RE: [Re: Membership definitions] | <– Date –> <– Thread –> |
From: Rob Sandelin (floriferousemail.msn.com) | |
Date: Sun, 6 Jun 1999 11:01:08 -0500 |
OK, if you don't care about the legal forms, you can define members anyway you want. I thought this was in regard to the legal documents. My confusion. Sorry. The legal docs are usually very cut and dried on this matter, since they will be formed by lawyers who see the world defined by lawsuits over unclear documents. State laws vary, but most require a clear voting and membership definition, and your attorney will use boiler plate condo docs that they know will pass bank approval. The banks will demand this, and you should be in line with the banks expectations, or else they will not loan you money. But of course, you can create your own membership and group process outside of these documents, almost all groups do. Just be sure the banks don't see this if you document it. If you use consensus as your process, member status only matter in terms of voting, a common fallback when consensus is unreachable on some important matter. You might want to clearly define who has control of your process, especially in a group that is just forming. If you let random people wander in have a controlling voice, you may find yourself led around by the nose by someone who will never become part of your group anyway. Common membership definitions are time and money, to be a member you have to attend x meetings and contribute $x amount in a non-refundable fee. If you fall back to a voting scenario, odds are high the group will be conflicted, and your legal membership definition as defined in your cooperative or condo docs will determine the voting process. This should be pretty clear or you may end up in a world of courts and lawyers, the worst case scenario, but not without precedent. Rob Sandelin Northwest Intentional Communties Association Building a better society, one neighborhood at a time > -----Original Message----- > From: cohousing-l [at] freedom.mtn.org [mailto:cohousing-l [at] > freedom.mtn.org]On > Behalf Of Tom Pendleton > Sent: Friday, June 04, 1999 2:53 PM > Subject: Re: [Re: Membership definitions] > > > Well put. Thank you. > - Tom Pendleton, Takoma Village, Washington DC > > > "Bitner/Stevenson" <lilbert [at] earthlink.net> wrote: > > -- > Liz Stevenson > Southside Park Cohousing > Sacramento, California > > ---------- > >From: "Rob Sandelin" <floriferous [at] email.msn.com> > >Subject: RE: Membership definitions > >Date: Fri, Jun 4, 1999, 5:06 AM > > > > > Your ownship model will define what a member is, typically a condo unit > > owner. If you go Co-op you can have every individual be a > member, if you go > > condo, then each condo will get one membership to be divided amoung > > co-owners. The banks usually like it this way, which is why > most groups do > > it. > > Oh, well, I wasn't going to get in on this one, but I had to reply to this > point. We are a condo, and I don't think that entered into the > decision of > how to decide membership at all. Every adult in our community is a member, > and every child can come to meetings and be heard-usually when there is a > burning issue for them, they come en masse and help us decide what to do. > Having half a vote if you're part of a couple is like going back > in time to > when there was no women's suffrage! Houses don't make decisions > that people > need to live with, people do. > > > ____________________________________________________________________ > Get your own FREE, personal Netscape WebMail account today at > http://webmail.netscape.com. >
-
Re: [Re: Membership definitions] Tom Pendleton, June 4 1999
- RE: [Re: Membership definitions] Rob Sandelin, June 6 1999
Results generated by Tiger Technologies Web hosting using MHonArc.