Cohousing-L Mailing List: Re: Quorum

[Doug Chamberlin (chamberlin.doug]

Seems to me that requiring physical meetings is a very old school
requirement to achieving quorum (or for fulfilling that desire to include
everyone in a decision). With today's ubiquitous electronic communication
systems it seems to me you can publish a major issue, including all
significant aspects, to the whole group using electronic means, and then
use the same systems to obtain consent/vote.

Whether it is via a virtual circle meeting, or an actual vote via online
poll, might that option provide for a way to resolve the problem of not
having enough attendance at a physical meeting?

Doug C.




On Sat, May 11, 2013 at 7:53 PM, R Philip Dowds <rpdowds [at] comcast.net> 
wrote:

>
> Interesting.  By coincidence, we are trying to revise our Bylaws, and
> quorum is a hot topic.
>
> Our current system, stipulated in our Bylaws, is this:  Almost all
> decisions of any magnitude must be made by the entire community in a
> "General Meeting" (GM).  Two-thirds of 32 households = 22 households must
> unanimously consent to the proposal.  But since it's very hard to ensure 22
> of 32 actually appear on a Sunday afternoon, we allow proxies, whereby an
> absent household authorizes an attending household to vote in its behalf.
>  This authorization is substantiated by oral report.
>
> The new system we're trying to get to is this:  Minimum attendance for a
> valid GM meeting is 14 households, a little less than half.  No proxies or
> mail-in votes — in part, because we're hoping to benefit from more
> creative, in-the-moment amendments.  Instead, we've added more process
> requirements, more prep meetings and run-up meetings, more reconciliation
> meetings if needed, to help ensure everyone knows what's going on and has a
> chance to participate.  We are trying to swing back to classical Butler
> consensus, where creative resolution of objections brings us to better,
> more thoroughly accepted solutions and decisions.  Not everyone is totally
> comfortable with this change, or with letting go of unanimity as the goal.
>  (We are looking at an 80% super-majority vote for situations where one or
> two objectors simply cannot be satisfied.)
>
> The other part of our experiment with reform involves more trust in our
> volunteers, and more delegation of power and resources to our volunteer
> groups.  Such that lesser business can be done outside of the GM process.
>  But we've not successfully figured out, yet, how to tell the difference
> between a "minor" and "major" GM issue.  For instance, a proposal to make
> all community meals strictly vegan doesn't cost money, and is readily
> reversible — and yet, would probably be seen by at least a few households
> as a Big Deal.
>
> At any point in time, we seem to have two or three units occupied by
> tenants, with the true owners absentee and non-participating.  I remain
> baffled why our tenants are not members in good standing, with
> participation rights.  I mean, like, people have fought and died to
> establish that citizenship and voting rights are totally unrelated to whose
> name is on the property ownership deed.  I cannot understand why so much
> cohousing is retrograde in this regard.
>
> R Philip Dowds
> Cornerstone Cohousing
> Cambridge, MA
>
> On May 11, 2013, at 6:32 PM, Lynn Nadeau / Maraiah <welcome [at] olympus.net>
> wrote:
>
> >
> > Looking for info on how other groups handle quorum.
> >
> > At RoseWind Cohousing in Port Townsend WA, we designate significant
> categories of decision as Class One. Examples are passing the annual
> budget, selecting Steering and officers, decisions to sell commonly-held
> real estate, financial items over $1000. For such decisions, we require
> 10-day advance notice, and the presence of someone from each of at least 10
> households.
> >
> > We have 24 households total, but now, for example, there are 4 units
> which are not occupied by owners, two households that don't choose to
> participate, several more that rarely do, an elderly member, an ill member,
> and several households that are away out of state on trips. Our monthly
> meetings usually have 10-11 households (many with two members present).
> These are regular participants and well-informed and thoughtful. Our
> decisions have seemed successful.
> >
> > We still have a requirement for a higher quorum (13 households) for
> "amending the documents". The problem is that some changes to our Bylaws or
> CC&Rs are minor (like removing obsolete references), and most are no more
> momentous than stuff we do as regular Class One, with its quorum of 10
> households. If we require 13 even for minor amendments, we might never get
> it. A few people are concerned that if we make amending the documents
> simply Class One, we might approve something drastic (majority rule??)
> without adequate support.
> >
> > Do you have special requirements for making certain types of decisions?
> >
> > Maraiah Lynn Nadeau
> > www.rosewind.org
> > _________________________________________________________________
> > Cohousing-L mailing list -- Unsubscribe, archives and other info at:
> > http://www.cohousing.org/cohousing-L/
> >
> >
>
> R Philip Dowds
> Cornerstone Cohousing
> Cambridge, MA
> _________________________________________________________________
> Cohousing-L mailing list -- Unsubscribe, archives and other info at:
> http://www.cohousing.org/cohousing-L/
>
>
>