Attending: Eva, John, Jim Y, Dave, Deb, Mellen, Don, Traca, Cherie, Parks, Blair
DJ update
The DJs met and are putting together criteria for becoming a DJ (not finalized). People have been asking about becoming a DJ. Criteria needed: if we have too many DJs, existing DJs won't be able to DJ much. But we also want to bring in new people in for balance without upsetting people. (In particular: we have no men currently.) Clarify what are the basic minimum requirements. Possibility of another dance on a weekday evening?: tabled for now. We're not putting out the call for DJs now.Wizengamot-initiated discussion on safety
How do we let people know who to come to if there are safety concerns (boundaries, unwanted advances, etc.). The Wizengamot's idea of an opening circle proposed and soundly thrashed in the DJ meeting. Ideas: bring to newbies sheet; make sure greeter knows who in the Wiz that's present, talk to greeter, refer to Wiz. Issue: people we draw on for greeters is broad, might be new, don't necessarily know who the goto people are. Should they be a point of contact?Consider possibility of opening circle: just after warmup, hasn't really interrupted flow, have welcome that orients, creates sense of community. Help people feel invited & welcomed. Could add to the flow rather than interrupt it.
DJ input: had opening circle, people don't know "what am I going to have to do?"
Circle dance of possibility, but don't know how to work it in.
Idea: circle up, but one person welcomes people, makes announcement about safety, who to see, then: Have a great dance. Very simple & sweet. Parks: yes, but have a set script. Have to coordinate closely with DJs. Raising energy at all creates a break.
Counter: Presenting this to people at the beginning sets us up for potential problems, sets the expectation that there may/will be problems. Also: if we have opening circle: people will wait until later. Deb: adamantly opposed to opening circle. Move that we consider having opening circle in the future if we consider that important, but for now we just want to make sure that safety issues get to the right people.
Dave: we can try things. We don't have to be deciding. We can be trying things. We can try it out, don't have to decide in advance. Move/seconded/voted to table discussion.
Changing start time
We get the dance floor at 10:15. Suggested that maybe we should make dance time start at 10:30, dance until 12:30. Discussion about the time we rushed the sub class off the floor. Some of us thought that we have the floor at 10 AM, but now that it's clear, maybe it's not a problem. We decided to continue to start at 10:15; educate folks that we don't have the floor until 10:15.Retreat idea
Neil suggested a retreat for April timeframe. Great idea, but let's table it for now. Look into it, move it forward, but we need to defer this as a group until we pin down incorporation.
Health/accident protocol
Blair reported on his discussion with Xiknawi on developing a "what to do" or triage sheet for emergencies, to accompany the first aid kit. Liability issues suggest: don't offer anything beyond: "Would you like the first aid kit, or should we call 911?" Anything more opens us to liability. Medical providers especially are at higher risk unless they're not identified prior. If they're not identified beforehand, they are free to then go in as a samaritan. So we're not going to identify medical providers, and each person is responsible for his or her own safety.
Closing ritual pass around the circle
John requested if we could dispense with passing a ritual form around the circle, saying that with the size of the group we have now, it's disrespectful of people's time, and applies peer pressure do something people might not be comfortable with. Let's keep it to names only. The DJ group has come to this already, and will remind the DJs at the next DJ meeting.
Incorporation
For incorporation, we need to decide the minimum and maximum size of the board, and decide on membership parameters. John read what we have for our current membership statement:
"There shall be Individual members. Individual members are those individuals who support the goals of the organization, and who meet any additional requirements for individual membership as may be imposed by the Board of Directors from time to time.
Individual members in good standing shall have the right to vote on matters the Board or the membership may choose to bring before the members. Each member may cast a single vote at membership meetings."
This may need to be expanded on, particularly regarding how to become a member.
Beyond what we need for incorporation, we'll soon need to know who are the initial board members and officers are. Zeke, as our incorporator, will have a meeting with himself to appoint these initial positions once we tell him who they are. For the purposes of bylaws, we also need to define how we elect/appoint/remove board members and officers.
We discussed how big the board should be, whether the minimum 3 which would include the 3 officer positions of President, Treasurer, and Secretary, or something bigger. There was some consensus that we would have something like 6-8 board members that would appoint officer positions, but not everyone was clear on that, so this will bear more discussion.
Also: whether the board would be a figurative body for the sake of legal purposes, with no real power or authority. According to John, this is a problem because the board has legal and fiduciary responsibility for the organization. Still, we don't want to have a rigidly defined decision-making body. We generally like the way the Meraki has been steering the ship and want to see some form of that continue, particularly where interested parties could join at will.
Don suggested a concentric circle model for PCD:
We discussed how big the board should be, whether the minimum 3 which would include the 3 officer positions of President, Treasurer, and Secretary, or something bigger. There was some consensus that we would have something like 6-8 board members that would appoint officer positions, but not everyone was clear on that, so this will bear more discussion.
Also: whether the board would be a figurative body for the sake of legal purposes, with no real power or authority. According to John, this is a problem because the board has legal and fiduciary responsibility for the organization. Still, we don't want to have a rigidly defined decision-making body. We generally like the way the Meraki has been steering the ship and want to see some form of that continue, particularly where interested parties could join at will.
Don suggested a concentric circle model for PCD:
- The membership comprises the outermost circle;
- the Meraki (or its successor), which would be invested with the real decision-making authority, and consisting of folks who are interested in organizational matters and want to have a more direct say in the running of the organization;
- the board, who would be a subset of the Meraki with terms set by the bylaws;
- the officers
John had concern that this suggested a 2-tier membership structure (general membership and Meraki), but that's not what is wanted here.
We discussed who would comprise the initial board and officers. Dave suggested that we work on selecting people for those positions at the meeting, but John countered that we're not ready for that yet, and suggested finding out who would be interested in what kind of position. We then realized that before we ask who's willing to hold those positions, we need to be able to tell people in more detail what the duties and responsibilities of those positions will be. How often will they be expected to meet and so on.
What we decided:
- Board size: 3 to 18
- Board membership term: 1 year
- Board appoints/selects officers (except that if the board is only 3, those will be the officers and therefore appointed/selected by either the Meraki or the membership, depending on how we decide to do that).
No comments:
Post a Comment