Re: Objections in Consensus [was: principle vs preference / Formal Consensus
From: Tree Bressen (treeic.org)
Date: Thu, 5 Apr 2007 23:44:14 -0700 (PDT)
Hi Racheli, Sharon, & folks,

Tree wrote (in part):
> Butler & Rothstein's Formal Consensus method, as Cinnie mentioned in
> her
> message, requires a block to be validated by the full group in order
> to hold.
>

Racheli wrote:
This isn't actually accurate.  It's true that Butler sees the power to
block as belonging to the group (while what an individual does is withholding
her/his consent).  But the way it get carried out isn't by the whole group
agreeing that the block is valid: Rather, the group decides (preferably ahead of
time!) how many people it takes to find the withholding of consent as valid,
and if sufficient number does so, then it's a block.
The number can be a fixed one, or a certain percentage of the people
present at the meeting.

Thank you for the correction!  This is a very helpful clarification.

Sharon wrote:
In sociocracy there are no blocks or stand asides, only objections.

Personally i see the Stand Aside option as an extremely useful part of the consensus process. It allows someone to gracefully step aside for the group to proceed, while having their concerns taken very seriously and officially registered. It also recognizes that a person who really doesn't support something should not be in a leading role of implementing it. I've seen it work well in practice. It seems to me that standing aside might be an effective improvement to sociocratic process, but i'm not experienced enough with sociocratic consensus to be able to evaluate that knowledgeably. What do you think?

In order for an objection to be valid, it has to be
"argued and paramount" meaning that the objector has to present reasons
for objecting and the objection must be related to their inability to
work toward the aim of the proposal. This means the objection must be a
functional objection, not just a preference.

The group decides if the objection is valid. The facilitator would
propose that an objection was either not paramount or not something
that could be corrected by rejecting this proposal. The group would
then do a consent round in which the objector would not participate.

This reminds me of a question i've been harboring about sociocratic consensus for some time now, so far i haven't come across an answer to this in articles i've read. What are the powers, and checks on the powers, of the facilitator? In Quaker practice the facilitator can overrule a block they think isn't valid; sociocracy is a spin-off from Quaker practice, and i've had the impression that it too gives quite a lot of power to the facilitator. Like in this example where the facilitator is directly suggesting to the group whether or not to accept a block. If the facilitator is given more power than in some other systems i do not mean to imply that's wrong (it might even be an improvement), i just want to understand, and also to understand how the sociocratic system deals with the realities of facilitators' skill levels being variable.

Objections are valued and invited in sociocracy because they lead to
better proposals, ones that meet the needs of more members of the
group.

Valuing and inviting objections should be the case with non-sociocratic consensus as well, but i recognize that too often in practice concerns are not welcomed so enthusiastically. :-)

Cheers,

--Tree



-----------------------------------------------

Tree Bressen
1680 Walnut St.
Eugene, OR 97403
(541) 484-1156
tree [at] ic.org
http://www.treegroup.info


Results generated by Tiger Technologies Web hosting using MHonArc.