Date/Time
Date(s) - 04/04/2013
7:00 pm - 9:00 pm
Location
The Meadows Community Centre
Category(ies)
Agenda
[wp-members status=”out”]
Please log in to access the meeting minutes.
[/wp-members]
[wp-members status=”in”]
Notes from the meeting
Attendance
- Lisa Easton
- Ann Jarvis
- Chris Smith
- Rhona Maclean
- Hannah Shields
- Robert Copcutt
- John Leighton
- Joe Garfoot
- Chris Wilson
- Facilitating: Stephen Hill
Apologies
- Donald Allwright
- Adam Broadway
Matters Arising
- RC mentioned that the Cohousing Network AGM is happening in May, and likely to fill up quickly as they only have 40 spaces. SH may be attending anyway, nobody else volunteered. We weren’t sure what the benefit from attending would be.
Report from Decision Making working group
RM reported that the working group met a few weeks ago, and discussed some options for decision making, focusing mainly on consensus-based approaches. Presented info by Seeds for Change about consensus-based decision making. Main issue is that every discussion needs a facilitator with certain skills and responsibilities.
CW said that it’s difficult to facilitate a discussion when one has a vested interest in the outcome. We could have a volunteer from the group who doesn’t feel strongly about the issue; or for really important decisions, we could use an outside facilitator. SH and AB have suitable skills.
SH said that he might have preconceptions because he’s currently involved in his own cohousing project. But he has a contact, Ian Cooper, who might be an ideal outside facilitator.
CW said that it’s difficult to facilitate well without any training, and we might want to get basic facilitation training for everyone. RM suggested instead that we create a “crib sheet” for facilitators. She has a list of steps (responsibilities) that would be useful, including:
- making sure that everyone is heard, even those who are shy or reluctant (or not able to attend the meeting – CW)
- summarising constantly what has been agreed (e.g. onto a whiteboard or flip chart – CW)
- testing for consent as soon as the current proposal (state) is likely to be accepted
- (watching the time and ensuring progress – CW)
CW expressed concern about decisions made in absence of some members, as he will be on work trips for much of May and June, when key decisions will be made, and he wants to have input into them. RM proposed that a proposal be sent around by email after being agreed at the meeting. CW requested that any concerns or objections raised at the meeting be included, to help others who missed the meeting.
CW suggested that the facilitator could take responsibility for chasing up those who had not consented to a proposal before the deadline. JL said that we all have a responsibility, and an incentive as paid-up members, to participate in discussions that affect us. CW countered that some might feel intimidated by the process, and an important task of the facilitator is to ensure that all voices are heard.
CW proposed that we contact Aptivate about using their free eConsensus website/software to track proposals, decisions and consent. It could be extended to give a list of those who have consented and those who have not yet, or have raised objections, to help the facilitator to include everyone.
RM proposed that we deliberately not have a fallback option in case we fail to reach consensus. The reason being that it people may give up trying to reach consensus if they know that a decision can be made even without it. Also, every time we use the fallback option, we will break the trust of some members. SH reminded everyone of the importance that we trust each other for this project to succeed.
JL said out that we need to be able to make decisions and he was in favour of retaining the “nuclear option” to make decisions by majority vote instead of consensus.
CW proposed that in extraordinary circumstances, we could vote (or consent) to use another process (such as a majority vote) in order to reach a decision. We should consider whether the decision is urgent and important enough to justify that step in each case.
CW requested two weeks notice before a proposal becomes a decision whenever possible. RM suggested that we announce the topic one week before the meeting, to invite feedback from those not able to attend the meeting; the meeting produces a proposal, which is sent to the mailing list; the proposal becomes a decision after a deadline (normally 1 week later) unless blocked.
Actions:
- CW to request access to eConsensus from Aptivate.
- RM to send our decision-making proposal to the mailing list for feedback before it becomes a decision, in line with the process that it describes.
Legal Working Group feedback
JL reported that we agreed that we are not legal experts, so we should produce a list of criteria for the legal entity, and ask lawyers to create a legal structure that achieves those requirements.
RC said that because we don’t have much money for legal advice, we should keep our company structure as close to “standard” as possible, to minimise the cost of creating it.
SH proposed that we read the Hockerton and Lewes cohousing group constitutions and ask them for feedback about how successful those legal structures have been.
RC and SH proposed a list of lawyers that we could use – about 4 of them, I didn’t get the names. Cobbetts was one.
JL proposed that the LWG meet again, and offered to set up a doodle to schedule it, inviting SH as well.
CW raised a concern about strict liability, requested that we get legal advice about it and how we can protect ourselves.
RC proposed that we buy a standard limited company off the shelf and customise it later to meet our needs. JL agreed and offered to pay for it.
Actions:
- JL to set up a Doodle for next LWG meeting.
- LWG members to meet again, with SH.
Review of work programme for the client brief
SH reminded us about the next workshop, on Saturday 6th April, about Social Structure, Demographics and Functions (Facilities). He suggested that we prepare for it by thinking about, and discussing with our fellow householders, our housing needs over the next 15-20 years.
CW suggested that we find out about housing mix and waiting list sizes and compositions from other cohousing groups. Nobody put forward any contacts that we could use to do that.
Treasurer’s Report/Membership
JL reports that we now, finally have a bank account. Anyone wanting to join is requested to either present him with a cheque, or contact him by email to request the bank details for a bank transfer.
Approach to Procurement
SH proposed that we start contacting all the suppliers who responded to the previous “soft market testing”, asking them to reconfirm their interest in tendering, before the public advertisement of the request for proposals, to ensure that we frame the advertisement correctly and we get some responses to it.
SH proposed that we ask them for legal details including what level of financial commitment they were likely to seek from prospective buyers (us).
CW requested SH to ask them about how flexible they were in terms of reducing costs if we can reduce their risk by guaranteeing some number of buyers.
Actions:
- SH to contact suppliers from previous soft market testing.
Marketing and Communications
CW reported that the website is working, and asked for feedback from any members who had tried to sign up for an account and been unable to access it.
RC proposed that we bring cameras to the next workshop so that we have some photos for the Cohousing Network website (and our own).
CS reported that he had planned to make a video this evening, but had not brought his video camera.
SH reported that the cohousing project that happened to be on the front page of the Cohousing Network site when the previous newspaper stories were printed, had received massive numbers of enquiries, most of which were not from potential buyers and therefore not very useful. However it had been an extremely successful marketing tool (perhaps too successful).
SH suggested that we investigate the Community Right to Buy (CRTB) programme when the rules are announced in April, to see if we can get a grant from them.
Actions:
- CW to bring camera to Design Workshop 1 and take photos (done).
- CS to bring video camera to a meeting and shoot a video for Youtube of at least one member.
- RC to send a photo to Jo Gooding for Cohousing Network article.
Programme
SH announced that the Cambridge City Council had agreed to our proposed extended timetable, with Phase 2 running until December 2013. (That means that we now officially have more time to write the Client Brief, plan the site, find a developer and recruit more members).
Some extra funding was also agreed, but none for the planning application. SH suggested that we investigate applying for CRTB funding for the planning application process.
Any Other Business
SH reports that we may be able to use the Government’s new Help to Buy scheme to get equity loans at low cost, but normally we would have to go through an existing scheme member, and it was too difficult for K1 to become a member ourselves. He is in contact with DCLG trying to negotiate an exception for us.
Actions:
- RC to contact Makespace to see if we can host the April Group meeting there.
- SH to contact CAR to see if we can host the Design Evening 1 workshop at their office.
[/wp-members]