06/19/18 Meeting Notes
Meeting schedule 8:30 PM CST
Adjourned 10:21 PM CST
Attendees:
Ben Helgeson
Devin Reimers
Diana Winsor
Ben Glicker
Rebecca Robinson
Brendan Meiners
JP Prentis (Non-Member)
Pahyum Asgari (Non-Member)
Business:
Clan Preparation
Ben H - Recommendations on looking for things to present to the IKCoM in regards to AIBoD.
Ben G - We should swiftly present to them the board of director ethics document and AI’s standards of Facebook group communication policies.
JP - The IKCoM needs to re-ratify the bylaws that actually structure how the IKCoM functions now.
Ben G will be writing up a document that discusses this for review.
The board discusses different methods of allowing more transparency for AIBoD meetings. This includes allowing kingdom monarchs the ability to listen in to meetings. There are business parts of the meeting which would need to be sanitized in a closed portion of the meeting for reasons such as legal situations.
In general the board is looking for ways to open up listening portions of the meeting to make them more accessible.
AI Facebook Engagement
Ben G - I’d like to have some policies in place that address how the AIBoD works with our volunteers.
The first is when talking about hard topics to put content warnings on these topics.
Second when we are putting up things that are policies, such as something aggressive that addresses Amtgard as whole we should give the moderators some form of head’s up. Not necessarily a time frame but to perhaps check with them if they prepared or what they need to be prepared.
Third part to add here is that these conversations happen. But if policies in place will get in the way of these hard discussions than we should review those policies.
Devin - Full agreement in this case. We need to make sure hard discussions can occur.
Ben G - It is critical we have a policies to make sure these posts happen but we need to make sure that we aren’t blindsiding folks.
Brendan - When an AIBoD member goes to the public with concerns there needs to be a way to do so as a non-board member.
Ben G - The challenge is we have power as board members even when not speaking as board members.
Brendan - The difference is if we were to speak out in [direct usage of board power] such as to “dissolve a contract” that is acting as a board member. But to say [not usage of board power] something such as “people please encourage your monarchs to do something” that is not acting with the power of a board member. This is someone asking the kingdom monarchs to do something.
Devin - A heavy education campaign would be good that would help people understand what all the board members can do.
The board has some discussion on this. Such as whether or not creating flowcharts or documents may be useful.
The board discusses various ways AIBoD members should be bringing up situations on Facebook. Such as should they go to their monarchs instead of directly going to the people. Or should the AIBoD instead bring concerns up to the IKCoM as a whole. Though there is thought of how that itself could be an abuse of power.
Ben G - If someone on the board is about to post something that may return inflammatory responses, it just would be good if we can have a way to be prepared. The AIBoD and volunteers don’t want to be blindsided. The members have a great deal of influence. This is not just necessarily about only Brennon but AI members as a whole.
CK Recap
Ben H - Let’s get into the CK recap. Anything in particular folks want to discuss?
Brendan - I wrote the CK statement and didn’t feel there was anything objectionable in it.
Ben H - If those in the sanction in the group can follow up on this please.
Ben G - I have reached out to some experts in their fields on this. Such as the mass shooting threat and the sexual harassment threat. I’d like to present these to CK for what to do as essentially in an HR sense.
Brendan - Have we talked to law enforcement?
[In general various members concur with the suggestion of speaking with law enforcement for advisement.]
Ben G - Consensus seems to be that AI encourages the IKCoM to ban the person making the threat? Is that reasonable.
Brendan - This should possibly be a part of CK’s probation to institute the ban [since there are threats being made and experts have been consulted].
Ben G - I can add this to the probation committee and then also present it to the IKCoM that we added the item [to ban the former CK monarch] as a part of CK’s probation. I plan on having an update to this later this week for the IKCoM.
Devin - returning on the probation part of this conversation. I think the probation requirements have been set already. If we add the item of “Banning the former monarch” then I feel we have added more to it after the fact. I think this should be a suggestion not a requirement.
Ben G - Are we looking at having the IKCoM vote to ban a person or are we looking at asking the CK to vote to ban a person?
Devin - I think this is two different conversations. Where we are encouraging monarchs to contact the authorities in these kinds of situations where appropriate. And banning someone would go hand in hand with contacting the authorities.
Ben G - From this what would be something actionable to give the CK?
Devin - The actionable item would be the “probation team is making a suggestion.”
JP - Okay to separate things out it should be this - The IKCoM would recommend the banning of the player. AI would be recommending contacting the authorities.
Devin - That makes sense.
Brendan - Is this a recommendation from a legal standpoint?
JP - In the sense of protecting ourselves, this is a legal recommendation that AI is encouraging this. And if a kingdom does not follow, such as not contacting the police, AI would then contact the police.
Ben G - I’d like move this to vote.
Devin - I second
Vote - AI is asking the CK to contact the police in regards to the threats made by CK’s former monarch Jill Fiebig
Aye: Brendan, Devin, Ben G, Rebecca, Ben H
Nay: none
AI decides Devin will contact CK about this.
Whistleblower
Ben G - We want to have a document that explains the protections we have for whistleblowers. I am working on such a document now. Most company whistleblower documents seem to in a way discourage public whistleblowing but to direct it to a department or management. I am hoping to have something ready later this week.
[The board discusses different aspects of this. Such as putting a moratorium on retaliation on whistleblowers. It would be bad to have a situation where someone brings something up then immediately is responded with the IKCoM banning/removing that person. The conversation ends on a note that whistleblowing in Amtgard would have different needs than in a company and the board would review the in work document in the future.]