Cohousing-L Mailing List: RE: 2nd level decision making

[Rob Sandelin (robsan]

<Sender composed mail containing characters not in the US-ASCII set.>
<These characters have been transformed into a printable form.>

SMITHMCC [at] delphi.com asks:
>The Tucson Cohousing group is looking for information about
>2nd level decision making processes. (Majority vote, or concensus =

minus one) for use when concensus >can not be reached.


At Sharingwood we use both consensus and voting. Our definition of =

consensus is that you only block when you have some truth or =

understanding that in the best interests of the community, you can not =

let the decision go ahead. Our fallback for consensus is to allow a =

vote after 3 meeting discussion cycles have occured.  We use consensus =

and when there is a block we have a clearness committee whose function =

is to check with the blocker to find out:
1. If their reason for blocking is personal or for the greater good of =

the community
2. Asking gentle questions of the blocker(s) to figure out the reasons =

and issues behind the blocking
3. Work with the individual to try and find compromise solutions.

This process works well for us and has resolved the 2 or 3 times we =

have had blocking issues. We also allow for a Stand aside, which is =

where the individual disagrees with the decision from their own =

personal values or experiences, but will allow the group to make the =

decision. In this case the person(s) who stand aside are noted in the =

minutes and they are not expected to help implement the decision. =

Almost all of the "blocking" is not done in the best interests of the =

community and we have been able to work around it.

We have learned that consensus is not the best way to make all =

decisions. Sometimes issues which are determined by personal preference =

have no possiblility of consensus, for example, what color the bathroom =

tile should be in the commonhouse. This sort of decision has no =

collective truth really, it's a matter of personal preference (I like =

green, you like beige). In this case we vote.

Here is the criteria the facilitator uses  for figuring out when to vote

Voting:         =


When the greater good of the community is not at issue.
When the issue has no individual stakeholders. (People whose individual =

property, family,  finances or well being  would be directly effected =

by the outcome)
                =

Assuming the above 2 conditions are met:

When there is a time deadline more important than resolving everyone=92s =

preferences.
Design and detail issues which have conflicting but equally valid points.

Consensus:      =


When the issue involves or effects the whole group or the future of the =

community.
When there are one or more individuals which have a personal stake in =

the outcome.
When the issue relates to ideals or principles.


Before we vote, a clear statement of the pros and cons of each choice is ma=
de.
When we vote we use a 3/4 majority and also use a priority scale for =

close but not quite majority votes. The way we vote is by secret ballot =

on a scrap of paper. On the first vote you list your choice and a =

number, from 0-5, which indicates how much you care about the issue.

If the votes come up short of a 3/4th majority, we vote again.  On the =

third vote if there is not a 3/4th majority, but the vote is within 10% =

of a 3/4th majority, the priority scales are tallied. If those who have =

voted in the minority priority scale total is higher than those in the =

majority, then we start the process over from scratch. If the almost =

majority gets the higher priority total, then majority is assumed and =

we move on.

We seldom ever need more than one round of voting and have yet to =

actually use the priority scale. The listings of the pros and cons =

usually gives us an almost majority.