Question about Consent Governance | <– Date –> <– Thread –> |
From: Chris Terbrueggen (christopher402gmail.com) | |
Date: Tue, 17 Jul 2018 21:44:24 -0700 (PDT) |
I really appreciate everyone’s thoughtful and sincere feedback on my question about objections. I will share your responses with committee members. There is definitely a wealth of knowledge on this list serve and I really appreciate you all sharing your experiences. I especially thought Karen hit the theoretical nail on the head when she said the following: “Being clear about how decisions are made is vital. Rules and processes, when well written and understood, can bring that clarity. What they can't do is create a community or consensus mindset. Consensus or consent decision-making is about culture, communication and relationship. At the end of the day, if any person wants to use rules as the power to stop (or start) something, it is a sign that the culture of consensus needs some help. Good consensus or consent is driven by foundational beliefs and values. It requires a sense of safety, the experience of being fully heard and understood, trust in the community as a whole. It's hard for us Americans to live that. We need help reminding ourselves from time to time. Also, new members will need orientation on this and help settling in.” Karen Gimnig I would appreciate if we would focus on the committee level and not drift off to plenary or membership meetings. I am really trying to understand and focus on why members would need a second person to validate or support an objection before the objection is seen as valid, especially at the committee level. At first glance, I see this objection as a blocking our ability to fully practice the consent process of understand, explore and decide how to resolve objections without a fall back. From your experience with consent governance, Is it helpful or destructive for new cohousing communities to create these fall back rules until members build a strong sense of trust and communication with each other in a committee? Personally, I feel that these fallback rules are keeping us from building that strong communication glue and trust that is needed in a new community. I have been reading *Many Voices One Song *and it was interesting to read the following two paragraphs. “It is not the objector who has to prove that the objection is a valid; it is the circle as a whole (including the objector as circle member) that will explore the objection in relationship to the circle’s aim.” “Consent is not a mechanism that separates objections from preferences in a clear-cut manner. Lack of skill in dealing with objections, like dismissing someone’s objection by saying *“your objection is not valid” *and social-emotional backlash can actually *cause *dysfunction and decrease the circle’s ability to achieve its aim. It will not help us to have been “right” about the personal preference. If people know they are heard and trust is built, it will be easier to cooperate. To avoid dynamics of people-pleasing, train everyone both on the definition of consent and on communication skills.” Thanks, Chris Terbrueggen
- Re: Question about Consent Governance, (continued)
-
Re: Question about Consent Governance Karen Gimnig, July 17 2018
- Re: Question about Consent Governance Kathryn McCamant, July 17 2018
-
Re: Question about Consent Governance Brian Bartholomew, July 17 2018
- Re: Question about Consent Governance Philip Dowds, July 17 2018
- Question about Consent Governance Chris Terbrueggen, July 17 2018
-
Re: Question about Consent Governance Karen Gimnig, July 17 2018
- Re: Question about Consent Governance Alan O'Hashi, July 18 2018
-
Re: Question about Consent Governance David Heimann, July 20 2018
-
Re: Question about Consent Governance Sharon Villines, October 23 2018
- Re: Question about Consent Governance Philip Dowds, October 24 2018
-
Re: Question about Consent Governance Sharon Villines, October 23 2018
Results generated by Tiger Technologies Web hosting using MHonArc.