Governance/Proposal

From Omni Commons
Revision as of 11:11, 1 June 2014 by Tunabananas (talk | contribs) (created first draft of proposal + feedback)
(diff) ← Older revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)
Jump to navigation Jump to search

The Omni can be a "people's organization" in that: the people who use it also own it and run it

To this end, Omni strives to run almost entirely by consensus and doocracy. The representative body detailed below exists for making Decisions when consensus cannot be reached. Its designed to uphold our values of building and maintaining commons, reflecting a political vision one that privileges a more equitable commoning of resources and meeting of human needs over private interests or corporate profit.

Member-groups of the Omni Oakland Collective [OOC] shall each have one voting delegate. These delegates comprise the representative voting body of the OOC. It's proposed that member-groups meet the following basic requirements pursuant to upholding the values of the OOC:

  • Non-profit
  • Provides public benefit through sharing of space, resources and/or services with the Omni Commons
  • Open membership model (?)

1. Member-groups (full voting privileges, meet qualifications)

  • Bay Area Public School[1]
  • Counter Culture Labs
  • Food Not Bombs
  • OMNIdance
  • Sudo Room

2. PROSPECTIVE MEMBERS (no voting privileges yet, determining qualifications, applying to join)


Projects of the OOC do not have a voting delegate, but rather, function as autonomous sub-projects of the OOC. Projects must be non-profit in nature in order to contribute to tax-exempt income of the OOC. Upon receipt of 501c3 status, 7-10% of all donations to any single Project are donated in turn to the OOC.

1. Fiscally-sponsored Projects (half voting privileges (?), meet special qualifications for project-based membership)

2. PROSPECTIVE PROJECTS (no voting privileges, determining qualifications, and/or applying to join)

  • Oakland Nights Live
  • As-yet-unnamed Celluloid Film Collective
  • Contemporary Art Museum of Oakland
  • Creative Empowerment Project

Business partners of the OOC do not have a voting delegate, but rather, function as autonomous business partners of the OOC. Businesses must be worker-owned cooperatives (?) to fit within the values of the OOC. Total contributions must not exceed more than 30% of the OOC's income in order to maintain our non-profit status[2].

3. Business Partners (no voting privileges, meet qualifications for business sub-lease, fit within 30% of OOC income[3])

  • Backspace
  • La Commune Cafe and Bookstore
  • Peak Agency
  • Timeless, Infinite Light

[1] As BAPS is officially an unincorporated association, it is up to us to determine its non-profit nature, or put it in the category of Project. [2] Uncertain about this requirement, since sub-leasing space to aligned groups is part of OOC's mission as articulated in our Articles of Incorporation. [3] Going with a Mutual Benefit non-profit model (rather than Public Benefit) would waive this requirement

Feedback

Sudo Room

  • Should also articulate assurances, lease agreements etc for Business Partners
  • Another possibility is proportional representation
  • Strive to make decisions based on consensus of everyone present at meetings and on the mailing list; voting is a last resort
  • "Don't do anything that requires us to make a new rule." - Labitat's rule

OMNIdance

  • How to make space for your very real concerns about representing a Big Fat organization like Sudo Room, say, in relation to La Commune and Peak Agency? When all are equally dedicated to the project?
  • Is there a way for these groups who are very important to have some voting rights? some percentage, or some other format?
  • Or might their be tiers of involvement, as you mentioned? We are going through these very questions with OMNIdance, as well, as we are making its structure. this will be very interesting to work out, and feels important that people who are deeply dedicated to the project can be involved on a governance level, even if they do not appear to be "radical" or "collective"when seen in clear terms -- However, these categories are often more nuanced than how many are in the membership, while at the same time the membership # and individual mission MATTERS.
  • Sometimes the most radical thing is not the most obvious, and to be a Commons might actually mean to allow representation for the whole spectrum -- i know this is potentially very Obama-ish of me, but an ideal I am interested in experimenting with - how to have room for all visions? I think there will be a way - a list of criterion? that a group can circle (self determine) which ones apply?
  • I think it would be very important to have representation from all the groups somehow....I think the core values of the OMNI are being defined, and until we really deeply create our mission and core values, it is hard to make such a blanket statement about who upholds the core values.....How is this defined and who determines this except the group already