Cohousing-L Mailing List: Re: Concerning Consensus and established CoHo communities

[Sharon Villines (sharon]

On Mar 10, 2005, at 3:08 PM, Saille Warner Norton wrote:

> 1.      Are there any established communities who do NOT use consensus?

A new process in use at Loudoun County EcoVillage and the forming 
groups in Champlain Valley (VT) and Ulster County (NY) is "consent". 
Consent decision-making differs from consensus in that requires certain 
conditions for withholding consent and is used in the context of a 
governance system called sociocracy.

One of the problems with consensus is that it is only useful in a group 
that has a strong commitment to a clearly defined and understood common 
aim. Everyone in the group needs to be going in the same direction.

There also needs to be a clear structure in which the group attempts to 
reach consensus. People have to be committed to spending the time 
listening to other people's concerns in order to understand them and 
reach a solution that fulfills the needs of everyone in the group. This 
process usually must allow people to talk and share in a variety of 
circumstances, depending on the needs of individual communication 
styles. Full group meetings, study groups, small groups, email, one on 
one, etc.

"Consensus" is also usually defined as "agreement". You are looking for 
agreement amongst all members of the group -- not just a grudging "I'll 
go along" but supportive agreement. Even if it is not your personal 
first choice, you agree that this is the best solution given the 
circumstances.

"Consent" does not look for agreement; it looks for objections. 
Objections must be based on an inability to move forward if the 
proposal is enacted. For example, I object to the proposal to allow 
horses on the farm because I joined the group in order to have horses 
on the farm." Or "I object to the proposal to reduce the budget for 
cleaning supplies because it will make it too hard to keep the 
commonhouse clean and I'm responsible for that job."

Objections must be clearly stated and based on the ability to function 
within the group. But objections are actively sought because the goal 
of sociocracy is to build powerful groups that work well together 
without friction. And to make the best possible decision for the group. 
When no one can think of an objection, then all problems (should) have 
been resolved.

Consent decisions in sociocracy are only required for policy decisions, 
not day-to-day operational decisions. Everyone participates in setting 
policy and in deciding how day-to-day operational decisions will be 
made -- by consent, majority vote, autocratic (the task manager 
decides), iChing, Tarot Cards, etc. Even Astrology as long as everyone 
consents.

People do not have to attend meetings but absence is consent. Silence 
is consent.

Now sometimes these feels like a very low threshold for decisionmaking 
-- no one had an objection -- but sociocracy also has a very active 
program of aim setting and evaluation of results. Anytime new 
information is available or a policy decision results in inefficient or 
unworkable results, a new decision can be made.

One of the questions here is often how many times do we have to make a 
consensus decision. People want to make rules that require any decision 
to stand for 2 years or 6 months or whatever.

Sociocracy finds this question absurd. Decisions are supposed to be 
made in the context of achieving a goal, an aim. If you find that a 
decision is not moving a group toward a goal, a new decision should be 
made. New information may require a new decision at any time.

Great focus is on the aim. This lifts the discussion above the fray but 
also recognizes that group members have to be able to live with policy 
decisions.

In sociocracy the group also decides by consent who will do tasks, make 
day-to-day operations, represent groups on the board, etc. People are 
selected for tasks by the group, by consent, in open discussion. People 
may self-nominate, but there must be no objections to the person doing 
the job they volunteer to do.

This means that trust levels are very high for those in leadership 
positions. Daily work is thus much more efficient.

(There will be more about this in the next issue of the newsletter. 
Sociocracy is one of our subthemes.)

Sharon
---
Sharon Villines
Building Community: A Newsletter on Coops, Condos, Cohousing, and Other 
New Neighborhoods
http://www.buildingcommunitynews.org