Minutes For Meetings

Members section Meetings
21

Minutes 3rd May

Facilitation (Sean)

Minutes (Ben)

  1. Go-round.

  2. Discussion on organisational structure

  • Sergio & Nina have worked on structure and redefined WGs (with specific tasks for each group), can all be found on the forum now. Proposal is still open. AP - PLEASE ALL LOOK ON FORUM AND COMMENT. Political meeting on Friday (? - poll on forum) to decide our opinions more clearly and decide on proposal.

  • Sean - At the moment the proposed structure hasn’t been applied to the volunteer database.

  • Dylan - It’s currently not clear what WG the average volunteer would be in [Sergio responds: Operations]. It would be good to have a list of who’s in what WG

  1. Forum participation
  • Sean is encouraging volunteers to get involved and this is somewhat working
  1. Code of conduct

  • Dylan has been working on, initial draft is on the forum. Based on Common Ground CoC. Has started developing a process for dealing with conflicts / grievances etc. This needs people to be responsible for it, it would be a very small job initially but could become a big job. The CoC makes reference to this support group but it doesn’t yet exist. AP - THREAD TO BE CREATED ABOUT THIS - DYLAN

  • Ben - we should try to adopt a CoC at the Friday meeting

  1. Working group updates

  • Kitchen: Ciara - the ‘special meals’ all add up and we don’t know whether people have actual allergies or just preferences - this impacts on what gets prepared. Don’t know the medical needs of kitchen volunteers, or if they can only work a part shift. Dylan - the Fareshare supply is getting underway. We can get a limited amount with free delivery (150kg) but the rest we have to pay delivery for. Kitchen need to decide the extra quantity we need to sign up for (previously we settled on ~240kg / wk). It will be £87-107 a week depending on the exact qty.

  • Seb - Cherry Reds could produce another ~70 meals a day, the people working there are on board

  • Sergio - we would need another 4-5 drivers and perhaps more from Fareshare

  • Sean - it was an AP from previous meeting to discuss Stirchley Baths. This is on the forum but in a private chat; Dylan made a list of things we would need to sort out for a new venue. Sean has emailed SB to check the next step. The council own the baths so using it might give them cover for their failure of provision. As Cooperation Birmingham we might need to scope out how things would work with CR if they wanted to go back to work.

  • Carlos - for big decisions we should try to be as quorate as possible. It seems like some discussions are private on an arbitrary basis. Sean - it was an AP to organise a meeting with Olly (councillor) and we have to navigate sensitively the question of how we deal with the council on a public forum.

  • Seb - SB would be a bigger project because we would need more people to prep/chef, but at CR we have the people working there already; all we would have to do is provide supplies and drivers. Not sure if they would be able to do it every day.

  • AP: MAKE FEASIBILITY STUDY FOR CHERRY REDS - DYLAN

  • Sean - we still need to have an understanding regarding publicity, what it would mean long term, etc. Need to have a conversation with the owner and understand the grounds on which we are doing it with them, what the exit strategy is. We had an advantageous start because we began in a worker co-op kitchen but it might be different in a place with their own priorities.

  • Carlos - identified two groups of issues with scaling up: operational, and relationships with other agents/entities who may not align

  • Volunteer coordination: Sean - been working on the database. It now has everyone in one big database. If you’re not on it, just fill yourself in. It should make it easier to search for people for specific shifts. Demonstrated how the database works. People can be assigned to certain roles. If not marked active or inactive then they are prospects who need to be contacted and processed. If a volunteer is needed we can just search for (eg) active kitchen volunteers active on a Wednesday. We can also deactivate and reactivate people according to availability / illness etc. Sean is the only one working on this currently. There is a to-do list with a volunteer coordination guide for onboarding people. AP - COOKING, TECH, DELIVERY WG PEOPLE TO FILL OUT GUIDE TO FILL IN GAPS.

  • AP - SERGIO TO GIVE CARLOS DB ACCESS TO LOOK INTO APP INTEGRATION.

  • AP - LOOK INTO GDPR COMPLIANCE

  • Nina - what criteria do we use regarding recipients that we can’t contact for multiple days? Will create a forum thread to discuss.

  1. Tubs

  • Ciara - we are spending a lot of money on single use plastic, can we get them back

  • Dean - has taken some back from recipients. All we need to do is clean them and make them fit for use

  • Carlos - there are H&S implications for getting tubs back off recipients. Zero contact is preferable; we can make a safe protocol (similar to our delivery protocol) to reduce risk but it will always be there.

  • Sean - it does feature in our hygiene guide

  • Carlos - as a driver it’s not clear how it would work, carry bags with him?

  • Ciara - we can give drivers a bin bag to leave in car, then take packaging with a gloved hand and bring the bag to the kitchen. Just need to make the process and add to onboarding guide.

  1. Archiving process - AP: BEN TO RAISE ON FORUM

  2. Refreshments / fruit for volunteers. Nina - this has been requested by volunteers. There are food handling implications of course.

Ciara - we don’t know what we’re going to get every day so can’t necessarily provide fruit. People drink water.

Seb - it could be quite a high cost if we have to buy it

  1. Certificate

  • Ciara - we should write a certificate for volunteers in case they get stopped by the police.

  • Carlos - has an NHS volunteer certificate, it is easy to get and has no requirements (they have too many volunteers!). Can be useful for parking too. AP - CARLOS TO SHARE DETAILS OF WHERE TO GET IT. AP - PROVIDE VOLUNTEERS WITH A CERTIFICATE. Sean to add to the to do list

  1. Routific
  • Amelia - we are coming to the end of the free tool. It is a useful tool but is very expensive. They seem to be offering 3 months free now. AP - AMELIA TO CONTACT THEM THROUGH THE CHAT TO MAKE SURE THEY DON’T CUT US OFF

  1. BVSC/NN voicemail. AP - BEN TO CALL THEM BACK TO GET ADDED TO THE MAP

  2. BBC contact.

  • Dylan - Ciara is going to do the BBC interview. Seb took minutes from the press meeting immediately prior to this full meeting.

  • Ben - wasn’t necesarily proposing that we have a single press contact role but that’s not a bad idea

  • Dylan - have some materials to empower people to take the intiative with press contacts

  • Sean - there is our social media and press group, which will be having a meeting at some point

  1. App update
  • Carlos - is starting a new job so will have less time to work on it.
  1. Electical shutdown 10th May

  • Ciara - we don’t know the exact details but we will work out a way to get all the meals cooked

  • Seb - Cherry Reds may help

  • Ciara - will find out what people need food on Sunday as well, and all the food will go out on Saturday (ie. 2 portions each)

  • Kae - not everyone will have a microwave so it should be food that can be eaten cool.

  1. Free conversation

  • Dean - we have a lot of money, we have only spent a third of it so far. Are there other things we can spend it on or expand into.

  • Sergio - what to call people rather than volunteers [suggestions: comrades, participants…]

  • Sean - can spend money on a physical thing, posters, shirts etc.

  • Sergio - agrees it would be good to give shirts to members and also to sell to the public for fundraising

  • Ciara - how do you actually become a member …

22

Update on my action point:

good news - Routific have now extended our account for free till 4 August.

I don’t know to what extent we think that the Solidarity Kitchen will still be going past 4 August, but if it is, it would be worth thinking about how we fund further use either of Routific or a similar service. I can’t see us operating - especially if we are aiming to grow our reach - without something like this ongoing. I’m happy to do some research and set out the options, but obviously no use my doing that if we won’t be operating a delivery project past 4 August! So can you please let me know your thoughts.

5 Likes
23

Great, thanks for taking care of that. It doesn’t seem that likely to me that we’ll still be delivering food in August but really who knows. (of course we will still be doing something, which might still have a delivery element)

Earlier on we were planning to shift to coopcycle, which is an app designed for delivery cooperatives… it would take a lot of the need for Routific away and would also streamline the ordering process (allowing those who could to place orders online / on the app) rather than calling. I think this has fallen by the wayside at the moment but I think if it gets to June and we’re still delivering, then building our own more permanent delivery tech infrastructure should be a priority, rather than relying on Routific’s goodwill for too much longer

24

Minutes for Cooperation Birmingham “Let’s talk politics!” meeting, Friday 8th of May 2020 6.30pm

Attendees: Sean, Sergio, Nina, Dylan, Mani, Ben, Leo, Kaeden, Nick

Agenda:

Aims and principles of Coop Brum (what are we?)

  • Dylan: Principles I proposed to start:

    1. We sure resources equally.
    1. Anyone can join and participate acc principles. No discrimination.

  • 3)Transparency.

  • 4)Eliminate hierarchies.

Mani: Doesn’t seem big enough. Needs a statement of intent as well as how we operate.

Sergio: Like them, but not enough. Principles could be integrated with code of conduct. Should work harder on our goals organising in 2 directions: mutual aid/ material relief & base-building.

Nick: Some principles don’t belong in code of conduct but are an extension of the aims. Recognition of how it doesn’t affect people equally.

Dylan: Could say “make own assessment of what their need is”. Response to gatekeeping and having to tell your life story before you get given anything you need. Not same thing as code of conduct. Creating criteria by which we could decide whether to work with someone or not. How we should behave in general not just as individuals.

Mani: Think code of conduct and principles are different things. Need to decide now what we want. Can have aims and code of conduct, or use principles to merge how Dylan’s saying. Either could work. Agree better to be specific about what we mean. We can inform people with it. The way foodbanks stop people getting food is bullshit classism and we’re here to do differently. Think this is different from a code of conduct which is less political.

Sergio: Shouldn’t merge with code of conduct. But could have Aims, and Principles, not exactly the same.

Dylan: Aims and principles follow on from one another. I think code of conduct is quite political as well, because how you respond to behaviour is political. If it’s clear it’s more reassuring to have something like that.

Proposal from Sergio: One code of conduct already done. Aims and Principles. Two documents put on forum for work.

Nick: We should write them up, not so anyone can edit but comment. Have a deadline, and a version we’re OK to show to people actively asking for feedback. Should have a process of building a shared viewpoint around it. Should have another meeting to finalise.

Sergio: Say these will be our foundational documents and share an advanced draft, share as much as possible e.g. email to all volunteers, plenty of time for people to amend. Say we will have one more meeting and deadline and if nothing big comes up it will be approved then.

Leo: Code of conduct has a mission statement so should be seperate.

Sergio: Ensure there is not excessive overlap with code of conduct and principles. Happy to help you actually.

AP : Everyone should look on the thread and comment - everyone

AP: Work on the draft from comments - Dylan, Sergio, Leo, Nick

Organisational structure, shall we adopt it?

Sergio: Made amends from Dylan’s suggestions. Been on forum for 10 days or more. I think it’s quite urgent because it makes changes to our structure, seperating working groups and operations, with idea for expansion, so could we approve it now? Operations could include emotional support group, community allotment.

Nick: Does it have anything in the structure for any built-in accountability and responsibility?

Sergio: Not specified yet, but should be something along that line.

How should working groups be organised internally? Compromise between autonomy and responsibility

Sergio: Should we set a coordinator for each WG so someone is accountable. Trying to avoid what’s happening with volunteer coordination. Cool that so many people helping, but nobody coordinating. Could be a rotating role, and that person would be responsible for the tasks of that WG.

Nick: Think that’s a good plan, maybe not perfect and can come back to it, but good to be getting on with. Consider how many people who are not in this are engaged. Maybe elect people.

Dylan: Like idea of coordinators for each WG. Could thin out that volunteer coord chat a bit. Needs to be a more active process with people looking at what they want to be responsible for. Should make more of an effort to recruit people specifically for the WGs. For some of us it will mean less work but more clear what we can do. Be better for me to not have ambiguity. Happy to sort out logistics & process WG and not think about the volunteer stuff.

Sergio: Think about how to transition, need certain people in each WG and a coordinator. Not super easy, so how do we transition? Forum should include new WG, and somewhere have description of tasks. On Sunday we elect a coordinator for each WG.

Dylan: Agree.

Leo: easy to do

Sergio: Leo to implement changes to the forum about working groups

Nina: coordinator should be someone who knows the work

Ben: we have process backwards.[I propose we first say who is in which WG, then give some time before those people who elect a coordinator, more democratic.

Sergio: Working group descriptions are too vauge.

Challenging volunteering narrative

Sergio: Think we change and challenge the label, suggests charity, so should find better way of referring to people working on this project.

Mani: Participant sounds good. Think we should move to a membership model. Unclear whether we can have participants who are not members.

Nina: Carlos suggested members and comrades.

Sergio: I like members. Can we vote?

Sean: Don’t think it’s that simple. If we move to a membership model we need to define what Coop Brum is. For co-ops there are benefits for members: wage, access to housing. But what we’re trying to do is a co-op not operating in capitalism. The economic side doesn’t make sense. We need some overarching structure. At the moment there are aspects similar to charity, but want to deepen its benefits.

Mani: 2 different questions. E.g. half price veg box, 10% discount on food, priority booking for being members. Free meal, etc.

Sergio: We can be transformative as we have no gatekeeping. If we try to implement membership there is soft gatekeeping.

Dylan: Tension between this and sense of responsibility. This and gatekeeping seem different to me. Asking someone to be a member and have mutuality feels different.

Nick: Having an expectation or responsibility based on someone’s ability is different from beauracratic gatekeeping. Commons weren’t just a free for all.

Sergio: Yes of course not the same. But should consider how to make the boundaries easier to penetrate.

Mani: Should be a membership organisation because we need money and it buys people in. Can be used to buy things and do more things. Not saying you’ll only be able to get benefits if you’re a member.

Sean: On the discounts thing, we could do things which are genuinely helpful to people in the city. Would need to do those things before we persuade people to do discounts. Might need to think outside of the box in terms of benefits. Don’t think mambership model is scaleable. Solidarity fund would be used up straight away. We could have something like they have in Rojava or Jackson like a political union or body which can create more commons.

Sergio: Like it more now. Think we’re not in that phase yet. Still a crisis response, so should be as open as possible now, and discussion for future can be transition to membership org

Kaeden: Cooperators?

Sean: Suggestive of particular sorts of co-ops and don’t like.

Dylan: Fellow Brummies?

Vote: Participants (5) or cooperators (4)?

Participants decided, including recipients of meals.

Funding criteria

  • Sergio: Should establish this in line with our principles. Said we don’t want to recieve money from public institutions, but some exceptions depending on circumstance. When is it OK?

  • Nick: Think we should take money from anyone as long as the strings don’t conflate with our principles. Just be transparent.

  • Sean: Agree but need to make sure we are organising with our aims. Already selling ourselves short, see wage calculation. They are offsetting the costs of our time and the cafe to us. Should only get funding if we see a directional gain for our volunteers.

  • Sergio: Agree with Sean, but hard to establish criteria right now, so can work on a case by case basis. Make sure there is something in it for us.

  • Dylan: Strings attached are my main concern. A lot of grants say you need to do XYZ or prove things for charities. Not happy accepting money when you have to do monitoring forms and such. Check on what the terms are. Wrote prefer not to say on many forms.

Infrastructure project

  • Dylan: Now in chat between mutual aid groups. Happy to send link.

  • Nina: Was on international call 3 weeks ago and a lot from London, someone from Glasgow. If these people are not in the call tomorrow, would be good to contact them.

  • Sergio: SUper interesting and exciting, would like to be in group.