Event:2024/02/22 Delegates

Omni Delegates' Meeting - 22 February 2024 7pm-9pm

Meeting Details

• Talk at https://omnicommons.org/meet or 515-428-1108 (PIN: 465814905)
• Type at https://omnicommons.org/notes
• Send proposals to consensus@lists.omnicommons.org prior to the meeting

Roles

• Facilitator/s: Alex
• Stacktaker:
• Timekeeper:
• Notetaker/s: paige

Delegates

• CCL: patrik
• FNB: toan
• LL: john
• SB: Natalie
• SMAC (Sacred Media Arts Collective, aka Media Lab):
• 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

• Alex: discussing ED role

• toan: talks of having a back up plan in case omni doesnt work out for us, whether foreclosure or different governance structure. just as a back up, we still like omni so we are still here
• patrik: we have also been looking at commercial real estate. regardless of what happens to omni, will not have to move out for 3 months minimum. so a little early. but whenever house hunting, good to be looking for 1 month, so not a bad thing to look around. agenda items: suggested bylaw changes, also discuss more process for new collectives, and any other governance changes. also i believe some cast updates
• marc: he/him. update from SM is that we will be pursuing 4GLTE to test on omni. still bureaucracy to figure out. if anyone interested, we are meeting 1st tuesdays at 7pm. we will meet other times but that is the time for new people to come meet. for agenda: if space sudo mesh used to meet, upstairs, what is status of that and if we can meet there on tuesday evenings. we've thought about meeting in CCL but was too distracting and sometimes used. request to get a key for that space
• natalie: no things to add
• yar: want to talk about event, AROC fundraiser april 30th.
• ruby: here for SMAC to cover for pallavi. im driving, listening it, sorry to be late.

SM room request

• patrik: how much space?
• marc: 8-10 people
• patrik: basement room okay?
• marc: not always clear, media lab sometimes overflow. but also prefer upstairs. room requested is the den
• natalie: we have been asking for money for that room, not paid.
• marc: is this exclusive use?
• natalie: i dont know what is on lease agreement. philip has been in more conversation. i cant give more info
• paige: said we would renegotiate after two months. so we could do that now. is it in alignment
• natalie: bearing in mind ethos of group, does it align with serving community.
• patrik: idea was lower rent while building out space. but when found out used for events, had to be put on hold. i think balls got dropped all over the place
• natalie: philip in charge of that convo, would defer talks to him but wanted to update you all. issue of setting a time and then them not showing up.
  • jnny: what is philips relation to this project..? also shouldn't take up too much time, this convo. just remove them.. have they done anything since joining?

Bylaws changes

• New draft with changes highlighted: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1zArN0_R5h2kh-FEMz67cBnjp8CeFN7uwLW3Lzsvg9Gc/edit
• patrik: inactive vs active directors. delegates are called directors here. [reads change]. is this what we are doing currently? originally i saw discussion saying 3 sessions.
  • alex: in theory already part of bylaws
• *yar: in theory supposed to be added to bylaws, but never done.
  • patrik: if that got litigated judge would go by letter of whats on paper. my goal is to make what we do right now more representative on bylaws.
  • yar: i stopped doing notes about a year ago... if you miss one meeting, you could join right at end and still be active. by the end of the second meeting they missed, they are inactive. once inactive, if you attend two meetings in a row, the second you join that second meeting, you are active again.
  • patrik: what i found was 2014/2015, couldve been update past that
  • yar/patrik: if you joined part of the meeting, then you
  • alex: so is yar
  • yar: purpose of this was issue where we couldnt get quorum
  • alex: i would like it more spelled out
  • yar: what is purpose of marking inactive, to squeeze a vote through? or is it so we can function for quorum
  • alex: it can be used for both, just like consensus -1 was used when difficult situation arose
  • yar: seemed cut and dry to me
  • alex: they werent aware
  • yar: didnt need to, it was clear
  • alex: i could see it this way, a collective well tied to omni, this rule we seem to be applying
  • yar: you want clarification on what it means to miss a meeting. but also in a way that applies to john?
  • yar: im going to ask john to come down, because i agree
  • alex: someone contactable by internet, thats vague too.
  • patrik: borderline case
  • marc: i think at least need to show up at some point, and being available to be dragged back in for a vote
  • patrik: dont lose quorum if they leave
  • alex: get quorum, but dont vote
  • patrik: need quorum to start the vote.
  • alex: personally in favor of a stricter definition of present
  • marc: i think we should have rule that no consensus decisions after end of meeting. because then numbers dwindle
• patrik: [reads bylaws] if quorum was that 5 delegates need to be present, but if decision need majority, if 2 leave, would still have to have half of that voting yes.
  • paige: so if they leave they abstain
  • marc: why dont we say meeting 2 hours, can be extended by consensus - 1.
  • patrik: currently, 7 active delegate, quorum is 5. if 5 show up initially, they can take majority vote with 3. if two leave still need 3 votes.+1 i think how written currently works, just need to apply in correctly. it voids "lets wait til someone leaves to take a vote"
  • alex: time restricting vote could help with keeping things on time
  • natalie: starting meetings on time and agendas before meeting. unrealistic that folks always at delegates. people have lives outside of this
• patrik: some other changes, added "active" directors for quorum and voting. "majority" vote. issue: we've never done anything majority. i recommend keeping bylaws as close to reality as possible. so i think we should add "more than majority". I think with majority, is majority yes, so "abstain" is a no.
  • patrik: example, 7 people, 3 yes, 3 abstain, 1 no. i would say we still have a majority. however if you read it as majority of present, then only 3/7
  • yar: i think abstain should go yes.
  • marc: i prefer latter interpretation.
  • yar: then abstain becomes a block?
  • patrik: if you want abstain to mean "leave it up to others" we should write it as "majority of the people voting". we can do either
  • yar: worried this will lead to gridlock. sometimes abstain is just people do delegate homework
  • marc: this is specifically things for rare circumstances.
  • yar: consensus when we agree, majority when we dont... seems like cognitive dissonance [jnny +1]
  • marc: consensus day to day, but should have a fallback.
  • yar: if fallback kicks in whenever you dont have consensus, than thats not consensus.
  • john joins
  • alex: maybe question is, should we remove consensus - 1 to bylaws?
  • marc: if codifying what we are doing, everything should be consensus - 1 in the bylaws
  • john: i dont know that consensus used in corporate bylaws ever. (jnny: +1 we did it out of legal necessity in the corporate bylaws, the wiki has historically been the central internal governance doc..)
  • patrik: but 2/3 majority not uncommon, and not so different
  • john: 50% + 1 is normal, 2/3 for more important things. we have a high corporate bar at all groups - 1. consensus requires lots of information shared, equal understanding. very difficult. im someone whos used consensus for a long time in orgs. when i facilitate, i often say "sense of room". If you have sense of room, and nobody says they disagree, that can be consensus. great advantage of consensus when everyone in same direction, a lot more buy-in. i saw that in occupy, but it is a very difficult and often drawn out decision process. not every decision should be on that
  • patrik: more common in corporate when few parties
    • jnny: in bylaws any member org can choose their (501c3 board) director at any point.. this could be easily clarified in a 10-minute convo with jesse.. okay i'll stop sorry :) [a delegate can be nominated at any point. a board director can be anyone in the org, nominated however said org's governance process works.. they absolutely do not have to be the same person..]
  • majority decisions are explicit special cases, eg voting a member collective out without their vote counting as a veto; or [sorry, reading backlog...] or core decisions around eg disbanding the organization (omni 501c3) and distribution of assets upon disbandment (which would have to be to another 501c3 org) so far as i recall..)
  • patrik and others think no -- those special cases are where consensus is used [according to bylaws]
  • just translating our bylaws, could be wrong!
  • link to bylaws on wiki (is it the same as what's on file..?): https://omnicommons.org/wiki/Bylaws
  • alex: strength in consensus is it requires to . prevents "mail in voting" attitude, actually have to go out and discuss what other person wants, find something agreeable to both. when it breaks down it breaks down spectacularly. i know marc you are skeptical of this change, do you want to say why?
  • marc: im skeptical of moving from consensus - 1.
  • natalie: i think this is something CAST will ask about, something we should be prepared for. should be something they are in agreement with. like what patrik says, should put on paper what we are actually doing
  • patrik: right now change we are talking about not about consensus -1, about default votes when not present. clarifies languages, active vs inactive directors greatly simplifies our processes.
  • alex: they will ask whether we are committed to consensus, and 1 person. if they see process impossible with one person. i think we should talk about real changes we want to make, and put that in bylaws
  • patrik: could be 2/3
  • alex: yes and big change we will have to go back to collectives.
  • marc: seems like it is unclear still, not sure CAST will care about this. if we expend this energy, we should make sure its something they want. no need to expend energy fitting mold we dont know they really care about.
  • marc: i do think we could have a single person represent us AND work off consensus - 1. anything not delegated to that person will be decided at board meeting
  • patrik: not required to discuss ED roles in the bylaws
• patrik: [reads bylaws] forcing a vote. i.e. 4 options for future of omni, i dont want someone to force a vote on one, if we have 4 options, we should vote on all 4. dont have a mechanism currently in the bylaws. one idea is run-off, drop whichever option has lowest vote. if people really cant agree, 7 people voting, and 2 2 2 1, then none of the options get chosen. last round, if none of options get majority, not just winner takes all.
  • alex: abstain counts as a no here?
  • patrik: abstain count as abstain, not voting
• patrik: allow voting by teleconference. [reads bylaw change]. verbatim from irs requirements about tele-voting, we were missing it in our bylaws. obvious one
• patrik: [reads] any delegate can table for 1 week. up to now, we have been saying we have to take things back to our collectives, but that hasnt been true, sometimes trivial and we vote. i would like to make that the default.
  • john: general rule is consult with collectives, and exception is vote in meeting
  • patrik: that has been true, trying to flip that around.
  • alex: if issues brought up before meeting, wouldnt have to change process.
  • john: always a judgment call, how important for functioning of all of us
  • yar: does bylaws say you have to wait this?
  • patrik: no, we have been saying that
  • alex: problem is when agenda item posted day before, so no opportunity to discuss
  • patrik: again this is bringing bylaws closer to what we want reality to be
  • alex: this also functions opposite way, wont be meeting weekly, so onus put on person who wants to push vote.
  • patrik: puts pressure on person who is wanting to delay.
  • john: encouraging less delay, good
  • yar: if not in bylaws right now, left to interpretation. same principle as consensus "we operate as consensus until we dont".
  • toan: i think we should just be honest to CAST and others, we are horizontally run, but are on a nonprofit, so need a bylaws. murky middle ground. need a lot of follow up, i see that as missing. when we have proposals and have delays, we should follow up with groups, and hold groups and individuals accountable. people think accountable means something bad, but i think it helps us move forward
  • jnny-remote: <3 beautifully said toan
  • john: we reach consensus when we can reach consensus, what we are talking about how we decide when we have conflict. i think the way to craft language is to be as minimal about procedures and structure of decision as possible, to make it as easy as possible to make decisions. thats why they are typically short. because assumption that the judgment of the director and staff is in interest of entire entity. less is more in my view. to respond to your question.
  • alex: less is more would be against this clause?
  • john: no i am saying this generally, not to this clause
  • yar: Can people adding comments to the notes please add them inline so the flow and order is preserved please
  • remote jnny: CAST is a 501c3 but acts more as a trust. partnerships + financial + consulting support
  • alex: what about calling a vote?
• patrik: next change, president, chair of board AND ED can require a vote.
  • john: chair of meeting or board
  • patrik: facilitator essentially. usually there is a separate officer position who takes that role.
  • alex: are these only people who can call a vote?
  • john: in other boards, generally can be others
• patrik: how to amend the bylaws. 2 month trial period for new collectives
  • john: designator or designatee?
    • patrik: designator
    • designator is collective
• Yar: I think we're also saying that "added in the past 60 days" means the actual delegate vote and not the act of editing the wiki or telling the sec of state, etc. just want to get that on the record.

new collective process

• Please add suggested changes! https://docs.google.com/document/d/1RzRq1oZbCi-Qx4KxdJ3GIrU2OS5Sp9VW0sz92nNM2A4/edit
• alex: covered a bit in bylaws?
• patrik: only removing collectives is added there. the req about 2 months get to know period doesnt need to be in the bylaws
• natalie: could ask CAST
• patrik: yes could ask for some examples
• patrik: we said last week, want 2 months involved in omni. then 2 month trial period
• yar: can we stop calling it probation? That means something specific in prison industrial complex
• patrik: delegates for collective shouldnt have leadership or blocking vote in another collective. and discussion about small groups
• alex: also for spaces for rent
• patrik: base rate, $1 / sq. foot, adjusted depending on windows
• alex: if adjusting based on, say need, or alignment, we need to be pretty explicit about those. fairness requires that +1
  • patrik: set aside a specific budget to cover groups for which we want to make exception on rent
  • natalie: phil mentioned, finance some groups for a term. pick from people doing communal events. if we are talking about setting aside grant money for events / people who need space. good to have a form for that so we can see if they align with what we value +1
  • patrik: any orgs we can look at that have their pricing schemes available?
    • jnny: there's a slidedeck for that in the drive (Commons WG subfolder) - comparing rates of eg humanist hall, how other orgs 'package' their rental services etc..
  • natalie: i know cast works with oakstop.
  • silver: some similar are tamarack, place. depends on who they want to serve in community. flat rate or 30% model depending. looking at for-profit venues, they hcarge way more, $400-500 per hour. we are way cheap in comparison
  • natalie: we need a way to publicly define that. i definitely have had people ask about omni, have said its really accessible and welcoming, but i dont say, you can just come free. should be some boundaries. need to be making rent and bills. theres a lot of merit, like example AROC, thats an event we really want to prioritize given whats happening, and community ran, vs. like corporate event that can afford a lot. need to make sure we specifically say that, or i feel like, not that theres no value but we need to have that language of value. be discerning and have a way to sign up
  • silver: idk who wrote in wiki, the lease structure there, thats what i go off of, but hasnt been updated since 2018
  • natalie: topic for another night
• alex: back to convo about new members/renters
• patrik: $1/sq foot
  • alex: for tenants/collectives, not events
  • patrik: yea
  • alex: i think he was saying thats what we should making overall roughly.
  • yar: no one paying for hallways
  • alex: part of CAST's package, they will advise us on how to achieve that. collectives may need to pay more
  • yar: or just acknowledge we've been giving discounts
  • patrik: i think CAST will ask for increase in rents, and that would be reasonable
  • yar: would it be?
  • natalie: how will we make rent if not coming from grants and events?
  • patrik: i think with clean up, CCL and SR could double membership
  • natalie: collectives could negotiate, given history.
  • silver: i think i shared this with SR folks, energy audit on omni. lot of money to PGE. some people have more paying for grow lights and fridges
    • patrik: not grow lights, its the -80 freezer
  • alex: CAST wont be running the building, they will give us standards, and require professional management. once that all happens, that will raise price for collective. maybe we can meet that with increased membership. will need to be explained to everyone upfront
  • patrik: with bathrooms clean and roof not leaky, can easily get more members
  • yar: making assumption thats only thing kept away
  • patrik: i know several people are
  • yar: i know people who arent kept away by that, but are by other things
  • silver: our bills 15k / month, if we get $1\sq foot then boom we are paying everything with 5K left over
• alex: sorry, we are derailed from topic again
  • patrik: i will add doc i was working on
  • natalie: request agenda items before the meeting
  • yar: mean like a secretary?
  • natalie: whatever it takes, we need that.
  • patrik: at minimum, email to consensus list. i try to do that.
  • marc: for a while we appointed someone as facilitator for next meeting at current meeting. could do that again and give them a todo to compile everything on consensus list at beginning of meeting
  • yar: we are saying it should happen before that
  • yar: i want to say its on all of us to think this stuff through before the meeting. more people who come prepared and well informed, more efficient each items go.
  • patrik: i will ask natalie to write agenda for next one?
    • jnny: (not tryna trifle but mebbe we could not default to women as defacto social labor..?)

bathroom cleanse

• ruby: i am going to be doing a bathroom clean and install. if anyone excited about cleaning bathrooms, come help please. tomorrow and possible saturday. also reminder we have maker faire on sunday, if anyone wants to participate please come.
• discussion about ordering paper towels. yar ordered some, said delivered on tuesday but not found.
  • jnny: we have costco acct as packup. towels should be on recurring office depot order..?
• patrik: is there list of tasks for philip m.?
• silver: no we really need help doing that. historically we are bad at hiring people. i am stepping back, cant do this
• toan: is phillip still getting paid?
  • silver: only paid once, $700
  • toan: is this a regular job?
  • silver: there was money allocated in hellman, i think 2k. i vaguely said $500/month. no structure made since.
  • patrik: things like restocking toilet paper, notifying when supplies are low, etc.

ED role discussion

• werent able to discuss
• paige: please everyone read document that patrik wrote, and the document pallavi wrote. to be prepared for next meeting.

smash in door

• talk about keycard tear out and late night pounding on monday. happened a couple a months ago
• patrik: we have camera now?
  • paige: not set up to record
  • silver: could make it accessible by phone
  • yar: if we are worried about surveillance, anything connected to internet will be used by police and ice. if just records to SD card is safer
  • alex: still could request it
  • yar: its another step
  • patrik: if encrypted then extra step
• paige: the hard part is what do you do with footage once you have it? jake gave example, like even if we can see the person, nothing actionable in that case.
• ruby: i am a building manager, one concern with cameras. very time consuming to sort through footage. then question of what do you do with it. one thing - is put a peephole. not same as able to check in on phone.
• paige: current camera is pretty much a peephole
  • yar: just more destructible
  • toan: there is a camera on southeast corner apartment.
  • yar: apartment there have no say on the footage handing out.
• patrik: im okay with recording
  • yar: i think it was agreed before on recording. as long as not connected to internet. can be anywhere
  • silver: i buzz people in, so i like internet connected one so i can see if its actually that person but ya concern about police and ice
• silver: what about other entrances, do we have keys to those?
  • toan: those are exit only
• decide no need to vote, will record camera footage to sd, completely local, no internet connection.

• alex: will this all get ripped out late? discussion in sudo room, of what we do ourselves. requiring locks isnt the same as requiring a company to manage the locks. if we do this work now, might not have to be ripped out.
• patrik: 5 in 1 system, $99/lock.
• alex: probably a subscription?
• patrik: ya would not be surprised

change to wheelchair lift

• Need to make sure wheelchair lift is actually usable
• silver: velvet rope
  • yar: if you find it ill install it

Mimouna event? April 30

• yar: i think we should offer it free
• natalie: i can offer that tomorrow
• yar: its important to me
• natalie: i would prioritize events like that. we should be choosy and picky with who comes to events, i dont see this as a pattern for everyone, i think it makes sense to do it for ethos.
• alex: how do we find out about events?
• natalie: airtable, if requested events working group can share info
• yar: identified themselves as jewish swana group. Fundraiser for aroc - arab resource and organizing center. the concern is its on a tuesday, and has to be on a tuesday, and we would have to ask fusion dance to move, maybe to the disco room. they are one of our most loyal groups
  • jenny: fusion dance has historically been flexible if we give sufficient notice
• natalie: phil asked them and they said they are fine. would be a really big group,
• natalie: 30% pretty standard ask given my experience in event rentals.
• yar: we are also competing with other venues who might offer it for free given how important

End of Meeting

• please archive these meeting notes by copying the entire pad contents onto the omni wiki at https://omnicommons.org/wiki
• then please erase the contents of this pad
• then please cut & paste a blank template from here: https://omnicommons.org/mediawiki/index.php?title=Delegates_Meeting_Notes_Template&action=edit
• previous notes are archived here: https://omnicommons.org/wiki/Meetings