[Community] Re: This Week's Finance Meeting - Signs at the IMC -
featuring Chris Hampson - and slides
Mike Lehman
rebelmike at earthlink.net
Tue Jun 16 18:59:34 CDT 2009
Chris,
No problem, you're not the source of the drama, it's the IMC's rough
transition to somewhat more formal structures that's the issue. You're
no more responsible for that than anyone else. As I noted before, this
is at least as much the fault of oldtimers like me in not foreseeing
that some things need improvement in our process.
You've also reminded me about the hist pres details (it's hell getting
old, enjoy your youth!) What's actually the case is that there are
covenants on the building that apply. Technically, the IHPA is the
organization that deals with this as devolved to them by the PO. IHPA is
underfunded and overloaded, thus has devolved much of it's work to local
hist pres agencies. However, since IHPA hasn't shown much initiative in
following up on our very limited past dealings with this, the
opportunity to review changes has never formally been transferred to the
local hist pres folks. The covenants themselves are in a very gray area,
but I think it behooves us to be appreciative of why they're there.
For things inside the building, there is little applicability in the
gray area of the covenants, this seems to have worked out and I think
we've been quite respectful of the historic character of the PO.
However, outside is a bit different and I think it's important to be
cautious about how we approach changes that could cause controversy.
Which doesn't mean that the IMC as the owner is controlled by outside
opinions on such things, just that it pays to be sensitive to such concerns.
See you Thursday,
Mike Lehman
Chris Hampson wrote:
> Hi Everyone,
>
> Sorry for all the drama. Totally didn't expect this to be
> complicated... I thought having the City of Urbana approve plans for
> the IMC would take longer than the IMC itself, but Urbana's Building
> Inspector has already approved of my proposal and has informed me that
> the IMC is in fact not a historic building so there are no concerns
> from the historic commission.
>
> So to keep things moving I've drawn up more detailed plans on exactly
> what I'll need to build the front sign. I have also made a list of
> materials I'll need to complete the work to the best of my ability. I
> want to make this sign look really nice while being consiencous of
> price... hence the list.
>
> I'll go over the list at this weeks finance meeting on Thursday at
> 5:30 and cover my procedure for any who are interested.
>
> Thanks,
>
> Chris Hampson
>
>
>
>
>
> On Tue, Jun 16, 2009 at 2:12 PM, Elizabeth Simpson<elizacorps at yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>> Mike et al,
>>
>> To clarify: yes, consensus was reached. Whether it should have been, can be
>> another issue, but it certainly was. I read Bob's assertion that it wasn't,
>> and I don't know where he is coming from with that, since we made it a clear
>> point at the time. This is reflected in the notes.
>>
>> My primary concern in this issue is that there *seems* to be an insinuation
>> that Chris didn't follow good process, when in fact his actions are totally
>> in line with how steering has been run. Items are often submitted to the
>> agenda, even at the meeting, with no advance notice, and with no critique by
>> those present at the meeting. We don't, either, present, within the meeting,
>> any reminder of our decision-making process. All this and more can lead to
>> great confusion. Chris submitted his agenda item by email in advance, which
>> is all we ask of people at this time. He made a well-prepared presentation
>> and addressed the questions that were brought up.
>>
>> This is a great concern- we don't want people who are putting in a lot of
>> time and energy to be thwarted by our poorly articulated structure (I know
>> some of this is on paper somewhere, but it's not part of our living
>> process). It behooves us as an org to address the process so that people can
>> follow it.
>>
>> So, in approaching this issue, I want to charge the IMC and steering with
>> the glitches, not Chris. we are the ones who approved it.
>>
>> Given that framework, there seem to be three issues:
>>
>> -Addressing the agenda- crafting steering meetings so that there is
>> sufficient process, including advance notice (i.e. how to get such notice to
>> workgroups, considering that not everyone is on the imc list, and not
>> everyone in a workgroup is even a member, and that for good measure, we
>> should post it in the space for those who don't rely on email). This is part
>> of the ongoing work that CC has been doing for months. I propose that this
>> be an issue for Community Connections to address, since we're already doing
>> it at large.
>>
>> -How to move forward on the signs and chimes proposal. This means:
>> clarifying whether the center bar would be cut for the chimes
>> getting clear on what 'maximum signage' means, interms of this signs'
>> effects on future signage possibilities
>>
>> -How to make sure that these processes are embedded in and reflect the imc
>> as a whole, and not a small subset (the 4 people who are currently in the
>> conversation, me you Bob and Chris). If after we get the answers about
>> signage (above) it seems there is a need re-visit this agenda item, we can
>> figure how much it would compromise the project to wait until July 2, or
>> whether is can be resolved via email. An emergency steering meeting is a lot
>> to ask of working groups so I recommend avoiding it.
>>
>> Best to the IMC,
>> elizaBeth
>>
>> A strong people need no leader
>> - Zapata
>>
>>
>>
>> --- On Tue, 6/16/09, Mike Lehman <rebelmike at earthlink.net> wrote:
>>
>> From: Mike Lehman <rebelmike at earthlink.net>
>> Subject: Re: [UCIMC-Finance] signage
>> To: "Elizabeth Simpson" <elizacorps at yahoo.com>
>> Cc: "Chris Hampson" <hampson2 at gmail.com>, finance at ucimc.org,
>> community at lists.chambana.net
>> Date: Tuesday, June 16, 2009, 12:31 PM
>>
>> Elizabeth,
>> Yes, Finance's specific concern is about the need for tenant signage.
>>
>> When I asked, Chris said that the sign was designed to fit the maximum
>> signage area that the city allows. So if we are to include tenant signage,
>> it will likely require a reduction in size of the "IMC" part of the sign. I
>> don't know all the details, but the city regs on signage may limit ALL
>> signage to the max for the main sign, thus making it impossible to add
>> tenant signage or a second sign of any type. I don't know, but this should
>> be something determined and designed for prior to application being
>> submitted, not as an afterthought.
>>
>> My particular personal concern was about determining what hist pres
>> requirements or preferences impact the proposed signage. I got the
>> impression that this wasn't taken into consideration at all, just that it
>> was hoped the signage would be approved.
>>
>> There are a number of potential projects that are necessary to the IMC as a
>> whole or to specific working groups and/or tenants that will come up in the
>> future for review under by hist pres. Thus my concern to get input on hist
>> pres before an app is submitted in order to avoid starting off on the wrong
>> foot with hist pres. As an historian, I respect the concerns of hist pres.
>> As an IMC member concerned about needing flexibility on some future projects
>> to meet the needs of the IMC, we may need to ask them to make conceptual
>> leaps of faith, but only after carefully taking into consideration hist pres
>> concerns and filing a well-constructed proposal. Needlessly antagonizing
>> them by poorly thought-out or hastily vetted proposals can make things more
>> difficult in the future for others at the IMC.
>>
>> Of particular concern to me is the fact that there seems to have been little
>> process with this proposal. Adding it to Steering agenda was done just
>> before the meeting and made no reference to a final decision being made,
>> just planning. As I stated in a previous email, a project of this
>> significance and concern to others should not be decided without sufficient
>> notice and opportunity for those who might have concerns to have input.
>>
>> Finally, Chris H and the Steering notes indicated that consensus was reached
>> on the proposal. I've heard from someone else that there was discussion, but
>> no formal consensus. I wasn't there, so I can't speak to this. Even if there
>> was a consensus, it seems to have omitted the significant concerns I've
>> noted previously.
>>
>> On a different, but related matter:
>> I heard since the meeting that the windchime proposal for the east retaining
>> wall would involve cutting the center pipe of the railing off to accommodate
>> the chimes, although this isn't in the notes. If true, then I have a big
>> objection to that. The center pipe is intended to keep kids from falling
>> under the railing, so removing it would expose us to needless liability.
>>
>> This is an example of why its important to make a reasonable effort that
>> those who may have concerns are part of a discussion before a consensus is
>> reached on an issue. Specifically, in the case of significant modifications
>> to the building and grounds, Finance should be a part of any such discussion
>> prior to it coming up for final decision at Steering. That's where most of
>> the knowledge about working with the city, our neighbors, and our tenants
>> resides.
>> Mike Lehman
>>
>> Elizabeth Simpson wrote:
>>
>>> Hi Finance group-
>>>
>>> I wanted to bring this to you directly, as a community conenctions type
>>> issue.
>>>
>>> Mike names that you may have concerns, and it seems specifically about
>>> having a sign with tenant options.
>>>
>>> I was involved in an earlier initiative to get signage, and so think I
>>> have an understanding of what's being addressed.
>>>
>>> It's my understanding that there is interest in two signs- one is an
>>> on-the-building sign (a la Chris's proposal) that simply identifies the IMC.
>>> The other is a monument sign (freestanding) that would have room for tennant
>>> info. (not addressed by the proposal).
>>>
>>> Is there some reason that the desire for a monument sign would preclude an
>>> on-the-building sign?
>>>
>>> What, if any, are your other concerns about Chris's proposal?
>>>
>>> Thanks for all your work.
>>> Elizabeth
>>>
>>> A strong people need no leader
>>> - Zapata
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> --- On *Sun, 6/14/09, Mike Lehman /<rebelmike at earthlink.net>/* wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> From: Mike Lehman <rebelmike at earthlink.net>
>>> Subject: Re: [Imc] Steering Reminder!
>>> To: "Chris Hampson" <hampson2 at gmail.com>, "Bookkeeperlist"
>>> <imc-bookkeeper at lists.chambana.net>, "imc" <imc at ucimc.org>
>>> Date: Sunday, June 14, 2009, 9:52 PM
>>>
>>> Chris,
>>> I do appreciate the fact that Steering was in some form able to
>>> review the plan for the sign. Nonetheless, I feel that the
>>> decision was made without proper consideration being given to some
>>> significant issues. Steering agendas are important to making sure
>>> that all those with an interest in an issue know so they can be
>>> there. It's unfortunate that proper notice of this wasn't given. I
>>> would have raised everything here just the same in that meeting as
>>> I have subsequently. I feel that if others had been aware,
>>> including those at the meeting, of the fact that the discussion
>>> omitted these concerns, they would have come to a different
>>> consensus than occurred.
>>>
>>> The agenda item that placed the decision in front of Steering
>>> failed to make it clear that a final decision would be made,
>>> simply that plans would be reviewed. Given that the decision
>>> affects a number of working groups and tenants in the building in
>>> a variety of ways, ensuring that everyone who had an interest in a
>>> final plan was aware that a decision would be finalized seems to
>>> me to be a wise procedure. It's this way with any decision in a
>>> consensus-based organization. We should do our best to speak not
>>> just for ourselves, but to be aware of the need for inclusion of a
>>> broad range of concerns that others may have.
>>>
>>> I do know that Finance has a significant concern about the
>>> signage, as I stated below. If spokes from all those who might be
>>> affected by omission of sub-signage in the design had been aware
>>> of this deficiency, I'm certain that they would have requested a
>>> change to include that. To be blunt, signage within the building
>>> fails to meet those needs. The lack of coordination now on this
>>> issue suggests that these concerns are irrelevant, when they have
>>> in fact come up repeatedly.
>>>
>>> I also feel that failing to take into account these significant
>>> concerns undermines consensus as a process. Public art, which this
>>> is in some ways at least internally to the IMC, has to address
>>> issues beyond simply providing an unrestricted venue for any
>>> single vision.
>>>
>>> I also feel that the design failed to take into account the
>>> concerns that might arise in review by historical preservation
>>> interests. It is politically dangerous to submit a design that may
>>> simply antagonize them and frustrate you. I suspect based on my
>>> readings of their actions on other projects that they will likely
>>> have some concerns that will result in requiring a major revision
>>> or even outright refusal to approve the present plan. It's best to
>>> take such concerns into account first, rather than trying to pick
>>> up the pieces afterwards, but I suppose we're past that point
>>> given that it took a week to reply to my inquiry, during which the
>>> application was simply submitted as is.
>>>
>>> Signage is such an essential part of any organization's image that
>>> it saddens me that such a decision was made with so little notice,
>>> discussion, and review by the wider membership, which Steering
>>> represents. It's a sign of how we sometimes find that the good of
>>> the IMC as a whole is sacrificed to expediency.
>>>
>>> I will take responsibility for my part in not raising these issues
>>> when I was asked by you to sign off on sign application. However,
>>> it's generally been my experience that everyone takes seriously
>>> the need for full and frank discussions that not only represent
>>> their own interests, but which also are throughly vetted so as to
>>> represent the variety of interests that is present in our
>>> organization in coming to a final consensus. In this case, I know
>>> for certain that there are concerns that seem to have been
>>> excluded from the final product.
>>>
>>> I am responsible for no more than signing off on such things under
>>> the assumption that they have been thoroughly vetted. The present
>>> case is the first time that I feel failed to achieve a consensus
>>> that was so poorly executed as to force me to raise questions
>>> about the failure of the process. I say this not to put a burden
>>> on you, but to remind all those involved that consensus is a
>>> process and not simply an endorsement for any individual's point
>>> of view, least of all mine.
>>> Mike Lehman
>>>
>>> Chris Hampson wrote:
>>> > Hi Mike,
>>> >
>>> > I've been in touch with the City. The Historic Commission is
>>> currently
>>> > reviewing the sign application and I will meet with them this week.
>>> >
>>> > As far as Steering meeting attendance goes, there were at least 15
>>> > people at the meeting when I gave my presentation and all approved.
>>> >
>>> > I do agree that we need signs within the building directing people
>>> > where to go, but I think it is just as important to let people
>>> on the
>>> > outside know that we even exist.
>>> >
>>> > Let me know if you have any other questions or concerns about my
>>> work
>>> > at the IMC.
>>> >
>>> > Thanks,
>>> > Chris
>>> >
>>> > On Tue, Jun 9, 2009 at 1:25 AM, Mike
>>> Lehman<rebelmike at earthlink.net
>>> </mc/compose?to=rebelmike at earthlink.net>> wrote:
>>> > >> Hi Chris,
>>> >> I guess this was discussed at last week's Steering meeting, but
>>> I wasn't
>>> >> aware that approval of a final version of an outside sign would
>>> be part of
>>> >> the discussion. There are probably others who weren't at
>>> Steering who might
>>> >> have been there to give input if it was clear that outdoor
>>> signage was going
>>> >> to be discussed.
>>> >>
>>> >> There are several factors that seem not to have been
>>> considered., although
>>> >> my concerns are two-fold.
>>> >>
>>> >> We've talked in Finance about possibilities for outside signage
>>> for some
>>> >> time. One of the big needs has been to direct people to tenants
>>> in the
>>> >> building, as well as make the IMC's presence in the building
>>> more obvious.
>>> >> We only get one large outdoor sign, so there needs to be some
>>> provision for
>>> >> that. Since tenants do move in and out, these need to be
>>> incorporated as
>>> >> removable slats or something similar.
>>> >>
>>> >> My other concern is that the sign design may create conflicts with
>>> >> historical preservation requirements. I'm uncertain about
>>> exactly how the
>>> >> city might see these, but the font, the size of the sign, how
>>> it's attached
>>> >> to the building, and potential to clash with other design
>>> elements of the
>>> >> building are all issues that could be contentious.
>>> >>
>>> >> I know you said you planned to submit the sign app to the city
>>> on Tuesday,
>>> >> but I think it's always better to take into consideration all
>>> the concerns
>>> >> that may arise in order to limit the number of concerns that
>>> could be raised
>>> >> against a proposal. I'd greatly prefer that the signage have a
>>> wider review
>>> >> for design so that others can give some feedback first. Getting
>>> some input
>>> >> on how the city sees hist pres issues would also be be a good idea.
>>> >> Mike Lehman
>>> >>
>>> >> Chris Hampson wrote:
>>> >> >>> Hey guys,
>>> >>>
>>> >>> My name is Chris Hampson and I'm working for the IMC this summer
>>> >>> painting murals and making things happen. I'd like to propose
>>> my plans
>>> >>> at the steering meeting tomorrow night in a short power point,
>>> and if
>>> >>> possible I'd like to go first in the line-up.
>>> >>>
>>> >>> Thanks,
>>> >>> Chris
>>> >>>
>>> >>>
>>> >>> On Wed, Jun 3, 2009 at 3:36 PM, Nicole Pion
>>> <nicole.pion at gmail.com </mc/compose?to=nicole.pion at gmail.com>> wrote:
>>> >>>
>>> >>> >>>> Reminder - steering is tomorrow night, Thursday
>>> June 4 8pm at
>>> the IMC
>>> >>>> library.
>>> >>>>
>>> >>>> Please reply to the list with working group updates. Also,
>>> we still need
>>> >>>> a
>>> >>>> working group to host tomorrow's meeting!
>>> >>>>
>>> >>>> Please send additional steering items to the main list as well.
>>> >>>> Currently,
>>> >>>> we have on the agenda:
>>> >>>> Audit
>>> >>>> Draw Down the Debt Campaign
>>> >>>> Membership Goals/Waivers
>>> >>>> Financial Picture
>>> >>>> Working Group Balances/Genops/Bldg. Ops
>>> >>>> IndyMedia & Arts Lab
>>> >>>>
>>> >>>> At the meeting, we will be asking working groups to sign up
>>> to host just
>>> >>>> one
>>> >>>> meeting in the next 12 months! Please plan ahead. Steering
>>> is always
>>> >>>> the
>>> >>>> first Thursday of the month at 8pm and everything is open
>>> except January
>>> >>>> of
>>> >>>> 2010 (thank you, Books to Prisoners!)
>>> >>>>
>>> >>>> 2009
>>> >>>> June 4
>>> >>>> July 2
>>> >>>> Aug 6
>>> >>>> Sept 3
>>> >>>> Oct 1
>>> >>>> Nov 5
>>> >>>> Dec 3
>>> >>>>
>>> >>>> 2010
>>> >>>> Jan 7: Books to Prisoners
>>> >>>> Feb 4
>>> >>>> March 4
>>> >>>> April 1
>>> >>>> May 6
>>> >>>>
>>> >>>> Nicole
>>> >>>>
>>> >>>> --
>>> >>>> Nicole Pion
>>> >>>> Outreach and Development Adviser
>>> >>>> AmeriCorps CTC VISTA
>>> >>>> Urbana-Champaign Independent Media Center
>>> >>>>
>>> >>>> _______________________________________________
>>> >>>> IMC mailing list
>>> >>>> IMC at lists.ucimc.org </mc/compose?to=IMC at lists.ucimc.org>
>>> >>>> http://lists.chambana.net/cgi-bin/listinfo/imc
>>> >>>>
>>> >>>>
>>> >>>>
>>> >>>> >>> _______________________________________________
>>> >>> IMC mailing list
>>> >>> IMC at lists.ucimc.org </mc/compose?to=IMC at lists.ucimc.org>
>>> >>> http://lists.chambana.net/cgi-bin/listinfo/imc
>>> >>>
>>> >>>
>>> >>> >> >
>>> >
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> IMC mailing list
>>> IMC at lists.ucimc.org </mc/compose?to=IMC at lists.ucimc.org>
>>> http://lists.chambana.net/cgi-bin/listinfo/imc
>>>
>>>
>>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> IMC-Fundraising mailing list
>>> IMC-Fundraising at lists.ucimc.org
>>> http://lists.chambana.net/cgi-bin/listinfo/imc-fundraising
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>
>
More information about the Community
mailing list