[Imcamericorps] [IMC] [Btp-keystaff] Fwd: Steering Minutes & continuing counter-proposal re: downstairs security

[Mike Lehman]

Phil,
I now have the fire dept report in hand and had a chance to hear Durl's 
report on your meeting last night at our Finance meeting tonight. I also 
wanted to be certain that the Americorps list was included, as that was 
where the issue was originally raised. I'm not on their list nor am I on 
the btp-keystaff list (gee, it hurts to be rejected) but presume that 
someone else will pass this along to them.

On the fire inspection, no issues were noted in The Bike Project space. 
Thanks for that! (other spots in the building, minor issues that should 
be resolved or close to resolved by the time of the re-inspection on 
Monday, April 11. They probably won't bother looking in your space 
again, but FYI they will again be in the building then.

Presuming this goes to Books to Prisoners somehow, they get a Gold Star 
on the fire inspection, too. Much appreciated on that, again!

Since I've not heard that there's been any other discussion on this 
since the Steering meeting on the IMC list (I didn't attend and no one 
has replied to my copying of my reply last night to you to the IMC list, 
either), I thought this might help bring the parties involved together 
so that we can start moving toward a suitable solution that everyone can 
agree on.

I do have a couple of comments on the proposals that I think will help 
move the discussion forward. Again, as I have mentioned several times, I 
don't believe that simply locking the basement at all times is a viable 
proposal, mainly for the reasons you've stated. I've also noted that 
this in itself can give a false sense of security.

As for a doorbell/buzzer arrangement, it's also problematic and 
cumbersome, as well as inviting the same apathy about security as simply 
believing a locked door provides security.

As for a free access zone, this has elements that seem viable. I presume 
this means that The Bike Project is willing to make some sort of 
commitment to such a solution, but that wasn't entirely clear. It's the 
case that there are a lot of shared hours among users in the basement 
and, since Americorps is part of the equation, there is potential help 
there, too. The hall is big enough to provide space for someone to staff 
such a position. This also presumes that the staffing can work out 
between the various parties and that computer access and other suitable 
facilities could be provided for whoever happens to be there to not get 
bored and/or accomplish other work that those staffing may want or need 
to do.

With something like that, I would not see any reason for alarms in the 
halls. As I mentioned before, a buzzer alerter will tend to make people 
apathetic about security because of the "chicken little" effect of 
constant alarms in a busy place like the IMC.

As for ANY more doors, gates, etc in the halls (emergency use or 
otherwise), that went off the table at the fire inspection. I'm a little 
surprised the fire men didn't have an issue with the existing door, 
which we were advised by the code inspector originally in 2005 to leave 
open, which it was. Again, a false sense of security if it's only a 
buzzer on any door anyway, just as if it was a buzzer in the hall by itself.

Unfortunately, the fire inspection report didn't cover the issue with 
the stairwell doors re Elm St, etc. This may come as a separate report 
from the code inspector, and the one who did it is out of town until 
Monday. I will keep everyone advised.

In either case, a greeting station in the basement hall would be a 
better solution, if that gets us closer to a solution.

My thoughts are that a reconfiguration of the south door area during the 
planned accessibility improvements are the better solution long-term. 
This could give The Bike Project a separate entrance, as well as 
providing an accessible entrance to the basement as a whole. That will 
take some resources, but those things are on the table long term.

There are other ideas that I can imagine as solution, but I'm just 
pointing out where there does seem to be prospect of some mutual 
agreement. And it is time that those who raised the issues at Steering 
to start providing some feedback, given the efforts that The Bike 
Project and Books to Prisoners have made in providing responsive proposals.

Finally, I want to make clear why I began by insisting that there be 
some sort of agreement worked out on this that is mutually acceptable, 
but NOT any specific solution. As the president at the IMC, I'm the one 
who gets stuck if the IMC ignores what it is legally required to do. My 
role is to make sure that we solve things that can expose the IMC, its 
working groups and fiscally sponsored projects to legal liability, even 
when things get difficult. One of those things the IMC is legally 
obligated to provide is a secure working environment for Americorps 
members.

Of course it's also the case that The Bike Project is a fiscally 
sponsored project of the IMC and employs one of the said Americorps 
members. Both are additional reasons why I had to insist that some 
solution be reached that addresses the concerns that were raised, 
because these are liabilities that we can't jointly ignore either. All 
of these are reasons for my concern that an appropriate solution be 
reached that has nothing to do with The Bike Project also being a 
tenant, although that is obviously a relationship we also share.

Sorry this has been so long. Hoping to hear soon from those who raised 
the security concerns in the first place and maybe moving toward a 
solution sooner, rather than later.

For everyone, caucusing outside the meeting between those who cannot 
agree in the meeting is considered to be the way to best resolve 
disagreements, or at least to narrow those disagreements prior to 
returning to come up with a consensus. Please let me know what I can do 
to facilitate the conversation or if someone would like to speak with me 
separately about any concerns or ideas that still need to be addressed.
Mike Lehman

On 3/16/2011 1:59 PM, Phil Graff wrote:
> Hello Mike and fellow IMC friends,
>
> IMC building security is an urgent matter and we must be proactive in 
> developing solutions to prevent future incidents.  Thank you for 
> hearing The Bike Project's comments regarding the south door at last 
> month's IMC steering meeting.  However, that was not the proper place 
> for a brainstorming discussion on possible solutions, and we hope to 
> accomplish that via this email list.  We are interested in continued 
> growth of and safe environment for the IMC and its working groups and 
> fiscally sponsored projects.
>
> First of all, a little about The Bike Project:
>
>     * We are a volunteer-run organization that provides shop space and
>       education to our members, and we also sell refurbished bikes and
>       parts to the public and our members.
>     * Our open hours (when members can work on their bikes and sales
>       can be made) at the IMC are currently Mon 5:30pm to 7:30, Wed
>       6:30pm to 8:30, Thur 6pm to 9, Sat and Sun 2pm to 5.
>     * During open hours we typically aim to have two volunteers
>       scheduled; more may be present, or sometimes only one person can
>       staff (if the other is unable to make it).
>     * We use only the south door, and unlock at the beginning of each
>       open hour shift and lock immediately at the end.
>     * Because bicycle, parts, and membership sales are how we make the
>       money to pay rent, it is important that we create as few
>       barriers to access as possible.  Keep in mind that our
>       public-facing access is currently located in the basement
>       stairwell of a dimly-lit alleyway, which offers a couple of
>       barriers already.
>     * During peak season, we can have dozens of people visit our shop
>       per hour.
>
>
> Our primary concerns with the current proposals are not that they are 
> inconvenient, but rather we feel they will be economically devastating 
> to The Bike Project.  As we understand it, under the current proposal 
> the south basement door must be locked at all times unless a person is 
> monitoring the door and limiting access.
>
> *On the proposal of having a door-person (staffed in the hall):*
> 1. We do not have the excess personnel to staff an additional person 
> at the door.  As we currently staff two volunteers per shift, this 
> would have to increase to three in order to have someone in the hall.  
> Providing our volunteer efforts remain the same (we are always looking 
> for new staffers!), this will require us to reduce the number of open 
> hours we provide.  Reduced hours will provide fewer opportunities to 
> make sales, as well as reduce the benefits to our current members.
> 2. For us to implement a door-person, the only way we could ensure 
> safety would be to allow visitors entering through the south door to 
> access only The Bike Project.  Otherwise someone could tell us "I have 
> a studio in X, and that's where I am going." -- With no way to verify 
> who should and should not have access, we would have to restrict 
> access to only The Bike Project.
> 3. Most of our volunteers get involved with The Bike Project because 
> they like the hands-on nature of working with bikes and helping 
> people.  We have little paperwork or other jobs for volunteers to do 
> whilst supervising the entryway, and we feel we would likely face 
> volunteer attrition due to the mundane nature of watching a door.
> Conclusion: We do not support this proposal.
> *
> On the proposal of having a locked door with buzzer (doorbell) access:*
> 1. The current issue of not hearing the wireless doorbell can be 
> overcome by installing a wired connection.  However, this solution 
> still provides other problems.
> 2. With our number of staffers per shift (two), one person would end 
> up doing mostly door service anyway.  It would provide great 
> interruption to any work trying to be done in our shop.  As stated 
> above, we can have dozens of visitors per hour, and multiple trips 
> from our room to the door will reduce the service and education we 
> provide to our members.
> 3. With a staffing commitment of two people per session, there will be 
> days when one of the two scheduled staffers cannot make it to the 
> shop, leaving one person running the shop. That single person cannot 
> both keep control of a crowded shop while simultaneously exiting the 
> shop to answer the south basement door.
> 4. Locked door with doorbell access decreases safety to our members 
> and visitors, as they would essentially be trapped at the bottom of 
> the stairwell as they await entrance.  An attacker could come down the 
> stairs and a visitor would have no routes of escape.  Some of our 
> members have already voiced concerns about the perceived lack of 
> safety outside of the shop, and this proposal exacerbates it.
> 5. This creates another barrier to a first-time visitor.  We believe 
> that some would abandon any effort to come in and shop, reducing our 
> potential sales and membership growth.
> Conclusion: We do not support this proposal..
>
> To remain economically viable, we would like to discuss our options 
> that would help to create a free access zone in the basement hallway 
> between the south basement door and The Bike Project (and possibly 
> Books to Prisoners, as they seem interested in this as well), but 
> would restrict unauthorized access to the rest of the IMC, thus 
> providing a safe working environment.  We hope this is a different way 
> of framing the problem: instead of requiring supervision, we are 
> preventing unauthorized access.
>
> *On the proposal of installing an alarm in the east-west hallway that 
> goes off if someone passes*
> 1. Can we install a door in the east-west hallway that:
> * Is not locked (therefore passable during fire or emergency)
> * Has signage "EMERGENCY USE ONLY"
> * Had an alarm mounted to the door that went off when opened
> 2. This proposal provides "electronic supervision" of unauthorized 
> access.  99% of people coming into the IMC are responsible and provide 
> no threat.  Human supervision would only be required when someone 
> attempts unauthorized access and sets off the alarm.  In this case, 
> basement (and building?) tenants, including The Bike Project, would go 
> into the hallway to see who set off the alarm.
> 3. Pending fire/building inspection report, it may be necessary to 
> place alarms on the door near the Elm St entrance as well.
> Conclusion: We support further research and discussion of this proposal.
>
> We know there is no easy and cheap immediate solution, and the pending 
> report from the fire and building inspection may only make this more 
> difficult.  We hope that by outlining our concerns and providing 
> information about how The Bike Project operates, we can have creative 
> dialog that will result in solutions that increase the safety and 
> useability of the building.
>
> Thanks,
> Phil Graff, on behalf of The Bike Project Steering Committee
> Bike Project volunteer and steering committee member
>
> On Tue, Mar 8, 2011 at 10:31 PM, Mike Lehman <rebelmike at earthlink.net 
> <mailto:rebelmike at earthlink.net>> wrote:
>
>     Joel,
>     As I expressed to BtP on this yesterday, it's not that anyone is
>     violating a long-standing rule. It's that unsupervised access is
>     violating an understanding that existed about the security of the
>     basement. This is not some sort of failing on the part of either
>     your group or BtP, which I explained in an email last night to
>     their concerns. It is an evolving problem that is best defined by
>     the term I used to try to get us to square one on an important
>     conversation we need to have, which will become even more clear below.
>
>     As to the exact form the changes needed to address the problems
>     this conversation refers to will take, we don't know right now.
>     One proposal is that we simply lock the doors. As I indicated
>     elsewhere, I don't think that will work for you right now, anyway.
>     And any solution just got more complex today, as I'll relate in a
>     moment.
>
SNIP
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.chambana.net/pipermail/imcamericorps/attachments/20110317/bd9d3892/attachment-0001.html>