09/2017 Board Meeting Minutes
- 1 Agenda
- 2 Attendance
- 3 Notes
- 3.1 (1) Membership full vs provisional
- 3.2 (2) Board expectations re: laser proposal
- 3.3 (3) Bylaws
- 3.4 (4) Laser upgrade
- 3.5 (5) Member behavior discussion
Add your topics here. Please provided links to any materials or documents needed so that participants can prepare:
Format: Topic description - Is vote needed? - Presenter - Time in minutes - links
- Membership full vs provisional - Vote needed - Renee - 15 min - links
- In the current process, provisional members nominate themselves as full members, and then are supposed to be voted in by other full members. This is slow and annoying.
- There are two alternatives to discuss:
- Automatically convert all provisional members to full members after 90 days (this is the easiest for me, but then also doesn't let people opt in to taking on the responsibility of voting, so our voting turnout will be even worse than it is)
- Continue to have provisional members nominate themselves as full members, but then run voting as a ratified-unless-someone-voices-an-objection process.
- Board expectations re: laser proposal - No vote needed - Pierre - 20 min- link to questions
- The board would like to talk to Crafty (and any other officers who would like to be present) about expectations for the board regarding approving/denying budget change proposals
- Bylaws update - Vote needed - Nicole - 15 min - link to bylaw updates
- Approve bylaws updates to send to lawyer
- Laser upgrade - No vote needed - Pierre - 20 min
- Continue slack discussion about the laser upgrade project
- Member behavior discussion - Vote might be required - Pierre 15 min
- Continue slack discussion about the member behavior issue reported by Crafty
Nicole Scherm, Pierre Grandin, Jacob LaBay, Marc Johnsen, Kat Smith, Rachel Sadd/Crafty Rachel
(1) Membership full vs provisional
Renee - 10 min
In the current process, provisional members nominate themselves as full members, and then are supposed to be voted in by other full members. This is slow and annoying. There are two alternatives to discuss:
RG: I would like change “majority voters required to become full member” to “majority voters required to block full member”
RS: Then it would require a LOT of people to be pissed off in order to block someone’s full membership
RG, PG: Hmmm….
RS: Shiny Rachel had a proposal to have a membership committee of trusted full members to approve full membership applicants
NS: That sounds good.
PG, Proposed change:
OLD "Full membership is granted after having been voted in by a quorum of full members with current dues by simple majority vote no less than 30 days after having made the provisional membership application."
NEW "Full membership is granted after having been voted in by a quorum of members from the membership admission committee for applicants with current dues by simple majority vote no less than 30 days after having made the provisional membership application. The membership admission committee is composed of volunteers appointed by the board."
(2) Board expectations re: laser proposal
The board would like to talk to Crafty (and any other officers who would like to be present) about expectations for the board regarding approving/denying budget change proposals
NS: Board is frustrated at having to make a $3k decision about the laser budget in a 2-day window
RS: Current agreement asks that board provides eyeballs on Slack within 48 hours for any proposal made by officers, but it hasn’t been broken down to the difference between things that require a vote and things that do not require a vote. I ask for a vote more than I am required to in the interest of being ethical. There are two kinds of operational scenarios: (1) short window of when something can be implemented at all or some other thing driving the decision, like a time limit before an opportunity passes and (2) other factors, like dependencies on other programs that require this particular vote or contracts that rest on a vote being made, both of which have more lenient windows than case 1. With short-timed things or things that impact pre-existing dates, we don’t have that window and we have to make decisions quickly. Just because a window is short, does not mean the board cannot defer a decision, even if it means passing up a potential opportunity.
KS: If a motion is deferred, there needs to be a time limit on the deferral
RS: I’m thinking there needs to be (a) a set time for the deferral (ie “7 extra days” instead of “I need more time”) and (b) a reason for the deferral (“we need [xxx] information”)
RS: Do you want to know why I asked for that 48-hour decision, or do you want to discuss how we will do that in the future?
PG: I think both
RS: I don’t think it’s fair to address both. I am happy to have a feedback conversation about my past actions, but I don’t want to have a disciplinary meeting now.
PG: That was not my intent.
RS: Oh, ok, no one asked for extra time or extra information, and our existing agreement was for 48 hours’ oversight window.
NS: How do we know if you are proposing a vote to be polite or if a vote is required?
RS: When I ask the board to vote on things that I am not required to ask for a vote on, it’s because I want to create a culture of openness and give the board an opportunity for oversight. I can’t override you, but I also don’t even have to ask you in the first place.
KS: Clarification: If RS is asking the board to vote out of courtesy, how does the board know that they can say no?
RS: According to Article 3 Section 3 of the bylaws, the job of the board is to supervise the officers, and by asking for a vote, I am asking you to supervise. There is no documentation or policy anywhere regarding what sorts of things the President MUST solicit a vote for. If such a policy existed, I would abide by it. When things are significant and I think it’s absolutely important to get your [the board’s] vote, I will do so. There are expenses that are of a similar caliber that I am not asking for a vote on because they are required by building codes.
PG: My question is answered!
RS: If you put together a list of information you need when I ask for a vote, I am happy to provide that, such as what the window of opportunity looks like, etc
NS: I think it’s easy enough for us to ask for further information, but I think we would like to have more clarification on timing constraints for decisions that require a vote.
RS: 2 weeks seems like it’s right at the edge of both the board’s comfort zone and my comfort zone.
Approve bylaws updates to send to lawyer
NS: Has anyone looked over my changes or what to update anything?
PG: I updated the membership vote line in Article 13 Section 3
(review of bylaw updates ensues; some conversation about legal and logical conflicts)
PG: RS, it seems like you know this stuff better than we do; can we solicit your help to review this?
RS: That’s a lot of work, but sure, I can do it!
NS: I can do the work if you will sit with me and point things out
RS: I am happy to be your collaborative partner on this! You will pay less in legal fees if there are fewer changes.
(4) Laser upgrade
Pierre - 20 min
Continue slack discussion about the laser upgrade project
PG: We wanted to continue the discussion from Slack regarding the status of the laser
RS: Do you want to know what’s happened so far, or do you want to know what happens next?
PG: I know what’s happened, but I don’t know about the rest of the board
NS: I would like to know both
RS: The company came to upgrade and ended up replacing the controller, which was bad. The 110V power supply was corroded and was replaced, the high voltage power supply was aged out and replaced, a lot of belts and bearings were replaced. Not as much maintenance was able to be completed because the wiring was a mess, which got cleaned up. Potential donation of a 40W high speed laser and AMT is invited for a <10-person tour of their facility. Cost ~$1700, mostly material costs. Various members also cleaned out the laser. The repairman was impressed that the laser was still running! Then, electrical had to be upgraded to support the laser better. We worked with an electrician because that makes it easier to pull permits and ensure the work is done properly.
RS: We need to pass inspection, we need a fob box, and we need curriculum/training. All laser certifications will have an expiration date of 45 days, but in order to keep the existing laser certifications, people will need to take a 20-minute refresher course and pass a test.
PG: What is the timeline?
RS: We don’t have a timeline because we don’t have any volunteers for the fob box
PG: What about without the fob box?
RS: I haven’t scheduled anything because I have a lot going on
PG: What do we need to make the inspection go smoothly?
RS: We could have a well-informed member accompany the City inspector, or we could pay the electrician to accompany the City inspector. I think it’s ~$200, but let’s verify.
PG: What about the fob box?
RS: Ray is committed to supporting the hardware side, but he is not a software person. I am open to allowing members to use the laser on a limited basis IF they commit to filling out a survey with feedback each time.
RS: Other things that need to be done: ventilation switching to the tune of $5k. Also, Safer DIY Spaces has accepted us to get a city-grade inspection to identify any potential violations.
(5) Member behavior discussion
Pierre - 15 min
Continue Slack discussion about the member behavior issue reported by Crafty
(A discussion occurred, but since these minutes are public, and this issue concerns a current member, the details of the discussion will remain confidential)