Notes: Dave and Evan H. both had written statements. Could you guys please send your documents so I can add that into the minutes :).
Jun 2nd, 2013 Business Meeting
Present: Dave, Wes, Andy, Luis, Jason, Steve, Anton, Jobert, Evan B., Brian, Partha, Steven, Malaya, Troy, Evan H. (arrived around 2)
1. Approving the Minutes
Dave: Minutes taken incorporated items that were not complete. What I want written into the notes are the actual protocol: Move to vote (insert what Dave sends)
Troy: Those were not added into the notes because they were not actually said. Steven went in and edited the minutes from a year and a half ago.
Dave: Here we are in the same situation and we want to add these into the minutes for clarification.
Steven: To respond to that: all of the compliance rules were referenced in a seperate email and added it into the minutes so I included it into the minutes. I do understand the concern. I think it will be addressed by approving the new compilation.
Steve: I have a concern that you would go in and edit minutes a year and a half ago. I don't understand why you went in and edited the minutes without talking to anyone else in the section. That compilation is what you compiled together. My concern is that we are here to approve the minutes. I move that we approve the minutes with what Dave added on as an addendum
Troy: My concern isn't the addition of the minutes. My concern is what we voted on is clarifaction to personal statments. We said them a different way that then got translated. I just didn't vote originally for this and that is my issue.
Dave: I guess I have concerns because now we are putting it out there that... the notes are quite clear.
Brian: One of our section coords. is putting together items and I don't see that as a bad thing.
Jobert: Couldn't we just add what Dave said as an addendum. Even if we put in the text of the minutes, it's not going to carry any weight. Dave's clarification would be there. Second.
Troy: Call the question.
Abstentions: 0
Nay: 0
Yay: 12
PnV: 5
Passes
2. Gardasil
Steve: This would be us moving that we recommend that the clinic make this purchase.
Brian: I just want to make sure I get this right. This would be a one time purchase and would be extended indefinitely.
Jobert: I would like to see that there be a clear person or group that would be in charge of it. I would like to see that these are turned into Merck. There would be have to be a robust reminder system so that they don't miss their vaccines.
Scott: I agree that there would need to be a robust reminder system. I think that this would be something that we would get funders to go ahead and do. Do they ask for the number of partners or history of warts?
Jason: No. Just the stuff on the front page.
Dave: I would like a way.
Troy: What would happen if they lie?
Jason: The client would not be able to
Brian: This would fit into our budget?
Jason: I have talked to Karen and she seems to think that it is okay, but the clinic hasn't talked about anything. I would be bringing this up at the ACCM/budget meeting.
Jason: Andy, Scott, Steve and John would be interested in helping with the working group.
Partha: 2 Questions. I am assuming that there is a expiration date. We should put in some checks for a clients.
Jobert: I move that we ask the budget meeting that 10,000 be allocated to start our Gardasil program and that the working group that Jason is leading be asked to come up with a recommended protocol for prioritizing who that would go to.
Troy: Second
Scott: I think that we should advocate for our clients who don't qualify. San Francisco travel clinic is where I got the vaccine and it is a place that we can send people. (for people who are above the income and . We should look into public health pricing. We should also think about PEP as something that we should look into. There isn't any place in the east bay to get PEP besides Highland.
John: I agree that the Women and Trans section would also be interested and other sections in the clinic. I would recommend that we appoint a joint commission.
Jobert: I understood that the committee be trans-sectional.
Steve: Can we amend the motion so that we include more people from other sections.
Steven: My concern would be that it would not be given properly.
John: We deal with a lot of refrigerated vaccines and like any other clinic, there have been a vaccine or two that have sat out. If there is a problem with shipping it, then the manufacture would re-ship it.
Evan: I want to amend taht part of the protocol for giving gardasil is letting the potential patient know thta Merck will follow up with them about income status and if they do not meet that then they should be referred to somewhere else.
Abstentions: 0
Nay: 0
Yay: 17
PnV: 0
Passes
3. Quorum
Jason: Move that we set quorum for business meetings at 8.
Jobert: Can we do a straw poll for the number?
Steven: I think people would change their argument from the number.
Jobert: Straw poll 8:9 people. 9: 5 people...
Malaya: I don't know how it has been done. If you don't have quorum, you can't pass certain motions, but you can still have a workshop and business can still discuss and that can be brought up at another meeting. They should be allowed to have discussion.
Dave: My concern with a fairly low number is that if we have 5, the majority is 3. Even 8 is extremely low and if you take all of our current active members would be 20 and could be as many as 28. I think it is more reasonable would be to have 11 and that way we would have more people. Having it low would be extremely dangerous.
Troy: I'd like to make an amendment that quorum be at post-shifts and at any business meetings should be 10.
Jason: Unfriendly because I would like to be
Luis: What would be the quorum for other sections? How many members
Scott: ACCM is 12, CSC is 4. It should also be relative to the size of the group.
Jason: There are around 20 members and 10 trainees.
Steve: They are already members and they should be counted.
Partha: Are we saying that regardless of what number, are we saying that
Evan: Quorum by definition is the minimum number of people to make a decision.
Jobert: I've been at an ACCM that did not make quorum and no decisions could be made.
Steven: I favor a higher quorum at 8 but I want to make sure that post-shifts should be able to make decisions.
John: One thing that Dave said is odd numbers are good numbers. I'm tending to lean towards higher numbers so I have changed my positions. The whole function of post-shifts is to deal with need some kind of response where client-care is an issue. Tieing our hands in those situations would be silly. I rarely come to a meeting where we haven't achieved quorum because there is so much to talk about. I would hope that we would all stay and address that.
Jobert: I favor 9 because it is odd and is slightly higher than 8. Just to answer your question Partha, you talk about business and you talk about how to make sure there is quorum next time. At most of our meetings, motions aren't the most important thing. I think we should incorporate just urgent matters I would like to make a friendly amendment that post-shifts can only pass things with 2/3 majority
Brian: Is it that bad of an idea to try things out? We have monthly meetings and see if things work out. If it doesn't, then we change it.
Scott: I'm leaning for a higher number.
Dave: Definitely that I can say for certain that we have yet to have a business meeting where we haven't had at least 12. Lower numbers would cause more concern.
Malaya: I would be in favor of 10 or at 11. I do think that we need to set a quorum and the number can be amended later on if needed.
Abstenions: 0
Nay: 6
Yay: 6
PnV: 5
Fails
Evan: I move that we set quorum at 11 and that it require 2/3 vote at post-shift.
Anton: Second
Scott: If there is a real pressing need at a post-shift that needs to do with client care and maybe that is something that we can address at a post-shift
John: If you modified your motion so that 2/3 present without quorum. We practice medicine on Sunday nights and we treat people and if there is something wrong with our system, do we really want to set a system where we can't say anything. Amendment: majority would be established as 2/3 of members present at post-shift for client care issues and emergencies
Brian: I wonder if this is a good example if this is something that we can vote on next time and come back. There is no reason we need to leave with a vote today.
Scott: I know that post-shifts tend to have fewer numbers that we have this votes. We tend to have more people at pre-shifts so that is a time that we can vote on something.
Jobert: I think that if it comes to safety and client-harm I would not do something that is unsafe. There would be things that were brought up that were contentious. I would prefer that we have a small enough number at quorum. There's a lot of things that are really routine like LoR and that could go into post-shift really easily or if there is something that is truly an emergency.
Steven: I have a problem with the term emergency. I would like to make an amendment that amendment be clarified as emergency be defined as safety of clients, volunteers and the building.
Evan: Friendly.
Partha: I'm having problems with the two 2/3 mentioned in the motion.
Steve: Would it make more sense if we remove the first 2/3. Amendment: We remove the first 2/3 in the motion.
Evan/Anton: Friendly
Abstensions: 1
Nay: 1
Yay: 11
PnV: 3
Passes
4. CSC Rep
Dave: Right now, we normally have 2 reps to the CSC. The other is the lady in waiting. The other is the lady. Our original CSC member has not been present for the last 9 months so I'm filling in as the second. He was the primary and since we only have 1, we need someone else to fill in as back-up. I make a motion that we vote on a CSC second and I be designated a primary for the next 9 months, at which point we vote in a new secondary.
Scott: Second
Steve: Our original process before it got a monkey wrench thrown in it with the primary being in for 1 year and the secondary being in for 2 years. We would have a new secondary and the primary than that. The clinic voted that the no-one can be voted in for more than 2 years. I have served 1 year, if I can be brought back in for the remainder of the calendar year, then that would put us back on schedule. I'm not excited about doing that but it would put us back on schedule.
Brian: I would like to nominate myself to be CSC rep. I am looking for more ways to be a part of the BFC as a whole so my hat is in.
Jobert: It sounds like Dave is going to be the primary for 9 months and whoever is voted in would be the new primary during that time. If someone else is brought in, who would be the primary for the next 7 months.
Steve: So you are saying that we would serve for the year.
Abstensions: 0
Nay: 0
Yay: 18
PnV: 0
Passes
Voting in CSC Rep
Jobert: It sounds like Brian is the only person who has been recommended to be a Rep.
Scott: I move that we appoint Brian to be voted in as CSC rep.
Partha: Second
Dave: Before we jump right into that, I want to see if there is anyone else who might be interested.
John: The other point that needs to be brought up is that the e-list and group is open. I would encourage people to go to the meetings.
Scott: Is there anyone else who would be interested? Call the question.
Steve: My only thing is that I wanted clarification. The person voted in would be secondary for the rest of the year and primary for the second year.
Luis: I would like to open this up for people who aren't here.
Abstensions: 0
Nay: 2
Yay: 14
PnV: 0
Passes
5. Follow-up to community meeting
Jobert: I wasn't here for the community agreements and I've heard from people that this is a very hostile environment and people have considered leaving the group. We should think about ways so that we can come up with some sort of solution.
Dave: I think that part of our original agreement was that we would have some sort of way to facilitate disagreements. My concern is that there is a second part of that that hasn't been resolved. There is part of the process that hasn't been completed.
Scott: I think Evan's thing was just a question.
Evan: I wanted to know if people wanted to bring forth thoughts or the motion.
Scott: I just wanted to give a little perspective. I just wanted to say that in the history of the GMHC a lot of times where people have said that they want to leave. We have tweaked things to help people feel more supportive and get back to the group that we want it to be. This is something that we should deal with in the future. I think that I've seen some tension. I think that this is something we need to do in the future and there are things I could do better to make people feel less bullying. I think that it is good to have a space where people can talk about this. If people can't be a pleasant contributor to the group and we might need to ask them to take a break.
Evan: So I wrote mine out. I firmly believe that (insert what Evan sends)
Steven: I feel the same way a lot of the time. I felt angry and upset. I don't want to talk about other people as much as how I'm feeling. I feel like my work has not been appreciated by mainly Steve and Dave. I feel like myself and my fellow trainees have been criticized as lazy or complaining on multiple occasions. Really I just want to address that there seems to be a lot of negativity coming from a small group of people.
Jobert: I know it is really difficult and I don't think that we have time to deal with this right now. I do think that now that we do have these monthly meetings and maybe we can set aside one of these meetings to deal with this as a group. There are a lot of collectives who specialize on facilitating groups like these. I know that for example there is a collective called aorta that does things like this. The PCC is also a possible group to go to, to do things like this. It would be productive to spend the next couple minutes
Scott: How many people have felt that there has been tensions that could have been delt with better. I was wondering if there would be time to come up with agreements that would allow us to have functionally interactions for the next month with some of them being things like when we address people, we address it in a positive way. If it's already been done, then I don't need to talk about it very much.
Dave: If there is a hostile work environment and calling things out in public is a form of bullying. You repeated that "dave says no and nothing happens" and you did not give me an example to work on and that's why I walked away. Do you have a specific example for me?
Partha: I know that if there seems to be problems, we need to mediate. I know Dave pointed out that the specific mode of mediation hasn't been come up with yet. The other reason why I feel that this would have value is that I think that during our training I did feel distressed and the process was not supporting me. I do think that a mediated process would be helpful.
Troy: Speaking for myself for things that I have seen and things that I have experienced. I once sent an email that did not have my name on it and Dave responded with 'who is this?', 'why should i trust you' and I couldn't be around you since then.
Scott: I think Dave, Steve and Eric need to hear that the circumstances are with you three. It's not just one person saying it, but a lot of people saying it. I also want to say is that I understand the pressure you guys feel about things that if things don't happen, you guys are the ones that need to step up to fix things. We don't want to lose people and we don't want to lose people for being unhappy. We have all had times where we have worked well together and I think we can patch things up. I think it would be really good to see if there is someone that could come in and mediate. I think a lot of people value the things that you guys do.
Brian: Piggybacking on what Scott said: I think that it would be good to have a discussion next week.. Steve, you were an advocate for me being in the training and I appreciate that and from what I see in you attacking Steven bothers me and needs to be worked out. And Dave, you are the guy that taught me microscope and yet when I try to bring up new ideas, you shut me down. You came back to me after I brought up an idea and you said 'that is stupid and Todd things so too'. I hope that we work through it because we are going to be working together.
Steven: I appreciate this space to talk about our feelings because we really don't do it - which is strange for a collective. My problem with waiting until that comes into being is that Dave and Steve, you both rejected a community agreements and I don't trust you to abide by it because you called it group think. I think what Jobert suggested is probably a better approach.
Malaya: We have 7 minutes. I think it is very clear what the statements are here and I don't know if this needs to move to a mediation or what.
Jobert: I understand that there was supposed to be some sort of community agreement. I do not think we are in that space because issues are systemic. I suggest that we reserve the next meeting to talk about these issues and I do think that we need more than 2 hours. I do suggest that we ask someone who knows how to do that to help us. I move that we reserve the next business meeting as a group mediation session with the exact time to be determined by the people we get to facilitate whatever program they have.
Brian: Second.
Troy: So I guess I'm going to ask you too since you are here, would you be okay turning up at that meeting, because if you guys don't want to come then it would be a shitty situation.
Dave: I don't know if I would be comfortable. I would generally like to sit down with people individually to talk about things. There are a lot of people I who I have had positive interactions with that have not spoken up.
Steve: I don't know if I would or not.
Scott: I would hope that during this month, there would be people to talk to Dave and Steve to talk about these things. I think that it would be productive. It's going to be uncomfortable and having an opportunity to listen and reset to have things go a different way. I would also hope is that you hear from people on what parts you are doing great. I think that if there wasn't that, people wouldn't be here anymore.
Partha: I want to say 2 things it would just be an opportunity for people where to talk about both good and bad things. I know that we have already fixed the dates of meetings. If it does happen, we should be given the opportunity to get the most number of people who want to be there.
Malaya: I really appreciate Scott's comments. I don't think that struggle and contradiction is a bad thing but I think that if we work together to reach a higher sense of unity, it would be really productive.
Jobert: I just would like to point out is that this is very difficult. As a volunteer collective what generally happens is that we choose not to engage. This isn't our job or school and it's easy not to deal with conflict. I think what is happening right now with people talking about Steve, Dave and eric is not ideally but what I hope to do is to repair the relationship between people. Can someone work with me?
Scott, Troy, Brian, Evan B.: Yes.
Abstensions: 0
Nay: 0
Yay: 15
PnV: 3
Passes