1.04.2005
Condo politics
So I need to do some complaining about my condo association. Two members staged a kind of coup at our annual meeting last month. Although they hadn't been officially nominated by the appointed date (thus not giving notice to members who might not have been at the meeting, etc., and who might have wanted to oppose them) they ran for and were elected "co-presidents." I happen to like one of the two people, but she's probably moving out before her term is over, leaving the other, who would never have been elected on his own, as sole president of the association.
This is a person who talks the talk of being an evolved, self-aware person who cares only about creating consensus. As a consequence of this talking of the talk, he talks A LOT at meetings. He's always talking about making sure everybody is "comfortable" with decisions. Actually, though, he only wants to push his own agenda, and manages to make himself selectively deaf to anything he disagrees with. Let's say he takes on the responsibility of investigating gutter heaters for the building to prevent ice buildup. Part of the project involves looking into solar power as one option. Even though this is the consensus, he disagrees with the idea. But rather than say someone else should do it, he agrees to investigate solar power -- knowing full well that he has no intention of doing it, because he feels he has the right to make an executive decision not to.
Let's take another example. This guy wants everyone to be "comfortable." Now, I'd been "uncomfortable" for a long time with the fact that the people who garden next door, whether or not they are residents of our building, were routinely forgetting to lock the basement door (they store tools in our basement, and some of the non-residents also have keys to it - about which I do not complain, as long as they lock the door when they leave).
The basement door is my main entrance to the building, and I often come home alone late at night, and when I came home to find it unlocked, and had to enter a dark basement that anyone could have entered freely, I was not, shall we say, "comfortable." I mentioned this numerous times, asking people to be sure to lock the door. Yes, yes, yes, I was told. After continuing to find it unlocked, I finally asked if we could install door closers and a doorknob that locked automatically. This particular member resisted this with all sorts of talk of how my fears were not rational (lecturing me about my racist fear of the neighborhood -- which is hogwash, since, as I told him, in the small town I grew up in I would not want to live in a building in which a basement entrance door was routinely left unlocked). Eventually, it emerged that as a gardener he simply LIKED to be able to leave the door unlocked because it was more convenient, and to hell with anyone who was not "comfortable" with the consequences.
Now, this person is co-president, and recently, with the other co-president, sent out a message about reforming our association, which included goals for the other officers -- on which the other officers had not been consulted. So, as secretary, I have been presented with the "goal" of getting minutes out to everyone within a week of the meeting. (The irony is rich, since I do a better job of getting the minutes out than this guy, who was my predecessor as secretary.) The treasurer, who, if she is a bit prickly as a person, does a wonderful job as treasurer, has also been presented with new "goals" for her job.
Now, I suppose I should just let this go and not worry about it. I'm trying. The one thing I really worry about is that he will try to kill our desperately needed noise abatement project in favor of an electrical upgrade. We'll get some argument about how, objectively and rationally, noise abatement really isn't necessary. That's if you live on the top floor and have quiet downstairs neighbors like he does. Interesting how those same quiet downstairs neighbors, whose apartments are subjected to the noises emanating from his vociferously arguing household, think it actually is.
This is a person who talks the talk of being an evolved, self-aware person who cares only about creating consensus. As a consequence of this talking of the talk, he talks A LOT at meetings. He's always talking about making sure everybody is "comfortable" with decisions. Actually, though, he only wants to push his own agenda, and manages to make himself selectively deaf to anything he disagrees with. Let's say he takes on the responsibility of investigating gutter heaters for the building to prevent ice buildup. Part of the project involves looking into solar power as one option. Even though this is the consensus, he disagrees with the idea. But rather than say someone else should do it, he agrees to investigate solar power -- knowing full well that he has no intention of doing it, because he feels he has the right to make an executive decision not to.
Let's take another example. This guy wants everyone to be "comfortable." Now, I'd been "uncomfortable" for a long time with the fact that the people who garden next door, whether or not they are residents of our building, were routinely forgetting to lock the basement door (they store tools in our basement, and some of the non-residents also have keys to it - about which I do not complain, as long as they lock the door when they leave).
The basement door is my main entrance to the building, and I often come home alone late at night, and when I came home to find it unlocked, and had to enter a dark basement that anyone could have entered freely, I was not, shall we say, "comfortable." I mentioned this numerous times, asking people to be sure to lock the door. Yes, yes, yes, I was told. After continuing to find it unlocked, I finally asked if we could install door closers and a doorknob that locked automatically. This particular member resisted this with all sorts of talk of how my fears were not rational (lecturing me about my racist fear of the neighborhood -- which is hogwash, since, as I told him, in the small town I grew up in I would not want to live in a building in which a basement entrance door was routinely left unlocked). Eventually, it emerged that as a gardener he simply LIKED to be able to leave the door unlocked because it was more convenient, and to hell with anyone who was not "comfortable" with the consequences.
Now, this person is co-president, and recently, with the other co-president, sent out a message about reforming our association, which included goals for the other officers -- on which the other officers had not been consulted. So, as secretary, I have been presented with the "goal" of getting minutes out to everyone within a week of the meeting. (The irony is rich, since I do a better job of getting the minutes out than this guy, who was my predecessor as secretary.) The treasurer, who, if she is a bit prickly as a person, does a wonderful job as treasurer, has also been presented with new "goals" for her job.
Now, I suppose I should just let this go and not worry about it. I'm trying. The one thing I really worry about is that he will try to kill our desperately needed noise abatement project in favor of an electrical upgrade. We'll get some argument about how, objectively and rationally, noise abatement really isn't necessary. That's if you live on the top floor and have quiet downstairs neighbors like he does. Interesting how those same quiet downstairs neighbors, whose apartments are subjected to the noises emanating from his vociferously arguing household, think it actually is.
