I don’t see a need to call out names or personalities or other political bs.
I’ll simply copy / paste from their website and make my comments.
Statement 1 https://www.morebluetape.org/this-is-a-link-post-feel-free-to-comment/
Paragraph 5 “The Board originally incorrectly filed with the City as a ‘major automotive facility’ which requires much more robust accommodations, but for the past year we have heard the same story on how they are going to re-apply using a more appropriate classification.”
This Bod? Previous BoD? Expansion? Who filed for what with whom and when? Got links, documentation? No proof, then it didn’t happen.
Statement 2 https://www.morebluetape.org/about-us/
Paragraph 6 "Under this Board’s leadership, the Logistics committee is now gone and they ‘inserted’ an officer to run Logistics- an officer which has the authority to suspend any member. Through this ‘new system’ they decided that too many members where abusing the tape and stopped purchasing for the space. "
This statement totally inaccurate on its face. A little history -
The 2019 / current BoD converted committees that were important to the overall structure of DMS to Groups with appointed Officers. This included Logistics, Infrastructure, and Finance with the corresponding officers - COO, CTO, CFO.Those Officers have the same level of authority as a committee chair to suspend / ban a member from a committee area. In the case of Logistics this would be being banned from using project storage.This “new system” had absolutely nothing to do with the blue tape issue. That was some folks’ idea of putting DMS on some kind of “austerity program”.
I don’t think this is the case. No one single member holding any DMS office / position of authority can ban a member from DMS. It’s a process that involves charges, investigation, appeals that is currently handled / directed by the BoD.
If this is not the case, someone plz post links to rules, etc. that state otherwise.
Actually, I think Art’s right on this. Any area leader can ban you from their area. In fact, there have been one or two threads about committee chairs getting together their banned lists, as some rules-breakers seem to bounce from one committee to another, breaking rules as they go.
Thanks for the corrections. I was (temporarily, I hope) confused. I’m not sure what I was thinking, since I know banning someone is a process, rather than one persons decision.
Officers have the ability to remove a member from the Makerspace if needed. The removal lasts 30 days or until the board meets and acts on it, whichever is first.
This is where the difference between “suspension” and “ban” is important
Just a note here: this is for instances like “Bob is trying to fight people and needs to go”, “Ken won’t wear a mask and needs to go”, it is not for non-urgent rule breaking and hasn’t been used that way.
This never happened. Our plans are a matter of public record. Anyone can see the plans that have been submitted to the city so far. Mark is counting on the fact that people won’t fact check him.
At this point it would be easier to point out what is actually true on that site…
Keep in mind one Blue Tape candidate (@Kevin) has said on Talk that threats of violence are an understandable reaction to words said online. And won’t clarify how this might fit into governance of DMS if he is elected.
Do you know which thread that is? In today’s world threats of violence on message boards are far too common. Still, none of it’s understandable. If someone threatens someone with violence it should be an immediate suspension.
I read his statement and interpreted it slightly different than you have. Still, he should have responded to your question by now. In any case, I have no intention of defending him.
Separate of this Kevin went to the metal shop meeting and insisted that insults to Jim be included in the official record of the meeting.
Here is the recording of the meeting:
Here is how it’s recorded in the minutes:
Vote Jim Hartnett for chair, knowing we made need a new vote next month pending board elections. - Unanimous (Kevin Patel wanted to note for the record that he still thinks Jim Hartnett is a dick)
Of course. Because they are running on a platform of bringing back civility and community to DMS and putting an end to the “culture of hostility.” Makes sense to me…
Is “civility and community” synonymous with “embezzlement and abusing the honorarium system”? My Roget’s is way out of date so maybe I missed that usage change.
