Cohousing-L Mailing List: Re: Zero Tolerance Policy

[Elizabeth Magill (pastorlizm]

I strongly agree with all of what Karen has said here.

Mosaic Commons is on the same property as Camelot Cohousing so we had an
interesting somewhat parallel experience in our two neighborhoods. In
Camelot, a dog bit a child, and a parent called animal authorities. They
community had a somewhat shocked response and I don't know the details, but
some conflict arose as to whether that was okay.
In response, a person at Mosaic suggested a policy that says that we are
allowed to call the animal authorities if a dog bites someone. That passed
pretty easily within our community.

What was the difference?
Different people making the choices?
A decision ahead rather than in the moment?
The fact that we could see the disruption in the other community?
I don't know.

I'll admit I was opposed to the policy we made in mosaic simply because "of
course you can call authorities" is my view.
But I agreed to it, since it didn't interfere with my view.

And I have learned that some people in the community seem to think that you
can mostly only do things that are approved,
while I tend to think that you only can NOT do the things that are
prohibited.

-Liz
(The Rev. Dr.) Elizabeth Mae Magill
Pastor, Ashburnham Community Church
Minister to the Affiliates, Ecclesia Ministries
www.elizabethmaemagill.com
508-450-0431


On Mon, Nov 25, 2024 at 2:39 PM Karen Gimnig Nemiah <gimnig [at] gmail.com>
wrote:

> 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>
> _________________________________________________________________
> Cohousing-L mailing list -- Unsubscribe, archives and other info at:
> http://L.cohousing.org/info
>
>
>
>