Event:2018.04.19 Delegates Meeting

From Omni Commons
Jump to navigation Jump to search
The printable version is no longer supported and may have rendering errors. Please update your browser bookmarks and please use the default browser print function instead.

Omni Delegates' Meeting - April 19 2018 7pm-9pm

Agenda

  • Introductions, Meeting Roles, and Delegates Count [10 minutes]
  • Access Check-in [5 minutes]


  • Announcements [5 minutes]
  • Bans [5 minutes]
    • Phil: There was an incident recently. There was someone being very loud.
      • Discussion around people leaving the building at 10PM. We are essentialy closing the building.
      • Last night, Bliff, said he was a member of Sudo Room, but it turns out that he wasn't. So he does need to leave around 10PM. If someone is beliggerant, or causes problems then they are asked to leave.
      • Bliff and Mitchel are put on notice. Not banned, but making a note that phil discussed the rules with them.
  • Working Group Report-Backs [15 minutes]
  • Member Collective Updates (10 minutes)
  • Proposal X: [15 minutes]
  • Proposal Y: [15 minutes]
  • Discussion Z: [10 minutes]

Introductions

Introduce yourself: Name; Preferred Pronoun; Affiliation; any brief announcements; say whether you're a delegate; let us know about any access needs you have.

† Is everybody able to participate fully in this meeting? Do people have unmet needs or concerns?


  • Joe FNB
  • HElen FNB (Delegate)
  • David
  • Matthew (sudo, not delegate)
  • Brian (finance comte)
  • Scott (unafil- Sudo)
  • Steve BAPS
  • JUlian BAPS (delegate)
  • Philip, FNB
  • Maryanne (CIapas support cmte)
  • Laura (Finance, commons WG)
  • lynn (commons wg)
  • Almaz - Remote
  • Rachel - Remote

--- Meeting Roles ---

  • Facilitator/s:Lynn
  • Explanation of hand signals: "deaf applause", "raised hand", "point of process", "direct response"(wildcard), etc.
  • Stacktaker: Julian
  • Timekeeper: Joe
  • Notetaker/s: Brian
  • Vibe Reader:
    • Next meeting's facilitator(s):

Delegates

  • ABDC:
  • BAPS: Julian
  • CCL: Ken
  • CSC: Mary Ann
  • FNB: Helen
  • GWS: Rachel
  • LL:
  • Sudo:
  • TIL: inactive
  • GCEA:Almaz
  • Quorum: 6/9 active collectives

Announcements

  • Scott Nanos has a 3min announcement :)
    • Scott here on behalf of self and Cafe. Wants to meet with Sudo.
    • Has been heavily involved in OMni, Baps, cmte orgnzer, book seller. Has run a bookstore. Mnge bookstore by oakland pub library, editor afrofutures newspaper (passed around copy)
    • Been talking to Jose, and have been trying to move a new cafe into the Omni (Sin Fronteras). Has been frustrated by difficulties in getting the cafe in here.
    • Wanted to come out and advocate on behalf of the Cafe, say it really really should happen. A COT(?) cafe would be a cure to any atrophy that is occuring right now. would bring great energy to the space.
    • Would bring more people to the space, would help us address social issues.
    • W/ Regards to CAFE, please spread the word that it is good. Reach out to David Kerr, or Laura. I am also happy to meet with anyone to talk about any issues that they have
    • Also, the space the cafe is being asked to rent is way more than they need (pretty sure I got that right - Brian)
    • Came up with an idea to set up a donation based community bookstore in the back half of that room. Would be of no cost to anyone, would benefit the Omni. Free Bookstore idea.
    • IDea would be to have a freebookstore with nobody running it, would educate local youth on how to run a bookstore.
    • In conclusion: The cafe would be great, and a bookstore would also be great.
  • Neighbors (2x) wish to speak / cant stay late
    • There are noise complaints, with regards to someone (missed it).
    • I try to be cool about it, we were here before anyone set on the steps. OUr cars have been broken into, people are screaming profanity outside my daughters window. I feel like you don't care
    • My elderly neighbor with MS is suffering too. FEels like they are in her living room.
      • Phil: The main interaction we have with them is that we do let them use the restroom.
    • CAn you let the homeless people outside into the Omni. IF you are a community organization, can you do some outreach to them?
      • Matthew: Came here after some discussions with homeless people. (missed some things?) We are trying to establish dialogue with the people out front. They are scared to come in here, they are worried that they would in "rough standing". I have become friends with the men who hang out out front, I can;t condone their behavior.
    • Matthew: We are very open to dialogue and communication about this stuff.
    • Joe: what did the guys out front ask you to bring to the meeting today?
    • Matthew: They have a number of concerns. They feel like if we let them know what is going on, that they can accomodate us. They feel like there hasn't been very much communication. The gentlemen out front feel like the -last- group who was here was rude to the Omni folk, but that they are not. We did a building cleanup outside the building, so we are trying to build those bridges. Apparently angel has been working on communication? If we tell them to leave, then they will move down the street, and would damage the relationship.
    • Neighbor: Or you could let them into the Omni. I am willing to help supervise them sometimes when that happens.
    • Joe: I think we should form some sort of working group to address the issue.
    • David: There have been a lot of cycles of engagement with the folks who sit on the steps. Welcome to the ranks of people working to address this issue, and being part of that dialogue. There have been waves, and they are often helpful with keeping the area out front clean. The problem seems to be that there are lapses of responsibility, rather than major issues.
    • Kevin(?): How many people hang out outside?
    • Neighbor: Usually two.

Lynn: Shall we close the discussion soon and pick this back up with the idea to start a working group?

    • Matthew: asking for time to correct behavior now that we are talking about it. Ask for compassion as we try to address this process. The Omni can only police the public sidewalk to a certain degree. The noise issues can be really big issues, and we want to address those, but we also don't want to start dictating what happens on a public sidewalk. Want to make sure that Omni gives them ample chances to correct their behavior. Discourages textbook/patronizing rhetoric towards the guys outside.

Laura: If something is happening, I can come over. I live nearby. Neighbor: Its not like we need someone to come over, but it gets out of hand. Laura: I want to give you another point of contact.



New Bans

  • Add to list of people asked to leave

Working Group Report-Backs

Building & permits

Meetings: 1st & 3rd Mondays @ 6pm

Commons

Meetings: First and Third Thursdays at 6pm

Communications

Meetings: Second and Fourth Wednesdays at 6pm

Finance

Meetings: Currently conjoined with Fundraising, 2nd & 4th Mondays at 6pm

Fundraising

Meetings: Currently conjoined with Finance,, 2nd & 4th Mondays at 6pm

Member Collective Updates

What is going on with your collective? What are you working on? What have you accomplished? Any events coming up? Any difficulties you are encountering that you need help with?

ABDC

BAPS

CCL

CSC

FNB

GCEA

GWS

LL

Sudo

TIL

Discussion

  • Do not currently have quorum.

Discussion [10 min] for 04/19/2018: Hear feedback from neighbors across street, Elena and Irina. Ask is made that if possible, this item be prioritized early in the meeting due to neighbor's toddler that will need to go to sleep.

  • Report MaryAnn that delegates assembly take a look at any underlying rules, policies or practices (formal or informal) involved in creating perceptions of racism. At a previous Delegates Meeting, MaryAnn agreed to consult with a person that has many years of experience in restorative justice about the issues we are facing, and as to how it might be best to proceed. This person's recommendations included:

The delegates should interview those involved in the New Years incident, as well as those with concerns about structure and blocking. The recommendations also include that if the delegates believe structural changes are needed, that it take action to make changes. If, after gathering evidence through interviews, outside mediation or restorative justice seems necessary, then that should be obtained. Additionally, if we end up making structural changes, we can obtain a neutral professional that specializes in evaluating nonprofit/DIY structure to review our structure.

    • Discussion
    • This came up a few weeks ago. I agreed to talk to my friend of mine who is very experienced in racial justice issues, and get opinions on the best way to proceed. What he said is that this group (which is the board of directors in the bylaws), should further investigate and get more information (get all the facts), and find out what the exact nature of the complaints are though. Not to treat it as though we are trying to judge whether an incident is racist or not. And you have to accept that the perception is what needs to be addressed. You need to see what is underneath it. What is the rule, or preference, or policy underlying that caused the conflict. See if we have rules or policies that dont work so well, and see if we want to change any of them. Esp, to see if they are applied differently to different people/collectives. The other policy that it was very clear was controversial was the issue of a block. When I told him, I told him that I didn't understand it myself. I don't understand if anyone at the Omni can block something at any time. HE said that needs to be clarified. ITs good that we already established a process for electing people.
    • We need to have a look at our policies and perspectives ourselves, before we go to an outside group. Those outside groups are super expensive. Once we do that review Maryannes friend can recomend good people to check in
    • Julian: I wanted to explain the email I sent out because I think there was some confusion about what I Was trying to communicate.
      • I heard three dimensions of what you are reporting on here. There is the investigation component, there is the blocking question, and then the general assessment of the policies
    • Maryanne: and also the acceptance of the perception of racial prejudice.
    • Julian: what I Was trying to communicate was with one component of the first item here. AS I understood it, with regards to specific events, teh delegates assembly should get together to figure out the facts of that event/those events. What I wanted to say was that we already have a process for this which is more in line with Omni values. WE dont want to be arbitrating this sort of thing
    • Maryanne: that was never the intention
    • Julian: that makes sense, I am clarifying what I thought and was trying to say. But we have a way of addressing mediation here.
    • Steve: I think we need to get specific here in order for this to have meaning, are we talking abotu NYE, or Mediation, or what? There are different things to say about each one of those. Can we make this specific, and have a look at one of the specific instances?
    • Joe: I really don't understand what we'd get out of going over the specifics again. We've had those two incidents. WE've had people in the past say they left, and they know other people who have left, because of equity or power balance. I Think its clear that we have a problem, and that we should look at ways for dealing with it.
    • Steve: Yes, thats my point. We are talking about making policy now. I dont think we can make good policy without going into the details of the issues.
    • KEn: Can we clarify what the two incidents were?
    • Maryanne: If we are including the running wolf mediation as an incident, I didn't speak about that. I was asked to talk to this person specifically, about the blocking of Almaz due to what happened on NYE.
    • Ken: Do we have in the bylaws anything about a block
    • Julian: I dont think there is...
    • Ken: We have a history here, and I'm not here from the beginning, but there was history of omni as a 501c3. In order to be a 501c3 we need to do things properly according to rules. Because we have a history of being able to block things. IF we don't have the rule codified, then people can be reasonably surprised, and that can lead to difficult feelings. This can lead to discord. We need to either stop the blocks, or codify the blocks.
    • Julian: I Think that makes sense, my understanding is that the principle of the block is not effective at the Omni level of governance because there is a secondary purpose to the block. THe purpose of the block (to my understanding) is to force conversation to continue. ITs supposed to force concensus. The case where concensus is impossible, there is an 80% override of a block. Ultimately it can be overridden, by actual voting. So what was confusing is that it was used contrary to the purpose of a block, it was not used to continue discussion. A block should be used at the end of the discussion, rather than the beginning.
    • Ken: That definition doesn't feel like what we've been doing while I have been here. It feels like people block things because they don't like them.
    • Lynn: WE should check in about this discussion. WE've discussed this a bit, but at this point it feels like we need to figure out next steps? (paraphrasing?)
    • Steve: There is no concensus on what the concensus process looks like, and how blocks work. So I'll add mine. Blocks form part of a discussion, within a concensus process. It doesn't have to do with methodology, or process itself, but if there is a discussion on an issue that the group has to decide, and one or two members of the group are disatisfied with whats going on. IF they dont want to go along with it, then they can block so that we can change some elements of what we are talking about. This has to do with decisionmaking with a group. When Occupy came along there were all sorts of concensus building processes that were brought in. If you had 20 people in a group you would discuss it until you could ultimately agree. My understanding is that has gotten way to common to use a block as a way of ending discussion, and that does not feel like it is within the spirit of concesus decision making.
    • Laura: Nikki also had done some research and info to report back. She hasn't been able to do that. What we should be talking about is what kinds of things we need to do in order to have a productive evaluation. RAther than discussing what we don't agree with on this or that point, we need to look at what we need to do to work through those
    • Helen: I think the first suggestion was to actually gather the facts of what happened (at the events). WE have all heard various people say various things, but we don't actually know the full story. I feel like gathering information is something that we should do.

Maryanne: We can either form a committee to investigate it, or invite people to come here and talk to us, but it should be done privately. IF the person wants to come to the board and talk through it, they can do that but that sounds very daunting . I think we could start a working group to address this. There are some complaints that have been thrown out that I want to hear both sides of.

    • Ken: I am in favor of...I read the two emails. I was glad that she responded. IT helped clarify things, but I felt like there were still holes. It might be easiest if we take both of those written things, and make an account of what transpired. Go through each of the things with each of the people. So we have a continuum of the events, and what happened. What happened in the incident. To me it sounds like a huge amount of misunderstanding. IT blew up into something based on misunderstanding.
    • Julian: I want to re-state my concern. IT sounds like what is being proposed is a group to investigate what happened at an event. If the purpose is to make an evaluation of fault, I think thats a bad idea. But if there is a working group to discuss what the problems are, then we may want to broaden the scope. We may not just want to look at one event, and might want to look at many others.
    • Helen: You are absolutely right, but people only have so much capacity, maybe only start with one.
    • Joe: I want to bring up other incidents. I think its relevant to a bigger policy and power balance evaluation. How many people knew that almaz group didn't pay rent for four months while she was in Africa, and that she was threatened with eviction. To me that presents a power imbalance, and I feel like that should have been brought up. I don't want to go into that situation too much, but it feels like there is a flaw.
    • Maryanne: I actually agree with Julian that the purpose of investigating is not to find fault with people, but to find fault with practices or policies that are not working. IF we are interviewing people about these incidents, then other things are going to come up. We should talk to our orgs and community about this, and maybe they have stuff that hasn't been talked about.
    • Steve: I dont understand the relevance of rent paying to a policy conflict regarding the Omni organization. IT looks a little bit like criminalizing debt to me. But I have to say that back last year when Almaz was first setting up her program, I explained to her the relationship that BAPS had to the Omni that we dont pay rent. She raised the idea of GCEA being in that kind of situation. And did so for a couple of months, and then that was reverted back to some kind of rent situation and I never understood why. But that I Don't think is really what we have to deal with. Thats a pragmatic issue between her org and the Omni as a whole. I want to say something about raising at something that seems to pertain to personal attitudes and I Want to hold that in question.
    • Lynn: Do we have action steps, or moving forward steps ?
    • KEn: First, lets stop calling it an investigation. That gives all the wrong ideas.
    • General agreement**
    • Maryanne: I feel like it will be hard for people to come up and discuss this before the board.
    • Steve: If policy is being made, we should make sure to include this.

Who would be interested in being on the committee: 

   **Julian, Maryanne, Helen.
    • Joe: Should we also discuss the committee that we were discussing with Matthew? I can be on that committee.
    • Lynn: Anybody else?
    • General: not yet**

Laura: Lee outside, had a seizure yesterday. Had several seizures recently. IT has been chaotic.


Ongoing Proposals

  • Proposal for Officer-elect Selection Process, on pad since 5 April 2018
    • Process proposal doc located here: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1QKCzL1jCDZWoY8VYrB6tc3kHaASICSqVK41lyIoeNgQ/edit?usp=sharing
    • Email comments from Patrik and Laura's responses in line:
      • Patrik: Does someone have to have been officer-elect the previous year in order to be considered for the officer position? What if you have already filled that role before, and don't need the extra year of training? What if we really like last year's Treasurer and want them to stay on - will this effectively enforce 1 year term limits?
      • Laura: Two reasons for doing this are to have more people handling the large amount of administrative work it takes to keep the Omni running, and to keep power from accumulating in a few people. So, yes, this does mean that officers will usually serve only 1 year at a time. If there is someone who is doing a great job as one of the officers, they can keep on doing a lot of that work as a volunteer after their term ends. There will just be someone else with the ultimate responsibility and signing documents. If someone wants to be an officer again they can run for officer-elect again and work in the support role for a year.

These positions could be called officer-in-training or vice-officers or jr officers - the process and roles are what is important, not the name.

      • Patrik: I would leave out the "people may nominate others". That doesn't mean anything unless the person in question is actually willing to run. In practice, nominating others just means that people wind up endorsing specific candidates, and I thought we wanted to avoid that at this stage in the process? (There was some confusion about nominating others at the recent CCL election as well, and it felt like some folks were amplifying their own preferences by campaigning for a specific slate of candidates.)
      • Laura: OK
      • Patrik: The part about "Debate ... will not be allowed in the meeting or over email" may not be enforceable (what are we going to do if people do discuss candidates over email?), and may be counter-productive if there is some essential information about the candidate that needs to be shared.
      • Laura: Public criticism of each other is destructive and de-motivating. The information from the delegates meeting about nominees’ qualifications and capacity for carrying out the officer role will be shared in collective meetings. If someone has questions about the qualifications or capacity of the nominee, that question can be asked in a constructive way in the delegates meeting, as it would be in a job interview. If there is public criticism over email we will remind people that that isn't how we treat each other and it is a violation of the process we have agreed to.
      • Patrik: What happens when we can't find a nominee for one of the positions?
      • Laura: The same thing that happens now.
      • Patrik: "each delegate will list all their collective’s acceptable choices, and indicate their first choice" - what happens with those first choice votes?
      • Laura: "The candidate with the most acceptable votes and at least ⅔ of the quorum present wins. If there is a tie, the nominee with the most first choice votes wins. "
      • Patrik: "The candidate with the most acceptable votes and at least ⅔ of the quorum present wins." - what if no candidate receives 2/3 of the quorum?
      • Laura: We look for other nominees or look into why people don't want the candidates, if we don't already know.
      • Patrik: What happens when after 1 year, the officer-elect withdraws, has dropped out,
      • Laura: Hopefully if this happens it isn't the week before the year ends. We would talk about the situation and decide what to do. We can't anticipate every unusual situation that might develop and, as it is with most things we do, this is an experiment and if it doesn't work as a process we can change it.
      • Patrik: ...or is clearly not suited for the task?
      • Laura: If the person selected ends up not being able to handle the position or some kind of unanticipated negative characteristic is discovered, the current officer can recommend against the officer-elect assuming the role, or the board can vote to not approve the person. I have added this language as 5A:
A. If at any time an existing officer comes to believe that the officer-elect should not assume the officer role, the officer may make a negative recommendation to the delegates who will decide what to do at that time. For example, they may: allow the officer-elect to continue; choose a new officer-elect; extend the term of the current officer; select a new officer, or other actions they may agree are appropriate.
      • Patrik: ...or if someone else with more experience wants to run for the position?
      • LAura: The more experienced person can run for an officer -elect position (or whatever we want to call it), keep volunteering to help the selected officer or finance working group (where the secretary and treasurer meet to discuss admin stuff), or wait for an irregular situation to develop where we need someone to step in as an officer.
      • Patrik: Personally, I would prefer that we NOT elect officers a year in advance. And if more than one person wants to learn how to fill a

certain officer role, I'd say the more, the merrier! Maybe one will prove to be far more suitable for the position than the other after that one training year. I would recommend calling them "officer in training" (because they have not been elected yet), and allow more than one to be in training at the same time. And since it's just a training role, there's no need to have a big delegate vote on who's going to be president a year from now.

      • Laura: Just as it is now, anyone can volunteer to help any of the officers and learn what those roles involve at any time. But just volunteering doesn't have the social obligation of having been chosen by the group to fulfill a responsibility. You can think of this a 2 year term with different duties each year. If someone already has the ability to perform the job, then the first year is a support role.
      • Patrik: Then when it comes time to actually elect officers, we can specify that candidates need to have been "officer in training" before, or have filled the same role at Omni or another similar nonprofit organization.

If we really do want to force turnover in the officer positions, we could do that by imposing term limits: e.g. nobody can serve in the same role for more than two years in a row, or serve as officer for more than three years in a row.

  • Discussion

Maryanne: We don't like it but we dont want to block. Stand aside Ken: When I put it to CCL, only patrick raised issues, laura answered all his questions. I believe he was satisfied. Helen: We didn't take a position, so its alright with us Julian: Don't have any issues with it Almaz: Supports [reports to Julian via text message] Rachel: In favor 5 in favor, 1 stand aside of 9 active collectives. Passes

Maryanne: Would the voting part of this process apply to all officers? IT seems like the reason that the conflict occured is that we don't have a process for that. And thats kinda funky. What I do like about this proposal is that it takes it back to the collectives, and it gives people part of the process (Which is good). And I am wondering whether we could have a similar process for regular officers in the future. Laura: Well the process for electing representatives -is- this process, with the caviat that at the end of the year of training the person currently in the position gets either recomended or not recomended by the person.


  • Proposal to have worker owned cafe in the Entrance Hall, on the pad since October 2017.
    • UPDATE The latest lease draft is here: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1TuEEMPJ-2i_qe8QyUhWyyjrYsmbDzWw9RaleytYY6cQ/edit?usp=sharing
    • Laura: We need to make an effort to pass this as soon as possible so that the cafe can begin construction and open. If we cant consent on this (or most of it with a couple of details to be worked out) at this meeting, my suggestion is to call a special meeting or use the unanimous written consent mechanism in the bylaws to pass this by May 1.


      • Proposal Discussion:
    • Laura: I want to know from each collective, what they need to know in order to come to a decision. I Would like to resolve this as soon as possible. What does each group need to happen in order to make this happen?
    • Steve: I Was here when cafe was first proposed. IT sounded like everything was okay with a certain rent level, but the rent has to be higher because this is a 501C3. Why do we need to do this elevated rate, rather than the original rate
    • Laura: Our lawyer jesse said that we need to give them a market rate rent, because if we dont then our 501c3 status would be used to subsidize a for profit corporation.
    • Maryanne: But thats not the issue at hand.
    • Julian: One issue that came up with us is the four year lease term, both that the terms were for that long (request, adj to 2 year periods). I read lease, but not sure if this was addressed: Brought up that the lease could be re-negoatied at end of term. ...(something about sudo having a conversation with them).
    • LAura: Sudo only meeting once a month, has made it more difficult.
    • Lynn: Shall we go around and ask the delegates what each group's issues are with the cafe?
    • steve: I Thought rent was holding us up, if thats not a problem for the cafe, then I'm all on board with the cafe
    • Maryanne: We approved it months ago.
    • Someone: we are fine (?)
    • Joe: What are the concerns from Sudo?
    • Ken: I did request, some ppl in CCL raised issues months ago, and I Thought those issues were addressed. Since there is a new lease agreement, I wanted to make sure we have the conversation again. Have only one note right now, one person says the rent should be higher, but I think that when we talk with him that he won't have any major objections. Also,
    • Laura explained how she determined the market rate designation: looked at nearby rates, based it off of of those and our equivalent space. We also adjusted the amount of sq feet that they are using, so that the $1050/month makes sense.
    • Ken: the one guy raised a few other issues. Some stuff about duration of lease. But also security access, since we are making the center area a public area and cant really lock dwn the doors.
    • Scott: IF anyone can communicate to sudo, RE: the terms of the lease. The issue of going 6months of non-rent paying, and doing a bunch of work in that time, its a good faith issue. The Omni needs these improvements. There should be a forward push on getting the cafe in.
    • Some Discussion. Missed it***

Maryanne: My whole group was at the Aca cafe on SAturday for a book reading. One of the people went up to Jose afterwards where the cafe issue stood. Our member expressed frustration about not knowing what was going to happen? Each delegate should be getting their organizations to discuss this and getting feedback. Julian: Yes, it is frustrating. Surprised to hear frustration focused at the collectives, because we were under the impression that this was going to be brought up with a new lease to be discussed (which was sent out three days ago). Ken: Just went to talk to the people in teh sudo room. One person in there sounded like they had heard about it and that nobody sounded like they wanted to block it, and she did say that Jenny was super excited about it.

Rachel agree. Yes we do

  • Thanks!

Delegates count off: 

   CCL-Ken: YEs
   FNB: Yes
   BAPS- Julian: YEs
   Chiapas support cmte - Maryanne: yes
   GCEA :  Yes
   GWS:  Yes

The lease that came out three days ago was very similar to the previous one, and the objections sudo had were not related to that.

Kevin: Clarifying, we have agreed to have a cafe, not to the final version of the lease Laura: I believe that we are agreeing to the lease, but we are still potentially changing it? (not sure if I got that right-Brian)

Julian: It seems like we should verify that what we are consenting to is : the lease as it exists, with minor potential changes.

    • general agreement that this is what we voted on**

Phil: Didn't get into bands, *making a note of that for later?*

    • Julian: Scott also proposed bookstore. Do we want to address that?
    • Laura: IT sounded like he was just discussing that as an idea. If this is something he really wants to do then he can come back and make a real proposal.
    • Phil:
    • Joe: I'm not totally in favor of the library thing, we already.

Alamz: we support the coffee shop not library. Lets have the coffee shop first

Rachel Is the bookstore instead of the cafe?

  • Julian: no, it was effectively a separate proposal

Rachel ok thx. good

DK: I realize this is after the cafe discussion, but I wanted to add that I think the renewal terms every 4 years, should include an assessment of the rent, ie the 2x options to renew could be based on a mutually-agreeble amount. My thought was the cafe could include a P&L statement after 4y prior to renewal, and this could be considered by Omni with regards the next terms rent rate. 12 years is a long time and there is some notion that the rent paid should be fair, not a burden on the cafe but also fair to omni who has to pay down a large mortgage for decades etc etc

New Proposals

  • Proposal from Kazoo that ABDC set up a Utility Print Station in the (currently cluttered and under-utilized)
basement space.
    • Our proposal is to create greater access to the tools for printing for anyone who is
interested, and run an training for newbies every other month. At this point we have trained several 
Phat Beets members as well as several Omni Commoners in the basics of screen printing. There are two 
screen printers who have recently asked to join the Coop and we would like to include them in this 
transition so that they might help facilitate the new basement space. We would like to give them, 
and everyone at Omni the opportunity to take up leadership in using and maintaining the studio in 
the basement.

As we see it, Omni needs a screen printing space. All the collectives want things printed, and it’s great to be able to do it in house. We as a collective are not able (given all of our full-time jobs and other obligations) to be as available as folks would like us to be. Therefore, we would like to propose an open printing studio in the basement with a locked supply closet that Omni members who have done a training with us can have access too. Both Bria and Samuel (Phat Beets) have trained with us enough to have keys to the closet. Also, Marcus (former ABDC) Almaz, Jose, Daveron (former ABDC), Anka, and we’re sure there are other people we’re forgetting, are already capable enough with screen printing to have keys to the supply closet.

We would like to make this transition in May.

This transition allows the Ticket Booth room to be rented to someone else bringing in valuable rent, and for the basement to become more vital. To be clear, we, ABDC, will not be paying rent. Our proposal is to leave our tools as a donation to the commons so that printing may continue without us. We are happy to offer trainings every-other month in order to help interested Omni members gain skill to fully take-over maintainence of the Utility Print Studio.


Last Meeting Notes

https://omnicommons.org/wiki/Event:2018/04/05_Delegates_Meeting

End of Meeting

Retrieved from "https://omnicommons.org/mediawiki/index.php?title=Event:2018.04.19_Delegates_Meeting&oldid=5659"