Protocol for processing developer proposals

[PJ Santos]

Hello All, 

At our last board meeting, we discussed defining a procedure for how we should handle incoming proposals from developers. Robert's Rules are a bit unwieldy for making decisions, and we've all experienced some surprises with how parliamentary procedure has developed in some of our meetings. Writing out a set of steps that we'll follow will help eliminate confusion as more projects come our way. 

Another consideration is that not every project will be as impactful or controversial as Copper Mill, and we'll want an orderly way to handle these smaller proposals. 

I don't think this is something we'll want to codify (yet) into our bylaws, as we'll likely learn the best way to operate as we grow as an organization. However, I'd be much more comfortable knowing we aren't flying by the seat of our pants! At this point, we want to get feedback from folks on the email list + at upcoming meetings, and if we think the membership is supportive the board will vote to adopt the policy (with suggested modifications) at an upcoming meeting. 

Here's a rough set of steps the board came up with: 

• Step 0: Developer may meet with the board to be introduced to the DSNC
• Step 1: Developer presents their project at a general meeting
• Step 2: Membership provides feedback both in-person and online
• Step 3: Board votes on course of action. Possibilities include "write letter of support", "write letter of opposition", "secure an MOU, then support", "pursue a CBA"
• Step 4: If the board vote is unanimous, then the action is taken. If it is not unanimous, then the board will put the question to the membership via OpaVote

What does everyone think? This is far from set in stone at this point, but adding some structure will help us as an organization. 

Best, 

PJ

[David Booth]

Seems okay to me. It would certainly improve DSNC efficiency for
development proposals that seem to have widespread membership support,
thus allowing more member meeting time for other issues.

Thanks,
David

On 9/21/26 21:38, PJ Santos wrote:
> Hello All,
>
> At our last board meeting, we discussed defining a procedure for how we
> should handle incoming proposals from developers. Robert's Rules are a
> bit unwieldy for making decisions, and we've all experienced some
> surprises with how parliamentary procedure has developed in some of our
> meetings. Writing out a set of steps that we'll follow will help
> eliminate confusion as more projects come our way.
>
> Another consideration is that not every project will be as impactful or
> controversial as Copper Mill, and we'll want an orderly way to handle
> these smaller proposals.
>
> I don't think this is something we'll want to codify (yet) into our
> bylaws, as we'll likely learn the best way to operate as we grow as an
> organization. However, I'd be much more comfortable knowing we aren't
> flying by the seat of our pants! At this point, we want to get feedback
> from folks on the email list + at upcoming meetings, and if we think the
> membership is supportive the board will vote to adopt the policy (with
> suggested modifications) at an upcoming meeting.
>
> Here's a rough set of steps the board came up with:
>

> * Step 0: Developer may meet with the board to be introduced to the DSNC
> * Step 1: Developer presents their project at a general meeting
> * Step 2: Membership provides feedback both in-person and online
> * Step 3: Board votes on course of action. Possibilities include

> "write letter of support", "write letter of opposition", "secure an
> MOU, then support", "pursue a CBA"

> * Step 4: If the board vote is unanimous, then the action is taken. If

> it is not unanimous, then the board will put the question to the
> membership via OpaVote
>
>
> What does everyone think? This is far from set in stone at this point,
> but adding some structure will help us as an organization.
>
> Best,
> PJ
>

> --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
> Groups "DSNC Discussion" group.
> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send
> an email to dsnc-discussi...@googlegroups.com <mailto:dsnc-
> discussion+...@googlegroups.com>.
> To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/dsnc-
> discussion/
> CAEDUMSwU2cBnVxJyi%2BHmrcQPGwZminGS55DpzBqvjhCq6RUgbQ%40mail.gmail.com
> <https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/dsnc-discussion/
> CAEDUMSwU2cBnVxJyi%2BHmrcQPGwZminGS55DpzBqvjhCq6RUgbQ%40mail.gmail.com?
> utm_medium=email&utm_source=footer>.

[Ashish Shrestha]

I would push back against the requirement for a board vote to be unanimous.  The point of the board is to operate as an executive body able to get things done in a timely manner and in place of the general body, with a more well-informed read of the situation.  That is the point of electing a representative board.  Immediately pushing every question to the general body at the whim of a single board member defeats that purpose.

This constant requirement for direct-democracy and every task being addressed at a once-a-month meeting with nearly 100 people in attendance with the ability to take the mic and derail a meeting is how we've gotten ourselves into the several messes that have been the last few meetings.  We're still addressing items from two meetings ago.

Furthermore, we've seen the degree to which people do not read the notes we've provided for Bylaws meetings, and then come in asking what we're even voting on.  People are even less likely to read the technical documentation from a developer going over financing, environmental impact studies, zoning issues, etc.  

I think the board should be able to take these with a simple majority vote to gather more information than those of us who are less-engaged, act more expediently, and operate in their capacity as representatives.

To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to dsnc-discussi...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/dsnc-discussion/dba3bd9d-30ce-4c5e-83b7-4f784ddb236d%40dbooth.org.

[Tomas Bok]

Ashish, I completely disagree. The nomination and election process for board members was rushed and wafer-thin on process. At no point was it stated or implied that we were electing a group authorized to speak for the broader Davis Square community regarding support for / opposition to specific development projects. I appreciate everyone on the board for their hard work in running this organization, but they do not speak for Davis Square. The etiquette letter (specifically how it characterized the general behavior at the Copper Mill meeting) is an example of overreach that I hope is never repeated.

To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/dsnc-discussion/CAMQNHnxJqB48BhnihV8HM9bq_F_G6Cc4jQM_xsaXi2qzqmhr-Q%40mail.gmail.com.

[Colin McMillen]

Tomas, I find it hard to agree with you that the election process was "rushed" or "wafer-thin". This year's was the second DSNC board-member election, and the process was specified well in advance (via the bylaws that had been ratified the year before and many communications on this list from the elections committee). There were membership verification meetings multiple times a week for the two-and-half months leading up to the election. There was a voter's guide with questionnaire responses from all candidates. It's really not clear what could possibly have done to make the process more clear. 

To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/dsnc-discussion/CAJHkxwZQyo-Y39zB4BHNYiuGt8WpO6zXFaHpaKuHOhrDpC1F_Q%40mail.gmail.com.

[Rebecca Rogers]

Tomas,

I'm sorry to hear that you weren't satisfied with the nomination and election process this past year.  The Election Committee is always looking for feedback on what worked and what didn't (and also for more volunteers to help out!).  The committee would love to hear more specifics about your feedback (and we'd also welcome your help if you're interested in volunteering).

The Election Committee did create a retrospective report looking at lessons learned from the 2026 Board Election based on the feedback we received back in April.  Not sure that it addresses your specific concerns because I don't think we heard from you back then.  But if you'd like your ideas to be included in future plans for improvement please write them up and share any suggestions.  The more specific the better!  You can send suggestions directly to me (rebe...@gmail.com) and I'll pass them along to the committee.

Thanks,

--Rebecca (Election Committee Chair)

To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/dsnc-discussion/CAJHkxwZQyo-Y39zB4BHNYiuGt8WpO6zXFaHpaKuHOhrDpC1F_Q%40mail.gmail.com.

[PJ Santos]

Ashish, I totally see your point. The same membership that proportionally elected the board would be the same membership that would be voting on proposals that the board isn't unanimous on - that does sound pretty redundant. We explicitly wanted this to be a "policy", not a bylaw, if this ends up being a bad idea that causes more confusion and chaos instead of less, then we can adjust! 

For now, it seems like the lowest hanging fruit is to grab things we largely agree upon and execute on them instead of trying to navigate opaque parliamentary rules at a general meeting.

To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/dsnc-discussion/ae6ede4e-be40-4549-9b80-6a6707f4491f%40app.fastmail.com.