Cohousing-L Mailing List: re: group decisions

[Buzz Burrell (72253.2101]

Rob asked:

>How do your communities, established and forming, define the boundaries
>between what a small group decides and what a large group decides?  Do
>small groups make decisions at all, or do they only make
>reccomendations?

Our group *is* a small group, so we don't have that problem!  (There are
disadvantages to being small, so I couldn't resist saying that).

Our capacity is 10, and we've been in no particular hurry to expand past our
current membership of 7.  That's because it makes the initial framework so much
easier to decide.

Somewhat more helpful maybe, is this observation:  

Virtually everything we do is handled by a committee or a person.  The committee
always makes a recommendation.  The expectation is that the whole group will
approve the recommendation.  If someone really doesn't like it, then they should
get on that committee and do some work.  The reasoning is that those who want a
say should do the work.  Those that spectate and criticize, quickly find
themselves off the bleachers and onto the playing field.  That either encourages
more acceptance, or encourages broader participation, which is one key to group
acceptance.

There's ways of making this work better;  primary is having a good group, a good
set of Agreements, and a common goal (Mission Statement).  Secondarily, the
process really goes like this:

1. Take input from whole group on topic - Interrupt often to say "hold it,
that's too important, let me get that down" while you furiously scribble
indecipherable jibberish on your yellow legal pad.
2. Formulate recommendation while away from general meeting -  Do a good job.
Use clear plastic binders and nice graphics if neccessary in order to make it
look better than it really is.  Bribe potential opponents with foot massages,
with offers to make dinner next time, or just be nicer than your normal crabby
self.
3. Present plan at general meeting - Wear a haggard expression on your face, and
set up your presentation before the meeting by commenting on how little sleep
you've had, how much work you've got, and how you've been developing a cure for
world hunger in your spare time.  If it's a sensitive issue, use the proven
strategy practiced by governement at citizen participation meetings:  spend 95%
of your allotted time introducing the topic.  Wear them out with drivel, never
raising your voice, always sounding sensible and thoughtful.
4. If agreement can't be reached in the remaining 30 seconds allotted on the
agenda - too bad, thats not your fault.  Remember, you are holding the Ace in
your hand:  simply reschedule endlessly.

Follow the famous Japanese warrior, So Sumi, and his advice:  "Meetings are a
special sort of battlefield.  Great patience is required above all else;  great
ideas, information, and vigor all crumble under the boot of superior patience".
The highly acclaimed engineer, Dilbert, adroitly noted, "Whoever has the largest
bladder capacity will decide the fate of the company".  Or as the the author of
"Zen and the Art of Meetings" put it:  "A good meeting is like the sun's
reflection in a frozen pool on a summer's night".

Finally, A former President, who was known for giving good meeting, immortalized
these words of advice:  "Ask not what your meeting can do for you, ask instead
what you can do for your meeting".  But even more finally, my own mentor, the
founder of the national consulting firm, "Meetings-R-Us", said it best:  "If you
must go to the damn things, flirt with the women or make some money while you're
at it.  Or if that doesn't work, at least crack a joke".

Buzz Burrell
Geneva Community
(who believe it or not, is not the official spokesperson)