Directors Meeting - 2015-03-07

From FGWiki
Revision as of 06:56, 27 July 2015 by imported>Michele (Created page with "++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++<br> Free Geek Vancouver <br> DIRECTORS MEETING<br> Saturday, 7 March 2015, 4:00 pm<br> 25 Victoria Drive, Vancouver<br> +++++++++++++++++++++++…")
(diff) ← Older revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)
Jump to: navigation, search

Free Geek Vancouver
Saturday, 7 March 2015, 4:00 pm
25 Victoria Drive, Vancouver


Attending: Jody M., Kricket C., Chenessa M, Trevor M. Guest: Mac M.
Regrets: Nigel C., Rex B.

Trevor M. volunteered to facilitate and was selected by consensus.

Trevor M. noted that this meeting had been called by Kricket C. to allow her to fully address the concerns detailed in a ban warning letter delivered to her by Mike Frost on behalf of staff. There would be no other agenda items.

Being asked to detail her concerns, Kricket began by expressing her belief that it was not Mike Frost's job to present her with a ban warning letter, but that the letter should have gone to the directors to then be presented to her. Kricket also felt that Mike Frost's presence at the board meeting where the letter was to be discussed was inappropriate. Kricket further noted that Mike Frost has not demonstrated the neutrality required to be Free Geek's ombudsperson.

Trevor noted that he has found no documentation of the role of ombudsperson on the wiki and suggests that his role appears to be more a spokesperson for staff than an ombudsperson, but that this needed to be qualified.

Addressing staff's concerns in the order that they were detailed in the letter, Kricket conceded that she failed to attend the first scheduled meeting and regrets that she did not reply to the second request. She would like another opportunity to meet with staff to justify her actions.

Kricket denies the Code of Conduct violations:

Kricket stated that she approached Nigel, asking him to view video recordings, and that he directed her to Mike F.. She showed several video recordings to Mike F.. Neither of them appeared to take her concerns seriously. She denies intentionally accusing staff members of theft but acknowledges that she may have expressed her belief that the video records were noteworthy, if not suspicious, in language that may have given that impression.

Kricket denies accusing Robert, in an public email, of joining staff with the intent of poisoning their opinion of her. She wants that email to be documented.

Kricket denies the Anti-harassment Policy violations:

Kricket contends that she was assigned Security Lead at an unminuted Directors Meeting in May 2014 and that she believes she was directed by Nigel C. to monitor video records. Although Mike F. later verbally told her to stop, Kricket believes that he had no authority to give her instruction.

Kricket produced email from Nigel advising Tyler H. that there were concerns and that he wanted to have the camera records reviewed. Tyler H. expressed concerns about impropriety of surveillance but on 17 June advised Nigel C. that he had turned on the cameras. Nigel was also recipient of emails from Mac referring to Kricket as Security Lead but Kricket was unable to provide documentation either that she was appointed Security Lead or that Nigel was aware of this.

Kricket denies being advised that desks were personal space. Kricket admits using keys from Tim's desk when needed for laptops, and retrieving other office and shop supplies from various desks. Kricket recognizes that staff will feel a sense of personal space but denies actually "going through" personal belongings.

Kricket denies the balance of claims in the letter:

Kricket conceded that she had misplaced a set of keys and borrowed Mac's. Mac noted he had discussed this with Karen at the time and Karen did not appear concerned. While acknowledging that Nigel did ask her to return the keys, Kricket believes that neither Nigel nor Mike were authorized to relieve her of the keys and that this was a decision to be made by the directors as no policy was in place at the time.

Kricket denies causing damage to the admin computer. She claims that several people were verbally authorized to access their own log-in accounts on the computer and she never accessed any directory other than her own account. More specific accusations must be made to be creditable.

Kricket believes that she was authorized to build shelving. She admits that she accidently set aside RAM during construction but that she gave them to Mike D. as soon as she recovered them.

Upon review of the ban policy, several issues with the letter were raised. The Ban Policy and the procedures are specific in how they are applied. This letter does not follow these procedures.

As required by policy, a verbal warning was given and this letter constitutes the required written warning. But it is unclear if minutes of a staff meeting document the decision to send the letter.

Bans are not permanent. This letter does not specify the length of the ban. This letter is not a warning of a banning but a threat to ban unless Kricket resigns as a director.

Bans are intended to deter behaviour. Requiring Kricket to resign from the board is not a deterrence but a retribution. A ban should be to deter certain behaviour. Whatever actions Kricket may have taken to cause staff to consider a ban, being a director is not itself a bannable action.

Kricket's use of keys and acess to video records is no longer an issue. She has stopped the behaviour that led to the warning being issued.

Kricket admits to the use of profanity but denies violating any other part of the code of conduct as written. Kricket expressed her frustration at the unwillingness of directors or staff to address her concerns raised by the video records. She concedes that her frustration led her to ever-express her concerns.


Kricket requests the opportunity to hear staff members without interposition from Mike F. After discussion, a consensus was reached to request Chenessa as HR Lead to arrange a meeting with staff.

Without accusing anyone of impropriety, Kricket would like individual staff to have an opportunity to view video recording with a third party, possibly the staff ombudsperson, to justify her concerns and explain why she was reviewing other records.

Kricket asked for clarification on her bringing her own ban charges and was advised that she should write up her complaint for submission to the directors and it would be addressed as a separate issue.

Adjourn: 5:20