Cohousing-L Mailing List: Consent / Consensus Decision-Making [2asAppeals policy?

[Sharon Villines (sharon]

> On Apr 9, 2022, at 10:44 AM, Abe Ross <cohoyote [at] gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> What a member can do if they object to a decision or policy made by a circle 
> of which they are not a member.Is there an appeal procedure? [snip] does your 
> community have a formal procedure (or policy) about appealing decisions made 
> by a circle/committee/task force?  If you do, what is it?

The objectives of consent decision-making are harmony and full information.

Consent to decisions that affect any member of the group is the best way to 
ensure harmony. A strong community is measured by participation and support. 
Decisions without consent produce disharmony. 

Consent doesn’t mean agreement or even first choice, but it does require that 
everyone can live comfortably with the decision. “Live” is a standard 
particular to cohousing because that’s what all cohousing decisions are about — 
living. If the purpose of the organization is profits or lives saved, the 
standard might be different.

The best decisions are based on as much information and experience as possible. 
Ensuring that everyone can contribute and question will produce better 
decisions because they will take all points of view, expertise, beliefs, 
desires, etc. into consideration. Each person consents to a decision based on 
their own ability — after discussion and study. So the group making the 
decision then can be assured that they have as much information as is available 
to them when making a decision. 

In our community, all decisions are subject to objections from members of the 
community. Even routine decisions like continuing to purchase paper  towels for 
the kitchen can be objected to and a discussion ensues to resolve objections. 
Our decision-making policy defines gradations of decisions in terms of their 
likelihood to affect everyone — routine, significant, major, and emergency. The 
differences are basically in the level of informing required to make a 
decision. But any decision can be moved to the highest level — discussion in a 
membership meeting — if there are objections that can’t be resolved before that.

Designation of a decision to a team should be made by consent. Everyone 
consents to “let them decide”. In instances that it was not worth the time it 
might take to make a decisions like the color of the kitchen floor or the 
colors of all the CH rooms, the specific decision is delegated to specific 
people. If that group is representative of the whole group — if everyone feels 
that they trust a member of that team, then the team can make a decision. And 
it has been done by consent.

We’ve had routine decisions that were questioned and were eventually discussed 
by the whole group, but we have never had a decision totally “blocked” by one 
or a few people. Eventually we resolve objections and reach an acceptable 
solution, or nothing happens at all. There are some decisions that don’t come 
to the point of asking for consent because there is too much disagreement in 
the community to even write a proposal. (The Commonhouse will never be painted 
red with purple doors.)

So the issue is whether everyone consents to allowing the decisions delegated 
to a team to be made without review. The bylaws should state whether this is 
absolute authority or authority subject to review. Review of whom? And what 
process of consultation does the team have to conduct before reaching a 
decision?

The point of collective decision-making is maintaining harmony and seeking 
wisdom so you have a strong community. How do you ensure that?

I pasted in our Decision-Making Authority and Accountability Policy below. If 
you reply to this message, please only include the part that explains your 
reply. Delete everything else.

Sharon
----
Sharon Villines
Takoma Village Cohousing, Washington DC
http://www.takomavillage.org

> Decision-Making Authority and Accountability Policy                       
> Consensus 9 Sep 2007
>  
> Ultimate decision-making authority in the Takoma Village Cohousing Homeowners 
> Association (TVCHA) resides with the membership as a whole. Decisions of the 
> full membership supercede those of the board, teams (i. e., “committees” in 
> the bylaws), interest groups, and individual members.
>  
> Teams and the Board (referred to as “Teams” throughout the policy) serve as 
> mechanisms for carrying out the work of the community in ways that reflect 
> the membership's collective decisions. “Teams” also includes any permanent or 
> temporary sub-groups formed by the membership.
> 
> Teams are responsible for ensuring that their members and sub-groups are 
> functioning in accordance with this policy. Sub-groups are responsible for 
> making recommendations to the appropriate team.
>  
> Individual Member Responsibilities in Decision Making
>  
> Members, as individuals, cannot implement decisions, donate tangible items to 
> the common house or other facilities, or authorize expenditure of TVCHA funds 
> outside of the team structure.
>  
> Members are responsible for keeping informed of team and membership decisions 
> that affect them and for providing input on pending decisions using the team 
> structure.
>  
> Members have the right and responsibility to raise questions and concerns 
> about any decision being made by any team in a respectful manner and as early 
> as possible in the decision-making process.
>  
> When expressing concerns about a decision, members should:
>  
> 1.   Communicate with the point person for the issue. It is hoped that most 
> questions and concerns can be resolved at this level. It is the member's 
> responsibility to determine the appropriate point person for an issue and to 
> contact that person directly before moving to step two.
>  
> 2.   If concerns remain, communicate with the point person for the relevant 
> team.
>  
> 3.   If the issue point person or the team point person is not responsive, 
> communicate with the ombudsperson appointed by the board, if any, or any 
> board member.
>  
> 4.   If the member states to the Board that he or she believes the issue is 
> still not resolved, the board is responsible for consulting the membership 
> and resolving the issue.`
> 
> Team Responsibilities in Decision Making
>  
> Teams are the primary means or entities for conducting TVCHA business 
> including governance, maintenance, development of proposals, decision-making, 
> implementation of decisions, and identification of work share tasks. Teams 
> are empowered by the membership and must seek to reflect the values and 
> desires of the membership. Teams are responsible for making decisions by 
> consensus, with thought and participation by team members.
>  
> It is the responsibility of teams to proactively communicate with the 
> community by posting notices of meetings, detailed agendas, and minutes to 
> the tvc-members email listserve.
>  
> Team members who serve as point people are responsible for acknowledging the 
> receipt of questions or concerns and letting individual members know when 
> they can expect a response.
>  
> The level of input from the membership that is required before a team makes 
> and implements a decision depends on the type of decision: (1) routine, (2) 
> significant, (3) major, or (4) emergency.
>  
> 1. Routine Decisions:
>  
> Teams may proceed on routine decisions by announcing discussion of the issue 
> on their agendas, achieving consensus within the team, and posting the 
> decision in their minutes. Before implementing the decision, the team must 
> resolve any questions or concerns raised by an individual member.
>  
> Routine decisions involve necessary expenditures (e.g., utilities, elevator 
> maintenance, insurance) of any amount approved in the team budget, or 
> decisions that meet all of the following conditions:
>  
> 
> •      Involve minor expenditure of funds (< $1,000) within budget categories 
> or line items that have been approved in the team budget,
> •     Do not involve changes to the use or appearance of common or limited 
> common elements, and
> •     Are limited to the purview of one team.
>  
> 
> If a member raises objections to the decision, and the team cannot resolve 
> those objections, the member or the team can request that the decision be 
> treated as “significant.”
>  
> Examples of Routine Decisions: selecting a contractor for an acoustical 
> study, deciding the size of recycling and trash bins, setting technical 
> specifications for web page design, organizing bulletin boards, purchasing 
> kitchen equipment, scheduling meals.
>  
> 2. Significant Decisions:
>  
> In general, significant decisions can be implemented by teams without 
> consensus by the full membership and with or without discussion at a 
> membership business meeting; however, teams must communicate clearly with the 
> membership in all the following ways:
>  
> 
> •     In addition to posting an agenda item, announce to all members in a 
> separate email that a potential decision is under discussion;
> •     Establish a clearly defined process for collecting and responding to 
> comments, questions, and concerns. Individual members must have adequate time 
> to comment, a specified time must be stated, and a response mechanism must be 
> defined; and
> •     Document the process of receiving comments, questions, and concerns and 
> address them in minutes or other communications.
>  
> 
> If a member raises objections to the decision, and the team cannot resolve 
> those objections, the member or the team can request that the decision be 
> treated as “major.”
>  
> 
> Significant decisions include those that meet at least one of the following 
> criteria:
>  
> 
> •   Could not be resolved as “routine” decisions,
> •   Involve budgeted funds used for unbudgeted items,
> •   Involve expenditures of budgeted funds for specific items in the range of 
> $1,000 to $5,000, including Reserve Funds.
> •    Involve changes in the use or appearance of common or limited common 
> elements, or
> •   Require input from more than one team.
>  
> Examples of Significant Decisions: implementing recommendations of acoustical 
> study, determining need for and use of common storage, changing the color of 
> walls in the common house, creating new garden beds.
>  
> Examples of "clearly defined process" for collecting comments: Presenting 
> options and asking members to mark their preference, requesting responses by 
> email, survey via e-mail or hard copy to gather input, scheduling a 
> discussion circle to promote dialogue.
>  
> 3. Major Decisions
>  
> Teams must present major decisions to a membership business meeting to be 
> made using the consensus process.
>  
> Major decisions include those that:
>  
> 
> •     Could not be resolved at the “routine” or “significant” decision level,
> •     Involve unbudgeted funds for unbudgeted items;
> •     Involve expenditure of funds above $5,000;
> •     Set policy, community rules, or precedents; or
> •     Involve issues on which members have expressed widely divergent values 
> and views.
>  
> Examples of Major Decisions: Fencing the SE corner, policy on user's fees, 
> use of e-mail, budget allocations, increases in fees.
>  
> 4. Emergency Decisions:
>  
> Emergency decisions are those where the health, safety, or security of 
> residents or facilities will be endangered or damaged if action is not taken 
> quickly.
>  
> Emergency decisions should be made by as many team and/or board members as 
> can be effectively included in the decision. If expenditure of amounts in 
> excess of the budget is needed, a board member (preferably the treasurer 
> and/or president) should be included in the decision.
>  
> The decision and its implications should be communicated to the membership as 
> soon as possible.
>  
> Board Responsibility in Decision Making
>  
> The Board's responsibilities include, but are not limited to, ensuring that 
> teams are following the wishes of the membership, posting meeting notices, 
> agendas, and minutes, communicating decisions, and responding to individual 
> members.
>  
> Evaluation
>  
> This policy will be reviewed within two years of the date of its last review. 
> Such review may be limited to a discussion in a membership meeting to remind 
> members of the provisions of the policy.
>  
> History:
>  
> 2001 Policy initially drafted by Jean Hoff as Board President, June 19, 2001; 
> reviewed by Sandra Hinson and revised for June 20 board meeting; revised to 
> respond to board comments and reviewed by Debbi Reeves and Sharon Villines, 
> June 23; revised for posting to main list, July 1.
>  Discussed in Teams during July. Comments sent to Sharon Villines, revised to 
> incorporate comments and address questions for discussion by the Board, 
> August 1.
>  Revised by the board and placed on the agenda of the membership business 
> meeting on August 12. Distributed to the members list August 3.
>  Presented for consensus, membership business meeting August 12, 2001.
>  Revised by the Board, August 18, 2001.
>  Presented for consensus, membership business meeting August 26, 2001.
>  Revised by Jean Hoff Sept 16, 2001
>  Presented for consensus, Sept 16, 2001
> 
> Concern Expressed by Member who Will Stand Aside: The policy is overly 
> procedural and does not reflect the neighborly value of co-housing where we 
> talk to each other and make decisions through personal interactions.
> Resolution: Respect the decision to stand aside and be certain to document 
> from her the correct phrasing for her concern.
>  
> Consent Achieved: Membership Meeting, September 30, 2001. Posted 30 Sep 2001
> 
> 2005-2007 Subject of two year long process of reexamining decision making and 
> the consensus process, 2005-2007. Discussed at two Membership Meetings (April 
> 1, 2007 and one earlier) Proposed revised draft distributed to TVC-Members 7 
> Aug 2007 and discussed on Aug 11. Revisions distributed Sep 5 and Sep 9.
> 
> Consent achieved in membership meeting of Sep 9, 2007.