response 78 of 220:

Feb 3 23:12 UTC 1999

yeah maybe mary can work this out.  perhaps this woman just misinterpreted
the tone in Aruba's voice and had the misimpression that he harbored
negative or hostile thoughts toward her or about the situation, and as
some people will do, reacted to perceived hostility *with* hostility.

some people are more sensitive than others.  if mary talks to her woman to
woman, with a nice soothing friendly, non-hostile voice, perhaps she will
react differently.

response 80 of 220:

Feb 4 00:42 UTC 1999

Scott sent me mail to the effect that the power was measured sometime 
August 9th.  It must have been the date of the last change to the system that
was in July (or earlier).  I'm sure we didn't really use the extra power they
charged us for in August and September, but it might not be worth making a
big deal about to avoid paying for it.  Anyway, it's a bargaining chip.

response 82 of 220:

Feb 4 01:46 UTC 1999

FOIA requests only apply to documents generated by agencies of government.
They in no way apply to private business arrangements.

Perhaps her response was based on the belief that non-threatening means weak,
and that she could easily get what she wanted from Mark [and grex] by
intimidation.

I agree that finding a potential alternate home for Grex would be a good thing
to have done prior to any negotiation, but bear in mind that that can be a
double-edged sword.  If we bring it up the wrong way or at the wrong time,
it will negate any potential progress in building a workable long-term
relationship with FD.

response 84 of 220:

Feb 4 10:41 UTC 1999

This is another resounding example of why it's a good idea to keep extra
"rainy day" money in our coffers.  If we do end up having to move, could we
hold a pledge drive of some sort to deflate the impact on our savings?

response 86 of 220:

Feb 4 12:51 UTC 1999

At this point I'm trying to setup an appointment to meet with 
Mr. Watrous.  I'll keep everyone updated.

I have no reason to believe Mark wasn't a fine choice to work
with this project.  More than fine.  But he is showing signs
of sanity by saying "no" once in a while and saving a little
time and energy for non-Grex projects.  He already does too 
much and everytime I see him take on yet something else I
feel a little guilty he was asked.

Now that I've said this... Mark, can I come buy a pick up 
a copy of our proof of 501(c)3?  Like today?  ;-)

response 88 of 220:

Feb 4 13:16 UTC 1999

Yep, I'll bet we can pull off a move with extra donations if FD remains
unreasonable.  I'll contribute.

response 90 of 220:

Feb 4 23:22 UTC 1999

I was able to meet with Ms. Watrous earlier today and I think I
have good news to report.  It went well.

The terms of the proposed lease go like this:

1. Our rent will go up 5%, from $60 to $63 per month.  It is for
one year, from June 1, 1999 through May 31, 2000.  The lease is
renewable for 5 additional years, with a rent increase of 5% each
year.  She said the standard "give notice not to renew" period is
90 days prior to the end of the lease.  I made the case that this
would really be a problem for us, that everything goes through
the users, staff, a Board, and Ameritech, and 90 days notice could
be a disaster.  I asked if she'd allow us to keep our 4 month notice,
and she agreed, without hesitation.  

2. I asked if our paying for utilities based on our measurements concerned
her.  But before she could even answer the question I said it might help
if I could explain some about Grex's mission.  Which I did, emphasizing
how we are kept alive by talented folks who feel computer access shouldn't
be just for those who can afford to buy service.  That we are into helping
the community without any fee for the services offered and our funding
comes from donations. It is these same good-hearted volunteers who measure
how much power our equipment draws and I sincerely doubt they would be
into trying to pull a fast one over an electric bill.  She agreed, said
she had had no idea what we were about, and that we should continue to
measure our own use as we have been.  I asked if she'd rather lump our
electric and rent payment into one rent payment.  She thought for a
moment, then went out of the room to consult with their accountant.  When
she came back she said they'd prefer to have it show up as separate
amounts, with us paying a smaller rent payment. 

I gave her a copy of our IRS letter stating we are 501(c)3 status
to backup my comments about Grex.  She gave the letter to her
accountant.  I suggested their renting to a 501(c)3 might relieve
some of their tax burden.  Don't know.  It is at this point I'd
like to once again thank Jan for getting us our 501 status.  I 
know it helped here.  

I explained about how our equipment is on all the time, so our power use
is pretty easy to calculate.  That whenever we upgrade to newer hardware
we have a good chance of using less power.  And that is exactly what
happened last August, when we checked our use and started sending less
for electric.  I said I'd like to settle up that disputed amount to keep
our record clean and she said that wouldn't be necessary.  I
stated that if (when) additional equipment is installed we'd meter
the increased draw and start including that amount promptly.  I also
said that if at any time there is concern on her part that we aren't
paying for what we use we'd agree to have an independent measurement
taken.  She said she doubts that would every happen, that she's 
comfortable accepting our measurements.  Anyhow, I felt comfortable
making these statements on Grex's behalf.  If I was wrong anywhere 
I need to be corrected, pronto, and get back to her.

I asked who would be signing as the landlord or landlord's
legal agent.  She said she will be signing.

I plan to pickup the lease, with the details as above, next
Wednesday morning.  She understands this needs to be 
discussed with those using the system, the staff, and the Board.
But I thought having a tangible contract in our hands would be
the best way to approach the discussion.  She knows our next Board
meeting is on February 23rd and that is the earliest we could have
it signed.

The bulk of the contract is just about a scary as any other
lease I've ever read that was written by a lawyer making
$200 an hour. ;-)  But it's a stock lease.  I asked if
it in any way varied from what their other tenants have signed,
she said no, that it was a standard lease, the same one they
signed for their rented (Hogback Road) office space, and that
everyone is our building is or would be signing the same
document.  I would like to get all of it online for folks to
read but I'm hoping someone has a scanner to do the job.  Anyone?

There was a bit of small talk about working in an ER, the YK2
problem, etc.  But I left feeling it was a good meeting, with 
lots of information going both ways.

If I think about anything else (not in my notes) I'll add it
as it comes.

response 92 of 220:

Feb 5 00:45 UTC 1999

Ditto.  I have no problem with an agreement along the lines outlined here.

response 94 of 220:

Feb 5 03:21 UTC 1999

If the deal is as Mary described it, I think we should sign as soon as
possible, in case it changes.

response 96 of 220:

Feb 5 11:59 UTC 1999

Ditto.

The lease should be an agenda item for the February board meeting.
Hopefully everyone will have had a chance to read it by then. As Mary
indicated, if someone has a scanner to facilitate producing an online
copy, that would be much appreciated.

response 98 of 220:

Feb 5 18:31 UTC 1999

Much thanks to Mary, excellent note taking!

response 100 of 220:

Feb 5 22:39 UTC 1999

read the small print!  people have lost their livelihoods by signing
leases and not reading the small print.  In fact grex should have
a lawyer read the lease just to be safe.

response 102 of 220:

Feb 6 03:34 UTC 1999

It is my understanding that the renewal, each year, is automatic
unless either party gives written notice of the intent not to renew.
This notice would need to be given a minimum of 4 months prior, or by
January 31st, each year. But this is a good example of why we need to
have the completed (filled in) lease in our possession while it is 
being discussed.  I'll have it Wednesday.

Ms. Watrous had a printout of our payments in front of her during 
our discussion, but I think it was for 1998, and therefore didn't
show the recent 5% increase.  But I called her today and left a
message so she would be aware of our current amount.  We have been
in the pumpkin a number of years now, without our rent budging a 
dime.  I personally don't think we should nickel and dime anyone
over a 5% increase that will start 7 months early.  It would be
a good will gesture to let it be.

I'll get the blank lease to Valerie and Jan tomorrow so everyone can get a
look at it.  One item is going to cause us to take a deep breath, but I
knew it was coming.  We're going to need indemnity insurance.  This is
standard.  We've just been lucky up to this point that our contracts have
been so, er, casual.  We could try to obtain a waiver but I seriously
doubt this will fly - it would shift additional liability to the landlord. 
Someone should start looking into what this costs.  I'll help by calling
Dobson McComber, on Monday, and ask about commercial tenant policies. 

Here is the section I'm referring to:

     TENANT TO INDEMNIFY.  Tenant agrees to indemnify and hold
harmless Landlord from any liability for damages to any person
or property in, on or around said leased premises from any cause
whatsoever;  and Tenant will procure and keep in effect during
the term hereof, public liability and property damage insurance 
for benefit of Landlord in the sum of One Million ($1,000,000.00)
Dollars for damages resulting to one person, One Million 
($1,000,000.00) Dollars for damages resulting from one casualty,
and One Million ($1,000,000.00) Dollars property damage insurance
resulting from any one occurrence.  Tenant shall deliver said policies
or certificates to Landlord, and upon Tenant's failure so to do,
Landlord may at its option obtain such insurance, and the cost
thereof shall be paid as additional rent due and payable upon the
next ensuing rent day.  Such insurance may be part of a blanket policy
covering other properties issued by a company licensed to do 
business in Michigan.

So, it's not a done deal yet.  I think the best response is
"So far, so good, let's get more information."