Event:2015/12/21 Fundraising

Omni Fundraising WG Meeting Monday December 21, 2015

= intros =
 * matt, yar, remote-laura, remote-jenny, marcus, robb

= Omni Commons LLC =

Trying to update this: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1513t1JuO8qzojQ6LhRBk4EoAH11orkP65P_4RSJ3iCg/edit?usp=sharing

Also updated budget: https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1SsVh9K_wzbOAXPFSuglcDFE7vxog_TyItHB2rfF9JeU/edit?usp=sharing
 * this is what we're showing broccoli

=Response Draft to Broccoli:=

Hey Broccoli,

Thanks for bearing with us. We're working as quickly as we can on our end to get this done. We are really excited to partner on this structure with you. It has a lot of potential as an experimental, replicable ownership model for projects beyond our own.

I and the rest of the working group are happy to talk more about the things which concern you, and if too much back and forth is discouraging you, we are also happy to leave details to the lawyers.

We accepted and integrated your feedback as best we could, please see the google doc here: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1SZWdTGI7zd7kzrK4Vt9L8j_hgHT2WlHM1kvNi-zCWOM/edit?ts=566fbd88

We also updated the budget to build a larger cumulative reserve fund. You can see this target grow at row 16. However, we had to reduce the annual contribution to 35k (within the first 10 years) in order to keep balanced: https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1SsVh9K_wzbOAXPFSuglcDFE7vxog_TyItHB2rfF9JeU/edit?usp=sharing

A couple volunteers on the working group are actively pursuing a Reserve Fund Study to determine a size and schedule for an accurate Building Reserve Fund for 4799 Shattuck. If you have any recommendations for firms or individuals, let us know!

Thanks,

Matt, Laura, Yar, Jenny, Marcus, Matt, David, Robb, Daniel, Marc

Omni Commons Fundraising Working Group

Email thread between Broccoli and Matt:
I do not understand the building fund line in the budget. is it $70k/year or just the first year? I would think it should be $70k per year until the fund it at some level that is deemed safe. remember there can be no debt, so construction projects have to be covered from the fund. having one million in the fund would cover things like a siesmic upgrade and such.

the issues in the term sheet come down to who is "us". this seems set up for conflict, but that might be what jesse calls "checks and balances". (I see this keeping the llc from making the building decisions).

it is these things that are the real meat of how it will run. we will see if this works. just so you know, at some point I will run out of momentum.

-broccoli

On 12/21/15 12:02 AM, Matthew Senate wrote:

Hey Broccoli,

I did look at your comments, it seemed to me that you were bringing attention to some concerns about a few of the terms, but that overall it seems like we still understand each other and share the goal of making this arrangement work together.

I'm assuming that we will have to work out yet a few more terms along the way as this process continues. It's our job now to make sure everyone understands each other, set up proper incentives in this ownership structure, and simply do our due diligence.

However, I didn't think it was appropriate for me to respond individually with my personal comments at this stage, as we work by committee on the Omni Commons side and I don't want to speak on behalf of a group effort without consent. We can have a chance to discuss in more detail and send you a response by our meeting tomorrow (Monday). Apologies for this lag, I hope you understand!

My personal take is that we can certainly work out the items on which you commented, and that handing off a draft of these terms to lawyers soon would help us advance a lot further. I'm sure some questions, concerns, and improvements will also come up along the way when the terms are placed in a more legalistic and formal arrangement.

Hope you're well!

// Matt

Dec 17 from Broccoli:

Carolyn said it was not in her wheelhouse, but will try for another in her firm. sounds like end-of-year makes everyone pretty busy so it may take a whiile.

maybe we can see if we can get to a business-person term sheet. I know you have your lawyer on this, so this is atypical (and, from what I have heard, not proper), but this will have to settle before any lawyer on my side can engage. Did you look at my comments?

-broccoli

On 12/16/15 8:56 AM, Matthew Senate wrote:

Hey Broccoli,

Sounds good, hope you get to work with your pro bono lawyer, but if she's not available, we'll hear from you and your usual attorney! Be in touch within the next few days.

// Matt

Dec 15 from Broccoli:

I made a few changes to the sheet (there is history, so that might help figure out what. I can also do other mods with change suggestions). I also asked our pro-bono attorney if she would help on this. that generally takes a day or three. otherwise I will go straight to our non-profit attorney.

-broccoli

discussion

 * matt: he's pretty clear he's not gonna take it to the lawyers until we resolve these comments first. now he's saying he'll get upset and give up. something about a gentlemens' agreement.
 * laura: i don't think he's talking about that... needs to go to attorney asap. it's not weird to do that.
 * rob: i think he just wants accountability to him...
 * matt: maybe at this meeting, we go through changes, your email, put together comments. make new draft...
 * yar: all my problems with his edits are that they're too vague, and that can only be solved with lawyers at this point
 * yar: what is with this royal "us"? i don't get it, or maybe i just don't want to
 * laura: maybe we could say "just a couple triggering events"...
 * yar: he's said don't do this if it's not "you", and then says the issue is, who is "us"? this pronoun game is doing lots of rhetorical duty. in some contexts it implies that we're trying on a dress to see if it looks good, in other contexts it's about having one identity vs separate identities. it makes sense in person to talk about all the things we have in common, but legally it doesn't make sense to act like we are one entity. we're trying to plan for eventualities. it honestly feels toxic when points like that get in the way. +1

budget

 * matt: we can't hit a 70k/y fund. at most 35.
 * laura: it should still be "based on a reserve study"
 * rob: does it say we should start with 70k reserve and maintain it?
 * matt: no, he's saying we need to save because we can never take out a loan. "a reserve study that turns into a budget" ... whatever, if he needs it spelled out

= 501c3 app =
 * need sublease agreements from: MPM, Birdhouse, GWS(?), Liberated Lens
 * financial statement nearly complete, need to finish reconciling the quickbooks

= indiegogo followup =
 * We should send an update out this week - Laura and Jenny are working on it here: https://pad.riseup.net/p/indiegogofollowup
 * Laura: I think you misunderstood what I said I was going to do, Jenny. I am writing a fundraising letter for everyone that held an event here. I can help with an update too. I would rather have you do the 1st draft.
 * Got it, probably want some of the same content in both, I'll do the IndieGoGo update and send a draft to the list. Can you tell me if you see 68 contacts in the cloud -> Contacts+ -> Commons WG?
 * Jenny and Marc sending hackpacks out this week!Yay!
 * Joel finished the designs for the tshirts, stickers and posters! jenny ordering them tonight YAY!

= previously =
 * https://omnicommons.org/wiki/Event:2015/12/21_Fundraising
 * https://omnicommons.org/wiki/Event:2015/12/07_Fundraising