pages: RentReviewAdvisoryCommittee/2018-07-23.pdf, 2
This data as json
body | date | page | text | path |
---|---|---|---|---|
RentReviewAdvisoryCommittee | 2018-07-23 | 2 | Approved Minutes July 23, 2018 Each member introduced themselves and provided their answers. Member Griffiths mentioned wanting to improve RRAC meetings by making them more regular. Vice Chair Sullivan-SariƱana expressed a desire to help his community. Member Friedman provided that he feels like he makes a worthwhile contribution to the Committee and community by serving on the RRAC. He also said he hopes to learn new things by serving. Chair Cambra said that he has been described as having an almost religious zeal for mediation and hopes to bring parties together. He said his desired outcome for the day was to receive affirmations for things the Committee does well and constructive criticism for areas where they could improve. Mr. Levine introduced himself, informing the Committee that he has been a practicing attorney before pursuing work in mediation and divorce mediation. He said he had written two books: The Book of Agreement and Collaboration 2.0. He said he was providing the presentation on behalf of The Consulting Team, is an Alameda resident, and a concerned citizen about the housing situation in the region. Mr. Levine asked the Committee members to rate their last meeting on a scale from one to ten, and include why they choose the number they did. He shared a quote with the members to consider, "Use your thinking speed wisely." Member Friedman commented that he found the respectfulness of the Committee members to be a positive. He opined that a RRAC hearing was not a good forum for mediation because the meeting is very public, which can inhibit participants from fully participating. Vice Chair Sullivan-SariƱana said he would rate the last meeting a 7/10, commenting that the Committee did a good job facilitating communication between landlord and tenant. He said that RRAC meetings often run long because members tend to be wordy, but that the reason for that was to share their thinking processes. Member Griffiths gave last meeting a 6/10, noting both positives and areas for improvement. Mr. Levine asked the members if they thought it was good for parties to know how they came to a decision. Member Griffiths said that he thought it was a good thing, so that participants did not think the decisions were arbitrary. Chair Cambra added that discussion of one's thought processes also served to allow members to understand what other members were thinking. He said he would rate three components of the last meeting: efficiency 5-7 out of 10; the mediation phase a 8-9 out of 10, and the recommendation phase an 8 out of 10. He said he would give the meeting a 7 out of 10 overall. The members discussed their different perspectives. Page 2 of 7 | RentReviewAdvisoryCommittee/2018-07-23.pdf |