Cohousing-L Mailing List: Re: Climate agreement passes by consensus

[Sharon Villines (sharon]

> On Dec 14, 2015, at 5:32 AM, Ann Zabaldo <zabaldo [at] earthlink.net> wrote:
> 
> Did you hear the clip on the news this morning of the convener at the Paris 
> climate talks?
> 
> "Hearing no objections, the agreement is passed."  Then, loud cheers. 
> 
> "Hearing no objections…" is the exact phraseology C T Butler recommends in 
> his book "On conflict and Consensus" that can be used as a test for consensus.

I understand your excitement, Ann, but this has always been allowed in Robert’s 
Rules of Order. The chair just states, “hearing no objections…” and things move 
along. The exact words may vary. 

Much of CT Butler’s book is also from Robert’s. The whole process of clarifying 
questions, etc. I find it confusing that people think it is original. It is 
original only to those who never experienced parliamentary procedure used 
effectively.

I think consensus groups may have gotten off track when they started 
emphasizing the “good of the group” and the desire for good feelings, not just 
"no objections." They wanted a yes. To know everyone was on board. They wanted 
solidarity more than consensus. 

And that doesn’t work very well all the time. Sometimes it is important but 
then it is best presented as a need for solidarity. Solidarity is more physical 
and evokes images of standing together united. Consensus is more cerebral. 

(Robert’s doesn’t deal with solidarity so far as I know because parliaments are 
not expected every to be in solidarity. Their members don’t share a common aim 
and it would be impossible to work to solidarity with hundreds of people on 
every decision.)

An interesting snippet from the NYTimes in 1986:

> The phrase ''unanimous consent'' is a familiar and magic password in 
> Congress. 
> 
> Any lawmaker can rise on the floor and say: ''I ask unanimous consent that . 
> . . '' and, if no one present objects, he gets his wish, even if the result 
> would otherwise have violated rules and parliamentary precedents. 
> 
> Senator Charles McC. Mathias Jr. of Maryland had this in the back of his head 
> when he was discussing the deficit-reduction act at a dinner last week. 
> ''It's an effort,'' he said, ''to achieve budget cuts by anonymous consent.’'

A person who is conflicted about the decision can avoid going on record. The 
result of no objections is consent.

Sharon
----
Sharon Villines
Sociocracy: A Deeper Democracy
http://www.sociocracy.info