Cohousing-L Mailing List: Re: Cooking rosters

[David L. Mandel (75407.2361]

I thought most groups did it as we do, but it seems I was wrong, so here's 
what works fairly well for us at Southside Park:
        We 40 adults self-select into cookings teams for three months at a 
time. Every season, people have the option of changing teams; some have stayed
together forever, other people like to switch partners. The norm is three 
people per team, but 40/3 = 13-1/3, so one team has four adult members. Each 
team also tries to annex a teenager (defined here as 10+), and most seem to 
succeed.
        Each team is expected to cook three times in the course of the three 
months (the team of four cooks four times). The team consults and chooses 
dates, at least five days in advance, often far more. They can be any evening 
(or occasionally a weekend brunch). This averages out to three meals a week, 
but there have been weeks with only one and others with five, the agreed-upon 
maximum. We voluntarily strive for balance, but it doesn't always work out, 
and that doesn't seem to bother anyone terribly. I think we agree it beats the
hassle of being assigned to a specific day and then having to shop for a trade
if it's an inconvenient one. We considered a variation that would have meals 
regularly only on certain days (say Mon. - Thurs.) but decided against it.
        A couple weeks ago we had an interesting additional meal. Some folks 
who want to build a complex trellis structure outside the common house 
volunteered to cook an extra time and made the meal a fund-raiser for 
purchasing the materials. Whatever came in beyond the cost of ingredients went
to the cause. (We pay $2 a meal, $1 for kids 5-18) This had some potentially 
complicated implications -- what about the cost of gas, electricity, water, 
wear and tear that also ultimately comes out of the meal fee? Is it OK to do a
fund-raiser meal for anything? -- and might never happened if someone had 
insisted we discuss them at a general meeting. But we didn't, thank goodness. 
It will be interesting to see if there are more such initiatives, since I 
think most people would like there to be a few more common meals, and some are
pretty adamant about not *requiring* teams to cook more than once a month.
        In any event, there is no connection between the amount people eat and
the amount they're required to cook. And it's hard for me to imagine any other
way -- making that correlation seems a recipe for disaster. True, some people 
eat common meals more than others, but that's mostly by choice. A person who 
can't eat dinner at 6 because of work or other obligations can always order a 
late plate, and many do.
        Back to the scheduling system: ,eams put their team numbers on a 
master calendar to reserve a cooking date after checking that there's no 
conflict with another team or some other event in the common house. Then they 
are required to post the menu five days in advance, and people who want to eat
are supposed to write the number of eaters on a chart for that date opposite 
their family name. That's supposed to happen two nights before the meal, but 
some teams post a later deadline for signups if they know they'll be shopping 
late.
        The signup sheet then serves as a tally for the bookkeeper to record 
who ate. We receive a monthly statement in which meal charges are offset by 
food purchases, if any. (Lots of staples are in the common house already). If 
a family's balance goes in the red, it's required to make a payment to build 
up its account. Only rarely does a check actually have to change hands. (This 
"meal club" account, by the way, is kept totally separate from the homeowners 
association dues, for tax and other reasons.)
        I've heard of some groups that try to calculate the cost of each meal 
to the penny and/or require cash payments on the spot (N St.?). To us that 
would seem awfully oppressive and unwieldy. Sure, some of our meals cost more 
than $2 each and others are a lot less, but we keep track of the average, 
which in any case is approximate because of the infrastructure costs. The $2 
figure becomes a guideline for folks to plan the menu by. We've discussed 
having occasional deliberately fancier meals with a higher price, but there 
was no consensus for it. Instead, there's kind of an unwritten understanding 
that teams are allowed occasionally to splurge a little as long as they 
balance it with thrift at most meals. The simplicity sure seems to outweigh 
any feelings of inequity.
        One last thing: The team that cooks is also responsible for cleanup. 
I've heard that others do it differently and yes, it does make for a long day,
but we agree hear that it outweighs potential resentment at cleaning others' 
messes. And as we get better at it, we learn to clean up more as we go. Also, 
within each team, sometimes a member whose schedule makes it difficult to take
on much of the cooking work will volunteer to do more cleaning.
        In short, I think we tend to strive for simplicity and flexibility, 
and I think we've settled on a pretty good system. Now if only we could solve 
the problems of the noisy dining room, the crush to get food at 6 p.m., the 
occasional goof when we run out of something and how to deal with leftovers. 
I've actually made a proposal for these issues (stretched-out meal service, 
cook more than you could possibly need, have a weekly leftover potluck), but 
the community in its wisdom hasn't adopted it yet. Any suggestions from others
on how to deal with these matters?

 -- David Mandel, Southside Park Cohousing, Sacramento