[Imcamericorps] [IMC] [Btp-keystaff] Fwd: Steering Minutes & continuing counter-proposal re: downstairs security
Mike Lehman
rebelmike at earthlink.net
Fri Mar 18 13:30:14 CDT 2011
Carol,
I appreciate the input. I do want to note that the solution to this
issue lies with all of us, not just a few.
Keeping the doors locked 24/7 or placing the entire burden of building
security on just a couple of groups is not going to get us to a solution
everyone can agree on. Just like locking the door after leaving it
unlocked and unsupervised for several hours doesn't provide better security.
We can't get a resolution here unless those who want the doors unlocked
can find an agreement with those who believe that locking 24/7 is the
solution. I've already made the point several times that locking 24/7 is
untenable, as noting the corresponding idea that no supervision is a
viable response is also a non-starter.
I've been pleased that both The Bike Project and Books to Prisoners have
recognized that there are bigger issues at play here and have been
making constructive proposals after initially taking the position that
they were already doing all that was possible, but so far there has been
no reply from those with concerns about security except yours. We need
to engage with alternative proposals, as we know that there is no
prospect of consensus on the extreme positions initially taken by both
sides.
This also brings up another issue that I know about, but haven't
addressed other than peripherally. We need to come to agreement between
groups operating under three different decision-making processes.
* The IMC, as a whole, which operates under consensus, as does BtP,
which is an IMC working group.
* The Bike Project, which doesn't need to operate under consensus,
because it's an IMC fiscally sponsored project, as well as a tenant,
although as a fiscally sponsored project is regarded as legally part of
the IMC as far as liability is concerned.
* Americorps, which operates under federal regulations and workplace
requirements.
Obviously, this means that we all must make the effort to work a little
outside our comfort zones. And it places me in a very difficult position
if we can't continue moving toward an agreed solution, as I have the
responsibility for making sure that these disparate groups work together
when issues of legal responsibility and liability come up. That is why I
insisted that there must be an agreement, although the shape of the
agreement could take many different shapes.
Given that I've already tendered my resignation, pending appointment of
a new UC IMC president, the only thing I have as a tool, other than
trying to facilitate a productive discussion, is to simply walk away
from the problem and let everyone else figure it out. I really don't
want to do that, especially when it seems we're still a distance apart
on a solution.
So if Americorps can't contribute to a jointly-staffed greeting
position, then there's a need for an alternative proposal from
Americorps that addresses the problem in another way, which observes the
fact that 24/7 locking is not going to work in addressing security in
the basement. I'd be glad to meet with Americorps (next staff meeting or
?) to discuss security concerns and try to formulate alternatives, just
as I've offered the same to TBP and BtP.
Mike Lehman
On 3/18/2011 8:37 AM, carol ammons wrote:
> 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
> <mailto: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 <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
>
> _______________________________________________
> IMC mailing list
> IMC at lists.chambana.net <mailto: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)
>
>
>
>
>
> =======
> Email scanned by PC Tools - No viruses or spyware found.
> (Email Guard: 7.0.0.21, Virus/Spyware Database: 6.17140)
> http://www.pctools.com
> <http://www.pctools.com/?cclick=EmailFooterClean_51>
> =======
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.chambana.net/pipermail/imcamericorps/attachments/20110318/1d204de6/attachment-0001.html>
More information about the Imcamericorps
mailing list