“The notion of civility originates in Cicero from the concept of societas civilus or civil society. Rhetoric professor Chris Lundberg says of civil society “there are certain standards of conduct towards others and … members of the civil society should comport themselves in a way that [seeks] the good of the city.” In other words, civility is not about politeness; it is about behaving in such a way that advances the greater good.“
Source: Shuster, Kate. Civil Discourse In The Classroom. Learning for Justice. p. 3
When you ask the average person what they think Civility or Being Civil means, you most often get a response that equates to being polite. But if you compare the words impolite and uncivil, the images that probably appear in your head are quite different. It is sometimes easier to examine the inverse of each word to see the contrast.
Impoliteness is often the difference between saying “please” and “thank you”, whereas being uncivil may be yelling, swearing, using “fighting words”, or even physical aggression. And, therefore, when we are talking about group dynamics or rules, it’s far easier to police for incivility than it is for politeness as each word comes with a subjective interpretation of what qualifies for the infraction, and each comes with a set of reasons why those accused of either may debate or protest the label. While it may be appropriate for a leader in group to call out incivility, calling out impoliteness can often make the leader appear to be a prude or reaching desperately for a way to signal virtue.
It is therefore important to also consider and discuss the abuses of the labels – beyond just virtue signaling. When calling out someone else’s behavior as uncivil, there’s a strong need for definitions or criteria to be met. Without such clear and objective standards, sometimes leaders who are under scrutiny can use the term to silence or suppress legitimate criticism or dissent. It is a tactic that has been used for decades or even centuries in public discourse to marginalize minorities, women, and protected classes.
When legitimate issues are raised, which may be a Civic Duty, it is very easy for those who have some control over public discourse to accuse those making a leader uncomfortable – and then accuse those who spoke up of incivility. There are words like “harassment” that fit the purpose, as the word itself is so subjective, it is difficult for those accused to respond to the accusation without, in fact, appearing to others as becoming even more “uncivil” or “harassing”. In fact, it’s a technique often deployed with purpose and intent, again to silence or marginalize those who may simply be standing up for their actual rights.
So, it might be useful to examine what, exactly, is meant by the words “civil discourse”, and how that fits into the way we should approach civility in the context of an HOA.
According to Mark Kingwell, a Professor of Philosophy at the University of Toronto, “civil discourse” is the engagement of discourse intended to enhance understanding. He’s written A Civil Tongue: Justice, Dialogue, and the Politics of Pluralism that discusses the topic in depth. One of his concepts is “Justice as Civility”, which is part of the reason I have suggested that Justice is one of the 3 Pillars of Building Better HOAs.
“Kingwell’s central thesis is that civility is both a precondition of justice under conditions of moral pluralism and a commitment that would emerge from a dialogue oriented towards the discovery of just norms. The notion of civility is developed in a rich and interesting way, grounding it both ethically and historically, and it is defended through a series of powerful and convincing arguments. This work makes an important contribution to a vibrant area of contemporary political theory. It will be of interest to scholars in political theory, including people whose disciplinary homes are political science, sociology, philosophy, and literary studies.”
Source: J. Donald Moon, Wesleyan University
It is therefore necessary that we attempt to define what uncivil discourse is. It cannot simply be the things we would prefer not to hear or discuss, or things we may label as impolite. And, as leaders of an organization where members have an absolute right to be heard, even as a minority as a simple matter of following Robert’s Rules of Order, to dismiss the words and ideas as others by labeling them as “uncivil” is arguably an act of aggression itself by marginalizing or silencing those voices.
Source: Michael W. Beets, R. Glenn Weaver & Keith Brazendale in International Journal of Behavioral Nutrition and Physical Activity
“Conversely, uncivil discourse is language characterized as containing direct insults, willful misattribution of motive without due reason, and open contempt.”
At Poudre Overlook HOA, attending meetings and attempting to voice a concern to many of those who have served on the Board of Directors will resemble the last quote. If you dare to oppose an idea or action, certain personalities will insult you in various ways. They will attribute motives without due reason. And, they will hold you in open contempt. A perfect example happened at the 12/1/21 Homeowner’s Annual Meeting when Mr. Flanary openly questioned my motives in filing litigation “against my neighbors”, not to mention attributing just one of several claims for relief (monetary damages) as the entire purpose of the suit. Because this was in the context of candidacy for the Board, he then framed this as an issue of whether or not anyone should or even could “trust” me.
But, this isn’t just a single emotional example from Mr. Flanary. His behavior has been a consistent and persistent pattern at many if not all of the meetings I have attended while he has been present – either as a Board or Committee Member or Leader, as well as his participation at meetings as a homeowner. While some of his comments may be more aptly described as Microaggressions, the point isn’t about an indictment of his behavior. The point is what is an HOA, as an organization and as a community, supposed to DO about it – if anything.
In the context of our local HOA politics, what Mr. Flanary and others in his POA (Poudre Overlook Advocates/Associates) group have done over the past 4-5 years is to create a set of behaviors that meets the Fair Housing Act (FHA) criteria for “Hostile Environment Harassment“. According to that change in law in October of 2016, the HOA has a legal obligation to intervene when members of an HOA act in that manner, even if none of them is on the Board of Directors. This is known as neighbor-to-neighbor disputes, and while it may have been advisable by CAI-trained attorneys to say “never get involved” in such disputes, such legal advise was contrary to the law after that date.
When Mr. Flanary and his group would not cease and desist from this behavior, both at meetings, and then eventually on the literal doorstep of one HOA President, I demanded that the Board intervene as required by law, and to publish a policy as advised by CAI (Community Association Institute). Instead, Ms. Hutchinson decided to make the policy “We never get involved in neighbor-to-neighbor kerfuffles”, which itself was literally an uncivil response, a microinsult, and a microinvalidation. Because there has been no public recinding of this unwritten “policy”, it remains the policy of POHOA today. We are therefore not compliant with the Fair Housing Act, even though, at the Annual Homeowner’s Meeting, Ms. Hutchinson claimed we were without any action whatsoever.
Because that Board (Ms. Hutchinson, Ms. Campbell, Ms. Young, and Mr. Weatherington) shut down any civil discourse on the matter, in spite of having a written proposal of compromise in hand for consideration, it began a process of marginalizing and ultimately attempts to silence any more discussion on the matter. Literally, this Board, and now several configurations that have followed, have attempted to create instead an Anti-Harassment Policy to institutionalize this uncivil approach to homeowners voicing such concerns and demanding action as a matter of Justice and Compliance.
In that sense, left with no other options and a duty to press for Justice and Compliance, I was compelled to let them know that litigation was the final option left for resolution of the dispute. I gave them 3 weeks notice in advance of filing, and we know from their CCRD (Colorado Civil Rights Division) Exhibits, which included emails to Mr. Dauster, the HOA General Counsel, that they consulted with an attorney and took no steps whatsoever to engage in any civil discourse to resolve the dispute in interpretation of the law. I therefore protest the concept Mr. Flanary repeats as a misattribution of motive that I “sued my neighbors” for the sole purpose of monetary damages.
I’ll say it more directly: If Mr. Flanary or anyone in his group intend to make life difficult or miserable for other homeowners, going as far as to verbalize suggestions that anyone move from the neighborhood, then they should be prepared to pay for those homeowner’s equal housing to enjoy peace in their home elsewhere. They have no right to drive anyone from the neighborhood (ever), and, in fact, such verbalizations are in fact one of the criteria that defines Hostile Environment Harassment that should have been recognized by the Board as a trigger and necessity for intervention. The Settlement Agreement explicitly states that I did not surrender or reverse my positions leading to the litigation, but rather that I would not pursue new litigation based solely on facts prior to 6/17/21.
The hope is that we’d move forward with civility in mind, and that lessons learned would change behaviors. Unfortunately, this is not the case, and clearly Mr. Flanary intends to continue his uncivil discourse at meetings under cover of a Board that appears to coordinate messaging and action with him and his group. This is a pattern at many HOAs, where the actions that might land a Board member in hot water or invite legal scrutiny are then carried out by a homeowner who has no duties or obligations under CCIOA or any other law.
So, it may be true that I may not be the best educator on the subject because I know the details, and I like to be thorough in my presentations of the subject. Now that Mr. Flanary has attacked my integrity, and a small minority side with him on this point, it may be difficult for me to be accepted by those in his group in particular. Is there not a better way to get an objective education on the matter?
Well, of course there is. But, our Board of Directors, which has displayed willful ignorance on the claim that they are “just volunteers” and “too busy” to “know” all of these “complicated” and “confusing” things, argues that we now have to collectively pay $10,000 to scrap our current documents to make them “readable”, as if readability is the underlying problem with civility. Or that we need a Board of Directors who are then armed with new Powers and Authorities vis a vis an Anti-Harassment Policy that gives them the ability to, without any definition whatsoever, declare someone else’s words or actions as “harassment”, and then fine them up to $5000 based upon their OPINION. It comes awfully close to that uncivil definition above where motives are unjustly assigned to parties as a means to silence their dissent, or marginalize their legitimate issues of justice.
So, what is the best practice according to CAI?
We should seek, as an organization, to review and pass their Civility Pledge and publish it as a matter of public record. This is a formal written program that walks Community Leaders through a deliberate process so that we can have civil discussions that focus on the greater good of the community, and stop using defense of ego or superiority complexes to respond emotionally to those seeking a voice on disputed matters. We will never agree on everything, but we must agree on a way to avoid marginalizing or silencing those who suffer emotional distress (whether due to mental disability or not) because of such aggressions and microaggressions that have been documented for years at POHOA.
How does CAI suggest that we begin this process?
“Adopting the Civility Pledge starts with YOU!
1. Distribute the document throughout your community, announcing and publicizing where and when the adoption will be considered.
2. Explain why this is important to your community and the benefits it can create.
3. Review and discuss the merits of the principles at an open meeting of your board of directors.
4. Solicit input from homeowners.
5. Hold a board vote to adopt a resolution endorsing the Community Association Civility Pledge.
6. Share the news of adopting the Community Association Civility Pledge throughout your community regularly, post on your website, social media, and on every community association meeting agenda.
7. Tell CAI that you’ve adopted the Community Association Civility Pledge so we can share the information on our website.Once your community association board of directors has adopted the Community Association Civility Pledge, share the good news with CAI by completing and submitting the following information.“
Source: https://www.caionline.org/HomeownerLeaders/CivilityPledge/Pages/default.aspx
Since POHOA has now hired VF Law, and our General Counsel, Mr. Bielli, is not just a member of CAI, but a member of their Amicus Brief Committee, there should be absolutely no reason whatsoever to dispute the use or value of adopting this Civility Pledge.
Once in place, we still need a written Policy for Hostile Environment Harassment recommended by CAI as well, which would then give POHOA Board Members specific tools to address behaviors like the ones we see regularly from Mr. Flanary and his POA Group at our meetings. It would make our meetings less contentious, and allow for actual civil discourse to occur – even when we disagree strongly on the matter at hand. That is the purpose of everything from Robert’s Rules of Order (the minority shall be heard!) to Civility Pledges – to focus both on what is said, as well as how it is said.
The most difficult part of all this, however, should be something for all of us to reflect upon. The Hostile Environment Harassment rule requires us to avoid invalidating the grievances of others. Using words like “kerfuffle” to trivialize someone else’s concerns is a microagression, and we shouldn’t judge the person or their grievance in that manner – ever. It’s hard, particularly for those of us who have grown up thinking sarcastic humor out of the earshot of another putting them down is actual comedy. We should recognize that this itself is uncivil in the sense that it does nothing for the greater good of the community. It will be no less a challenge for me as anyone else, even if I think my intentions are good.
And, that is the key: These matters are not judged by us defending our intentions. Even if we did not intend to cause another emotional distress, if they feel it, it matters, and we should simply look for how to mend that fence, no matter how tiny it appears to us. That is the lesson of this major change in law – that the aggrieved need not have to prove that other parties intentions are to harm another (emotionally or physically). They literally determine when an intervention or mediation or mutual agreement satisfactorily resolves the dispute. Period.
That may be a difficult pill for authoritarian mindsets to accept, and those that seek to be on the Board of Directors to be authoritarians whose decisions can never be challenged may need to reconsider why they wish to be in such positions of power and authority. Again, this isn’t my opinion, it is now the law, and the law as interpreted by the organization claiming to me the fountainhead of all information relating to HOAs – the Community Association Institute. Since we clearly have such mindsets within our community, it will take a collective program of education combined with the Civility Pledge to at least have community agreement to take a different path.
I hope that all POHOA homeowners will reach out to the current Board Members to ask them to consider the Civility Pledge, and to discuss with each other the topic of how we plan to have actual civil discourse on matters where we do not all agree. Our meetings must no longer require “the stomach” for some to endure the microaggressions, microinsults, microinvalidations, and microassaults that lead to less participation and more apathy. It is literally the poison pill that undermines HOA communities and leads to more than just verbal hostilities. We need to change while we still can.
One thought on “Civil Discourse, Civic Duty, and Civility in an HOA”