Board of Directors Meeting Minutes

March 20, 2011

Directors Present: Stuart, Jake, Donald, Colin, Mark, Dana, Therese, Andy

Directors Not Present: Jessica

Board and Staff Liaison: Steven

Meeting Minutes Recorded by: Natasha (Not present)

Non-Member Owners/Guests Present: Doug Parker, Vickie Parker, Steve Randall, Chris Rauschuber

Workers’ Assembly Member:

Call to Order: 12:01 PM

Comment Period

Steve Randall reads from a letter he has sent out to the Board mailing list, “Over the past couple of weeks, I have exchanged e-mails with the Board and had conversations with individual Members. It has taken me a bit to get to the root of my problem, but now I can explain it. Giving money to a third party, instead of servicing the MISO debt, is a slap in the face to those of us who invest. The standard answer I get from the Board is, “It’s the Worker’s Assembly right to do whatever.” And that’s a cop-out. The WA has not responded to me, and they don’t have to, because they don’t report to the Membership, they report to the Board. And the Board is supposed to report to me. What I’ve also come to realize is that the WA is doing its best to run a business the only way they know how, without much experience, and no skin in the game other than their jobs, with at least one exception, maybe a couple others, I’m not sure. The Board is doing it’s best, because none of the Members have ever been responsible for a half-million dollar plus venture. We seem to be caught in a lack of accountability blame-game. The Board says the WA can make all the business decisions they see fit. The WA justifies their actions, because the Board did or didn’t tell them to do or not do a particular item. Both sides need to grow up and enter the business world. Back to the MISO dividends, to keep it in terms that both sides like to hide behind, the End Policy A.5.1 states “We will pay a dividend by the end of the year.” The Board has not yet declared the dividend, so the WA cannot budget for this payout. That’s pretty lame on both sides. The WA knows this is coming; you should take appropriate measures to ensure enough cash for the payout. The Board has to request the current undeclared, unpaid dividend liability and figure out what we are going to pay and when. Maybe we’re doing so well that the Third Coast Distribution will not be a problem. Maybe we’re not doing well enough for the Board to declare a dividend, which makes a contribution to Third Coast that much more of an insult. As an aside, the undeclared, unpaid dividend should appear in financial reports as a liability. I’m interested in knowing what the current accrued, unpaid dividend is, and how much gets added every day. This may sound petty to some of you, but I know that not all of you invested in the MISO, so you really don’t have a point of reference of other people playing with your money. The MISO raised capital to open this brewpub, not fund other organizations. There remains a reasonable expectation that the debt will be serviced, prior to non-capital improvement discretionary expenses. Another big reason to start making good on the MISO, is the people who invested the first time, are going to be the people we hit up to raise money to open the second location. You only get a chance to burn them once.

On another topic, I would just like to be put on record, the website is absolutely, horribly out of date. If only the WA had already complied with the End Policy A.1.4 and installed a simple suggestion box, I wouldn’t have to mention this now, and use that mechanism instead. To be in compliance with the Ends Policy does not always require an elegant solution. Thank you.”

Donald and Steve have been exchanging e-mails, and one of the responses was sent to the Board e-mail list.

Steven would like to look at what the external constraints, and he feels that most of this stems from a lack of managing expectations. He states, “We have A.5.1 language that says, “Pay dividends to MISO investors by 2012,” which certainly does seem to mean that we should pay something in 2011. Unfortunately, that language is an error, there’s just no possible way to do it, given the way state law works. It doesn’t accrue the way you’re describing, like booking a liability going forward. The way that the law is written, is that, once you close a fiscal year, you allocate funds in a specific order. One of which is dividends for MISO payments. We had a soft opening in September, which is not enough to turn all of 2010 into a profitable year from which one could pay dividends. It is in my update that will be put on the agenda in the agenda review, to have the Board today declare a 0% dividend on MISO from 2010. The next opportunity we have to re-evaluate that is at the end of 2011, close out those books. It would be in early 2012 before we have any profits from which we could do this thing. It’s not a debt instrument, it’s a preferred stock instrument, where the dividends are conditional upon the performance of the business. We certainly erred in adopting that Ends Policy that said by 2012, because that’s not something we will be in any position to do.”

“Knowing that we have a target dividend of 6%, although I’ve discussed with the Board at previous meetings having that be staggered so we would pay larger dividends to earlier investors, we can estimate about how much we need — And also knowing that the state law prohibits us from distributing more than half of all the net savings as MISO dividends, and knowing what the cash needs for that would be, we’ve been continually adjusting our budgets for having about $40,000 set aside in early 2012 for the payment of dividends. That’s in the Ends, that’s something we’ve taken to be the number one priority for fiscal year 2011. The specific case of Third Coast is that they promised the marketing campaign on their end that would bring in 150 people, whether or not they meet it is of course, who knows. Sundays are our lowest average take on the day, and if they’re able to deliver their end of it and we have an average Sunday for what we’ve done so far this year, in 2011, it will probably end up about a wash on cash. We’ll have a slight hit on margins, because we’ll have to still pay for everything that the people who they bring in buy. But the intention there was to just have a large group of new folks come in on a day that we don’t get a whole lot of business. It was certainly something that was considered heavily during the Workers’ Assembly meeting when the proposal was brought to do something with them. Mark pointed out that is also planned support of other organizations, and I think it says a lot about us that we wanted to do that early and pay it forward quickly in movement building. You were on the Board when we had the first round of Wheatsville telling us, “No, screw off.” If organizations like Third Coast were built and stronger and had institutional momentum, then I don’t think we’d be sitting here, it being almost three years to the day, since the first MISO investments were taken, and not being able to service any kind of dividends on them.”

Steve notes that the Co-op appears to have stopped on capital improvements – there are no sunscreens or umbrellas yet. We keep hearing that there is not enough money to have X or Y. He thinks it’s nice that the projection will be a wash for the Third Coast issue, but he adds that it is the perception of the Members (relating to information dissemination and the website), that we are handing off money to another organization before we are making our Members comfortable in their own home. Steve says that it’s hard to prioritize 20 bullet points and get them all done.

Therese adds, regarding the 20 points of the Ends Policies, that the Ends Policies addressing investment dividends does have a due date, and it’s a very specific Ends Policy, whereas the one about supporting other co-ops and other non-profits like Third Coast doesn’t have a due date. She can understand why people would feel as though this was a misinterpretation of priorities as laid out in the Ends Policies. Her concern is that the Co-op will lose the check cut and the expenses. Therese thanks Steve and others for bringing this to the Board’s attention.

Mark proposes that this discussion be continued via e-mail or at the next Board Meeting. Steve asks if an update for the Members’ Assembly Meeting would be appropriate, detailing the communications aspect, why we’re doing it, and what budget what is coming out of, and how this is being laid out. Stuart agrees and believes this is an area where the Board and WA have failed at this point. He notes that if this information had been made public before, we would have known the answers. Donald can sympathize with people being antsy, and he believes it’s good for people to be aware of the logic behind decisions.

Agenda Review

Board Responsibilities Discussion – 15 minutes (before the B.2 Policy Review at 12:35PM)

Both Executive Sessions will be changed to Internal Sessions when passed

Proposed resolution on Declaration of MISO dividends – 2:35PM

Set Fall MA Meeting during Calendar Review

Action Item Review

Steven – post Therese, Stuart, and Jessica’s bio and picture on the website

Business card template – Steven needs to send Board Member business cards back to the designer

Andy – Patronage Rebate Project Update

Consent Agenda

February Regular and Executive Session Meeting Minutes

MOTION to accept Consent Agenda, Jake motions, Colin seconds:

8 For

0 Against

0 Abstain

Pub Hours with the Board

Jake hosted, with three people attending. The topic was HB 660. It was during SXSW, so Jake did not expect many people. Therese suggests a survey for the Members to find out what Member Linkage events they might attend [Stuart supports this idea later in the discussion]. Jake wonders if making more specific themes and inviting speakers would help attendance, such as someone talking about green initiatives, neighborhood committees. Donald seconds Therese’s suggestion of identifying what would be more interesting for Members and less of a waste of time of Board Members. Dana sees that every time it’s different Members attending. Stuart feels like overall, there is alienation amongst some Members; they’re not involved enough to care about the Co-op. Andy doesn’t believe the Co-op is generating momentum with the Members in general. Colin thinks that one reason people don’t come, is that they are not being informed as effectively as possible; he does not think we use e-mail enough, and the website is not utilized. Colin also notes that the brewpub is not being used to communicate, and Steven points out there is a wall for the Board’s use in the brewpub.

Steven details that the Co-op has received permission from TABC to give discounts only to Member Owners. A discount during Pub Hours for Member Owners could be set up. Board Members seem to generally agree with this proposal.

Membership Linkage Committee Update

Dana summarizes the previous meeting, which included reviewing the Elections Manual. Dana completed changes to the Manual from Therese’s suggestions. The calendar has been set, pending the Fall MA meeting date. At the next meeting, the Elections Packet will be finalized. The MLC has come up with a plan to do a blog post following every Pub Hours to recap.

Board Responsibilities Discussion

Therese introduces the topic, and states the she finds herself sometimes at odds with the Board and the BSL, when it comes to what the Board’s responsibilities are. She feels the Board should look at the By-Laws to determine what the responsibilities are. The By-Laws state all 9 Board Members are elected by the Membership to fulfill five duties: setting policy, overseeing Workers’ Assembly, issuing Investor Shares, leading MA meetings, and ensuring that all actions taken by the Co-op are lawful and consistent with the By-Laws.

The same By-Laws state that the Workers’ Assembly is charged with the business operations, and that they will implement policies and regulations that are necessary to fulfill those operations, provided that the policies and regulations are not inconsistent with the By-Laws or Board policy. Therese feels as though she encounters resistance from the Board as a whole; that she is “too focused on the language” in By-Laws or policy, and she feels that the Board cannot actually do some things. She is confused about Black Star also being a Worker Co-op, as workers own a worker co-op and share the profits. In Black Star, Workers can be Members. She feels as though Black Star has always described itself as a consumer-owned Co-op with a self-managed workforce.

Mark frames the discussion with the question, “are there things that are outside the purview of the Board?” Are there any things the Board is not allowed to ask from the Workers’ Assembly, when it is asked as a group? Andy states that there are obvious communication issues, and he’s not sure if they can be resolved in the groups (Board, WA, Members, etc.). He wonders if an Oversight Committee could overlook the communication structure, and that no one has written out how this all works. He would like to see a simple diagram for the Members, an overview of communications and expectations. Mark says the Board is the oversight. Andy thinks the committee should have an objective view, not the subjective view of the Board. Donald supports a diagram as well.

Donald asks Therese about the Worker Co-op language, and Therese has heard it mentioned in meetings, perhaps an e-mail, and in the packet. Donald clarifies that it’s a worker self-managed organization.

Mark links part of the issue to an e-mail sent by Steven, that states there are some things the Board is not privy to. By the end of the meeting, Mark would like it to be clear if Steven believes there are things to be kept from the Board when the Board as a whole requests it. Mark clarifies that Black Star is a consumer co-op with a self-managed workforce, and ultimately the Board has complete oversight over the Workers’ Assembly.

Colin thanks Therese for proposing this discussion. He notes that at the beginning, there were four people to oversee, and now there are 17. Colin would like to clarify how these types of issues will be resolved and then find a resolution of what the Workers’ Assembly purview is.

Therese believes the Workers’ Assembly apprenticeship program is in the conflict with the By-Laws. The By-Laws state that all Workers can have a vote, but the apprenticeship program does not allow that. The contribution to Third Coast is an additional example of a communications issue.

Steven states that the worker co-op aspect of Black Star has been part of the goal since day one, and he points out materials from 2006 that say “unique hybrid” to describe the consumer cooperative and worker cooperative fusion. Better examples of this model exist today, such as Weaver’s Street Market in North Carolina. Steven believes more representation from the WA may be useful on the Board, and he believes the focus on oversight is to the detriment of the organization. He focuses on what return is coming from the investment of the Board’s time. The Board should be a competitive advantage that improves Black Star’s position. Steven contrasts the Board with Todd Wallace’s Board at People’s, where they are reading histories of Mondragon and discussing what assets exist in the Pacific Northwest that they can leverage.

Donald thinks the question may be, what is prudent for the Board to be continuously aware of, rather than going through a back-and-forth process? Donald notes a discussion with Todd Wallace, where Todd says sharing protocols is acceptable, but requesting minutes would be bad form. Andy wonders what can be more clearly defined, and he believes the Board is responsible for the current day and the future.

Mark notes that the Board is trying to figure out roles, because there is a need to focus on the immediate as a start-up. Mark believes that if Black Star is to be a worker/consumer co-op hybrid, then there need to be serious changes. Right now, the co-op is taking people’s money, under the idea that the Board is controlling the workers. Todd Wallace suggested that there is a disconnect about what the Board-Staff Liaison’s position is. The Board just talks with the BSL, not the other members of the WA. Mark’s understanding of Steven’s view of the BSL, is that the BSL protects the WA from the Board, and this sets up a toxic relationship/lack of trust between the Board and the WA. Mark would like to know why things are not okay to be shared with the Board, as opposed to them just not being shared.

Stuart asks what role the Membership plays in the Co-op, and he sees them as largely disenfranchised and unhappy at this point. He sees the direction of Black Star being set by the Workers’ Assembly and not the Membership as a whole.

Therese seconds what Andy has said about focusing on the present. She does not have confidence that the Board could get the Co-op to tomorrow, because they cannot get information about where the Co-op is today. Therese does not think it’s possible for anyone to say that all actions of the Co-op are lawful, and she feels that if she does not see movement towards this, she will have to resign.

Andy believes that an overall picture of communications and description of roadblocks in communication needs to be written down.

As Steve Randall leaves, he states that this is a much-needed discussion, and the solutions lie in communication.

Andy and Dana would like to see some action about this discussion. Jake would like the Board to consider a resolution requesting the Workers’ Assembly policies, and he would like someone, perhaps Andy, to read through Policies and By-Laws and create a flow chart.

Andy is tasked with creating an “eagle’s eye” view of communication.

Steven states he is not comfortable with a resolution requesting WA policies unless the Board writes a policy for it. Therese quotes the By-Laws, “The Workers’ Assembly shall implement policies and regulations necessary to fulfill its’ tasks, provided they are not inconsistent with either these By-Laws or Board policies.” She does not think there needs to be a policy stating that the Board gets to determine if the policies of the Workers’ Assembly are consistent with the Board policies and By-Laws. She thinks that the way the Policy Monitoring works, there are three steps: BSL tells what the reasonable interpretation of the policy is, we hear whether or not the WA is meeting that interpretation with supporting data, and then the Board determines whether that is a reasonable interpretation and if the data supports a statement of compliance. Therese is specifically referring to the global policy of not allowing conditions that are unfair, discriminatory, etc. Mark clarifies that any non-procedural decision can be a resolution, which is in policy, and he believes the Board is well within their rights to ask for the WA protocols. Donald and Jake will create the policy.

RESOLUTION Whereas the Board of Directors is empowered to oversee the Workers’ Assembly and ensure that it is in compliance with all Policies and By-Laws, therefore be it resolved that the Board of Directors requests a complete set of protocols from the Workers’ Assembly, no later than March 27^th, 2011.

MOTION to accept resolution as read aloud, Jake motions, Andy seconds:

7 For

0 Against

1 Abstain

Policy Monitoring: B.2

Jake believes that according to the letter, everyone is in compliance. For B.2.2, he does not believe the Board is in compliance with the spirit of it, but it is being discussed.

MOTION to accept B.2 Policy Monitoring, Colin motions, Donald seconds:

8 For

0 Against

0 Abstain

By-Laws Monitoring Report

From Dana’s perspective, it was difficult for her to answer, because she was answering them as a Board Member and not a Worker. She suggests a discussion about how this By-Law should be monitored, and Mark notes that it was important for her to recognize which hat she was wearing. Jake suggests an outline for By-Law monitoring, that details who monitors what By-Law. Board Members discuss and agree to monitor the Preface as well.

Dana calls attention to 1.4.1, the individual Members, it says in the By-Laws that, “Individual Members who have not contributed to their assessed capital investment shall receive no other benefits of Membership and may not serve on the Board.” Basically, they should just have one vote, and we are out of compliance with this. Therese suggests staying in compliance with this, but perhaps sending out a message to each Member before an event. Steven points out there is no way to segment out those who are not Invested Members. Colin suggests removing “shall receive no other benefits of Membership,” but keeping “may not serve on the Board.” Dana sees this as a good incentive to get Members involved and want to pay off the rest of their capital. Mark discusses how the rules were changed by the Workers’ Assembly, and now the Membership must be asked to accept changes in response to a policy the Workers’ Assembly decided on, essentially the Workers’ Assembly driving change to the By-Laws. He clarifies that if the Workers’ Assembly is doing something that is in conflict with the By-Laws, and the Board has to present something to the Members’ Assembly to make what the Workers’ Assembly is doing in compliance with the By-Laws, that is backwards. Jake notes that there is no way for the register to display the level of Membership.

Steven says that the Co-op has bad By-Laws that have been amended several times and not externally reviewed since 2007. It’s not constructive to say things like “We’re cleaning up your mess,” and Steven wonders what is wrong with saying the By-Law is wrong? He states that by definition, this is under the Board’s purview and is the Board’s mess to clean up.

MOTION to accept monitoring report of By-Law 1, Colin motions, Stuart seconds:

8 For

0 Against

0 Abstain

Proposed Changes to Policies to B.3.8 and D.4.3.2

Therese asks if internal sessions will be used for all situations that involve directives and information of the Workers’ Assembly? Mark’s concept is Internal Sessions are for any discussion the Board deems may be shared with the Workers’ Assembly, and Executive Session is for instances where information would be kept from the Workers’ Assembly. Therese reads her understanding of B.3.8, “Internal Sessions will only be used for subject matters reserved for Executive Session involved directives to or shared information for the Workers’ Assembly.”

Proposed change to B.3.8:

B.3.8 All Board meetings will be open to the public except when an executive session or internal session is officially announced. Executive session will only be used when the subject matter is related to litigation, personnel, real estate transactions, or other matters deemed sensitive by the Board. Internal session will only be used for subject matter reserved for Executive session involving directives to or shared information for the Workers’ Assembly.

In addition, changes to B.3.8.4, B.3.8.5, and B.3.8.6 need to be made:

B.3.8.4 Where possible, announcement of either session should be on the published agenda.

B.3.8.5 Minutes will be taken during executive session and internal session, but will not be included in the official record of the meeting. These minutes are to be treated as confidential, and stored in a secure location.

B.3.8.6 The Board can make no decisions during an executive session or internal session except for decisions to extend time for discussion.

Regarding D.4.3.3, Steven felt the language was a little strange. He suggests wording, “the Board to be without proof of tax payment.” He also asks which tax payments are being talked about. Mark suggests that all tax payments be made available, but the Board expects to see payroll taxes. Stuart wonders if the information is needed unless taxes are not being paid. Therese believes that adding the policy is indicative of the Board’s concern about receiving proper data, and she feels that this is already covered.

The proposed addition:

D.4.3.3 Proof of tax payments to be made unavailable to the Board at the following month’s Board of Directors meeting.

MOTION to accept Policy Changes, Donald motions, Andy seconds:

8 For

0 Against

0 Abstain

Board Discussion on Upcoming Members’ Assembly Meeting

Steven generally objects to this being on the agenda for the Meeting: he is concerned about the process by which this has been done, and he thinks that the 1.6.3 question is being gone about improperly by the Board. He believes there should be something down that is compliant and that time should be taken to carefully address concerns. Steven wonders if the focus of the Meeting should be on the positive of the annual report, how we can get Members more involved, and how we can do more for them. Therese agrees with this perspective. Regarding Board Electronic Votes, when Therese wrote the Policy, she thought the Regular Meeting Minutes were being posted to the Blog, and she realized that they are not. She believes they should be posted as a way to provide transparency. Therese is concerned that the WA’s protocols put them out of compliance with Bylaws provision 4.1. She is concerned about non-compliance with D.4 because when the Co-op is hiring, there are people who are Invested Members who may think that the minute they’re hired by the Co-op, they get to be part of the voting process the WA uses. To Therese, it sounds like the current process is in conflict with our bylaws and that would be an unfair condition. Steven thinks compliance could happen with D.4.1 with an amendment on WA Protocols on structures. Donald suggests a straw poll about the proposed changes. Steven thinks compliance could happen with D.2.1 with an amendment on WA Protocols on structures. Donald suggests a straw poll about the proposed changes.

Donald asks if there is a preference about the By-Laws being changed now. Speaking for himself, Steven’s preference is for the WA to change their protocol language. Colin is not worried about the Membership’s reaction to the By-Law changes, but he feels that it would be worth waiting for some of them. Colin also wonders if it may be a good idea to invite the Members to a discussion about the By-Law changes, but Mark wonders what the reality of that may be, given that Members have not invested as much time in the By-Laws.

Mark states that when the Workers’ Assembly sets up a protocol that is out of compliance with the By-Laws, he is not comfortable with that, and he feels that the Board should be informed. Therese supports Colin’s idea as a candidate-introduction invent.

Mark proposes a committee to review By-Laws.

MOTION to accept charter, “The Board creates the By-Laws Review Committee to thoroughly review and suggest changes to the Board and to the Membership at the Fall Members’ Assembly Meeting, by the July 2011 Board Meeting, with a budget of $0.00, and Mark Wochner as committee chair,” Jake motions, Donald seconds:

8 For

0 Against

0 Abstain

Board Members are in agreement about presenting the changes to the Ends Policies related to food to the Membership.

For discussion topics at the MA, Andy volunteers for Education topic, Donald volunteers for Cooperation topic, Colin volunteers for Concern on Community topic. Mark suggests a time of 5 minutes, perhaps longer with questions. Jake would like to discuss what the Co-op is doing to specifically educate, train and inform its Members about what Co-ops are, Co-operative principles, House Bill 660, and the green aspects of the Co-op. Jake suggests everyone writing down notes about what Members may suggest at the MA Meeting. For Co-operation amongst Cooperatives, there is the think tank, the Wheatsville investment, Third Coast benefit, College House, People’s Food Co-op, ICC, NASCO, and Hope Farmers Market. Regarding Concern for Community topic, Dana suggests LEED certification, concern for environment, incentives for people to take mass transit, local ingredients, where the food comes from, how at last MA meeting it was voted that neighborhood members could participate, monetary and in-kind donations to Urban Roots, Silverback Gorilla, Earth Day. Colin suggests the “internal community” of the Workers, with living wage and health benefits. Dana also suggests an opportunity for Members to give feedback about areas for future donations.

The Annual Report is completed, and Mark needs financial statements, a statement from Jeff, and any other information. Therese noticed that in the Cooperative Associations Code, it says the Board will appoint a committee composed of members who are not principal bookkeepers, accountants, or employees of the cooperative association to review the Cooperative Association and report on the quality of the Annual Report at the Annual Meeting. Therese suggests this for the Fall Meeting. Colin wonders if what Therese has quoted from the business code needs to be incorporated into the By-Laws, and she thinks it would be good so the Board could remember it.

MOTION to enter Internal Session, Dana motions, Donald seconds:

8 For

0 Against

0 Abstain

[Board enters Internal Session around 2:30PM]

[Board exits Internal Session at 3:07PM]

MOTION To reject D.2 Policy Monitoring with five months for re-submittal (September 2011 Board Meeting) and accept the Operations Update, Colin motions, Jake seconds:

8 For

0 Against

0 Abstain

Resolution

Mark reads a resolution that was suggested to the Board,

Whereas the Co-op has accepted investment capital, and

whereas the Co-op refers to these investments as Member Investor shares, and

whereas the Board is charged to declare an annual dividend on Member Investor shares, and whereas in fiscal year 2010 the Co-op reported negative net savings,

therefore be it resolved Black Star Co-op Board of Directors declares a dividend of 0% on Member Investor shares for fiscal year 2010.

Be it further resolved that for fiscal year 2010 the Co-op makes no allocation to an educational fund or a general welfare fund, and no allocation for patronage refund.

Be it further resolved that the negative net savings of fiscal year 2010 shall be allocated to retained earnings and carried forward on the Co-op’s balance sheet.”

MOTION To accept resolution, Dana motions, Stuart seconds:

8 For

0 Against

0 Abstain

April Meeting Agenda

Discussion on conflict of interest statement

Vision discussion – Membership benefits

Policy Monitoring – Mark will send out a survey with an option for comments at the end

B.3 Board Agenda and Meetings – Colin

C.2 Delegation to the Workers’ Assembly – Therese

Calendar Review

Pub hours – 04/19, 7PM

MLC Meeting – 04/04, 7PM

April Board Meeting – 04/17, 12PM-3PM

‘Members’ Assembly Meeting’ Meeting – 03/21, 7PM

By-Laws Monitoring Committee – 04/11, 7PM

Fall Members’ Assembly Meeting – 10/16, 2-4PM

Action Item Review

Dana – upload Elections Manual to Basecamp

Andy – Eagle’s eye view of communication blocks

Jake and Donald – Modification to policy regarding Workers’ Assembly protocols

Jessica – changes to policy set

Andy – patronage rebate update

Steven – Therese, Stuart, and Jessica’s pictures, Therese and Stuart’s bios posted

Business card template or business cards printed

Stuart proposes a status update for the Membership, monthly or quarterly.

MOTION To accept Action Items, Colin motions, Dana seconds:

8 For

0 Against

0 Abstain

MOTION To adjourn, Andy motions, Donald seconds:

8 For

0 Against

0 Abstain

[Board adjourns at 3:27PM]