Cohousing-L Mailing List: Re: Consensus and Lenders

[Ann Zabaldo (zabaldo]

Hi all!

Here's an interesting concept I've learned from The Formal Consensus
process:

an individual withholds *consent*

only the *group* can decide if it's blocked.

This removes the stalemate of an individual holding the group hostage.  But
of course w/ a well facilitated and structured process all blocks are
removed very early in the process.  My experience is that a group that tries
to get to consensus and is finding itself hung up has other unresolved
difficulties.

If you are interested in learning more about Formal Consensus you can check
out this website:

www.consensus.net


Ann Zabaldo

Takoma Village Cohousing
Washington, DC. -- America's
Hometown!
----- Original Message -----
From: "Rob Sandelin" <floriferous [at] msn.com>
To: "Multiple recipients of list" <cohousing-l [at] freedom2.mtn.org>
Sent: Sunday, February 04, 2001 7:11 PM
Subject: RE: Consensus and Lenders


> I have heard of a few places where the local Fannie Mae office (The
federal
> loan guarantee program and almost all banks use) did not care, or did not
> notice that decision making was by consensus. However, I heard from dozens
> of sources, inside and outside cohousing, that consensus is often a
> rejection point for loan guarantees. This is something that can come up
very
> late in the game of funding, and is easily corrected by having a voting
> backup. As long as you have a voting backup of some kind of majority you
are
> fine in many cases  having consensus listed in your decision making
process.
> However, ask your funding consultant (banker, broker, etc.) what they
think.
>
> I also firmly believe that any group that attempts cohousing without a
> voting backup is backing itself into a potentially very bad place, where
one
> pissed off/dysfunctional individual can derail your whole project. Having
a
> voting backup is insurance which keeps people like that from destroying
> years of work.
>
> I would imagine the Texas area would be pretty conservative about this
> stuff.
>
> Rob Sandelin
> Author of the Cohousing Resource Guide mentioned which is out dated and
been
> entirely replaced by the Intentional Communities Resources Pages at
> http://www.ic.org/nica/resource.htm
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: cohousing-l [at] freedom2.mtn.org
> [mailto:cohousing-l [at] freedom2.mtn.org]On Behalf Of Peter Scott
> Sent: Sunday, February 04, 2001 2:22 PM
> To: Multiple recipients of list
> Subject: Re: Concensus and Lenders
>
>
> Here at Earthsong our legal stuff refers to a two step process, of firstly
> that the group "shall be consulted" using the group decisionmaking process
> (defined as 2 attempts at a consensus etc) and secondly failing that a 75%
> majority vote of financial interests. While we see the latter as a
backstop,
> the banks etc see the latter and dont really care about the former. You
can
> read the fine print on our website at
> http://www.ecohousing.pl.net/resource/ca.html
>
> Peter Scott
> Earthsong
>
> jonathan ogren wrote:
>
> > We are in the beginning stages of forming a cohousing group in Austin,
> TX.&nbsp; Like many cohousing groups, we are&nbsp;going to use concensus
as
> our decision making process.&nbsp; In&nbsp; one of our very helpful
> sources&nbsp;of information,The Co-Housing Resource Guide compiled by Rob
> Sandelin, it says you should not state you are using concensus as your
> decision making process in incorparation documents because it is not a
> recognized decision making process for many lenders.&nbsp; Is this
something
> to be concerned about? Has anyone put concensus in their bylaws and
majority
> vote in their incorparation documents and had a conflict?&nbsp; Is it
> possible to create both documents so they do not conflict?
>
>
>
>
>
>