Monthly Meeting - 2015-06-30

From FGWiki
Revision as of 04:20, 10 June 2016 by imported>MED
(diff) ← Older revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)
Jump to: navigation, search

Public meeting minutes for Tuesday, June 30th 2015 at 6:30pm
Location: 1820 Pandora Street
Previous: Monthly Meeting - 2015-01-12 | Next: Monthly Meeting - 2015-07-28

Note: This is not a decision-making assembly but is intended as a consultation with stakeholders.


Trevor, Brian, Jeff, Michael G., Michael D., Kelly (new volunteer), David, Jodi, Mac, Nigel, Michele, Rob, Bernie.

Facilitator: Trevor
Scribe: Trevor
Meeting to have two hour time limit, by consensus.


General operations

Nigel noted construction of cage area, and increased stock. He has observed that staff are working well together. We are engaging UBC marketing students to develop marketing and promotional programmes.

There has been a fifty percent increase in June sales over last year: from $11,000 in 2014 to $18,000 this June. Jodi asked when our low sales period is. Michele reported that it is not predictable. Nigel reported an expected loss of $17,000 this fiscal year.


A policy has been adopted and eight cameras have been installed. Nigel noted they were installed less to deter theft than to protect the staff.

Brian asked if numbers were being compiled on inventory and sales. Jeff asked about online sales. Michele noted that such activity would require additional staff. Nigel is researching cost of aditional staff and what level of sales would be required.


Access to financial records

Jodi wants to have access to financial records. She believes it is her right as a director and stated that she will engage a lawyer if she is not given records. Jeff expressed frustration at perceptions of lack of transparency. Trevor noted Society Act section 37: "Unless otherwise provided in the bylaws, the documents, including the accounting records, of a society must be open to the inspection of a director or member on reasonable notice to the society."

Consensus Model

The procedure is already detailed in governance policy. All that is required is a definition of consensus.

Brian suggests an introductory session before AGM to explain consensus and election procedures.
Bernie explained that in the early days consensus was not controlled by individuals blocking decision making.
Mike D. described several models of consensus and expressed his interest in one where resolutions were adopted by less than unanimity, a model called a super-majority. He noted that consensus was not defined by unanimous decision making but by the process of engaged discussion. David stated that we should not be tied to consensus but can, according to the Society Act, make decisions by simple majority.

Nigel reminded us that consensus is a core value of Free Geek while Jodi stressed the cultural value of our history of consensus. A straw poll revealed that nine of the thirteen would favour a 90% threshold for adoption of all votes, while others suggested 50%+ or two-thirds.

Ban Policy

The Ban Policy was briefly outlined and the question posed: what else should be included?
- Verbal warnings must be documented and witnessed.
- Appeal of permanent ban to be referred to directors

Most preferred an appeal to directors rather than members. Mike and Nigel suggested that a ban imposed on a director could be appealed to a committee composed of a director, a staff member and an advocate chosen by the banned director. Jeff preferred an appeal to the membership, but Michele expressed her concern regarding confidentiality issues. Mac suggested that the appointment of an ombudsman should be formally incorporated into a policy or an amendment to the by-laws. If the banned person is a director, an appeal should be referred to an outside third party.

Jodi stated emphatically that if the secretary and president do not immediately overturn Kricket's ban, that they are acting illegally, are showing a lack of leadership, and should resign.

Meeting adjourned at 8:30 pm.