Cohousing-L Mailing List: RE: Stand Aside

[Pablo Halpern (phalpern]

Rob Sandelin Wrote:

> In Mac's example of standing aside on a purchase of a rototiller, 
>indeed, in the way I understand standing aside, a person who stood 
>aside from this decision  would not be asked to participate 
>financially.  This is not really a problem, the cost per share merely 
>goes up slightly to cover the difference.

I have to disagree. I believe that when someone stands aside, they are not
automatically excused from implementing the decision, financially or
otherwise. If the proposal is to ban dogs and someone stands aside, that
person can't opt out of the ban. If the proposal is to replace the common
house roof and someone stands aside, that person must still pay his/her fair
share of the cost.

On some items, like the rototiller example, it may be reasonable for some
members not to participate in a purchase and not to benefit from it.
However, the way to accomplish that is to stand aside but to ammend the
proposal to say, "The people wo want a rototiller will pay for it and get
exclusive use of it. The rototiller may be stored in the common shed." With
such wording, a person whose only objection was financial could consent to
the proposal without standing aside. After a few of these kinds of
ammendments, proposals will begin appearing that are already worded like
that ("Proposed that anybody who wants to be allowed to ..."

>Standing aside, in my understanding, covers when a group decision does 
>not meet the needs of an individual, but can still meet the needs of 
>the group.  

Maybe. Ideally, though I think that if you are clear that a proposal is best
for the group, you should consent to it without standing aside. There have
been many cases where I consented to something even though I, personally,
was negatively impacted by the decision.

>In my limited experience with consensus, blocking is only appropriate if
>1) I do not think the group has enough , or the right information to 
>make a decision or 2) If I strongly believe that going ahead with the 
>decision will hurt the group. Too often people using blocking as a way 
>to force everyone to accept their values and this is, IMHO, a misuse of 
>consensus process.
>
>All other situations in which I am in conflict with a decision due to 
>values or how it will affect me, require a stand aside.

Yes, I agree with you here. If you can't agree with a decision because of
certain values which you hold but which are different from the rest of the
group, then that is a good time to stand aside and not block. On the other
hand, if the group is violating one of its own stated (or maybe even
unstated) values, then blocking would probably be appropriate.
>
>Rob Sandelin
>Sharingwood
>
>
>
>
- Pablo

---------------------------------------------------------------------
Pablo Halpern                           phalpern [at] truffle.ultranet.com