|
Grex > Coop13 > #78: Agenda: Grex BOD Meeting on Monday, January 19th | |
|
| Author |
Message |
mary
|
|
Agenda: Grex BOD Meeting on Monday, January 19th
| 
Jan 10 14:51 UTC 2004 |
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. |
mary
|
|
response 1 of 37:
|
Jan 10 15:08 UTC 2004 |
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.
|
remmers
|
|
response 2 of 37:
|
Jan 10 15:56 UTC 2004 |
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.
|
ryan
|
|
response 3 of 37:
|
Jan 10 16:46 UTC 2004 |
This response has been erased.
|
naftee
|
|
response 4 of 37:
|
Jan 10 17:20 UTC 2004 |
Yeah, that would be really simple, since none were made.
|
gull
|
|
response 5 of 37:
|
Jan 10 18:31 UTC 2004 |
Do later proposals just supercede earlier ones?
|
other
|
|
response 6 of 37:
|
Jan 10 18:50 UTC 2004 |
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.)
|
slynne
|
|
response 7 of 37:
|
Jan 10 19:22 UTC 2004 |
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.
|
gelinas
|
|
response 8 of 37:
|
Jan 10 20:07 UTC 2004 |
(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_?)
|
slynne
|
|
response 9 of 37:
|
Jan 10 20:13 UTC 2004 |
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
|
gelinas
|
|
response 10 of 37:
|
Jan 10 20:25 UTC 2004 |
Thanks, Lynne. :)
|
richard
|
|
response 11 of 37:
|
Jan 10 21:57 UTC 2004 |
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.
|
naftee
|
|
response 12 of 37:
|
Jan 10 22:19 UTC 2004 |
HEY SLYNNE< DOES CROSS LIVE ON CROSS STREET?
|
willcome
|
|
response 13 of 37:
|
Jan 10 23:04 UTC 2004 |
Thanks, S. Lynne!
|
gull
|
|
response 14 of 37:
|
Jan 10 23:34 UTC 2004 |
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.
|
gelinas
|
|
response 15 of 37:
|
Jan 10 23:57 UTC 2004 |
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. ;)
|
willcome
|
|
response 16 of 37:
|
Jan 11 00:03 UTC 2004 |
;)
|
jep
|
|
response 17 of 37:
|
Jan 11 04:40 UTC 2004 |
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.
|
happyboy
|
|
response 18 of 37:
|
Jan 11 08:56 UTC 2004 |
bummer, i was hoping you'd steal my cookbook back from slynne
and mail it to me. :(
|
remmers
|
|
response 19 of 37:
|
Jan 11 14:55 UTC 2004 |
Re #6: I guess the main guidance I'm asking for is whether the votes
should be taken in series or in parallel.
|
cross
|
|
response 20 of 37:
|
Jan 11 16:40 UTC 2004 |
Parallel. It's unlikely that two conflicting proposals are both going to
be passed by a majority of the membership.
|
naftee
|
|
response 21 of 37:
|
Jan 11 20:48 UTC 2004 |
Parallel. That way there's no danger of the lights going out all at once.
|
janc
|
|
response 22 of 37:
|
Jan 12 02:22 UTC 2004 |
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.
|
jp2
|
|
response 23 of 37:
|
Jan 12 02:37 UTC 2004 |
This response has been erased.
|
janc
|
|
response 24 of 37:
|
Jan 12 03:07 UTC 2004 |
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.
|