We interrupt your program to bring you this important message: Please see the new email about postponement of the Special Meeting. Commence discussion.
Would it be possible to add a limitation to the family plan? 6 seems like a reasonable number, and effectively works out to slightly better than if everybody on the family plan came in at the $13.37 student special.
I don’t know that particular system… but I was on the safety committee in one way or another for a caving club for 13 or so years. About 150 people at meetings the beginning of the year, Roberts Rules, etc. We addressed issues major and minor with a “reprimand” which was simply discussing it and entering that to minutes. For years, the common ethos, and peer pressure of high expectations worked. Then, well… then we had a problem. A person who refused to follow the safety guidelines and procedures, multiple near misses, one injury requiring hospitalization, and consistent poor judgement. The bylaws and procedures were not up to snuff, nor were they deemed sufficient by the parent university… and we suffered. Activity plummeted, people quit, and everything revolved endlessly around the conflict. Eventually, it was discovered that the individual in question was not really supposed to be on university property anyway, some lingering issues with assaulting his boss while an employee. And the constitution and by law revision ran on, and on. If I recall, we kept the formalized procedure for censure, which involved a discussion of the events without the accused present, then discussion of what was said stripped of names, essentially the bullet points of the issue. Then the vote, by ballot, then the results according to the bylaws.
So… bullet proof procedure. What could go wrong? The system is only as good as the officers running it, and the ethos of the group. The organization stopped it’s focus on continuous improvement through accident review, and instead focused on recruiting at all costs. Guess what? Because discussions of accidents and conflict resolution is unpleasant, it did not get done. The drift of focus came full circle… After 13 years of being an officer, a trainer, and a member of said organization, the then President refused to recognize me to speak at meetings. Needless to say, I was gonna get what I had to say out of my system. I walked to the front of the room, hand raised… and insisted on my right to make a motion. I motioned that the club review and modify the constitution and bylaws, because they had lost all focus and agreement on what they meant. Motion was not seconded for a long time. One fellow. Just one fellow that was upset for other reasons (relationships) seconded just to cause trouble. Motion carried… I walked out, clear conscious if still troubled, never to return, having made the point.
Basically, there is safety… and then there is social… as long as people have a clear idea of the ethics and goals, and insist on meeting them, then things should be okay. Okay, so there are bumps in the road. Any organization needs to be able to discipline or expel those who are totally disruptive. The question is how, why, and what is fair. I can tell you… leaving the meeting sucks. Been there. Each time there was an accident or mishap, I took my turn outside if needed. Right now I have scouts… and we’ve had conflicts, and people with no experience at all with conflict resolution. Hearing the procedure cold? Not good. Any person facing a discipline action needs to hear and understand the procedure, and know the applicable bylaws involved.
That being said… I’d layer it. Minor stuff? Reported to warden, mentioned next minutes… acquire 3 in a month next step (or similar) move to next step. Major stuff? Requiring work stop or immediate warden intervention? Perhaps a sceduled meeting with the wardens and the officers, results posted in minutes. “An issue was addressed, no more grinding next to piles of sawdust!” Or the like. Crack down on repeat violations… It’ll take a lot of work and effort regardless. If it helps, I can chat about it anytime.
Basically, there is safety… and then there is social… as long as people have a clear idea of the ethics and goals, and insist on meeting them, then things should be okay. Okay, so there are bumps in the road. Any organization needs to be able to discipline or expel those who are totally disruptive.
Well said. I agree, and all the people I’ve met at the hive have been decent to me. OTOH, I also understand why we have police, to deal with those 1% who for whatever reason can’t or won’t be civil. I think it’s good we’re moving forward with some sensible rules and adding the ability to deal with disruptive individuals before they become the focus, rather than making stuff.