Changes

:Sorry, what's the problem with this? The members '''ARE''', in fact, obligated to pay the rent. The members are the stakeholders of Pumping Station: One, NFP. So from a legal standpoint this is '''probably''' the most correct way to put it. And you are correct that these policies only apply to members. All of our policies and bylaws apply only to members. There is no expectation that someone who is not a member and has not agreed to our member agreement/bylaws/policies is bound by them. A '''guest''' of the space is exactly that. A guest. And they are only allowed to be in the space as long as a member allows them to be. We can ask a guest to leave for any reason, whether we have a policy about it or not. If someone who is not a member breaks our rules and the member who is hosting that guest refuses to do anything about it, then that member would be held responsible for the actions of their guest.

:Sorry, what's the problem with this? The members '''ARE''', in fact, obligated to pay the rent. The members are the stakeholders of Pumping Station: One, NFP. So from a legal standpoint this is '''probably''' the most correct way to put it. And you are correct that these policies only apply to members. All of our policies and bylaws apply only to members. There is no expectation that someone who is not a member and has not agreed to our member agreement/bylaws/policies is bound by them. A '''guest''' of the space is exactly that. A guest. And they are only allowed to be in the space as long as a member allows them to be. We can ask a guest to leave for any reason, whether we have a policy about it or not. If someone who is not a member breaks our rules and the member who is hosting that guest refuses to do anything about it, then that member would be held responsible for the actions of their guest.

:And just to get terribly pedantic, the bylaws '''do''' state that [[Bylaws#Membership_Agreement_Amendment|guests must abide by the member agreement]]. It would be the responsibility of that guest's host to make sure their guest is aware of what they can and cannot do in Pumping Station: One. --[[User:Justin|Justin]] ([[User talk:Justin|talk]]) 09:51, 11 May 2015 (CDT)

:And just to get terribly pedantic, the bylaws '''do''' state that [[Bylaws#Membership Agreement Amendment|guests must abide by the member agreement]]. It would be the responsibility of that guest's host to make sure their guest is aware of what they can and cannot do in Pumping Station: One. --[[User:Justin|Justin]] ([[User talk:Justin|talk]]) 09:51, 11 May 2015 (CDT)

::Justin, you need to go get your money back from I Just Pulled It Out of My Ass College of Law. Your post is ''alarmingly'' poorly informed. I'm only going to start with the first bit, which seems to reflect a misunderstanding about the consequences of the new proposal that others also share.

::Justin, you need to go get your money back from I Just Pulled It Out of My Ass College of Law. Your post is ''alarmingly'' poorly informed. I'm only going to start with the first bit, which seems to reflect a misunderstanding about the consequences of the new proposal that others also share.

::"The members '''ARE''', in fact, obligated to pay the rent. The members are the stakeholders of Pumping Station: One, NFP. So from a legal standpoint this is '''probably''' the most correct way to put it. " Nonsense. Pumping Station One has a lease with Tony, not any individual members. I'm not paying the rent. Are you? Pull your thinking cap on tighter if you want to get "pedantic" and argue about that. [[User:Jason|Jason]] ([[User talk:Jason|talk]]) 11:24, 11 May 2015 (CDT)

::"The members '''ARE''', in fact, obligated to pay the rent. The members are the stakeholders of Pumping Station: One, NFP. So from a legal standpoint this is '''probably''' the most correct way to put it. " Nonsense. Pumping Station One has a lease with Tony, not any individual members. I'm not paying the rent. Are you? Pull your thinking cap on tighter if you want to get "pedantic" and argue about that. [[User:Jason|Jason]] ([[User talk:Jason|talk]]) 11:24, 11 May 2015 (CDT)

:I am a little concerned by the implication of this version of the language that members are individually responsible for fulfilling the organization's obligations. I don't know if there are situations in which this policy language would cause an issue (are the policies the membership votes on binding in any context outside of our organization? I don't know), but I have to wonder what this vague assertion "gets us". --[[User:Dbever|Dbever]] ([[User talk:Dbever|talk]]) 14:01, 11 May 2015 (CDT)

:I am a little concerned by the implication of this version of the language that members are individually responsible for fulfilling the organization's obligations. I don't know if there are situations in which this policy language would cause an issue (are the policies the membership votes on binding in any context outside of our organization? I don't know), but I have to wonder what this vague assertion "gets us". --[[User:Dbever|Dbever]] ([[User talk:Dbever|talk]]) 14:01, 11 May 2015 (CDT)

:: My intention is that the the language is not meant to binding outside the context of the organization. If it caries that implication, I am going to change the language. --[[User:Hef|Hef]] ([[User talk:Hef|talk]]) 14:34, 11 May 2015 (CDT)

:: My intention is that the the language is not meant to binding outside the context of the organization. If it caries that implication, I am going to change the language. --[[User:Hef|Hef]] ([[User talk:Hef|talk]]) 14:34, 11 May 2015 (CDT)

:: During the previous meeting with the directors, several member's maintained that writing policies to comply with insurance was required for the health of the organization because members were not under any obligation to comply with with insurance. I don't agree with that idea, and feel that members do need to comply with insurance rules. Because this disagreement affects issues appropriate for a vote of the board of directors, I'd like one interpretation to become the clear interpretation. --[[User:Hef|Hef]] ([[User talk:Hef|talk]]) 14:34, 11 May 2015 (CDT)

:: During the previous meeting with the directors, several member's maintained that writing policies to comply with insurance was required for the health of the organization because members were not under any obligation to comply with with insurance. I don't agree with that idea, and feel that members do need to comply with insurance rules. Because this disagreement affects issues appropriate for a vote of the board of directors, I'd like one interpretation to become the clear interpretation. --[[User:Hef|Hef]] ([[User talk:Hef|talk]]) 14:34, 11 May 2015 (CDT)

::: I understand that you're trying to limit the Board's power to enact policies pertaining to obligations by fixing the specifics of insurance. But just fixing that doesn't do anything to change the Board's power to enact policies. That stems from the Bylaws, and you can't take power away from the Board if it is granted by the Bylaws unless you change the Bylaws. Just creating an alternate means to handle insurance related stuff doesn't mean this Board or another Board years down the road will utilize it and will never create another policy when the Bylaws allows it.

::: I understand that you're trying to limit the Board's power to enact policies pertaining to obligations by fixing the specifics of insurance. But just fixing that doesn't do anything to change the Board's power to enact policies. That stems from the Bylaws, and you can't take power away from the Board if it is granted by the Bylaws unless you change the Bylaws. Just creating an alternate means to handle insurance related stuff doesn't mean this Board or another Board years down the road will utilize it and will never create another policy when the Bylaws allows it.

* Loans: would be ok with a different name, so long as the name carried appropriate impact. Believes the idea of a policy, board voted policy, and member voted policy is nebulous and that is a root cause of the current dispute.

* Loans: would be ok with a different name, so long as the name carried appropriate impact. Believes the idea of a policy, board voted policy, and member voted policy is nebulous and that is a root cause of the current dispute.

* Sevin: A name other than board voted policy would be better.

* Sevin: A name other than board voted policy would be better.

* Ray:   unknown, hasn't weighed in from what I can tell, but is decidedly not concerned with board member burnout, and doesn't feel the membership is out of control.

* Ray: unknown, hasn't weighed in from what I can tell, but is decidedly not concerned with board member burnout, and doesn't feel the membership is out of control.

* Ryan: Ryan's opinions are complicated and varied to describe. I believe he sees this as a power struggle between the board members and non board members. It is clear that he feels the board needed to vote in these 3 policies, and fears that the membership might vote against if given the opportunity.

* Ryan: Ryan's opinions are complicated and varied to describe. I believe he sees this as a power struggle between the board members and non board members. It is clear that he feels the board needed to vote in these 3 policies, and fears that the membership might vote against if given the opportunity.

** My opinions are definitely complicated and varied to describe. I believe the board did need to vote in these 3 policies, that the existing bylaws gave the board the authority to do so, and the main things the board did wrong were not to give the members timely communication about this nor initially solicit member feedback. I do not fear that the membership would vote against the 3 policies given the opportunity. But the vote process constrains PS:One when an immediate response is needed. And when contractual or legal obligations are involved, and there really isn't a valid choice to vote no, a member vote isn't appropriate, just as it isn't appropriate to have a member vote to pay the rent and utilities. I do value soliciting member comments and involvement to improve these kinds of policies, but I believe the benefits of this can be achieved without a member vote. I am concerned with what I believe is a member initiative to strip the board of the power needed to do its job, and while most people haven't directly attacked anyone, these past few weeks have still been living hell for the board, have sucked the board of the time and energy needed to deal with other necessary things, and have harmed PS:One's sustainability by discouraging many members from ever wanting to run for the board themselves. --[[User:Rdpierce|Rdpierce]] ([[User talk:Rdpierce|talk]]) 07:42, 13 May 2015 (CDT)

** My opinions are definitely complicated and varied to describe. I believe the board did need to vote in these 3 policies, that the existing bylaws gave the board the authority to do so, and the main things the board did wrong were not to give the members timely communication about this nor initially solicit member feedback. I do not fear that the membership would vote against the 3 policies given the opportunity. But the vote process constrains PS:One when an immediate response is needed. And when contractual or legal obligations are involved, and there really isn't a valid choice to vote no, a member vote isn't appropriate, just as it isn't appropriate to have a member vote to pay the rent and utilities. I do value soliciting member comments and involvement to improve these kinds of policies, but I believe the benefits of this can be achieved without a member vote. I am concerned with what I believe is a member initiative to strip the board of the power needed to do its job, and while most people haven't directly attacked anyone, these past few weeks have still been living hell for the board, have sucked the board of the time and energy needed to deal with other necessary things, and have harmed PS:One's sustainability by discouraging many members from ever wanting to run for the board themselves. --[[User:Rdpierce|Rdpierce]] ([[User talk:Rdpierce|talk]]) 07:42, 13 May 2015 (CDT)

* Tom:   believes that the 3 policies need to exist in order to ensure insurance compliance. believes that the board was right to vote them in.

* Tom: believes that the 3 policies need to exist in order to ensure insurance compliance. believes that the board was right to vote them in.

* Skay: Believes the 3 policies didn't need to be voted on, as they would already be in effect, and that the only thing that was required is that the membership be informed.

* Skay: Believes the 3 policies didn't need to be voted on, as they would already be in effect, and that the only thing that was required is that the membership be informed.

* Jenny: unknown, hasn't weighed in from what I can tell.

* Jenny: unknown, hasn't weighed in from what I can tell.

* Kuroishi: Was not present for the vote, I think he feels that the policy votes were not necessary, but I am less certain of his opinion.

* Kuroishi: Was not present for the vote, I think he feels that the policy votes were not necessary, but I am less certain of his opinion.

* Justin: Interested in ensuring the org is member run

* Justin: Interested in ensuring the org is member run

* Carl: Interested in ensuring that participation in policy making is not a hard requirement

* Carl: Interested in ensuring that participation in policy making is not a hard requirement

* Jason: He wanted to talk to me, but we managed to miss each other. Seems interested in no one making polices that are summarized as "we will obey the law"

* Jason: He wanted to talk to me, but we managed to miss each other. Seems interested in no one making polices that are summarized as "we will obey the law"

* Elizabeth: I havn't talked to her in person, but she seems interested in no one accusing the board of wrongdoing.

* Elizabeth: I havn't talked to her in person, but she seems interested in no one accusing the board of wrongdoing.

The people I haven't talked to that I should before addressing a larger audience:

The people I haven't talked to that I should before addressing a larger audience:

* Ray

* Ray

Myself: I have been trying to clarify my opinion, and find I often end up disagreeing with previous revisions of my own opinion.

Myself: I have been trying to clarify my opinion, and find I often end up disagreeing with previous revisions of my own opinion.

Here is a summery of what I want to achieve

Here is a summery of what I want to achieve

* Allow the board members to protect the organization via a vote when a member vote is too inefficient to be effective

* Allow the board members to protect the organization via a vote when a member vote is too inefficient to be effective

* Allow the board members to protect themselves from the increased liability they assume by being recognized by the state as director and operators.

* Allow the board members to protect themselves from the increased liability they assume by being recognized by the state as director and operators.

* Ensure that subgroups (directors, area hosts, authorizers) of PS:One can set rules in PS:One that the entirety of PS:One would have set anyway. Uncertainty on the outcome of rule making decisions should lead to a larger subgroup or the entirety of the membership being involved.

* Ensure that subgroups (directors, area hosts, authorizers) of PS:One can set rules in PS:One that the entirety of PS:One would have set anyway. Uncertainty on the outcome of rule making decisions should lead to a larger subgroup or the entirety of the membership being involved.

--[[User:Hef|Hef]] ([[User talk:Hef|talk]]) 00:49, 13 May 2015 (CDT)

--[[User:Hef|Hef]] ([[User talk:Hef|talk]]) 00:49, 13 May 2015 (CDT)