Difference between revisions of "Meeting Notes 2023-12-20"

* paige - in the hellman grant, which can be used for capacity, we've paid for facilitators through that, and it's not something we can use for the mortage or building, but we can pay for things like this

* jake - hes going to make sure ppl not attacking each other. doesnt want people texting privately with each other. i said im not comfortable joining giving targetting and doxxing from boycott. he said he wont allow people to go after each other the way i was worried about, so i think i will go

* jake - i wanted to say that jamal clarifeid that his purpose is to help us come to a deciscion tomorrow. im going to guess PP is pushing to push us to make us make a deciscion this meeting. they expressed it was wrong for us to be delaying the deciscion. i told jamal i dont think its appropriate for us to make this deciscion. maybe the deciscion will be to not decide. we need to be aware of what the mediator has been told by silver, of what are goals are and what our. in my mind 90 days after notice for mulberry to buy the building with lender, or LLC, or peoples program if we  

* peter - not great to make a deciscion under durress. when you buy a new car... they try and make you buy it today. if its a good deal, it will be a good deal tomorrow. enormous amount of distrust here. often say to ppl, 2 marriages - marriage with spouse and marriage with business partner. rash dec

* paige - one thing thought to discuss - how should we vote about finally what to do the building about?

* jems - it was supposed to be a small meeting at the end of november, and a small number of new people showed up and Silver was pushing that they were unhappy with the delegates structure, they wanted to include working groups, and it made me feel really uncomfortable

* paige - didn't make me feel uncomfortbale, i think invovlement is great

* paige - it didn't seem like secret knowledge

* paige - there was a tense moment.  context; there are people in the building doing the work all day, the blood of omni, cleaning up blood, dealing with conflicts, they feel like ...they have sway in the building, silver is one of them, phil, sierk and ian, they don't technically have a vote, they have sway because they inform us, but those are people i want to include in decision making

* paige - i thought it was weekly delegates meetings still, so i posted an emai right before

* jake - theres people who feel like i do, the things PP are proposing are not real, story they are telling us to get what they want, which is for us to hand over the building. PP like CLP will use whatever insuations or threats of boycotts, rumors, direct violence on peoples bodies, bad faith accusations of racism and islamophobia. i have no confidence that we can work with them or any good thing will come from pretending that it is a legitimate conversation

* peter - i think we should stall. keep them in play as long as possible until we have a viable option. they said they are willing negotiate. we make a counter offer. i think we should call their bluff. they have an anonymous donor. would be comfortable with  

* jake - when we asked them last meeting for more detail, they didnt say sure, they said you want to involves lawyers, you want more detail? thats offence

* alex - assuming, not saying true, if PP saying everyything in bad faith. what

* alex - so take it or leave it

* peter - was there no pressure to rush

* jemma - i cant say "too bad", i either take it seriously or i dont. if what their suggesting is serious

* william - my impression, is that this is a plan to take the building, from the past year. for the deciscion, is there any sort of legal protections that could work for us if they own the building. i dont think thats true. so no way forward that would actually benefit us.  

* william - lots of differet things we can do, could do a list of things why not

* peter - memorandum on understanding. start trust building, see if they are willing to join. i agree with yar that this is an exercise collective need to do. but fractional ownership, idea, we agree on high value of building, they are giving 875,000, so devide that and they get about 17% of the building. pretty much we are condo-izing omni. if you never build trust, think of it that way

* yar - i would say that in addition to pay off the debt, they are not interested in building unless they can fix it up to their standards. if they are going to spend that kind of money, that should go towards ownership. some fiar arrangement there needed

* peter - state of californai relicency centers. omni could qualify. if we trust pallavi to be a good grant writer we could get a lot of money to approve omni. we can bring it up, but if we can get our act together, we could pull that act off on our own

* alex - how would we make  

* jemma - on paper sound like a cool group, but interactions with them has made me not think they know how to handle conflict, and given they are still involved with boycott, makes me think this is not a viable thing to do at this time. i dont think we should making any counter offer that involves any part of the building. it feels rude to them. i dont want to waste their time. my experience, experience between omni . we should address that. they came in to be intimidating

* cere - i agree with jake actually that kid of dynamic if you're going to invite an abuser to up the ante when you show weakness like that, also when anybody comes to us with respect to equity and shares etc, if we're going to take seriously that they're going to take credit for improvements then we need to do the same thing and figure out the value of the property and improvements that we've made, that's another thing to think about

* jake - 3 of them opposed to FNB, but 1 is in favor. point i want to come back to, PP asked directly about the hostile and threatening behaivior about iranian dissident. asked if they would make iranians feel safe. they answered no. josh responeded that since they heard other people feel unsafe at omni, we shouldnt ask PP to keep people safe

* paige - explains Abbas response... not settled but think we should be actonable and get these people together

* jems - not sure how voting will go. i think sudo room and ccl feel no. ccl member got the "lets go outside" comment. i think it woild be really surprising for people to vote yes on this, after someone has alluded to violence, taken pictures, all public meeting. it was innappropriate and we shouldnt be going through an arbitration process, they should start that process. they should initiate that if they are working in good faith, if they dont then lets stop

* alex - if your certain that everyone will go our way, then we should call a vote tomorrow.

* alex - will that effect the vote

* alex - as time goes on, people int he omni are going to get more panicked, because we're getting closer nd closer to losing the building, so you might as well do it now if you have the votes.

* peter - i want to trust that if this is really a bad deal for Omni and the other collective members, it will tend toward that direction rather than ... groups thinking they will walk away with some fracional value if foreclosed...if they're really as bad as people say, it's going to come out

* jemma - i don't think it's a terrible idea what you're suggesying but i dont know how to do it, doesnt sound tactical, we can do this but everyone...they're going to call us racist for not accepting our proposal... idont see the need to push for the vote tomorrow, maybe they will change, but i dont see that right now

* jake - right away these are things that are imporatnat to us. we are not going to accept a refusal to ensure the safety of iranian dissidents. "endangering them. given a soft ball question, they gave a long speech about why they are not going to. 2nd. they are claiming they are distanced from clp. we dont know that. their saying they are not partners, but also unwiling to walk back the claims about us that they have forwarded. presumably they are not interested in pushing back on CLP, telling them to stop emailing people from our email list. they are easy friends with clp and call off them off, or they are not and can drop claims. either the same and friends or separate and willign to nuance their present position

* cere - seems like there's two framings: either now ith conditions or yes with conditions, or you can say it's unclear maybe yes and here's the following reasons.  We should maybe agree what those conditions are.  We are starting to agree on conditions 1. this blakmailing thing is not what's up, other things i forgot.  We can agree on those conditions, potentially maybe we could go forward, or no we can't go forward and here's why

* ed - i ahve a buddy who works with chinese housing market. if theres equity in the building, sell it for cash. i think that is reasonable. but i would not want to be in association with a nationalist group. from what ive seen theres nothing that is good will come out of this

* cere - is your perspetive that we could achieve the same goals and

* more discussion