It has been brought up recently that it may be highly irregular and potentially unethical to have board members that collect payment for classes taught through the makerspace considering the fact that the board sets the policies on instructor payments, among other issues. I am no expert on the matter, but from my research into how DMS operates I know that they do not allow their board members to be paid for classes while they serve and for a year afterwards. I think that any change to our policy on this matter should be guided by input from an expert, but I’m curious if you would still seek a board position if it was determined that board members could not collect payment for teaching classes. You are certainly our most prolific instructor, so this would affect you the most, though it would apply to others as well.
I heard this come up as well. While i an unsure of the actual rules, I look forward to finding out. I don’t see how me teaching a class and being paid as a member has anything to do with me being on the board. This would obviously affect multiple people on the board. I am running for the board because i believe we need to push for change. If I don’t like how things are run, I should step up to the plate and try for myself. While I would run either way, not allowing members teaching a class to be paid would potentially stop me from teaching most if not all of the classes I currently teach.
I would like to see this question sent to everyone so we can gather thoughts.
That actually would be a good question for all the folks on the board as there are many of us who do classes. I think it could potentially be a conflict of interest if we needed to change the current payment schemes. That is one of the things that burns me about congress having that power. Not sure what the solution is though… some of our more prolific trainers are or have been on the board.
What techniques and tools do you use to keep yourself organized?
I use my phone and laptop for staying up to date on meetings, classes, etc. I have created my own class structures and curriculum while keeping different levels of experience in mind. I also do hands on checking of inventory levels on thing i may need for the metalshop including welding wire, Tips, Grinding wheels, drill bits, bandsaw blades, welding gases etc.
The conflict of issue on setting class prices seems easy to work around. Affected board members can simply recuse themselves from voting on price change proposals. Or a separate committee could be established to determine pricing. It would hurt more than help if qualified instructors could not be paid to teach just because they are on the board.
Worst case it should only affect payments for required safety classes, not optional classes.
If you could change three things about yourself, what would they be?
I wish I was a little bit taller, I wish I was a baller
I wish I had a girl who looked good, I would call her
I wish I had a rabbit in a hat with a bat
And a six four Impala
Just wanted to say I’ve also heard about the class pricing/conflict of interest payment.
I voted for the safety class instructors to start being paid $15/hr for safety classes and I also teach the laser quick authorization class which is the free path, so I’m going to ask for records to see if I was paid for those and return it if I was. I don’t think I ever put in for it. I didn’t think about it at the time, but I do want us to be more careful about conflicts of interest.
Another way payments would be unethical is if it were tied to our status as board members, ie we got checks that regular members could not. But teaching classes is an opportunity offered to anyone. I think it’s fair to say that both JB and I would be happy to let other people teach classes, I’ve tried to give away laser basics a number of times, I don’t think he’d have hard feelings if other folks wanted to teach things in the metalshop either, amiright?
After multiple tirades about the importance of these questions I’m surprised you take this so lightly
Honestly its hard to take you serious, most of your postings are jokes… Lighten up, I thought you got rid of your stress?
@JeremiahB If you could change two things about yourself to better serve MakeICT and it’s members, what would they be?
@JeremiahB, at several board meetings this year you were very offensive and wanted to arbitrarily change policies that have been working for quite awhile. Are you generally against a steady state? Please explain.
Its time for change, I will fight tooth and nail to get a new building, rewrite the bylaws, and unclutter the makerspace. Our website needs updated, new pictures, and updated info. including the wiki. I am against doing nothing, or just talking about it for months at a time. Why stop when we can always improve.
As the Vice Presidents role is defined as communications. What would you do to improve the communications at MakeICT?
You’ve been welcome to update the website, take new pictures, update info, including the wiki. I can show you how to do those things, as they are already democratized. You can draft new bylaws, search for a new building, and unclutter the makerspace. I don’t see anything stopping you. If there is something stopping you, we will do our best to remove those obstacles.
From one board meeting I’ve been too this season, I can see why @KezC is saying what she’s saying. Your contribution and detraction seemed about balanced. Some of your contributions were communicative, I do remember.
Why was Jeremiah’s post about being a Christian Flagged?
I mean, I know that some don’t like to discuss Politics and Religion in the space but that’s like flagging one of Dom’s posts for him stating he’s a Vegan…
I’m just using that as an example but find it weird that someone flagged that post…
It was hidden because the contents (past personal arguments) were irrelevant and counterproductive. The specifics of the argument are immaterial.
So what you’re saying is that now your deciding what is and isn’t relevant in a candidates responses to a post on their own thread?
Seems a bit of a stretch for an admin to do that in a Political Debate…
That response actually gave me some insight, that even I didn’t know. Told me how he feels about this person and that he chooses not to respond back to that person because of prior conflict. Also told me why…
A person’s beliefs can play a big part in how someone votes and he feels that this certain person has something against him because of those beliefs.
I see no rules of engagement on the forums that a candidate must directly answer anyone here. And if they do answer, in a legitimate manner, then I don’t think you should have the power as admin to withhold that because of the way you feel about the answer.
Jeremiah, chose to respond in a manner that explained his reasoning to not answer a certain person here on the forums…
So, as a voting member, I request that you un-flag it and let it stand as a response that can be seen.
If [someone] had only stated generically that he was not going to respond to anyone that had [insert principled reason here], and not named a name, or if he had flagged the post he objected to, instead of replying to it, then probably the FAQ/Guidelines would not have been invoked. But, really, the Terms of Service absolutely give Administrators the right to remove posts, block accounts, with or without reason, and with or without notice at any time. The site feedback category is where any further discussion should take place about flagging of posts, who can do so, or what justification (if any) is needed.
Oops, good thing I checked. Somehow we did not have the site feedback category, but if I did it correctly it now exists.