Matt: wonders if others besides Ron feel like some of the t-shirts are inappropriate to wear at OCP; Ron has asked in the past about Matt turning a t-shirt inside out
Ron: would hope that (if we had a membership and matt was a member); why would the rest of the community have to judge that; there was a child next to you the other day – seemed like you (matt) were more interested in the rule than the fact that there was a child next to him;
Michael: rarely have seen a shirt that is offensive; what if someone has a dispute; could someone dispute it if some things are offensive to some and not others
Ron: in general, if we weren’t exposed to the kind of violence on a t-shirt, would rather not see it; there seems to be some kind of darkness to some of the shirts and it would be nicer to see beauty;
Matt: wonders what is appropriate and what is not; there should be a rule about how violent something can be – would just like to know what is ok and what is not
Michael: seems like it would be best for ocp to have people wear shirts that aren’t offensive
Ron: don’t want the first thing someone comes here wearing something inappropriate to hear is something negative about having to change shirts; would be nice for people to self regulate;
Matt: not always sure what is appropriate – sometimes I do know, but it isn’t always clear;
James: in an earlier discussion, matt came through very beautifully about children when it comes to sexual abuse; wish that matt would have the same kind of heart to little ones when it comes to shirts and images
Michael: safe, fun, learning, Christian environment;
Ron: The interpretation and enforcement of these rules is subject to the discretion of the staff; what do people think of this
Michael: would add something about a person being here means that you need to adhere to these rules – that being here is a privilege and not a right
Jared: move to add to the beginning of the rules: “The interpretation and enforcement of these rules is subject to the discretion of the staff.”; seconded by Alex
All in favor; no opposed
Ron: how do we want to enforce the rule about “no animals in the building, except Jasmine”; seems like there must be a couple chances before someone gets dealt some actual enforcement
Michael: enforcement seems cut and dry; sometimes Ben’s dog comes down; what should we do about this
Alex: seems like something should be said about enforcement – something about if this continues continues to be a repeated problem, it may
Ron: maybe the animal is not allowed on the property
Ron: what about dogs that are violent or scare people; maybe we should avoid this to stay on topic
Mark: this is a very minor rule compared to the others – lets just leave this to the discretion of the staff – we have rarely had issues
Jonathan: proposes the enforcement be: “ If this becomes a repeated problem, the animal and/or the owner may be asked to leave the property.”; seconded by Jared; all in favor, no opposed
Ron: the next rule for enforcement is: “When a conflict arises, those involved must be willing to participate in a staff-led mediation process.”
Johnny: don’t like the way staff is disrespected – people act like there is no leadership and that they have been here for years; don’t like people to disrespect; staff gives people a place to be, rest, and have a meal; everyone has issues, but to just go at people running this place should not be allowed;
Michael: only been involved in this kind of process once, but what is the process and what if someone refuses
Ron: wants to make sure that the person is able to come back to OCP when they are willing to participate in mediation; not everyone is used to dealing with conflicts in this way – using mediation, so someone might not be willing to participate initially, but want to make sure that when someone decides they are willing to participate, want to make sure the enforcement allows ample room for this
Michael: if the person doesn’t agree to come into the mediation process, what if someone is banned indefinitely, can they get back in that same day; could the staff ban someone indefinitely if someone doesn’t agree to participate in mediation
Ron: a person unwilling to abide by this rule is not able to be at OCP until they are willing
Alex: “If those involved in a conflict are not willing to participate in a staff led mediation process, they are not allowed on the property until they are willing to participate.”
Ron: seems like we are repeating the rule in the above statement
Michael: what if someone continues to be involved in conflict
Mark: what if the staff led mediation can’t happen right away – would like someone with a conflict to be gone until the mediation is able to happen;
Michael: what if someone doesn’t get into a physical altercation but is so abusive – could someone be banned indefinitely
Jonathan: “Any person who is unwilling to participate in the staff-led mediation process will not be allowed to be at OCP until they are willing to participate.”; Jared seconds; 10 yes, 1 no; no block
No comments:
Post a Comment