Re: principle vs preference / Formal Consensus
From: Tree Bressen (treeic.org)
Date: Thu, 29 Mar 2007 00:48:54 -0700 (PDT)
Hi Lynn & folks,

Different groups have different standards for how to determine whether a block is valid, and different options if a block is invoked.

Butler & Rothstein's Formal Consensus method, as Cinnie mentioned in her message, requires a block to be validated by the full group in order to hold.

Laird Schaub suggests the following filter: Can you convince at least one other member of the community (presumably not your spouse) that your block is valid? If not, it doesn't count.

The Quakers allow the facilitator to overrule a block, even from multiple people, if they think it's inappropriate. See Pacific Yearly Meeting's Faith & Practice book.

Annie Russell of WHDC, at last summer's cohousing conference, suggested that if there is a question as to whether a block is valid, then the community's steering/coordinating committee should have the power and responsibility to render a judgment on whether it holds or not. Personally i support that as a reasonable middle path.

See more info in my article in the online Cohousing magazine at http://www.cohousing.org/gp_blocks.aspx and in another article on my website at http://treegroup.info/topics/A9-blocking.html. Cheers,

--Tree



The CT Butler book, On Conflict and Consensus, with its "Formal Consensus"
process, is the guide for consensus process at both RoseWind Cohousing and
the Port Townsend EcoVillage.

The tricky part of this process is one we haven't had to deal with in either
group: a block is only valid if based on "principle" rather than
"preference."  In general, of course, consensus is about what is best for
the group, not just what YOU think is a great idea. We've always had the
concept that one wouldn't block unless one thought the proposal would lead
to something bad for the group (undue legal or financial risk, serious
erosion of community, etc).

With more than 15 years of experience, at RoseWind we typically don't call
for consensus until things are well worked out. Potential blocks are in
effect handled ahead of time, through discussion circles, emails, give and
take in various ways, seeking solutions all can consent to. Or lacking that,
we may drop a proposal.

But we've never come down to "your block is invalid because we don't think
you are really motivated by principle." Surely there could be sticky spots
where the blocker believes they are acting on principle, but the group
doesn't agree. I've always wondered what would happen then? Who decides,
without falling into a majority-rule sort of model?

If a person themself set aside their dissent, realizing it wasn't about
principle, that would work. But to have a block invalidated by the rest of
the group? Kind of like "consensus minus one" - I find it hard to imagine
that the dissenter would still feel part of the group, and could see that
being a prelude to losing a member. Anyone have experience of that juncture?



-----------------------------------------------

Tree Bressen
1680 Walnut St.
Eugene, OR 97403
(541) 484-1156
tree [at] ic.org
http://www.treegroup.info


Results generated by Tiger Technologies Web hosting using MHonArc.