Politics Corrupt

As most of you who know me (and the few you only know me based on this blog) I have an unhealthy interest in politics. It started out young, growing up in a Union family, in a Union town. As the class clown, I had to be more aware of how authority worked than most. The dynamics of power, particularly its excercise, is a never-ending source of entertainment.

As anyone who follows politics, or has paid attention to History, knows, power corrupts. Offices held are usually held for selfish reasons. Intentions may at first be noble. And the noble purpose may from time-to-time manifest. But whenever the Office can be used for personal gain, it will be. Pending of course, the ability to get away with it. There is no shortage of examples that demonstrate this. I'd be insulting you to present any, so obvious is this fact.

15 years of paying attention has made me very, very suspicious of the motives of Offices of authority. I trust more than a few of my teachers would tell you I started out that way. Whatever the origins, I just don't trust blindly the integrity of others. It takes bit more effort than being a sucker, but it's worked for me.

So when I see in my HOA newsletter that the President of the HOA had a home-improvement proposal denied by the Architectual Review Committee, and appealed to the Board of Directors (of which she is the President)...well, my bullshit radar went off the scales. So I asked about it. We have a new website for the HOA, and they have an Online Forum. What better place, eh?

So I ask for the details surrounding this curious incident. I'm genuinely concerned that the person most responsible for dealing with nearly $200,000 of my community's money may not be operating on the up-and-up.

Another board member (recently a former one, as his term was up, and he's moving), responded. He explained as much as he could about what happened. He said the management company had incorrectly told her that she only needed the signatures of the neighbors living on either side of her, when in fact she needed the signatures of every adjacent property owner (including the one living behind her.) Now, since the improvement in question was one to the front of her home, it's not unreasonable to think the person living behind you shouldn't give a fuck about what you do tot he front of your house. But the rules say they need to be told, and have to sign the sheet you give to the ARC to review. Silly, perhaps, but a rule nonetheless.

So alledgedly thinking she didn't need person X's signature, she presented her materials to the ARC for review. They denied her request on the grounds that she needed Person X to sign, and since she was the HOA Pres, they wanted to make sure everything was done by the book. The board thought because she initially told the wrong thing, she should win her appeal. And she didn't vote, 'cause that would be an obvious conflict of interest.

Now, at this point, I imagine what I would do. Would I:

A. Go see my neighbor behind me and have them look over my plans and sign acknowledging they've been made aware of my intentions?

or

B. Appeal to the Board, which is made up of me, and people I've known for a few years to overrule the ARC's decision.

Hmm. If I thought the rules should be followed, I'd do A. Even if I didn't, I'd know that I held a position of authority, and could really expect to enforce the rules if I was going to ignore them when it was convenient. I suspect most people would understand the PR aspects, and just play by the rules.

So I mention this in response to the fmr. Board member. "Why did she appeal, instead of just doing as the ARC instructed?" I went on to present some hypothetical circumstances: Does Person X not live there (rental), and is impossible to reach? Does she have a fued or something with Person X (those things happen)? IMO, Person X's opinion isn't that important. I'd find most explanations acceptable.

But none was provide (yet, anyway). Instead, I was accused by another board member, and moderator of the forum, of gossiping. And told that gossip was not accepted in that forum. Now, I hardly think seeking clarification concerning the behavior of a steward of my money towards rules she is suppossed to be adjudicating constitutes gossip. I think it better represents accountability.

But instead of argue about semantics and desconstructing false assertions, as I usually do, I relented. My point had been made, so I made it once more, and said I'd discuss it no further there if they didn't feel it was appropriate. These being people I have to deal with in real life, such arguments bear little fruit. Better served to waste that energy on Brian, who needs a distraction.

But it occurs to me that it probably didn't occur to many to be suspicious of that single line in the HOA newsletter. And fewer still would even have taken the time to make a further inquiry. That I did makes me an asshole, I guess. But honestly, I wish more people were assholes in that regard. We probably wouldn't have a national debt.

Posted by danisaacs at August 16, 2003 07:17 PM | TrackBack