Cohousing-L Mailing List: Re: Revisiting consensus decisions

[Mac & Sandy Thomson (ganesh]

Here's our policy at Heartwood Cohousing on reopening issues:

> All decisions will remain in force until they are replaced by another
> decision. A decision previously made will be reconsidered only if: A) A
> majority of Member Households wants to reconsider the decision. Requests
> for reconsideration of a decision must be in writing (petition, email,
> etc.). --- OR --- B) The Steering Team decides that there is significant
> cause to reconsider the decision.

We strive to build checks and balances into our agreements.  This policy
seems to do that pretty well.  Issues don't get reopened at the drop of
a hat, but when something's obviously in need of rework, our Steering
team can make that decision or if folks think it's important to reopen
an issue they can 'override' the Steering team by getting 50% of their
neighbors to agree.  I find it very helpful to have a specific policy in
place so we don't have to subjectively decide everytime someone wants to
reopen a decision we worked long and hard to make.

- Mac



Ted Chesky wrote:
> Hi,
> I'm with Great Oak Cohousing in Ann Arbor MIch. We're a new group, due to
> start construction in the spring, and we're still refining some of our
> meeting and decision-making processes. I've agreed to poke around on the
> Cohousing-L list and try to find out how different communities handle the
> issue of revisiting previous decisions. Fortunately, we've only had one big
> issue come back to the group, and we stuck with the original decision, but
> we know it's going to happen again eventually.
> 
> There are a number of questions surrounding this issue, including:
> 
> --How many households (what percentage, proportion, whatever) need to agree
> to revisit a decision before it can be brought before the entire group
> again? I found little in the archives about the specific numbers/proportion
> of households. One post mentioned 2 out of 12; one mentioned half. That's a
> pretty big range. Anybody have any other numbers to offer? Why did you pick
> the number you did? [Great Oak will have 37 households.]
> 
> --Should there be a standard procedure or sequence of steps one should go
> through to get a decision back in front of the group? Suggested steps?
> 
> --Are there any criteria one should use to judge whether a decision is a
> candidate for change? So far I've got: people or problem that drove
> original decision no longer around; unforeseen negative consequences; new
> people or circumstances enter community; usual decision process not
> followed. Any other goodies?
> 
> --What can be done in the original decision process to prevent things from
> coming back unnecessarily (beyond the obvious stuff like thorough
> discussion and documentation of the original decision)?
> 

-- 
           Mac & Sandy Thomson           Heartwood Cohousing
           ganesh [at] rmi.net                Durango, Colorado
        Web Site:   http://www.heartwoodcohousing.com


Now and then it's good to pause in our pursuit of happiness and just be
happy.
           - Guillaume Apollinaire
_______________________________________________
Cohousing-L mailing list
Cohousing-L [at] cohousing.org  Unsubscribe  and other info:
http://www.communityforum.net/mailman/listinfo/cohousing-l