Subject: Enforcing rules and such
From: Jim Thomas (jthomas@sun.soci.niu.edu)
Date: Sat Apr 28 2007 - 13:02:23 CDT
Robin, Michael, and others have raised some interesting points in their
last posts. Some quick responses:
1) The new digital security cameras were installed to monitor the
premises. Anybody can access the real-time images on their tvs. This
allows you to see who buzzes you at the lobby, who might be loitering
by the front door, and--assuming we all tune in occasionally--if there
is any suspicious activity in the parking areas.
2) The new system became operational this week. But, neither 1P nor the
Board sit there and monitor it. We have better things to do and this isn't
Orwell's 1984. However, if we see dog droppings or urine that hasn't
been cleaned up, digital playback allows going back to see who didn't
clean it up. It also allows us to go back and check for how damage might
occur (to parking gates, by delivery people). The system isn't use to
spy, period! It's reactive: When something happens, we can now check it
out.
3) The belief that initial warnings were sufficient is incorrect. Since
those warnings, people still used the front door (despite the note on it),
and one dog did it's thing in the rear lobby. We indicated that, to
start, we'd post the pix so that others would know there IS a continued
problem, and to illustrate that the Board is trying to be responsive
to continued complaints by other owners (who also pay mortgages and taxes
and live in the our community).
4) We have a faily liberal dog policy. We've upped the number of dogs
allowed in a unit to three, and we've removed the size restriction.
This means more dogs (a good thing). But, it also means more potential
for dog damage (an ungood thing). The Board's obligation is to try to
balance the rights and interests of ALL owners by pushing for some
common ground in which we respect the rights of others. We're open
to all suggestions about how to do this. Some people want fewer dogs
and size limits. Others don't. We'd like to keep the dog policy is
liberal as possible, and this requires cooperation and some give-and-take
between dog owners and others.
5) Some posters have suggested that the Board is all talk and no action on
the dog and other issues. Then, when we devise a way to take action,
the same posters complain that we have taken action. If there are
suggestions about what actions could be taken, it would productive to
share them.
6) Why post pictures? None of us are comfortable with this. But, after
some discussion, we felt that it was a better first-step than to
start fining people. Would you rather have your picture posted or pay
a $50 fine? We've found that appeals to reason, warnings, and the rest,
just haven't worked. They were ignored. So, we gave what we felt was
fair warning, and some people continued to flaunt the warnings.
7) It's not fair to the overwhelming majority of dog owners when a couple
of people flaunt policies while the majority complies. Why should one
person bother using the rear doors when others use the front lobby
doors with impugnity?
The current Board has an advantage over previous Boards: Technology.
The increased use of email, the homepage material, digital electronics
and the discussion list. allow us to try to keep all owners in the loop
and give them opportunity for feedback, as many people here are doing.
Because not everybody can make meetings, or because they find them
boring, people can (and do) share their ideas. In return, the Board
tries to keep all owners informed about what's going on, to explain
rationale for decisions, and solicit input.
We urge productive criticism: If you don't like a policy, or if you
have problems with us, share it. But, when you do, it helps if you would
also offer a solution.
Jim / Board sec'y
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Jim Thomas / NIU Distinguished Teaching Professor (emeritus)
Department of Sociology, Northern Illinois University
jthomas@sun.soci.niu.edu / http://www.jthomasniu.org
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b28 : Wed Apr 30 2008 - 00:39:24 CDT