[EMS Discuss] discussion on the EMS Policies - Key Access

Mark Danburg-Wyld EMAIL HIDDEN
Wed Mar 6 22:13:15 PST 2013


Well said, Kassie, I also agree with your explanation for the current
language. Not to argue with Hovis' point, but also noting that open house
night, twice a week, means that anyone who lacks key access still has a
reasonable way to retrieve anything that person has left in the shop.
Thanks,
On Mar 6, 2013 9:00 AM, "Hovis Biddle" <EMAIL HIDDEN> wrote:

> I think Kassie's point about leaving EMS room not to be sued is very
> important. I also agree that a large window allows a disgruntled member too
> much time to steal/sabotage/etc.  I feel like the best compromise would
> just be adding a statement that a member who's key has been revoked can be
> accompanied by a board member to claim their stuff.
>
> Seems like that's the legal room EMS needs, and it means that members
> don't have to be afraid of losing their things.
> On Mar 6, 2013 1:40 AM, "Kassie" <EMAIL HIDDEN> wrote:
>
>> I believe that all of these recommendation have their place and are great
>> guidelines to follow.  I do have an issue with them being set in stone as
>> they invite legal troubles.
>>
>> Revoking key privilege is a big decision and not one taken lightly.  What
>> we are talking about is the boards abilities to deal with SERIOUS problems.
>>  It is the board responsibility to do due diligence, but what that entail
>> depends on the problem and the consequences.
>>
>> 1 and 3 are problems if we are protecting ourselves from the unlikely
>> event that we believe that theft, vandalism or personal safety are at risk.
>>
>>
>> Option 1
>> Created a retribution window from informing opening of the investigation
>> till the board meets.  In some cases, this could create a problem.  Most
>> cases it should not.  Also it may not a practical, what if we can not get a
>> hold of a person and the ramifications could threaten legal action against
>> Ems.
>>
>> Option 3
>> The 15 day window between the boards decision and the start of the
>> suspension could also create problems.  What if someone is doing illegal
>> thing with our space or our tools.  Or if a person becomes emotionally and
>> deliberately abusive to members.  Or if a member is use up all public
>> resources and costing ems and other members real money beyond what is being
>> brought without even doing projects. Should Ems have a policy in place to
>> say "this already determined bad behavior is free to continue for 15 days".
>>  Particular since it 's our personal policy to talk to the person about
>> concerns before hand.
>>
>> Option 2
>> The option badly written.  It is forcing the would valid to do all the
>> work.  This is a problem because "valid" is different for different for
>> different people.  Is I don't like you valid? I bet you that someone always
>> thinks what they are doing is valid.  So of we put it on someone has to
>> decide what valid is.  If we put it in, it would be us doing what we
>> already do!   Our job as a board is to decided the best action.  In another
>> way of wording it the most valid course of action!
>>
>> In short, Ionel wants to make sure we are not subject to unfair
>> treatment.  I know it isn't goal to try to be fair.
>>
>> The current wording is "The BOD may suspend a members' key privileges
>> for any reason, and may or may not chose to review it later. "
>>
>> These words have a goal to make sure Ems doesn't get sued.  Suspension is
>> traumatic and it the type of action that would increase our risk.  A
>> suspension is bad for the group and dangerous as is.  I believe the danger
>> inherit to the action is a suitable deterrent, but maybe something
>> different might work better.
>>
>> Kassie
>>
>> Sent from my iPhone
>>
>> On Mar 6, 2013, at 12:09 AM, Ionel Pusca <EMAIL HIDDEN> wrote:
>>
>> This is a survey on the EMS Policies, Key Access - please send your
>> feedback to the discus mailing list.
>>
>> http://eugenemakerspace.com/wiki/Sites/EmsPolicy
>> "The BOD may suspend a members' key privileges for any reason, and may or
>> may not chose to review it later. "
>>
>> Options could be the 1-3, or a combination of them, or any other
>> suggestion.
>>
>> 1) requiring the EMS board to check with the associate EMS member before
>> making a key suspension decision  (the person would know better his/her own
>> facts)
>>
>> 2) replace with ".. for any VALID reason .. "
>>
>> 3) set a notice, 15 days or less, like for the membership suspension, to
>> verify the information.
>> "The board shall give the member at least 15 days' prior notice of the
>> proposed suspension or termination and the reasons for the proposed
>> suspension or termination"
>>
>> Otherwise there is the risk that one could discuss a gossip or a false
>> information and may use the EMS board to suspend the key right away and to
>> limit access, causing the property of another to be withheld from the
>> person.
>>
>>
>> Ionel Pusca
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Discuss mailing list
>> EMAIL HIDDEN
>> http://eugenemakerspace.com/mailman/listinfo/com.eugenemakerspace.discuss
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Discuss mailing list
>> EMAIL HIDDEN
>> http://eugenemakerspace.com/mailman/listinfo/com.eugenemakerspace.discuss
>>
>>
> _______________________________________________
> Discuss mailing list
> EMAIL HIDDEN
> http://eugenemakerspace.com/mailman/listinfo/com.eugenemakerspace.discuss
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://eugenemakerspace.com/pipermail/com.eugenemakerspace.discuss/attachments/20130306/6dc70750/attachment.html>


More information about the Discuss mailing list