Meeting Notes 2024-01-31

Attendees

• carl - hi i'm carl (remotely)
• andrew w - i'm here, remotely
• E - i'm here remotely, at work so please don't hold votes while i'm not present, or text me if there are votes so i can participate
• yar - she/her, i wanted to be there in person but i had a covid exposure so i'm isolating for the next few days
• alex - i'm alex, i'm the delegate
• trevor - i'm trevor
• paige [notetaker] - former delegate
• jake [notetaker] - former delegate

pre-meeting unstructured convo

• andrew - why did eric stop being delegate?
• paige - both eric and i stepped down as delegates because people objected, wanted someone with more overall approval and Alex stepped up
• andrew - i was wondering if it was sudoroom people or omni people objecting
• eric - Jamal objected to working with Omni Commons if i was delegate, and there was a meeting with a lot of bullying but hopefully Alex can move things forward
• yar - i'm very happy that Alex is the delegate
• alex - also we have a need for a new secretary
• jake - i nominate Sierk for secretary
• paige - and treasurer
• jake - i nominate Taylor. Both of these people have expressed willingness to fill those roles
• alex - the thing about the ED, is that an agenda item?
• paige - it doesn't need to be an agenda item but i was talking with Pallavi, who mentioned being interested in doing an ED role at a much more, better fit, discussion item tomorrow.
• andrew - are we talking about an ED for sudoroom or Omni Commons?
• paige - for Omni. The need came up because of Jamal offered, but the Omni needs someone, so things don't fall through the cracks, there was talk before about having an Operations Coordinator?
• alex - the role would be described as someone who carries out the will of the delegates, working full time to keep the ball rolling. At least that was the idea before?
• yar - operations coordinator discussion was 2 years ago
• alex - i have a question i'd like to ask up front about my function. Basically, what is the precedent for when there's a block in sudoroom, does that imply a block in the delegates committee?
• yar: precedent has been - sr has worked hard to resolve blocks. usually a block from a member of a collective would manifest as blocking for a couple meetings, but then they would propose amendments to the proposal, or work out any issues they had with people
• andrew - i dont understand concept of block, is that a veto?
• alex - the process until now, is that if someone has a block, aka a veto, the group works to resolve it to figure out some other siolution and offer that instead, so there's some affirmative action. Unfortunately we've had meetings lately with a lot of contention and ended up with gridlock. But the idea behind consensus is that we're going to try to reach a mutually agreeable decision
• andrew - can we go to majority rule or is it cast in stone?
• alex - we can do whatever we want but this is how things are right now
• andrew - right now nothing is getting done, but needs to be.
• jake - i disagree with that narrative, that we need to change the system. that comes up from people who arent getting their things done. disagreement about what to do, and we need more time to do those things. those who want to do their things want to change rules in
• alex - dont impute that, say reason why you think
• jake - concept of we have a problem and need to change system, things being done constantly. even the foreclosure, if we were to sit on our hands, 3 months. trying to come up with alternate solutions, timescale slower than what people might suggest
• andrew - are we in foreclosure now?
• jake - we're in default, which means they could start foreclosure process, but no notice yet
• andrew - hearing some prospect of money showing up
• jake - yes several prospects
• alex - do you have a particular thing in mind of not being done?
• andrew - read last meeting minutes, seemed like no decisions made. dont know if its even possible with constraints
• alex - last 2 meetings, PP membership and ED
• yar - as much as our system isnt the best, the people i disagree with the most, i believe they also want to save the building and are trying their best to find options to save it ,it seems like we're all on the same page. everything still on table, 5 or 6 options for omni at the moment. if we got foreclosure notice tomorrow, we could pursue any of those options and the building could be saved
• alex - could we talk about that?
• yar - we can, would be a review for a lot of people in this meeting. big questions are just like, what do we do and how do we do it. i think a lot of the options are compatible with each other. as frustrated as ive been with consensus process how its been happening, in sr in particular, still holding out that we will listen and understand one another, find common ground
• andrew - everyone else knows these options?
• alex - none of them are quite concrete, but i can enumerate. PP option, partnership with them, say they have money and can pay off loan. they would want part of building in return. COM proposal, philip bell would be doing something similar. LLC raising money to use to get event space
• jake - they are working with CAST. CAST also connected through Peter. Need a more specific proposal from then
• alex - third option, partnering with a land trust in some way. CAST is one name, they have visited the space.
• yar - SFCLT also an option. another option would be lenders through an LLC
• alex - we would get loans from people through that LLC
• paige - short term solution
• andrew - is that realistic?
• jake - realistic because building is valuable, and ballroom has a lot of earning power.
• andrew - whats the best option
• alex - people have different opinions
• yar - sounds like you are following sudo discuss mailing list. not where these discussions usually happen - happen in omni mailing lists and slack. just because you havent seen these options, please trust that people are talking about this everyday
• jake - you dont just have to trust, you can join the consensus mailing list
• carl - do you have update on LLC jake?
• jake - funder distracting me from LLC option, because they could support the loan in full. working to draw up an offer. as far as llc on its own, i havent been pursuing people, because it seems like the land trust.. everything ive heard about CAST, question is just of "how" are they funding us
• alex - i think you should be full steam on LLC. nows not the time to back off. do you need help?
• yar: agreed the LLC is important to work on. omni has issues with conflict etc but IMO these will be easier to resolve if we have more certainty about the future, which LLC would provide
• jake - yes
• alex - we should try to get volunteers together
• jake - also 2k to lawyer to draft agreement. dont need to do this until later. if people trying to decide something by next week, then should get on it
• alex - does starting llc preclude any of these options
• yar - absolutely not, just buys us more time
• alex - even without legal stuff, getting pledge and finding out what they want in term would be great
• jake - ive told you everything i can tell you. hopefully something agreeable.
• alex - im talking about the LLC
• yar - the more people, the better
• jake - i feel pressure by timeframe people are saying right now. getting 20 or so people to fund this will take long
• yar - i dont mean to pressure you, im trying to encourage you. please dont take it as pressure
• andrew -
• alex - when they come with a proposal, we'll take it back to collectives, and judge it. cant say we will agree to it ahead of time.
• andrew - what if they say i.e. they will do ballroom
• alex - consensus probably for selling out part of the building. also open to 5 or so year loan. hasnt discussed governance changes yet .
• andrew - i dont think anyone will
• alex - theyd make interest
• andrew - but balloon payment
• paige - this would also be a balloon payment
• jake - someone was telling me there is an interest only loan. i though exploitaive. said "well welcome to pay more, pay principle". how capitalism works
• yar - someone is handling the things you are talking about andrew
• jake - why do you object
• yar - holding up the meeting
• jake - ok lets go to other agenda items and come back

• andrew - can we get a list of proposals

• Peoples Programs would pay off loan and then own a portion of the building
• City In Motion would partner with a lender like CAST
• LLC of co-lenders give Omni a new lender
• a land trust taking ownership of the property

report back on misssey

• paige - the executive director and our contact from Misssey came to have a tour. The nature of the work they do requires them to have good control of who comes in and out of the building, and the ED told them "this is the omni commons, i'm not gonna change that" but it could work for ... the nature of a very open community center sharing building with hq for people working with at-risk youth due to sexual exploitation didn't seem like a good fit, but it was a nice discussion, they like our radical politics but don't know how to make it work but, it was just reminiscent of what David K was talking about: people who are interested in buildings, they don't want all of our drama and history in the space, we need to have a plan for how do we imagine working together with interested parties

a vote on Peoples Programs proposal tomorrow

• yar - except PP who have conflict resolution skills, and are willing to engage with omni as-is despite the drama and history, because of their investment in the longevity of the space
• jake - they cant even address conflicts we've had or take down their own retweet of the [former member collective] attack against us
• trevor - I thought that there was like a doxxing issue too, which makes things more complicated
• yar [in notes]: PP never doxxed anybody, that was [former member collective]
• paige - PP is willing, we just have to do work to set up
• carl - does misssey want to be a collective
• paige - no they are looking to buy a building.
• yar - back to PP. somebody said PP had doxxing issue, that was not them, that was [former member collective]. PP didnt dox anyone. At the last meeting, yemi said they were open to taking it down
• jake - they shouldnt have done it in the first place
• yar - we should have discussion
• jake - have said no before, forget it not going to happen
• "Solidarity with [former member collective]!" https://twitter.com/ppls_programs/status/1710071892688916635
• jnny [in notes]: had breakfast with two longtime political black comrades of Omni last week. They said PP and CLP are virtually the same modality of black nationalist propaganda and coercion. Heard of The Holdout and Qilombo?
  • just invited one of them to weigh in if they feel up to it - probably later on as they're currently driving home from work

• carl - like jake said, they were told about it in december, and that was something they should have immediately taken down. If they haven't done so, it's really irresponsible. It's really not ok that they haven't taken it down.
• alex - discussion we are having right now is about PP becoming a member collective, separate from purchasing building. separate but related. they asked to become a member collective, i say as a gesture but yar disagrees, to begin our relationship together. my understanding is if they purchase part of building, they will need to cease becoming a member. could be permanent. lot of discussion about why they are doing this, pros and cons. other thing you should be aware of, is CCL will block, so SR potentially has the deciding vote. given consensus - 1. yemi showed up at meeting, gave outline of political program, how group works. a lot of that is in the notes so if youre interested you can look there. im skeptical of member collective because creates a conflict of interest. they said they will recuse themselves, but makes discussions a little awkward. also group seems to have different values from some groups here. SR and CCL have open source / open dedication. PP have more closed meetings.
• andrew - are they the ones standing up for iranian regime
• alex - thats a separate org, there is some overlap
• jake - PP supports iranian regime, also support putin liberating ukraine from nazi regime. iranian regime article written by [former member collective] is on PP's medium. also conflict, two people in charge, one of them had a conflict at omni. attacking someone criticizing the iranian regime. yar has said they are doing mediation, but nobody denies that happened. to say PP is not on same page as [former member collective] isnt true
• alex - can someone else say something about what jake is bringing up?
• yar - people said different things. person who had picture taken didnt hear anything, but did note taking the picture. talk with picture taken, virtue signal that pro muslim, that iran is pro muslim. i do not agree, even people i march next to, do not agree with those support iranian regime. but a lot of people do. something we must contend with on the left. i personally willing to meet those people. im talking about specific people, working with these people in oakland We're not meeting with the ayatollahs, we're meeting with Abbas Muntaquim
• (discussion about PP being run by Abbas and another person as the "chairs")
• jake - but we would be selling building to them not the people of Peoples Programs
• yar im pretty sure... - right now we are talking about member collective
• andrew - seemed like, when i read the bylaws. article one, wont be involved with any oppressive ideologies. getting in bed with these guys. not q of whether left can cooperated with muslims. antithetical to core principle everyone agreed to in the outset. cant believe we are even considering this
• carl - i dont have much to say about political stance, but ask about member of omni. havent seen their latest proposal. is there... what are they offering? rent? or planning on space here or not? what are they going to be doing here.
• yar - they would like to have space in the building but they were hoping to spend more time in the building to figure out what space works for them, but in the meantime they still want to help save the building
• carl - but are they going to pay rent like the other collectives?
• yar - for a space they would pay rent, but they just want to
• andrew - so we let anyone be a collective
• yar - if we approve them. right now we have 2 collectives who dont have a space in omni
  • we do?? who LL and sketchboard
    • who still contribute $$
• carl - we shouldnt approve unless they have amount to pay in rent. what is the need of them being an official collective, instead of being informal collaborators.
• alex - that was brought up in the meeting. asked if anything short of membership. patrik considered free rent in the ballroom. that didnt seem to go anywhere. next delegates meeting we are expecting to vote yes or no
• jake - wanted to speak to request about becoming a member collective. people asking rightly about what they want. im pulling up original email. [reads email].
• alex - we followed up, needed more fleshing out. they felt last meeting was filling in gaps. they do want to use the space. they would start using space for several of their activities. clarified that their main concern is saving the building. i explained that the option of selling building is out, i think that was their main concern. more information than the email now
• jake - i was reading that to give context to their original request. seems to not make sense, not trying to be part of omni. people were asking just now if precedent for groups not having any use, no rent, and the last one we had like that was [former member collective]. i just think that in this present time, and thing that CCL is not compatible with them because they believe their above board work with bioscience, not compatible working with group of their politics. also people like me in SR who dont think right to approve. counter to the idea of considering them as a business partner. "dont want anything just to be on board" doesnt make sense other than to influence us.
• andrew - can we vote?
• yar - i dont know where to start. 1st thing, we already have most of the member collectives have come out in enthusiastic support, because this is a group we want to work with, compatible in all the important ways, despite organizing different. this idea of - it seems extremely unlikely that people who want to block, that any of those people who approve a more serious deal with them. and that seems so clear to me as "adding them will create a conflict of interest." feels disingenuous, you know you wouldnt approve that either. im not trying to coerce you do that. i would rather accept member collective short of control of building. frankly dividing building up is less ideal than working together as a coalition. i see this first proposal as a clear first step, recognizing as common stakeholder in saving this building. as people whove grown up in the neighborhood, been here longer
• alex - can you talk about specific people
• yar - yes
• yar - every time we talk about this, not able to finish idea. habit of men interrupting women here. things people say are inaccurate, dont have time. ask everyone - do you feel right to block, to veto those. I know CCL has made up mind, but just becasues they are on the wrong side doesnt mean you have to be
  • jnny [in notes]: ...wow.. i've asked a lot of people and feel 110% yes on the block. no CCL influence here.
• carl - it seems we have multiple proposals that we're considering, and the other ones are not concerning peoples programs, so in ordder to actually reasonably consider these other proposals or if we went for one of these other proposals, i don't understand why peoples programs at this time is necessary, i think we should welcome interaction and get to know each other better, but as for having them or even any new collectives at this time, until we finalize this issue with our property. I do think they could have an influence on this process even if they dont have a vote on that particular deal, they could have an influence in other ways,
• paige - they should have influence because this is their community and they've grown up here and should have a say in how the building is used. If we uphold our principles....
• carl - but making them a collective gives them a vote and why them versus everyone else in the community?
• aige - because we don't have any other black orgs that are interested in coming into the space right now
• carl - it sounds like you're saying the communities that surround the omni, why not survey the neighbors?
• paige - we could, do you want to work on that with me?
• carl - i dont understand the argument that them in particular should have a vote in the omni
• paige - because they're a ... i understand the awkwardness of when we're talking about what we want to do, and what happened with [former member collective] and not wanting a group to have two votes again... but i think the work they do could be helpful if we came to land trusts, this is one group that's able to pull in funds and energy and omni needs a lot more people and energy, we need that, this place is so massively underused, i come in and it's the same three people here
• carl - i think we should do a freeze of any new collectives, so we can discuss what we're going to do, until we settle the building issue
• paige - i mean they wouldn't have a vote on that, what are some votes that they would get a say on? Like hiring an ED, the power collectives have is through their block really
• carl - that could be a problem
• yar - yeah they might block new member collectives
• carl - yeah like [former member collective] blocked TANC
• paige - PP worked with TANC
• yar - PP are partners with TANC in organizing against evictions, part of why TANC didn't join was because of the boycott by PP
• alex - that was their worry
• yar - something some people expressed.
• alex - several people from tanc expressed joining omni would hurt relationship with PP?
• yar - in november yes but i convinced them otherwise.
• alex - leadership?
• yar - people at general meeting.
• yar - also something addressed at meeting, someone asked "why cant we just work together more to build more trust" its bizarre to me because that keeps happening. its really easy to get involved with PP. people who havent gotten involved stubbornly stuck believing inaccurate things about PP, having fuzzy nebulous objections to them. very clear dividing line to me. so many people have enthusiastically supported are people who know them. people whove join, or been part of cadre with them, people who have grown up and know PP
• jake - tautology. "people who get along with PP are PP and we should stop objecting"
• alex - i looked at [former member collective] approval meeting, that was voted by people who have worked with them. just the fact that people have worked with them in past doesnt mean it will work out with them as a member collective. 2nd you said nebulous, ive seen concrete. can you explain
• yar - "why is it necessary" "why is required". question isnt thaat, its "is it a good idea". we've added collectives before, not because necessary, but so that we arent insular. we dont have enough collectives right now to run a community center. it can only help us to grow and add and recognize more stakeholders. and yea some people supported [former member collective]...
• alex - not some, all
• yar - we learned the hard way about them
• jake - yar seems like you are organizing objections. like concern until we get building issue solidified. really forceful and ignoring people who are expressing concerns
• yar - not ignoring, im disagreeing openly
• jake - "no valid reasons to object"
• yar - no never said that
• jake - pointed out reasons to object are nebulous. other thing, learn lesson about the past, i sensed something was wrong with[former member collective] before when i was delegate. only info i had. told me i was
• alex - only SR had objection, asked for 30 day probationary period, never happened. maybe a good idea going forward
  • +1
• yar - it was 3 month not 30 day, no i dont think its a good idea.
• andrew - can we vote
• yar - ill probably quit SR if we block this
  • didn't you already quit?
  • yar: i never quit sudoroom i've been paying dues continually for years
• jake - holdout kinda like omni. qilombo has common ideas with what PP says thyre about. video with qilombo talking about history. they lost the space. david and sarah had some stories. bad lesson, unfortunate how things went down. not going to take sides. i was chased out and roughed up, didnt know it had changed. wanted to show wasnt the place we thought it was.
• jake - i forwarded email from my friend about CLP. i forwarded info about CLP to SR. im going to be asked to represent sudo room. 2022, not very attended meetings. couldnt figure out much info, said we should go slow. CCL was also hesitant, but we were both shut down as racist. inaccurate to say we didnt have hesitation.
• paige: i don't like the system of sudoroom votes just being whoever shows up at the meeting
• yar: especially when so many people have been driven away from them by racism and transmisogyny
• andrew: i'm sure there's plenty of that [sarcastically]
• yar: you think there's no racism and transmisogyny?
• andrew: i haven't seen any
• yar - what do you think about the statement solidarity
• andrew - fuck the statement of solidarity, all i know is the bylaws say we won't align with repressive ideologies
• yar - i would say denying racism and transmisogyny is a repressive ideology
• andrew - i block, veto, peoples programs being part of omni in any way. you all can decide what you want to do with that.
• jake - lets hear from everyone. On the question of how sudorooms delegate should represent the position of approve, abstain, or block the proposal of the peoples programs
• carl amends "at this time"

vote on peoples programs membership proposal

• On the question of how sudorooms delegate should represent the position of approve, abstain, or block the proposal of Peoples Programs becoming a member collective of Omni Commons at this time
  • approve - Angela (by having told Alex beforehand), Yar, Paige (i think it is rushed but for sake of vote approve)
  • abstain - Alex
  • block - Andrew W, Carl, Jenny, Trevor (applied for membership 2 weeks ago, has 3 endorsements and no blocks), Eric (this is too rushed for my comfort but would like to revisit after the mortgage crisis), Jake

• Jabari has joined the meeting
• Jnny - Welcome Jabari, has been a part of Omni and Liberated Lens in particular for almost a decade now, and was recently chatting with him about CLP and PP and the Omni right now and thought he had some good insights to share
• Jabari - im coming in late to party, but there's a definite power struggle going on with the omni, and allowing the PP to come in as a collective in the omni. And some of the rhetoric that theyve used in the past kind of conflicts with the ... of the omni , ever since i've been part of the omni theres been a rumor mill, that the omni is a white collective and not a welcoming space for black and brown people and i've called bullshit on this plenty of times. This myth of the omni being a white-only club is bullshit, the omni has done so much community work that i dont think this group.. is not the group to work with, theyre going to usurp the space and they've already put out ... its really uncalled for, and i dont know what to call, this myth that omni is a white only club. omni has done so much community work. you do need more community membership but not group to work with. i dont think this is the group to represent black radical thought
• trevor - can i say something as a black person - just seeing what they're about like lowkey being as unbiased as i can say the religious stuff kinda turns me off a bit, especially the doxing and if they had been more diplomatic i'm saying tthis as unbiased as i can, i mean most groups are white supremacist or dominated, so that argument there you could use that anywhere but its something to look out for , it is like a conflict of interest..
• paige - clp is not pp
• trevor - so are they aligned?
• paige - clp wrote boycott that doxxed people. PP retweeted. clp smaller group, have crossover between groups
• trevor - still that was a little over the line, as someone whose been doxxed in the past, i know the ramifications of that,

• jake - thanks everyone, lets recap the vote for our delegate: approve: 3, abstain: 1, block: 6
• alex - so we did not reach consensus, we do not have a decision
• jake - i disagree
• alex - with the definition of consensus?
• yar - i strongly [dis]agree with the people who block, but i don't think that everyone has to agree to block for the delegate to block. If i was the delegate in this vote, i would agree that the delegate needs to block, but i want to point out how many people have felt alienated from coming to these meetings, because of the shit that has happened at these meetings, but if they had been coming to these meetings you would have a couple more blocks, abstains, approves....i think omni's got a real problem here
• andrew w - this is what i was mentioning about not getting anything done, because anyone can block something getting through, but if its a contentious issue we've got to go with a majority rule
• yar - but what is majority rule
• andrew w - count the votes
• alex - the basis of this process is that we have to communicate, this encourages people to approach where they are, thats the virtue, there are bad things about it too
• andrew w - i devoted two hours of my life for this, do what you're gonna do
• yar - alex it seems like you should block tomorrow, i don't want you to block but i don't think you have a choice here, i think consensus .... its not permanent, maybe in two weeks...it seems the only way forward, if people feel this strongly... i just encourage everyone to talk with the people you are disagreeing with. ill put my email. the problem i see at Omni is the way consensus is building is just by someone walking away.

ED contract

• alex - theres been work done by patrik and paige and
• paige - and john a little bit
• alex - i dont think its been sent to Jamal yet, who wanted to review it before it was sent to the lawyer, right?
• paige - yar has the draft been sent to jamal yet?
• yar - nobody agrees that we have a final draft to send to him
• paige - patrik has a draft that hes working on, newest draft has some stuff about wages, $60/hr, but only if we have net revenue
• jenny - its a salary with a cap, stable enough that people are incentivized to work, that could be .... i dont know why we would put in the hands of some brand new guy 10% of 1 million dollars that could be donated to us?
• paige - even when we were doing a percentage of what was raised we were doing it because we had no funds to pay him, ...its not cool because it might turn out he doesnt bring in any money and works for us for free, or maybe makes money on a grant that Pallavi brought in and shes on a monthly contract, this was brought up because we dont have money to pay, not a grift by jamal
• alex - is the contract able to be shared around?
• yar - i would be cautious about sharing it, it shouldn't be public but if someone is a trusted aide of a delegate, i think its fine to share, but we know that the job candidate doesnt want this to be public, he was very disgruntled the last time things were public
• jenny - why is he not ok with things being public? we're a transparent organization and we have to report documents
• yar - not all details of contract need to be public
• jenny - ....
• yar - he doesn't want the delegates to be spreading it into the wider internet
• jenny - too bad, don't work for omni...a group that does things by and large transparently, an executive director who has ... over the delegates would be not transparent
• yar - idk whether to address the false premises or the ... he wouldnt have power over the delegates. that would be impossible. he specifically, he doesnt want to get into a lot of drama with people who treated him with disrespect. contract negotiation,,, not normal to have every detail public. makes it more complicated than it needs to be. and i think anyone interested not in conflict can be brought in, just doesnt need to happen in public.
• jenny - i think the issue of appointing an ED, at experimental project of nonhierarchial omni...
• alex - idea was, had first discussion, now creating a draft contract with small circle that will be shared, when we are at that point, then circulated with wider collectives who can put in their contributions. i think it helps having initial contract with a small group before shopped around. i dont think jamal wants contract secret forever, but it makes sense to be in a small circle at first.
• jenny - yea that makes sense, thanks for sharing
• carl - a little confused on whether it was decided to hire him
• alex - no it has not been decided. working on preliminary contract. he wants to see a realistic step forward from us before sharing his references.
• jenny - seriously? do we have a cv?
• alex - yes
• jenny - not a shared CV? should be public
• alex - not relatively public
• yar - i have been sharing it with anyone i trust not to post on the public internet
• jake - you said its not doxxing if its already known on internet
• alex - are you making anything better by that comment?
• jake - i think its because its in interest about convo, shouldnt be private thing if he wants to be ED of a transparent org. im addressing question of whether its valid to simultaneously keep secret
• alex - not secret
• paige - yar said you were doxxed, but she wasnt because what was there on boycott was already public info.
• alex - so ok not having it public, but shared as needed [not sure if said]
• jenny - yes

https://omnicommons.org/wiki/Event:2024/01/25_Delegates

officer positions of treasurer and secretary

• alex - yar has been nominated for secretary and would do a great job, but jake go ahead and talk about your nominees
• jake - i nominate Sierk and Taylor for positions of Secretary and Treasurer, they're both ok with that.
• jenny - does taylor have experience with accounting or finance?
• jake - i dont think so. does our current one imma?
• yar - imma doesnt want to be listed anymore, neither does jacqi. reason we are doing this now is because we are going to file our 990s.
• jenny - we have til april 15? to submit notification of changes to the board over past fiscal year jan-dec. so if we are changing now, dont have to report til april of next year. we would be listed current people on our tax doc. just to say its not a huge rush
• yar - they dont want to be on it, filing more paperwork with their names on it, especially with foreclosure, would be shitty
• paige - 990s.
• jenny - due in may for nonprofits. usually we ask for 6 month. nov 15.
• yar - sarah said she intended to do in feb
• jenny - she intends to finish financial reports, income revenue, status of debts. but those are submitted to irs. she also said she usually takes extension because omni is complicated. they want profit and loss, rent and role, projected business plan and income. in term of tax filing requirements, not required til november. she was planning to submit
• yar - i thought she was trying to finish obligations and leave
• jenny - as long as we have financial reports we have what we need
• alex/yar - she would help with this years taxes, 2023
• yar - i believe you, are you saying we shouldnt replace them right now?
• alex - personally i think its a good idea, but not urgent
• jenny - im just saying less urgent than people making it to be
• yar - even though people are actively asking to be taken off
• alex - already on the document that they want off
• yar - but at least in meeting notes that they are removed
• alex - do they have to be filled?
• jenny - need those 3 roles
• alex - maybe we could at least ask them? or is their position already known
• yar - both very clear in my experience that they dont want the roles
• alex - ok, but we have til may then?
• yar - seems like only reason for waiting is conflict between me and jake.
• jake - no theres another person blocking
• yar - sierk doesnt come to meetings
• jenny - honestly yar would be best secretary. primary duty is to record meetings of the board
• alex - to me, its not a position that will be making decisions. someone who cares about building, and someone doing a lot of those roles already
• yar - i dont even want it, just conceding to the people who nominated me that it could help. in my attempts to save the building to have the title. i dont want it, i dont like having my name on stuff, despite it being on my twitter, despite not being doxxed while jake was... which i have to clarify all the time
• jenny - this is our 990 public
• jake - i understand they are supposed to have roles, but until now there have been no calls for those people to do something other than have name on paper. i agree with our delegates being a horizontal board.
• alex - then why does it matter
• jake - why couldnt i be president? i gave up the title no problem. immediately, fine with paige. patrik was one who wanted to look into past more. point being i dont think it should be a problem for
• alex - the only people left around here are controversial in one or another. you guys have known each other so long, no way to prevent controversy
• yar - im not even blocking sierk. can speak for other collectives. i would just ask, what is your reason for blocking me?
• jake - i think you are shameless about getting your way. use what ever levers, theories of justice you can employ to get what you want. and i dont want it
• alex - some people would characterize you that way too
• jake - yes and those people wouldnt want me to be president , secretary, and treasurer
• eric - why is this just our choice?
• alex - just discussing who has been nominated vs xxp
• paige - CCL nominated yar too, not just sr
• paige - i think that role is important one, should have someone
• jenny - do they have spreadsheet experience
• jenny - we arent going to find another sarah. who does [lists all things sarah does for low wage]. not a problem for treasurer and secretary to be same
• paige - sarah said past meeting thats a huge red flag
• jenny - not a problem for small nonprofit. i researched this extensively when i was doing bookkeeping for omni before 2019
• alex - are we satisfied with our nominations, i will transfer nominations that jake has put forward. your blocking yar?
• jake - yes im blocking yar and eric is blocking yar.
• carl - i dont know either sierk or taylor. but make sure to trust people in these positions not to take power. i have had that experience. if not trustworthy they can cause problems for you
• jake - if anyone worried about that with sierk or taylor, they should speak up.

end of meeting

• alex - anything else?
• jake - icebreaker question
• alex - the ice has already been broken.
• alex - just to recap, i am blocking the Peoples Programs proposal tomorrow, and i have nothing to say about Jamal's contract (there is nothing yet)
• yar - if it were to be a vote, first work between team and jamal, then sent for lawyer ratification, then to delegates to vote
• alex - also i need top 3 reasons why for block
• jenny - 1. conflict of interest with co-ownership, then being a part of the board of co-owner. i know they had response. 2. what is benefit on either side. i understand they are getting to know us, getting more trust, but from our end looks like a risk, now they have decision making power, i know recusing themselves from certain decisions, but still a form of power. what would omni gain? not proposing rent
• alex - i think they are open to that. they would want to use the space, and would be open to rent for any space
• eric - thats cool they can do that without being a member collective
• jenny - before other collectives have gotten more involved with space for applying. reason for that, to gain trust
• carl - reason i said to amend "at this time", we can reconsider after saving of omni. not bringing in new member collective before saving the omni
• eric - i see same thing, eating up a lot of energy that could be used elsewhere. something we can discuss after mortgage
• yar - does that include tanc?
• jake - no we have already approved them
• jenny - and have been meeting at omni for years at months
• jake - why did ask that
• alex - because it seems like a contradiction
• yar - it does seem like a contradiction. heuristic of no adding new colllectives
• carl - no i think useful to bring that up
• jake - lots of back and forth with tanc. approval of tanc has been more firmly investigated than any other collective
• carl - jake has a good point
• paige - yea yar has been doing a lot of that work and is in support. but clarified talking about heurstic of not approving any new collective... not sure why this blew up.
• jenny - just pointing out not that contradictory. have been working with them
• yar - i dont disagree, i approve of tanc. you are offering a different heuristic - we can add new collectives if they have already been working here. carl was saying specifically no new collective
• jenny - if it was noisebridge asking.. or some other group with more established connections
• paige - there are some established connections within omni to pp.
• yar - [something about noisebridge being bad example]
• jenny - [ok i hear that]
• alex - anything else for delegate to share?
• jake recaps lender conversation
• jake - we might have to ask the board to agree to..
• jenny - before consens on people to liason with jesse. usually a small group of delegates, who were more legally savvy. we should update that list.
• alex - maybe we should pre-emptively okay time with the lawyer.
• jenny - good to have someone, board representative, CC'd in conversation. to track time and transparency.
• yar - im okay putting this person in touch with lawyer. but unsure if omni should pay for it. my understanding is that they want to be anonymous
• jenny - some sort of conflict of interest
• yar - pay our lawyer to work on something to be a secret about it
• jake - i sent jesse a telephone message with that persons number. but jesse might come back and ask for board approval.
• alex - thank you everyone for coming. not fun being here hours on end. but helps me know what to do tomorrow
• yar - thanks alex
• alex - want to talk about forward looking ideas for sudo room. but dont want to hold anyone
• yar - im willing to stay. not trying to cancel anyone even if i disagree with them