RE: consensus process - proposals and committees | <– Date –> <– Thread –> |
From: Tree Bressen (treeic.org) | |
Date: Tue, 14 Mar 2006 16:16:44 -0800 (PST) |
Hi, See at bottom Rob's message which i am replying to.I think Rob & i are in agreement. I advocate against *requiring* that the exact wording of a proposal be available before the meeting *or else the proposal cannot pass*--in other words, i don't want to remove the flexibility to modify the proposal on the floor. However, if a proposal has been developed and text is available, especially if the issue has already gone through multiple meetings, then by all means go ahead and send it out in advance of the meeting, for the reasons Rob outlines.
In order to avoid the upset of having a committee do a bunch of work that is then rejected by the community (which in one exciting stroke can simultaneously upset and alienate both the committee members and others in the group, putting everyone on the defensive), i suggest that groups working on a major issue go back and forth between having it worked on in plenary (= full group meeting) and in committee.
So for example, if you are working on a participation policy, here is a possible series of steps:
1. Start in full group meeting. Invite people to speak their general concerns on the issue, and start to discern a sense of group direction.
2. Committee: research what other cohousing groups have done, and bring back a range of options, such as:
a. set # of hours is required or is not b. if there is a set #, then the range is X to Y in various groups c. allocation can be by adult or by householdd. commitment may include physical work on the property (common house or landscaping), committee work, meeting attendance, other jobs (such as bookkeeping), cooking/cleaning may be included or separate
e. work parties may be a feature f. is there a buy-out option or not g. is contribution tracked in some way or noth. what contributions are considered "mandatory" if any and what are more "optional" i. how is diversity handled (physical disabilities, going away for 6 months, etc.)
3. Plenary: Discuss these variables, see if there is an easy "yes" on any choices
4. Plenary: Discuss the variables a second time, work through some of the major differences of opinion
5. Committee start to refine a more specific proposal, bring it back to the full group
And so on.Getting clear on what to do in committee and what to do in full group makes for happier meetings and a happier group. On a small item, i think it's fine to start with a fairly fleshed out proposal. On items that won't succeed unless the whole group is involved in implementing them, i recommend starting with a general discussion or two *before* a committee does a bunch of work on it.
Cheers, --Tree
I rarely ever disagree with Tree but I have a different perspective. She mentioned that she does not support sending proposals out in advance. I think this is crucial in large communities such as cohousing. I think you want people to clearly have advance opportunity to see the details of the proposal, think about nuances or things that might have been missed, so when they come to the meeting, people are prepared and ready to modify and change the proposal to meet the groups needs. Since cohousing groups tend to be 40-100 people in size you need to transmit information out of the meeting time, unless you expect to have all day long meetings. Some people require advance time to chew over stuff. I do agree whole heartedly that the proposal is just the beginning place, and it is the task of the meeting to shape it into an agreement, which sometimes can mean substantial changes. I would also add that sometimes this process might require multiple meetings to get the groups best thinking. As a faciltator couch one of the cautions I often give cohousing groups is that for many they have committees craft proposals for the large group and this can lead to frustration because the committee thinks once the proposal is ready their work is done. This sometimes is the case, but it can also be the case that the large group has other ideas, input or just plain disagrees about aspects of the proposal. A proposal should always be considered to be a temporary holding place for some ideas, and not considered the best ideas or the draft solution. Expect ALL proposals to be modified, and then you will be pleasantly surprised on those occaisions when the committees thinking and ideas meshes with the rest of the groups.
----------------------------------------------- Tree Bressen 1680 Walnut St. Eugene, OR 97403 (541) 484-1156 tree [at] ic.org http://www.treegroup.info
- Re: consensus process - decisions/changes, (continued)
- Message not available
- Re: consensus process - decisions/changes Tree Bressen, March 10 2006
- RE: consensus process - decisions/changes Rob Sandelin, March 11 2006
- Re: consensus process - decisions/changes Craig Ragland, March 11 2006
- RE: consensus process - decisions/changes Rob Sandelin, March 11 2006
- RE: consensus process - proposals and committees Tree Bressen, March 14 2006
- Message not available
- Re: Consensus process - decisions/changes Sharon Villines, March 12 2006
Results generated by Tiger Technologies Web hosting using MHonArc.