not to open yourself up to civil liability if we ignore something. The severity of punishment for weapons should be much more than for alcohol because you are putting other people at risk.

Sadie: I think the police should be called if someone is brandishing a weapon. You never know what else might be going on.

Ron: any individual always has a right to call the police. That should always be clear. Sadie I’m wondering if you are suggesting that our enforcement should include calling the police.

Christiania: I’m confused. Are you saying we should or shouldn’t call the police.

Ron: I’m trying to clarify that even if OCP doesn’t institutionalize that we’re going to call the police individuals always have the right to call the police.

Christiania: Well I think we should call the police. And then what happens after that? Is it ok for them to come back?

Jared: I think it should be longer than a month ban. It could get worse. There needs to be a longer ban and the police called.

Peter: As far as reporting to the police, I’m a firm believer that the level of violence and conflict that occurs in community is the function of what the community allows. I think we should call the authorities when pertaining to issues of violence.

Philip: I remembered I had a dream this morning. It was about someone brandishing a knife at me and trying to take money from me at OCP. I didn’t feel scared because I knew he was drunk. It isn’t always an escalation.

Michael: After the month goes by, would it go a long way toward letting them come back if they agree to counseling?

Ron: It wouldn’t always be obvious that I would want the police called. A guy grabbed a kitchen knife and ran around with it. I don’t think that calling the police would have been the best thing for that man at the time. I’m not sure I would want to be bound to call the police at every incident. It would depend. But I hear what Peter is saying, too. That in a public place perhaps safe is always better than sorry. If something gets to the point of breaking the law or being dangerous we should call the police.

Philip: I was going to say that, too. It might not always mean that they’re going to use it. It can easily happen with alcohol and other things. I’m leaning toward a case by case system and being super wise about it. And we’re a mediation center that works not to call the police first. Mediation first.

Peter: I’ve past history working in violent situations with alcohol and I’ve seen people use weapons on sleeping drunks. If someone brandishes a knife that is a violent act and we need to remember that.

Mark: The first and foremost responsibility is the safety of everyone at OCP – not the person brandishing the weapon. We cannot forget that. Do we want to be known as the place that is lenient on violence?

Andrew: I think if someone brings a firearm or brandishes a weapon I think a permanent ban should be the result.

Ron: I think I still come down to every case is different. It seems to me that I want us to come up with enfourcemtn we can use no matter and that there is a way you have to come back into the community. No one should automatically come back after the month. That is what I like about the power of the membership. I’m up for leaving it open to staff discretion about whether we bring the authorities in. Taking into account the well-being of the whole community. Mercy is an aspect of the gospel message.

Peter:  My concept is that coming up with these rules is to make a statement. It is important to make the statement very strong. But perhaps the enforcement is a case by case basis.

Philip: if someone is banned but wants to come back into the community where does the group meet? I’m thinking the yellow house is the place people first go to in order to come back into the community?

Michael: if someone threatens someone what happens? And I think mercy is good for OCP.

Ron: I want to support Michael’s comment about putting something proactive into our enfourcemtn right away. We want to help people get anger management, mediation, etc. Working toward reconciliation and healing immediately. Does anyone have a proposal floating around? Something like “someone breaking this rule with result in a one month ban and if you want to come back after the month ban you must come before the membership to examine the situation. Immediately after the offense we will offer assistance in obtaining anger management, etc.”

Peter: You could say “minimum of a month.” That would give you more flexibility.

Ron: then after the prescribed time you could come before the membership.

Peter: yep!

Michael: what if they refuse counseling?

Ron: that will just be one more factor held in consideration when you try to come back to the community.

Philip: I think it seems like something we are all in favor of. That it is understood that the rule is known.

Peter: a quick note, you can just put a painting on the door that says no weapons.

Mark: ignorance of the law is NOT an excuse

Ron: anyone breaking this rule will be banned for a minimum of 1 month at staff discretion. After such time if the person wants to remain part of the OCP community they must appear before the membership to make such a request and the membership will decide the next steps. Immediately after the offense, if possible, OCP will offer assistance in obtaining anger management and mediation.

Moved by Philip. Second by Michael.

Peter: does this stand on its own?

Ron: this is how the rule will be enforced.

Philip: Does the “at staff discretion” makes it sound like the ban at all is up to staff.

Denin: Do we ever think about if a person ever comes with a weapon if we check with the police to see if it is ok for them to have a gun?

Ron: Our rule is that you cannot bring a gun even if you have a right to carry.

Alex: I think the language is banned. What are they banned from? What does it mean to be part of the OCP community again?

Michael: Can people walk through the property if they are banned?

Ron: I think it should include all OCP property. Including the Farm and the office.

Mark: I’m just thinking that says at the time of the offense that “you must go right now at the time of the offense.”  That person has to go immediately. There should be something that says you leave immediately, voluntarily or otherwise.

Jarred: most of the time it is an escalation to that point and so yes removal should be immediate.

Sadie: my statement is about yesterday. When he was asking a little flaky. If he had gone off on someone what would have been OCP’s response?

Ron: according to this, we would have told him he had to leave immediately and couldn’t have come back for at least a month. He would have left in a police car if he couldn’t get the message himself.

Denin: It should be a rule that the punishment is according to the case.

Proposal as amended : anyone breaking this rule must leave the premises immediately and will be banned from the Community Center Property for a minimum of 1 month (or longer, at staff discretion). After such time if the person wants to remain part of the OCP community he/she must appear before the membership to make such a request and the membership will decide the next steps. Immediately after the offense, if possible, OCP will offer assistance in obtaining anger management and mediation.

Ron: what about someone who does it and is drunk and is willing to go to the farm?

Peter: will one month wait really that make such a difference in that case?

Matt: I agree that the Farm and OCP are two different things. They can still be banned from 17 e Johnson street but are allowed to go directly to the farm.

Philip: Yeah this is a community center where we invite lots of the people and need to keep them safe. The yellow house and the farm are different.

Ron: I’m thinking about Roses parking lot. I’ve seen people encircle and taunt us.

Michael: I remember Charles who drew a knife. Did mediation help in that situation?

Ron: I remember that the community was ready to forgive him and he started assaulting Sadie character and the community invited him to leave. He never really came back after my father decided to punch him out.

Vote: UNANIMOUS! Passed as amended.

Ron: next week will deal with enforcement of “no adult (other than legal guardian) alone with child.” I will say that we have a protocol for people who have been convicted of a crime of a sexual nature against a child. We have a very specific rule to address that specific circumstance and want to have zero mistakes in that area.

Matt: how often does the staff check the list?

Ron: Philip is responsible for checking the list and keeps us updated.