Events, Decorum, and Community Culture
- friendsofkenlake
- 1 day ago
- 6 min read
A recap and discussion extension of the Feb 1, 2026 events committee meeting
Why Events Matter
Some neighbors reasonably understand the Lakemoor Community Club (LCC) as existing primarily to protect shared assets, including the lake.
At the same time, community organizations are shaped not only by what they manage, but by how people interact within them. Events play a central role in that process. They create repeated, visible opportunities for neighbors to gather, observe norms, and learn what kinds of participation are possible.
For that reason, the Events Committee contributes to community goals not only through scheduling activities, but through the cultural standards those activities reinforce.
What the Events Committee Discussed
The Events Committee will hold three decision-oriented meetings this year. The February 1st meeting focused on spring programming and added seasonal paddles to the calendar. Those events will be posted on the Ken Lake events calendar.
In addition to scheduling, two broader discussions emerged during the meeting that affect community culture more generally:
sustainability practices
expectations around decorum
Because these discussions shape how events function beyond any single date, they are worth explaining in more detail.
Sustainability: Practical, Low-Impact Changes
On sustainability, members advocated for incremental, low-burden steps rather than mandates. These included:
encouraging attendees to bring reusable to-go containers
prioritizing reuse and recycling where possible
sourcing clearance or second-hand items rather than purchasing new ones
The rationale offered was practical rather than symbolic: these steps reduce waste, simplify cleanup, and lower ongoing costs without increasing volunteer workload.
Research on pro-environmental behavior consistently finds that low-friction, norm-based interventions are more effective and more durable than punitive or high-effort approaches (Thaler & Sunstein, 2008; Steg & Vlek, 2009).
What’s in a To-Go Kit?A basic to-go kit typically includes:
Using these kits reduces single-use waste and helps events remain manageable for volunteers. |
Decorum: Why Definition Matters
The discussion about decorum was contentious. It was brought up, because in the January 20, 2026 board meeting, the chair of the events committee claimed that some members had violated 'decorum.'
In the meeting, decorum was described in general terms as “being nice to the host.” While that phrasing captures an important norm, it does not specify which behaviors are expected or how concerns should be addressed when expectations are unclear or contested.
This matters because decorum functions as a standard only when people can reasonably anticipate how it will be applied. Governance research consistently shows that rules are most effective when they are stable, known in advance, and applied consistently (Ostrom, 1990).
Without definition, it becomes difficult to distinguish between:
behavior that interferes with participation (e.g., harassment or intimidation), and
behavior that reflects disagreement, boundary-setting, or unresolved context
In practice, those distinctions affect how conflicts are interpreted and resolved.
What “Formal Decorum Rules” Actually DoThe moment an organization formalizes decorum, it is no longer just expressing a value. It is doing three things at once:
Because of that shift, the organization becomes responsible for the conditions under which decorum is enforced for the safety & support of volunteer hosts and member attendees. This is not optional. It’s a basic governance consequence. |
Context and Reciprocity
A claim that decorum has been violated is rarely self-explanatory. Meaning depends on context, including:
whether the host clearly identified themselves as such
whether expectations were stated in advance
whether boundaries were respected on all sides
whether prior interactions shaped the exchange
Hosting an event carries responsibility, including setting expectations and modeling conduct. Attending an event carries responsibility as well. For decorum to function as a shared norm, those responsibilities must be reciprocal between the host, the attendee, and even the organization.
From a governance perspective, this is not about assigning blame. It is about ensuring that standards are applied consistently rather than situationally — a core requirement for legitimacy in volunteer-run institutions (Tyler, 2006).
Support-Oriented vs. Enforcement-Oriented Responses
One way to understand the decorum discussion is through the lens used to interpret discomfort.
A support-oriented approach treats discomfort as information. It asks whether something in the environment, structure, or prior context contributed to the interaction, and whether repair is possible without exclusion.
An enforcement-oriented approach treats discomfort as evidence of a rule violation. It prioritizes correction or removal as a way to restore order.
Research on organizational learning and volunteer retention shows that systems relying primarily on enforcement under ambiguity tend to suppress feedback and reduce long-term participation, even when short-term order is restored (Argyris & Schön, 1978; Edmondson, 1999).
The distinction between support and enforcement is not new. Educators and community leaders such as Fred Rogers emphasized that behavior often signals unmet needs or unresolved context, and that understanding precedes correction in healthy communities.
The Importance of Repair Channels
In well-functioning governance systems, there are defined ways to raise concerns, request clarification, or correct public misunderstandings. These channels allow issues to be addressed without requiring escalation or withdrawal.
Feedback loops are a core feature of adaptive, resilient organizations; without them, decision-making becomes brittle and conflict reappears in less manageable forms (Argyris & Schön, 1978).
When such channels are absent or unclear, unresolved concerns tend to surface in shared spaces, including public events. This is not because events are an appropriate venue for conflict, but because they are one of the few visible and acknowledged forums available.
Why This Matters for Bystanders
Many neighbors may not encounter these dynamics directly.
However, community culture is shaped not only by those involved in disagreement, but by what others observe, normalize, or assume is standard practice.
Civic writers from Alexis de Tocqueville to Robert Putnam have noted that democratic culture is sustained less by formal authority than by everyday participation and observation — what people notice, normalize, and pass along as “just how things work.”
Decorum can strengthen community participation when it is clearly defined and applied with context. It can also narrow participation when it is used as an after-the-fact label rather than a shared guide.
The difference lies in whether discomfort is treated as a signal to understand, or as a problem to police.
That choice affects who remains engaged, who volunteers, and whether community spaces remain accessible to people with different communication styles and limits — a pattern well-documented in research on psychological safety and participation (Edmondson, 1999).
How This Connects to Governance PrinciplesThese issues map directly to widely accepted governance criteria: Clear, Predictable Processes Standards must be knowable in advance to be applied fairly (Ostrom, 1990). Feedback Loops Systems must allow concerns to be raised and addressed before they reappear as conflict (Argyris & Schön, 1978). Volunteer Support Supporting volunteers includes providing clear expectations and structures that reduce interpersonal strain (Hager & Brudney, 2011). Psychological Safety Participation should not depend on performing comfort or suppressing disagreement (Edmondson, 1999). Capacity Building Inclusive systems produce future volunteers; exclusionary ones do not (Putnam, 2000). |
Conclusion
Decorum is not inherently problematic. It becomes problematic when it is undefined, inconsistently applied, or used without attention to context. If we are going to invoke 'decorum' in the public record, then the organization carries the responsibility of both definition and structure.
Communities that orient toward support and repair tend to retain participants and volunteers. Communities that rely primarily on enforcement tend to reduce visible conflict by reducing participation — a distinction repeatedly observed in governance and organizational research.
Recognizing that distinction helps bystanders understand how everyday decisions shape the long-term health of the community.
References
Argyris, C., & Schön, D. (1978). Organizational Learning: A Theory of Action Perspective. Addison-Wesley.
Edmondson, A. (1999). Psychological safety and learning behavior in work teams. Administrative Science Quarterly, 44(2), 350–383.
Hager, M. A., & Brudney, J. L. (2011). Problems recruiting volunteers. Nonprofit Management & Leadership, 22(2), 137–157.
Ostrom, E. (1990). Governing the Commons. Cambridge University Press.
Putnam, R. D. (2000). Bowling Alone. Simon & Schuster.
Steg, L., & Vlek, C. (2009). Encouraging pro-environmental behaviour. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 29(3), 309–317.
Thaler, R. H., & Sunstein, C. R. (2008). Nudge. Yale University Press.
Tyler, T. R. (2006). Why People Obey the Law. Princeton University Press.
Comments