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

[carol ammons]

Good morning All,

First, thank all of you for your thoughtful responses to an issue that has
been on-going for some time.  After reading the various positions, I would
like to say that there could be a solution that may help alleviate some of
the security issues when the Bike Project has open hours.  We spoke a few
weeks back about the Bike Project moving into Rm. 24 and making that the
staffing area for the project.  This would allow for a Bike Project
volunteer or Carl to be closer to the door when they have open hours.  I
know there needs to be a resource sharing agreement completed, and perhaps
this is a time to re-enter the discussion on 24.

I also want to state that the AmeriCorps members are already committed for
five hours of staffing, of which, we have a hard time maintaining at this
point.  We would not be the "staffers" for a welcome desk in the basement.
Other volunteers of the projects downstairs perhaps, or we can, if we
receive additional workers over the summer, hire someone specifically to
staff the open hours.  Unfortunately, we do not have enough staff for all of
our needs, however, we are working on it.

Just my thoughts.

Carol

On Thu, Mar 17, 2011 at 9:51 PM, Mike Lehman <rebelmike at earthlink.net>wrote:

>  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>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
>
> _______________________________________________
> IMC mailing list
> IMC at lists.chambana.net
> http://lists.chambana.net/mailman/listinfo/imc
>



-- 
Carol Ammons-Program Director
Americorps/UCIMC
202 S. Broadway Avenue
Urbana, IL 61802
217-344-8820 (office)
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.chambana.net/pipermail/imcamericorps/attachments/20110318/d0375f35/attachment-0001.html>