|Re: Re: Rules & Regs Violation||<– Date –> <– Thread –>|
|From: patjavcc (patjavccaol.com)|
|Date: Tue, 11 Apr 2006 05:07:04 -0700 (PDT)|
We had a member during our development phase who was simply unable to comply with our pet restrictions. (He brought his dog everywhere even though we had agreed that, because of allergies, pets were not welcome in meetings.) Finally someone went up to this man, (who in many ways was a really nice man but just thought that the rules shouldn't apply to 'his' dog) and said: "It seems like this community isn't the best place for you. You need a place where your dog is welcome 24/7 and you won't find that here." Eventually the man left but is still very friendly with our community. This was during development so members came and went without the burden of needing to sell their homes. We moved into our community a little less than a year ago and we haven't had any problems as described here yet (knock, knock). But I feel pretty certain that direct communication would be step one. Our conflict resolution policy (Laird Saub helped us to write this) has a 'non-negotiable negativity' clause. This essentially means that a member is NEVER allowed to say, "I don't care if you have a conflict with me, I refuse to talk to you about it." We remind ourselves of this rule once in a while and, although hard, members are in agreement that they will find a way to work out thier conflicts -- either with a mediator, one-on-one, over beers at the local pub, whatever...the parties involved decide. If they can't decide they go to the conflict resolution team for guidence. So, if you don't have these kinds of agreements in place about what to do when there is a conflict, then you are at a disadvantage. We asked everyone to go through a Clearness Process where the conflict resolution agreement was discussed one-on-one with each member before there were allowed to join. By the way...I don't think it's relevant if your policies follow some greater state or federal laws, or if it's time to re-think your satelite dish law. The conflict is about breaking a coho-condo rule. One of the eventual solutions may be to change the dish-rule but really it's about the conflict itself, isn't it? Neighbors who don't care about eachother look outward for support of their points of view, instead of looking toward eachother for resolutions. Patti Lautner JP Cohousing Boston, MA -----Original Message----- From: Christine Johnson <manzjohnson [at] netzero.net> To: cohousing-l [at] cohousing.org Sent: Mon, 10 Apr 2006 20:04:25 -0700 Subject: [C-L]_ Re: Rules & Regs Violation Aside from whether a prohibition on satellite dishes is reasonable or not, I think the really interesting issue is that in cohousing communities, it seems that we have limited ability to require that people comply with agreements failing successful exertion of social pressure (with the probable exception of collection of assessments). In cases where an individual simply doesn't care that their behavior is in violation of agreements (for whatever reason, justifiable or not) nor care that their repeated violation of agreements is source of unhappiness for their neighbors, i.e., they are simply not responsive to social pressure, then there is no way to persuade such a person to comply. Period. Christine Johnson Stone Curves Cohousing Tucson, AZ _________________________________________________________________ Cohousing-L mailing list -- Unsubscribe, archives and other info at: http://www.cohousing.org/cohousing-L/
- Re: Re: Rules & Regs Violation, (continued)
- RE: Rules & Regs Violation truddick, April 11 2006
- Re: Rules & Regs Violation Fillard Rhyne, April 11 2006
Results generated by Tiger Technologies Web hosting using MHonArc.