Sweeping policy changes in unannounced meetings has bad optics

The point is the wording is VERY poor. It should be fixed to be unambiguous.

2 Likes

I assure you that I, for one, am not wishy-washy about this rule.

Enacting an intoxicating substance policy at DMS was loooong overdue, based in real on-camera incidents, and multiple Carrollton Police Department calls to DMSā€¦just within the past couple of months!

This oneā€™s a no-brainer. Might it need some minor tweaking? Sure. Am I going to lose sleep over this policy being enacted (or how?), No. sometimes ā€˜speed-to-marketā€™ matters when it comes to enacting policy. This is one of those cases.

I also believe that, if constrained only to our 1x/monthly member meetings, we could not possibly get to everything we need to address in any given month. How many items were on our last agenda? 18-ish?

5 Likes

There is nothing constraining you to one monthly open meeting. If you need more meetings, by all means have them. If you need a special, unscheduled meeting to cover an emergency item, or a particularly sensitive item, then please call a special meeting.

Calling a special meeting just because you donā€™t want to deal with the unwashed masses stinks. Deciding on policy from random threads started by a disgruntled suspended member, etc. isnā€™t a good plan. I realize that neither of these are the likely real reasons, but the sure look like it to an outsider.

8 Likes

Specifically I believe the substance part of the complaint was that he said he was coming down off heroin, so yes being on drugs at DMS is against the rules.

This goes way beyond having a beer. Itā€™s gotten dangerously out of hand. We will not risk DMS for the sake of a few irresponsible people.

7 Likes

Stan, I AM one of the unwashed masses.

3 Likes

I strongly disagree about this not being an emergency issue, our insurance specifically states it will not cover accidents involving alcohol, mean if an of our over 2000 members cause an accident while under the influence even indirectly it would mean the makerspace would be shut down. Sadly this policy was needed, and removes a massive danger from the space.

8 Likes

wasnā€™t going to chime in but I feel I should. From YOUR statement of intent goals:

  • Support and actively advocate for increased transparency in both Board and Committee affairs.
    Was this transparent? Be honest now. Since only 4 people knew about the meeting, it can hardly be called transparent.

Leadership mantra: * I believe in servant leadership, collaboration and consensus building to achieve goals and foster a strong sense of teamwork and investiture.
Other than a consensus with your other 3 attendees, what agenda item did this satisfy?

You all keep missing the point. No one questions the rule. They question your tactics and expecting us to swallow the buy in without discussion. Whatā€™s next? a secret meeting to rule out (insert your own thoughts here).

2 Likes

There are also rules companies can impose on their employees, or in the case of gyms (members) that govern whether you can come into that place intoxicated. And then there was the 4k acid spill that occurred in our parking lot.

2 Likes

And that is why I am here, answering questions and addressing concerns.

1 Like

Answering questions after the fact is just trying to justify the action.
so by all means, justify for us why this couldnā€™t wait the 10 days to get it on the agenda for the regular board meeting or getting it on the BoD-Agenda-Items forum for discussion?

@Draco has already said it best, and Iā€™m sure many now feel that wayā€¦

Iā€™ve said enough. going away and muting it now. Bad form is all I have to say.

3 Likes

I would venture to guess that 99% of our members are strongly in favor of such as policy, and I doubt they would much care about how the policy was enacted.

I do understand that the vocal minority (1%?) has heartburn with the process by which it was enacted.

The Board saw too many instances of on-camera behavior, and received too many direct accounts of public intoxication, and illicit drug useā€¦,and witnessed resultant behavior at DMS and with members at other Monetary business locations that, best-case is horribly embarrassing, and worst-case has involved the Carrollton Police and has placed our members in material harm (againā€¦involving the police).

If youā€™re going to ask a question, donā€™t go on mute if you want an honest answer.

4 Likes

I keep reading about ā€œon camera behavourā€ so its mostly just speculation if someone is intoxicated? Will this same method of detection be used to establish if someone is breaking the rules?

1 Like

Mostly just speculation? How hard is it to determine someone is intoxicated if they have consumed alcoholic beverages in front of the cameras and then shortly cannot walk without stumbling when not doing so before.

6 Likes

And the behavior is even worse than just stumbling around after drinking from a labeled whiskey bottle. I wish we could divulge more, but there are investigations in progress and confidentiality that must be maintained.

7 Likes

We are not going to conduct breathalyzer tests, if thatā€™s what you mean.

2 Likes

If we see people drinking from a huge bottle of booze inside DMS and then they cannot walk without stumbling, that is a big clue. How would I explain that to an insurance company if someone got hurt?

As to the questions about whether there have been any serious incidents that might have involved alcohol? Yes.

Even if there werenā€™t any incidents, is it responsible to wait for a serious incident that threatens to shut DMS down? No.

There was no intent to avoid any discussion at all - we are discussing it right now. It would have been a lot easier to wait for the July 24 board meeting. The minutes were posted promptly and we are open to further discussion. We simply saw a serious risk and decided to act quickly.

14 Likes

Lets get back on topic @Scott_Blevins and everyone ā€¦ this has gone off topic onto the details of the recent rule and not how it actually was made.

From OP

Sweeping policy changes in unannounced meetings has bad optics

Whether or not you agree with the ruling, the BoD holding secret, unannounced meetings to make sweeping changes about DMS policy, without input from the membership at large, has really bad optics. This should not be the way our BoD operates.

Unannounced special meetings have their place, but that is not for non-emergency situations. Policy decisions that effect the entire membership should be discussed as an agenda item and voted on at a regularly scheduled BoD meeting.


It is about how rules are made and not just this one rule. @Scott_Blevins etal

1 Like

If there are minutes, it was not secretā€¦

7 Likes

The secret I think OP was talking about when he wrote this was not about the result of the meetings but the meeting itself. The result of the meeting is also in the rules. However, having unannounced meetingsā€¦ well, just look back at the hell I caught for having Bylaw meetings in ā€œsecretā€ because they were unannounced. You called that secret.