Re: Question about Consent Governance | <– Date –> <– Thread –> |
From: Philip Dowds (rphilipdowdsme.com) | |
Date: Tue, 17 Jul 2018 03:27:04 -0700 (PDT) |
So here’s the issue, really: Let’s say a controversial proposal has arrived at plenary. The whole community has faithfully followed its formal consensus process. After several months of hard work, inside and outside of plenary, the proposal has been significantly modified, and now almost everyone feels his/her concern or objection has been adequately addressed. Except, maybe, for one person. A classic analysis is, Sorry, not done yet, keep talking. But now it seems pretty clear to nearly everyone that there is no way to satisfy this person’s objection, and still achieve the intent of the proposal. Hardly anyone thinks it’s likely that more months of dialog effort will lead to a different place. Community interest in flogging this issue in plenary is starting to wane. Some members who were planning to bring in some other proposal are reconsidering, worried that guiding a proposal to a successful conclusion is just too much effort. Others are starting to wonder if consensus actually works. Under these circumstances, what outcome is best for the community? Failure of the proposal, and acceptance of the status quo? Or, an over-ride of the remaining objection, such that the will of the (strong) majority is accommodated in the decision? If it’s the latter — an over-ride of an objection — then what procedure(s) is(are) available for doing this? And doing it in a way that minimizes damage to community cohesion? Thanks, Philip Dowds Cornerstone Village Cohousing Cambridge, MA mobile: 617.460.4549 email: rpdowds [at] comcast.net > On Jul 16, 2018, at 11:01 PM, Chris Terbrueggen <christopher402 [at] > gmail.com> wrote: > > Greetings, We are slowly developing our consent governance in one of our > Linden Cohousing committees. There was an objection voiced by a member, who > said a second committee member must support a member's objection for it to > be a valid objection. They were concerned that one person would block the > proposal. I would like to know if any cohousing communities require a > second person's support at the committee level. Or, do you honor a single > member's objection? Do you work together to see if it's a valid objection > based on the aim of the committee and find a solution to the objection? Is > there a way to merge the two ideas? > > > > We are new to the consent process. I am sure there is a learning curve > present in this discussion. There may be personal perceptions of trusting a > governance process that is new. Maybe, it's being comfortable with Roberts > Rules of Order, which requires a second for some decisions to be made. > > > Thanks, Chris Terbrueggen > _________________________________________________________________ > Cohousing-L mailing list -- Unsubscribe, archives and other info at: > http://l.cohousing.org/info > > >
-
Question about Consent Governance Chris Terbrueggen, July 16 2018
- Re: Question about Consent Governance Muriel Kranowski, July 16 2018
- Re: Question about Consent Governance David Mencher, July 16 2018
- Re: Question about Consent Governance Philip Dowds, July 17 2018
- Re: Question about Consent Governance David Mencher, July 17 2018
-
Re: Question about Consent Governance Dick Margulis, July 17 2018
- Re: Question about Consent Governance Patti Lautner, July 17 2018
- Re: Question about Consent Governance Philip Dowds, July 17 2018
Results generated by Tiger Technologies Web hosting using MHonArc.