Cohousing-L Mailing List: Re: Zero Tolerance Policy

[Karen Gimnig Nemiah (gimnig]

There are a number of reasons "zero tolerance" policies get into trouble.
In the end,  you have to decide between two options:
1 - have the policy and control the behavior of others through some means
of enforcement
2 - don't have the policy and choose a non-policy means for addressing the
behavior (ranging from requests to legal action)

Here are the challenges in no particular order
- People think that a policy will prevent a certain behavior. That isn't
what policies do. A policy gives the community a means of censuring a
certain behavior. It can be very frustrating to spend months fighting
through a consensus process for a new policy only to see the behavior
persist.
- The attempt to create a policy tends to lead to conflict.  In any
community there will be those who feel safest when there are ways to
control the behavior of others within certain norms AND there will be those
who value personal responsibility and freedom and hate the idea of
controlling the behavior of others.  These two groups will reliably clash
around policy creation.  It can get ugly.
- Once there is a policy, the choice to enforce it (or not) will tend to
lead to conflict. Within a community and a given situation, some people
will feel hurt or threatened by the situation and others will be
sympathetic to the offender.  It's never as cut and dried as you imagine.
It can get ugly.
- No one wants to be the "bad guy" that enforces the policy and gets push
back from others in the community.  If there is someone who enjoys this
kind of work it's even more likely they will get push back.  Relationship
harm can last years.
- We tend to confuse zero tolerance for a behavior with zero tolerance of a
person. We tell ourselves that we are intolerant of the behavior even as we
think it's not OK to be intolerant of a person.  Unfortunately when a
policy is enforced, it's pretty likely that the subject of that enforcement
(and their friends) will feel it is the person that is not being tolerated
- and that's not OK with anyone.
- "Bad behavior" sometimes arrives with mental health challenges and the
policy is now seen by some as ableism or disability discrimination. Again,
ugly.

My view is that there are things for which it is reasonable to have zero
tolerance. All of them are illegal or are at least cause for which a
restraining order or animal control action could be requested. If someone
is so far outside what can be tolerated that a standard for conduct needs
to be enforced, I think it is usually healthier for the community to let
the authorities do the enforcing rather than pit some members against
others. I'm not saying it's a good choice, but maybe the least bad choice.

Involving the authorities will also be ugly and may result in some members
being unhappy with other members. It is not a step to be taken lightly.
However, if you think that creating and enforcing a policy that is
primarily aimed at one individual because they refuse to do what other
individuals want is going to be less ugly, I think you are kidding
yourselves.  Controlling the behavior of other humans is always ugly and
damaging to relationships.

For everything that isn't illegal, I think it is wiser to work on how
individuals can set their own boundaries and perhaps support each other in
reducing the harmful impact of the behavior.  Lean into relationship, lean
into support of one another, lean into personal growth. There is more going
on here than one person's behavior.

If you want to go the relationship route and you don't know how to get
there, I could help.  It is part of my consulting practice to guide
communities, or small groups within communities, in finding ways to live
together when things get tough.

In Community,
Karen Gimnig Nemiah
678-705-9007
www.karengimnig.net
Scheduling Calendar <https://calendar.app.google/ET3DvVyg9fyfSq6NA>