Board of Directors Meeting 20171020

From Dallas Makerspace
Jump to: navigation, search

This meeting will be held in Modified SRC3 format.

Time, location

20171020 19:00 Dallas Makerspace

YouTube Link

Prior minutes

Financial Statement

Balances as of 10/20/2017 4:00pm

Checking        $355,532.87
Savings         $ 79,543.34
Total           $435,076.21

Proposed Spending

5.5 $10,000 Increase Saving Rate from $4000 to $10000 per month (David Kessinger)
5.9 $68,000 Award bid for Financial and Accounting systems - Pure Tax Resolution (Brian Davis)
$78,000 Total

Maker Fellowship Fund - Total of 76 Grants: $-405.85
Committee Balances
Committee Balance Notes
3D Fabrication $9,941.20
Auto $11,446.22 $6k allocation for Toolbox
Auto Sports $2,411.04 $2,672 allocation to Motorsports for Nov. Race MSR Houston
Blacksmithing $7,931.39
Classroom $2,060.82
Competitive Robotics $1,000
Creative Arts $16,305.88
Digital Media $950.50
Electronics $1,743.81
Finance $19,050.09 Allocate $15,000 funding to finance for on-site bookkeeper
Fired Arts $2,345.88
Hatchers $1,638.92 Allocate $500 to pay for bullet casting equipment, $1,200 allocation for Induction Annealing Machine
Infrastructure $42,237.01 Allocate $445 to Infrastructure for pressure washing, $1,200 allocation to reimburse Robert Davidson
Jewelry $3,161.44
Laser $8,889.15
Logistics $-23,984.46 $1,000 allocation for ceiling tiles in Room One
Machine Shop $6,444.78
Metal Shop $10,888.47
Public Relations $11,081.04 Allocate $1,500 to PR for Volunteer Appreciation Dinner
Radio Control $513.74
Science $194.82
Vector $98.63
Vintage Computer $310.32
Wood Shop $6,179.26
TOTAL $142,839.95

Consent Agenda

Newly proposed agenda items appear in the consent agenda. Any member present at the meeting may pull an item out of the consent agenda for discussion, at which point it goes under "New Business". If nobody objects to the solutions presented by the consent agenda, everything in the consent agenda passes by consensus. Items that have more than one proposed solution should be moved to the "New Business" section.

Any member may edit this wiki page and place an item on the agenda. However, discussion of agenda items should be done via the forums. The cut-off time for addition to or revision of the consent agenda items is 48 hours prior to the meeting. Please note, agenda items (Consent, New, or Old) that request spending $250 or more must include a section on "Relevance to our tax exempt purpose".

Confirm Committee Chair elections (Stan Simmons)

Problem: Six months have passed and it is time for Committee Chair elections and confirmations.

Solution: Confirm the following Committee Chair elections:

  • 3D Fab: Erin (Axeonos) Robertson re-elected
  • Aerospace: TBD
  • Automotive: Tom Tansey re-elected
  • Blacksmithing: TBD
  • Civic Hacking: Stephen Wylie re-elected
  • Classroom: john a. gorman elected
  • Competitive Robotics: TBD
  • Creative Arts: Devin Burnett re-elected
  • Digital Media: Coulson Mullen elected
  • Electronics: Art Givens re-elected
  • Finance: TBD
  • Fired Arts: Christy Cooper Elected
  • Hatchers: Steve Martin re-elected
  • Infrastructure: Stan Simmons re-elected
  • Jewelry/Small Metals: Joseph Lahoud re-elected
  • Laser: Merissa Green re-elected
  • Logistics: Luke Strickland drafted and confirmed by BoD 9.29.2017
  • Machine Shop: Nick Silva re-elected
  • Metal Shop: Chuck Graf re-elected
  • MotorSports: Chuck Graf re-elected
  • Public Relations: Steve Blanchard elected
  • Science: Brian Terry elected and confirmed by BoD 9.29.2017
  • VECTOR: Chuck Baber elected
  • Vintage Computer: Dwight Spencer Re-Elected
  • Woodshop: Andrew Zalaket re-elected

Committee Purge (Stan Simmons)

Problem: Some Committees have not been having regular meetings, don't have enough members to meet requirements, or haven't held semi-annual elections.

Solution: Committees that haven't had regular meetings, a minimum number of active members (5), or held semi-annual elections, should be made inactive per DMS rules.

The committees listed below have not had a voting meeting, and have not scheduled one yet:

  • Aerospace
  • Blacksmithing
  • Competitive Robotics
  • Finance

The BoD needs to encourage these committees to have an election as soon as possible.

New Business

Parks Pantry Pricing (Jayson Woods)

Problem: Parks Pantry prices have been going up and up

Solution: Review Parks Pantry and see if we want to remove Parks and go with another vendor.

Official Ruling on the manufacture of any part of a fire arm at the space (Walter Anderson)

Problem: We have had members work on 80% lowers after the ATF letter of understanding that seems to establish doing so on machinery you don't own is against federal regulations. From this recent post we seem to have a member who intends to create an '80% lower' on the HAAS. This seems to require the Board to make a formal decision about whether we will allow this kind of activity or not.

Solution: Create a formal rule/policy to cover what we will and will not allow

Relevance: These activities potentially put our organization at risk of entanglement with the federal government. Rather then continually leaving this for members to debate, the board needs to settle our rule/policy for such activities.

Protecting Member Assets (john a. gorman)

Problem: The Dallas MakerSpace recently paid $1,200 for a building inspection of a facility in Garland. The purpose and use of this investment was not defined at the previous board meeting. The product (the final report) is the physical property, and the information contained is the intellectual property, of the Dallas Makerspace. In accordance with our by-laws, “no material property of the corporation may be given to, loaned or placed in the possession of a third party without the expressed permission of the Board of Directors”.

Solution: Set up a committee to establish a best practice guideline to best protect and utilize these assets, and such future assets, to benefit the Dallas MakerSpace, perhaps in contract negotiations, and guide the Board in determining its best use.

Relevance: Protecting Member Assets as defined by the our by-laws Section 7.7 Material Property 7.7.2.All such material property shall be used only for the benefit of the corporation and shall not be used for the personal benefit or gain of the appointed caretaker or any third party. No material property of the corporation may be given to, loaned or placed in the possession of a third party without the expressed permission of the Board of Directors.

Single physical records storage location (Walter Anderson)

Problem: It appears that there is not a central repository of ALL contracts and necessary information for the management of DMS. In particular it appears that one board member is both difficult to contact and the sole DMS board member who is aware of the details of at least one contract.

Solution: Establish a central, physical location, for the maintenance of ALL contracts and information necessary to the management of DMS that is accessible by any board member as well as anyone else chosen by the board.

Edit to add: A lockable, 2 hour fire rated, filing cabinet could be added to the Conference Room for $1800, or less by shopping around. (Stan Simmons)

Relevance: Single point of failure procedures can place the entire organization in jeopardy.

Increase Saving Rate from $4000 to $10000 per month (David Kessinger)

Problem: DMS has outgrown the current location and as unable to locate a suitable property prior to the current lease being renewed. Recognizing that we need more space the current lease was only renewed for two years.

In Nov. 2016 our current projected monthly income was ~$52,900/mo ($634,800/yr), as of 10-11-217 projected monthy income is $63,800/mo ($765,600/yr) an approximate increase of $10,600. Our current mandatory savings is $4,000. In 23 moths (counting Oct) we will put $92,00 additional dollars into savings. This will not sufficiently build savings for a move.

Solution: Increase monthly saving by $6,000/mo from $4,000/mo to $10,000/mo. This will generate $230,000 in the next 23 months, when added to other funds that will be available DMS would be projected to have between $400,000 ~ $500,000 available for any projected move. DMS has increased income by $10,600 since 11/16 but has not increased its saving rate. Even adding in increased rent of ~$1,200/mo, that is only $7,200 of $10,600 increase. Electricity charges have gone down ~$500/mo since we changed utility providers so basic rent and electricity is up about $700/mo.

Relevance: We will be moving at some point, we should be prepared. This is equal to about 150 average member dues and we are still growing at about 300/yr, while not guaranteed the trend is supports this. If circumstances require this amount can be reduced. All this money will be retained and used exclusively for DMS purposes, continuation and growth.

Report on Current Status with Fire Marshall (Brian Davis)

Status: Will provide detailed summary of current problems and actions with respect to the recent Fire Marshall inspection failures

Relevance: Failure to accomplish these tasks is likely to result in either the long term closure of the Woodshop or of DMS, by the Fire Marshall.

Report on Current Status with Woodshop (Andrew Zalaket)

Status: Will provide detailed summary of actions in the Woodshop with respect to the recent Fire Marshall inspection failures

Relevance: Failure to accomplish these tasks is likely to result in either the long term closure of the Woodshop or of DMS, by the Fire Marshall.

Solution: Upgraded dust collection unit that provides adequate suction to machines, clean air, and can be transferred to new space if/when DMS relocates. Of course this system will need to approved by the Fire Marshall. My suggestion is the Felder RL350 Clean Air Dust Extraction Unit. Total cost will be approximately $30,000 and can easily be transferred to new space.

Creation of an Ad Hoc Advisory Committee to study options and provide analysis of options available for the Growth of DMS. (Brian Davis)

Problem: We wish to begin a discussion about expansion and growth, but have little or no hard data on the subject.

Solution: This item will include the allocation of an amount not to exceed $2000 to aquire access to tools necessary to complete detailed studies, and other expenses as needed.

Members of the Advisory Committee should be nominated due to their experience or expertise in Real Estate, architechture, engineering, finance, GIS, or other fields which may provide expertise and experience directly related to the Committees' work. Their mission is fact finding without political prejudice. The Committee would be formed by each Board member nominating a single individual, and providing their qualifications. Any two Board members may reject any nominee. Further nominees to be submitted to the Board by the Advisory Committee. Size is limited to 8 persons. Other DMS members can contribute and take part at the committees discretion, provided that said participation remains within the mission of the Committee.

Initial study, to determine and analyse the fundamental options available (building, leasing, etc), and to create a report for the Board and the Membership to review. Followup work would potentially include study of sites under consideration, and working with the Board(s) to assist in defining a strategy for growth over time. Their mission is fact finding without political prejudice

This Committee is intended to provide data and analysis, not recommendations. Its a working group, not a talking group. First things first, let's gather facts, before we start the debates.

Relevance: Good information, is the prerequisite for good decisions.

Award bid for Financial and Accounting systems overhaul project Phase 1 to Pure Tax Resolution in the amount of $68,500.00 (Brian Davis)

Problem: Our accounting system is badly broken, and this threatens our existence.

Solution: The Board elected at a previous meeting to begin a phased program to completely recreate our system, make it GAAP compliant, and solve a number of problems as identified in the report to the Board on the matter. After interviewing several CPA firms, Puretax appears to have the most detailed and comprehensive approach to solving our issues.

Relevance: Our 501(c)3 status requires that we keep accurate books and records, and comply with IRS tax accounting rules, or risk dissolution.

Establish By-Laws Clean-up Group (David Kessinger)

Problem: DMS By-laws have some internal clauses/phrases/language that have some ambiguity or conflicting meaning/interpretations. This has become a source much debate at times.

By-laws are intentionally difficult to change and I feel if done in an organized manner that involves the membership good results can be achieved with minimum chaos.

Solution: Establish an ad hoc BoD team or group to lead a multiple step process to address these issues. It is NOT the intent or charter for this group to look to propose changes to the by-laws beyond “clean-up”, that can be organized by members that want to advocate those changes – and I hope those people will also become involved in this process. The multi-part process would be:

  • BoD name person to lead this group at time this motion is adopted so it can immediately begin work. No director may lead this group.
  • By December 1st, submit a report identifying all language that is believed to have conflicts. Multiple viewpoints as to what the conflicts may be submitted. Only conflicts/ambiguities identified, not proposed changes. Results to be provided to BoD which will post them on wiki, place TBD
  • January 15th, Proposed rewrite and changes to the by-laws to eliminate the conflicts and or ambiguities. Results to be provided to BoD which will post them on wiki, place TBD
  • February Membership Meeting. Discuss, modify and select any recommendations. Begin signature process to get on ballot for 2018 Annual Meeting.
  • Dissolve group once voting begins for annual meeting.

Relevance: Needed for smoother corporate governance. Nothing in this would prohibit members from submitting for vote any alternative languages or to limit them for submitting for changes beyond the scope of this group.

Member Complaints

  1. First complaint against Member X
  2. Complaint against Member Y
  3. Second complaint against Member X
  4. Complaint against Member Z


Meeting called to order by Kris at 7:11 pm 10/20/2017.  All directors present.

Prior minutes pass with no objections.

Presented by Ken Purcell

Kris:  Question regarding fellowship fund, is this all time or just last meeting?
Ken:  All time.  The fellowship fund is negative.

Committee Chair Elections passes unanimously.

Committee Purge pulled by Kris
Stan:  I can’t find any record of these committees having had meetings.  Those committees need to be encouraged to do this otherwise they face dissolution.
Alex:  I have contacted Blacksmithing.
Kris:  I will contact Aerospace and Competitive Robotics

===Parks Pantry Pricing (Jayson Woods)
Jayson Woods not present.
David Kessinger:  Analyzing the data, it looks like it has increased 10% over 2 years.
Kris:  I have also looked at alternate companies and didn’t see any with good reviews.

MOTION:  Brian motions Jayson Woods to provide the board with a report and some alternatives.
Kris seconds.
Motion fails.

Nick Sainz:  I will do this.

===Protecting Member Assets (john a. gorman)
John Gorman present.
Robert:  Who is creating this process?  What is the solution?
John:  A committee is the only way we can accomplish this.
Brian:  What are you wanting to protect here?  What do you want from us?
John:  I still think it was a problem.
Brian:  That’s not what you submitted to the agenda.
John:  I want to make sure we follow the bylaws and rules.
Brian:  That’s not what this agenda item says.
Andrew LeCody:  My suggestion is that if you want a committee, you need to follow the process noted on the rules.  The board cannot create a committee without that process followed.
John:  Maybe I don’t have a solution.  People aren’t following the rules.
Andrew:  You should come up with a solution that is not open-ended.  We’re getting off-topic.
Kris:  If you would like to submit a committee, please follow the process and submit next month.

===Official Ruling on the manufacture of any part of a fire arm at the space (Walter Anderson)
Walter Anderson present.
Brian:  This has been debated over and over.  He’s right though, we need a policy.  If someone violates these ATF laws, the BOD members go to jail - not the person doing it.  We have a meeting scheduled with the ATF to talk to them firsthand.
Stan Simmons:  Is there any evidence you would go to jail over this?  You’ve overreacting
Brian:  Yes.  I have the ATF’s word.
Nick Sainz:  I have gotten an opinion from the ATF on this and I will share it with the Board, but it conflicts with your opinion from the ATF.  Please look into the commerce clause of the ATF ruling.  No one takes a paycheck here.  We are not in commerce.
Brian:  We should TOGETHER meet with the ATF.
Russell Ward:  I started Hatchers here, and I would like to see a rule made that says we do not allow the manufacture of firearms at DMS.  You cannot start with bare metal and create a firearm here.
Walter:  Can you read the statement from Nick Silva please?
Kris reads statement from Nick:
<insert statement from Nick Silva>
Stan:  Many people suggest blanket rules.  I would love to see the BOD talk to ATF about this with specifics.
Russell:  The ATF only considers the part of the gun with the serial number to be the gun.  Everything else is extra parts.
Robert:  I would like to see a formal policy or rule.  I propose we ban the manufacture of all firearms and NFA items.
David seconds.
Robert, Kris, David IN FAVOR
Brian, Alex ABSTAIN.
Motion passes.

===Single physical records storage location (Walter Anderson)
Walter Anderson present.
Alex:  We have an admin wiki.
Ken:  Correct.  I pulled it from there.
Brooks:  Infrastructure outages should not be a concern.
Walter:  During a hurricane it would still be inaccessible.
Brian:  We can look into this, but it is not necessarily a priority.
David:  I would like to see a 4-drawer fire safe for this purpose.  I will propose this at the NEXT board agenda.
Andrew LeCody:  A lot of us can pick locks.  We should put this behind a locked door.

===Increase Saving Rate from $4000 to $10000 per month (David Kessinger)
David Kessinger present.
Alex:  My only issue is that this proposal says “for a move” instead of being general.
Nick Sainz:  Thank you for bringing this up.  We should do this.
Brian:  We should be vague with the allocation.
Alex:  I motion to increase the savings rate to $10000 per month.
Brian seconds.

===Report on Current Status with Fire Marshall (Brian Davis)
Brian Davis present.
Brian:  The fire marshall dropped in to perform an inspection, unannounced, about two weeks ago.  We gave him a tour and he got stuck on Woodshop and Hatchers (reloading).  He gave us a report saying he was closing Hatchers for the meantime due to possible CO issues.  He needs to go back and talk to various officials and has been doing this for a week and a half.  I’ve been calling him every two days and have struggled to get answers.  We don’t know where he’s going from here because he’s unresponsive.  He’s just trying to enforce the code to keep us safe, etc.  He recommended we hire a Fire Protection Engineer to come back to him with code which was actually also suggested by Chuck Graf.  It kind of gives us a proxy to argue with him.
David:  Getting a FPE hires us expertise, they likely have experience with the FM, and they will be very helpful.  The FM has also contacted our landlord just to let them know.  A professional gives us an experienced advocate.
Chuck Graf:  I worked with lots of FMs and I really think an FPE will be a great person to bring us.  FMs are not engineers, he just looks at drawings and sees if it’s installed correctly.  He doesn’t have anything to check so he’s kind of guessing.  If we can get it to specifics with an FPE, I think this whole thing will go away.

===Report on Current Status with Woodshop (Andrew Zalaket)
Andrew Zalaket present.
Brian:  Now for the Woodshop, they were more clearly delineated as specific violations that could be fixed.  He also recommended an external dust collector.  However, our landlord told us NO for this in the past.  We talked to the landlord about it again, and they approved it at 6pm today with some requirements.  We have to get quotes now.
Andrew Zalaket:  We have replaced almost every air filter having to do with Woodshop and bought additional cleaning equipment.  Outlet covers were replaced.  Everything that was specifically called out by the FM regarding the Woodshop has now been fixed except for dust collection.  I am actively working on this and have already reached out to get quotes on the necessary equipment.
Alex:  Before we spend this, we need the FPE and FM to approve this.
Andrew:  I’m fine with that, of course.
David:  I motion we allocate $7000 to Logistics to retain a Fire Engineer.
Kris seconds.
Unanimously approved.

==Creation of an Ad Hoc Advisory Committee to study options and provide analysis of options available for the Growth of DMS. (Brian Davis)
Brian Davis present.
Russell:  I agree that Chris Marlow should be in charge of this committee.
Alex motions that we create an advisory group for gathering expansion data with Chris Marlow as the lead, and her to bring up to 8 suggestions (with them being allowed to work in the interim) to join her group at the next BOD meeting.  Also to allocate $2000 for this group to spend as necessary.
Kris seconds.
Unanimously approved.

==Award bid for Financial and Accounting systems overhaul project Phase 1 to Pure Tax Resolution in the amount of $68,500.00 (Brian Davis)
Brian Davis present.
David:  PureTax offered a comprehensive package.  They would write SOPs, everything.  They have an arm that specializes in nonprofits. They also have an internal nonprofit tax attorney that they would be happy to let us utilize.
Robert:  I also met with them.  My big take away was their ability to automate their processes and help us feed into their processes.
Kris:  We need to understand that this is likely the #1 take-away from this board session.  This is a big step forward and would show the IRS that we’re truly trying our best.
Erik Smith:  Is this sum of money a single service or…?
Brian:  This is pricing for the whole project.
Nick Sainz:  Are we paying this upfront?  Broken up?  Structured?
Brian:  There’s a retainer and we pay monthly.  Still up for debate in the agreement.
Caireen:  How long do they expect to get it done?
Kris:  We don’t know, we have no way of knowing.  We have IRS deadlines that they should meet.
Ken Purcell:  My concern is that we still have to feed them data from Square, etc.
David:  Basically, we want the treasurer to be doing analysis and be their liaison.  As far as day to day, there will be a bookkeeper here working with them on a professional basis.
Robert:  They would redo our chart of accounts.  This would affect Procurement Officers.
Luke Strickland:  Let’s do it.
Dwight Spencer:  As far as development goes, we would like to be involved so we can be compliant with their new processes.
Nick Sainz:  I’m excited to hear this.  Are we working with enrolled agents or CPAs?
David:  They have CPAs AND enrolled agents.
Brian:  CPAs, an accountant, and some clerical people for data entry.
David:  I motion we retain PureTax to get our books in order and allocate money not to exceed $68500 to Finance.
Kris seconds.
Unanimously approved.
Ken also humorously approves.

===Establish By-Laws Clean-up Group (David Kessinger)
David Kessinger present.
Alex:  In this process, you don’t mention attorney review.
David:  We can always add that.  I put dates just for deadline purposes.
Alex:  If we’re going to redo bylaws, we should have an attorney review them before it’s approved.
Sue:  That seems like a very tight deadline for that project.
David:  It’s either this timeline or next year.
Caireen:  This is kind of what Alex was saying.  Is there any problem if we started some events where we’re going to go through this part of the bylaws and just discuss it.  Is there any problem?
David:  You’ve always had the right to do that… We MUST avoid scope creep though.
David:  I motion we create a bylaws cleanup advisory group as written.
David seconds.
Unanimously approved.

Brian:  I motion we appoint Bradley Knapp as leader of the bylaws cleanup advisory group.
Robert seconds.
Unanimously approved.

==Member Complaints

===Alex Rhodes v. Kris Anderson
Alex:  Kris has gathered data on me and all other board members, specifically badge logs.  This was against our privacy policy and was definitely an abuse of power/trust.
Kris:  I have not violated DMS Privacy Policy.  The privacy policy does not include badge logs.  Your actions are routinely visible and this is a groundless accusation.  Information about how often a BOD member is at DMS is not PII and should be public information as they are elected officials.  The recommended outcome of this is also against the DMS bylaws so this is a moot point.
Robert:  I need to see the documents that were provided to a third party.  Can you walk us through how this happened.
Kris:  I asked Stan Simmons to pull badge logs of board members.
Stan:  I gave the raw logs to a trusted member that had the ability to extract the requested data.
David:  I object to this being a public debate.
Stan:  The information that you came into the building is not private information.  It’s not listed in any state or federal statutes.  Anyone here can see that you’re here.  Privacy is not a valid concern.
Brooks Scharff:  The only actually possible action is to remove her as President, or nothing.
Walter: You can check the June 23, 2016 board meeting minutes.  In those minutes Robert provided a private formal complaint, prior to the hearing of that complaint, to a third party.  Alex, while upset about it, was not interested in performing any punishment at the time.  I think that is kind of a precedent. (Fix to minutes from video record 3:12)
Ken:  This should NOT be public information.  There’s a difference between seeing someone here and having logs.
Amelia Young:  Is it possible to suggest a remedy or do we need to punish?
Graham:  As an attorney, this is not private information.
Brian:  Debatable.
David:  The issue is if this violates OUR privacy policy, not laws.
Chuck Baber:  This is very trivial.  Too many people have thin skin here.  I can see the data here without having the data.  I doubt our privacy policy protects that.
Andrew LeCody:  Chuck, you mentioned that Alex isn’t here.  Kris’ own data showed he was here 108 days.  You said he’s not here and 108 days was every-other day at the time.  The Code of Conduct covers this and this behavior is disturbing.
Dwight:  The core issue here is that access logs were handed to a third party, and they had logs with EVERY MEMBER data in them.
Russell Ward:  The purpose of the privacy policy is to protect our members from harm.  There’s a lot of variation in people’s perceived harm.  My question is how was Alex harmed by this.
John Gorman:  We have live streaming of cameras and they are available to the public.
David:  Only two cameras are publicly available and they are not entrances.  Access is tightly controlled.
Axeonos:  Brandon did put the cameras for public view.
David:  But not entrances.
Bryan:  There’s been talk that there was abuse.  What constitutes abuse?
David:  Irrelevant discussion.
Haley Moore:  Stan, If I asked you for the same info, would you give it to me?
Stan:  No, you’re not a board member.
Kris:  I think it’s obvious there was no harassment.
***Kris and Alex leave the room.
Robert:  I would not have let this data leave the Board.  Admin should have been CC’d on this request.
David:  Was the privacy policy violated?
Robert:  Yes.  #7 specifically.  However, I don’t think that merits any action other than a reprimand.  This was done in private and no one was notified.  That is my only concern.
David:  So, it was inappropriate because the whole BOD didn’t know.
Robert:  Yes, and we should make a policy.
Brian:  I’d rather have my toenails pulled out than deal with this.  First of all, the remedies that are available for this are very limited and mostly not feasible.  Was there a policy violation?  Was there harm?  What was the purpose?  She was trying to make political points that someone wasn’t visiting as often as her.  She had a slight temper tantrum.  She took it a step further.  The question is it illegal.  No, it’s just a dirty political trick.  It sets a bad precedence.  This was not on a need-to-know basis per our privacy policy.  So technically there is a violation.  What do you do about it?  Nothing, in this case.  A wrong was done.  A dirty trick.  A minor infraction.  There is no remedy for this.  This isn’t THAT big of a deal.  Kris has done a TON of good for the space.
David:  Agreed, this was not need-to-know and it was for a personal reason, not a business reason.  I agree with us needing to reprimand her and nothing else.  Lessons learned.  Harm was not great here, but there was still harm - and that was the intent.
Robert:  Any requests for potential PII should have admin@ CC’d in EVERY case.
David, as acting Chair:  Reprimand Kris:  It was not a violation for her to access the data, however since it was used for personal purposes it was inappropriate.  We will formulate more rules controlling data access at the next meeting.
Unanimously approved (Robert, Brian, David).

===Ashley Newland v. Esteban Pagan
Complaint:  Esteban violated rule #1 of our harassment policy.
Kris:  I temporarily banned Estaban yesterday for threatening another member.  He is leaving.  His badge is turned off.
Ashley:  I want to thank Kris and David for looking into this.  I’m very happy I have a board that supports a safe space.
David:  It was all of us, not just Kris and I.
Robert:  I fully intend to permanently ban this person.  Objections?
Ashley:  Nope.
David:  Does anyone here know what happened here as an eyewitness?
Kris:  I witnessed the second incident.
Robert:  I propose a permanent ban and expulsion of Esteban Pagan from the Dallas Makerspace for threatening with violence and harassment.  The Dallas Makerspace will not tolerate threatening or harassing behavior.
Kris seconds.
Unanimously approved.

Kris:  I will be here to escort him to remove his items.

===Esteban Pagan v. Ashley Newland

David motions to dismiss.
Brian seconds.
Unanimously approved

===Grant Falkenberg v. Walter Anderson
Grant:  Quick summary is that I don’t want to be petty.  There were some offensive comments made by Walter and I feel like it’s inappropriate so I would like it to be made clear that it is not acceptable.  I had a legitimate question and Walter made offensive comments.  Walter said I should work on my absent mindedness instead of such and such project.  I was also told to resign my membership and leave.  This started by Walter asking me to leave because he was going to teach a class.  I packed up my stuff and posted a question on Talk about the policy of using an entire room to teach a class.  My question was answered but then Walter said I left things out and accusatory conversation ensued.
Kris:  What is your recommended solution for Walter?
Grant:  I think that in general, Walter should be more productive in discussion instead of just accusing people.
David:  If you aren’t asking for a specific remedy, are you withdrawing your complaint as it has been heard?
Grant:  I would like to hear from Walter because he is here and was involved.
Walter Anderson:  I believe you have misrepresented what happened.  To start with, I didn’t accuse you of leaving things behind.  I didn’t call you absent minded, I just repeated a word you said about yourself.  You were just making excuses for leaving things out.  My problem was that you weren’t making any statement that you would avoid doing this in the future.  We MUST expect people to clean up after themselves.  At 1600 people, we would quickly lose track of everything.  Personally, I do not feel that I said anything offensive.  You are EXPECTED to put things away where they belong.  It was all excuses - you said there should be pictures of where everything should go.  I will not apologize.
Kris:  Art, you were there, can you give us your statement?
Art Givens:  The incident started when Walter asked him to leave and Grant was not happy about being asked to leave.  There were many things left out that delayed the start of the class.  The rest of the incident occurred online.
Kris:  Grant, do you want to continue with this?
Grant:  I think that some of the things Walter said were inappropriate and hurtful.  I don’t have a problem cleaning up and I take responsibility for cleaning up after myself.  I don’t want this to happen again.
Kris:  Grant, you’re a new member, yes?
Grant:  Yes, two months.  I’ve used the e-lab a dozen times without issues.  I’ve never run into a class like this before.
Kris:  It’s not a written rule that classes take priority, it’s unspoken.  That is the issue.  Art is the chair of e-lab.
Art:  Part of the result of all this, is that e-lab has an official policy on classes and that it is up to each member to check the events calendar.  You should plan accordingly.  The teacher of a class can reserve the room and vacate the room except for the teacher and students.
Brian:  It doesn’t sound like there’s anything for us to do here.  Do you NEED a judgement?  Can we all just be friends?
Grant:  Yes.  Honestly that would be great.  I just don’t want to be told to resign my membership if I accidentally leave something out.
Andrew LeCody:  There’s actually a rule.  It’s rule #4.
Kris:  Grant, are you dismissing your complaint?
Grant:  No, we can dismiss this.

Grant withdraws his complaint.

===Walter Anderson v. Brooks Scharff
Walter: Ladies and Gentleman, I bring your attention to Brooks public posting to Diplomat.  In particular I want to emphasize that he included the use of the term 'bitch' for which I was banned for using in a private message earlier in the year.  I have already brought this breach, and apparently highly offensive language, to the attention of the moderators and received no response. Therefore I am filing this formal complaint about the PUBLIC use of this term, which given how harshly you'll responded to my PRIVATE use must merit some severe punishment indeed.
Walter:  The reason this is brought up is because I was banned from Talk for using this word “bitch.”  I was watching Talk to find someone that said this word to test this precedent.
Brian:  This was last year’s board.  It has changed since then.
Walter:  I want to see your vote.
Andrew LeCody:  Did you flag the post as inappropriate?
Walter:  No, I flagged it for moderator attention.
Andrew:  You should flag as inappropriate not for the mods.
Kris:  Brooks, anything?
Brooks:  I do not.
Kris:  I’m not sure what you want from us.  Do you want us to ban Brooks?
Walter:  I just want a vote.
Brian:  This was not offensive.  No action needs to be taken here.
Alex:  This doesn’t belong here in this meeting.  Talk is worse than it used to be.  I support a block from Talk on Brooks for a month.
Robert:  We should just remind everyone that we should be respectful.
David:  We did set a precedent in the past, but it was different.  I personally don’t think this is anything.
Brooks:  I would like to note that the word I used was “bitching,” I did not call anyone a “bitch.”
Steve Martin:  This complaint is from kindergarten.  I want my opinion known.
Walter:  I used the term “bitching” as well and was banned for it.
David:  That is the exact same word, you have condemned yourself
Russell:  I suspect Walter’s purpose of this is because a precedent was set and was just checking to see is that precedence is still in place.
Amelia Young:  I went over some of this on Talk but there’s a difference here.  There was the implication that Bradley (last complaint) should stop bitching.  And Bradley filed the complaint.  In this case, Steve Blanchard was not offended.  Can Walter complain on his behalf?
David:  I think the logic is there.  This is just vindictive.
Amelia:  But the difference is intent here.
Alex:  I wish more people would flag, complain, etc.  It would make it easier to deal with.  I will treat them the same just like I did before.
Alex motions to block Brooks Scharff from Talk for a month.
David seconds.
FOR:  Alex, David
AGAINST:  Kris, Robert, Brian
Motion fails.

===Brooks Scharff v. Walter Anderson
As written.
Walter Anderson:  In terms of the campaign of harassment I think I have already established that Brooks just drew the black marble.  I think that you can look at his two examples and see that they are clearly not directed at anybody or comparable in tone and tenor.  Wasn't directed at Brooks.  I tried to explain this in his talk thread on this.  I blocked him and stopped talking to him when instead of conversation I started getting pictures which you can obviously see on the thread.  He obviously wasn't interested in rational conversation. So the conversation stopped.
Brooks:  Proving a point is childish.  I felt genuine fear.  Doesn’t matter your intent.
Walter:  Frankly, don't think its childish.  Had a reason for it.  If Art had made that post, he is the one I would have filed the complaint against.
Andrew LeCody:  Why not have someone post the same thing as a staged situation.  He waited months to wait for someone to do it.
Axeonos:  Walter, you said that if Art was the next person to say this, except he’s not the kind of person to say that.  This is clearly targeted.
Kris: Axy, I think his point was that whoever did it he would be calling out.
Erik Smith:  Walter, you like to mention a precedent.  I specifically abstained that blocked you on talk.  I also spent a great deal of effort trying to undo this.  I would like to see this less as a precedent and more of personal regret.
Dwight Spencer:  This was clearly Walter’s agenda.  Can we just be excellent?
Kris:  I move that this be dismissed.
Unanimously dismissed.

Kris:  We should look at our moderators and perhaps have some training sessions.
Chuck:  As a new member I was very disappointed in Talk.
Kris:  I welcome agenda items to the next board meeting.

Nothing new.

Kris:  Lemons Race coming up soon.  Anyone have the date?  It’s before our next BOD meeting.
Alex:  It’s on the 11-12th.
Kris:  Member volunteer appreciation dinner will be on the first or second week on November.
Axeonos:  I wanted to thank Luke, Chuck, and a lot of the other people that are helping to put together the vacuform.

Sunday, November 19th, 2017 at 6 PM.

Meeting closed at 11:30 PM.