The main thrust of the meeting was about allocating the team’s atasks with a view of being ready to buy a site starting in late March.
Decisions
Ugne to share a FAQ document on the confesseur process
Richard to attend the meeting of the 29th on the investor profile.
@VickyVanEyck to organize and attend the meeting with Triodos on Mon 23rd.
Choice of the notary: Alberto to prepare a draft proposal
Fond de logement: @Celine_D already drafted a summary. @manuelpueyo and Malaz are going to talk to the Fond de Logement. Manuel to ask whether it makes sense to make an appointment as a group.
Overview of the legal aspects of buying a site. Ugné and Alberto to check with @Lee what she meant by putting this item on the to-do list, we feel like we understand them already.
Overview of the management of the multi-purpose room: cooperative vs ASBL. Malaz to work with Joost from de Okelaar.
Alberto to prepare a proposal on differentiated contribution to the option plus “fast track” vs. “slow track”. Priority on this, try to schedule for the first plenary of Feb.
@ClaudiaPr (or Vicky?) to design a process for enlarging the board. Consider naming names: “X should be in the board in representation of the families with children, Y in representation of the women” or whatever.
Richard (with Alberto’s support) to start looking into the price fork. This is a difficult one, and we might need to invoke Mark.
2-4% price increase for new members: it’s fair. Céline to take care of it.
Off the agenda, but discussed
Malaz to give another shot at Excel-based accounting (as opposed to Alberto’s proposal here) . Deadline: first week of February.
I always feel a bit guilty for intruding into your internal communication, but then at the same time I think it would be a pity to not get the benefits of open communication, so here I go …
Regarding the legal consequences of purchasing a site: what I was referring to is the option of putting down the full amount. In this option - which I believe only works via this maatschap / société de droit commun - there are no individual property rights, which makes it a bit trickier. But then this option is so unlikely that we probably shouldn’t prioritise this. Maybe we should even take it off the checklist?
Regarding the process for enlarging the board I’m not sure we have the same understanding. The way I see this is that what you would come forward with is really a process, plus a reasoning for it. Things to consider could include:
What are the powers of people on the board?
In which cases will the board play an important role?
How many people should be on the board? Should they be an even or an odd amount of people?
How about the coordinator and the treasurer? Is the fact that they got selected for the role sufficient to get them on the board?
How will we select them? Will we do a simple vote (as per the statutes), or do we stick to our intention of always using our governance document, and hence do a sociocratic selection process?
What will be the frequency of reselecting people for the board?
Overall I wouldn’t overthink it either. It’s a legal requirement and we should have one in case things go wrong, but overall I am confident that our own sociocratic way of working will do the job in the day-to-day.
Regarding the price fork: here again I wouldn’t necessarily overthink it. I think it can be enough to look at the market and establish that generally price forks consist of the average price per square meter +/- 10%. The reason why I added it to the list is that I thought it is important in terms of expectations management (+/- 50% is a no go for some people). So probably this can be taken off the checklist?
Finally: we’re a bit short of topics for the plenary in February (8th and 22nd). Next to the fast track vs slow track, do you think it would be feasible to schedule a couple more topics? Maybe the choice of the notary? And possibly the business model for the multi-purpose room?
Hi Claudia! I am reluctant to spend any more meeting time discussing how we do it, we really need to move forward with that list.
The task is to make a proposal for board enlargement.
We need this because the board still consists of the founding members: Lie (présidente), Manuel, myself. This no longer reflects the composition of the ASBL and needs to change.
The proposal should consist of two parts. Part 1 is “criteria for enlargement”, which reflects the desired number of members and composition of the future board. For example: we want equal representation by gender; or/and we want at least one native speaker of French, or/and at least two representatives of households with children, whatever.
Part 2 is names. Now you have designed the slots, fill them. For example, “Laurianne instead of Alberto, add Sophie, Jeremy and Lena.”
If you need help, reach out, possibly to Ugné or myself.
Like Lie says, don’t overthink it. The roles and powers of the board are defined by law, so nothing to change here. and anyway we’ve got our own informal governance. But the board is a backstop in case things go wrong, there is an element of stewardship, so it’s good if it’s not only the founders participating.
Indeed, I plan to write a draft in the coming day or two for that. I think we can schedule that one. Can you point me to where I can find the slides sent to us by one of the notaries?
Update on the notary: I ran on a bump. Mark has reservations on one of the candidates. He wants to discuss it “in a small group” (in French). Can one or two of you participate? @reef-finance
@alberto, we don’t have enough topics for the plenary meeting in February, and too many in March, so I was hoping we could schedule the topic on the notary for the plenary on 8 February. Do you think it would be possible to ask Mark for an online meeting? (happy to join if nobody can make it, but of course happier to let other people go)
@alberto Is Mark the consultant who lives in Brutopia? Then I’m happy to drop by some time next week, as I live closeby and could do that during the day. Otherwise for evening calls, Friday next week would work for me or even Wednesday before our Team Finance meeting, say 6pm.
hey team, hi @alberto
I super busy with work lately (like most of us, i guess), but could try to make myself available, so happy to support and attend the zoom meeting with Mark in French.
Hi all!
Sorry to intrude here - I would like to share something that might be relevant and haven’t found a better place. We recently came across this bank and thought we would tell you in case it would at any point be interesting to look at alternatives to Triodos: https://www.vdk.be/nl/ (We do not know them well at all though!)
Cheers,
Barbara
@ugne: I heard from Mark today, he is OK for touching base before the 8th. Do you have time tomorrow or Friday? At what time?
@ClaudiaPr happy to have a chat. Best evening for me is tomorrow (Thursday).
Whole team: upon @Lee’s request, I wrote this as background to our transparency policies. Could you have a look and let me know if you disagree with anything?
Seeing Alberto’s post only now, no problem, although we had many questions to you
Regarding Notary and a call with Mark, I could do Friday, anytime from 2pm. @RichardB , what about you?
Here you can see this minutes of today’s meeting.
