The Cost of Participation
Updated: Sep 12
"I'm very uncomfortable with you chairing or even being a member of any kind of technology committee. Sure, you've got good ideas, and they have merit, but your attacks on the board through Friends of Ken Lake and the stuff you just read at the beginning of the meeting, it makes me want to vote to remove you from the Technology Committee." — LCC President Gowrylow, 8/31/26
The community comment that prompted that response was not the first attempt at communication. Before bringing these concerns to a public meeting, I have consistently approached board members to ask for a conversation — the kind of conversation they would extend to a friend. Or a neighbor.
A community comment, read into the record at a board meeting, was what remained after that request was declined. This was a community comment, not a committee report; but the committee is what was affected.
"Oh, brother!"
So what happened? During a LCC email exchange, a board member forwarded the tech committee chair's responses with the commentary "Oh brother!" The tech committee chair's response was brief, matter of fact, and not argumentative at all. The board member could have followed up with the chair to better understand the response. Instead, she turned to someone else and rolled her eyes. The chair did not catch it right away, and the conversation continued. Everything the chair said was met with an argument, and the chair did not understand the difficulty. Then she looked back. That eye roll is a permission structure - it fails if the person on the other side says, "uhm, this all looks reasonable," or asks a question about the content. It succeeds when the story about the person is that they deserve to be dismissed and ridiculed.
This is between an LCC chair doing LCC work, responding to a direct question from a board member.
"That's a waste of the board's time."
In the same set of emails, facing the chair, the lone board member judged the proposal in the chair's response as a waste of the board's time.
This is the same proposal that the President later specifically named as having merit.
The Snide Comment
Board members nearly unanimously attend bylaws meetings on Wednesdays. The "oh brother!" response was brought up as a harmful pattern. Instead of listening, considering the problem and why it came up here, yet another board member chose to join the dismissal with a comment "Always the victim." Rather than face any feedback for her comment, she left the room and rejoined on Zoom.
This is a board member who has applied labels to members, including 'controlling,' 'chihuahua,' with the specific comment that she doesn't have to listen to a member.
A follow-up statement was that she won the most votes, so she must be right.
It is easy to be right, to feel right, when you dismiss anyone who disagrees. It is easy to feel right when you make sure you have the last word.
Bystander Intervention
Research into volatile group dynamics, in workplaces and HOAs, finds two paths to de-escalation.
The first is open communication - without conditions and towards a goal of collaboration.
Where open communication is not an option, bystander intervention is the next best remedy. The board, indicated by the above comments, has already indicated a willingness to dismiss any response by the chair.
We have also confirmed that five board members discuss the chair, and others, negatively where the subjects cannot respond.
Bystander intervention can be small - when the language becomes negative or feels conspiratorial, keep these responses in your back pocket:
"Have you talked to them?"
"I wonder what they'd say about that."
"Maybe there's something we're not seeing."
"That sounds tough! Have you asked them for their help?"
"What did they say when you clarified?"
"You know, they're not here to respond."
"I would hate if you talked about me like that."
"This is probably not helpful. Let's think of something better."
If you're in the room and witness a sharp comment, ganging up, or other attempts to silence one person, it's your turn to speak!
"I'd really like to hear what _____ has to say."
"That language is not helpful. I'd like you to acknowledge that before we move on."
Not choosing a side is choosing a side. By standing back, we choose whichever side has, and is willing to use, power.
We like to ask if a friendship would survive the language being used - if not, it's probably not appropriate language. Feelings can be valid, and real accountability may be needed - we can recognize that without contributing to conflict. That's a big part of our communication principles, so please have a look and consider why and how these are applied.
This is our neighborhood, our neighbors, and our lake. Let's talk about it. Join the conversation on Signal. |
Comments