Minutes of Mosaic Commons General Meeting
Sunday, November 3, 2002, 3:30-6:30pm

Decisions:

The site workshop will be held at the Assabet Valley Family Network in Marlborough

Action Items:

Discussion:

1. Opening Activity: "What is your favorite movie?"

2. Review of colored cards and ground rules

Rosa discussed the purpose of the Yellow Card. It literally means, "I have a question or need clarification." It has been brought to my attention that some people are using this card to slip in a comment phrased in the form of a question. This is not going to happen anymore." (Laughs).

3. Announcements and approval of agenda

Agenda approved w/ moving item 13 to before break; we will need hold off #9 as we are missing the draft copy of the Ongoing Participation Guidelines.

4. Review and appro ve minutes from previous meeting

Minutes of last GM approved.

5. Action Items — Catya, Joan

Catya will hold on to the AI job for now. She is working on developing a higher tech, lower labor-intensive way of tracking AIs (with Dave’s help) to make it easier for the next person to take over this job.

Roxanne will take responsibility for Paper Goods Bag for the next meeting.

6. Operating Agreement — Kai

Kai–When we formed our group we began writing an Operating Agreement which we need to have legally. This document will lay out the way we want this organization to work. A draft has been floated by the members of the Finance Team. We are asking that this draft be reviewed by signed-on folks who can stand looking at such a document and that the discussion be held on-line. Kai will post the draft on line early this week. Catya–Made distinction between our internal policy manual versus the Operating Agreement, which needs to be done sooner for legal purposes.

7. Land/Site Report — Kim

Kim–Jonathan has reviewed the town by-laws and zoning and he has discovered the only way to apply for a comprehensive permit for this land is through either a 40B application or through a town meeting (vote) (Either way could give us a comprehensive permit, which is what we are ultimately looking for, however, there are pros and cons to each strategy). We have heard the town will probably not exercise their Chapter 61 rights on this property. Michael Feeley has provided our professionals with info on a project in Stow that uses an alternative septic system (a big potential hurdle for our project which now apparently has a precedent ). We are about half-way through our feasibility period. We have a meeting with CSH on the 11^th. We have 2 visits scheduled this month and Kim is arranging to get permission to go into the buildings.

8. Bios Exercise — Diana, Cathy

These bios are already on the web.

13. Team/Committee Reports

Quick Updates from:

•Coordinating–Working on arranging food and childcare on line. Will let people know about homework for the workshop.

•Facilitation–Working on facilitator hats. We have new descriptions of the cards on the wall. (Thanks, Catya)

•Conflict Resolution–No report.

•Finance–Working on who has given pre-qualification reports to the FT.

•Membership–If you don’t have a mentor talk to Judy.

•Marketing–There was an article in the Stow paper. A reporter from the Globe has been talking to various people in the group. It sounds not unfavorable, so far (fingers crossed). They took Kai and San’s picture!

•Website–Can we link the newspaper articles to our web site? We will need to consider copyright permission.

•Diversity–There’s be en more discussion on the list about how to increase our ethnic diversity. We could use someone who is interested in helping us market to people of color.

•Affordability–Following up with some leads.

•Green–No report.

•Professionals–We have the official signed version of our contract with CR. We do not need a contract from Mary and Laura as we are under Contract Management now and CR will be hiring them.

•Legal–No report.

[9. Ongoing Participation Guidelines: Final Draft — Cat or San]

Not discussed.

** BREAK around 5:00 pm

10. And now…: Secret Mystery Personal Factoid — Kim, Rick

11. Process Check-in

Catya–The "Visitor" badges are borrowed; we actually like to think of new people as "Newcomers," not "Visitors."

12. Site Workshop: Equity/Associate Distinction? — Catya

San–We’re going to spend a fair amount of time at the next meeting reviewing the last workshop and how that went. For new associates, there will not be a lot of decision making that will happen. We will just be working with more updated maps of the site.

Catya–Background–We‘ve done a site workshop already with our architects. We have received recommendations from our professionals to make a visual distinction between Associates and Equity members in order for them to know how heavily to weigh the input of people’s comments. At the last workshop we did not make such a decision bc of our relationships with our associates, that they have historically phrased their remarks in a way that recognizes their reduced financial investment at this point. At this time, we would like to try making a visual distinction between people at this coming workshop and then review how that went afterwards. Just so you all know, when we discussed this the last time, I felt strongly that we should have made this distinction before.

Go-Around:

Rosa–Mixed feelings; I am an associate who is very invested in this project and its hard to feel like my input is being less considered than others, even tho I understand the reasoning behind it. I think it might be worth giving it a try.

Kim–Difficult for me bc I felt like we should not make this distinction at all. Since the last workshop, I feel on the fence about it now. Part of the reason is that I’m not sure were addressing the right question, yet I’m not sure what that question is. I don’t want people who are fly-by-nights to have as much air time as people who are more invested.

Steph and Dwight (Statement read by Sarah)–Support a distinction (see post on line)

Sarah–Doesn’t want a distinction. Does want less input from those who are less invested, but how do we make that distinction? If architects focus on the Equities, that might alienate Associates.

Jen–I’m an associate and I knew what I was getting into when we decided earlier to not become an Equity members; doesn’t mind having the distinction.

John R–I think tha t if your idea is a good one, it will find its own support.

Diana–I’m with the separation among members bc once I do put my money down I’m going to feel more invested. My concern is, what does "give more weight to" our comments mean? Mary and Laura do not know us and are not involved in the day to day running of this group. I would feel better if I knew that the Equity members were watching out for the Associates at the workshop. Catya–When we talked about this the first time around my concern was that our professionals suggested this to us, and we have hired them for their expertise, but I felt our reaction was knee-jerk. At the last workshop, there were people who were unprepared, and people who spent a lot of time representing their own individual concerns instead of group level concerns, and most of those people were associates.

Dave–Two points: Missed #1. #2: Were trying to make a distinction btwn people that’s really hard to classify. The only place we can really draw a line is between Associates and Equity members.

Linda–Associate. Lately there are a lot of people attending meetings, and I think as we grow it will be more important to make distinctions between people who are more or less invested. Why not get ourselves used to making these distinctions now? Roxanne–I’d like to see how the distinction will work. I don’t think the Equity members will allow a committed associate to go unheard.

Betsy–Prospective. A short questionnaire for bf and after could allow you to look at more data.

Ken–In favor of distinction bc Mary and Laura suggested it and bc I am not worried that it might in any way chill or silence associates.

Liz–This seems totally logical to me to make this distinction. Joan–I’m an associate and I’m worried about feeling silenced or passed over. I am committed to this group and see myself living here.

Lisa–Associate. Mixed feelings. What ev eryone has to say is important. I have been so enriched by hearing so many great ideas from many people. I trust the group process, and I hope that we would consense on anything significant, and do not want to let Mary and Laura make decisions for us.

Lawyer in Green Shirt [Sorry, missed your name! --Sec.] Prospective–Eventually those who are Associates are going to need to be distinct.

Judy–Equity. We tried it one way. Some people were not totally happy about how things went. If we have hired Mary and Laura to facilitate this process, we need to let go of that role in order to throw ourselves into the content more fully. Let’s try it a different way and then re-consider.

Susan–It seems like a trust issue. I wonder if some anxiety could be alleviated if Associates have a mentor who is an Equity member who is looking out for their interests at the workshop. Rick–Liked what Diana and Roxanne said. Changing role of Associate members as we move forward. As we go forward the role of Associates is going to start changing. We’re checking each other out and it’s getting more intense. I quit, I don’t know where I’m going. It’s not just Mary and Laura’s opinion, CSH also brought it up. He said the equity members need a stronger way to say yes in group decisions. I am one of those people who did not prepare well, and I probably shouldn’t have participated in the last workshop. We all have a responsibility to come prepared. Jeff–You’d hate to feel that there is some sort of pecking order established with your future neighbors and to have resentments as a result of decisions that some people feel weren’t made by the whole group.

Cathy–I feel like I’m being picked on for something that somebody else did. I don’t have an objection to being labeled an Associate but I do have one against being blamed for something I didn’t do.

Geoff–There aren’t really any decisions, just a lot of input. I think anything that is contentious is going to be reopened. I have a degree in land planning, and this business can get really messy. So far, this process looks pretty streamlined compared to the things I’ve seen.

San–I had a lot of trouble at the last workshop, but we don’t want to be more specific bc that would involve naming people’s names. There were points that were made again and again by the same people that we didn’t need to keep hearing. There are associates who have become involved who have had input into our decisions and policies and then they have left. These decisions are really important, and are going to affect everything else from here on out.

Kai–I have changed my mind on how I feel about this. We went against our professionals advice and I feel it was a mistake. There were Equity members whose voices were not heard bc there were associates who monopolized the discussion who are now no longer involved in the group. We need Mary and Laura to facilitate. I want to hear the opinions of the people I’m going to be living with, and I want to hear Equity’s opinions. Associates are going to come and go, but I want to make sure I hear what Equity’s want to say.

Greg–Equity member. I was happy with the outcome but I do there were some problems. I am confident in Mary and Laura. I favor the distinction. Even tho I’m an Equity member, I still regard myself as being a new member who has not made a huge investment financially.

Rosa–Let’s take this discussion to the list and we’ll make a decision at the next meeting.

14. Review/Establish time, place, agenda items for next meeting and social event

— General Meetings: 11/17, 12/1. 12/15, 1/?, 1/? — Intro Meetings:

11/17, 11/23 and 11/24 (Signed on Folks only–Assabet Valley Family Network), 1 2/15, 1/?

— CSH (SOF’s only): 11/11

— Socials (open to All): Catya will be belly dancing Tuesday, December 10^th. Catya would like to consider having a dinner beforehand but will not be able to host it as she will be preparing for the event. Is someone interested in hosting this?

Contact us! * Email info or webmaster

Last modified: November 14, 2002