Event:2024/01/25 Delegates

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 - Day Month 2024 7pm-9pm

Meeting Details

Roles

  • Facilitator/s:
  • Stacktaker:
  • Timekeeper:
  • Notetaker/s: Yar, Paige, Patrik
  • Next meeting's facilitator(s):

Delegates

  • CCL: Patrik
  • FNB: Toan
  • LL: John
  • ML: Pallavi
  • SB:
  • SM: juul
  • SR: alex
  • Quorum (2/3 of active groups):

intros

BRIEF INTROS MAY INCLUDE: name, pronouns, groups you're in, land you're on, if you're a delegate, unmet access needs, meeting roles you'd like to help with, discussion topics or proposals to add to agenda, announcements/updates/report-backs from your groups, safe space issues or updates PROMPT people to share contact info in the chat, so we can stay in touch

People's Programs application for member collective

  • From email:
   We are reaching out to formally propose the inclusion of People’s Programs as a new member collective within Omni Commons. Recognizing that this idea has previously been put forward by fellow member collectives, we believe it is a vital move towards us collectively building trust and strengthening collaborative working relationships. This request is not asking for any space or specific office within the building. 
As some of the member collectives of Omni may recall, many of us have generational roots in Oakland that go back to the Great Migrations. Not only that, many in our leadership grew up in North Oakland, blocks away from Omni Commons. Combined with our community work and local roots, we are a great fit for Omni Commons, and would strengthen Omni’s relationship to the local community. 
By becoming a member collective, we aim to ensure a more diverse and representative Omni Commons. Our unique perspectives and steadfast dedication to the community through a lens of equity and inclusion will significantly enhance the Omni Commons community.
We are excited to participate in any discussions or steps necessary to advance this process. We greatly appreciate your consideration of our request, and we look forward to a positive and collaborative future together.
  • yemi: our goal is to continue the community building at omni, to bring in more black folks from oakland. we want to work alongside current member collectives to save the space. we are invested in the long term.
  • alex: you do food distro, there's an educational component too. would you bring those activities to omni?
  • yemi: mobile health clinic, farm program partners w/UC berkeley & grows food, breakfast hot meals serving encampments & west oakland, grocery program serves 150 families, tenant organizing. always expanding & looking for space, so omni's a natural partner. right now operating out of a warehouse, want to continue to grow. more & more people in need of programs.
  • toan: it's good to clarify, this is a membership proposal, not the other one. not ideal for people with concerns to sit in the background, they should attend the meetings.
  • alex: concerns about the difference in the way the two orgs are organized. PP has a more centralized leadership, there's more closed committee that makes decisions. that might be in conflict with how we make decisions here?
  • yemi: do all collectives operate the same way? identically?
  • alex: no
  • yemi: if they're able to operate individually and make decisions internally, while still interacting in the collective process, we'd be agreeing to something similar to that. our delegate would engage in the process of decision making, which i understand now is consensus minus one.
  • toan: the concern about hierarchy was more relevant to the building ownership proposal, not to this membership one
  • yemi: we gave a proposal, were made to expect a counter proposal. our goals are to address some concerns that were brought up, like developing trust and working together to find solutions, like addressing concerns about equity and racism. our hope is that our investment in community + our programs and history + people's skepticism about us being trustworthy. i wouldn't say that's off the table. we haven't heard any update. we see this as a step to continuing to build with omni for the member collectives. i'd say it's not off the table but our hope is we're showing our investment long term in omni, and bringing all the resources we provide, community + networks.
  • toan: is your 2nd proposal related to your 1st proposal of owning the building?
  • yemi: our investment is in longevity of the space. in that way they're related but ... what is the underlying concern around the original proposal and the member collective proposal? they seem like two different entities to me. that's how we're presenting them. i'd like to hear from omni folks how they're interpreting it.
  • alex: may be a conflict of interest making decisions awkward about the long term future.
  • yemi: if we're open to - whatever decision we make align with saving the space, unless the entire collective is motivated by ... if the goal is the space being saved, we're invested in that. if the time came that our ownership was the way we wanted to move forward, yes we'd be open to any equitable decision making process around that
  • alex: liquidating the building as an option is the lowest ranking option on the table. all the solutions we're looking at involve saving the space
  • yemi: us to. saving the space and developing it to its highest potential of service to impoverished black community of oakland.
  • paige: i wasn't super involved when former member collective was here but i was present when the boycott started. it's hard bringing up PP without you two being conflated. former member collective passed misinfo about fire inspections to our events, spammed them with emails lying about us. abbas said he understood there's some truth & some falsehoods from former member collective boycott. that seems to be the main pushback. maybe a meeting about that could help. one reason for the lack of trust is the former member collective connection. omni has some funds set aside for mediation, but a lot of people here are not going to want anything to do with PP unless they see some coming together on that. idk if it has to be symbolic like taking down the tweet, but it hurt a lot of people at omni.
  • yemi: former member collective is its own org. we're not authoritarian, can't demand them to do anything. we can ask just like a mediator would. we also agree that since we've been in the space we've felt racist anti black things. not only true to the boycott but to our own experiences here. those things ring true. our goal and investment is to better those things at omni. i can't build trust w/ former member collective for omni people, but we said if a convo can be facilitated we're happy to help with that if we can. we reposted that because we were in alignment with them, we know them, they asked us to repost it, they shared some things that were happening to them. we had no idea who omni was. we had a responsibility to support those things. we've had conversations with silver and yar about tactics that we were unaware of. i didn't know they were reaching out to events. our investment, i think we've shown 100% by coming to the table, that even if we felt this anti blackness we're not going to run to the internet about that. we continue to show up to this table because we're invested in the future of this space. from any kind of RJ situation, it'd be helpful for you to come up with a list of things needed to repair harm. only some of them PP could do. we didn't instigate boycott, or doxx anybody, or directly participate in that. separate orgs. two entities. i'm confused, outside of offering to support the situation, what else we can offer. we're open to taking the tweet down.
  • yar: i see taking down the tweet would be seen as a good first step. "why should i support a member collective that has a tweet up doxxing me." my answer to that is kind of wishy washy. i want this to happen, and i see taking the tweet down as one step that might help.
  • silver: relationship building is a two way street. PP has given a lot, is willing to do a lot. what are our guarantees that we're gonna offer back, and not just be taking? it's a lot to ask to take down a tweet. i agree there's truth in the boycott. to ask them to take down something and not show any work or progress in our commitment to anti black racism ... what are we doing?
  • pallavi: in any other situation where you would have something like this happen, try to reconcile or have some sort of restorative justice with party involved
  • patrik: i dont think any restorative justice with former member collective would work. nobody wants to bring them back in, bad actors, lying to peoples faces. dont see reason to bring them back in. issue with taking down the tweet, i dont know that would resolve jake's paranoia. plenty of folks in my collective that do not want to be involved given PP radical politics. if tweet down, jake would just move
  • yar: not about jake, but to convince other not to side. people are on the fence. if it was just one person in SR blocking, less sustainable than have 5-6 people thinking block is legitimate
  • alex: people are concerned about political program
  • yemi: first i wanted to ask, for me, hearing that one person is driving a lot of these decisions, holding a lot of power is concerning to me. concerning that - there are many other people we would like to talk to. seems to be wrapped up in a lot of racism and especially if hes constantly paranoid of POC and black people but that. Political education program is something people join by choice. new afrikan organization. black are new afrikan, transatlantic slave trade birthed a new black person, freedom independence from US. anticapitalist and anti-imperialist. we do not force our opinion on anyone else. as yar and silver know, up front about politics on day one. decolonization programs not just for black people but all people to take power from 1% and give back to the people. capitalist killing us all slowly. we have worked with many orgs that are not aligned with us. dialectical process, against biggest empire that exists. again, not required 6month political education program. cadre like organization like PSL, DSA, thats how we structure. i know yall have those people in the space as well. Our politics are different but are model is not about force or control or any of those things.
  • yar: i share concern about amount of power one person is wielding. but again, i feel like our struggle here. we cant address jake if we arent on same page about this. if he is the only person talking about this, one thing, but if he is able to convince
  • patrik: your making this too much about jake.
  • alex: lots of people with their own agency, whether or not. independently arrived to same view without talking to jake
  • yemi: what are the politics of CCL and SR?
  • patrik: fairly depolitical. different angle at social justice. affordable for everyone. scientific progress isnt a monopoly by big education and medical
  • yemi: we agree with that. medication should be affordable for all, not dependent on wealth. and scientific process not just for benefit of profit. find places where we do align. SR and CCL investing in places we do align, given sheer amount of work needed to save humanity
  • yar: fair question. but im struggling to know where i align with people in SR and CCL. people over last 10 years, feeling betrayed. maybe people didnt want me along for opinions but just that i was useful at the moment. feel discarded. before former member collective boycott, sense that people were onboard with omni becoming more diverse, serving more people in community, anti-capitalist and anti-government. dsa on fringe in that. always leaned towards communist caucus in our own culture. former member collective boycott pulled a reactionary thread. i dont know if people are going mask off with believing in gentrification, or unmooring/unable to see reality.
  • patrik: former member collective poisoned the well. discussion with PP would be so much easier a year ago
  • toan: also facing foreclosure
  • alex: SR and CCL share value of "openness." right to repair, open source. goes with the way that we organize. all our records online, open to everyone. one of the reasons. former member collective nontransparent, people locked on to thinking it is
  • yemi: black orgs at the front of cointelpro and police. legacy of destruction for black movements. federal and state governments working together to destroy black orgs. transparency is not about omni, its about protecting our people. black radical folks from the state. if you come in our doors we are very open. serious about protecting people in our space. breakfast programs. historically ground that's where we come from, why we dont post all our notes on the wiki. commend that you all feel . not invested in secrecy, but safety for our people
  • yar: concern within omni and SR has brought up. as the person maintaining wiki and creating infrastructure, still something im sitting with. compromise of curating the notes, nothing incriminating or concerning or could dox. since i stepped away paige doing that. way PP is doing it is very important. been able to empower people in a way that we havent been able. meetings intimidating here, partially due to the openness.
  • pallavi: no right way to do anything, have to decide about what works best for you. different backgrounds and understandings, varies between collectives. not trying to be one omni nonprofit where we all organize in the same way. if that were the case, would turn off a lot of people from joining our building. none of those questions were asked of media lab, if our meetings were recorded. seeing this contradiction here, that doesnt make sense to me.
  • marc: omni was originally was a project for finding space for 3 orgs. CCL, SR, BAPS. SR and BAPS had a lot of overlap in their politics. SR anarchist leaning, and involved in occupy movement. influencing the culture, also Open sources FOSS movement, hacker. focus on decentralization. also focus on flat non-hierachial structures. sudo mesh as well shares those same principles. I would say CCL inherently does political

yar: my experience after decade being in that organizing space, doesnt feel anymore like this ideal of flat non-hierachial organizing. doesnt feel like thats what people want. feels like people want to pretend power dynamics arent there when they are. that fundamental contradiction, it has escalated to a crisis. one of the things that has enabled this crisis in our community. to what extent power dynamics exist despite what we call our membership structures. one of the reason its hard for me to trust non hierarchical

  • yemi: for my clarity, are all members collectives required to be anarchist?

no

  • yemi: are they required to explain their politics when coming in? is that a normal thing that is asked?
  • marc: fairly common they do if the group coming in is political
  • patrik: i dont think people would remark if not so blatant on website
  • yar: when we added former member collective, were not many questions. people acting on good faith, that we would get along and build consensus. in the wake of that, general sense in community, former member collective treated people poorly because of their politics, the idea of being a vanguard who know better than others and justifies treating poorly. i know that is not true of everyone who shares that same politics with former member collective. just those people nad their approach to life. what im seeing, in the wake of that, ways former member collective has been toxic attributed to politics, and because yours are similar, theres this thought you will behave the same. personally dont think thats fair, but need to show a way to show thats not true. especially ones who claim to be scientist
  • patrik: bringing former member collective in based off all good work they did
  • alex: i think its fair to attribute it to politics
  • yar: i think fair to attribute to their interpretation of their politics. not the same thing
  • pallavi: also 8, need to talk about pressing building stuff. dont think, i feel like there doesnt need to be any further litigation of PP politics, and all that. i think that the first step towards building trust is accepting their app. Recuse themselves when conflict of interest. should have a decision by next weeks meeting
  • yar: reason im trying to make this conversation happen, if vote called today, would not pass. and i want it to pass
  • patrik: we dont have the full proposal?
  • yar: we have membership app, and know who they are?
  • yemi: my impression we were calling on today to answer remaining questions from the application. in writing now, some answers to questions Toan sent.
  • yar: thats what i thought, silver pallavi and i looked at it and thought it looked good, others dont

from chat: Could PP actually address what they would do in the building if made a member collective? Would they contribute funds to general operating expenses of Omni?

  • yemi: does every collective pay money?
  • yar: LL, but others do
  • patrik: we have waived fees in the past
  • yemi: open depending on what we could be able to use. I think our initial... more pressing thing for us all to work on saving the space. would love to run programs out of the space. like i said before, any of those programs could use meeting, storage, grounding place. as of right now we havent thought about a permanent room, because sounds like a lot of thing are on flux.
  • toan: i asked yemi to reapply, there werent any details so we can talk about with the collectives. but theyre here now to answer questions.
  • alex: nice to have something in writing to circulate
  • patrik: one concern i hard, thinking about structure about co-ownership. if we accept peoples programs, to become co-owners of omni, it would be good to keep omni commons nonprofit and PP nonprofit two separate entities. for a wide range of reasons. both organizations would have to agree on major decisions, useful to avoid overlap. if you became collective today, would have to recuse from any discussions with PP, or decisions about the building, or ask to no longer be a collective. its a weird organization. another option, i would love to see events of PP, to get to know each other. i would be in favor of offering events at cost or free to get to know each other, as long as we offer to deal with the other org that has an offer on the table. yes i know we are short on money, but this would be useful for the community in general
  • pallavi: would love to collaborate on next event we are discussing in our events working group. i was able to see a lot of black and brown folks from the neighborhood enter building and talk about it. i was able to give tours. would be really to see that community feel welcomed to explore the space, know that it exists. talked to folks who lived around the corner who didnt know anything about omni other than the free store. i have an idea for a couple of - trying to do more outreach that includes fundraising in the conversation, to get more people in the building and talk to their network. in media lab getting a lot more attention with orgs wanting to partner with us. more opportunities for development. at some point later in this meeting i want to talk about fundraising more. i do think offering spaces for poc to come in and do events to activate the community in general, not just good for the ethos of omni and the people, but bringing awareness about the space. not currently marketing ourselves in a way that will be bringing people in to see what we are doing. certain events about insular communities within omni. need to widen the net that we cast.
  • patrik: calendar inside right now - have to be visible outside. flyers, media
  • silver: requires support of the working group. to me one of the biggest perk of bringing in new groups, which isnt easy, is people power.
  • yar: PP is org that has hundreds of volunteers chomping on the bit to take on . omni falling apart due to attrition of volunteers. esp. when widespread concern about racism in the space, not fair to ask PP to invite people in the space without some guarantee that they will have a voice in how we run. how are they supposed to vouch for us if we dont give them a vote. hope we can turn the page
  • alex: your saying no way to bring together without membership?
  • yar: i dont think we should. we should be real about what a big ask that is
  • alex: patriks suggestion sounded pretty good
  • marc: i dont think its a big ask to give free event space. of all event spaces in oakland, probably one of the more aligned
  • yemi: if theres an ask to answer remaining questions, happy to respond to those. i dont see event space substituting the vote. i dont want to reduce it to that even. about longevity of space. respecting our work and showing mutual understanding that we are both invested in the long term of this space. to pallavis point, we have the ability for long term program development that is not just about occasional event space. great offer to do event, but concern of longevity. all our programs running for 3 years. up to 7 years. events work on a biweekly or weekly basis. a lot of places offer us free event space because the work we do. because of the racism that exists in all of these institutions, we are invested in developing a space, a black resource center for everyone. not snubbing event space offer, but how do we build something that has sustainability? a real resource for the community? thats where our energy is at this point. other part of work is developing organizers. everyone volunteering learning to become an organizer, even if they dont go on to organize for PP.

from chat: in general, member applications specify what they want to do in the space as part of the application? like, "do food distribution" or "have meetings" ... it would help to have more specifics like that. this was already answered (in very vague terms but ok)

  • yar: we can take this back to our collectives, hope that was enough. but its a week from now, and its still not clear that a vote would pass, i would try another week. im moving with optimism that theres a light at the end of this tunnel. thank you yemi for showing up to this

pallavi development consultant recap

  • pallavi: moved forward paying instrumentl for one month. added upwards of 25 opportunities. a lot of them actually are in STEM. feel like types of things you could seek for CCL and SR. my overall strategy, been consulting with other folks, if we can start taking really bold moves in raising funds over next 3 months then we can show . community visions. how to secure other lenders given progress we make in 3 months. fundraising goal of $75k in 3 months, sufficient enough to show different trusts? could tell them how we have hired dev consultant, and progress there. also to show other people in the community that we are really active in trying to save our space. some people ask why apply for grants if we dont know about longevity? applying for a grant one of best ways to be introduced to different funders. i can express in these letters of inquiry the need for support in other areas if they have available grant funding. also working on an emergency appeal to send out to funders list john and JP and one other volunteer. i have 30 hrs left of the part 1 of the development contract. would like to keep some time to make money to sustain the part 2. part 1 is grants calendar for at least 6 months, or up to a year for the nonprofits that are fiscally sponsored by omni. as well as working with marketing and events working group. last event really great given amount of time invested. if we can put that same energy with longer time could get some real results. could pay people to do work that continues need to be done. deficits re. sarahs email. huge priority. $2500 to debt rather than replenishing hellman, then i wouldnt be able to be retained for remainder of my contract. fundraising for those gaps. been forwarded other grant opportunities, low hanging fruit. will be working on a lot language this week. grant language goes to development language. grantwriting strategy to collectives to show community power. means everyone needs to be a lot more involved. energy to talk

about conflicts and political issues but not show up and support our events wg. i held 2 grant writing workshops and saw no members of any collective, other than media lab. if we could get more people from collectives to attend. essential in democratizing the funding process to have more and more people work on grants. impossible to have one person writing grants for 12 different orgs. so i want to build up the fundraising committee again. theres a rhyme to my reasoning for everything but we need to activate folks as delegates - i have the information, one of the problem before, didnt have info to fundraise. i know a lot of best practices. if people wanting to get hands on. marketing is a huge thing. if your community is less online more in person, that means printing. we have the brochures, need to make a fundraising flyer that we send out to people physically. way to activate people, it works people put flyers on street signs to boycott places and it works. need more people power. events wg putting in so much work and seems like a thankless job. great if we can compensate people for the organizing they are doing. leverage the use of folks who know how to do things but unaware that theyre needed. shouldnt burn out people doing bulk of the work. silver, me, phil - all folks in events wg working so hard but need more people power. cross pollinating events and fundraising wg would be really useful in next month as we plan 6 months of events. 2 bite sized chunks: building people power for event wg, and setting stage for a committed fundraising wg priorities right now

  • patrik: good points. afraid that even within collectives there is burning out. we have been doing our own grant writing, but if you have a good collection of STEM, maybe we schedule a meeting with SM SR and CCL. also art and science grant opportunities
  • alex: also were there emails about this? I never heard about this.
  • patrik: delegates also need to forward
  • silver: i forwarded to fundraising wg and our social medias. for me the hardest collective to communicate with is CCL. idk how to communicate
  • patrik: board mailing list
  • silver: pallavi and i were talking about having fundraising meetings on tuesdays. would benefit for everyone to have one member from every collective to join
  • patrik: we are doing 3rd wednesday of every month to grant writing
  • pallavi: im turning my workshop into a series. i would be share it with you next time. helpful for folks to, in our fundraising meetings, to collaborate. i can show you the grants management fundraiser. compile everything in one space. helpful in showing funders and community organization with. want to know who you are liaising with. helpful for me if i also know what fundraising efforts done by other collectives. rather than not having something concrete to share
  • paige: what day meeting with grant?
  • yar: actionable for delegates: need to close the book on that. opportunity there.

Hiring new bookkeeper, secretary and treasurer

  • patrik: bookkeeper - spreadsheet, treasurer - oversight. separate roles, fraud often when those two mixed
  • pallavi: i can take on treasurer role. talking about what we are about to file?
  • yar: sarah said she was intending to file. I was nominated as secretary, jake said block
  • patrik: delegates decision
  • alex: i want to wait another week
  • silver: can you share that ask out to consensus?
  • alex: yes
  • silver: last time sarah quit, was very difficult. less money in the bank, lot of bills
  • alex: ask sarah for recommendations?
  • toan: jenny is already expected to do this
  • paige: she offered, was not a delegates decision
  • patrik: sarah also doing work outside of bookkeeping, need to have clear job description
  • patrik: in agreement, need word out for secretary and bookkeeper - who can start that language? Sarah has written roles. Some of those tasks could be assigned to treasurer.
    • See email from Sara to consensus list Jan 12, Subj: In re Event:2024/01/11_Delegates
  • yar: also want to point out this is something an ED would do -- perform the search. something jamal was specifically saying would be on the top of his agenda
  • patrik: whenever we have officer elections, i say only real job for president is to delegate. if cant delegate, then your job
  • silver: have we every had this little money in the bank? thats what im stressed about
  • david: yes omni has had that little money, not a comforting thought. if the topic is bookkeeping, ive been asking around to get a community development finance consultant to handle everything with omni for the refi. not indefinitely into the future, but in terms of modeling. met with two people, my main comment is that at this present moment you want a bookkeeper+. not just taxes and reconciling, but also plan forward. because whoever will take over the loan will want that. at the same time omni has no money, chicken and egg. also been trying to identify some fund for that outside of omni. need to communicate with everyone and im sorry i havent been in touch, but have been trying to locate those resources. 30years experience in community finance, has time and capacity, and experience. diy could subsidize some of the cost. for next hellman grant app - need a clear ask, and good to have a specific person. omni needs beyond short term help, outline strategic planning - hire strategic planning consultant - and in context of how you will reboot. someone whos already in that world can give info to grant. whomever might we willing to help with capacity building funds, it might not come fast enough for what omni needs. so maybe another org stepping in and then getting refunded. i mentioned omni to these finances,
  • david : im just thinking 3 months. need regular bookkeeping and take that and put it into spreadsheets for templates consultants already have that meet the needs of upstream funders.
  • yar: has this person worked with sarah before?
  • david: yes familiar with sarah's format. in working on shadetree. everyone has their own way of doing things. theres other folks but this person is the one who has capacity right now
  • yar: thats a plus
  • david: theres also collectives that do taxes, real estate literacy. in the near term you need someone who can do both - real estate + finance
  • SL - DIY will not subsidize this for Omni. Sorry. We can't afford it
  • david: standard: payroll, financial quarterly statements, ___, but what omni needs is real estate
  • yar: what do you need for us to move this forward?
  • david: my capacity, but give me one day and i will float some candidates. i will give you their rates.
  • david: trusts not so much about the money at this point - but worry of governance and conflicts. a lot of places dont have a model for that, outside agencies not read into organizing this way. if a couple weeks spent describing how decisions would be made with a new partner in mix. not just talking about values, changing governance in a way that would reduce conflicts. other groups they could find at least on the surface who dont have that. they dont want to show up and change anyones politics, step on someones toes, but dont know how to not. come up with a one pager on how to make that work. deed-restricting the building for community use. new group would have more oversight to make sure its for community use, how would they have a seat at the table to make sure that is happening? for conventional orgs that is pretty easy.
  • patrik: we dont have much info on how others orgs work with land trusts
  • david: outside omni, people much more okay with landlord/tenant with rental cap. they dont want to do property management, filling vacancies etc, just want to focus on their own stuff. omni is different in that it wants a stake in that. by and large land trusts work with housing, commercial there but usually. omni is unique and moldbreaking. good and bad, bad because not structures in place. going to take brains on omnis side - your brains, what are our red lines, how are we going to let this other party in. vacancies - if they know what to do, but whats omnis? radical transparency is a blessing and a curse. they dont have the capacity to figure out exactly. if they found a nonprofit they liked as tenant, wouldnt know if omni would. its about governance, reducing conflict, who would own property management keys. if you have money right now, its a real buyers market, if you have money theres a lot of property you can get cheaply that are vacant, where you dont have to work with existing entity. so need to make that approachable to outside orgs. want to support whos there, lift them up, if conflict there, bad for the mission.
  • alex: help me to know more about other orgs supported by, i,e, cast. should come up with 2-4 scenarios that we can imagine
  • patrik: what are we willing to compromise on. i.e. ownership of building. do we need to be in full control of who rents an empty room?
  • alex: makes sense to do a few pictures, rather than piecemeal asking what is ok and not
  • david: one thing worth skimming, i wrote a neutral description of omnis structure for insurance. will share, speaks to governance, whats a project, tenant, delegate, board member etc. something like that can be made, not as detailed, share what we have now, and proposed future structure. maybe omni would guarantee certain things. anything it wants responsibility for it must be accountable to. if omni couldnt find a tenant after certain amount of time, maybe then it goes to the other org. building maintenance can go to CLT. "partner responsible for XYZ" and "occupants responsible for this." big thing youre fighting: "if everyone is in charge then no one is in charge". what they want is accountability and understanding decision making with fallbacks and plan B's. folks at omni reaching out on their own, which i think that is great. sf clt just came into $windfall. everyone is asking for money but omni has a really good case. i cant do that but i think omni should.
  • alex: what if it was a similar deal to what we are discussing with PP. we cede control to entrance, areas near ballroom. governance, somewhat clear cut. is that a model they would consider
  • david: by having a plan and being really upfront, like "vacancies and underutilizing the ballroom." by proactively, mission aligned arts group working in ballroom, theyd be happy with that. they would want some say in who that is.
  • alex: give them control of that?
  • david: offering that is great, shows organizational maturity, not core competence
  • alex: all other ideas are this
  • david: offering up a solution
  • alex: what we would like in return is maintenance and infrastructure of the building. and how decisions made for overlapping space.
  • patrik: what autonomy do we have in deciding who moves in
  • david: new partner might be less forgiving in terms of extensions. whatever the agreement is - responsibility on paying down the loan. pandemic unusual with extensions. omni needs to project accountability, structure, a plan, to dispel idea "everyones in charge so no one is in charge." Rebirth, reboot. doesnt need to be complex but get it down on paper, make sure people agree with that. the whole thing about the covenant is a big deal. land covenant. retain a small degree of ownership under any outcome. foundations and trusts supporting spaces have been making that a require. 1% stake
  • patrik: co-ownership in percentage to amount put in?
  • Patrik: So what are our TODO tasks right now?
    • David: 3 tasks, simultaneously:
  1. Start drafting 1-pager on how Omni would work with a partner
  2. Hire Real Estate / finance person
  3. Setting up meetings with various groups - reach out to SFCLT. David can help, but cannot be front end
  • yar: land trust could do in harmony with all proposals
  • david: land trusts really want omni to succeed. internal transparency about finances. land trust can. omni has never had oversight. so that will be new.
  • yar: problem when people give a path but no way to do it
  • david: lets get this down on paper, make sure fundamentals agreeable. anyone can take that with confidence and go to
  • yar: im in favor of that. but want to talk about jamal's contract?

jamal's contract

  • patrik: major question: full time or part time?
  • yar: part time
  • patrik: then should put hourly rate
  • yar: w2
  • patrik: indicates contractor. would greatly simplify things
  • yar: one of the things, if hes raising money and finding us people to do administrative labor, then we should do a w2 anyways.
  • patrik: what are the main priorities that he should be working on? sarah had some recommendations. also concrete goals to evaluate whether he is doing a good job. we've fallen behind on that before. need to be able to evaluate
  • yar: raising money, what else is there?
  • patrik: [reads contract draft, doesnt involve fundraising]. I added "fundraising in collaboration with existing fundraising staff..."
  • patrik: he also recommended having a budget cap of spending without approval. so should put $
  • yar: and should say what approval means. whether full board or committee to approve
  • patrik: dont know that we need to spell that out yet
  • yar: ok
  • patrik: how about spending on a monthly basis
  • pallavi: standard for pallavi is individual expenses of $600. any time.
  • yar: so you could do $1200 in a day if two discrete things?
  • pallavi: yes
  • patrik: i'll put language in there, with a monthly cap
  • patrik: $600, is that for nonprofits? or small?
  • pallavi: grassroots nonprofits. and we fall under that given our revenue under $1m
  • patrik: i dont know how to word any of this legally.
  • yar: important thing for jamal and us to agree to terms on a high level, then we can send to review from lawyer, i.e. john's contract.
  • patrik: i didnt have much time to work on this, john wont til the weekend. need to integrate language. then run it by the lawyer. i would want to know what we can legally do first.
  • yar: i feel like jamal first, because we are partners. better if we come to them with consensus rather than game theory crap. is integrating really important, or can we share what you have now?
  • patrik: right now messy with comments on side, but he knows we are messy
  • yar: tight deadline. get draft done this weekend. can we commit? when, what does that mean? can we say we can send it to a lawyer on monday? collectives are going to want something by wednesday to talk about it.
  • david: executive director seen as a staffer who executes the will of a board. i cant tell you how many boards ive been on where ed suggests staffing change, and board rejects. if someone is applying for position of ED, has to be going in to it knowing there will people they will disagree with. part of the onus. if not clear, title should change.
  • patrik: thats where contract currently flawed. too broad.
  • david: clear hierarchy in role, subordinate to board, how people think about it. omni could create another position. boundaries are - big decisions collectively made by board. day to day decisions. ED normally - like paying bills, keeping the lights on, admin. not really decision making. if decision making part of the role, i think that definitely can be the case, but not what most people think of when they think of executive director
  • yar: hes going to need authority
  • david: clear scope of responsibilities. literal actual tasks, clear what day to day working things are. so board level / delegate level decisions are taken to board. he's a do-er, and will bring recommendations to the board. thing thats missing is clear examples - what are day to day tasks that ed will do. that was issue with prior CFO role.


End of Meeting

Retrieved from "https://omnicommons.org/mediawiki/index.php?title=Event:2024/01/25_Delegates&oldid=6748"