Editing Meeting Notes 2014 01 21

Pay to recharge fire extinguishers. AL: 1 in 4 change of having working fire extinguishers in an emergency. Tom: are we in violation? Robin: what will it cost? Q: how have the current fire extinguishers? AL: Trash can. ARI: what are your findings? Ron: How often do they need to be recharged? We should keep them up to date. Kevin: Al is chairing the safety committee at NB. J.C. I propose an amendment that we include 200 per year for fire safety maintenance, as a base line. Al agrees with amendment. Tom: not to exceed x number of dollars and after having a collection. AL: I would prefer having the treasurer write the check.

J.C. should we include steps to handle harassment? Tom: There are directions elsewhere on the wiki; it may not need to be articulated in the policy. I would prefer not to have that conversation derail the adoption of the policy that has been generally agreed on at this point. J.C. should we outline a reporting system. Hanna: I think that having an explicit reporting system may create further hardships or a hard time if they do not follow the procedure correctly to report being harassed. Ari: it would create additional hardship for the victims of harassment. J.C. and anyone can ask anyone to leave. Tom: it creates an indisputable no grey area situation where a member/AM can ask someone to leave. V: are the harassed obligated to report TOM/Madelynn: No, but they are encouraged.  

AL: Dante used a sharpie to write on the bathroom walls. People asked him to leave and he was cussing people out. Eventually he left when the police were going to be called J.C. Has there been mediation? Madelynn: Dante has made it clear that he is not interested in mediation. David: It isn't fair to ban him without his presence. Madelynn: we have made it clear that we would be speaking about him. He has chosen not to attend. Q: Do we know that is was him for certain: A few respond yes. Howard: He became very aggressive when confronted with it. J.C.: I don't think that writing on the walls is grounds for life time ban. Ari: my knowledge of this person is in connection with his vandalism. What does he do in the space? Al: we can use the generic language. He wrote over artwork in the bathroom that was in progress and with offensive language. V: What was the obscenity? Ronald: I can show you. J.C. Tom: I agree that writing on the wall is not always vandalism but in this case it is of the vandalism variety. Writing over a piece of artwork that someone is working on is the behavior of a jerk. Q: He isn't adding to the space. Tom: he has not made an attempt to communicate with us or attend the meetings. My perception is that he doesn't want to be here. Robin: Dante isn't even a member; he is using this space for eating his burgers. There isn't much of a reason for us to bend over backward to keep him in the space. J.C. I think he does care about the community and needs a chance. Madelynn: I am okay with the change of wording. I am okay with the wait. We have people who are vouching for him. He is not welcome except at the meetings until this time. So if after 4 weeks this passes, this is fine. Ron: When did you get this information that Dante was not available? J.C. (Explains) Robin: Dante said that it was okay for the restroom to look like a public restroom. David: I think there is enough evidence for a temporary ban. Monad: His behavior was offensive. That alone should be reason to carry this through. Hanna: I think the way he responded when asked to leave was unacceptable. We are banning him because he is a jerk and changing the text is minor. AL: I don't feel strongly about the language, but the 2 week consensus process is how we do this.

J.C. We should reach out to this person. We don't have to just have a process of someone messes up then two weeks they are gone. We can give this a week. There is a proposal to not allow proposals with wording changes and we should apply this spirit to this process: Robin: He verbally abused people, refused to leave, Ari: I propose an exception, you are banned, but you have a friend who will sponsor you to come to a meeting and get you un banned. Hanna: if the issue is procedural then why don't we go with the current language since the vandalism is what led to his bad behavior. David: I don't think that people should be excluded in absentia. I will contact the guy and work to give him an opportunity to come back. Madelynn: I want to work with J.C. here. I don't see a problem with waiting a week. He cannot be in the space until next Tuesday. We have someone willing to find him. J.C. Shall we just move away from the vandalism.

Change the wording to the standard working, give a week to contact him and come here, he cannot come until next Tuesday, and then we have the consensus on banning him. If Hanna: Can we have language that if he does not show up next Tuesday, then he is automatically banned and we do not discuss it further. AL: (Explains what he wrote)

AL: Is anyone blocking my existing language? J.C. I will, if force to. Hanna: Are you okay with my proposal? J.C. it is pushing too far into the future. We could just go through the standard process. Let's just have the discussion next week. Tom: The modification that is most respectful of the people who will have the next discussion. It reduces the discussion for next meeting. I think he should be banned until next week and then indefinite unless he shows. J.C. Why not use the typical language; it is essentially the same thing. Hanna: I am offering a friendly amendment so that we can end this discussion now. Kevin: I believe that the theoretical underpinning of J.C.'s concern is that there is a J.C.: explains that he is not able to make decisions at the moment. Tom: Let's take a break. J.C. (Stands aside.)