towing company if a car in one of the visitor spaces did not have the required slip on the dashboard.
Nobody knows how she communicated her opposition to this decision during the board meeting. Perhaps she rolled her eyes and raised her palms in mock disbelief. The other board members probably were incensed that Giselle was so adamant about how cumbersome and potentially unfair this solution seemed. Based on some notions about “Robert’s Rules of Order”, somebody likely cut the discussion off saying “I move we go on to the next item on the agenda.” Somebody else may have “seconded the motion.” All in favor raise your hand. Everybody except Giselle raises their hand. Those opposed say “nay.” Giselle, stung, doesn’t bother to say anything. The motion passes. Majority rules.
Defeated board member starts a campaign
Giselle had been defeated.
Then a few days later something happened that seems like fiction—but it really happened.
Giselle’s father-in-law arrived unexpectedly from out of town around midnight. He parked in one of the visitor parking spots. When he went down late the next morning, you already know, compassionate reader, what had happened. The car was gone!!
Giselle wanted very badly for her father-in-law to feel welcome. Now, his car had been towed from their condo’s visitor parking. She was outraged. She was determined to get redress for this injustice.
Giselle began a campaign to mobilize the ownership.
She would catch people in the hallways, down in the parking spaces, in the recycling and garbage area, on the sidewalk, wherever she could find them, to warn them of the unnecessarily harsh and complicated solution that was in place for the community.
Frank got involved too, with emails urging folks to attend the next meeting of the board, presumably to oppose the newly-passed rule. Frank and Giselle pointed to what had just happened to Frank’s dad’s car.
Meanwhile Phil, the board president, was stewing.
Conflict specialist called in Two days before the next meeting of the board, Giselle called a professional mediator and told her story over the phone. All of the mediator’s interactions after that, with Giselle and with the board president, would take place via email. Nobody ever met anybody face-to-face.
Giselle had sent a letter to the board president politely requesting that her father-in-law be reimbursed the $250 towing fee, so that the problem could be resolved “in a quick and friendly manner”.
28 | COMMON INTEREST®
Giselle confided to the mediator, if the board doesn’t’ agree she would hire an attorney.
Mediator: “So Giselle, it’s not the $250 per se. Why is this important to you? “
Giselle: “Well.. it was like we were being punished for doing something wrong. It was embarrassing. Especially for Frank. I want his dad to know that he can always come and stay any time.”
Mediator: “OK so, it’s a matter of fairness and justice?” Giselle: “Right.”
Mediator: “And a need for Frank’s dad to come in anytime and feel welcome?” Giselle: “Yes!”
Mediator: “Good. Those are basic human needs: respect, understanding, closeness, family. Everybody has those needs. When you go to the board on Thursday, if you make your requests in terms of those basic needs, I predict you will get a favorable reaction from the rest of the board.”
Giselle: “I guess I shouldn’t mention getting an attorney.”
Mediator: “You want them to honor your requests willingly, without coercion. Remember: requests, not demands. Don’t start by talking about attorneys. You don’t want them to be on the defensive.”
In an email exchange, Phil, the board president, told the mediator he really didn’t care what particular solution was found for the misuse of visitor parking. But he was incensed. In his thinking, the board passed a visitor parking measure and then a board member went out and campaigned against the new rule, inviting the membership to ignore it.
Giselle: “No. We discussed what to do by email. Then at the meeting they just rammed it through. The new rules weren’t properly adopted. If they’d allowed a discussion, they would have seen it was full of holes.”
Mediator: “So that’s why you and your husband felt free to alert the owners about the new rules. To you, they were only proposed, not yet really adopted. And you had the incident with your father-in-law’s car being towed. Proof the solution they chose was flawed. Do I have it right?”
Giselle: “Exactly. Would you write up a summary I can use on Thursday?”
Mediator: “The summary would make you feel more confident about how you want to talk to them? Fine.”
A few days later Giselle reported back with some good news. The board agreed to reimburse her father-in-law’s $250 towing costs. Giselle was asked to form a Parking Committee and to come up with a better and more careful process.
A Publication of CAI-Illinois Chapter
Page 1 |
Page 2 |
Page 3 |
Page 4 |
Page 5 |
Page 6 |
Page 7 |
Page 8 |
Page 9 |
Page 10 |
Page 11 |
Page 12 |
Page 13 |
Page 14 |
Page 15 |
Page 16 |
Page 17 |
Page 18 |
Page 19 |
Page 20 |
Page 21 |
Page 22 |
Page 23 |
Page 24 |
Page 25 |
Page 26 |
Page 27 |
Page 28 |
Page 29 |
Page 30 |
Page 31 |
Page 32 |
Page 33 |
Page 34 |
Page 35 |
Page 36 |
Page 37 |
Page 38 |
Page 39 |
Page 40 |
Page 41 |
Page 42 |
Page 43 |
Page 44 |
Page 45 |
Page 46 |
Page 47 |
Page 48 |
Page 49 |
Page 50 |
Page 51 |
Page 52 |
Page 53 |
Page 54 |
Page 55 |
Page 56 |
Page 57 |
Page 58 |
Page 59 |
Page 60