Cohousing-L Mailing List: Re: Consensus decision making

[Sharon Villines (sharon]

The definition of what is "valid" in "blocking" seems antithetical to  
the basis for using consensus as a decision-making process. How you  
get back on track once you begin (1) considering an objection a  
"block" and (2) ignoring it.  How can you say you have consensus once  
you decide to ignore a member of the community and then justify doing  
so?

The purpose of consensus decision-making is to ensure continued  
commitment to a community. If a group decides that only these  
objections or those objections have to be resolved, isn't it limiting  
that commitment? Isn't it, in effect, using majority rule decision- 
making?

In sociocratic consensus the people who have raised the objections  
determine when those objections have been resolved -- not the rest of  
the group.

Once an objection is raised it is the obligation of the objectors and  
the rest of the group to engage in a process of resolving those  
objections. The objections belong to the group, and the objectors are  
included in that group.

Consensus decision-making is only expected to work if:

(1) the group has a shared aim/goal,
(2) the group can and will deliberate together, and
(3) the group consents to its members, those with whom they will make  
decisions.

The last criterion is usually the one that causes the most trouble in  
cohousing. In the beginning, there is great optimism and commitment to  
embracing on an equal basis everyone's feelings/beliefs/desires. Then  
it emerges that not even the initial members of cohousing groups share  
the same goals.

Somewhere along the way the group either limits consensus decision- 
making to certain decisions or begins changing the definition of  
consensus. Most often this happens not by deliberate decision but by  
entropy. Community members withdraw their energy and governance no  
longer involves the full group. The community becomes more superficial  
and less encompassing. Not necessarily a bad thing, but is consensus  
decision-making still appropriate, even as an ideal?

In sociocratic organizations, the group uses consensus to decide which  
decision-making method will be used for each type of decision, that  
some decisions will be made autocratically by a leader and others will  
be delegated to a smaller group or an expert. All decisions are  
reviewed on a clearly determined regular basis. Consensus itself is  
thus reexamined in relation to its appropriate use.

Consensus is still consensus, however, not 99%. And all issues may be  
brought into a meeting for consensus when prior decisions are not  
working for a member of the group.

As cohousing communities grow in size, I'm not sure when consensus  
decision-making is either appropriate or productive. Cohousing groups  
do not choose their members. After a few years, are groups still  
willing to deliberate until all objections are resolved? Do they share  
a common goals beyond those that all residential communities share?

Because of the architectural design and the presence of the  
commonhouse, members have more interaction and thus may form closer  
relationships. Are these individual relationships like those in small  
condos everywhere, or group relationships?

Can the requirement of consensus actually be divisive and in the end  
create entropy? I think this is important to discuss. And to discuss  
alternatives. Delegation is not a panacea for this because to whom do  
you delegate? Do you have consensus on this? Are teams chosen or self- 
chosen? When decisions are delegated to experts, are they chosen by  
consent?

How does a governance system steer and correct itself when it is based  
on self-selection by its individual members?

Sharon
----
Sharon Villines
Coauthor with John Buck of We the People
Consenting to a Deeper Democracy
A Guide to Sociocratic Principles and Methods
ISBN: 9780979282706
http://www.sociocracy.info