The category and position of Haum, guest of Michelle and Ahgamen

As a continuation of the diagram exploration, example #7 is given of Haum, a guest from June 10 to June 11.

Haum was invited and vetted by Michelle and Ahgamen because of the obvious and stated need for more workers.  He did arrive into the area and was given transportation by Ahgamen, after using the train and bus.
Haum and Ahgamen and then Michelle were informed by Kevin that there is no paid work for any other laborers, there is no process yet there needs to be a process for visitors and guests and applicants/new members.  Prior to that date, June 10, there was no defined call for process or the urgency that there must be a process.  In fact, when others were asked in regards to Mervyn or Katie, for example, there was some discussion and only a rudimentary informal process.
Now there is a definite call for process to be in effect, as of June 10 and this website contains the efforts and work upon that necessary function of the community, such that it will be established and become a legal cooperative.
Because of the disagreement, Haum had been asked to pack up his tent and to leave by Kevin.  Haum was in the camping area, under development, on the eastside of the land.  Therefore Haum informed Michelle and Ahgamen that he would have to depart, needing a ride to transportation/trains, to leave the area.  Ahgamen did coordinate a plan of exit for Haum.  This is unfortunate because he (and two others on the way) were ready and willing to become full-time workers at the community, the place, and the cooperative-forming.  Ahgamen figured out how to help Haum to leave but not before several things happened, one of which was a meeting for communication and status of the community.

During the meeting on June 11 afternoon, with Tanyth and Kevin facilitating and about 10 community in attendance, Haum was asked about his intentions.  He was also asked about background, including his history with children and possible molestation.  Ahgamen stated that this was a ridiculous approach, because nobody else was confronted in that way for crimes or any other past personal information.  It seems that the status of Haum is that he was a guest with mixed reception, departing in good-standing with possible future membership. 
This points to the need for a fair and transparent and legally-based background check and vetting process and deciding who is in the department for responsible safe-keeping of this personal information.  There should be an office/admin department for this process/function of the community.  If there is not, it will probably lead to additional and ongoing confusion. 

(IMO) It's a problem with a solution.  I'm asking that all present community members, whether resident or not, shall be inquired of their background in a similar line of questioning for info, retroactively.  Ahgamen is suggesting that there be a formalized on-paper method of doing so.  Ahgamen is suggesting that there be a physical office for admin of this function to be created ASAP.  Ahgamen is volunteering to help with the work and effort and responsibility of this department for the community and the cooperative-forming.  Ahgamen is thinking that this is a priority before any additional work is conducted and any progress on the cooperative is made, this will be a major component in the evolution of the whole project.

All that second the motion, say "Aye".

If this is not agreed upon, then it would seem that Ahgamen's incentive to help with the additional labor requirements was wasted.  If this is not agreed upon and dealt-with by group consensus, then it remains that there is no process and that there is discrimination going-on.  No one else was treated in the manner that Haum was treated.  Ahgamen finds that the community could improve and function more effectively and successfully if this issue is resolved.

Haum is thankful to the community for his experience, although he stated he does not want to return in the near future.  He disagrees with the community's methods of interacting with guests and he has his previous organic farming community that he can resume with.  The three people, including himself, who would be new members are now on-hold and delayed as a result.

Overall, this can be used as a test-case.  There is a lot to be learned.

Question raised: Persons Background check?

Background checks is a big issue, and a loaded issue, I feel.  It's the first time it was mentioned today by Kevin.  It is on the table therefore and should be addressed, let's discuss.

I think background checking would have to be done fairly and equally for all persons connected to the cooperative from now into the future, if it is going to begin at all.

I think before deciding that we should do such a thing, who is the person within the group who is going to be priivy to the information, the data?  What can this person(s) do with the information?  What are their responsibilities?

It's a lot of work to make these decisions.  It's then going to be a lot of work to start gathering the info and what to do with it.

I think initially, to prevent all this tedious, mainstream type of approach, we could instead formulate a questionnaire for all members and new persons in the future.  This questionnaire would be voluntarily submitted and the formal record shall be kept in a cooperative admin. office (which does not exist as of yet).

What questions would we like to include in this personal questionnaire and why?

I can think of question or a section: personal referrences.

The difficulty with all of this, is that we are talking about being a full-fledged company, with a human resources personnel department.  If this is done, then it has to be staffed, and those employees will have to be accountable by state and federal guidelines.  Do we really need to devote time to this?   Is it defeating the purpose of being a heart-centered, intuitive group that can operate at a higher level of consciousness?