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

[Ann Zabaldo (zabaldo]

Sharon — 

All you say may well be true.

Not the point.

They didn’t vote.

All participants had to agree to pass this agreement.

They reached consensus.

Best --

Ann Zabaldo
Takoma Village Cohousing
Washington, DC
Principal, Cohousing Collaborative, LLC
Falls Church, VA
703.688.2646


> On Dec 14, 2015, at 9:22 AM, Sharon Villines <sharon [at] sharonvillines.com> 
> wrote:
> 
> 
> 
>> 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
> 
> 
> _________________________________________________________________
> Cohousing-L mailing list -- Unsubscribe, archives and other info at:
> http://www.cohousing.org/cohousing-L/
> 
>