Event:2015/08/27 Delegates Meeting

From Omni Commons
Revision as of 04:43, 28 August 2015 by Yar (talk | contribs) (copy from pad)
(diff) ← Older revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Weekly Omni Delegates' Meeting - August 27, 2015

last week: https://omnicommons.org/wiki/Event:2015/08/20_Delegates_Meeting

Who's Here?

Meeting Roles

  • Facilitator/s: yar
  • Explanation of hand signals: "deaf applause", "raised hand", "point of process", "direct response"(wildcard), etc.
  • Stacktaker: helen
  • Timekeeper: jose
  • Notetaker/s: yar
  • Vibe Reader:
  • Next weeks facilitator(s):

Delegates

  • BAPS: jose
  • CCL: //
  • FNB: helen
  • MPM: inactive
  • OpAl: //
  • Sudo: yar
  • TIL: joel
  • WGS: //
  • Quorum:

Introductions

Introduce yourself: Name; Prefered Pronoun; Affiliation

  • yar, sudoroom
  • helen, FNB
  • jose, baps
  • cheryl, liberation ministries
  • libbie, baps
  • gerald, fnb
  • brad, baps
  • alex, baps
  • stephen, baps
  • joel, til
  • robb, sudo
  • matt, sudo
  • ben, commons wg

Announcements

Security

  • gerald: i want robb to speak up
  • robb: i expected joe to be here. security concerns with the building. people leaving doors open, disco room door open, ballroom doors. especially when nobody's here. i've been checking them, catching them open frequently. narrowing down who it might've been. brought it up to jerome because he's often here when they're open. told him this is serious, sudoroom got a bunch of stuff stolen. matt senate was upset about it. asked if he knows anything. i feel strongly, probably will move to ban people leaving doors open when there's few members here. a few days passed and he left the ballroom doors open, let someone in. after playing this game for a month now, i was upset. thought we had a better understanding, we spend time together. i went up, conveyed i felt strongly about this, couldn't go on. caught him doing it. i went upstairs when jerome was, told him wtf are you leaving hte shattuck door open for? he jumps up, starts cursing at me, calling me names, trying to fight me. i wouldn't take the bait. he tried to get me to go outside & fight, so i followed him out, then turned around & shut the door behind him. of course the guy he let in went and opened the door. i just went downstiars. i told joe, he said i shouldn't have said fuck. that was it. turned it around on me, as if it was my fault, i'd caused the trouble. told laura, she did the same thing, "shouldn'tve been angry". been a few more incidents of someone caught going into my room downstairs right after building has cleared out. i'm on my computer, someone comes in and says "oh i thought this was a bathroom" which i thought was disingenuous.
    • question aboutt which room this is. lulzlux, full of lighting equipment
    • robb: this person is here a lot. not a member. just charging up his laptop, phone, never caused a problem. i realized nobody was around anymore. it happened right after everyone cleared out. a cell phone appeared & disappeared. wonder if people are targeting this room because of electronics. brought to joe's attention. joe & matt turning around on me.
    • robb: getting to the point where if you enforce our policies you're the one who's wrong
    • gerald: he's just talking the talk, i've got solutions. take it away from the personal. that's irrelevant. it's what this body decides. stick to its own fucking rules and this problem can be cleaned up. i didn't notice until there were problems with la commune. dave & niki would come up, they'd greet people, deal with them on some level. once that broke down, somebody's brain damaged, they thing you have to open the door & leave it unmonitored. would you open the door to your house & walk away? this is proposterous. part of it is a political malady called utopianism, we live in a capitalist society, which generates crime. can't just leave doors open, you geti t. you get crackheads, whatever. it's wild. i didn't catch up until my internet died and i came here, was here a couple hours a day. noticed people don't see the consequences. that lumpen bum tells another lumpen bum. stupid white folks, all you can eat all day, it's all good. they come, not members, steal all you can carry. not a good plan. answer is very simple. do what we said we'd do - when we set this place up it wasn't a lumpen paradise. place for 11 original colelcives to set up and do work. if you're not doing that you've got no fucking business in this building. that's my position. it's been the position of omni. but we got some people who whatever their political malady or psychological shortcoming to set this straight
    • gerald: but the homeless! no there's all kinds of homeless people who do their work and leave. i'm talking about people who aren't joining any collectives. not part of anything they got no business here or being here.
    • libbie: thank you robb for bearing burden of having to enforce rules. can be hard, esp by yourself. i think rules are clear but
    • gerald interrupts. people explain him not to. "i suggest you enforce your own rules and there won't be a problem". gerald leaves.
    • libbie: need to change how rules are enforced. large number of people come in through the front door without clear reason and can present themselves as members. we have no way of knowing. we've formed relationships with lots of people in here outside the formal rules.
    • jose: true. i ask people at the door, they say "i just come here all the time", feel entitled because they're always here. been happening for some time
    • helen: when we opened the building was closed with the intention to be open. we opened it when LC set up the bookstore because someone could maintain that barrier. now with LC not there i propose we close again until we have another group
    • jose: are we technically closed to the public without LC?
    • helen: that's my proposal
    • stephen: technically the building's closed when LC is closed. so it's closed. without LC no nonmember should be here unaccompanied by a member. but how to enforce? old topic, many months old
  • remote laura: Is someone willing to BL recruiting and scheduling door/greeter shifts?
    • remote laura: There is no reason for anyone to be in the building unless they are here to participate in the activities of a collective.
    • robb: but laura told jerome he's a member. gave him keys for mopping the floor. gets hostile when i ask him to leave at night. people advocating for him are not acccountable. dropped the ball. having collectives makes us accountable to our peers ina way that just letting people in... fine when there's a meeting but just to come mill about not available for questioning is aproblem
    • libbie; only things i can think of are changing door locks and making sure everyone has keys, or each collective issue id cards with name, photo, affiliation etc. then everyone at the door can see an id card
    • laura: The delegates decided that Jerome was someone ewho was allowed in the building even though he isn't a member of a collective. I also did not give him keys. we will have a new front door with new lock in a couple weeks
    • robb: people generally don't lie at the door. you ask them if they're with a group they'll say no or yes. not hard. if we let people enforce policies it's fine. but need to hold members accountable. yesterday i let in someone who said they're a friend of libbie's. said he went to her workshop. you're not a member right?
    • libbie: i'm a public school member...
    • robb: ok sorry. when a member's gone their guest needs to leave. even today 5 people said joe said it's ok to cook food. "are you members of fnb?" "no but my sister cooked food, joe said it's ok"
    • stephen: as a point of process, robb if you come up with a written proposal, with a possible action, i think that'd be great so we can table this
    • robb: what is the course of action if a member violates our policies and says you can come here?
    • helen: no but you might propose one
  • yar: if people are here and they aren't a member of a colelctive, then that is our failure--because if someone wants to be here and isn't allowed to be, we should create more avenues for people to be members here

Liberation Ministries

  • jose: proposal for them to be a member collective. wanna talk about it? proposal, values, etc?
  • libbie: thanks for your patience!
  • cheryl: we've not started having sunday services yet. i've been working w/teenagers that are in trouble in juvenile hall, mostly teenagers that are in trouble, group sessions, things like that. hope to have sunday services 9-11ish here. really an eclectic group, not church as usual. mixed culturally, ethnically, agewise, background. i've been in ministry 36 yeras, i get in trouble preaching at traditional churches, because i belive in challenging the status quo, telling truth about what's going on in society today. not a biblical literalist. i believe so much is allegory, talk about violence, against women, sexism, on & on. they don't invite me back anymore, which i don't have a problem with because it's what i'm called to do. biggest part of LM is transforming lives & giving hope. core is love. that's the premise of who we are & what we do - love, not judgement. that's what makes us different.
  • cheryl: i understand there's trepidation around church here. but if we didn't share your common values we wouldn't want to be here. ministry for us is social justice work. that's who we are, what we do, what we're about. period. it's a place where EVERYBODY is welcome. and i detest that you can call a place a church and say a person is not welcome because of a, b, c or d. and the premise of what we do is love, and supporting each other, and that is what we are about.
  • helen: i did have one concern which is about the use of the space every sunday morning because this space is what we use to rent and generate revenue. so i wonder how that might work?
  • cheryl: well the other option we have is the use of one of the schools auditoriums for sundays. i have a two-fold answer to that: well if we have some advance notice we could tell our group we are going to gather at the school auditorium today.
  • jose: we have other spaces in the omni like the disco room and the basement
  • matt: about how many people od expect to start if you were hosting a regular sunday service, and what is your goal for how many people you want to see participating?
  • cheryl: on an average you would see 40-50 people, and of course i want to grow from that to a couple hundred
  • brad: what kinds of instruments?
  • cheryl: we have organs, pianos, drums and probably guitar.
  • brad: so it would be pretty loud. and people singing
  • cheryl: i'm getting old so not too loud!
  • jose: so if the ballroom is occupied then you could meet in the disco room.
  • stephen: helen's question is a personal question. so if you feel like it's absoultey necessary to have the ballroom every sunday morning, then we should move forward with that.
  • cheryl:
  • joel: with regard to sound concerns, are there often a great deal of events happening sunding mornings? it seems like that's a pretty open time when it wouldn't effect that much.
  • rob: we will be open to the public soon, so that could easily change.
  • matt: currently, we don't have that many events happening on sundays, and we can cross that bridge when we get there. but we do rent out the room on weekends for both days. but we do have an upcoming fire inspection so the 600 people might change. every other room in this building has an occupancy limit of 50 people.
  • yar: but the point is for LM to grow, and if they do grow, they could themselves pass a hat and pay more. sometimes we worry about not having enough events. but now we have a weekly event.
    • robb: but member colelctives don't have to pay rent?
    • yar: no but they have a sense of ownership and want omni to not fail
  • brad: i'm curious about the time that you would hold the service and also if you could say something more about the religious aspect of your ministry. you've emphasized the social justice part but it has a religious aspect so i'd be interested in how you understand that.
  • cheryl: time: 9-10:30am on sundays. and so we're definitely a christian-based organization . but not in the traditional sense. there's no prosletyzing in the traditional sense, and i'm not a biblical literalist. the biggest point i wanted to make is we believe in an acceptance of all people. does that answer the question?
  • brad: have you read the safe space policy and statement of solidarity, i assume that's fine with you. but it's a christian worship, and i assume that would consist of praise and bible reading?
  • cheryl: yes. music, gospel songs, spirituals, hymns, but the other thing we've always been able to incorporate are songs we song Love Train by the OJs, and Happy by Pharrel, so therein lies some differences. So it's positivty , but the base is definitely christian.
  • libbie: there's concern that church is hierarchical - a pastor gets their say. conflict with nonhierarchical organizing.
    • cheryl: we share governance. not a hierarchy. it's about input from everybody and we collectively make a decision. majority votes on the directions we go in, what we do, how we do.
    • matt: is your structure documented? can we read about it and share it so otehrs can learn?
    • cheryl: we're working on it
    • yar: good answer. that's true of all of us!
    • robb: how many members are in ... do you call yourselves a collective?
    • cheryl: there's 20. congregation would be members.
    • robb: so there'd be 4-500 members?
    • yar: that'd be wonderful
    • robb: they'd all have door access?
    • yar: yeah and you wouldn't have to watch the door anymore!
    • cheryl: no it'd probably only be 3 people at most, part of the board
    • stephen: so it might be similar to BAPS - organizers/members and participants who're let in under supervision and escorted out. part of community, not necessarily involved in administration of the school. not members.
    • libbie: online discussion is weighing on me. lots of opinions. cheryl, your proposal is to become a collective member. do you feel strongly about that way or could there be other forms of partnership?
    • cheryl: is there another form?
  • yar: i want to apologize that the membership application process is problematic. it's almost criminal. i think the core of the problem is that applying to be a member collective is the first step of interacting with the

because we end up arguing over hypotheticals, and it's not fair that our website says that you have to fill out a form and then expect an answer. what we should be telling groups is, get involved, get to know people, and then we can all decide how we want to proceed without dealing with so many hypotheticals. it's a big commitment to become a member collective, there's a lot of responsbilities and meetings, and also a lot of power. i think we reall need to have a way that makes sense to introduce new groups that is loving for everybody and high stakes for everybody. i want to apologize that we don't have that yet.

  • cheryl: i have a question towards: what is the difference if we said, how about we sublet?
  • matt: i just want to say tthat a lot of your answers are already going to address some of the questions . the world is our oyster and everything is abstract. each delegate is supposed to be fully accountable to their collective, and that's a bit messy. it's a bit informal, different delegates act differently. what we have is a shared stakeholdership, and hopefully we can build consensus and bring the discussion back and forth and back and forth. in terms of relationships with the omni, everythign is on the table. we have had tenants in the past. we right now only have one tenant. but on the other hands we also have a chance to make other types of relationships, and to be creative. many informal relationships and understandings that are proven over time. if we get to the legalistic, i think that's on the tail-end of what we actually do. i think there are also concerns that many collectives have when they are considering. there's a tension between using the space at the Omni in order to form into a collective, rather than a member collective that had already established their norms and exist as a colective. Optik Allusions formed after making a video and incubated here and then became one.
  • yar: we've had groups join that hadn't formed yet, but they were dysfunctional and have since left again.
  • ben: an american revolution won't be strictly atheist. we need people to learn to work together. can't judge character based on faith.
  • yar: would you feel comfortable with a 3 or 6 month trial period?
    • cheryl: i'd have to go back to my group. having to move after 3 months would be disruptive. if we build we build, if we grow together we want to grow together.
    • commons wg is now sundays at 7pm
  • libbie: you can become a member collective. you can become a tenant who rents with no obligations or power around decision making. you can schedule events through commons wg. sliding scale.
    • yar: 4th way is come up with something better. if it leads to more smiles & less work around here i guarantee it'll happen
    • stephen: right but these applications don't work for LM. many have questions. many are excited. many want to see what LM is up to. in spirit of wanting to grow ourselves and want these people in this community we need a task force to meet with cheryl to discuss an alternative proposal that can maybe be a model for bringing in new groups. restructure our process through working with cheryl's group and grow together, see if that works.
  • matt: LM are totally experts in what's best from you. want feedback on what makes sense. 4th way: work with member collectives as a partnership model, has some success. EFF had events through sudoroom. partnership. CCL has BAAM in their closet. changes money commitment.
    • helen: can proceed a lot of ways. but cheryl needs a commitment of access. use of the ballroom on sunday mornings. that's something we need to decide about, so we can say yes or no.
    • cheryl: other piece is about friday nights for my kids. usually just like this - sit around a table discussing something over food. sometimes showing a film and discussing it, always topic-driven. always to help take kids to another level - thinking differently, engaging with them. usually 6-8 fridays.
    • jose: how many come to those?
    • cheryl: probably about 20, sometimes 30, including adults
    • robb: wouldn't need the ballroom? no
    • matt: that'd be pretty reasonable to expect. fridays are pretty slow
    • robb: might be a loud event in ballroom on friday
    • cheryl: if i knew in advance i might take the kids out that night
  • talk about permits, cops, noise complaints
  • libbie: what's your timeline?
    • cheryl: once we get an ok, i wanna walk the neighborhood asking "what're your needs?" not "hey i got something for you". invite them to come over fridays & sundays. really getting to know neighbors, business owners, neighborhood organizations. hopefully be able to start sunday mronings in october.
    • matt: why october?
    • cheryl: nothing specific
    • jose: would you be able to meet soon with some of us to discuss what options work best for you?
    • cheryl: oh yeah
    • yar: do you have a sense that your group would PREFER to be a member collective?
    • cheryl: [shakes head] mm-mm. no. we just want to know what the options are
  • libbie: just want to say on the record LM would do wonderful things for omni
    • much agreement
    • i've thoroughly enjoyed everyone i've met and i've been coming around for a minute and it's been great to work with everyone. and Rob is the man, right here.

Bans

Working Group Report-Backs

Building & permits

Meetings: Mondays at 8pm

  • This group needs help; https://omnicommons.org/lists/listinfo/building
  • yar: we are no longer seeking re-imbursement because all of that gets added to the building. in our lease, one of the clauses is about, if you do certain improvements to the building, the landlord will reimburse some of them, and you will get it in the form of a rent credit. we were worried about rushing to do that before buying the buidling, so we wanted to rush to get that money back. but the lawyer told us that the money gets added back to building purchase price.
  • stephen: we are adding value to the building, so he will pay us back. but if we buy the building, then he won't reimburse us anymore because we added value to our own property.
  • yar: for me, that sense of panic and urgency is turning into a sense that we are doing okay. that there is no rush to do any of this stuff. we will do it as we can do it, but we shouldn't feel a fire under our ass. in particular filing for permits that allow us to open to the public, but it's not going to happen any time soon, and it will be a part of our ongoing work for a while. it's hard to die here. these code violations are ways to die here, and we have elimnated the most deadly things, which is great. we've made it a lot harder to die in this building than it was last year.
  • rob: laura told me that the city does not actually possess the original use permit for this building, and since there is no use permit for this building, we may not even need to apply for a permit to get use. we can just get some testimony from the ligure club? i don't know if this is true but it has been suggested.
  • matt: it's always been the case.
  • yar: here's the sitaution. we have permits, but we can't prove it. everything we do here is legal, but if there is ever a conflict, we will ahve to ask the city to recognize that it is legal and have to make a case with the lawyer with the zoning board. the plan is to pre-empt any conflicts before they happen.
  • rob: is this from a lawyer or from our surmising?
  • yar : this is from a lawyer. but the legal case we are going to submit is that we are here operating as we have already operated. this building has operated continuously as a social club since it was built.

CDC

  • libbie: met sunday. talked about the LM email thread. want to support communication between cheryl & rest of omni. also i want to run sunday afternoon circles in september. 2 hour caucuses to talk about racism in omni. first would be poc-only, next white-only, then one open to everybody. could rotate through those for as long as i'll be in the bay. others could continue it. i'll send email to anyone who wants to help cofacilitate. all welcome. i have lots of reading materials. want to create posters.

Becoming Omni

Commons

Meetings: Sundays at 7pm

  • ben: global omni calendar isn't syncing. potential scheduling conflicts on the way.
    • yar & matt will work on this

Communications

Finance

Meetings: Every other Thursday at 7pm

Buy the Building

Meetings: Mondays at 6:30pm

  • yar: lawyer has advised us NOT to try to modify the lease so close to buying the building. he sees it as inadvisable, unnecessary, and a waste of time
    • helen: i thought we said in principle we would, but in practice we'd drag our feet?
    • yar: we said we'd check in with our lawyer, and he said don't
  • leaning towards giving the ground underneath the building to the Bay Area Community Land Trust and then leasing it from them for a nominal fee. There will be a proposal forthcoming.
    • matt: our lawyer's on the board of BACLT. seems there's no other viable land trusts. probably we want to be involved with the land trust since they're rather small.
    • yar: BACLT -- they had their annual meeting at the omni last year and David Keenan and i sat through their meeting and we made a presentation on the OMni, and they were excited about it. how can we pivot to affordable housing activism. there are so many grea tthings that could happen with the land trusts sitting and thinking with them. this is my dream if omni folks could become the next generation of community land trust activists.
  • matt: there's also a san francisco land trust. and then there's northern california land trust, which has been described as untrustworthy.
    • matt: the purchase will not necessarily change the structure, but more proposals will come up during the time of the purchase.
    • yar: owning the building will likely change the structure of the governance. the delegates are the board, that entity is applying to become a 501(c)3 and that entity will own the building.
  • also going to make a specific proposal about Omni taking on debt as soon as we have the details. the lender is traveling right now.

La Commune

  • Deposit and Damage Assessment?
  • robb: lulzlux is now doing technical support for the light brigade
    • yar: how many people are in lulzlux?
    • robb: about 5
  • yar: LC's perspective is they spent a lot of time & money preparing space to be a cafe, didn't finish, but it's not damage. they would like their deposit back
  • matt: didn't get to do rough assessment today, sorry. but think we should do actual counting of what money went into that room & didn't. don't want to just look away. check spreadsheet.
  • lots of things said, no notes taken
  • all this is arguing over $1000
  • helen: how easy would it be to try and put a value on what needs done and what tehy've done?
    • matt: could ballpark material costs, conservative estimates for labor
      • jenny: most labor done by omni volunteers, not LC members.
    • robb: i just want them to replace the wrought iron over the windows. people go in at night

End of Meeting

Retrieved from "https://omnicommons.org/mediawiki/index.php?title=Event:2015/08/27_Delegates_Meeting&oldid=3916"