The North State Brewers' Cooperative

Contact: 315 N. State Street, Ann Arbor, MI 48104
nsbc@umich.edu

established 1997

const-minutes /

Constitutional Convention North State Brewers Cooperative June 2nd, 1997

Meeting called to order at 7:13 in the basement of Mich House.

Present: Chris Schwartz, Ken Ferris, Charlie Remsen, Ben Kelly, Mike Feld, Willie Northway, Michael Campbell, Matt Ostasiewski, Michael Janson

The Agenda was reviewed, and an informal procedure was agreed upon but with some order.

[Charlie] read Article One.

[Ken] questioned collegiate emphasis in Article Two.

[Chris] was concerned as well, relating his experiences at the Birkenstock store.

[Ben] questioned the meaning of 'collegiate.'

[Michael J] indicated that the proposed document had been modeled on the Mich House Constitution.

[Charlie] argued that the phrase was unnecessarily narrow, with such a purpose the Co-op would not be able to distribute to others.

[Willie] asked what is the primary purpose? do we need a license?

[Ken] indicated that the Co-op should be legal.

[Michael J] suggested that we lay the purpose aside because we were unprepared to decide at this point, the rest of the constitution would help us decide the purpose.

[Willie] objected, indicating that we should finalize the purpose, because from the purpose the rest of the document would flow.

[Mike F, Ben, and Ken] seconded that the purpose should be laid aside.

[Chris] liked the idea of laying the purpose aside, and indicated that long term goals could be worked out later.

[Ben] argued not to rule anything out.

[Chris] moved to strike "collegiate students of cooperation."

This was accepted by all.

[Ben] read Article One with the new wording.

[Chris] indicated that the article sounded complete.

[Matt O] questioned if the wording was adding an age restriction.

[Charlie] said that as worded, the document could exclude on age.

[Matt O] asked what the law was.

[Chris] indicated that one could not brew until 21.

[Willie] said that at home, you just need water.

[Chris] argued that it did not make it right - Matt's was a good point. Federal law was one hundred gallons a year.

[Ben] raised the issue of state law.

[Michael J] commented that the Co-op was going to need founding fathers.

[Ken] asked how legal the document was.

[Chris] said that the document was for ourselves.

[Ken] wondered if this was dangerous.

[Charlie and Mike F] argued that age issues were not needed.

[Mike F] questioned why the document would even mention age.

[Ben] indicated that age qualifications could lead to discrimination.

[Michael J] argued that the age aspect did not matter.

[Charlie] argued for deleting the age section, because it was implicit.

[Mike F] asked about including mental disabilities.

[Willie] questioned whether or not the document should list at all.

[Chris] called for consensus.

[Ben] proposed to include a disclaimer.

[Mike F] asked whether or not such a disclaimer would be unconstitutional.

[Michael J] proposed to strike the list of who would not be discriminated against.

[Chris] argued that the answer needed to be concrete - let's table the matter.

[Michael J] moved to table the age issue until consideration of the standing rules.

The motion passed.

[Chris] read Article Two, sections one and two.

They were agreed upon.

[Mike C] read Section Three.

[Ben] moved to table Section Three.

[Michael J] said that such action would be unfriendly.

[Charlie] objected as well.

[Ben] indicated that supporting the drinking age would violate neutrality.

[Mike C] argued that drinking did not violate the neutrality of the Co-op. The Co-op was not taking a stand either way.

[Chris] said that the drinking age and neutrality were separate issues.

The Section was agreed upon.

[Michael J] read Section Four.

The Section was agreed upon.

[Mike F] read Section Five.

The Section was agreed upon.

[Charlie] was concerned about the exclusion of beer. Should not the education be about brewing?

[Mike F] proposed to include home brewing in the education section.

[Michael J] proposed that the section read, "economic, democratic and in the art of home brewing."

[Charlie] objected to the inclusion of economic and democratic. This was a beer Co-op.

[Ken] spoke in favor of keeping the economic and democratic parts in.

[Charlie] argued that the Co-op should not spend time on the economic and democratic parts of the cooperative movement.

[Willie] indicated that the document needed to be simple or the Co-op would not succeed.

[Charlie] wondered whether art or craft would be more appropriate.

[Ben] proposed entering a semi-colon in Section five.

The motion did not carry.

[Michael J] read the proposal with the "craft" addition.

The Section was agreed upon.

[Matt O] read Section Six.

The Section was agreed upon.

[Willie] read Section Seven.

The Section was agreed upon.

[Charlie] suggested including "and home brewing."

[Charlie] proposed adding "and home brewing in all its manifestations."

[Michael J] proposed just adding "and home brewing"

The Motion carried.

The Section was agreed upon.

[Ken] red Article Three, Section One.

[Ben] though we had already changed that section

[Chris] asked that all delegates raise their hand before speaking

[Michael J] moved to strike the enumeration of who

Motion was carried

[Laura S] read section Two

The Section was agreed upon.

[Charlie] read section two, Article three.

[Mike F] questioned how the article worked with our principle of open membership - should we vote people in or not?

[Charlie] proposed to skip the open membership clause.

[Michael J] proposed to keep the two clauses, although the points were well taken.

[Ben] Ditto, eligibility did not mean actual membership.

[Charlie] argued that there was a serious conflict between the two clauses, and proposed to add, "in consideration" so that the line would read, "eligible for consideration for membership."

[Charlie] amended his proposal to read, "shall be eligible to join upon approval of the membership."

[Ken] indicated that the amendment would be redundant and advocated keeping it the way it was.

[Mike F] supported the "voting in" procedure

[Laura S] question the prudence of voting people in or out.

[Charlie] called the question.

The original wording passed.

[Chris] read section 1, article IV.

[Willie] thought it was fine.

[Mike F] proposed to add a "Barkeep" position to make sure everyone had beer while brewing.

[Ken] thought that every should get their own beer.

[Charlie] was not opposed to the Barkeep idea, but questioned whether or not we really needed one.

[Ben] moved to table approval of the offices until we dealt with the description of duties.

Section One was so tabled.

[Ben] read section two.

[Mike F] asked what the Brewmeister would be doing.

[Willie] was concerned about the descriptions being so far away from the offices.

[Michael J] indicated that Robert's Rules described this kind of constitutional set-up

The section was agreed upon.

[Chris] read Article five.

[Mike F] was unsure of the merits of the approval process.

[Chris] mentioned the possibility of the brewmeister being hit by a truck, was there a procedure for succession?

[Willie] supported a size limit to the committee, so someone couldn't go appointment happy.

[Charlie] did not like the idea of giving the executive more power.

[Willie] was worried the committee would get to big.

[Ben] thought the procedure would be checked by the house.

[Willie] proposed that the exec committee be no larger than 1/3 the Co-op and no smaller than 1/4 the Co-op.

[Matt O] pointed out that the exec committee had four positions already, should it be no smaller than 4 and no larger than 1/3?

[Charlie] argued that since the membership would be fluid, it would be difficult to keep a tab on the exact amount of members at any one time.

[Ben] clunkiness was the primary concern, the number of officers would be fine.

[Willie] the committee would be needed for special issues.

[Charlie] there could be a problem with too few people.

[Chris] moved to table this section until we had dealt with more membership details - membership is what you chip in.

[Michael J] the section was not that complex, lets vote now.

[Ben] offered that the committee comprise of the officers and two others.

[Charlie] asked what that meant.

[Willie] Retracted his proposal in favor of Ben's.

[Ben] clarified his proposal. proposal was minimum is the officers, and maximum who is appointed.

[Charlie] why do that?

[Mike F] moved to amend Ben's proposal.

Ben's proposal passed

[Mike C] read article six.

[Charlie] moved to strike once and add "at least."

Charlie's proposal was accepted and the article was agreed upon.

[Michael J] read article seven.

[Willie] questioned the merits of the ten day provision.

[Michael J] argued that since the constitution would be streamlined, there would not be a need to change it regularly, and if changes had to be made, they could wait.

[Charlie] brought up the point that not all members would be living together, where would amendments be posted?

[Michael J] resubmitted the article striking posted and adding "distributed"

[Ben] said that if the procedure was too clunky, it wouldn't work.

[Matt O] asked what a referendum was.

[Chris] called for a vote.

The article was so approved.

Five minute break.

Reconvened.

[Michael J] moved to take from the table the purpose and the offices.

Proposal passed.

[Chris] read Article two, section one.

It was agreed upon

[Chris] read the list of offices.

[Michael J] moved that the convention consider the bylaw descriptions first and then come immediately back.

It was agreed upon.

[Chris] read the descriptions.

[Willie] does the Chief Catalyst go to the store?

[Chris] CC is important - finances - lots of work

Section passed.

[Chris] read section two.

[Willie] proposed to amend the Scribe's duties to include email lists.

Amendment carried.

[Michael J] proposed to amend the Scribe's duties to include the Co-op Web Page.

[Matt O] was concerned that this might hinder people without computer skills from doing the job.

[Michael J] said that the Scribe could delegate such duties.

Amendment carried.

[Michael J] proposed to amend the Scribe's duties to include care of the Co-op library.

Amendment carried.

[Chris] mentioned the journal of beer processes.

[Mike C] was concerned the the record of Co-op brews would not be adequately done.

[Chris] asked how people felt about recording Co-op brewing processes.

[Mike C] said that such recording was very important, it was important so that brews would get better, we wouldn't make the same mistakes twice, and we'd be able to brew good brews again.

[Willie] who'll record?

[Matt O] article two, section one, distribution of benefits - who's in charge?

Section passed.

[Chris] read Quartermaster's description.

[Charlie] moved to reconsider the Scribe and add a provision for keeping and distributing notes.

It was so agreed.

[Matt O] finances are touchy - if the Quartermaster and the Chief Catalyst both have fiduciary responsibilities, would there be a conflict? shouldn't it be consolidated?

[Michael J] clarified the intent of the proposal.

[Charlie] said the Matt's point was well taken, one person, one knowledge, it would be good to keep it together.

[Mike F] did not like the idea of someone having the money and also in charge of purchasing.

Matt O's proposal passed.

[Chris] read the Brewmeister description.

There was a brief discussion about money and democracy.

The proposal passed.

The Convention returned to the Constitution proper.

A roll call vote was held on the Ratification of the Constitution. The Constitution could only be ratified by a unanimous vote.

The vote was as follows:

The North State Brewers Cooperative Constitution was ratified.

[Michael J] moved that committee be formed on the bylaws and that the Constitutional Convention adjourn.

The Bylaw Committee was formed, comprising Chris, Ben, Mike Feld, and Charlie.

[Ben] mentioned the possibility of joining the ICC.

[Mike F and Michael J] moved that a Temporary Co-op Manager be appointed and that $4 be collected from everyone.

The motion was carried.

Nominations were held, Chris was nominated. Nominations were closed.

Chris was elected Temporary Co-op Manager.

Convention Adjourned at 9:10 pm.

Minutes taken and typed by Michael J.