Differences

This shows you the differences between two versions of the page.

--- meetings:2025-10-05 [2025/10/06 01:36] – [Agenda Item 1] jessimunn
+++ meetings:2025-10-05 [2025/10/06 02:33] (current) – [New business] jessimunn
@@ Line 129: / Line 129: @@
 Jessi: Second \\
 \\
--0-0
+-0-0 MOTION PASSES
+===== Agenda Item 2 =====
+(Rowan) Labor Proposals
+Rowan: Both parts of these things work together, but my goal is to reduce the number of lumps to run things smoothly. I want kitchen labor to fit around schedules more smoothly. I emailed out a document and put it on Slack. we don't need to institute each of these. I'd like to try to focus on the pros and cons of each of these. this is about the solutions not the problems. I'd like to allow cooks to serve dinner anytime between 6-8 PM M-F. Secondly, allow dish/MC to be done at 8 AM 3 remind people that they can do dishes throughout the day. finally designate flex cooking--where people can cook whenever they want. then we want to reduce the number of lumps required ... combine the flex labors into completed monthly. meeting Chair and minutes permanent rotation -- would eliminate the officer positions.
+David: is the goal to cut down the amount of lumps?
+Rowan: yes. and make sure essential labor gets done.
+Mae: combining the 4 things to do what?
+Paul: at LaRe we allow dinner clean up to happen until 4 am. and we also have what you're proposing for minutes and chair. assigned position for what are legal proceedings and eviction process--whoever is comfortable. and we choose the facilitator at the beginning of each meeting.
+Rowan: the kitchen cleaning labor happens until 6 am but it's hard on people for scheduling
+Jessi:
+Rowan: def DB should be done within 2 hours
+Owen: each one of these is their own proposal and measure. there are certain parts where I don't even have my head wrapped around what this is, since it's each of these is their own proposal
+motion to extend
+Jessi:
+Rowan: I'm not entirely against removing one day of cooking. I wouldn't be for 3, but one. it would have to be a change for all of our projects.
+Paul: currently there's no food allowed in the commons while we have the rat problem. we also have a rule where the food has to be put up in 2 hours
+Mae: about the 8 vs 6 dishes. we talked about this a number of times, but I don't see how this is a problem to get this done. we'd have to get that done. I hear people coming and going all night. I think it can get done at that time
+Rowan: I guess the reality is I have a hard time to fill that position. i'm trying to get that filled
+Ruth: i'm in favor of the ultimate goal. the ways, i'm not a big fan of all of them. one thing we've had a rough time, but we've been better lately. i've felt like meals and food are consistent still and are valuable for the community. I am not in favor of getting rid of meals for that reason. I recognize that it would be an easy way to get rid of Labor. it's too valuable to get rid of it. there are loads of other things we could do. I'm in favor of the outcome. specifically I like the idea of meeting chair not being an officer ship. then there are emergency meetings and membership reviews that we could....there are so many proposals that there are some of them that I like and don't like. i meant minutes before and then I feel similarly for chair. i'd like to talk about them each individually. but that's not very quick we don't do quick here
+David: merging of the positions is a good idea. I think MC and DB should be separate because of cross contamination.
+Eevee: i'd like to talk about Rowan's thing and Jessi's. I'd like to largely concur with what Ruth said. the meals are a large part of why i'm here. rowan's adjustment on timing of dishes would be helpful for me.
+Jessi:
+Rowan: the rotation: my thinking when I was writing these up was to reduce the time spending on labor, but if we were to do that, i'd like to make that a permanent thing so people would need less reminders. that's basically like 5.5 or 6 lumps forever. i'm hearing that we should discuss these things one at a time.
+Mae: I'd like to thank you Rowan for thinking of these things and organizing these. i'd like to breakdown the whole structure and reorganize everything. I do think we should tackle one thing at a time. i'm in favor of the 6 or 630 kitchen has to be totally clean
+Ruth: extend
+-0-1
+Ruth: the reason I think it's kinda hard to vote on any of this is that these are things that need to fit together or make the most sense when they fit together and people have other ideas that are alternatives. I think the thing to do to move forward is to decide on how this conversation continues outside the meeting and will be most productive.
+Rowan: I still wanted to do this today but I didn't hear any alternatives. if we want to talk about what we want to approve, let's talk about that...
+Owen: maybe we could use Slack for furthering this discussion. I can commit to researching this to help Olivia implement the issue by issue discussion. maybe we could look for each of these issues separately and put our $.02 in to push collaboration
+Eevee: if we could somehow schedule labor seminar, that would be great. maybe around the same time as labor holiday
+David: I propose Rowan make a grouping of motions and
+Rowan: I don't feel like i've seen a lot of success discussing serious issues on slack because things can get kinda combative and can go down rabbit holes. I don't feel excited doing it online. for a lot of policy changes people have written comments physically on the paper and people can also type up their own proposals
+David: I think we're tossing out old channels. if it's already there, we're in a weird place. I think we can move forward with the channels that are there. resend them out and work with what we have.
+Corey: I think there's a lot of talking about how we're going to talk about this. maybe it would be useful to set aside a Sunday meeting where we only go line item by line item. these kinds of discussions can and do happen. I'd like to see you get some progress on this. we need to work on building something here.
+Rowan: it's getting kinda frustrating that everyone has problems with no solutions. people have a lot of nos but not a lot of yesses.
+Owen: I've seen a whole bunch of coops of higher and lower maturity and one of the things i'd like to keep giving voice to is to keep giving more. what can I step in and do? there's always a good thing in companies--come with at least one solution. it shows you're committed to the group vs individual . part of going through this process is increasing the slevelof personal responsibility and doing it at the level of group.
 <pagemod addagenda output_before>
@@ Line 140: / Line 212: @@
 ====== New business ======
+\\
+Ruth: I don't know if you read something that Fay sent out, I'd encourage you to read it and would encourage discussion at a not-meeting time.
+Owen: this is going to come up on the meeting on Thursday. In essence, she's going to ask for a Mutual Termination Agreement. There's a whole lot of discussion around this and I'd like to say I feel like myself and other officers in the house, Fay's withdraw type of communication has created a lot of frustration and uncertainty around the room swaps or staying/going situation. contribution on a maintenance level has some confusion. I don't feel on all of those levels that Fay has acted in good faith and it has caused extra work for getting things done in a productive way. when everyone looks at this, is to not take the request for Mutual Termination as anything higher than a house-level discussion. and I'm all for having individual concessions based on individual circumstances. i've done a lot of thought and timeline work on this--i don't think her withdraw from of communication on this is in good faith.
+David: I think this proposal was expertly written but may have been written with others and seemed pretty legal-ese. this seemed like a trojan horse.
+Rowan: I think ending the contract would probably be what's best for everyone. I don't think keeping someone here is a recipe for disaster. accommodations is interesting since the ... the reinstating should...anyone who leaves should have to use the same system like they have for everyone else.
+Corey: It sounds like this is something the Board is going to be talking about. and this is something that the Board is something that we're not really privy to. I want people to try and focus on what happened and if that constitutes a health and safety issue. what we did, and whether or not Fay is asking is appropriate remedy for the things that she's alleging. keep that in mind and that's what the board is going to look at most. if we're just seeing someone go "my room is making me sick and I need this agreement to make me leave" we do has a history of honoring those graceful exists funded by vacancy Reserve. you need to highlight what's different. please say so in writing or at the board meeting
+Owen: creating concessions for fay's request to leave. I agree with Rowan said, if someone wants to leave, let's work it out. and/but its at the level of a normal break in the lease for all the levels of the lease agreement, labor agreement, and whatever else gets reconciled. to be dealt with at the house level. at the CHEA level, I anticipate this will come up and I'll be there at the meeting to voice--since i'm carrying those projects forward.