Cohousing-L Mailing List: Re: Revisiting consensus decisions

[Dave Crawford (davec]

Ted;

At Two Acre Wood, in Sebastopol CA, we have a thoroughly defined system
for consensus, for voting as a fall-back, and for revisiting any
decision.  

In overview: at Two Acre Wood (TAW) we have 14 households.  We have two
"votes" per househould if things come to a 2/3 vote.  Four persons
(individual members, not four households) are required to get the full
membership to revisit a decision.

A note on voting.  It's a fall-back, one we've never needed to use in
two years of building and two more after move-in.  Voting is thought of
as an option available after sincere attempts to reach consensus -- most
likely, when reaching the last minute as real-world business action is
needed.  

Contracts with bankers, etc., required us, in our development period, to
use a two-thirds majority rule -- rather than face possible paralysis
under consensus. 

Below are the answers to your questions.

First, the basics of what we have found to work.  

 - Decisions are made by consensus of the whole [It's always our goal.]
  
 - "Substantive decisions" must be announced [adequately, with advance
info....]

 - Two-thirds of all members will pass a decision if it appears that
consensus is not possible.  

   [How/when to fall back to 2/3 voting, and how is "two-thirds"
defined?]
 
 - 75% of members present can suspend consensus.  Can call those not
present if  needed to acquire 75% yes votes.  

 - Two votes per household [when using the voting procedure.] 
 
 - All member households will have a chance to vote [by proxy or other
outreach.] 

[Ted asked, betweem "<< >>". I respond, between "== ==".]
<<
--How many households (what percentage, proportion, whatever) need to
agree to revisit a decision before it can be brought before the entire
group
again?... ...[Great Oak will have 37 households.]
>>

========
At TAW we use four, because we wanted to be responsive -- even if only
one person has a real beef.  We reasoned that just one person's good
argument for revisiting would very likely lead to at least a few other
folks joining in.  That'd call for action.

And I do suggest you use a number like three or four, even though your
group size will be much larger than our 14 households and 28 votes.  

Note that the number (four) for revisiting is much smaller than the 1/3
(10 votes of our 28) that could reverse a prior decision if it were to
be subjected to the 2/3 rule.  

But openness to revisiting does not risk any time-critical action by the
group. That's becuase if 3/4 of the members think it's crucial to act on
the decision quickly, they can call for the the matter to be settled the
2/3 vote process.  

And in fact, calls to revisit at TAW have only held up non-essential
actions.

Final note on revisiting process: 
I saw a suggestion to revisit only if there is a "consensus to
revisit."  

But that doesn't seeem to be a good "consensus way" to deal with
objections, even post-facto ones; in consensus the rules should keep an
ear open for minority voices.  

And it's unnecessarily polarizing to put any request to revisit
face-to-face with the group consensus.  That will certainly worsen
"buyer's regret" --resentment at acquiescing in the face of group
pressure often sparks second thoughts!  

The two-thirds vote -- as a fallback -- will prevent paralysis on
crucial actions.  And in combination with the "four-voices to revisit"
rule, consensus-with-vote-fallback system also guarantees a reasonably
open ear for a newly-dissenting minority.  

================

<<
--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?
>>

=======
Yes, definitely.  Many reasons, as atated in response to other
questions. 
=======

<<
--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?
>>

=======
I cannot offer any guidelines or criteria, except the procedures above
-- which we have devised to encourage the use of common sense.  

Note, specifically that:
 - One person can't make the call to revisit: s/he must get a few
allies; and,
 - A revisit looks doomed if 2/3 would feel it's important to stay the
course.

So a weak case for revisiting should be shown weak, by just a few
conversations. 

========

<<
--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)?
>>

=======
There are a lot of good (but partial) preventative steps.  We've mostly
found "loss of buy-in" occurs when a "decision" didn't involve action
(spending money / building something / signing a contract.)  Which
usually means it was a minor item anyway.  

So always try to stay clear on what's a permanent action (like choosing
something you'll have for decades) and what's not.  

There's another side to that same coin:
Expect a member or two will often panic when anything threatens to
become permanent.  The decision will often feel limiting to the person,
or incompletely processed, or just scary to the person.  

That's why, I think, consensus process -- in the proposal and in the
discussion --  should prominently focus on just how important the
benefits of action are to those who want the action taken.  

(And if, after discussion, it is evidently not so important, then you've
found a problem you don't need to solve!  Or one that can be solved
outside a general membership meeting, using one of the tidy procedures
Rob Sandelin has developed.) 

Clearly demonstrating that a proposed action is substantially important
to mamy is the best antidote to snags -- at the meeting or later -- from
a member or two who may block based on a minor personal concern, on
technicalities, or on some undefined uneasiness over the group's moving
forward with the action. 

Also, very many things don't need a lot of processing -- or simply don't
have a place in a general membership meeting.  "Decision process" should
fit the problem.  It shouldn't be ponderous or anguished unless deciding
about substantial, permanent stuff.  And remember, no decision at all
may be best - as when there's no consensus emerging and the decision can
be delayed.  

Frustration, we've found, often follows grappling with problems that
don't exist. 

Such as, a committee developing a formalized program for how to avoid or
solve a problem we don't actually face.  

Example: Meals and cooking here at TAW are done on a sign-up basis; we
have no participation rules, only a clear and easy accounting process
for the treasurer.  Proposed systems have been developed (fines / rules
/ teams) only to be shelved. 
The volunteer, sign-up method is not much of a "system", but meals do
happen each week.  We've stopped anguishing over how to "fix" the
system.  

==============

- - -  Dave Crawford  - -  davec [at] sonic.net - - -
_______________________________________________
Cohousing-L mailing list
Cohousing-L [at] cohousing.org  Unsubscribe  and other info:
http://www.communityforum.net/mailman/listinfo/cohousing-l