Item 151. 1-12-00 Board Meeting Megan Heberlein (eeyore) Thu, Jan 13, 2000 (09:27). 99 lines, 64 responses. Well, here are the minutes for the first Board meeting of the year. The meeting was called to order by John (remmers) Remmers at 7:40 p.m. Other present board members at the time were Greg (flem) Fleming, Marcus (mdw) Watts, Eric (other) Bassey & Megan (eeyore) Heberlein. Late arrivals were STeve (steve) Andre, and Jan (janc) Wolter. Non board members were Mary (mary) Remmers, Mark (aruba) Conger, Carol (non-grexer whose last name I have no clue of), Scott (scott) Helmke, and Steve (scg) Gibbard. Mos of the committe reports were fairly short and to the point. Remmers, as acting Chair, had nothing to report Aruba, giving his last report as treasurer, gave December's numbers. We did fairly well, as we took in $625.40, and paid out $481.08, making us $144.32. We also had two new members in December : Odysseus and Halder. Nothing to report from the Publicity Committee, as MTA was not there. Scott spoke for the Technical Committe, saying that at the moment everybody was pretty busy, but that there was a new disk installed, but at the moment it is not up and running, due to the fact that it has not yet been tested to everybody's satisfaction. But STeve did clear out quite a bit of stuff on the old discs, so Grex is running a bit faster. The election of officers was supposed to be next, but we decided to be nice and wait for STeve and Jan to show up before we voted. The big issue for the night was the lease renewal. The board voted a few months ago to go ahead and renew our current lease, which expires at the end of May. However, it came to Mary's attention a few days ago that the building was under new management, and had been for several months...and we don't know who's running it. Since the lease stated that we need to give them 120 days notice if we want to leave, the proposal was made to "Pay the rent as usual, and take no further action on lease, so that our option to renew will automatically take." (Approxomite qouting on the end. Some of the computer taken notes got cut off on the end of the line instead of rolling to the next line) Board voted: 5 Yea, 1 Nay, 0 Abstentions. Elections were fairly important to us, and since Jan still hadn't shown up, Mark called him on Steve's cell phone to threaten him : Either show up, or risk being elected treasurer. Jan showed up withen 10 minutes. Chair was elected first. The nominations were Jan (janc) Wolter Eric (other) Bassey Figuring Carol was completely neutral, we made her count the votes. The talleys were: Jan : 0 Eric : 5 Other : 2 Much laughter was had by all, and John then passed the Holy Grex Gavel onto Eric. Next up was the nominations for Treasurer. Since Greg had mentioned in a public place that he would not be totally against being treasurer, after a quick round around the table to make sure that there was absolutely nobody else that was even remotely willing, there was a vocal vote to nominate and make him treasurer. With great sighs of relief that none of the rest of us would have to be Treasurer! After Treasurer came Secretary. Megan had made a commant earlier in the meeting that she would not be against it. Once again, table was checked, nobody else seemed willing, so another vocal vote was made, and dumped her in to the Secretary's spot. I forget if it was right here or not, but somewhere around here, Mark started passing out really yummy cake....Thanks Mark!!!!! After that, the signature card for the Grex bank account needed to be signed. Obviously, Greg, as treasurer, needed to be on there. Backups were Jan and Eric. After much argument, the next meeting will be on Wednesday, March 1, at 7 p.m., in Zings Next door. We'll be giving February a complete miss due to Erics work scheduale, and Megan's trip to Florida. Under new business, Mark said Congratulations to the new board, and we all thanked Mark for doing such a great job of treasurer for the past four years. Discussion was had about the credit card...and whose name should be on it. It ought to be Greg and Eric as new Treasurer and Chair, but since it would take some new paperwork and whatnot, for the moment it will be Mark and John's names on it. Eventually it will be turned over to Greg and Eric. For those of you panicking over the whole change in treasurer, you'll be happy to know that Mark and Greg will be getting together soon so that they can go over the ropes together. Meeting was adjurned at 9:20, 20 minutes after Zings closed. Sorry they're so long and formal...I'll try and work on it a bit. :) 64 responses total. ---------- (151) #1 Sarah Zamenski (gypsi) Thu, Jan 13, 2000 (10:53). 2 lines. No, that read very well. I laughed out loud at the bit about Mark threatening Jan. =) ---------- (151) #2 Mary Remmers (mary) Thu, Jan 13, 2000 (17:56). 1 line. Nice minutes, Meg. ---------- (151) #3 E R Bassey (other) Thu, Jan 13, 2000 (19:30). 2 lines. Kudos to Meg for so nicely filling out my very sparse notes, and so swiftly posting the minutes! ---------- (151) #4 Mark A. Conger (aruba) Thu, Jan 13, 2000 (20:24). 1 line. Thanks Meg, and congrats to the new officers. ---------- (151) #5 Jan Wolter (janc) Fri, Jan 14, 2000 (01:39). 14 lines. One clarification: The issue was who should sign our application for a Merchant account that would allow us to accept credit cards. The agenda makes it sound like we were discussing who's name would go on our credit card. I think we have a credit card, with "Cyberspace Communications" on it (I could be wrong about that), but that's a completely separate thing. I'd like that congratulate the new officers. I think we have a good board and a fun board. Eric rather did mow me over in the election - probably showing up hours late for the meeting, and giving a resounding endorsement for my opponent before the election wasn't the world's best campaign strategy. But I was so stunned by his natural qualifications that I even voted for Eric myself (not Other). It was like hypnotism - it just seemed obvious that Eric had to be president. ---------- (151) #6 David Cahill (dpc) Fri, Jan 14, 2000 (15:38). 1 line. Very good minutes! ---------- (151) #7 E R Bassey (other) Fri, Jan 14, 2000 (21:05). 13 lines. In actuality, I am very pleased by this turn of events. Considering that I am the one member of my immediate family in the arts (and non-profit at that) as opposed to business, I am somewhat thrilled to be able to report to my family the addition of the title "Chairman of the Board of Directors" to my list of various and sundry responsibilities and labels. I guess i'm not completely immune to the impact of greatness in titularity, even if the position itself is more duty than glory. In fact, I hope that my tenure as chair is remarkable only in its lack of both glory and inglory. (and i can make up a few new words while i'm at it, or revive a few old and mostly dead ones, then even better!) ---------- (151) #8 Scott Helmke (scott) Fri, Jan 14, 2000 (21:19). 5 lines. Hey, my first year of Board duty I ended up President somehow. So there's precedent. ;) Actually, I'm really happy with the way Board turned out. And that the new members were willing to be officers was a nice suprise. ---------- (151) #9 Megan Heberlein (eeyore) Fri, Jan 14, 2000 (21:45). 4 lines. Aww....ya'all are gonna make me blush!!! :) Actually, I think that there was a plot to get the new members to become officers....and it wasn't by the new members!!! :) ---------- (151) #10 Don Joffe (don) Fri, Jan 14, 2000 (23:35). 2 lines. One thing that I missed: For the motion about the lease, if it wasn't a vote by secret ballot, could you post who-voted-what? ---------- (151) #11 E R Bassey (other) Sat, Jan 15, 2000 (01:29). 1 line. jan hadn't arrived, the rest of the info is there. ---------- (151) #12 Joseph L Gelinas (gelinas) Sat, Jan 15, 2000 (01:38). 2 lines. Umm... Not quite; it says, "5 Yea, 1 Nay, 0 Abstentions." So who was the 'nay', and (more importantly, imv), why were the votes cast as they were? ---------- (151) #13 Steve Gibbard (scg) Sat, Jan 15, 2000 (02:22). 2 lines. eeyore was teh nay vote. I'm pretty sure I know what her reason was, but I shouldn't presume to be able to speak for her. ---------- (151) #14 E R Bassey (other) Sat, Jan 15, 2000 (19:04). 7 lines. oh, sorry. i missed the fact that meg removed the reference to herself from the minutes she posted. my originalnotes specified her as the nay. since the vote was by voice and in a public meeting, i assumed no issues with making that note. as for why, for that you have to ask the individual parties. i voted the way i did because,amongother reasons, i made the proposal, so why not. ---------- (151) #15 Megan Heberlein (eeyore) Mon, Jan 17, 2000 (21:51). 42 lines. The nay is because I really think that this is being handled a bit underhandedly. Every time I've had to deal with a lease renewal, it may not specifically say in the lease to let us know that you are staying for another year, but they still want to know...and we'll get a letter reminding us that our time is coming, will we be staying? I think that it's polite to let the owner/manager know that we will be staying another year, instead of just asuming that because we haven't said that we're NOT leaving, we're still going to be here. Especially since we were asked *specificaly* by the former management to let them know by February 1 if we were going to stay or going to leave....asked to send the answer by registered recipt mail. While I realize that that it was the *former* management, it may very well have been mentioned to the new management, who could very well be waiting for that note now. At first, I know that the woman who kinda owned the place was not too happy with us moving in there because of the electricity (how much we were going to be using). The major reason that the vote ended up the way it did was because people were afraid that if we reminded her that we were here by saying anything like "Hi, we'd like to renew our lease" or "Hi, we'd like to find out who our new managent is", we'd be asked to leave instead of renewing our lease. Basically, if we remind her that we're here, she's going to remember that she had an initial problem with us, and boot us out. I honestly think that if she still had a problem at this point, she would have said something. We've been really good about paying our portion of the electric (more maybe?), and have had absolutely no complaints from her. I can't imagine that she could have just *forgotten* that she had an initial major problem with it. That after talking to Mary, she seemed to be completely over. And took a handshake on, and said that it wasn't worth putting in the lease. I'm quite frankly more worried that by not speaking up, we're more likely to lose our lease than if we just mailed something and reminded her that we still wanted the place. I really don't like the idea of "If we don't say anything until after February 1st., they can't kick us out because they haven't given 120 day notice, but if they say that we were supposed to give notice that we were staying before 120 days, we'll just say oops, we're sorry." That to me is really just sneaky and underhand, and really grates on me. I realize that we really don't want to move Grex...it's a big pain in the butt to do. But I'd rather it happen because we were honest, instead of potentially pissing off our landlord, in which case we'll be out on our butts next year when they say that we cannot renew our lease again. You could not believe just how furious I was walking out of that meeting. ---------- (151) #16 David Brodbeck (gull) Mon, Jan 17, 2000 (23:18). 2 lines. It worries me, too. What if the new management doesn't know the lease renewal is supposed to be automatic? It's not like Grex can afford to sue. ---------- (151) #17 E R Bassey (other) Mon, Jan 17, 2000 (23:39). 4 lines. the discussion of the lease was a broad and convoluted one, with many different voices and opinions based very few facts. i don't believe that the decision finally reached was made for the reasons you suggest, though i think that they contributed to the thinking. ---------- (151) #18 Mark A. Conger (aruba) Tue, Jan 18, 2000 (09:49). 5 lines. My take on what happened is pretty much the same as Meg's, and I agree with her reasoning as well. I don't think we're in any real danger of being booted out either way, but not contacting the landlord just because she might turn evil on us seems awfully paranoid to me. And this is one of those cases where paranoia is more harmful than helpful. ---------- (151) #19 John H. Remmers (remmers) Tue, Jan 18, 2000 (12:06). 10 lines. I think that there's also a danger that in our thinking we could be making this a bigger deal than it deserves to be. I voted with the majority and still feel comfortable with that, but in the absence of more information doubt it's a huge deal either way. (The agent at the former management company only asked for notification by phone, not by certified letter.) If people feel we should act differently, there's time to reconsider before Feb. 1. As Jan pointed out, we should at least know who to contact in case of problems. ---------- (151) #20 Jan Wolter (janc) Tue, Jan 18, 2000 (13:50). 2 lines. If I hadn't been late I would have argued in favor of initiating contact with the new management. Not doing so seems weird to me. ---------- (151) #21 Ken Josenhans (krj) Tue, Jan 18, 2000 (14:02). 3 lines. My vague and imperfect recollection is that the previous conflict described by eeyore was with the now-departed management company, and not with the owner. ---------- (151) #22 Don Joffe (don) Tue, Jan 18, 2000 (14:12). 3 lines. The vote was just on renewing the lease, right? Therefore the board has not made a ruling on contacting the owners. Maybe someone could bring it up next meeting. ---------- (151) #23 Mary Remmers (mary) Tue, Jan 18, 2000 (14:26). 23 lines. There really wasn't any "conflict" with either the landlord or the previous agent. The landlord expressed concern over how our electric bill was calculated but she seemed okay with the system after hearing the explanation. I found the previous management agent easy to work with and she facilitated our getting a very nice lease. To be picky, there is a minimum of 120 days before June 1 in which either party can give notice not to renew. So February 1 might not be quite exact. Grex has been nothing but honest in our dealings with landlords. In return we have been extended a whole lot of trust in regards to our arrangement at the Pumpkin. I'd hate to see anything change that. We have no intention of doing anything sneaky, I know that. But in displaying reluctance to contact the new management until after the deadline passes we risk the appearance of being sneaky. I'd rather we work toward keeping the relationship open and easy and if that means our landlord decides they don't want to rent to us or that the terms need to be changed, so be it. ---------- (151) #24 Sarah Zamenski (gypsi) Tue, Jan 18, 2000 (16:03). 1 line. I'm in agreement with Mary. ---------- (151) #25 Megan Heberlein (eeyore) Tue, Jan 18, 2000 (21:06). 2 lines. I realize that my version above didn't really give the whole discussion that we had justice...but that was my basic theory on voting the way I did.... ---------- (151) #26 Jan Wolter (janc) Wed, Jan 19, 2000 (00:56). 1 line. I agree with Mary. ---------- (151) #27 Mark A. Conger (aruba) Wed, Jan 19, 2000 (10:56). 1 line. I agree with Mary too. ---------- (151) #28 Greg Fleming (flem) Wed, Jan 19, 2000 (12:43). 3 lines. IIRC, a fair amount of our discussion concerned the exact text of that particular clause in the lease. Would it be appropriate to post that text here? ---------- (151) #29 Mark A. Conger (aruba) Wed, Jan 19, 2000 (14:20). 1 line. Sure. It's in the file cabinet, Greg. :) ---------- (151) #30 Greg Fleming (flem) Wed, Jan 19, 2000 (14:46). 1 line. D'oh! Well, I'll look for it when I get home, then. :) ---------- (151) #31 Mary Remmers (mary) Wed, Jan 19, 2000 (15:40). 6 lines. The lease is also online at: /usr/bbs/local/grexdoc/archives/lease/pumpkin I can't check the accuracy of that file location at the moment, since I'm coming in on Backtalk. But I think it's close. ---------- (151) #32 Mark A. Conger (aruba) Wed, Jan 19, 2000 (16:50). 17 lines. That's: /usr/local/grexdoc/archives/lease/lease.pumpkin2 Here's the relevant portion: 2 TERM, Terms of this lease shall be for a time commencing the 1st day of June, 1999 and continuing through the 31st day of May, 2000. OPTION: Providing Tenant has not been in default of this lease, Tenant shall have the option of five 1yr. Lease extensions at a 5% increase in rent per year. Said option may be cancelled with a written ninety (90) day notice at the discretion of either Landlord or Tenant. The "ninety (90)" was changed to "one hundred twenty (120)" in the final signed version. The question was whether the lease automatically extends itself if we say nothing. ---------- (151) #33 Don Joffe (don) Wed, Jan 19, 2000 (18:44). 1 line. I would think that having the option is different from exersizing it. ---------- (151) #34 E R Bassey (other) Wed, Jan 19, 2000 (22:26). 28 lines. Strictly speaking, this clause is poorly worded because it does not specify the default state if no communication is made. Logically, the default state (and the basis of my position in the vote) is that we pick up the option. The only *action* specified is for cancellation. Since it is not our intention to cancel, then logically, no action is called for. In our discussion, there were fears voiced, which appeared to be based on misunderstanding of the history, and which, in the course of discusion, led to temporary phrasing of a proposal which could be construed as underhanded in intent. After discussion of the potential impact of this appearance, the wording was changed. Pardon my excess of commas. In my head I associate them with pauses in the way i might speak the words, even though they may not be entirely proper if so placed in the written form. I think it is both logical and appropriate for us to pursue the establishment of contact with whomever is responsible for managing the property we rent. The comments I made in the meeting in regard to this issue were, I think, more in response to the fears expressed than based on solid thinking. Ultimately, however, I believe that we did adopt the correct and appropriate course of action. We did not rule out any attempt to contact the management. Mary, since you have been the point person on this, I am perfectly pleased to have you continue to be, unless you wish otherwise. Therefore, I leave the contact issue up to your judgement, unless anyone objects, in which case we can have them flayed for expressing such poor taste as to challenge your good judgement. ;) ---------- (151) #35 Mary Remmers (mary) Thu, Jan 20, 2000 (08:06). 14 lines. Er, thank you, Eric, I think. ;-) I'd like to make sure at least a majority of the Board members authorize me to follow-up on this first. What I suggest be done is the owner be contacted as asked about any new management company working with this property. She may be managing it herself. I'd let it be known we are happy there and wish to allow the option to renew to rollover. I'd ask if she needs a letter stating this and how she'd like it sent. We should probably not let too much more time go by before making the call. ---------- (151) #36 Greg Fleming (flem) Thu, Jan 20, 2000 (09:13). 7 lines. As I recall, the main reason I voted the way I did is because I was under the impression that what we were talking about was whether or not to contact the *management company* about the lease renewal. That didn't seem like a particularly important or useful thing to do to me. Contacting the *owner* and asking about the management company, as well as informally stating our intention of continuing the lease, seems like a much better idea to me. ---------- (151) #37 Megan Heberlein (eeyore) Thu, Jan 20, 2000 (09:34). 2 lines. Honestly, I'd like to see her contacted. That way we at least know what kind of ground we stand on with her. And also just out of common curtesey. ---------- (151) #38 The Board Memeber Who is Closest to Mary (remmers) Thu, Jan 20, 2000 (12:12). 2 lines. I've thought this over and now feel that contacting the owner as described in #35 is the right thing to do. ---------- (151) #39 Mark A. Conger (aruba) Thu, Jan 20, 2000 (17:09). 1 line. That's your majority, Mary. ---------- (151) #40 Mary Remmers (mary) Fri, Jan 21, 2000 (06:31). 1 line. I'll telephone the owner today. ---------- (151) #41 Mary Remmers (mary) Fri, Jan 21, 2000 (09:27). 2 lines. She won't be in (at her office) today but will be back on Monday. I'll follow-up then. ---------- (151) #42 Big Snauf (lilmo) Sat, Jan 22, 2000 (18:11). 1 line. FWIW, you've got my support. ---------- (151) #43 Jan Wolter (janc) Sun, Jan 23, 2000 (22:46). 1 line. To make it a super-majority, I agree too. ---------- (151) #44 Mary Remmers (mary) Mon, Jan 24, 2000 (18:56). 19 lines. I was able to reach both the owner and our new property manager today. Both were pleased to hear we are happy with our space. Both thanked us for calling to find out how this renewal worked. The property manager said, "It would be best" to let him know, each year, of our intention to stay and take the option to renew. We could just send a memo, by U.S. mail, that he'll keep with our lease. I said I'd send this year's off in tomorrow's mail. I took the opportunity to tell him a little about Grex, why this space works well for us, and about our non-profit mission. (Thanks, Jan.) He seemed interested and somewhat amazed we get by on donations. I wouldn't be surprised if he dropped in to see how our community works. So, unless something weird happens, we are fine for another year. I'll send mail to baff with the new address for the rent checks and telephone numbers to reach the management company both during business hours and for emergencies, after hours. ---------- (151) #45 Mark A. Conger (aruba) Mon, Jan 24, 2000 (19:46). 1 line. Thanks Mary, for doing that legwork. ---------- (151) #46 Mary Remmers (mary) Mon, Jan 24, 2000 (19:51). 1 line. You're welcome. ---------- (151) #47 Sarah Zamenski (gypsi) Tue, Jan 25, 2000 (08:50). 1 line. Thank you, Mary. It sounds like it went well. =) ---------- (151) #48 Megan Heberlein (eeyore) Tue, Jan 25, 2000 (10:58). 1 line. Thankyou very much, Mary!!! :) ---------- (151) #49 Sara Watson Arthurs (swa) Wed, Jan 26, 2000 (00:48). 1 line. Who or what is baff, if I may inquire? ---------- (151) #50 Joseph L Gelinas (gelinas) Wed, Jan 26, 2000 (01:47). 8 lines. It's an e-mail alias for: valerie, remmers, grex@gibbard.org, srw, steve, gregc, mdw@umich.edu, nephi, scott, janc, kaplan, dang, other, eeyore, flem Some of these I recognise, others I don't. Nor have I deciphered the acronym. ---------- (151) #51 Steve Gibbard (scg) Wed, Jan 26, 2000 (02:37). 1 line. It's a combination of the board and staff mailing lists. ---------- (151) #52 Michelangelo Giansiracusa (spooked) Wed, Jan 26, 2000 (03:53). 2 lines. Except it's not a conclusive list. I should be on it, and probably one or two others. ---------- (151) #53 E R Bassey (other) Wed, Jan 26, 2000 (22:33). 1 line. you should have appropriate access to update that list, mic. ---------- (151) #54 Steve Gibbard (scg) Wed, Jan 26, 2000 (22:50). 12 lines. Yup. rcsdiff /etc/aliases if that shows there being no differences between the checked in and checked out copies co -l /etc/aliases vi /etc/aliases ci -u /etc/aliases newaliases else vi /etc/aliases newaliases ---------- (151) #55 Joseph L Gelinas (gelinas) Wed, Jan 26, 2000 (23:12). 5 lines. Is there a reason to leave the aliases file locked by someone else after editing it? Wouldn't it make more sense to break the lock and then check it back in? ---------- (151) #56 Steve Gibbard (scg) Wed, Jan 26, 2000 (23:23). 2 lines. Probably, except that it would just get left checked out again within the next few days anyway. The right answer would be to stop using RCS on that file. ---------- (151) #57 E R Bassey (other) Thu, Jan 27, 2000 (00:08). 3 lines. umm. what is RCS? and what means "checking out/in" a file? ---------- (151) #58 Michelangelo Giansiracusa (spooked) Thu, Jan 27, 2000 (00:42). 6 lines. RCS = Revision Control System. It's a package which allows maintenance of file revisions. Often useful in programming to not lose working versions, or just generally to backtrack - see who modified a file, etc. I've never used it before myself, but it seems easy enough (I'll have a quick read of the chapter on it in one of my Unix books sometime). ---------- (151) #59 Joseph L Gelinas (gelinas) Thu, Jan 27, 2000 (01:33). 1 line. Eric, the short form is: read the man pages on rcs, ci and co. ---------- (151) #60 E R Bassey (other) Thu, Jan 27, 2000 (22:38). 1 line. wow. seems like a simple concept with a terribly complex description. ---------- (151) #61 Joseph L Gelinas (gelinas) Thu, Jan 27, 2000 (22:41). 1 line. That's why I sent you to the man pages, rather than try to describe it myself. ---------- (151) #62 E R Bassey (other) Thu, Jan 27, 2000 (22:51). 1 line. good call! ---------- (151) #63 Been there, done that (davel) Sat, Jan 29, 2000 (08:41). 3 lines. It's terribly easy to check in a file, forgetting to use the option that causes it to leave the file in existence (outside the RCS database). Embarrassing. ---------- (151) #64 Joseph L Gelinas (gelinas) Sat, Jan 29, 2000 (16:28). 2 lines. Yeah, it is. Fortunately, I'm more likely to forget the file name than the minusU option.