Agenda: Grex Board of Directors Meeting
Monday, January 19th
1. 7:00 p.m. Opening Gavel Tap
2. Election of Officers
3. Treasurer's Report
4. Staff Report
5. New Grex Update
6. Adding New Staff
4. Renewing Grex's Lease
8. Schedule Next Meeting
9. New Business
10. Closing Gavel Tap
The meeting will be held at Lynne Fremont's home (slynne).
More people will probably find it if I let her enter the
directions..
Even though the meetings are now being held in users/
board members' homes, they are still very much open to
anyone who'd care to attend.
37 responses total.
Number four should be a number seven. Sorry. The Adding New Staff bit is my idea. A couple of people have indicated, recently, they'd be willing to help out on staff. It is staff's call. But I'd like to make sure this information gets considered at one of the next staff meetings. The renewing Grex's lease thing is boiler plate stuff. We have one more year left to simply renew before we'll need to negotiate a whole new lease. We need to notify our landlord, in writing, of our intent, before February 1st. I don't know if any of the current uproar over Valerie's actions belong on the agenda. My feeling is no. But if others disagree, it will be added.
As voteadm, I'd appreciate some guidance from the board about how to handle, procedurally, the three conflicting member proposals that are now on the table.
This response has been erased.
Yeah, that would be really simple, since none were made.
Do later proposals just supercede earlier ones?
I'd say yes. If conflicting proposals pass, the latest one supercedes the previous. That seems straightforward, since essentially the same constituency is voting on all proposals, and the conflicts merely represent the change of mind of the collective. I'm not sure what guidance you're asking for John. Each proposal should be handled as a separate issue, and as long as the wording is sufficiently clear that the population understands what their votes support, then it is merely a matter of going from point A to point B to point C. Of course, if there is no time limit for implementation built into a proposal, and there is a contravening proposal on the table, staff may be of a mind to delay implementation of proposal A until proposal B is decided upon... (Of course, if proposal C passes, it will be too late to affect the processes of the others. cmcgee may wish to replace her proposal with a bylaw modification proposal for suspension of rules under specific circumstances, but that's up to her.)
Directions to my house: 208 N. Grove St Ypsilanti 484-6852 (734)754-3773 - cell phone in case you get lost after Bruce has called in and the phone is tied up. Go EAST on Cross Street from Depot Town. Turn RIGHT on N. Grove St. If you hit Prospect, you have gone to far. My house will be about 3 blocks down on the left just before the RR tracks. The house number is somewhat hard to see in the dark but my house is easy to find anyways. It is the house closest to the train tracks. There are no houses across the street. Another way to come is from Michigan Ave. If you go EAST from downtown Ypsilanti, you want to turn LEFT onto N. Grove St. It is just past the car wash with the giant American flag. There is a Kluck's Drive-in on the corner. My house is the first house on the right after you cross the railroad tracks. If anyone would like specific directions from a certain location, please either email me or request them here.
(An interesting variant is proceeding east on Washtenaw. Cross is one-way, west bound, where it meets Washtenaw. I can probably find an easy way to Grove from that intersection, but can I find the _easiest_?)
One can take Washtenaw east bound until it ends at Huron St. They they can turn left on Huron and then right on Cross. This puts them at Depot Town. There are signs along this route directing one to Depot Town
Thanks, Lynne. :)
I don't think staff is going to effect any restoral, even a temporary one, of valerie and jep's posts, unless the board votes to order them to do so. So put it on the agenda and discuss it at least.
HEY SLYNNE< DOES CROSS LIVE ON CROSS STREET?
Thanks, S. Lynne!
Re resp:11: I actually don't think that's true. I think if there were a member vote to the effect that responses should be restored, staff would do it. I don't think it would have to come from the board. I'd actually rather not have the board setting policy about this.
Further, the current proposals will not be voted on before the board meeting. Therefore, any action the board could take in response to them would be pre-mature. It'll probably be a topic of discussion, but I don't think it needs to be on the agenda because no formal action should be taken. (For the grammar geeks among us, that last verb is an optative. ;)
;)
I don't expect the Board will be making directive decisions about the item-deleting controversy. The Board of Grex tends to follow user opinion rather than lead it. As there are user proposals on the table right now, I expect the Board's role to be to observe what the users decide. However, because of that controversy and my interest in it, I really regret I can't make it to this Board meeting.
bummer, i was hoping you'd steal my cookbook back from slynne and mail it to me. :(
Re #6: I guess the main guidance I'm asking for is whether the votes should be taken in series or in parallel.
Parallel. It's unlikely that two conflicting proposals are both going to be passed by a majority of the membership.
Parallel. That way there's no danger of the lights going out all at once.
Proposal A: restore JEP's items and Valerie's items Proposal B: don't restore JEP's items Vote simultaneously. Where there is a conflict the more specific proposal rules. Thus: A passes and B passes: restore only Valerie's item. A passes and B fails: restore both items A fails and B passes: restore neither A fails and B fails: restore only JEP's item. This is sensible enough, but kind of confusing for voters. It would be nicer if it could be restructured into two separate votes, one on JEP's items on on Valerie's items.
This response has been erased.
Explain your logic on the "A fail/B fail" case. General law is that a more specific rule overrides a more general one. And you can't write a law that says no other law may override it. If you could, proposal B could be written the same way.
This response has been erased.
Jamie, B can also be phrased so even if A passes, it's overridden. I don't think it's necessary. I don't think both proposals are going to pass. re resp:22: It is not an obvious consequence that, if my proposal fails, then my items are automatically restored. It seems to me, in that event, someone would still have to make a decision to restore my items. If I were on the staff, in that case, I think I'd wait for direction from the users or Board to restore them. I am not asking the users whether my items should be restored; a choice between two actions. I am asking them to direct that they not be restored; a "yes" or "no" on whether to take an action.
I don't want to use any tricks. I am hoping the users will decide to give me a break, clear and simple. I am going to rely on their compassion and sense of what is right.
This response has been erased.
This response has been erased.
I'm not trying to "outlegislate" you. You're probably right, I couldn't if I wanted to. I do hope to prevail when these issues come to the vote.
It's gonna be an interesting night.
It's gonna be an interesting FIGHT
BOO YEAH'" I WONDER IF THERE WILL BE TEAMS"
Jamie, you you can write a law that can't be overriden by another, then you'll be the first person in the history of the human race to do so.
This response has been erased.
Some laws certainly specify high standards for overturning them. The US Constitution certainly does this. In those cases it's generally useful to have some sort of framework saying what laws can set such a standard and what can't, but that framework has to come from somewhere. While I'm aware of lots of Internet protocols that explicitly specify that a more specific rule overrides a less specific rule, I'm not aware of this being a general legal concept. Maybe it is -- I'm certainly not an expert on such things -- but I don't recall ever hearing that. When I've dealt with lawyers on writing contracts they've generally wanted to get really specific, spelling out exactly what would happen in various possible situations. My impression is that even where it's fairly obvious what ought to happen in a given situation, writing it down and making sure it's agreed to in advance is seen as a low cost way to avoid disputes later. I'd suggest that each of these proposals, before they get voted on, be ammended to contain language specifying what happens is both proposals pass. If there's a desire to have one proposal take precedence over the other, both proposals should say that.
TROGG IS DAVID BLAINE
You have several choices: