Note: These minutes are drawn
from the two-and-a-half-hour audio transcript. Deb used Claude AI to create the
outline and summaries of the discussion. Marion modified and amended directly
from the original transcript. We think that this reflects the conversation but feedback
from attendees is welcome.
Special Zoom Meeting – Tuesday, June 23, 2026, 7–9 PM
Topic: Code of Conduct, Policies, and Procedures – Proposal Discussion
Attendees: Deb (facilitator), Devin, Emily G, Larissa, Blair, Willow, Sunshine, Brian, Kari, Eric,
Felicia, Henry, Jeff E, Kiara, Lil, Marion, Mellen, Noah, Parks, Sadie,
Shelagh, Dev(orah), Nev, Bee, Bodie, Cor, Seth, and others (approx. 30 participants). Rebecca,
John B and Jamie were unable to attend. Marion briefly reviewed previous
meeting notes.
Meeting format
Roles: Facilitator (Deb), Vibe Checker (Shelagh), Pause Holder (Dev(orah)).
A parking lot was introduced for items outside the scope of the meeting.
Members were reminded that Meraki meetings are for members - those who have
danced five times and receive membership emails; non-members present were
welcome to observe but not vote.
At Blair's request, the group agreed to use the familiar hand-voting
method for any actual votes rather than the "Fist to Five" system
introduced at the previous meeting. Fist to Five could still be used informally
to gauge interest or energy.
Background and context – Emily and Devin
Emily provided an overview on the purpose of this meeting. In her work
with Devin developing a Code of Conduct, it became clear that for a CoC to
function well in our community, other aspects of PCD processes and procedures must
also evolve. A clear overarching policy and structure to support the safety, well-being
and culture of the community is needed.
What is currently in place in PCD: the Wiz (eight members holding safety
and care responsibilities), the Reflow
document (a conflict resolution guide created around 2014), the small
accordion booklet, and existing culture and behavior information in the
newcomer section of the website. What is not currently in place: a formal code
of conduct, a reporting process, a record-keeping system, a system of response
to specific incidences, or clear consequences for violations.
Emily noted that the Wiz has been discussing a division of Wiz
responsibilities into two parts, one group focused on logistics and sound, and the
other focused on accountability, safety, and care — and that this structural
change is itself part of the larger work that needs to happen.
Devin, who has professional qualifications in organizational work, elaborated
what such project would entail and made the case for bringing in a paid consultant.
She described the project as having three concentric layers: (1) community
input — surveys and listening to understand what members need; (2) proactive
measures — a code of conduct and other tools to prevent harm; and (3) reactive
measures — reporting systems, documentation, confidentiality protocols,
consequence frameworks, and a defined accountability team. Devin emphasized
that this is a large, complex project that needs to be done well and relatively
quickly. She suggested that it is too extensive and nuanced a project to expect
volunteers to undertake and asks if PCD would consider moving forward with a
paid consultant as an investment in the community.
She estimated a project of this scope would cost approximately $15,000. She
framed the question for the evening as: does Meraki want to move forward with
soliciting Requests for Proposals (RFPs) from at least two or three
professionals? If so, follow-up questions would include scope, budget ceiling,
who may submit proposals, and how an oversight committee would be formed. The
hoped-for timeline was proposals received by July 6, distributed to members
July 7, and discussed at the July 14 Meraki meeting. Note: Devin was clear that
she has no attachment to being the one hired.
Questions from the group clarified that agreeing to solicit RFPs would
not commit PCD to hiring anyone; it would simply gather enough information to
make a more informed decision. Devin also noted that proposals could be phased,
adjusted, or declined even after they were received.
Another approach – Larissa
Larissa was asked at the previous meeting to reach out to Intown Contra
Dance (Portland) to learn how they developed their consent policies. Her
research shaped an alternative proposal.
She reported that Intown's documents were written by Della Murphy, a
social worker and community organizer with 15 years of experience, working from
within the community — no paid outside contractor was used to develop the
documents. Their procedures have been in place for roughly 10 years, violations
have declined since implementation, and no false reports have been recorded.
Larissa also independently contacted a large ecstatic dance community in
Seattle, which reported a similar experience: community-led work with the
resulting documents and frameworks now openly available to other communities.
Based on this research, Larissa proposed a volunteer task-force model
with targeted, paid outside review built in. The three-step process she
outlined: (1) the task force creates draft documents drawing on existing PCD
materials, the Intown documents, and the Seattle materials, then shares those
drafts with the full membership for feedback; (2) two or three outside
professionals review both the documents and the community feedback; (3) the
task force incorporates everything and brings final documents to a vote at the
September Meraki meeting.
The proposed budget for this approach is $1,500, to be paid to outside
reviewers. Larissa had already confirmed that Della Murphy from Intown Contra, a
contact from the Seattle group, and potentially a PCD member with relevant
professional training would each be willing to serve as reviewers for
approximately $500 each. Four PCD members — Eric Blasco, Kari, Parks, Bee and
Larissa herself — had already committed time and availability for the summer to
form a task force. Larissa noted that she was proposing to fill a project
management and administrative role, not to replace the expertise Devin and
Emily have brought to this work. She explicitly invited Devin and Emily to
collaborate.
Discussion
The discussion was broad and substantive. Key themes that emerged:
Financial concern. Multiple members named the cost difference between the two
proposals as significant. With approximately $30,000 in reserves, spending
$10,000–$15,000 on a consultant felt like a major commitment. Several members
found Larissa's $1,500 model compelling for this reason, while acknowledging
that outside expertise still needs to be paid.
Urgency. Felicia named directly what several members had been circling
around: the sense of urgency is connected to sexual assault allegations within
the community that are keeping people from attending dances. Devin confirmed
that some of the harm being discussed occurred outside of PCD events, involving
PCD members — which is precisely why existing structures (including Reflow and
the Wiz's current scope) feel insufficient. The Wiz does not feel it has the
purview to address harm that happens outside of PCD's own space.
Blair raised a related concern about scope: whether PCD is considering
extending its code of conduct to cover behavior that happens off premises.
Devin clarified that this question — whether the scope extends beyond PCD
events — would itself be one of the things a consultant or task force would
research and bring back to the community, not something being decided tonight.
Who does the work and how. Several members asked how the task force or committee would be
formed. Devin noted that selecting people based on availability alone may not
be sufficient, and that some kind of intentional selection process would be
important for community trust — but that figuring out exactly how to do that
would likely require its own discussion. Parks noted that
PCD's committees have generally formed by volunteer rather than election, and
that the people who came forward for Larissa's proposal genuinely wanted to do
the work.
Shelagh, Sadie, and Noah all gestured toward a hybrid: taking the best of
both models, ensuring community input is robust, that outside reviewers are
genuinely paid for professional work, and that the task force is formed with
some intentionality. Dev(orah) noted that community-built processes can carry
different weight and trust than externally produced ones, and that paid vs.
volunteer structures within an organization require care. Jeff Edelstein noted
that PCD has built up reserves over four years and that the community itself
might have a role in deciding how to allocate them, raising the idea of
participatory budgeting. Lil encouraged everyone to actually read the Intown
Contra document, which she had done during the meeting and found
impressively thorough. Nev, based on experience with Dance New England,
lifted up the need for rigorous clarity in both the structure of the system and in what
is being specifically asked of PCD members.
Emily acknowledged that the code of conduct committee had struggled with
the volume of work as a small volunteer group and expressed some skepticism
that a volunteer task force would find it easier — though she welcomed it if
people genuinely had the time and capacity. She also named her own bandwidth as
very limited right now due to the gardening season. Devin said the events of
that afternoon (the emergence of Larissa's proposal shortly before the meeting)
had changed the landscape significantly, and that she needed time to process
before responding further.
Where things landed
No vote was taken. Deb noted that, from listening to the room, there did
not appear to be sufficient backing to vote yes on moving forward with RFPs
that evening. There was strong appreciation expressed for what Devin and Emily
have built toward, and strong interest in what Larissa presented. The group
agreed that more conversation is needed.
Next steps discussed:
Larissa, along with the six volunteers who have now committed to the task
force (Bee, Eric B, Dev, Kari, Parks) will flesh out the proposal further before the July
14 Meraki meeting. Devin suggested breaking the proposal into discrete
components that can each be considered separately and providing more detail on
how community involvement would work, what the timeline looks like, and how the
task force would make decisions. Larissa agreed and said she welcomes Devin's
and Emily's input in shaping the final version. The proposal, once refined,
will be distributed to members in advance of July 14.
Deb noted that a restorative justice process is already underway outside
of PCD for at least one situation, and that community members are actively
holding some of these concerns. This ongoing work may provide some breathing
room for PCD to take the time to make good decisions rather than moving in
haste.
Logistics
The in person July 14 meeting from 7–9 PM will now be held at the Portland
New Church, 302 Stevens Ave, Portland.
The next regular Meraki meeting is Monday, August 10, on Zoom, 7–9 PM.
Evaluation
Members shared reflections: gratitude for one another, appreciation for
the depth and care of the conversation, acknowledgment that it was not an easy
meeting emotionally for some, and a general sense of trust in the community's
ability to move forward together. Devin was specifically thanked for the
groundwork she has laid. Deb was thanked for her facilitation.
