Re: [TheThinkTank] Big questions about trust, classism, and preconceptions
Hey Andrew,
it sounds to me like you and your collective might want to consider your criteria for key-holdership. If those criteria are not formalized, expressed, and accessible, then people cannot work towards meeting those criteria, and you have established an elite group of key holders that is inaccessible to the majority of your organizations membership base. That will result in the people who "lead" the organization eventually not being representative of the population your organization (presumably) exists to serve.
I don't think that "showing up for x # of hours over x period of time," sounds like it is adequate criteria for someone to be given access, which means there are other (likely currently unstated) criteria that determine whether someone is worthy of the privilege of a key. Rather than ask people to just be more trusting, I would consider doing an activity that names the other criteria (as well as consequences for violating norms), and then make them available generally. This allows people to demonstrate their abilities to meet those criteria-- regardless of income, housing, or addiction history. -Heather
On Tue, Feb 14, 2017 at 4:12 PM, < thethinktank-request@lists.bikecollectives.org> wrote:
Send Thethinktank mailing list submissions to thethinktank@lists.bikecollectives.org
To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit http://lists.bikecollectives.org/listinfo.cgi/thethinktank- bikecollectives.org
or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to thethinktank-request@lists.bikecollectives.org
You can reach the person managing the list at thethinktank-owner@lists.bikecollectives.org
When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific than "Re: Contents of Thethinktank digest..."
Today's Topics:
- Big questions about trust, classism, and preconceptions (Andrew Shooner)
- Re: Big questions about trust, classism, and preconceptions (momoko saunders)
- Re: Big questions about trust, classism, and preconceptions (momoko saunders)
---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Andrew Shooner ashooner@gmail.com To: The Think Tank thethinktank@lists.bikecollectives.org Cc: Date: Tue, 14 Feb 2017 14:57:27 -0500 Subject: [TheThinkTank] Big questions about trust, classism, and preconceptions Hi all,
Looking for some wisdom on what I think is a pretty deep question for our shop. Quick background: Broke Spoke is a non-profit community bike shop, with a mission to give everyone better access to better bikes, and enable everyone to do their own maintenance. A big part of our community has been a social services campus nearby which includes long-term residency, an overnight shelter, a free cafeteria, and a residential substance abuse rehab program. People from that center use the shop frequently, and are probably the most common group to earn bikes from the shop.
Right now, once you regularly commit to a certain number of hours consistently for 4 months, we provide you a key to the shop, so you can come in on your own time to work on your own stuff and free up open shop hours so you can volunteer. This has always been by invitation rather than an automatic 'upgrade'. We have a small group of regular volunteers from the center some of whom would otherwise qualify for this type of access, but have never been invited.
We're making an effort this winter to reorganize our shop volunteerism to be more inclusive, and the discussion has led to addressing this. Without speaking for others from the shop, I'll share my own thoughts: on one hand, I hate the notion that someone's general economic status could disqualify them from becoming a more involved member of our community. The other side of that is that severe economic stress or a substance abuse problem can have a serious influence on someone's behavior, and it isn't necessarily an individual character judgement to be more cautious about access to our entire shop (~150 bikes, 8 stands, power tools, etc - our whole operation). But that lands you back in a pretty categorically classist conclusion that poor(er) people are inherently less trustworthy in the shop. I also don't like where that logic leads: where do you draw the line?
My gut tells me that the potential benefit in granting someone that trust is worth the risk, but I appreciate the other, more cautious perspective as well. Any thoughts or experiences would be appreciated!
Thanks, Andy Broke Spoke, Lexington KY
---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: momoko saunders analyst@bikefarm.org To: The Think Tank thethinktank@lists.bikecollectives.org Cc: Date: Tue, 14 Feb 2017 12:33:30 -0800 Subject: Re: [TheThinkTank] Big questions about trust, classism, and preconceptions Andy,
At Bike Farm we have a similar policy. Volunteering for a steady two months can lead to a key. You have to be nominated, and it's the responsibility of the person who nominated you to ensure that you understand the rules of the shop.
We've had a number houseless folks be key holders. Besides the occasional person sleeping at the shop when it's pouring freezing rain outside, we haven't had any issues. But we are still selective of who we nominate.
For example, there's a fellow who's been volunteering for months now. He's super dedicated. But honestly, he displays some paranoid tendencies, and sometimes get's into verbal altercations with others. We vote on who gets a key, and just like all our decisions, anyone can veto a proposal. I would vote "no" if this person came up for key nomination. I have no problems with letting people know why I don't think it would be appropriate.
There are a ton of valid reasons to object to someone's nomination. I hope you and other volunteers feel comfortable enough to express yourselves. At the same time, there are no rules for those valid reasons. Economic status and or past drug use, to me, are not valid reasons to deny someone a key. Try to base your conclusions on their present behaviour, not your assumptions.
It's lucky you get 4 months of time to observe the person in the shop. If after 4 months, you're still not sure if you can trust them, hang out with them more. Try being friends. What's their life like?
It seems like you're searching for a rule to follow, but the reality is that trust is something we develop. Trust is vital for shops like ours to operate.
I think if you really got to know the person, you would feel more comfortable with trusting them with a key to the shop. You shouldn't be afraid to express if you don't trust someone. But one would hope that feeling of untrust is based on their actions, and not stereotypes.
Good luck! Being accepting and conscientious isn't easy work. -momoko
On Tue, Feb 14, 2017 at 11:57 AM, Andrew Shooner ashooner@gmail.com wrote:
Hi all,
Looking for some wisdom on what I think is a pretty deep question for our shop. Quick background: Broke Spoke is a non-profit community bike shop, with a mission to give everyone better access to better bikes, and enable everyone to do their own maintenance. A big part of our community has been a social services campus nearby which includes long-term residency, an overnight shelter, a free cafeteria, and a residential substance abuse rehab program. People from that center use the shop frequently, and are probably the most common group to earn bikes from the shop.
Right now, once you regularly commit to a certain number of hours consistently for 4 months, we provide you a key to the shop, so you can come in on your own time to work on your own stuff and free up open shop hours so you can volunteer. This has always been by invitation rather than an automatic 'upgrade'. We have a small group of regular volunteers from the center some of whom would otherwise qualify for this type of access, but have never been invited.
We're making an effort this winter to reorganize our shop volunteerism to be more inclusive, and the discussion has led to addressing this. Without speaking for others from the shop, I'll share my own thoughts: on one hand, I hate the notion that someone's general economic status could disqualify them from becoming a more involved member of our community. The other side of that is that severe economic stress or a substance abuse problem can have a serious influence on someone's behavior, and it isn't necessarily an individual character judgement to be more cautious about access to our entire shop (~150 bikes, 8 stands, power tools, etc - our whole operation). But that lands you back in a pretty categorically classist conclusion that poor(er) people are inherently less trustworthy in the shop. I also don't like where that logic leads: where do you draw the line?
My gut tells me that the potential benefit in granting someone that trust is worth the risk, but I appreciate the other, more cautious perspective as well. Any thoughts or experiences would be appreciated!
Thanks, Andy Broke Spoke, Lexington KY
The ThinkTank mailing List <a href="http://lists.bikecollectives.org/options.cgi/ thethinktank-bikecollectives.org">Unsubscribe from this list</a>
---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: momoko saunders analyst@bikefarm.org To: The Think Tank thethinktank@lists.bikecollectives.org Cc: Date: Tue, 14 Feb 2017 12:40:22 -0800 Subject: Re: [TheThinkTank] Big questions about trust, classism, and preconceptions Oops, One last thing I forgot to say.
One of the key reasons someone will be nominated for a key is to hold a shift. We require two key holders for every shift. If the person has been coming regularly to their shift for two months, and there is a need for a 2nd or 3rd key holder on the shift, this is the usual reason someone gets a key. So people don't get them just for showing up every once in a while for two months. They have to show dedication!
Coming to nearly every one of your shifts for 2 months is a requirement that weeds out a lot of the less steady folks. This is a good litmus to evaluate trust.
On Tue, Feb 14, 2017 at 12:33 PM, momoko saunders analyst@bikefarm.org wrote:
Andy,
At Bike Farm we have a similar policy. Volunteering for a steady two months can lead to a key. You have to be nominated, and it's the responsibility of the person who nominated you to ensure that you understand the rules of the shop.
We've had a number houseless folks be key holders. Besides the occasional person sleeping at the shop when it's pouring freezing rain outside, we haven't had any issues. But we are still selective of who we nominate.
For example, there's a fellow who's been volunteering for months now. He's super dedicated. But honestly, he displays some paranoid tendencies, and sometimes get's into verbal altercations with others. We vote on who gets a key, and just like all our decisions, anyone can veto a proposal. I would vote "no" if this person came up for key nomination. I have no problems with letting people know why I don't think it would be appropriate.
There are a ton of valid reasons to object to someone's nomination. I hope you and other volunteers feel comfortable enough to express yourselves. At the same time, there are no rules for those valid reasons. Economic status and or past drug use, to me, are not valid reasons to deny someone a key. Try to base your conclusions on their present behaviour, not your assumptions.
It's lucky you get 4 months of time to observe the person in the shop. If after 4 months, you're still not sure if you can trust them, hang out with them more. Try being friends. What's their life like?
It seems like you're searching for a rule to follow, but the reality is that trust is something we develop. Trust is vital for shops like ours to operate.
I think if you really got to know the person, you would feel more comfortable with trusting them with a key to the shop. You shouldn't be afraid to express if you don't trust someone. But one would hope that feeling of untrust is based on their actions, and not stereotypes.
Good luck! Being accepting and conscientious isn't easy work. -momoko
On Tue, Feb 14, 2017 at 11:57 AM, Andrew Shooner ashooner@gmail.com wrote:
Hi all,
Looking for some wisdom on what I think is a pretty deep question for our shop. Quick background: Broke Spoke is a non-profit community bike shop, with a mission to give everyone better access to better bikes, and enable everyone to do their own maintenance. A big part of our community has been a social services campus nearby which includes long-term residency, an overnight shelter, a free cafeteria, and a residential substance abuse rehab program. People from that center use the shop frequently, and are probably the most common group to earn bikes from the shop.
Right now, once you regularly commit to a certain number of hours consistently for 4 months, we provide you a key to the shop, so you can come in on your own time to work on your own stuff and free up open shop hours so you can volunteer. This has always been by invitation rather than an automatic 'upgrade'. We have a small group of regular volunteers from the center some of whom would otherwise qualify for this type of access, but have never been invited.
We're making an effort this winter to reorganize our shop volunteerism to be more inclusive, and the discussion has led to addressing this. Without speaking for others from the shop, I'll share my own thoughts: on one hand, I hate the notion that someone's general economic status could disqualify them from becoming a more involved member of our community. The other side of that is that severe economic stress or a substance abuse problem can have a serious influence on someone's behavior, and it isn't necessarily an individual character judgement to be more cautious about access to our entire shop (~150 bikes, 8 stands, power tools, etc - our whole operation). But that lands you back in a pretty categorically classist conclusion that poor(er) people are inherently less trustworthy in the shop. I also don't like where that logic leads: where do you draw the line?
My gut tells me that the potential benefit in granting someone that trust is worth the risk, but I appreciate the other, more cautious perspective as well. Any thoughts or experiences would be appreciated!
Thanks, Andy Broke Spoke, Lexington KY
The ThinkTank mailing List <a href="http://lists.bikecollectives.org/options.cgi/thethinkt ank-bikecollectives.org">Unsubscribe from this list</a>
Thethinktank mailing list Thethinktank@lists.bikecollectives.org http://lists.bikecollectives.org/listinfo.cgi/thethinktank- bikecollectives.org
Heather,
I agree with what you are saying and I'm grateful you brought up those points. I think my way of perceiving situations like this relies too heavily on nuance, and makes Bike Farm less accessible.
What I realize is that it forces core volunteers of BF to be friends. Which can't always be possible.
These aspects of the policy feel clear.
- Show up consistently to your chosen shift.
- Abide by and enforce the safer space agreement.
- Fill a need of the shop.
The last part of the equation is not so easy to concretely describe.
- Your behaviour in the shop off hours will appropriately represent Bike
Farm.
- You have the skills to handle the strange situations that come up at Bike
Farm.
Do you think that's clear? It still puts the people in the meeting as judges. I'm unsure if someone would feel empowered to work towards vague goals like this.
On Tue, Feb 14, 2017 at 2:01 PM, Heather Nugen hnugen@gmail.com wrote:
Hey Andrew,
it sounds to me like you and your collective might want to consider your criteria for key-holdership. If those criteria are not formalized, expressed, and accessible, then people cannot work towards meeting those criteria, and you have established an elite group of key holders that is inaccessible to the majority of your organizations membership base. That will result in the people who "lead" the organization eventually not being representative of the population your organization (presumably) exists to serve.
I don't think that "showing up for x # of hours over x period of time," sounds like it is adequate criteria for someone to be given access, which means there are other (likely currently unstated) criteria that determine whether someone is worthy of the privilege of a key. Rather than ask people to just be more trusting, I would consider doing an activity that names the other criteria (as well as consequences for violating norms), and then make them available generally. This allows people to demonstrate their abilities to meet those criteria-- regardless of income, housing, or addiction history. -Heather
On Tue, Feb 14, 2017 at 4:12 PM, <thethinktank-request@lists. bikecollectives.org> wrote:
Send Thethinktank mailing list submissions to thethinktank@lists.bikecollectives.org
To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit http://lists.bikecollectives.org/listinfo.cgi/thethinktank-b ikecollectives.org
or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to thethinktank-request@lists.bikecollectives.org
You can reach the person managing the list at thethinktank-owner@lists.bikecollectives.org
When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific than "Re: Contents of Thethinktank digest..."
Today's Topics:
- Big questions about trust, classism, and preconceptions (Andrew Shooner)
- Re: Big questions about trust, classism, and preconceptions (momoko saunders)
- Re: Big questions about trust, classism, and preconceptions (momoko saunders)
---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Andrew Shooner ashooner@gmail.com To: The Think Tank thethinktank@lists.bikecollectives.org Cc: Date: Tue, 14 Feb 2017 14:57:27 -0500 Subject: [TheThinkTank] Big questions about trust, classism, and preconceptions Hi all,
Looking for some wisdom on what I think is a pretty deep question for our shop. Quick background: Broke Spoke is a non-profit community bike shop, with a mission to give everyone better access to better bikes, and enable everyone to do their own maintenance. A big part of our community has been a social services campus nearby which includes long-term residency, an overnight shelter, a free cafeteria, and a residential substance abuse rehab program. People from that center use the shop frequently, and are probably the most common group to earn bikes from the shop.
Right now, once you regularly commit to a certain number of hours consistently for 4 months, we provide you a key to the shop, so you can come in on your own time to work on your own stuff and free up open shop hours so you can volunteer. This has always been by invitation rather than an automatic 'upgrade'. We have a small group of regular volunteers from the center some of whom would otherwise qualify for this type of access, but have never been invited.
We're making an effort this winter to reorganize our shop volunteerism to be more inclusive, and the discussion has led to addressing this. Without speaking for others from the shop, I'll share my own thoughts: on one hand, I hate the notion that someone's general economic status could disqualify them from becoming a more involved member of our community. The other side of that is that severe economic stress or a substance abuse problem can have a serious influence on someone's behavior, and it isn't necessarily an individual character judgement to be more cautious about access to our entire shop (~150 bikes, 8 stands, power tools, etc - our whole operation). But that lands you back in a pretty categorically classist conclusion that poor(er) people are inherently less trustworthy in the shop. I also don't like where that logic leads: where do you draw the line?
My gut tells me that the potential benefit in granting someone that trust is worth the risk, but I appreciate the other, more cautious perspective as well. Any thoughts or experiences would be appreciated!
Thanks, Andy Broke Spoke, Lexington KY
---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: momoko saunders analyst@bikefarm.org To: The Think Tank thethinktank@lists.bikecollectives.org Cc: Date: Tue, 14 Feb 2017 12:33:30 -0800 Subject: Re: [TheThinkTank] Big questions about trust, classism, and preconceptions Andy,
At Bike Farm we have a similar policy. Volunteering for a steady two months can lead to a key. You have to be nominated, and it's the responsibility of the person who nominated you to ensure that you understand the rules of the shop.
We've had a number houseless folks be key holders. Besides the occasional person sleeping at the shop when it's pouring freezing rain outside, we haven't had any issues. But we are still selective of who we nominate.
For example, there's a fellow who's been volunteering for months now. He's super dedicated. But honestly, he displays some paranoid tendencies, and sometimes get's into verbal altercations with others. We vote on who gets a key, and just like all our decisions, anyone can veto a proposal. I would vote "no" if this person came up for key nomination. I have no problems with letting people know why I don't think it would be appropriate.
There are a ton of valid reasons to object to someone's nomination. I hope you and other volunteers feel comfortable enough to express yourselves. At the same time, there are no rules for those valid reasons. Economic status and or past drug use, to me, are not valid reasons to deny someone a key. Try to base your conclusions on their present behaviour, not your assumptions.
It's lucky you get 4 months of time to observe the person in the shop. If after 4 months, you're still not sure if you can trust them, hang out with them more. Try being friends. What's their life like?
It seems like you're searching for a rule to follow, but the reality is that trust is something we develop. Trust is vital for shops like ours to operate.
I think if you really got to know the person, you would feel more comfortable with trusting them with a key to the shop. You shouldn't be afraid to express if you don't trust someone. But one would hope that feeling of untrust is based on their actions, and not stereotypes.
Good luck! Being accepting and conscientious isn't easy work. -momoko
On Tue, Feb 14, 2017 at 11:57 AM, Andrew Shooner ashooner@gmail.com wrote:
Hi all,
Looking for some wisdom on what I think is a pretty deep question for our shop. Quick background: Broke Spoke is a non-profit community bike shop, with a mission to give everyone better access to better bikes, and enable everyone to do their own maintenance. A big part of our community has been a social services campus nearby which includes long-term residency, an overnight shelter, a free cafeteria, and a residential substance abuse rehab program. People from that center use the shop frequently, and are probably the most common group to earn bikes from the shop.
Right now, once you regularly commit to a certain number of hours consistently for 4 months, we provide you a key to the shop, so you can come in on your own time to work on your own stuff and free up open shop hours so you can volunteer. This has always been by invitation rather than an automatic 'upgrade'. We have a small group of regular volunteers from the center some of whom would otherwise qualify for this type of access, but have never been invited.
We're making an effort this winter to reorganize our shop volunteerism to be more inclusive, and the discussion has led to addressing this. Without speaking for others from the shop, I'll share my own thoughts: on one hand, I hate the notion that someone's general economic status could disqualify them from becoming a more involved member of our community. The other side of that is that severe economic stress or a substance abuse problem can have a serious influence on someone's behavior, and it isn't necessarily an individual character judgement to be more cautious about access to our entire shop (~150 bikes, 8 stands, power tools, etc - our whole operation). But that lands you back in a pretty categorically classist conclusion that poor(er) people are inherently less trustworthy in the shop. I also don't like where that logic leads: where do you draw the line?
My gut tells me that the potential benefit in granting someone that trust is worth the risk, but I appreciate the other, more cautious perspective as well. Any thoughts or experiences would be appreciated!
Thanks, Andy Broke Spoke, Lexington KY
The ThinkTank mailing List <a href="http://lists.bikecollectives.org/options.cgi/thethinkt ank-bikecollectives.org">Unsubscribe from this list</a>
---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: momoko saunders analyst@bikefarm.org To: The Think Tank thethinktank@lists.bikecollectives.org Cc: Date: Tue, 14 Feb 2017 12:40:22 -0800 Subject: Re: [TheThinkTank] Big questions about trust, classism, and preconceptions Oops, One last thing I forgot to say.
One of the key reasons someone will be nominated for a key is to hold a shift. We require two key holders for every shift. If the person has been coming regularly to their shift for two months, and there is a need for a 2nd or 3rd key holder on the shift, this is the usual reason someone gets a key. So people don't get them just for showing up every once in a while for two months. They have to show dedication!
Coming to nearly every one of your shifts for 2 months is a requirement that weeds out a lot of the less steady folks. This is a good litmus to evaluate trust.
On Tue, Feb 14, 2017 at 12:33 PM, momoko saunders analyst@bikefarm.org wrote:
Andy,
At Bike Farm we have a similar policy. Volunteering for a steady two months can lead to a key. You have to be nominated, and it's the responsibility of the person who nominated you to ensure that you understand the rules of the shop.
We've had a number houseless folks be key holders. Besides the occasional person sleeping at the shop when it's pouring freezing rain outside, we haven't had any issues. But we are still selective of who we nominate.
For example, there's a fellow who's been volunteering for months now. He's super dedicated. But honestly, he displays some paranoid tendencies, and sometimes get's into verbal altercations with others. We vote on who gets a key, and just like all our decisions, anyone can veto a proposal. I would vote "no" if this person came up for key nomination. I have no problems with letting people know why I don't think it would be appropriate.
There are a ton of valid reasons to object to someone's nomination. I hope you and other volunteers feel comfortable enough to express yourselves. At the same time, there are no rules for those valid reasons. Economic status and or past drug use, to me, are not valid reasons to deny someone a key. Try to base your conclusions on their present behaviour, not your assumptions.
It's lucky you get 4 months of time to observe the person in the shop. If after 4 months, you're still not sure if you can trust them, hang out with them more. Try being friends. What's their life like?
It seems like you're searching for a rule to follow, but the reality is that trust is something we develop. Trust is vital for shops like ours to operate.
I think if you really got to know the person, you would feel more comfortable with trusting them with a key to the shop. You shouldn't be afraid to express if you don't trust someone. But one would hope that feeling of untrust is based on their actions, and not stereotypes.
Good luck! Being accepting and conscientious isn't easy work. -momoko
On Tue, Feb 14, 2017 at 11:57 AM, Andrew Shooner ashooner@gmail.com wrote:
Hi all,
Looking for some wisdom on what I think is a pretty deep question for our shop. Quick background: Broke Spoke is a non-profit community bike shop, with a mission to give everyone better access to better bikes, and enable everyone to do their own maintenance. A big part of our community has been a social services campus nearby which includes long-term residency, an overnight shelter, a free cafeteria, and a residential substance abuse rehab program. People from that center use the shop frequently, and are probably the most common group to earn bikes from the shop.
Right now, once you regularly commit to a certain number of hours consistently for 4 months, we provide you a key to the shop, so you can come in on your own time to work on your own stuff and free up open shop hours so you can volunteer. This has always been by invitation rather than an automatic 'upgrade'. We have a small group of regular volunteers from the center some of whom would otherwise qualify for this type of access, but have never been invited.
We're making an effort this winter to reorganize our shop volunteerism to be more inclusive, and the discussion has led to addressing this. Without speaking for others from the shop, I'll share my own thoughts: on one hand, I hate the notion that someone's general economic status could disqualify them from becoming a more involved member of our community. The other side of that is that severe economic stress or a substance abuse problem can have a serious influence on someone's behavior, and it isn't necessarily an individual character judgement to be more cautious about access to our entire shop (~150 bikes, 8 stands, power tools, etc - our whole operation). But that lands you back in a pretty categorically classist conclusion that poor(er) people are inherently less trustworthy in the shop. I also don't like where that logic leads: where do you draw the line?
My gut tells me that the potential benefit in granting someone that trust is worth the risk, but I appreciate the other, more cautious perspective as well. Any thoughts or experiences would be appreciated!
Thanks, Andy Broke Spoke, Lexington KY
The ThinkTank mailing List <a href="http://lists.bikecollectives.org/options.cgi/thethinkt ank-bikecollectives.org">Unsubscribe from this list</a>
Thethinktank mailing list Thethinktank@lists.bikecollectives.org http://lists.bikecollectives.org/listinfo.cgi/thethinktank-b ikecollectives.org
The ThinkTank mailing List <a href="http://lists.bikecollectives.org/options.cgi/thethinktank- bikecollectives.org">Unsubscribe from this list</a>
From long ago substance abuse training,
even sponsoring and recovery housing (Oxford House like) much less holding group officer positions has requirements of clean and sober and/or recovery time to make coffee for meeting (usually takes a church/facility key)
Celebrations of time, anniversary meetings are an important way of passing on what it was like, what was learned along the way, and hope for the future... (read built in training with sober celebrationing called pass it on, iirc)
Clichishness (sp?), gossip, rumors, and even Politic$, besides religiosity (my religion is better than yours because x,y,z...) can tear people and organizations apart. Look at 12 Step Traditions for what has worked for them, at least in writing... What people do and what policy and procedures say can be two different things, but some Process of resolving, conflict resolution Alpha is stepping down until has more time, graduates , travel schedule, the kids, etc, and we have an open time slot that needs keyholders in a friendly community meeting...
Of the bike orgs I've been involved with, three or four plus advocacy, some were friendly and helpful, some had are we are _insert title_/ staff/board, you are bad attitude, and several exec directors later some of that hasn't changed, so I spend my time elsewhere, mostly. Power can be group reward/recognition, but also abused, and futher bullying...
Rules where youth and kids may be involved may be more strict and need to be formalized, not that adults don't try to mess with the rules for desired results...
Hanging out with someone to get a feeling of trustworthiness seems disingenuous to me, Approachable type personalities and comfortableness with technical and/or vulnerable people may be why they might want time alone in the shop, just bikes and tools, No people. (Dogs & cats maybe, if safe) Why many own garages, afaict. But many others can't afford their own.
Having security cameras for safety might help. Remote monitoring/buddying probably best, like I'd sponsor /nominate x, if can observe, and watch out for from home with y as a backup overload/big brother/sister, if traveling, need to go to bed, turn over to z, who burns the midnight oil as a retiree/swingshift / whatever etc.
Your local community may be the best judge of who gets keys, just WAG (Wild Ass Guesses)... Or more P.C., my $0.02 - inflation.
On Feb 14, 2017 6:38 PM, "momoko saunders" analyst@bikefarm.org wrote:
Heather,
I agree with what you are saying and I'm grateful you brought up those points. I think my way of perceiving situations like this relies too heavily on nuance, and makes Bike Farm less accessible.
What I realize is that it forces core volunteers of BF to be friends. Which can't always be possible.
These aspects of the policy feel clear.
- Show up consistently to your chosen shift.
- Abide by and enforce the safer space agreement.
- Fill a need of the shop.
The last part of the equation is not so easy to concretely describe.
- Your behaviour in the shop off hours will appropriately represent Bike
Farm.
- You have the skills to handle the strange situations that come up at
Bike Farm.
Do you think that's clear? It still puts the people in the meeting as judges. I'm unsure if someone would feel empowered to work towards vague goals like this.
On Tue, Feb 14, 2017 at 2:01 PM, Heather Nugen hnugen@gmail.com wrote:
Hey Andrew,
it sounds to me like you and your collective might want to consider your criteria for key-holdership. If those criteria are not formalized, expressed, and accessible, then people cannot work towards meeting those criteria, and you have established an elite group of key holders that is inaccessible to the majority of your organizations membership base. That will result in the people who "lead" the organization eventually not being representative of the population your organization (presumably) exists to serve.
I don't think that "showing up for x # of hours over x period of time," sounds like it is adequate criteria for someone to be given access, which means there are other (likely currently unstated) criteria that determine whether someone is worthy of the privilege of a key. Rather than ask people to just be more trusting, I would consider doing an activity that names the other criteria (as well as consequences for violating norms), and then make them available generally. This allows people to demonstrate their abilities to meet those criteria-- regardless of income, housing, or addiction history. -Heather
On Tue, Feb 14, 2017 at 4:12 PM, <thethinktank-request@lists.bi kecollectives.org> wrote:
Send Thethinktank mailing list submissions to thethinktank@lists.bikecollectives.org
To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit http://lists.bikecollectives.org/listinfo.cgi/thethinktank-b ikecollectives.org
or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to thethinktank-request@lists.bikecollectives.org
You can reach the person managing the list at thethinktank-owner@lists.bikecollectives.org
When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific than "Re: Contents of Thethinktank digest..."
Today's Topics:
- Big questions about trust, classism, and preconceptions (Andrew Shooner)
- Re: Big questions about trust, classism, and preconceptions (momoko saunders)
- Re: Big questions about trust, classism, and preconceptions (momoko saunders)
---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Andrew Shooner ashooner@gmail.com To: The Think Tank thethinktank@lists.bikecollectives.org Cc: Date: Tue, 14 Feb 2017 14:57:27 -0500 Subject: [TheThinkTank] Big questions about trust, classism, and preconceptions Hi all,
Looking for some wisdom on what I think is a pretty deep question for our shop. Quick background: Broke Spoke is a non-profit community bike shop, with a mission to give everyone better access to better bikes, and enable everyone to do their own maintenance. A big part of our community has been a social services campus nearby which includes long-term residency, an overnight shelter, a free cafeteria, and a residential substance abuse rehab program. People from that center use the shop frequently, and are probably the most common group to earn bikes from the shop.
Right now, once you regularly commit to a certain number of hours consistently for 4 months, we provide you a key to the shop, so you can come in on your own time to work on your own stuff and free up open shop hours so you can volunteer. This has always been by invitation rather than an automatic 'upgrade'. We have a small group of regular volunteers from the center some of whom would otherwise qualify for this type of access, but have never been invited.
We're making an effort this winter to reorganize our shop volunteerism to be more inclusive, and the discussion has led to addressing this. Without speaking for others from the shop, I'll share my own thoughts: on one hand, I hate the notion that someone's general economic status could disqualify them from becoming a more involved member of our community. The other side of that is that severe economic stress or a substance abuse problem can have a serious influence on someone's behavior, and it isn't necessarily an individual character judgement to be more cautious about access to our entire shop (~150 bikes, 8 stands, power tools, etc - our whole operation). But that lands you back in a pretty categorically classist conclusion that poor(er) people are inherently less trustworthy in the shop. I also don't like where that logic leads: where do you draw the line?
My gut tells me that the potential benefit in granting someone that trust is worth the risk, but I appreciate the other, more cautious perspective as well. Any thoughts or experiences would be appreciated!
Thanks, Andy Broke Spoke, Lexington KY
---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: momoko saunders analyst@bikefarm.org To: The Think Tank thethinktank@lists.bikecollectives.org Cc: Date: Tue, 14 Feb 2017 12:33:30 -0800 Subject: Re: [TheThinkTank] Big questions about trust, classism, and preconceptions Andy,
At Bike Farm we have a similar policy. Volunteering for a steady two months can lead to a key. You have to be nominated, and it's the responsibility of the person who nominated you to ensure that you understand the rules of the shop.
We've had a number houseless folks be key holders. Besides the occasional person sleeping at the shop when it's pouring freezing rain outside, we haven't had any issues. But we are still selective of who we nominate.
For example, there's a fellow who's been volunteering for months now. He's super dedicated. But honestly, he displays some paranoid tendencies, and sometimes get's into verbal altercations with others. We vote on who gets a key, and just like all our decisions, anyone can veto a proposal. I would vote "no" if this person came up for key nomination. I have no problems with letting people know why I don't think it would be appropriate.
There are a ton of valid reasons to object to someone's nomination. I hope you and other volunteers feel comfortable enough to express yourselves. At the same time, there are no rules for those valid reasons. Economic status and or past drug use, to me, are not valid reasons to deny someone a key. Try to base your conclusions on their present behaviour, not your assumptions.
It's lucky you get 4 months of time to observe the person in the shop. If after 4 months, you're still not sure if you can trust them, hang out with them more. Try being friends. What's their life like?
It seems like you're searching for a rule to follow, but the reality is that trust is something we develop. Trust is vital for shops like ours to operate.
I think if you really got to know the person, you would feel more comfortable with trusting them with a key to the shop. You shouldn't be afraid to express if you don't trust someone. But one would hope that feeling of untrust is based on their actions, and not stereotypes.
Good luck! Being accepting and conscientious isn't easy work. -momoko
On Tue, Feb 14, 2017 at 11:57 AM, Andrew Shooner ashooner@gmail.com wrote:
Hi all,
Looking for some wisdom on what I think is a pretty deep question for our shop. Quick background: Broke Spoke is a non-profit community bike shop, with a mission to give everyone better access to better bikes, and enable everyone to do their own maintenance. A big part of our community has been a social services campus nearby which includes long-term residency, an overnight shelter, a free cafeteria, and a residential substance abuse rehab program. People from that center use the shop frequently, and are probably the most common group to earn bikes from the shop.
Right now, once you regularly commit to a certain number of hours consistently for 4 months, we provide you a key to the shop, so you can come in on your own time to work on your own stuff and free up open shop hours so you can volunteer. This has always been by invitation rather than an automatic 'upgrade'. We have a small group of regular volunteers from the center some of whom would otherwise qualify for this type of access, but have never been invited.
We're making an effort this winter to reorganize our shop volunteerism to be more inclusive, and the discussion has led to addressing this. Without speaking for others from the shop, I'll share my own thoughts: on one hand, I hate the notion that someone's general economic status could disqualify them from becoming a more involved member of our community. The other side of that is that severe economic stress or a substance abuse problem can have a serious influence on someone's behavior, and it isn't necessarily an individual character judgement to be more cautious about access to our entire shop (~150 bikes, 8 stands, power tools, etc - our whole operation). But that lands you back in a pretty categorically classist conclusion that poor(er) people are inherently less trustworthy in the shop. I also don't like where that logic leads: where do you draw the line?
My gut tells me that the potential benefit in granting someone that trust is worth the risk, but I appreciate the other, more cautious perspective as well. Any thoughts or experiences would be appreciated!
Thanks, Andy Broke Spoke, Lexington KY
The ThinkTank mailing List <a href="http://lists.bikecollectives.org/options.cgi/thethinkt ank-bikecollectives.org">Unsubscribe from this list</a>
---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: momoko saunders analyst@bikefarm.org To: The Think Tank thethinktank@lists.bikecollectives.org Cc: Date: Tue, 14 Feb 2017 12:40:22 -0800 Subject: Re: [TheThinkTank] Big questions about trust, classism, and preconceptions Oops, One last thing I forgot to say.
One of the key reasons someone will be nominated for a key is to hold a shift. We require two key holders for every shift. If the person has been coming regularly to their shift for two months, and there is a need for a 2nd or 3rd key holder on the shift, this is the usual reason someone gets a key. So people don't get them just for showing up every once in a while for two months. They have to show dedication!
Coming to nearly every one of your shifts for 2 months is a requirement that weeds out a lot of the less steady folks. This is a good litmus to evaluate trust.
On Tue, Feb 14, 2017 at 12:33 PM, momoko saunders analyst@bikefarm.org wrote:
Andy,
At Bike Farm we have a similar policy. Volunteering for a steady two months can lead to a key. You have to be nominated, and it's the responsibility of the person who nominated you to ensure that you understand the rules of the shop.
We've had a number houseless folks be key holders. Besides the occasional person sleeping at the shop when it's pouring freezing rain outside, we haven't had any issues. But we are still selective of who we nominate.
For example, there's a fellow who's been volunteering for months now. He's super dedicated. But honestly, he displays some paranoid tendencies, and sometimes get's into verbal altercations with others. We vote on who gets a key, and just like all our decisions, anyone can veto a proposal. I would vote "no" if this person came up for key nomination. I have no problems with letting people know why I don't think it would be appropriate.
There are a ton of valid reasons to object to someone's nomination. I hope you and other volunteers feel comfortable enough to express yourselves. At the same time, there are no rules for those valid reasons. Economic status and or past drug use, to me, are not valid reasons to deny someone a key. Try to base your conclusions on their present behaviour, not your assumptions.
It's lucky you get 4 months of time to observe the person in the shop. If after 4 months, you're still not sure if you can trust them, hang out with them more. Try being friends. What's their life like?
It seems like you're searching for a rule to follow, but the reality is that trust is something we develop. Trust is vital for shops like ours to operate.
I think if you really got to know the person, you would feel more comfortable with trusting them with a key to the shop. You shouldn't be afraid to express if you don't trust someone. But one would hope that feeling of untrust is based on their actions, and not stereotypes.
Good luck! Being accepting and conscientious isn't easy work. -momoko
On Tue, Feb 14, 2017 at 11:57 AM, Andrew Shooner ashooner@gmail.com wrote:
Hi all,
Looking for some wisdom on what I think is a pretty deep question for our shop. Quick background: Broke Spoke is a non-profit community bike shop, with a mission to give everyone better access to better bikes, and enable everyone to do their own maintenance. A big part of our community has been a social services campus nearby which includes long-term residency, an overnight shelter, a free cafeteria, and a residential substance abuse rehab program. People from that center use the shop frequently, and are probably the most common group to earn bikes from the shop.
Right now, once you regularly commit to a certain number of hours consistently for 4 months, we provide you a key to the shop, so you can come in on your own time to work on your own stuff and free up open shop hours so you can volunteer. This has always been by invitation rather than an automatic 'upgrade'. We have a small group of regular volunteers from the center some of whom would otherwise qualify for this type of access, but have never been invited.
We're making an effort this winter to reorganize our shop volunteerism to be more inclusive, and the discussion has led to addressing this. Without speaking for others from the shop, I'll share my own thoughts: on one hand, I hate the notion that someone's general economic status could disqualify them from becoming a more involved member of our community. The other side of that is that severe economic stress or a substance abuse problem can have a serious influence on someone's behavior, and it isn't necessarily an individual character judgement to be more cautious about access to our entire shop (~150 bikes, 8 stands, power tools, etc - our whole operation). But that lands you back in a pretty categorically classist conclusion that poor(er) people are inherently less trustworthy in the shop. I also don't like where that logic leads: where do you draw the line?
My gut tells me that the potential benefit in granting someone that trust is worth the risk, but I appreciate the other, more cautious perspective as well. Any thoughts or experiences would be appreciated!
Thanks, Andy Broke Spoke, Lexington KY
The ThinkTank mailing List <a href="http://lists.bikecollectives.org/options.cgi/thethinkt ank-bikecollectives.org">Unsubscribe from this list</a>
Thethinktank mailing list Thethinktank@lists.bikecollectives.org http://lists.bikecollectives.org/listinfo.cgi/thethinktank-b ikecollectives.org
The ThinkTank mailing List <a href="http://lists.bikecollectives.org/options.cgi/ thethinktank-bikecollectives.org">Unsubscribe from this list</a>
The ThinkTank mailing List <a href="http://lists.bikecollectives.org/options.cgi/thethinktank- bikecollectives.org">Unsubscribe from this list</a>
Thanks for the thoughts so far.
My natural preference is, like Heather recommended, to have all of it formalized and accessible; so everyone is on the same page, and there isn't conscious or unconscious exclusion from the process - we're all accountable to it. Pulling together an activity to clarify those tests our current managers are applying (maybe subconsciously) sounds like a great start - we're actually having a retreat this weekend where we might try that out.
But. Trust is often nuanced and ineffable, it's not necessarily checkboxes on a list to tick. I feel like it's worth erring on the side of the checkboxes, rather than erring on the side of biased exclusion, but I appreciate the opposite viewpoint.
I also appreciate the issue of cliques, and I think that those in them can often be oblivious to their existence.
On Tue, Feb 14, 2017 at 7:30 PM, DancesWithCars danceswithcars@gmail.com wrote:
From long ago substance abuse training, even sponsoring and recovery housing (Oxford House like) much less holding group officer positions has requirements of clean and sober and/or recovery time to make coffee for meeting (usually takes a church/facility key)
Celebrations of time, anniversary meetings are an important way of passing on what it was like, what was learned along the way, and hope for the future... (read built in training with sober celebrationing called pass it on, iirc)
Clichishness (sp?), gossip, rumors, and even Politic$, besides religiosity (my religion is better than yours because x,y,z...) can tear people and organizations apart. Look at 12 Step Traditions for what has worked for them, at least in writing... What people do and what policy and procedures say can be two different things, but some Process of resolving, conflict resolution Alpha is stepping down until has more time, graduates , travel schedule, the kids, etc, and we have an open time slot that needs keyholders in a friendly community meeting...
Of the bike orgs I've been involved with, three or four plus advocacy, some were friendly and helpful, some had are we are _insert title_/ staff/board, you are bad attitude, and several exec directors later some of that hasn't changed, so I spend my time elsewhere, mostly. Power can be group reward/recognition, but also abused, and futher bullying...
Rules where youth and kids may be involved may be more strict and need to be formalized, not that adults don't try to mess with the rules for desired results...
Hanging out with someone to get a feeling of trustworthiness seems disingenuous to me, Approachable type personalities and comfortableness with technical and/or vulnerable people may be why they might want time alone in the shop, just bikes and tools, No people. (Dogs & cats maybe, if safe) Why many own garages, afaict. But many others can't afford their own.
Having security cameras for safety might help. Remote monitoring/buddying probably best, like I'd sponsor /nominate x, if can observe, and watch out for from home with y as a backup overload/big brother/sister, if traveling, need to go to bed, turn over to z, who burns the midnight oil as a retiree/swingshift / whatever etc.
Your local community may be the best judge of who gets keys, just WAG (Wild Ass Guesses)... Or more P.C., my $0.02 - inflation.
On Feb 14, 2017 6:38 PM, "momoko saunders" analyst@bikefarm.org wrote:
Heather,
I agree with what you are saying and I'm grateful you brought up those points. I think my way of perceiving situations like this relies too heavily on nuance, and makes Bike Farm less accessible.
What I realize is that it forces core volunteers of BF to be friends. Which can't always be possible.
These aspects of the policy feel clear.
- Show up consistently to your chosen shift.
- Abide by and enforce the safer space agreement.
- Fill a need of the shop.
The last part of the equation is not so easy to concretely describe.
- Your behaviour in the shop off hours will appropriately represent Bike
Farm.
- You have the skills to handle the strange situations that come up at
Bike Farm.
Do you think that's clear? It still puts the people in the meeting as judges. I'm unsure if someone would feel empowered to work towards vague goals like this.
On Tue, Feb 14, 2017 at 2:01 PM, Heather Nugen hnugen@gmail.com wrote:
Hey Andrew,
it sounds to me like you and your collective might want to consider your criteria for key-holdership. If those criteria are not formalized, expressed, and accessible, then people cannot work towards meeting those criteria, and you have established an elite group of key holders that is inaccessible to the majority of your organizations membership base. That will result in the people who "lead" the organization eventually not being representative of the population your organization (presumably) exists to serve.
I don't think that "showing up for x # of hours over x period of time," sounds like it is adequate criteria for someone to be given access, which means there are other (likely currently unstated) criteria that determine whether someone is worthy of the privilege of a key. Rather than ask people to just be more trusting, I would consider doing an activity that names the other criteria (as well as consequences for violating norms), and then make them available generally. This allows people to demonstrate their abilities to meet those criteria-- regardless of income, housing, or addiction history. -Heather
On Tue, Feb 14, 2017 at 4:12 PM, <thethinktank-request@lists.bi kecollectives.org> wrote:
Send Thethinktank mailing list submissions to thethinktank@lists.bikecollectives.org
To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit http://lists.bikecollectives.org/listinfo.cgi/thethinktank-b ikecollectives.org
or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to thethinktank-request@lists.bikecollectives.org
You can reach the person managing the list at thethinktank-owner@lists.bikecollectives.org
When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific than "Re: Contents of Thethinktank digest..."
Today's Topics:
- Big questions about trust, classism, and preconceptions (Andrew Shooner)
- Re: Big questions about trust, classism, and preconceptions (momoko saunders)
- Re: Big questions about trust, classism, and preconceptions (momoko saunders)
---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Andrew Shooner ashooner@gmail.com To: The Think Tank thethinktank@lists.bikecollectives.org Cc: Date: Tue, 14 Feb 2017 14:57:27 -0500 Subject: [TheThinkTank] Big questions about trust, classism, and preconceptions Hi all,
Looking for some wisdom on what I think is a pretty deep question for our shop. Quick background: Broke Spoke is a non-profit community bike shop, with a mission to give everyone better access to better bikes, and enable everyone to do their own maintenance. A big part of our community has been a social services campus nearby which includes long-term residency, an overnight shelter, a free cafeteria, and a residential substance abuse rehab program. People from that center use the shop frequently, and are probably the most common group to earn bikes from the shop.
Right now, once you regularly commit to a certain number of hours consistently for 4 months, we provide you a key to the shop, so you can come in on your own time to work on your own stuff and free up open shop hours so you can volunteer. This has always been by invitation rather than an automatic 'upgrade'. We have a small group of regular volunteers from the center some of whom would otherwise qualify for this type of access, but have never been invited.
We're making an effort this winter to reorganize our shop volunteerism to be more inclusive, and the discussion has led to addressing this. Without speaking for others from the shop, I'll share my own thoughts: on one hand, I hate the notion that someone's general economic status could disqualify them from becoming a more involved member of our community. The other side of that is that severe economic stress or a substance abuse problem can have a serious influence on someone's behavior, and it isn't necessarily an individual character judgement to be more cautious about access to our entire shop (~150 bikes, 8 stands, power tools, etc - our whole operation). But that lands you back in a pretty categorically classist conclusion that poor(er) people are inherently less trustworthy in the shop. I also don't like where that logic leads: where do you draw the line?
My gut tells me that the potential benefit in granting someone that trust is worth the risk, but I appreciate the other, more cautious perspective as well. Any thoughts or experiences would be appreciated!
Thanks, Andy Broke Spoke, Lexington KY
---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: momoko saunders analyst@bikefarm.org To: The Think Tank thethinktank@lists.bikecollectives.org Cc: Date: Tue, 14 Feb 2017 12:33:30 -0800 Subject: Re: [TheThinkTank] Big questions about trust, classism, and preconceptions Andy,
At Bike Farm we have a similar policy. Volunteering for a steady two months can lead to a key. You have to be nominated, and it's the responsibility of the person who nominated you to ensure that you understand the rules of the shop.
We've had a number houseless folks be key holders. Besides the occasional person sleeping at the shop when it's pouring freezing rain outside, we haven't had any issues. But we are still selective of who we nominate.
For example, there's a fellow who's been volunteering for months now. He's super dedicated. But honestly, he displays some paranoid tendencies, and sometimes get's into verbal altercations with others. We vote on who gets a key, and just like all our decisions, anyone can veto a proposal. I would vote "no" if this person came up for key nomination. I have no problems with letting people know why I don't think it would be appropriate.
There are a ton of valid reasons to object to someone's nomination. I hope you and other volunteers feel comfortable enough to express yourselves. At the same time, there are no rules for those valid reasons. Economic status and or past drug use, to me, are not valid reasons to deny someone a key. Try to base your conclusions on their present behaviour, not your assumptions.
It's lucky you get 4 months of time to observe the person in the shop. If after 4 months, you're still not sure if you can trust them, hang out with them more. Try being friends. What's their life like?
It seems like you're searching for a rule to follow, but the reality is that trust is something we develop. Trust is vital for shops like ours to operate.
I think if you really got to know the person, you would feel more comfortable with trusting them with a key to the shop. You shouldn't be afraid to express if you don't trust someone. But one would hope that feeling of untrust is based on their actions, and not stereotypes.
Good luck! Being accepting and conscientious isn't easy work. -momoko
On Tue, Feb 14, 2017 at 11:57 AM, Andrew Shooner ashooner@gmail.com wrote:
Hi all,
Looking for some wisdom on what I think is a pretty deep question for our shop. Quick background: Broke Spoke is a non-profit community bike shop, with a mission to give everyone better access to better bikes, and enable everyone to do their own maintenance. A big part of our community has been a social services campus nearby which includes long-term residency, an overnight shelter, a free cafeteria, and a residential substance abuse rehab program. People from that center use the shop frequently, and are probably the most common group to earn bikes from the shop.
Right now, once you regularly commit to a certain number of hours consistently for 4 months, we provide you a key to the shop, so you can come in on your own time to work on your own stuff and free up open shop hours so you can volunteer. This has always been by invitation rather than an automatic 'upgrade'. We have a small group of regular volunteers from the center some of whom would otherwise qualify for this type of access, but have never been invited.
We're making an effort this winter to reorganize our shop volunteerism to be more inclusive, and the discussion has led to addressing this. Without speaking for others from the shop, I'll share my own thoughts: on one hand, I hate the notion that someone's general economic status could disqualify them from becoming a more involved member of our community. The other side of that is that severe economic stress or a substance abuse problem can have a serious influence on someone's behavior, and it isn't necessarily an individual character judgement to be more cautious about access to our entire shop (~150 bikes, 8 stands, power tools, etc - our whole operation). But that lands you back in a pretty categorically classist conclusion that poor(er) people are inherently less trustworthy in the shop. I also don't like where that logic leads: where do you draw the line?
My gut tells me that the potential benefit in granting someone that trust is worth the risk, but I appreciate the other, more cautious perspective as well. Any thoughts or experiences would be appreciated!
Thanks, Andy Broke Spoke, Lexington KY
The ThinkTank mailing List <a href="http://lists.bikecollectives.org/options.cgi/thethinkt ank-bikecollectives.org">Unsubscribe from this list</a>
---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: momoko saunders analyst@bikefarm.org To: The Think Tank thethinktank@lists.bikecollectives.org Cc: Date: Tue, 14 Feb 2017 12:40:22 -0800 Subject: Re: [TheThinkTank] Big questions about trust, classism, and preconceptions Oops, One last thing I forgot to say.
One of the key reasons someone will be nominated for a key is to hold a shift. We require two key holders for every shift. If the person has been coming regularly to their shift for two months, and there is a need for a 2nd or 3rd key holder on the shift, this is the usual reason someone gets a key. So people don't get them just for showing up every once in a while for two months. They have to show dedication!
Coming to nearly every one of your shifts for 2 months is a requirement that weeds out a lot of the less steady folks. This is a good litmus to evaluate trust.
On Tue, Feb 14, 2017 at 12:33 PM, momoko saunders <analyst@bikefarm.org
wrote:
Andy,
At Bike Farm we have a similar policy. Volunteering for a steady two months can lead to a key. You have to be nominated, and it's the responsibility of the person who nominated you to ensure that you understand the rules of the shop.
We've had a number houseless folks be key holders. Besides the occasional person sleeping at the shop when it's pouring freezing rain outside, we haven't had any issues. But we are still selective of who we nominate.
For example, there's a fellow who's been volunteering for months now. He's super dedicated. But honestly, he displays some paranoid tendencies, and sometimes get's into verbal altercations with others. We vote on who gets a key, and just like all our decisions, anyone can veto a proposal. I would vote "no" if this person came up for key nomination. I have no problems with letting people know why I don't think it would be appropriate.
There are a ton of valid reasons to object to someone's nomination. I hope you and other volunteers feel comfortable enough to express yourselves. At the same time, there are no rules for those valid reasons. Economic status and or past drug use, to me, are not valid reasons to deny someone a key. Try to base your conclusions on their present behaviour, not your assumptions.
It's lucky you get 4 months of time to observe the person in the shop. If after 4 months, you're still not sure if you can trust them, hang out with them more. Try being friends. What's their life like?
It seems like you're searching for a rule to follow, but the reality is that trust is something we develop. Trust is vital for shops like ours to operate.
I think if you really got to know the person, you would feel more comfortable with trusting them with a key to the shop. You shouldn't be afraid to express if you don't trust someone. But one would hope that feeling of untrust is based on their actions, and not stereotypes.
Good luck! Being accepting and conscientious isn't easy work. -momoko
On Tue, Feb 14, 2017 at 11:57 AM, Andrew Shooner ashooner@gmail.com wrote:
Hi all,
Looking for some wisdom on what I think is a pretty deep question for our shop. Quick background: Broke Spoke is a non-profit community bike shop, with a mission to give everyone better access to better bikes, and enable everyone to do their own maintenance. A big part of our community has been a social services campus nearby which includes long-term residency, an overnight shelter, a free cafeteria, and a residential substance abuse rehab program. People from that center use the shop frequently, and are probably the most common group to earn bikes from the shop.
Right now, once you regularly commit to a certain number of hours consistently for 4 months, we provide you a key to the shop, so you can come in on your own time to work on your own stuff and free up open shop hours so you can volunteer. This has always been by invitation rather than an automatic 'upgrade'. We have a small group of regular volunteers from the center some of whom would otherwise qualify for this type of access, but have never been invited.
We're making an effort this winter to reorganize our shop volunteerism to be more inclusive, and the discussion has led to addressing this. Without speaking for others from the shop, I'll share my own thoughts: on one hand, I hate the notion that someone's general economic status could disqualify them from becoming a more involved member of our community. The other side of that is that severe economic stress or a substance abuse problem can have a serious influence on someone's behavior, and it isn't necessarily an individual character judgement to be more cautious about access to our entire shop (~150 bikes, 8 stands, power tools, etc - our whole operation). But that lands you back in a pretty categorically classist conclusion that poor(er) people are inherently less trustworthy in the shop. I also don't like where that logic leads: where do you draw the line?
My gut tells me that the potential benefit in granting someone that trust is worth the risk, but I appreciate the other, more cautious perspective as well. Any thoughts or experiences would be appreciated!
Thanks, Andy Broke Spoke, Lexington KY
The ThinkTank mailing List <a href="http://lists.bikecollectives.org/options.cgi/thethinkt ank-bikecollectives.org">Unsubscribe from this list</a>
Thethinktank mailing list Thethinktank@lists.bikecollectives.org http://lists.bikecollectives.org/listinfo.cgi/thethinktank-b ikecollectives.org
The ThinkTank mailing List <a href="http://lists.bikecollectives.org/options.cgi/thethinkt ank-bikecollectives.org">Unsubscribe from this list</a>
The ThinkTank mailing List <a href="http://lists.bikecollectives.org/options.cgi/ thethinktank-bikecollectives.org">Unsubscribe from this list</a>
The ThinkTank mailing List <a href="http://lists.bikecollectives.org/options.cgi/thethinktank- bikecollectives.org">Unsubscribe from this list</a>
Thanks, good things to think about!
Jane, Falls City Community BikeWorks, Louisville KY
-----Original Message----- From: Heather Nugen hnugen@gmail.com To: thethinktank thethinktank@lists.bikecollectives.org Sent: Tue, Feb 14, 2017 5:01 pm Subject: Re: [TheThinkTank] Big questions about trust, classism, and preconceptions
Hey Andrew,
it sounds to me like you and your collective might want to consider your criteria for key-holdership. If those criteria are not formalized, expressed, and accessible, then people cannot work towards meeting those criteria, and you have established an elite group of key holders that is inaccessible to the majority of your organizations membership base. That will result in the people who "lead" the organization eventually not being representative of the population your organization (presumably) exists to serve.
I don't think that "showing up for x # of hours over x period of time," sounds like it is adequate criteria for someone to be given access, which means there are other (likely currently unstated) criteria that determine whether someone is worthy of the privilege of a key. Rather than ask people to just be more trusting, I would consider doing an activity that names the other criteria (as well as consequences for violating norms), and then make them available generally. This allows people to demonstrate their abilities to meet those criteria-- regardless of income, housing, or addiction history. -Heather
On Tue, Feb 14, 2017 at 4:12 PM, thethinktank-request@lists.bikecollectives.org wrote:
Send Thethinktank mailing list submissions to thethinktank@lists.bikecollectives.org
To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit http://lists.bikecollectives.org/listinfo.cgi/thethinktank-bikecollectives.o...
or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to thethinktank-request@lists.bikecollectives.org
You can reach the person managing the list at thethinktank-owner@lists.bikecollectives.org
When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific than "Re: Contents of Thethinktank digest..."
Today's Topics:
- Big questions about trust, classism, and preconceptions (Andrew Shooner)
- Re: Big questions about trust, classism, and preconceptions (momoko saunders)
- Re: Big questions about trust, classism, and preconceptions (momoko saunders)
---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Andrew Shooner ashooner@gmail.com To: The Think Tank thethinktank@lists.bikecollectives.org Cc: Date: Tue, 14 Feb 2017 14:57:27 -0500 Subject: [TheThinkTank] Big questions about trust, classism, and preconceptions
Hi all,
Looking for some wisdom on what I think is a pretty deep question for our shop. Quick background: Broke Spoke is a non-profit community bike shop, with a mission to give everyone better access to better bikes, and enable everyone to do their own maintenance. A big part of our community has been a social services campus nearby which includes long-term residency, an overnight shelter, a free cafeteria, and a residential substance abuse rehab program. People from that center use the shop frequently, and are probably the most common group to earn bikes from the shop.
Right now, once you regularly commit to a certain number of hours consistently for 4 months, we provide you a key to the shop, so you can come in on your own time to work on your own stuff and free up open shop hours so you can volunteer. This has always been by invitation rather than an automatic 'upgrade'. We have a small group of regular volunteers from the center some of whom would otherwise qualify for this type of access, but have never been invited.
We're making an effort this winter to reorganize our shop volunteerism to be more inclusive, and the discussion has led to addressing this. Without speaking for others from the shop, I'll share my own thoughts: on one hand, I hate the notion that someone's general economic status could disqualify them from becoming a more involved member of our community. The other side of that is that severe economic stress or a substance abuse problem can have a serious influence on someone's behavior, and it isn't necessarily an individual character judgement to be more cautious about access to our entire shop (~150 bikes, 8 stands, power tools, etc - our whole operation). But that lands you back in a pretty categorically classist conclusion that poor(er) people are inherently less trustworthy in the shop. I also don't like where that logic leads: where do you draw the line?
My gut tells me that the potential benefit in granting someone that trust is worth the risk, but I appreciate the other, more cautious perspective as well. Any thoughts or experiences would be appreciated!
Thanks, Andy Broke Spoke, Lexington KY
---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: momoko saunders analyst@bikefarm.org To: The Think Tank thethinktank@lists.bikecollectives.org Cc: Date: Tue, 14 Feb 2017 12:33:30 -0800 Subject: Re: [TheThinkTank] Big questions about trust, classism, and preconceptions
Andy,
At Bike Farm we have a similar policy. Volunteering for a steady two months can lead to a key. You have to be nominated, and it's the responsibility of the person who nominated you to ensure that you understand the rules of the shop.
We've had a number houseless folks be key holders. Besides the occasional person sleeping at the shop when it's pouring freezing rain outside, we haven't had any issues. But we are still selective of who we nominate.
For example, there's a fellow who's been volunteering for months now. He's super dedicated. But honestly, he displays some paranoid tendencies, and sometimes get's into verbal altercations with others. We vote on who gets a key, and just like all our decisions, anyone can veto a proposal. I would vote "no" if this person came up for key nomination. I have no problems with letting people know why I don't think it would be appropriate.
There are a ton of valid reasons to object to someone's nomination. I hope you and other volunteers feel comfortable enough to express yourselves. At the same time, there are no rules for those valid reasons. Economic status and or past drug use, to me, are not valid reasons to deny someone a key. Try to base your conclusions on their present behaviour, not your assumptions.
It's lucky you get 4 months of time to observe the person in the shop. If after 4 months, you're still not sure if you can trust them, hang out with them more. Try being friends. What's their life like?
It seems like you're searching for a rule to follow, but the reality is that trust is something we develop. Trust is vital for shops like ours to operate.
I think if you really got to know the person, you would feel more comfortable with trusting them with a key to the shop. You shouldn't be afraid to express if you don't trust someone. But one would hope that feeling of untrust is based on their actions, and not stereotypes.
Good luck! Being accepting and conscientious isn't easy work. -momoko
On Tue, Feb 14, 2017 at 11:57 AM, Andrew Shooner ashooner@gmail.com wrote:
Hi all,
Looking for some wisdom on what I think is a pretty deep question for our shop. Quick background: Broke Spoke is a non-profit community bike shop, with a mission to give everyone better access to better bikes, and enable everyone to do their own maintenance. A big part of our community has been a social services campus nearby which includes long-term residency, an overnight shelter, a free cafeteria, and a residential substance abuse rehab program. People from that center use the shop frequently, and are probably the most common group to earn bikes from the shop.
Right now, once you regularly commit to a certain number of hours consistently for 4 months, we provide you a key to the shop, so you can come in on your own time to work on your own stuff and free up open shop hours so you can volunteer. This has always been by invitation rather than an automatic 'upgrade'. We have a small group of regular volunteers from the center some of whom would otherwise qualify for this type of access, but have never been invited.
We're making an effort this winter to reorganize our shop volunteerism to be more inclusive, and the discussion has led to addressing this. Without speaking for others from the shop, I'll share my own thoughts: on one hand, I hate the notion that someone's general economic status could disqualify them from becoming a more involved member of our community. The other side of that is that severe economic stress or a substance abuse problem can have a serious influence on someone's behavior, and it isn't necessarily an individual character judgement to be more cautious about access to our entire shop (~150 bikes, 8 stands, power tools, etc - our whole operation). But that lands you back in a pretty categorically classist conclusion that poor(er) people are inherently less trustworthy in the shop. I also don't like where that logic leads: where do you draw the line?
My gut tells me that the potential benefit in granting someone that trust is worth the risk, but I appreciate the other, more cautious perspective as well. Any thoughts or experiences would be appreciated!
Thanks, Andy Broke Spoke, Lexington KY
The ThinkTank mailing List <a href="http://lists.bikecollectives.org/options.cgi/thethinktank-bikecollectives.org">Unsubscribe from this list</a>
---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: momoko saunders analyst@bikefarm.org To: The Think Tank thethinktank@lists.bikecollectives.org Cc: Date: Tue, 14 Feb 2017 12:40:22 -0800 Subject: Re: [TheThinkTank] Big questions about trust, classism, and preconceptions
Oops, One last thing I forgot to say.
One of the key reasons someone will be nominated for a key is to hold a shift. We require two key holders for every shift. If the person has been coming regularly to their shift for two months, and there is a need for a 2nd or 3rd key holder on the shift, this is the usual reason someone gets a key. So people don't get them just for showing up every once in a while for two months. They have to show dedication!
Coming to nearly every one of your shifts for 2 months is a requirement that weeds out a lot of the less steady folks. This is a good litmus to evaluate trust.
On Tue, Feb 14, 2017 at 12:33 PM, momoko saunders analyst@bikefarm.org wrote:
Andy,
At Bike Farm we have a similar policy. Volunteering for a steady two months can lead to a key. You have to be nominated, and it's the responsibility of the person who nominated you to ensure that you understand the rules of the shop.
We've had a number houseless folks be key holders. Besides the occasional person sleeping at the shop when it's pouring freezing rain outside, we haven't had any issues. But we are still selective of who we nominate.
For example, there's a fellow who's been volunteering for months now. He's super dedicated. But honestly, he displays some paranoid tendencies, and sometimes get's into verbal altercations with others. We vote on who gets a key, and just like all our decisions, anyone can veto a proposal. I would vote "no" if this person came up for key nomination. I have no problems with letting people know why I don't think it would be appropriate.
There are a ton of valid reasons to object to someone's nomination. I hope you and other volunteers feel comfortable enough to express yourselves. At the same time, there are no rules for those valid reasons. Economic status and or past drug use, to me, are not valid reasons to deny someone a key. Try to base your conclusions on their present behaviour, not your assumptions.
It's lucky you get 4 months of time to observe the person in the shop. If after 4 months, you're still not sure if you can trust them, hang out with them more. Try being friends. What's their life like?
It seems like you're searching for a rule to follow, but the reality is that trust is something we develop. Trust is vital for shops like ours to operate.
I think if you really got to know the person, you would feel more comfortable with trusting them with a key to the shop. You shouldn't be afraid to express if you don't trust someone. But one would hope that feeling of untrust is based on their actions, and not stereotypes.
Good luck! Being accepting and conscientious isn't easy work. -momoko
On Tue, Feb 14, 2017 at 11:57 AM, Andrew Shooner ashooner@gmail.com wrote:
Hi all,
Looking for some wisdom on what I think is a pretty deep question for our shop. Quick background: Broke Spoke is a non-profit community bike shop, with a mission to give everyone better access to better bikes, and enable everyone to do their own maintenance. A big part of our community has been a social services campus nearby which includes long-term residency, an overnight shelter, a free cafeteria, and a residential substance abuse rehab program. People from that center use the shop frequently, and are probably the most common group to earn bikes from the shop.
Right now, once you regularly commit to a certain number of hours consistently for 4 months, we provide you a key to the shop, so you can come in on your own time to work on your own stuff and free up open shop hours so you can volunteer. This has always been by invitation rather than an automatic 'upgrade'. We have a small group of regular volunteers from the center some of whom would otherwise qualify for this type of access, but have never been invited.
We're making an effort this winter to reorganize our shop volunteerism to be more inclusive, and the discussion has led to addressing this. Without speaking for others from the shop, I'll share my own thoughts: on one hand, I hate the notion that someone's general economic status could disqualify them from becoming a more involved member of our community. The other side of that is that severe economic stress or a substance abuse problem can have a serious influence on someone's behavior, and it isn't necessarily an individual character judgement to be more cautious about access to our entire shop (~150 bikes, 8 stands, power tools, etc - our whole operation). But that lands you back in a pretty categorically classist conclusion that poor(er) people are inherently less trustworthy in the shop. I also don't like where that logic leads: where do you draw the line?
My gut tells me that the potential benefit in granting someone that trust is worth the risk, but I appreciate the other, more cautious perspective as well. Any thoughts or experiences would be appreciated!
Thanks, Andy Broke Spoke, Lexington KY
The ThinkTank mailing List <a href="http://lists.bikecollectives.org/options.cgi/thethinktank-bikecollectives.org">Unsubscribe from this list</a>
Thethinktank mailing list Thethinktank@lists.bikecollectives.org http://lists.bikecollectives.org/listinfo.cgi/thethinktank-bikecollectives.o...
The ThinkTank mailing List <a href="http://lists.bikecollectives.org/options.cgi/thethinktank-bikecollectives.org">Unsubscribe from this list</a>
participants (5)
-
Andrew Shooner -
DancesWithCars -
Heather Nugen -
Jane Halliday -
momoko saunders