Minutes:Board Meeting Minutes 20200526
Agenda for 05-26-2020
Chair: Jamie B
- Google hangout due to stay at home order
- Meeting was Called to Order At: 2114
Re-opening the space
- POC: Jamie
- Opinions of Thomas Tsuano, Board member who was absent from the meeting.
- I was asked to discuss this in a public channel given i will not be able to make the meeting tomorrow, so here is my take on it.
- As to Jamie’s ask of the liability of leadership, I believe regardless of self reporting and cleaning efforts that liability is to high for me and the number of potentially vulnerable members and those with misgivings about the restrictions will make these rules difficult to enforce to insure the safety of others.
- I don’t feel as though i3 has the voluntary resources to call on to carefully police and self report, and one slip up could very potentially harm an incredibly disproportionate chunk of our community. One mistake could very well mean several infections, and though we have it now, as the different sectors ramp back up, there will be members called back to their responsibilities and therefore a shrinking base to call on to do a larger amount of very high stress crisis work that even most trained individuals need to be sharp and professional to accomplish a successful execution of.
- TLDR; We shouldn’t attempt it because at heart we’ve been a non-professional, DIY organization and disinfecting and policing behavior is not the specialty of any Makerspace. If it’s the will of the membership to be open, then they’ll override and objecting board votes via the bylaws or sheer political pressure, and I don’t see a majority of the board in opposition. I may disagree but will not stand in the way if it’s what the board and membership want to enact.
- This is not in direct critique of anyone currently working to develop these policies, nor any parties who dissent or disagree with that stance. But is to make known that I disagree with the decision given secondhand account of what exactly is going on the front line of all this. U of M Hospital, had sought budgetary cuts, Nurses and Doctors have had their retirement protected shortly because of union contracts, hospitals are still attempting to solve the logistical issue of serving an infected population and there is still a very professional and grim conclusion that we are on trend for a second wave. I view it as a very poor decision that does not reflect badly on those making it given their devotion to the organization of i3 and their continued excellent service to all goals in furthering our mission, but see it as ill timed and dangerous, given that while there is good news, there is still very serious risk and little precedent legally to suggest that we as a organization would be protected if we did serve as vector. Yes there is theory and reading of the letter of law, but no solid cases as to what could happen or what will and won't be considered neglect in the face of this illness. And therefore regardless of efforts, I believe it poorly timed to consider reopening the space
- After reading some of the former comments something stuck out to me.
- We've consulted a lawyer to ask the question "Are we liable?". Not a doctor to find out: "Is this safe?", but a legal expert to ask "Will we get in trouble?". This calls into question what our line of thinking even IS on this.
- Do we believe "Someone will get hurt or sick and we want to cover our asses."? If so, what is the gain that we are seeking that apparently overrides the concern for our member's health?
- On the other hand, do we believe, "No one will probably get sick." when we've seen data that says there have been outbreaks after reopenings? For example: Traverse City just had two people nearly cause an outbreak from which we don't know the result of. Numbers jumped in rural communities after the protesters returned home and we've seen other cases in other places where the numbers have risen after relaxing the guidelines. South Korea, Germany, Washington State, and even Church communities have all seen outbreaks after relaxing or reopening.
- This isn't me saying this, this is stuff that is actually happening that is documented. Why do we believe we're immune from this? And if we don't believe that, why are reopening? What benefit outweighs the risk of this disease?
- There are serious stakes here. Not answering these questions, at least in your own minds, is going to lead to us making a quick decision based on "feels" that will end up with someone getting sick - or worse.
- I have said and made it known, I will continue to serve i3 and voice my dissent by vote, but otherwise will be of help where it makes sense and where I can believe my efforts are best served
- Action item to pole i3 membership on okayness with remote access to door camera review, with sunset clause at the end of covid operations. To be sent out by Mel via email.
- Action Item to add to best practices- Zone usage for zones without sanitation procedure will be considered close in the best practices ( to be voted on by membership on 2Jun2020 membership meeting)
- Time completed:2245
- Funds appropriated:100
Action Item Summary
No action items.
|Proposal||Moved By||Seconded By||Aye||Nay||Result|
|Allocate $100 to pay for NomCon tickets.||Mel||Matt||7||0||Pass|
|I3 will reopen under the Executive Orders referenced in the Covid-19 policy, for manufacturing activities only, operating under the COVID-19 Preparedness and Response Plan on the condition that the following tasks are completed.
- Jamie B
|Previous Meeting||Next Meeting|
|Board Meeting Minutes 20200512||Board Meeting Minutes 20200609|