In Attendance:

Bill McAvinney (facilitator), Neil Cowan, Anne Moss (time keeper), Bill Bassett (note taker), Carolyn Fuller (doorkeeper), Margaret Flinter (vibes keeper), Steve Robins, Robbie Lehmann, Wes Brown, ALisa Starkweather, Paul Freundlich, and occasionally Robin.

Summary:

We followed the proposed agenda basically, but diverged enough that the numbered items below will not correspond exactly. The meeting moved quickly to a free but focused brainstorming session on the committee structure of the CSC. We aired our concerns and our visions; discussed the relationships among the committees; formed committees; and arrived at a concept of the Core Group that is more a coordinating committee, less a central decision making core. We noted two distinct styles: those who would plan well before acting and those who would jump in and plan as the options became apparent. We did our best to charge the committees in such a way that all concerns were addressed.

1. Review of last meetings notes : "There was not agenda." changed to "The agenda was to set an agenda". Bill McCarthy's comments about High Rock were clarified.

2. Reading of decision from last summer's Community Meetings: After some confusion in finding the right file on Paul's computer, (this item was actually completed after item #3) the concerns, blocking and non-blocking, that had been expressed at last summer's meetings, and the changes in the wording of the Proposal were reviewed. Paul delivered a print out of the Proposal, with the notes taken on the discussion. ("Both Community Meeting Notes: 1996 Summer Camp" & Original CSC proposal)

3. Presentation of Vision Council documents: ALisa presented us all with copies of notes taken at last summer's Vision Council; some background on the purpose of the Council; and her recollections about the vibes and spirit of the gathering. After the first of the Community Meetings last summer she had felt the need to have a differently structured forum to help us all deal on a deeper level with the issues raised about the future directions of DNE, a sort of feelings guage. Somewhere between 70 and 90 people participated on the morning of the middle Saturday. People were asked to form three concentric circles in response to questions about future camps, with the inner-most circle being "Yes", the middle "Maybe", and the outer "No". Some observations from this process: many agreed that nudity and a waterfront could be sacrificed for a while in order to keep camp going. Anne had other notes taken at the Vision Council by Tom Murray and noted some difference in interpretation of the feelings being expressed.

   Next the gathering divided into interest groups and discussed camp options, restructuring (the need to pause and rethink), and other passions. The notes highlight the feelings and opinions expressed.

   ALisa offered the notes as a useful record of the range of feelings and opinions in our community. She pointed out the breadth of interpretations of terms we use, such as "Homeplace" and the usefulness of defining such terms clearly. And she urged us to study the notes and keep them for reference throughout our decision making process.

4. Live-In Option: Bill McAvinney offered a proposal on how we might deal with the question of (not the solution to) the live-in community option. His proposal was accepted quickly with great sighs of relief, expressions of gratitude, and the addition of one sentence, which appears as the last sentence in the proposal as follows:

   While acknowledging that many DNE'ers want to form a live in community and that others have concerns about that, we agree that the role of the CSC is to find the next home for the DNE community as we know it (i.e. summer camp). We will not attempt to find a location for DNE which includes a live in component, nor will we exclude a site which has that potential. We will not attempt to decide if or how such a community might fit into the larger DNE community, as this is not part of our mandate. The CSC welcomes approaches from DNE'ers who wish to organize themselves to develop a live-in option.

5. Discussion of subcommittees: The structure of this item was modified somewhat from the form proposed in the Agenda. We discussed the committees by category, addressing first the question of any additions (there were none); objections or concerns about the formation of the committee; and definitions and tasks, as generated by 5 minutes or so of popcorn discussion. In reality these last two steps blended together, with Bill McAvinney noting the point where we seemed to have reached a consensus that the committee should, indeed, be formed. Actual formation of the committees was made a separate agenda item to be taken up after the lunch break.

   Search Committees:

   The Buy Option: ...develop a list of options for buying...research, e.g. zoning laws...do they choose whether they look for land? a defunct camp?...liaison with live-in people...would this be in keeping with or counter to our commitment to neither pursue nor exclude this option?

   Long Term Rental: ... should check in with Bill McCarthy while keeping in mind that his first priority is '97...liaison also with the existing committee searching for a site for '97...more discussion of the communication function...what is "long term"?...could a long lease preclude buying?

   Partners with or from whom we could buy or rent: ...why make this option a separate committee? Its a different headset, different calls...other search committees should refer potential partners to this committee...should consider the influences of other groups, check their values...same time? Or only same place?...look for commonality not difference....clarify potential conflicts.

   Resource Committees:

   The need for a Legal Committee was discussed. The Financial Committee was broadened to include legal concerns.

   Land Use/Architectural: ...do we need to define prior to search? ...or ongoing?...or parameters in stages?...if we know exactly what we want we will find it ÐversusÑif we know what is available we can better decide what we really require...should it be more of a site visiting committee?....maybe a group of point persons...not a committee per se but a reference list?...so, we should charge the committee to be available, to set criteria for site visits, and provide information.

   Financial/Legal: ...to come up with financial/legal models...but, same problem as discussed for previous committee...prior options would generate many models, but site visitors need information immediately... ...should address issues of borrowing capability, financing, but not internal support of financing (that is structure/political)...how to raise moneyÑversusÑhow to structure future finances...how to present issues to whole community.

   Communications: ...some CSC members are online, many not...tough to communicate with the whole group...new methods needed...presentations at local dances...to translate jargon of other subcoms...be sure meeting minutes are compiled, archived, made available... communications/management...a team to take on project management...library of information, a solid online place...double communication: one describes; another describes what they heard.

   Structural/Political Committees:

   ..."implications" should be included in the titles as it was in Paul's original proposal, e.g. "the governance implications of CSC actions"... "implications" don't make sense as a separate committee...."implications" makes it superfluous... should convene for specific problems...there are also nuts and bolts issues...postulating what could be done...what is infrastructure?...the Elders have taken on structural issues as a project...we have Reps, Elders, committees, we need a group to hold overall vision of DNE....this doesn't belong with us...governance and membership have been taken on by the Elders, don't disempower them...no, these issues are too tempting!...given the enormity and complexity of these issues, looking at this is another task....Elders should outreach on structure of DNE.

   Proposal: That the CSC recognizes the Elders' efforts in the area of (with respect to) structural, membership and governance issues and encourages them to reach out to the community. We may revisit these issues in reference to specific site proposals. PASSED.

6. Formation of Committees: Neil proposed that not all committees should operate concurrently. Rather, we should form only the Resource Committees at this point, in order to provide the information needed for the others to be properly prepared for the search. Margaret offered another style. She likes to see the universe of ideas first, before deciding what is most important.

   It was also noted that the eleven people in attendance were insufficient to properly staff the committees. But this was rejected as a reason to postpone committee formation since we plan to have another, probably larger, meeting during the Boston Weekend in one week. Also, Carolyn volunteered to contact the 45 people originally expressing interest in the CSC.

   Paul proposed that we go ahead and form the committees as we agreed we would. They will have "semi-permeable membranes" and how they function will depend on participation. For the Partners Committee, for example, how could an ideal relationship be decided in advance? A committee could be one person with relationship lines and parameters. It is an iterative process, he said.

   There was general agreement that good preparation is essential, including that sourced from other committees, but the work is all so interrelated it should proceed concurrently. Lots of preliminary work needs to be done. The specificity possible depends on the time available. Margaret proposed that we charge the committees to first develop plans and procedures.

   Neil did not present a proposal for a vote, but left the issue with the reminder that the Community has told us to take our time. He cautioned us to not measure results by actions taken.

   We did agree that the agenda for the next meeting should include discussion of values, the timeline, committees, and how they report back.

   So...who wants to be on what?

   To Buy: Margaret, Bill McAvinney, Steve, Wes, Robbie
   Long Term Rental: no volunteers
   Partners: Paul
   Land Use/Architecture: Neil, Bill McAvinney
   Financial/Legal: Margaret, Wes, Robbie
   Communications: Carolyn, Anne, Bill Bassett

7. The Core Group: What is its charge? Discussion: ...a management piece, agenda planning, leadership...coordination is critical...body of people who know everything...with an eye on the time line...effective communication...3-5 people...the idea has evolved from proposed active/advisory body ...meetings thus far have clarified need to manage...how time changes things: compare last summer's mandate. Then it was democracy in large group; management in small group. Now, with more time, we can move out more Its more of an operating group now, less a core of decision makers...like the Rep body: delegating out...more than organizational: helps come up with fact sheets, a document for looking...directions and help in formulating that...what is it we're looking for?...informed by groups...memory and general design... there might be a piece of paper by which committees are charged but the Core Group is looking, making sure its OK.

   Proposal: The purpose of the Core Group is to provide the project management leadership to move the CSC from its stated goals to its desired ends. The Core Group's responsibilities include: agenda planning; monitoring the committees; assuring that all the committees are on task; and overall delegation, coordination and choreography. PASSED.

8. Form Core Group: The evolution of the purpose and function of this group was again noted. A limit of 3-5 people was agreed upon.

   Who: Paul, Neil, and Bill McAvinney volunteered. Concern was expressed by several that the group was all men. Margaret was nominated, but declined. Anne stepped forward. All were approved and thanked.

9. Date for Next Meeting: There was some discussion about whether the CG/subcommittee structure precluded us from deciding this. The feeling, however, was that we're "not there yet". It was agreed that the CG would decide the agenda for next Sunday's CSC meeting at the Boston DNE weekend 10:30-12:30. And, at that meeting, we will decide between 4 dates, 11/30, 12/1, 12/7 &12/8 (keeping in mind that Thanksgiving is Thurs before 11/30 & 12/1 weekend and first night of Chanukah is Thurs before 12/7 & 12/8 weekend), for following meeting. Wes has volunteered to have Nov 30 or early Dec meeting in Northampton. It must be RSVP by Wednesday before the meeting in order to find an appropriate space.Based on the RSVPs, he can choose the site and notify everyone. If for some reason you don't get the message, you could call Wes's house (413-584-5601) on the meeting date and get the info from the answering machine.

10. Evaluation: Comments ranged from great to superb...good agenda...nice space! Thanks to Facilitator and other functionaries. It was noted that we finished close to on time despite starting an hour late!

After the meeting we viewed a short video of the luxurious Camp Getaway. Feasibility remains to be determined.(Late breaking news - Camp Getaway called Paul the next day. They can't give us the dates we want. Paul thinks nothing can be worked out.)

Last modified: November 28, 1996

.................... CSC Home Page