CC December 7, 2007 Minutes || Northwest Compassionate Communications

Dec. 4, 2007 CC with Laurel, Moreah, Doug, and later, Barb.

A)     Check in.

B)     Moreah facilitating and taking notes. Doug and Barb in Albuquerque without Nov. notes; Laurel not fully well.

C)     TOPICS DISCUSSED:

1)      Dreamweaver purchase – Doug: on hold

2)      Financial report: about $50,000 in the account. (Not brought up, but I'm curious if it's in at least a 4 ½% interest bearing account, as I have at Key Bank.)

3)      Use of web site. Laurel wanted the CC to vote on the use of our site, rather than go with what the TC decided months ago. She had reread the Feb. 2007 minutes, which she felt related more to the E.D. relationship with the Board than to the TC and ITC. We realize the TC was the only decision-making entity back then. Doug wants to clarify who makes what decisions and how, and would like ITC to share OUR proposal and guidelines for our own circle, which needn't be "approved" by TC OR CC. He doesn't see CC as a decision-making body. CC would only care about circles' guidelines being connecting and congruent with NCC and CNVC values, aims and mission. Laurel sees CC as making decions when items affect multiple circles.

4)      Laurel and Moreah stated we (ITC) wanted to be equal partners with TC. Doug wanted clarity about what Laurel wanted since now ITC shares the power. Laurel wants input from ITC members to see if there is any discomfort, and to bring alternative proposals back to CC. One of the proposals relates to TC and IT decision-making around items affecting both circles. The other proposals fall within the ITC's purview and could differ from TC policies, yet still be consistent with NCC values.

5)      Doug would like to see ITC proposal with whatever strategies that would confer connection and movement regarding NCC organizational needs. This would show the process of quality control. It might be similar to the "special circumstances proposal" mentioned below in Nov. notes.

7) The proposal Moreah offered to share with ITC and then CC would include a description/ definition of ITC, our roles, what we would offer to NCC, etc. (ITC, like TC, is responsible for its own group and its own proposals and guidelines.) Doug expressed concern that ITC seems not to be interested in the business side of NCC

8)   Laurel, through more reading and through NCC support, wants to clarify the role of the CC.

10)   The TC had voted not to change the name back to PSNCC.

11)   3B below: we voted to change "lower circle" to "fellow circle" – we're open to a "better" name if it comes up.

12)   4C below: ITC can decide to have CC reps be for 6 months, even if TC decides to have their rep for one year.

13)   4F below: we voted to change "upper circle" to CC.

14)  We acknowledge that we welcome and desire sociocratic circles to be created in harmony with the aim, vision and mission of NCC as defined by the CC. The CC will ensure congruency with and between all circles. This policy will be in effect through December 31, 2008. 15)   Laurel requested clarity about meeting time (Dec. 18 will be 6:30-7:30), and what constitutes a quorum for CC.

16) Celebrations: Doug liked his inner shift when Moreah expressed her understanding of the TC's intentions about sharing autonomy and access and decision-making without any "power over" behavior. Moreah and Laurel were grateful for the clarity. Moreah expressed "no more resistance" to TC, since ITC is now an equal partner.

Respectfully, Moreah