NOTES OF THE CSC MEETING

Sunday, September 28, 1997
Roughly 11am - 4 pm.
Hosted by Lisa Kennedy
Medford, MA

IN ATTENDENCE:  Bill McAvinney - Facilitator, Anne Moss, Dena Gartenstein, Bill Bassett - note taker, 
David Kahn, Kevin & Asa Benjamin, Lisa Kennedy, Carolyn Fuller, Margaret Flinter, Paul Freundlich

AGENDA:  
Rep Meeting Report
Mataponi Feedback Report
Site Evaluations
Subcommittee Reports
Brainstorm on Future Direction for CSC Committee
Setting Agenda and Date for Next Meeting

REP REPORT:
Lisa reviewed actions and feelings from the last Reps meeting that effect the CSC:  Bill McCarthy was 
rehired and a reimbursement budget set for site visits.  Bill is to make more than two visits before 
November 8.  Mataponi wants us back!  They are asking for more money - $25K, up from $21K.  The 
same amount of time, 14 days, would be available, but there would be more time for set-up (Friday night 
and Saturday).  It is uncertain whether the proposed new Rec Hall would be built.  They want a decision 
from DNE by early November.  The general sense was that we should go with Mataponi again next year, 
but the Reps are open to options from the CSC.  They will make a decision in view of input from us.

MATAPONI FEELINGS:
Paul reported on the feelings expressed at the feedback meetings held during the first and second weeks of 
camp:  The first week was more positive.  The feeling was that Mataponi was OK for a few years.  The 
second week wanted to draw a tighter line.  A year seemed cool, but the second week ÒdidnÕt bondÓ as well.  
Overall people just want to have camp!  Privacy on the waterfront was the main issue.  Some people said 
they would not come back because they found the motor boats so disturbing.  A new Rec Hall would be 
wonderful.  The kitchen and parking were also problematic.  We discussed the change of mood caused by the 
lack of privacy, but also effected by the rainy weather during the second week.  Paul recalled that the early 
days at Omni were positive because it was such an improvement over Lenox.

EVALUATION OF SITES:
There are three rental sites on the horizon, including Mataponi, and five buying possibilities.  Please see 
Bill McCarthyÕs notes attached.

Paul and Margaret reported on an interesting situation in Winstead, CT.  Camp Chia is a bankrupt camp on 
a small pond upstream from a reservoir.  It borders a road, but could be made more private.  It has not been 
visited except for a brief trespass by Margaret, but seems to be about 100 acres and has a small ranch house 
and parking across the road.  No report on the other buildings.  The big plusses are the convenient 
Connecticut location and the potential for cutting a deal on the property.  Paul and Margaret heard of the 
place through a newspaper article.  Seems the current owner has neglected to pay $150K in back taxes or 
the $300K note held by the previous owner.  Paul suggested that we might be able to go directly to the 
town after they foreclose and offer to rescue them at a good price.  The last assessment was $600K.

SUBCOMMITTEE REPORTS:
Partnerships:  Paul spoke with Friends & Lovers about an exploratory meeting this fall, but he is feeling 
uncomfortable about trying to negotiate without a clearer decision making power.

Long-Term Rental:  David reported that Mataponi had said initially that they wanted a long-term 
commitment after the first year, but this year they have dropped that requirement.  In light of the sentiments 
expressed at the camp meetings, Mataponi seems OK short-term, maybe 2-3 years.  No other long-term 
rentals are on the horizon.

Legal, Financial, Architectural: no report

Paul asked, ÒHave we defined a spec sheet?Ó  He proposed that we compile a short description of who we are 
and what we are looking for, including broad specifications for price, location,     accommodations, and 
waterfront.  This could be presented to real estate agents etc.  We also need to report back to the community 
about what we are after and some scenarios for how it could be done.  This is necessary for consistent 
representation.

Paul and Margaret agreed to pull this together with input from Carolyn and Bill McAvinney.

Rainbow Directory Committee:  Anne submitted a proposed insert for the next Alphonse. The insert, 
designed as a postcard to be cut out and mailed in, calls on community members to volunteer services in 
support of our long-term site search, camp construction, and the community in general.  It invites people to 
imagine what features of a Òdream campÓ they would like to see/would help to create.  We discussed the 
purpose of this effort and decided it would not really be a directory, i.e. not published, but an internal 
database.  We revised the language to include financial support, not just Òhuman resourcesÓ.   And we 
changed the name to the DNE Resource Project.  The idea was considered outside the work of this 
committee, but was encouraged.  Anne and Camilla Parham will coordinate.

There was a brief discussion about whether we would break for ÒlunchÓ versus a Òpot luckÓ.

BRAINSTORM ON FUTURE DIRECTION FOR CSC COMMITTEE:
We aired our dreams and dreads about the future and wrestled with the difficulty of building a bridge to an 
unknown shore.  Several of us felt discouraged by the failure of the Membership Proposal to pass the 
Community Meetings at Summer Camp.  What does this say about the ability of  DNE to make a decision 
about something as complex and controversial as buying a site? We floated ideas about how such 
difficulties could be navigated or obviated.  Others were discouraged by our willingness to give up on the 
communityÕs ability to make decisions and begin considering alternative structures and processes.  Others 
saw no need for discouragement at all and called for us to return to our pragmatic objectives and proceed 
with our ad hoc building process.

Paul made a proposal:  He would like to see the CSC Òdeclare victoryÓ.  We would specify site 
requirements, report our findings, and get out of business.  He believes DNE should never buy a camp, 
make a big decision, or compromise our egalitarianism.  Buying property means getting into the 
management business, he said.  All we really want is long-term control over a space that meets our needs.  
The CSC should recommend that we find an entity that could accomplish that.  This could be some form of 
the Homeplace Committee; a group of individuals with interests in residence, vacation homes, retirement 
homes, a conference center, a campÉwhatever; or some form of partnership with like-minded groups.  But 
if DNE is to be a partner, we should only put up for buildings and such, to make the space what we want.  
Paul also cited the model of Another Place Farm.  When the farm ran into financial problems a group of 
investors came forward to pay the bills and put better management in place.  Eventually the managers, who 
were members of the community, were able to pay back the investors and assume control.

PaulÕs proposal attracted a lot of agreement, discussion, refinement, and opposition.

Others spoke of the value of DNE ownership and their strong, personal commitment to this ideal.  Some 
saw a dangerous split in the community and this committee, a willingness to jump to solutions, an 
unwillingness to wait for consensus.  They worried aloud about oligarchic, philosopher king ideas.  What is 
the problem with a separate ownership entity?  With an outside owner - such as has been the case with all 
our rentals - we are all on equal footing.  Inside owners would be a separate power within the community.  
DNE ownership would keep alive the sense of possibilities and the unknown future.  Several participants 
wanted to reactivate the Homeplace group, but still see it as separate from the work of the CSC.  Plans 
were started to hold another Homeplace weekend to test scenarios and ask for proposals.

We explored the possibilities of the middle ground between outside and inside entities. We talked about 
pursuing both paths.  Some worried that waiting for consensus means that we can only work on short term 
actions.  Finding a good site could suddenly require a decision.  We heard of the experience of a co-housing 
group that found a great house, only to lose it because they were not ready to act.  We need to take the long 
view but not short change the short view.  Years of compromise could kill us. 

Throughout the discussion there were questions and comments about the legal and political structure of 
DNE as it effects a buying or other long-term site solutions.  Technically, it seems, the Reps  are 
empowered to make such a decision.  In fact, the wording of the document creating the CSC puts it that the 
Reps are strongly urged to adopt the recommendations of the CSC, including buying.  The political reality, 
however, is that the community would be very upset if such a decision were made without consensus of 
some sort.  The experience with the Membership Proposal this summer was, in some folksÕ minds, an 
example of the difficulty in arriving at consensus on even the first steps toward restructuring ourselves into 
a more clearly defined, efficient decision-making body.  We discussed actions of a political sort that the 
CSC might take to expedite the process.  The view was put forth that our process of finding a site and the 
greater communityÕs process of restructuring are proceeding in a parallel, dialectical spiral.  One attendee 
admitted she wanted to Òstart troubleÓ in the hope that controversy might bring about movement.  In this 
devilish spirit she suggested we have a sort of contest: Say, we come up with the perfect site.  We could 
then go to the community and say, ÒHere it is!  The first entity that comes forward gets it.Ó  If the 
community falls apart over this, at least we have some material to work with.  (Keep in mind this is a free-
flowing brainstorming session.)  Kevin summed it up nicely:  Necessity is the mother of consensus.  Back 
down to earth, we were reminded that the resistance is about the process, not about making  decisions.  We 
should be thinking in terms of how we can make things happen, not how we can railroad a decision.  Or, as 
another put it, we should be thinking about how to make this all palatable.  If we really feel that we are 
stymied and unable to go forward within the current structure, then we should focus on the restructuring 
efforts such as are currently being discussed among the Elders.

Optimistic and pragmatic voices prevailed as the session wound down.  We are making progress in this 
committee and the community.  We are charged to empower the Reps by concentrating skills and decision 
making in a smaller group.  Another group could be another resource.  Where camp happens does not have 
to go back to a Community Meeting.  The process of making a major change requires a lot of open talk.  
And we are open; we are closing no possibilities; we are talking.  Our meetings have been reaching 
milestones.  Our solution to the gap between now and the unknown future has been, and should continue to 
be, concentrating on practical and immediate problems.  We are gathering information and presenting 
options.  Lets follow up on all of them.

AGENDA AND DATE FOR NEXT MEETING :
1)  At the next meeting we will start planning for a long weekend meeting that will address a potential 
scenario with multiple proposals.
2)  Between now and then, consulting with brokers about other rentals and site visits will proceed.  We 
will hear reports at the next meeting.
3)  Paul and Margaret will work on a spec sheet.  We will review this at the next meeting.
4)  Anne and Camilla will begin working on the DNE Resource Project.

THE NEXT MEETING WILL BE HELD AT 10:00AM, OCTOBER 18, 1997, AT EITHER BILL AND 
CAROLYNÕS OR BACK AT LISAÕS.

Notable quotes:  ÒNecessity is the mother of consensusÓ -Kevin
                               ÒÉI would spear lead such an effortÓ -Bill McAvinney

Last modified: November 25, 1997

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