Re: Consensus, Majority Vote, "Blocks" [was Report on Survey of Cohousing Communities 2011. Just released. A must read!
From: drmaryann99 (drmaryann99mac.com)
Date: Sun, 25 Sep 2011 13:16:30 -0700 (PDT)
Here at Manzanita Village our consensus process requires that anyone blocking a 
proposal do so because it violates our stated vision/mission, is dangerous or 
illegal, etc. You can't block simply because you don't "like" the proposal.

If the block can't be resolved in the meeting, the blocker(s) are asked to 
prepare a counter-proposal to present at a future meeting. In theory the 
counter-proposal should satisfy the issues dealt with by the original proposal 
while including the concerns of the blocker. However, we recently had a 
situation where the counter-proposal was to completely reject the original 
proposal as a bad idea. After consideration by the community, that 
counter-proposal won consensus. 

Sometime, individuals are slow to get involved with the process but they also 
have a piece of the truth and may bring additional thoughts/feelings/ideas/etc. 
to the group. So just because someone is late to the process, it shouldn't mean 
that can't be included in the decision--as difficult that is for those who have 
already spent a lot of time on the issues.

What we've had to learn is how to deal with blocks in such a way that we don't 
give an individual or a small group the power to veto actions or policies the 
larger group wants--the tyranny of the minority.

Mary Ann

On Sep 25, 2011, at 9:09 AM, R Philip Dowds wrote:

> 
> Okay, I won't worry about "rights", but I will still have a difficulty with 
> "bad manners".  As much as I want to believe in consensus and total equality 
> of all participants, all the time, I still can't fully acclimate myself to 
> the arrogance and bad manners of those who chose to ignore six months of 
> proposal development, but then show up the general meeting of all, and block 
> a proposal because they don't "like" it.  If you can't support a proposal ... 
> where were you when your well-intentioned, hard-working neighbors were trying 
> to craft it?
> 
> RPD
> 
> On Sep 25, 2011, at 11:30 AM, Elizabeth Magill wrote:
> 
>> 
>> Remember the goal is a decision everyone supports.  Not just a decision. 
>> So worrying about "rights" is the wrong focus. 
>> 
>> I certainly try to either trust the group writing the proposal, or to join 
>> it. 
>> 
>> But no one is helping the group by "going along" and then complaining about, 
>> downplaying, or not following it later. 
>> 
>> -liz 508-450-0431
>> Sent from my iPhone
>> 
>> 
>> On Sep 25, 2011, at 11:04 AM, R Philip Dowds <rpdowds [at] comcast.net> 
>> wrote:
>> 
>>> 
>>> I would go further:  Members who did not actually participate in the 
>>> crafting of a proposal should think really hard — like, I mean, really, 
>>> really hard — before they block it in a community-wide meeting.  Weak 
>>> participation = diminished rights. (Yes?)
>>> 
>>> RPD
>>> 
>>> On Sep 24, 2011, at 9:26 PM, Sharon Villines wrote:
>>> 
>>>> Any person who has an objection must explain it so it can be addressed and 
>>>> must participate in the process of resolving it. 
>>> 
>>> _________________________________________________________________
>>> Cohousing-L mailing list -- Unsubscribe, archives and other info at: 
>>> http://www.cohousing.org/cohousing-L/
>>> 
>>> 
>> _________________________________________________________________
>> Cohousing-L mailing list -- Unsubscribe, archives and other info at: 
>> http://www.cohousing.org/cohousing-L/
>> 
>> 
> 
> _________________________________________________________________
> Cohousing-L mailing list -- Unsubscribe, archives and other info at: 
> http://www.cohousing.org/cohousing-L/
> 
> 

--
Wisdom is knowing what to do next, skill is knowing how to do it, and virtue is 
doing it. David Starr Jordan

Mary Ann Clark                                                  drmaryann49 
[at] mac.com
http://homepage.mac.com/drmaryann/index.htm





Results generated by Tiger Technologies Web hosting using MHonArc.