Cohousing-L Mailing List: Re: Consensus and Bylaws

[Philip Dowds (rpdowds]

Sharon —

No, we never made it to sociocracy … and we still struggle with some pretty big 
gaps between what our documentation declares in writing, and what we actually 
do.

Last I looked, “consent” meant unanimous agreement that the finalized proposal 
is within the tolerance range of all participants.  I grok the concept, but 
also find most regular people want a simple, proactive word like “solidarity” 
to characterize the outcome.

Yes, “win-win”, like “solidarity”, is my shorthand for characterizing a 
resolution or compromise within the tolerance range of all.

I’d like to understand the bylaws as part of the foundational constitution of 
the community — one that, like our federal Constitution, allows for evolution 
and embellishment with future departments, authorities, rules, and recommended 
best practices.  But from what I’ve seen so far, the master deed and the bylaws 
end up as some kind of mish-mash of what’s wanted by the State, the banks, the 
attorneys, and the buyers and sellers of the moment.  I doubt our Cornerstone 
bylaws have evaded this complexity.

I agree that most people are deeply bored by the intricacies of constitutional. 
 Most Americans who insist on (selective) strict interpretation of the US 
Constitution seem to have only the fuzziest understanding of what’s in the 
document, and why.

------------------
Thanks, RPD
617.460.4549

On March 1, 2023 at 6:04:38 PM, Sharon Villines via Cohousing-L (cohousing-l 
[at] cohousing.org) wrote:

> On Mar 1, 2023, at 4:34 PM, Philip Dowds <rpdowds [at] comcast.net> wrote:

> A very sincere effort to obtain classical full circle consent (“unanimity” or 
> “solidarity”), but also …

I think the representation of the traditional interpretation to be “unanimity” 
or “solidarity” was when it was badly done and taught. I’ve been collecting 
materials to write a history of consensus decision-making but am still not 
close to getting anything written.

Didn’t you adopt sociocracy? It certainly doesn’t define consent this way.

> The interesting outcome was: We almost never use the super-majority vote 
> option. Most of our members now prefer to be part of a "win-win" compromise, 
> rather than hold out forever for a micro-point that will get over-ridden by a 
> super-majority vote.

Just to be clear, by the win-win compromise, do you mean the process of 
resolving objections?

I hadn’t seen Ann’s message when I wrote my previous message. The Takoma 
Village bylaws revision process will certainly be arduous but I don’t think it 
will be around the decision-making process. It seems to be more about what goes 
in the Bylaws. The original view was that you just put in what the "Bank wants 
to see” that is still alive and well. Our lawyer says, however, that the only 
thing the bank cares about is their ability to get their money back. That might 
mean selling a foreclosed unit but not necessarily.  

Others believe that procedures go in policies but the bylaws should give new 
members, in particular, a sense of the community —its values and how it 
approaches decision-making, the respect for each member, etc.

The problem is that people are not willing to spend time discussing this. And 
discussion seems to be the only way to sort out how people feel and think so we 
can understand each other and work out a win-win solution. “No” is not an 
acceptable response for those of us who have worked on the revisions for over 3 
years.

Is there something in the stars that is making people feel that meetings are 
very déclassé and boring beyond belief?

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




_________________________________________________________________
Cohousing-L mailing list -- Unsubscribe, archives and other info at:
http://L.cohousing.org/info