Cohousing-L Mailing List: Re: Insecurity in Cohousing

[David Heimann (heimann]

Hi Norm,

	We have a conflict resolution procedure in our By-laws that goes 
from private discussion, to our internal Conflict Prevention and 
Resolution (CPR) Committee, to external mediation, to external 
arbitration.  Do you have such procedures in your By-laws?  Especially if 
you feel your financial and/or property-value situation is adversely 
affected by what the committees or community is doing, you may want to 
avail yourself of them.

        All the best!

Regards,
David Heimann
Jamaica Plain Cohousing


Date: Sun, 23 Sep 2007 09:59:14 -0700
From: "O3C11N6G" <normangauss [at] charter.net>
Subject: [C-L]_ Insecurity in Cohousing
To: "Cohousing-L" <cohousing-l [at] cohousing.org>
Message-ID: <000b01c7fe03$122dfff0$c1aeb018@Anne>
Content-Type: text/plain;       charset="iso-8859-1"

For somebody like me who needs a strong structure in which to
live, the
loosy-goosy way things are done around here is very unsettling.  I
have been
advised by some people in cohousing land to become a
non-participant.  But knowing that departures from the
assumed structure, especially when it comes to property
management, makes me
feel like the place is falling apart.

If I felt secure about the way this organization was managing the
property,
I would, indeed, become a non-participant.  However, when I see
the
following happen, I cannot comfortably remain distant.
(1) changes implemented that I have not had enough time to discuss
(2) refusal of the community to discuss a matter beyond their
patience
(3) property alteration proposals that are unnecessarily declared
urgent and
falsely declared in need quick approval
(3) strong pressure to approve a proposal just because the people
working on
it deserve recognition for their effort
(4) facilitators declaring closure and seeking consensus on a
proposal prematurely in order to
feel a sense of accomplishment, rather than have another meeting
to
reconsider and perhaps have a more sustainable agreement
(5) feeling confused about a proposal because not enough
explanatory
material has been presented
(6) not requiring proposal writers to write carefully prepared
proposals
with full documentation because it is too much of a burden on them
to do the work

  Often I get such an overwhelming hostility to my requests for
continuance,
that I am threatened with deciding by vote instead of consensus.
This is tantamount to saying, "to hell with you; if you don't like
it, move
out".  This is hardly the philosphy promoted in the agreements we
signed
when we became members.

I attend all Board meetings and have a chance to evaluate whether
the Board
is working to my satisfaction.  For the most part, they are doing
a good
job on the small details.  It's the business meetings of the whole
community where personal goals
seem to outweigh community concerns.  Here, major proposals are
presented and decided on in community meetings, but requiring the
Board to examine and ratify the decisions.  In all occasions where
I have seen the Board in action, not once has any time been spent
on examining the consensed proposals from a fiduciary viewpoint.
The Board is required by law to act as a fiduciary, but they often
rubber-stamp proposals sent their way.  Often, they are so tired
of hearing about these proposals, especially the more
conterversial ones,  they just want to get on with their work and
not delay any longer.

I would like to remain distant.  But I frequently feel insecure
about what
everybody is deciding if I have not taken part in the decision
making
process.

Norm Gauss