Sehvilla is right (was Re: [Imc] twisted locks, twisted security)

[Cope Cumpston]

thanks, Mike, for a thoughtful and useful response.

I'm one of those people who can rarely be at IMC during open hours, don't
do a lot of production, but when I need to, coming in late at night or
early in the morning when I know the machines are free has been the best
alternative. Safety has always been a concern, it's not fun being locked in
the production room (which is what I always do) not knowing who might be
outside. And I don't have a buddy to bring at those hours. No, nothing has
happened -- and I've been talking about this for months. Glad it's on the
list.

It seems that in the ideal world the landlord would need to be responsible
for a safe environment, and that the expense of fixing the door shouldn't
fall on the IMC. I imagine that isn't the case or someone who have already
brought pressure for repair.

The back door seems like a real solution to me -- (my only reservation
would be how vulnerable I'd feel in the back alley after hours). I've been
willing to put  up with the risk of an open front door in the past, but I
think IMC would be devastated if anything happened to someone afterhours.
Let's not let it happen.

Cope

Mike Lehman wrote:

> Russ,
> I'm sorry, but we don't have an "innie", where the door bar you describe
> would be of help. We have a commercial "outie" swinging door, so, once
> again, we are dealing with something that really has no easy or cheap
> solution to securing the present front door in the way it has been
> demanded.
>
> For Everyone Concerned:
> Just to go over a couple of points that still seem to have escaped those
> making these demands, and then to go on to a possible solution:
>
> I. The front door is going to be replaced. The mechanism is special and
> costly. And contrary to what some believe, I think it IS the mechanism,
> not the door frame. Any repair will have a very short useful life,
> making it uneconomic, EVEN IF WE HAD THE MONEY TO DO SO (which we really
> don't).
>
> II. We have operated for a whole year before this became an issue. I
> (and probably the rest of the Steering group) want to know "What has
> changed?" recently to make this an issue all of the sudden.
>
> A. Have there been some personal concerns that have recently made people
> fearful around the IMC? We have not been presented with anything of the
> kind. I know there were some recent issues with non-members having
> access to members-only equipment in the afterhours timeframe. Is this
> related? Is it something/someone else? The Steering group should be made
> aware of this, if that is actually a problem. You don't have to do this
> on e-mail or even at a meeting, but we DO need to know if that is the
> case. You can't solve a people problem by a mechanical replacement.
>
> B. If this has been occassioned by a simple desire to work afterhours at
> the IMC...well, this has been allowed in the past, as long as people
> were responsible for their own being there. Anything else will take
> increased use of IMC resources, whether staff, money, or what have you
> (as in simply keeping the lights on late.) NO ONE HAS MADE SUCH A
> PROPOSAL to the Steering group. Please elaborate, in person or
> otherwise, the case for us allocating scarce resources to such a new
> expansion of IMC service, in light of the points I have made above (and
> the accomodations that Paul R., among others, has offered), which has so
> far not been addressed in detail by those making these demands. That is
> only fair to all the other people asking for important things at the
> IMC. And there are a bunch, which it seems like some are not aware of,
> being concerned with only what they desire for themselves. This is not
> to put down any request that something as basic as feeling secure is
> somehow not important enough to us, but only to note that there are a
> number of things on our plate currently and that to be fair to all we
> must balance our limited resources to accomodate as many as possible.
>
> III. The biggest of many projects at the moment is the back-back room
> (we have to give it a better name, when we get a chance.) This project
> is crucial to the financial viability of the IMC. It requires us to put
> into it a certain minimum amount of resources just to get it up and
> going. And it will probably demand even more as we find out everything
> that needs done to make it a viable, safe venue in itself. Among the
> issues is the door back there, a rear entrance to the building...
>
> IV. Which brings us to a viable suggestion of how we might be able to
> solve this in the shortrun. Whoever is using the IMC afterhours could
> possibly be given a key to that door for such access, which will be able
> to lock it from the inside (this dooor will be staying, so it will rate
> the kind of investment that the soon-to-be-replaced front door does not)
> once we are sure that it works as we need it to to accomodate things.
> Please be aware that any such move:
>
> A. Won't happen tomorrow and probably not next week either. You are
> going to have to display a bit more patience with things than has so far
> been exhibited for this to happen.
>
> B. The front door will REMAIN an issue, until it is repalced in the
> renovation. It still must NOT EVER BE LOCKED FROM THE INSIDE. PERIOD.
> Until and unless something changes, simply don't do it.
> The lack of cooperation on this issue in regard to something that should
> have been plainly understood because it was clearly communicated several
> times has not made the issue any easier to resolve and that is NOT the
> Steering group's fault, to say the least.
>
> C. Such a proposal is contingent on future cooperation, for the good of
> the entire IMC, on the part of all concerned with certain rules and
> understandings that, while they are compromises, they are the best we
> can do until a sugar daddy comes along to fund all our dreams. It will
> also require any person so using the IMC to NEVER, ever let someone in
> through the front door, if they've come in the back, as that will do
> exactly the same thing to the lock as has happened from those simply
> locking the door from the inside. And if we can't get some cooperation
> on this now, then I have my doubts that such cooperation will work once
> we get backdoor access enabled.
> (wearing his asbestos underwear)
> Mike Lehman
>
> Russell A Rybicki wrote:
> >
> > At the risk of giving Mike L. more tasks, sorry Mike, could we build a
> > pole that we could wedge between the door handle and the floor to
> > effectively "lock" the door from the inside.  I've seen something like
> > this in the Harriet Carter catalog, and I don't know how well it will
> > work, but it might be a solution until the door gets fixed.
> _______________________________________________
> IMC mailing list
> IMC at urbana.indymedia.org
> http://lists.cu.groogroo.com/cgi-bin/listinfo/imc

--
Copenhaver Cumpston
 Art Director
University of Illinois Press
1325 South Oak Street
Champaign, Illinois 61820-6903
phone (217) 333-9227    fax (217) 244-8082
cumpston at uiuc.edu
http://www.press.uillinois.edu/