I Am The One Who Meows

In the epic show about drugs, "Breaking Bad", the High School teacher turned meth dealer said to describe himself, "I am the one who knocks!"

It was supposed to convey that he was the guy in charge, the man who feared no danger.  But it was also kind of funny, and kind of a joke, as he wasn't really fully in charge, and he was plenty afraid of various dangers!  He's also the one who said, "Say my name!", but that usually failed to intimidate, too!

For my own situation of theoretically being "in charge" of 490 Outreach with six random adult addicts here at any given time, I think of myself as "the one who meows".  Because like any other cat, when I'm away, various recovering mice will play!  And like that show, the hiss is worse than the scratch!

Case in point.  A man fails to have his program fee, and doesn't show up a few nights, and so I place his things on the porch for him.  I try contacting him, and can "see" that he has "seen" the message, but he fails to answer or come by.

Meanwhile, a church friend of mine needs aid moving stuff from Hammond, Indiana to Springfield, so I must go on that little overnight trip.

Yeah, you can see this coming.

Sunday, I'm up near Chicago aiding a friend, and that's when the guy kicked out wants to come by and go shopping.  "Shopping" is what I call the practice of a guest wishing to do a "walk through" to "check to see if any of his stuff is still there" but it really turns into him pointing to anything pawnable and carryable and saying, "And that, and that, and that".

He could be pointing to the stuff of other guests not there, or he could be pointing to stuff that we have provided to the house.  In rare instances, he may be pointing to his own stuff, but that is very rare.  As in, that hasn't happened yet.

Thing is, I already had his bed filled and the door code changed, so he was in a bit of a quandary. He couldn't just walk in and start grabbing.  So he knocks and when a new guest opens the door he pulls a knife on him and demands his stuff.  Or that's the version I heard.  I'm thinking a more likely scenario is he not pulling a knife but trying to push in, then the larger guest pushing back, then the littler former guest getting panicky and pulling the knife.

Well, he is small, and knives aren't the automatic "take it, take it" that a gun would be, so naturally the guest is going to discuss this issue vigorously with him.  Loud enough for my wife to come out and get between them.  She was able to get the one guy to put the knife away, and more importantly, get the other guy to not worry about calling the police.

He agreed not to.  Thank heavens.  There's never any problem so bad that the police won't make it worse the moment they arrive.

He left, as my wife told him I'd be back by six thirty, which I had originally thought I'd be.  But he let her know about the TV and DVD player that was his.  And how he'd call the cops if he couldn't get it. Which had her on the phone to me pretty fast.  For the review of what to do if men with guns show up to see which story they enjoy more.

(Cops are reactive.  Thus when they arrive they listen to the opposing stories and depending on which they hear first or like better or fits better or lets them have more fun they'll decide who to believe. Maybe it would be Story A, where a poor homeless waif is kicked out illegally by Cruella DeVille who wanted a free box TV and a used DVD player, neither even pawnable.  Or maybe it would be Story B, where we're a business who had a relapsed guest leave and he wants to loot us on the way out.  Yes, our story is the true one, but truth or falsity has nothing to do with the determination of the cop at the scene.)

That then was a situation that I had to focus on long distance over a span of a few hours that day.  And then deal with additionally when I got home.  See, another guest, who dislikes me not for anything I've specifically done, but because he perceives me as having some tiny smidgelet of authority, had pulled a fast one.

First off, this guy is hilariously touchy.  I once asked him why he was the only one who was always angry with me no matter what I said or did.  He finally said it was for me "prying into his business". Having not talked to him much, I was curious as to how I had done that.  He named examples.  For one, every time I saw him, I'd ask how he was doing and how his job was going.  For two, I had asked if the girl who sat on the porch with him was his girlfriend.

I pondered that and said, "Bad news.  I'm a program supervisor, so I guess I'll always pry a bit.  But worse news, I had not yet begun to pry!  I just asked you those things as, well, what else was I going to talk to you about?  It's not like I know you.  Was I to talk about who's who in the music world?"  He, being younger and of a different background then me, did smile at that, acknowledging in that smile that we'd have little to discuss when it came to our views on popular culture!

He was a friend of the guy who had been kicked out.  So while I was gone that Sunday, he went over, knocked on the door, and when my wife answered, entered that back door, as he said he was there to see the two downstairs.  She thus thought he was their friend.  But when down there, he was acting to them as if my wife had gave him permission to come and get - the DVD player!

Which he proceeded to take, in theory for the former guest.  In reality, he hooked it up next door at the main sober living home.  My wife related this to me, and when I got home, I had to correct that.  By the simple expedient of going over and unhooking it.  As I told him, "You didn't really think that going into the house I live in and taking stuff without asking was a thing, did you?"  He gave me the "I thought that belonged to the last guy..." and I said, "Best in the future to let me worry about departing guests and what belongs to who."

And because someone asked me, the reason why he would not be kicked out for that is because we're here to aid people in their sobriety, not for curing all manner of silliness.  So stuff like that is just part of what you put up with while helping them with their addictions.

The next day, Monday, the departed guest finally did show up.  And took the stuff that I had for him on the porch.  And made absolutely no mention of a TV or DVD player, as he had no doubt been told, by the guest who had tried for the DVD player, that I wasn't having it.

Because I am the one who meows!

The Board

Ever seen one of those movies where some guy is running things, and getting things done, and in every way in charge, and then when someone asks him to do something that he really doesn't want to do, but he doesn't want to offend the one asking, he'll say, "I'll have to check with the Board!"?

Sure.  You also see scenes where a person begs off by saying, "I can't get Board approval on that!" or "I could never get that past the Board!"

Sometimes they want to, but know they can't, other times they don't want to either, but don't want the blame.

The fun thing about that is that when you incorporate, you get to do that, too!  Because even though you're incomparably tiny and stand in relation to a corporation like Microsoft in the same way an amoeba stands in relation to a whale or an asteroid to a star, you are still a corporation and you do still have a Board!

The Board of Directors from the movie "Executive Suite"

You see, for most corporations, but definitely for all non-profits, a Board is a legal requirement.  In order to incorporate in the first place, one must have a Board of Directors that numbers at least three people.  They do not necessarily have to be a resident of the State, or a citizen of the nation, or even an adult.  But it's best if they are.

This is because a non-profit corporation has no owner, and so is overseen by a Board.  No Board, and that would leave the whole thing in the hands of just the Registered Agent and that would make it more of a private property, as he/she would be the only one calling the shots.

Now, given that most corporations, non-profit or otherwise, start with one person and their vision, most of these things are essentially run by one person after all.  The Registered Agent is the person most directly responsible for the corporation and is the one the State will seek out if there is a legal issue to discuss.

And the Founder is usually the Registered Agent, who also sits on the Board.  It is also customary for the spouse and immediate family members or close friends to be on the Board.  Typically a spouse and a friend, or sometimes a spouse and an adult child, or a spouse and even a lawyer.  In that last case, the lawyer is agreeing to vote and make decisions substantially as his client would.

In each case, you can see that it's de facto a one man show, even if de jure it is a Board.  In other words, the decider decides and the Board "rubber stamps" that decider's decision.

In the entire history of corporations, profit and non-profit, it almost 100% of the time starts out with the one person with a vision, and his Board hand picked to do little more then validate him as he goes about doing all that needs to be done.  He is bound by law, but above most any internal checks and balances by virtue of it being his project, he knowing all the ins and outs, he caring the most, and having the most in it.

And for having prudently picked a Board that will rubber stamp things.  Which is the informal way of saying "validate".

This is known as "Founder's Syndrome" because the power, authority and dominion exercised over the corporation by that person will never be repeated.  In most every case, the successor will be bound far more tightly by the Board, who will have not so many - if any - special ties or loyalty to the new CEO, President, Registered Agent, or whoever is that Decider.

Most often, and this is fascinating for how often this is the case, the Founder himself will see to it in the by laws and organizational set up that the next person will in no way have such unbridled power, but will be wholly subservient to the Board.  Thus the successor will be a caretaker to the Founder's vision instead of a new visionary who might steer the Founder's enterprise on to a new path.

Because even the Founder knows that Founder's Syndrome is not a good thing.  Perhaps essential for the start, it can kill that which took such effort to grow. There comes a point, sometimes not till the death of the Founder, other times at retirement, other times even sooner, where he must release the reins a bit, and let others have a say.  Usually, people being people and Founders being people, sooner than he thinks is necessary.  This is good for the corporation in many ways.

But first, I must emphasize, Founder's Syndrome is great at the start, in fact, it could be argued it's not even the "Syndrome" till after those initial stages of creation.  Really, it's the only way any new corporation ever comes into being and lives to grow more than a year or two old.  The corporation doesn't exist at first, there is nothing for anyone else to care about, it's one man's dream, and it makes sense that the best man to see that the dream is realized is the one who has that dream.

And no one else cares to at that point, anyway.  Have say over what?  A dream?  A business plan?  Like the barnyard animals of the children's story, no one wants to help with the gathering of the food or the prepping of it or the cooking of it.  But they might not mind helping eat it!

Eventually, though, if all goes well, the enterprise does grow.  It becomes functional.  It is built, it is in operation, it is humming along, and for a long enough time that it is unlikely to fail.  The vision has been realized.  Things can get bigger now, but in essence, all that was dreamed of is achieved, or is very soon to be.

At that point, it is not too soon for the Founder to think about having a real Board.  Or more delicately put, a Board that is checked with before hand, not advised of later.  If a Founder cares only for himself, he'll do this later.  If he cares primarily for the vision, he'll do it sooner.  I'm doing it sooner.

True, I've enjoyed the fun of having a Board as it is now.  And when talking to hard selling salesmen I've enjoyed saying things like, "Well, shoot me an estimate and I'll run it past the Board.  You know how they are." and by tone I'll imply that he and I are both businessmen of the world, and he'll nod back sagely as if he does know!

My own Board, as I usually have joked, is myself and my cats.  But in reality, it is myself, my wife and a friend of ours.  As is usual in such cases.  While my wife's input has been invaluable over the years, it is now, as it has been from the start, a "one man show" when it comes to the running and operation and changing and tweaking of things.

But now the time is here for the filing of the 501(c)(3).  The application is still being tweaked, but this may well be the week, and it is in fact planned that this be the week of filing.  At that point, the gathering of the food, the preparing of it and the cooking of it - so to speak - will be done.  Our non-profit will be complete.

True, there will yet be repairs and landscaping and expansions and our new food distribution program. There will be plenty of new and exciting challenges.  Perhaps even, a couple of years from now, another house contemplated.  But the main point is that all that will only be expansions, the non-profit will be "done", will be finalized, will have all that any "real" non-profit has.

And so it draws near for the next step.  For a larger Board.

I am announcing then that there are three spots available.  That is to say, there are three people on the Board now, and we will be expanding to five, which means one current member would be resigning.  In another year or two, depending on the consensus of the Board, we could expand to seven total.

Those interested may contact me at 217-720-2568 or clemens177@hotmail.com.  Please be aware that it is a position being offered, so there will be an application and interview process.

...and justice for all.

Of all the groups on Earth, only teenagers have an odder concept of "justice" than alcoholics and addicts.  Or perhaps it is a tie.  In any case, teens, drunks and addicts have a very odd - but rock solid - idea of what "justice" is.

Example:  Guest A is caught drinking.  He is confronted.  He immediately says, "But you only gave a warning when Guest B did that last week."  Now, Guest B may have had one minor relapse upon hearing that his mom died after six months of otherwise perfect sobriety, and Guest A may have been off the wagon for a week and this the third time you've confronted him, but he will honestly - as honest as addicts can be - think that makes sense.

The addict will be thinking that this is some sort of "Equal Protection Under the Law" issue, but most parents of teens and sober living home Program Supervisors will see it as the old "You can't punish me unless you first punish every other person on Earth who has ever done any kind of wrong in any way, shape or form" gambit.

The logical flaw to that, in case you know it's wrong but don't know why, is that each and every person you could then try to go and correct could say the same thing, thus the proposition is really "every person on Earth must become perfect at once, or I get to morally keep sinning forever!"

Doesn't wash for real life or non-addict adults, but that's how too many teens and addicts think.

Now comes the saga of the Breathalyzer, and why I've wanted one.

It's not, as some have thought, because you can't kick someone out without a drug test or breathalyzer.  You can.  I've been doing so for the past two or three years, though there's been a drug test here or there.  You also don't need a breathalyzer or drug test to be busted for a DUI.  

You can get a DUI - or be removed from a sober living home - based upon the knowledge of the officer or Program Supervisor that you're drunk.  In the case of the Program Supervisor, it's a matter of reminding the person of the obvious.  That this is not "Law and Order" and that I don't have to "prove beyond a reasonable doubt" to a "jury of their peers".

They stumble in, they reek of booze, they slur their words, they're drunk.  End of story.  Case closed.

Okay, so I've that awesome power.  Why then did I bother to seek out a specific donation for a breathalyzer?

Because of that sense of "justice", right or wrong, that addicts and alcoholics (including myself) can fall prey to.  And usually do fall prey to.  Me, not so much, obviously, I've been clean and sober for some time, but I still at least "get" where they think they're coming from.

Example:  Guest A has been drinking, and there are no more chances.  It's time for him to leave.  You tell him so.  "It's not fair, I've not been drinking!"  Now, in this particular case, they did not stumble in, they were already in, and they're not particularly slurring their words, but you know they've been drinking all the same.  It could be anything that tipped you off to that, but for example’s sake, we’ll say it was a cup of still cool beer sitting right next to them, and they’re the only ones there.

“That’s not my beer.  Someone left it there.”

Here's the funny thing.  And here is how teens and drunks and addicts think.  "Since he doesn't really have any real proof, then for all he knows he's kicking out an innocent man.  Therefore, even though I had one little beer - which he has no way of knowing was mine - it's as if he was being that unfair to me, since for all he knows he is being that unfair!  Therefore I am justly angry at him, as he is the type of man who would throw an innocent man out with no proof whatsoever!"

You see, he’s imagining a hypothetical, where he was really sitting there contemplating Bible verses he had just read, and was so busy marvelling at the beauty of God’s words that he did not notice when an ex wife, mean boss, other guest who hates him, or Ninja snuck in and cruelly left that beer there right next to him so as to frame him.  He is imagining further that you came in after, and because you always assume the worst, and/or have it in for him, you are using it as an excuse to boot him for no reason.

He is telling himself that there is really no way for you to know that it didn’t go down that way, and in one sense is correct, it is at least possible that a Ninja Drinker snuck in the back door, left that still chilly beer next to him and slipped out, all in the hopes that you the Program Supervisor might walk in right then and there.

You are thus being unjust.  He can get very worked up over this, and the harm it would be doing to his hypothetically innocent self.  Watching, a part of you can be fascinated at the sheer artistry of it, as they get wound up to new levels of outrage, and, as I’ve told my wife, I honestly think that if you put them on a polygraph, they would pass.

Oddly enough then, it's not that you have to then persuade a jury, or even the rest of the house later.  You are now called to prove to HIM that he's been drinking, even though he does know that he has been!

ONLY if you then do convince him that you have objective data to know he's been drinking will he view your confronting him - let alone any punishment of him - as fair.  If you fail to give him such evidence, he will view you - till the end of time - as a mean and capricious monster who kicked him out unjustly.  

"Because yeah, sure, I might have had one lousy beer, but there was no way that high and mighty *#$*! could have known that!  So he just had it in for me!  Give a guy a bit of authority and he thinks he's King Turd of Crap Hill!"

Now, if you’re used to this kind of thing - and I am - then you can have the words to get around that anyway.  Often, I’ll simply use the “expect horses, not zebras” example.  I’ll point out that if one hears hoofbeats, one should expect horses, even if zebras are technically possible.  I’ll point out that while a Ninja could have come over from Japan, or an angry ex have hired a person to mess with the guest, such that either of those snuck and left a cold beer near him, that it was probably more likely he had gone to the store half a block away, got it, poured it into a styrofoam soda cup for camouflage, tossed the can, and then settled in with it.

For some, not so far gone as others have been, that is sufficient.  They aren’t happy, but they “get it” and thus having been persuaded by me that they’ve been drinking after all, some kind of intelligent discourse can be had.  Others, they still can’t get over the fact that zebras and ninjas do exist, so why do I find doubting a recovering alcoholic preferable?

I must have it in for them.

Is that the only reason I wanted a breathalyzer?  Of course not.  I also want it for desiring to have for myself objective data.  I’m not actually a monster, and don’t want to make an error that has a man leave who was innocent.

And before you wonder, no, I’ve never kicked out any innocent person.  Not for me being infallible, but for whenever there is least doubt, I wait.  In the end, it always manifests.  But this way that won’t take quite so long.  Which is good for those that are serious about sobriety.  And good for me.  Leaving to go home knowing that the “wait” may involve waiting till they get drunk and arrested or drunk and violent or drunk and crashing into the TV is no fun at all.

Act too soon, unjust to them.  Act too late, unjust to other guests.  I stay up fretting over that sometimes.

Now, I’ll know for sure, and have no worries.  And they’ll know that I know.  And I’ll know that they know that I’ll know.  Heh, heh!  The breathalyzer will help them to not lie, and to get to the part where they admit error, however poorly, and move on, however grumpily.