Comments on: Controversy at J Street Co-op

By: Jason Moore

Jason Moore — Sun, 07 Feb 2010 16:42:36 +0000

In the response letter, SCHA says they make decisions by consensus. That is true, except that the board is made up of less people than are in the SCHA owned houses. True consensus would give everyone member a vote and ability to block decisions, including the roommate being kicked out. The United States Non-profit model doesn’t allow for easy adaptability to a solid consensus model.

By: pxl

pxl — Thu, 04 Feb 2010 20:48:41 +0000

Thanks for the links, the meeting where they kicked me out they kept NO minutes, hence the “unnamed people saying unnamed thing about me.”

By: not a hater

not a hater — Thu, 04 Feb 2010 07:15:23 +0000

Here you go:
http://foundationcenter.org/findfunders/990finder/
in 2006, they spent $1259 on Board development.
in 2007, they spent $3605 on board development activity.

took me like 5 minutes to find that out.

By: not a hater

not a hater — Thu, 04 Feb 2010 07:01:15 +0000

pxl- a nonprofit entity certified by the ca secretary of state has to keep public records, so request the official minutes. also you can find a nonprofit’s tax records (detailing expenses and revenue) for each tax year online. the point is, when you say stuff like “this is in direct violation of the bylaws” as a reader i’m like “okay, but what part of the bylaws anyway”

from idealist.org:

“Official board minutes should be open to
inspection, as they record the formal activities and actions of the
board. The minutes should not reflect, and those outside the board should
not be privy to, the content of individual board member’s comments and
deliberations leading up to the official board actions reflected in the
minutes.

The board speaks with one public voice, regardless of their private
disagreements and differences. The board minutes should reflect the
actions taken in that public voice, and should be open for inspection.”

By: pxl

pxl — Mon, 01 Feb 2010 21:45:52 +0000

Also, since I got forced out, I don’t have access to any organizational info or paperwork (it’s all at J st co-op), so sorry about some vague dates, I lead a pretty full life and can’t always remember ALL the details.

By: pxl

pxl — Mon, 01 Feb 2010 21:43:18 +0000

This was initially a personality conflict with several former board members and housemates who left then went back to the board and forced them to force me out.

Secret meetings, threatening three day evictions, threatening state violence, and disregarding the lease/bylaws is not a personality conflict, it’s bad organizational policy and not very cooperative.

By: civil discourse

civil discourse — Sun, 31 Jan 2010 05:28:59 +0000

Generally speaking, I don’t see much evidence presented either way here. Pxl’s letter contains accusations, but not much else. I mean “sometime in 2006 or 2007″ is not exactly a solid way to present an argument. And I’m not sure the accusation about the board of directors wasting valuable time debating the income level requirement is really a crime. If that were the case, most nonprofit board of directors might be guilty. But I agree, pxl’s lifestyle choices kick ass and too bad the board doesn’t have the same integrity. Sucks to be so awesome I guess.

By: Kemble Pope

Kemble Pope — Fri, 29 Jan 2010 01:37:10 +0000

Lucas – ignoring the hurt feelings, do you think that the accusations deserve a response?

By: Lucas Frerichs

Lucas Frerichs — Thu, 28 Jan 2010 19:35:05 +0000

SCHA and its member co-ops (J Street and Sunwise) have had controversial issues arise over the years, (whether or not to allow meat into the house is one example), but this seems like an issue of personality conflicts rather than SCHA “losing its way”.

Actually, I think one would be hard pressed to find ANY type of co-op in this town without its share of controversy (past or present). ALthough, most any organization has some of the same dynamics arise from time to time…with humans being involved and all. ;0)

I repsect the Voice’s notion of a community dialogue regarding this issue, and its stated maxim of “be fair and play nice”, however, this seems to pretty much be a case of hurt feelings and accusations and not much more.

By: Kemble Pope

Kemble Pope — Wed, 27 Jan 2010 23:47:32 +0000

@ Max – My name is Kemble, I’m not a e-book reading device.

Re: your 2007 report. That report doesn’t answer the claim that you asked to change the income requirement. I would suggest that both you and pxl unearth some minutes from your meetings to prove your case. If you still would like for us all to read the 2007 report, then by all means, post the link here.

Re: Co-investing parcels. You never sent me any information, just stated in an email that what you wanted to do wasn’t fishy and “who wouldn’t want to live next door to their friends?”. I don’t know you nor anything about that situation, but I can tell you from my years of experience with non-profit boards that it would be considered highly irregular in all non-profit circles for a Board Member to propose an investment such as this…

Re: “heavily edited version of pxl’s letter” – Yes, indeed, in the interests of extremely civil discours,e and more importantly, for brevity and clarity I did indeed edit pxl’s letter and have made no secret of that. Some seem to be annoyed that pxl’s allegations how have more gravity because they are now more concisely and eloquently written… c’est la vie. I would argue that the content is exactly the same, just more accessible. It would be impossible to divorce pxl’s hurt feelings from his allegations… he believes that the board’s actions hurt him and the organization.