Re: Fallback Voting Methods- By Household or Member?
From: normangauss (
Date: Tue, 29 Mar 2005 09:05:15 -0800 (PST)

   Recently our community had an issue sitting around for a few weeks being
debated endlessly.  One member was so frustrated about no action being taken
on the issue that she offered to facilitate a meeting in which a vote would
be taken without first  asking for consensus.

   In your opinion, what would be a reasonable number of attempts to get a
proposal passed by consensus after which going for a vote would be the next

Norm Gauss
----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Sharon Villines" <sharon [at]>
To: "Cohousing-L" <cohousing-l [at]>
Sent: Tuesday, March 29, 2005 8:54 AM
Subject: Re: [C-L]_ Fallback Voting Methods- By Household or Member?

> On Mar 28, 2005, at 4:10 PM, David Demaree wrote:
> > We're currently writing our bylaws and we've come up
> > against the issue of how to allocate votes in the
> > event that consensus fails.
> Firstly, don't agonize over this too much as it happens very
> infrequently.
> Secondly, there are many solutions to every problem and if only one or
> two people are refusing to agree, they also know they will lose a vote
> so they figure something out.
> > Some prefer to allocate votes by unit in order to
> > protect their economic investment.  We have considered
> > one or two votes per unit.
> >
> > Some prefer to allocate votes by member since we are a
> > community of members (not units) and all members
> > should have an equal voice.
> If it does come down to a vote, you are in trouble and need to be as
> conservative as possible. The community in all likelihood has broken
> down and allocating one vote per resident or member will probably not
> be a good idea. When the community gets down to voting, it also is more
> vulnerable to people not acting in good faith (out of anger) and
> manipulating votes by moving in 10 friends.
> If it should ever come down to a vote, I would suggest going with the
> condominium law in your state or city so that you are operating in a
> manner that will be  interpreted by the courts as proper and prudent.
> This is usually one vote per unit or a percentage vote per unit based
> on the percentage of common elements owned.
> You also want this provision so people can get mortgages and the banks
> will more comfortable with something that looks like it follows
> standard practice.
> It is unlikely to happen and this is the least of your problems at this
> point. Don't agonize over it.
> Sharon
> ---
> Sharon Villines
> Building Community: A Newsletter on Coops, Condos, Cohousing, and Other
> New Neighborhoods
> _________________________________________________________________
> Cohousing-L mailing list -- Unsubscribe, archives and other info at:

Results generated by Tiger Technologies Web hosting using MHonArc.