Re: Non Participating Households | <– Date –> <– Thread –> |
From: Jim King (jimk![]() |
|
Date: Mon, 31 Jul 2000 18:04:57 -0600 (MDT) |
> But we have not had a case where a family formally stopped > participating and didn't leave. I think you are well within > your rights to charge them more money. Maybe it will cause bad > feelings, but what the hey-they agreed to be a part of the > community, and they are reneging on the deal. I'd be plenty > mad if they didn't leave. I say, make them want to. We all start out thinking we're doing this with good people who will always agree with each other, therefore strict guidelines aren't needed. That's only true for a short period of time. People change, and so does the membership. After five or ten years you'll find you're living with a very different group, and the only commonalities are what was put in the bylaws ahead of time that caused the group to be self-selecting. My group is still in the formation stages, but we realized early on that we needed guidelines in our bylaws and in the association contracts that everybody signs that have reasons for kicking people out. The reasons for such go in both directions -- we wanted to be sure that if someone stopped pulling their share we could get rid of them and get someone in who would. But we also wanted to make sure people know what they're getting into -- that it's clearly marked out that they'll be required to participate... and perhaps people who aren't willing won't join. Also it's important for people's peace of mind to know that there are clear, not random, reasons for being removed. We'll not be running for a while, but seeing this thread I'm glad we thought ahead about this. Hopefully it'll help avoid the things you're seeing. As to how to fix it -- I have no experience to tell me. But once you've solved the current crisis I'd look hard at how to prevent the next one. Perhaps a new clause that defines an acceptable level of participation, and consequences for failing to meet it. Once it's in the bylaws and people sign off on it they are legally obligated to adhere to it, and you've got another way to get rid of someone who shirks. Jim IBC Co-op in Los Angeles
-
Non Participating Households Zev Paiss, July 31 2000
- Re: Non Participating Households Cheryl Charis-Graves, July 31 2000
- Re: Non Participating Households lilbert, July 31 2000
- Re: Non Participating Households Jim King, July 31 2000
- Re: Non Participating Households Judy Baxter, August 1 2000
- Non Participating Households Victoria, August 1 2000
- Re: Non Participating Households lilbert, August 1 2000
- Re: Non Participating Households Kay Argyle, August 3 2000
Results generated by Tiger Technologies Web hosting using MHonArc.