Cohousing-L Mailing List: Re: consensus and majority vote

[Sharon Villines (sharon]

on 7/18/2002 2:28 AM, Tree Bressen at tree [at] ic.org wrote:

> I definitely concur with this.  In fact Robert's Rules seem awfully
> burdensome to me--with all these nitpicky formalities required, it looks
> like it really slows things down compared to what a well-functioning
> consensus group can do.

The original Robert's Rules of Order is no longer used. It was written
during the great time of dictionary-making when one's intelligence and
seriousness were judged by the complexity of one's lists. With the great
migration of populations that did not share common community goals, along
with the effort to write down the "real" English language, there was an
effort to formulate a process that was fair and known to all. Robert's Rules
of Order Revised is the standard, and there are much simpler forms of
parliamentary procedure including one used by the American Psychological
Association. The only relevant rules are those a group chooses to adopt.

In the early days of the women's movement, the Women's Political Caucus did
Roberts Rules of Order workshops since women had not learned them. Men
learned them in debating societies in schools that women were not allowed to
attend or political organizations where women were not allowed to
participate. Even Teddy Kennedy said "Get the broads out of the room" when
political strategies were discussed. You only learned parliamentary
procedures if you were a part of the Old Boy's clubs. As a result , women
simply did not know how to participate in a modern governance process.

Having participated in these workshops (led by Bella Abzug for one -- when
Bella spoke, you learned the stuff) I've seen Robert's Rules used very
effectively to bring out and structure very fair and complex discussions and
decisions, including abortion on demand (when it wasn't even legal) and
weighted voting to equalize the voice of any minority. But to be used
effectively and fairly, you have to know how to use it. "Official" groups
have a registered parliamentarian on hand to interpret the rules.

My favorite rule produced the following,  "The chair senses chaos on the
floor and requests a 5-minute recess to confer." Hearing no objections, she
then went down and talked to the mass of angry women who were literally
standing up on their chairs shouting. The issues were sorted out and the
meeting resumed after a 5-minute extension.

While I fully endorse consensus as a decision threshold, it is not
contradictory to Roberts Rules of Order and could benefit greatly from some
of the rules. Queues for speaking drive me nuts, for example, when 6 people
speak on the basis of incorrect information before someone is "allowed" to
correct their assumptions. Points of Information always take precedence. You
can't continue a discussion without correct information.

Sorry this is so long but Roberts Rules of Order bashing is one of my pet
peeves, along with consensus is new.

Sharon
-- 
Sharon Villines
Takoma Village Cohousing, Washington DC
http://www.takomavillage.org




_______________________________________________
Cohousing-L mailing list
Cohousing-L [at] cohousing.org  Unsubscribe  and other info:
http://www.communityforum.net/mailman/listinfo/cohousing-l