Changes

== For Posterity==

== For Posterity ==

Because the email forum can just eat history like a black hole... --[[User:Lucas|Lucas]] ([[User talk:Lucas|talk]]) 20:44, 25 April 2015 (CDT)

Because the email forum can just eat history like a black hole... --[[User:Lucas|Lucas]] ([[User talk:Lucas|talk]]) 20:44, 25 April 2015 (CDT)

=== Context? ===

=== Context? ===

Do you have any context for what you posted? I'm tempted to wipe it as noise. --[[User:Hef|Hef]] ([[User talk:Hef|talk]]) 20:49, 25 April 2015 (CDT)

Do you have any context for what you posted? I'm tempted to wipe it as noise. --[[User:Hef|Hef]] ([[User talk:Hef|talk]]) 20:49, 25 April 2015 (CDT)

Well in the past I have had a hard time finding email threads that have been referenced in the wiki. Making it hard to understand the context. This was just an attempt to keep all this discussion linked together. It it is not wanted it can just be wiped out. --[[User:Lucas|Lucas]] ([[User talk:Lucas|talk]]) 21:15, 25 April 2015 (CDT)

Well in the past I have had a hard time finding email threads that have been referenced in the wiki. Making it hard to understand the context. This was just an attempt to keep all this discussion linked together. It it is not wanted it can just be wiped out. --[[User:Lucas|Lucas]] ([[User talk:Lucas|talk]]) 21:15, 25 April 2015 (CDT)

I am curious. Is there any precedent to those policies? In other words, have any other policies ever been enacted by the board with no membership vote? --[[User:Lucas|Lucas]] ([[User talk:Lucas|talk]]) 11:32, 22 April 2015 (CDT)

I am curious. Is there any precedent to those policies? In other words, have any other policies ever been enacted by the board with no membership vote? --[[User:Lucas|Lucas]] ([[User talk:Lucas|talk]]) 11:32, 22 April 2015 (CDT)

* None that I am aware of. The precedent would be for these types of policies to go before the membership and be voted on with an explanation as to why they are needed. --[[User:Hef|Hef]] ([[User talk:Hef|talk]]) 09:05, 23 April 2015 (CDT)

* None that I am aware of. The precedent would be for these types of policies to go before the membership and be voted on with an explanation as to why they are needed. --[[User:Hef|Hef]] ([[User talk:Hef|talk]]) 09:05, 23 April 2015 (CDT)

== Inflamitory Title ==

== Inflamitory Title ==

The title should be changed to something more neutral, such as Vote on Setting Policies. --[[User:Sylphiae|Sylphiae]] ([[User talk:Sylphiae|talk]]) 13:31, 22 April 2015 (CDT)

The title should be changed to something more neutral, such as Vote on Setting Policies. --[[User:Sylphiae|Sylphiae]] ([[User talk:Sylphiae|talk]]) 13:31, 22 April 2015 (CDT)

* Good call. I probably should have gotten into a more neutral mood before writing the first pass of this proposal. (The title has been changed_ --[[User:Hef|Hef]] ([[User talk:Hef|talk]]) 09:05, 23 April 2015 (CDT)

* Good call. I probably should have gotten into a more neutral mood before writing the first pass of this proposal. (The title has been changed_ --[[User:Hef|Hef]] ([[User talk:Hef|talk]]) 09:05, 23 April 2015 (CDT)

== Expiry ==

== Expiry ==

"expires 3 weeks after being voted on" does not specify that the board of directors voted on it versus membership voting on it. skm

"expires 3 weeks after being voted on" does not specify that the board of directors voted on it versus membership voting on it. skm

== pointless or dangerous ==

== pointless or dangerous ==

:Most of this section was written by [[User:CarlFK]]. There's a lot in here to dispute, so I'm going to inline most of my comments. --[[User:Justin|Justin]] ([[User talk:Justin|talk]]) 10:47, 5 May 2015 (CDT)

:Most of this section was written by [[User:CarlFK]]. There's a lot in here to dispute, so I'm going to inline most of my comments. --[[User:Justin|Justin]] ([[User talk:Justin|talk]]) 10:47, 5 May 2015 (CDT)

I think this "auto propose a vote" thing is bad.

I think this "auto propose a vote" thing is bad.  

It does not do anything good for the space.   There is no trade this for that for a net gain. There is a cost (the voting process), there is no gain, so the ROI is negative.  

It does not do anything good for the space. There is no trade this for that for a net gain. There is a cost (the voting process), there is no gain, so the ROI is negative.  

:It does a lot of good for the space. The ultimate stakeholders of Pumping Station: One, NFP are the members. As such, the members decide the direction of the organization. If you think that the voting process is a "cost" and is "annoying", then you should probably make yourself a non-voting member. Those of us who actually have an interest in the running of the space want to vote on things. --[[User:Justin|Justin]] ([[User talk:Justin|talk]]) 10:47, 5 May 2015 (CDT)

:It does a lot of good for the space. The ultimate stakeholders of Pumping Station: One, NFP are the members. As such, the members decide the direction of the organization. If you think that the voting process is a "cost" and is "annoying", then you should probably make yourself a non-voting member. Those of us who actually have an interest in the running of the space want to vote on things. --[[User:Justin|Justin]] ([[User talk:Justin|talk]]) 10:47, 5 May 2015 (CDT)

(bare with the 2 levels of voting here. We are voting on how to vote, so the word vote doesn't always reference the same thing.)

(bare with the 2 levels of voting here. We are voting on how to vote, so the word vote doesn't always reference the same thing.)

There is a 2x2 grid of choices made up of (this proposed vote (A)pass, (B)not pass) x (members (1)agree, (2)disagree)

There is a 2x2 grid of choices made up of (this proposed vote (A)pass, (B)not pass) x (members (1)agree, (2)disagree)

(A) Assume this proposed vote passes and now the members have to vote on all policies voted on and passed by the BoD.

(A) Assume this proposed vote passes and now the members have to vote on all policies voted on and passed by the BoD.

There are two possible outcomes of such votes: pass or not pass. (not meeting quorum just delays the outcome.)

There are two possible outcomes of such votes: pass or not pass. (not meeting quorum just delays the outcome.)

  (1) If the vote passes, nothing changes.  The existing policy is still in affect.   

  (1) If the vote passes, nothing changes.  The existing policy is still in affect.   

::Drinking after 2 AM is a different situation. In that case, a prior Board applied for insurance stating that we stop serving at 2 AM. In the event of a claim involving drinking after 2 AM, the insurer would likely consider it a misrepresentation on our part and cancel the policy, leaving PS:One, the Board members personally, and the landlord on the hook. As above, we have a contractual obligation to insure our landlord.

::Drinking after 2 AM is a different situation. In that case, a prior Board applied for insurance stating that we stop serving at 2 AM. In the event of a claim involving drinking after 2 AM, the insurer would likely consider it a misrepresentation on our part and cancel the policy, leaving PS:One, the Board members personally, and the landlord on the hook. As above, we have a contractual obligation to insure our landlord.

::The Board enacted the three policies it did to fulfill PS:One's obligations, which the Bylaws explicitly permits. --[[User:Rdpierce|Rdpierce]] ([[User talk:Rdpierce|talk]]) 12:09, 5 May 2015 (CDT)

::The Board enacted the three policies it did to fulfill PS:One's obligations, which the Bylaws explicitly permits. --[[User:Rdpierce|Rdpierce]] ([[User talk:Rdpierce|talk]]) 12:09, 5 May 2015 (CDT)

:::Whether or not we have a policy will not affect whether or not someone will sue us, and I still haven't seen any guarantee that having the policy means that the insurance company will still cover us if an animal does come in. Furthermore, having a policy in place will not prevent someone from actually bringing an animal into the space. Really, it doesn't. We don't need a policy in place to tell people that they're not allowed to have animals in the space either.

:::Whether or not we have a policy will not affect whether or not someone will sue us, and I still haven't seen any guarantee that having the policy means that the insurance company will still cover us if an animal does come in. Furthermore, having a policy in place will not prevent someone from actually bringing an animal into the space. Really, it doesn't. We don't need a policy in place to tell people that they're not allowed to have animals in the space either.

B2 - voting paperwork and probably desirable but maybe undesirable because evil future members.

B2 - voting paperwork and probably desirable but maybe undesirable because evil future members.

My Summary: all this really does is force the membership to vote and pass more things. That is annoying work.

My Summary: all this really does is force the membership to vote and pass more things. That is annoying work.

There will also be debates on what is and isn't a policy that needs to be voted on, not because anyone want's to over turn it, but we want to follow this rule we put in place.

There will also be debates on what is and isn't a policy that needs to be voted on, not because anyone want's to over turn it, but we want to follow this rule we put in place.

I think the chance of the members revoking a policy is basically 0.  

I think the chance of the members revoking a policy is basically 0.  

I object to the statement in the Background section of the vote "It's my opinion that the following three pseudo policies are invalid because they were not voted on by the general membership...." The Bylaws currently state that:

I object to the statement in the Background section of the vote "It's my opinion that the following three pseudo policies are invalid because they were not voted on by the general membership...." The Bylaws currently state that:

[[Bylaws#Issues_Proper_for_a_Vote_of_the_Directors]]

[[Bylaws#Issues Proper for a Vote of the Directors]]

     to fulfill any obligations to ensure the health of the organization.

     to fulfill any obligations to ensure the health of the organization.

In the case of these three policies, the Board decided to enact them to fulfil contractual and legal obligations to ensure the health of the organization. I can understand that someone might think the Board should not have done what they did. I can understand that someone may think the Bylaws should be changed so that the Board no longer has the power to do what it did. But the Bylaws as they exist today do allow for the actions in question. The policies themselves are valid. --[[User:Rdpierce|Rdpierce]] ([[User talk:Rdpierce|talk]]) 01:54, 25 April 2015 (CDT)

In the case of these three policies, the Board decided to enact them to fulfil contractual and legal obligations to ensure the health of the organization. I can understand that someone might think the Board should not have done what they did. I can understand that someone may think the Bylaws should be changed so that the Board no longer has the power to do what it did. But the Bylaws as they exist today do allow for the actions in question. The policies themselves are valid. --[[User:Rdpierce|Rdpierce]] ([[User talk:Rdpierce|talk]]) 01:54, 25 April 2015 (CDT)

* Setting policy was not necessary: Because those were already contractual obligations that space had taken on, the information on what the space had agreed to needed to be communicated, and a new official policy was not required. A few wiki pages detailing the info and an email out to the mailing list with an explanation would have sufficed. --[[User:Hef|Hef]] ([[User talk:Hef|talk]]) 11:48, 25 April 2015 (CDT)

* Setting policy was not necessary: Because those were already contractual obligations that space had taken on, the information on what the space had agreed to needed to be communicated, and a new official policy was not required. A few wiki pages detailing the info and an email out to the mailing list with an explanation would have sufficed. --[[User:Hef|Hef]] ([[User talk:Hef|talk]]) 11:48, 25 April 2015 (CDT)

* Optionally, a follow up membership vote could have been run to set the policies in stone --[[User:Hef|Hef]] ([[User talk:Hef|talk]]) 11:48, 25 April 2015 (CDT)

* Optionally, a follow up membership vote could have been run to set the policies in stone --[[User:Hef|Hef]] ([[User talk:Hef|talk]]) 11:48, 25 April 2015 (CDT)

* I'm willing to drop the background info, as it doesn't really have much baring on the vote itself. My larger interest is ensuring that the membership is able to be directly involved and able to ensure sufficient rigor in any policy that the membership is required to agree too. --[[User:Hef|Hef]] ([[User talk:Hef|talk]]) 11:48, 25 April 2015 (CDT)

* I'm willing to drop the background info, as it doesn't really have much baring on the vote itself. My larger interest is ensuring that the membership is able to be directly involved and able to ensure sufficient rigor in any policy that the membership is required to agree too. --[[User:Hef|Hef]] ([[User talk:Hef|talk]]) 11:48, 25 April 2015 (CDT)

== Freedom to Create protected (and constrained) by Adherence to Law ==

== Freedom to Create protected (and constrained) by Adherence to Law ==

Our space does not operate in a vacuum; there are certain legal, contractual, and life/safety obligations we need to fulfill in order to have the protections that we enjoy, and give us the freedom to create. If the membership have the capability of overruling the actions of the BoD on these type of matters, then we are creating an environment where non-legal activity can occur, especially in the case where a retrospective gap analysis shows that we are not operating within the confines of a contract, and modifications to existing policies need to occur in order to enforce compliance to that contract.

Our space does not operate in a vacuum; there are certain legal, contractual, and life/safety obligations we need to fulfill in order to have the protections that we enjoy, and give us the freedom to create. If the membership have the capability of overruling the actions of the BoD on these type of matters, then we are creating an environment where non-legal activity can occur, especially in the case where a retrospective gap analysis shows that we are not operating within the confines of a contract, and modifications to existing policies need to occur in order to enforce compliance to that contract.

I would recommend wording as follows:

I would recommend wording as follows:

"Where there is a gap (or gaps) between existing policies and legal, contractual, or life/safety commitments, the Board of Directors is empowered to act in a proactive manner to bring the Organization into compliance as expediently as possible. It is incumbent upon the Board of Directors to communicate to the Membership the reason for the gap, and the rationale for the compliance-related activities. This communication shall be performed before- or concurrent-with the compliance-related activities."

"Where there is a gap (or gaps) between existing policies and legal, contractual, or life/safety commitments, the Board of Directors is empowered to act in a proactive manner to bring the Organization into compliance as expediently as possible. It is incumbent upon the Board of Directors to communicate to the Membership the reason for the gap, and the rationale for the compliance-related activities. This communication shall be performed before- or concurrent-with the compliance-related activities."

--[[User:Bioguy|Bioguy]] ([[User talk:Bioguy|talk]]) 07:24, 25 April 2015 (CDT)

--[[User:Bioguy|Bioguy]] ([[User talk:Bioguy|talk]]) 07:24, 25 April 2015 (CDT)

* The membership is not able to vote to do anything unlawful, see [[Bylaws#Issues_Proper_for_a_Vote_of_the_Membership]] --[[User:Hef|Hef]] ([[User talk:Hef|talk]]) 11:39, 25 April 2015 (CDT)

* The membership is not able to vote to do anything unlawful, see [[Bylaws#Issues Proper for a Vote of the Membership]] --[[User:Hef|Hef]] ([[User talk:Hef|talk]]) 11:39, 25 April 2015 (CDT)

* The thing I am most interested in is that the membership have the ability to apply our historically stringent process of ensuring the high quality of policies. --[[User:Hef|Hef]] ([[User talk:Hef|talk]]) 11:41, 25 April 2015 (CDT)

* The thing I am most interested in is that the membership have the ability to apply our historically stringent process of ensuring the high quality of policies. --[[User:Hef|Hef]] ([[User talk:Hef|talk]]) 11:41, 25 April 2015 (CDT)

I agree completely with your point #2. I disagree, however, on point #1, as the act of voting indicates a choice in wishing to meet contractual agreements that have already been put in place. I think we can vote to renegotiate our insurance policy, but we can't vote on whether or not we will comply with it once it has been signed, as that breaks the contract and nullifies our insurance policy.

I agree completely with your point #2. I disagree, however, on point #1, as the act of voting indicates a choice in wishing to meet contractual agreements that have already been put in place. I think we can vote to renegotiate our insurance policy, but we can't vote on whether or not we will comply with it once it has been signed, as that breaks the contract and nullifies our insurance policy.

Another point: we need definitions of what a Policy is. These three "policies" seem to me to be more like "House Rules."

Another point: we need definitions of what a Policy is. These three "policies" seem to me to be more like "House Rules."

--[[User:Bioguy|Bioguy]] ([[User talk:Bioguy|talk]]) 11:55, 25 April 2015 (CDT)

--[[User:Bioguy|Bioguy]] ([[User talk:Bioguy|talk]]) 11:55, 25 April 2015 (CDT)

:AGREE!!! 100 MILLION PERCENT! --[[User:Bioguy|Bioguy]] ([[User talk:Bioguy|talk]]) 11:55, 25 April 2015 (CDT)

:AGREE!!! 100 MILLION PERCENT! --[[User:Bioguy|Bioguy]] ([[User talk:Bioguy|talk]]) 11:55, 25 April 2015 (CDT)

:Skm, I agree with your analysis.   --[[User:Hef|Hef]] ([[User talk:Hef|talk]]) 13:10, 25 April 2015 (CDT)

:Skm, I agree with your analysis. --[[User:Hef|Hef]] ([[User talk:Hef|talk]]) 13:10, 25 April 2015 (CDT)

:The thing about having policies (however those come to be) that are in line with the requirements of our insurance coverage is that it makes it very easy to point at how we're complying with those requirements. This may not be a big deal, but it does seem like something to consider to me. --[[User:Dbever|Dbever]] ([[User talk:Dbever|talk]]) 20:02, 25 April 2015 (CDT)

:The thing about having policies (however those come to be) that are in line with the requirements of our insurance coverage is that it makes it very easy to point at how we're complying with those requirements. This may not be a big deal, but it does seem like something to consider to me. --[[User:Dbever|Dbever]] ([[User talk:Dbever|talk]]) 20:02, 25 April 2015 (CDT)

::Putting up something on the wiki (or website) is probably a good idea, especially since we would have something to point to. I'd rather it not get the "policy" label until it's a membership vote, but I don't have a problem with something being posted immediately to indicate compliance. --[[User:Hef|Hef]] ([[User talk:Hef|talk]]) 20:38, 25 April 2015 (CDT)

::Putting up something on the wiki (or website) is probably a good idea, especially since we would have something to point to. I'd rather it not get the "policy" label until it's a membership vote, but I don't have a problem with something being posted immediately to indicate compliance. --[[User:Hef|Hef]] ([[User talk:Hef|talk]]) 20:38, 25 April 2015 (CDT)

::but it will be ludicrous if we have to make policies for every item. we haven't made a policy to ban parkour or pyrotechnics but we'd need special coverage for those which we don't have right now --[[User:Skm|Skm]] ([[User talk:Skm|talk]]) 20:10, 25 April 2015 (CDT)

::but it will be ludicrous if we have to make policies for every item. we haven't made a policy to ban parkour or pyrotechnics but we'd need special coverage for those which we don't have right now --[[User:Skm|Skm]] ([[User talk:Skm|talk]]) 20:10, 25 April 2015 (CDT)

::::Sylphiae, I was replying to Derek about whether having policies that we can point to to show that we comply would be helpful. we have a lot of exclusions other than the 2 we listed. I didn't mean to make a slippery slope argument but I did huh. --[[User:Skm|Skm]] ([[User talk:Skm|talk]]) 20:17, 25 April 2015 (CDT)

::::Sylphiae, I was replying to Derek about whether having policies that we can point to to show that we comply would be helpful. we have a lot of exclusions other than the 2 we listed. I didn't mean to make a slippery slope argument but I did huh. --[[User:Skm|Skm]] ([[User talk:Skm|talk]]) 20:17, 25 April 2015 (CDT)

::I agree with Derek here and would say it is a very big deal. We can't have people drinking in the space at 3 AM claiming that it isn't a real policy so the Board can't enforce it. If the person is drinking at 3 AM, drives home, and gets in an accident, we need to prove that we weren't responsible. "Hey, see here, we enacted a policy, he violated the policy, so it's 100% on him, not us!" is our defense. We can't have someone argue "Well, it's not really a policy, so you kind of did allow the person to drink, so you share in responsibility for the accident." --[[User:Rdpierce|Rdpierce]] ([[User talk:Rdpierce|talk]]) 01:43, 26 April 2015 (CDT)

::I agree with Derek here and would say it is a very big deal. We can't have people drinking in the space at 3 AM claiming that it isn't a real policy so the Board can't enforce it. If the person is drinking at 3 AM, drives home, and gets in an accident, we need to prove that we weren't responsible. "Hey, see here, we enacted a policy, he violated the policy, so it's 100% on him, not us!" is our defense. We can't have someone argue "Well, it's not really a policy, so you kind of did allow the person to drink, so you share in responsibility for the accident." --[[User:Rdpierce|Rdpierce]] ([[User talk:Rdpierce|talk]]) 01:43, 26 April 2015 (CDT)

:::One of the biggest issues I've seen is that policies can be too descriptive, and then when the commitments change, the policies do not. Why not a blanket policy that says "we will comply with facility requirements as spelled out by insurance policies" or something to that effect? That way we are not locking in overly specific language, but showing, for the record, that we intend to comply with requirements (As Derek pointed out above). We can further add something like "Specific requirements will be clearly posted" and then we can make signs and wiki posting clarifying what the "house rules" are. --[[User:Bioguy|Bioguy]] ([[User talk:Bioguy|talk]]) 08:53, 26 April 2015 (CDT)

:::One of the biggest issues I've seen is that policies can be too descriptive, and then when the commitments change, the policies do not. Why not a blanket policy that says "we will comply with facility requirements as spelled out by insurance policies" or something to that effect? That way we are not locking in overly specific language, but showing, for the record, that we intend to comply with requirements (As Derek pointed out above). We can further add something like "Specific requirements will be clearly posted" and then we can make signs and wiki posting clarifying what the "house rules" are. --[[User:Bioguy|Bioguy]] ([[User talk:Bioguy|talk]]) 08:53, 26 April 2015 (CDT)

::::Bioguy, while I wish we could do what you suggest, we can't expect the membership to digest 100 pages of nearly incomprehensible insurance-speak as a requirement to be a member of the space. We do have a blanket prohibition in the membership agreement against breaking the law, so we don't need a policy to ban development of nuclear weapons at the space. (But there was no way to stop or change an event that was about to break the law before it happened. We have had problems with event proposals or advertisements, usually around proposed sale of alcohol or charging at the door to attend a party. In the past, talking to the organizers fixes it, but there's no guarantee.) So the areas where policy would be needed most are for things we do allow, that are excluded from coverage by insurance, that do happen or are likely to happen, and that could result in liability. People did bring their pet dogs to the space, and there has been late night drinking. Telling everyone to read the insurance policy won't stop these. --[[User:Rdpierce|Rdpierce]] ([[User talk:Rdpierce|talk]]) 09:25, 26 April 2015 (CDT)

::::Bioguy, while I wish we could do what you suggest, we can't expect the membership to digest 100 pages of nearly incomprehensible insurance-speak as a requirement to be a member of the space. We do have a blanket prohibition in the membership agreement against breaking the law, so we don't need a policy to ban development of nuclear weapons at the space. (But there was no way to stop or change an event that was about to break the law before it happened. We have had problems with event proposals or advertisements, usually around proposed sale of alcohol or charging at the door to attend a party. In the past, talking to the organizers fixes it, but there's no guarantee.) So the areas where policy would be needed most are for things we do allow, that are excluded from coverage by insurance, that do happen or are likely to happen, and that could result in liability. People did bring their pet dogs to the space, and there has been late night drinking. Telling everyone to read the insurance policy won't stop these. --[[User:Rdpierce|Rdpierce]] ([[User talk:Rdpierce|talk]]) 09:25, 26 April 2015 (CDT)

:::::Bioguy, I just saw your edit about "House Rules." Are you saying that those three Board policies could have been renamed House Rules? That's an interesting thought. But I'm not sure the people objecting to the Board having the power to create policies to address obligations would be any happier with the Board having the power to create "House Rules" that effectively get enforced as policies. Also, the justification for the Board creating policies under the Bylaws relies upon addressing obligations. I think "House Rules" that don't stem from legal or contractual obligations should originate from the membership. (E.g. the Board shouldn't create a House Rule banning country music in the shop. If the majority of the membership hates Garth Brooks, they need to be the ones to propose the vote.) --[[User:Rdpierce|Rdpierce]] ([[User talk:Rdpierce|talk]]) 09:25, 26 April 2015 (CDT)

:::::Bioguy, I just saw your edit about "House Rules." Are you saying that those three Board policies could have been renamed House Rules? That's an interesting thought. But I'm not sure the people objecting to the Board having the power to create policies to address obligations would be any happier with the Board having the power to create "House Rules" that effectively get enforced as policies. Also, the justification for the Board creating policies under the Bylaws relies upon addressing obligations. I think "House Rules" that don't stem from legal or contractual obligations should originate from the membership. (E.g. the Board shouldn't create a House Rule banning country music in the shop. If the majority of the membership hates Garth Brooks, they need to be the ones to propose the vote.) --[[User:Rdpierce|Rdpierce]] ([[User talk:Rdpierce|talk]]) 09:25, 26 April 2015 (CDT)

::::::Actually Ryan, my intent was to be a lot simpler than that: The policy would be (simplified language) "We have insurance, which requires house rules. These house rules will be posted. The insurance policy in full is filed in the safe" or wherever. Then we have "House Rules" which are one side of one sheet of paper, which outline the three policies as they stand. These can be distributed or posted on a wall. This way, if the insurance changes, we don't have to create a new policy, just change the posted rules.--[[User:Bioguy|Bioguy]] ([[User talk:Bioguy|talk]]) 11:32, 26 April 2015 (CDT)

::::::Actually Ryan, my intent was to be a lot simpler than that: The policy would be (simplified language) "We have insurance, which requires house rules. These house rules will be posted. The insurance policy in full is filed in the safe" or wherever. Then we have "House Rules" which are one side of one sheet of paper, which outline the three policies as they stand. These can be distributed or posted on a wall. This way, if the insurance changes, we don't have to create a new policy, just change the posted rules.--[[User:Bioguy|Bioguy]] ([[User talk:Bioguy|talk]]) 11:32, 26 April 2015 (CDT)

== This proposal ends up giving the Board new powers ==

== This proposal ends up giving the Board new powers ==