Dear Board of Directors,
I am writing to express my grave concerns regarding re-institution of the key service. First and foremost, you CANNOT abdicate all decision-making responsibility and put the burden of this decision on Bill. He is NOT in a position to refuse due to the inherent power difference between you, the Board, and him, the employee. You, the Board, must make this decision. And if you still insist on "leaving the decision up to Bill," then you have made a decision: to force him to give up his weekend nights to be at the beck and call of drunkards and ousted boyfriends.
I understand that this Board wishes to provide a service for the residents, even though no one has complained about the lack of the service. However, I do not believe we should sacrifice safety, even for the sake of that oh-so-important American value, convenience.
I believe it is dangerously naive to think that since this service is voluntary, nothing bad can happen. Let me unpack two common scenarios.
1. Ousted boyfriend wants back into his girlfriend's unit where he has been staying. She has locked him out tonight. Let's take the best case scenario and assume that the Board has required a list of persons allowed to enter the unit to be submitted when the key was given to the office. Although this list could potentially be changed by the unit owner at any time, the said boyfriend has become drunk and/or abusive beginning Friday evening after the office closed. What happens when the boyfriend calls Bill wanting to be let in? Bill has been told by the Board that the policy is to let in everyone on the list. Since Bill is not the police, he must let this fellow into the unit. As a result, the boyfriend severely beats or kills the girlfriend. She may even have obtained a restraining order Friday night, but since the boyfriend is still on the list, Bill must let him in. Again, Bill is not a lawyer or a police officer.
Or - she could be waiting inside with a gun, and, believing herself to be in danger, shoots the boyfriend and/or Bill.
Or - Bill, because he does have good sense, refuses to let in the boyfriend, in direct violation to his employer's directive. As a result, the boyfriend severely beats and/or shoots Bill.
In all of these scenarios, we as a community, but especially this Board, would be morally, legally, and financially liable.
2. Another common scenario is the drunkard. This person drank so much, s/he has either lost their keys or can't figure out how to open their door. Instead of asking them to be responsible adults and to call a locksmith, keep a key with a neighbor, or stay with a friend that night, we are enabling and encouraging their drunken behavior. And again, do not underestimate the potential danger to Bill, especially if he cannot let them in because they either do not have a key on file, or because he is no longer, by policy, going to drill their door open. Again, the moral, legal, and financial liability would be ours.
In closing, I would note that I hold three peoples' unit keys. And we have someone hold ours. Another friend is planning on getting a lock box or hollow rock to put somewhere outside someone else's home. Even if her key is obtained by a potential home invader, they won't be able to trace the key to her home. This is the way responsible home owners behave. All Tomahawk Creek residents are fully capable of so acting. Instituting a key service not only implies otherwise, it exposes us to unnecessary liability.
Very Sincerely,
Jori Church
No comments:
Post a Comment