Cohousing-L Mailing List: re: Consensus

[Buzz Burrell (72253.2101]

Diane wrote (in part):

>We decided
>to operate on a consensus-based system and now I am wondering what are the
>minimum requirements for operating under this system....

This has been posted to the List before, but here are my offhand observations on
Requirements for Consensus -

1. Common Goal - Usually in the form of a Mission Statement, usually in writing.
This elevates the discussion beyond everyone's personal opinion, and gives a
common element, at the most basic level, at which agreement can be reached.
Like the US Bill of Rights.  If agreement can't be reached, everyone asks "How
does this decision fulfill our Mission Statement", instead of "How does this
decision best favor me"?  

2. Training - If someone, hopefully the majority, of the group is not
professionally trained or educated in facilitation or consensus, then it will be
difficult.  Consensus is NOT what we were raised with, and most of us have
literally never experienced it.  I think its quite different, and positive steps
must be taken to implement this new mentality as well as the objective details
of how to do it.

3. Maturity - With the above 2, #3 is not required, but it sure makes it easier
if the members have a certain level of emotional and communication maturity.

Regarding your specific questions about not having in-person meetings to reach
agreement, I think all forms of meetings are workable - once you have
established a track record of communnication.  From 50 - 90% of our
communication is on the non-verbal level, so to tie together in a relationship
as a working group might be initially accomplished in person, and later on a
certain percentage of discussion could take place on a Home Page, Bulliten
Board, or Phone Tree.  The advantage of e-communication of course, is that no
one can be interrupted!

It sounds very much to me like you simply need to make a decision titled "How We
Make Decisions".  I think it matters less about how you do it, and more that you
have a clear set of guidelines on how its done, delineating the key aspects such
as - 
Advance notification
Number of times a question is brought up before it can be decided
Who gets to decide
Who has to be present
Different levels of decisions
Full consensus, or some voting combination
Undoing a decision
Documentation

Regarding somebody getting mad at you for scheduling a backyard potluck, I
suspect if a Decision Agreement was in place, this wouldn't have come up.  Its a
trust issue, and people trust each other easier if they know they will have
"their say" and not be circumvented.  For example, we just had someone in our
group pass out a flyer to 150 people inviting them to a formal gathering
introducing our community.  This was accomplished simply by announcing it at our
meeting, and saying "I hope you all will be there also".  Everybody was real
happy she was taking the initiative on this, and didn't feel left out or
resentful.  So don't worry about your situation;  after things get to a certain
stage, people will be ecstatic if you *don't* invite them to a meeting!

In summary, a good set of rules creates freedom.  Thats the only reason to have
them.

Buzz Burrell
Geneva Community
Boulder, CO