Update Overview of the past week

Solidarity Farm panorama mid-May 2018

Reality, but not so glamorous! There had been the large dumpster/roll-off garbage container on the property for the past several weeks.  It had been filled with lots of debris and reject items by the sweat equity of many community workers.  It has since been removed prior to this week, and seemingly returned empty.  We cannot seem to get rid of it!  Obviously, it will be filled again, with much more debris and refuse from the ongoing projects.

New workers are to be mentioned and acknowledged: Jake, a new visitor, who is working with Little Bear and Carey; Dagan was a visitor; Haum, a visitor and guest of Michelle and Ahgamen; and others (to be added here later).

The ownership/holding company has moved forward to renovate the large residential house, used to be called "The Lodge".  Dave and Adonis and others have worked on it, being paid crew of Dominick.

The project of the lead remediation has been going-on with the main hall/barn.  This was worked on by Andre, Pete, and Mighty (sp?). 

There has been work on the garden areas, from the largest section which is behind the farm-worker housing, to the front garden, to the gardens around the parking lot and up to the cottage of Michelle and Ahgamen.  The plants are definitely growing.  There is irrigation/watering system added by Kevin.

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.

What are the categories that exist in the community, for codification in the cooperative by-laws

What are the categories that exist in the community, for codification in the cooperative by-laws?   These are all or most of the categories and subdivisions which do exist in and of the community; as of this initial review currently, circa June 2018, by Ahgamen.

By using the three columns, we can identify the status of each individual according to three aspects of interaction with the community.  By using the three or four rows, we can identify the status according to application, acceptance by group consensus.  Each and every individual will belong to multiple areas, at least one in the columns and at least one in the rows.  This is not a linear or one-dimensional perspective on our experiences; this is a multi-dimensional analysis, giving us a bigger picture of all the interactions and possibilities.

Let's take several specific individuals and find their position by using the diagram.
For example, Kevin S.:

Community category of Kevin S.

In the above diagram, the colourized areas designate what type is this individual.  Kevin is according to the first column: a resident, full-time.  He is in the second column: a worker, full-time.  He is also being paid and has decision-making with the funding monies.

Example #2, Nadette:

Example #3, Dominick:

Example #4, Valeria:

Example #5, Michelle:

Example #6, Katie:

There is a need for more exploration.  These are rough diagrams for informational purposes only.

Vetting Process for membership, etc.

Some of my thoughts currently, as I've been asked to offer my opinion on this needed element for the Cooperative:

Visitor and Guest and New Membership to Cooperative - Vetting Process

(after such date if and when approved by consensus, these rules should be implemented through signing by all full, founding members and circulated to those interested, who are potentially visitors, guests and future members)

VISITORS:  Wherever the cooperative at the Solidarity Farm and other locations does function, visitors can be allowed entry during posted, designated hours.  Visitors are defined as any human person(s) who arrive unnannounced, finding the cooperative ramdomly or by other means of knowledge, and who have not been invited nor have acquaintance with anybody in the cooperative.  Visitors are able to be supervised during their short visit by a member operating as public facilitator. The visitor must sign the guest log and provide ID.  The facilitating member shall be responsible towards the visitor(s) and may provide information, goods, or services as the cooperative is formally offering. This member also has the power to expel the visitor for any unfavorable interactions, whether it be verbal or physical, wherefore that member is responsible for justifying the implementation of such extreme precautions. A formal record must be recorded of any visitor incidences, whether it be a favorable visit or an expulsion.

GUESTS:  Full members of the cooperative shall be able to host their guests within the cooperative, by providing a one day notice to the office of space management.  The member who is hosting shall be responsible for the guest's action and conduct.  The guest shall be able to remain within the cooperative for up to 6 days or until such a time that there is a need to make room for other members, by vacating the limited accomodations/rooms.  The exception is campers who are in the open fields or forests, in that these guests are not occupying any of the limited indoor spaces.  Upon the completion of the 6th day the guest agrees to finish their stay and depart on good terms, or request an extension for reasons of gaining membership. At any such time, during the stay of the guest, that a member is disturbed by their presence, that member must lodge a formal complaint to space management and there will be a decision amongst a minimum of three full members to discipline the guest or implement their expulsion, thereby overriding the initial host.  Thereafter, a formal record of such incidence will be presented to the entire cooperative and justification should be provided.  If justified, the host will incur a strike against their membership-standing, because of their guest. If during the time of discipline and requesting their departure, if the disagreement escalates, there can be a decision by at least two full members to call upon a civil-assist involving law enforcement officers, but only as a last desperate measure.  It is to be emphasized that the involvement of outside authority is not the modus operandis of the cooperative nor of any sustainable community.  As a group, the cooperative shall empower itself with soverignty and the abilty to create solutions internally.  Obviously, in any unforseen violent situation, the criminal force should be dealt with immediately.  This entire process will require training of the full members on how to deal with issues effectively and only when necessary.  Preventative measures will be used first and foremost. The promotion, circulation and study of our community's shared values is required and shall be continuously available.

NEW MEMBERS:  Full members in good standing shall be able to initiate new membership into the expanding cooperative-population.  The vetting process for each new member shall be either an initial guest-stay or bypassing that status and the individual shall start a new membership induction.  They may begin by expressing a sincere interest to the group, lodged formally into the record book.  This will be sponsored by at least one full member in good standing and another member who shall second the motion.  The new person will state three goals wherein they can express/prove their intentions to belong within the cooperative harmoniously and in a positive manner.  The sponsoring member shall be responsible and supervising the new person during the entire trial period.  Their trial period shall be from two weeks minimum and up to four weeks (not longer), when they will be approved and initiated as a new member, by unanimous consensus of the other members. The new person, intending to become a new member is under the same restrictions as the GUEST category. 

DISCIPLINE OF MEMBERS:

EXPLULSION OF MEMBERS:

STATUS OF MEMBERS, DEFINITIONS, CATEGORIES: 

(to be continued)

please give feedback...