Cohousing-L Mailing List: Re: Sociocracy (response to "blocking consensus" and long)

[Tree Bressen (tree]

I found the explanation of the elections fascinating, thank you.

>3) Each equity member writes on a scrap of paper, "Sheila recommends Bob,"
>or whatever.

Can you recommend more than one person?

>4) We pass our slips to the facilitator, who reads each one in turn and
>tallies the votes (if necessary--it usually isn't) to get a sense of which
>of the candidates is least likely to meet with a reasoned & paramount
>objection.
>
>    As each vote is read, the voter is asked to give a rationale for his or
>her vote. 

I love the openness of this.  Yet i also wonder if you lose out on
important information because people are scared to say what they really
think in front of each other?


>> Does the facilitator facilitate all meetings during
>> their term?  What if a topic comes up that they are too attached about?
>
>Yes, the facilitator facilitates all meetings unless he or she can't for a
>specific reason (childbirth? travel schedule?).  In that case, the
>facilitator finds somebody else to fill in.
>
>As far as being attached about topcis, that's an interesting question. I'm
>not aware of any requirement in sociocracy for being detached. Is there one
>in consensus?

Yes.  Part of being a consensus facilitator is to strive for relative
detachment.  I tell groups to purposely choose who will facilitate a
particular meeting partly based on which people are most neutral on those
topics.  Of course some topics it seems that no one is neutral on, and in
that case you look for a skilled person who everyone trusts and who won't
influence the outcome with their bias.  (And i went to college in the era
of deconstructionism, when neutrality was unveiled as an illusion anyway
:-)  If someone is really passionate about a particular topic, then the
group needs their piece as a participant, and therefore it's not
appropriate for that person to facilitate then.

>I personally am one of the least detached people I know about most topics,
>yet I facilitate a circle. The reason I find this works for me is that
>facilitating is like following a scientific procedure. Opening rounds,
>proposal, rounds, proposal, rounds, proposal, rounds, closing rounds. There
>is so little reason to get bogged down with arguments now that we understand
>how to do this. Even facilitating my own proposals has worked because it's
>like following a recipe. Read the proposal--do the rounds--respond by
>changing the proposal--round again--change again--round again, okay. Next.

Wow!  Very different.  Facilitators in consensus are *especially* never
supposed to facilitate their own proposals.  (I mean in real life all kinds
of things happen, but there are reasons to avoid it.)  There's too much
danger that if someone disagrees the facilitator will fall into defending
the proposal, in which case there's no one to hold safe space for the
participants, especially any who disagree or want changes.  The role of
presenter (proposer) is just very different from that of facilitator.  The
presenter should be allowed to assert their opinions, while also being
open-minded about modifications.  Whereas the facilitator is there to
ensure all voices are heard and integrated.

>I have been stuck--and seen other facilitators get stuck--not knowing how to
>alter a proposal to overcome an objection, but then if one says simply,
>"Hmm. I'm not sure what to do," somebody else is bound to have a good
>suggestion.

That can happen in consensus too.

>I've also seen facilitators cry. There's plenty of room for that, and if
>everybody is aware of where we're at (this is a round, and it's her turn to
>give her opinion, for instance), then it all helps to move us forward. We
>need to know everybody's feelings--even the facilitator's--to make a good
>decision.

There are times in consensus (such as when a new person is applying to join
a community of 5-15 people) when it is acknowledged that everyone's input
is needed, including that of whoever is facilitating.  In those cases the
facilitator makes it explicit when she is giving her personal opinion as
contrasted with when she is acting as facilitator.

>Sociocracy seems so very rational that one might expect emotionlessness
>would be a requirement for good facilitation, but that doesn't seem to me to
>be the case. The *structure* is so rationale that the *content* can be quite
>emotional without breaking anything. At least, that's the way I see it. 

That sounds really cool.


>> I assume what the statement means is that power is invested in a
>functional
>> role, not in a person, and also that no one person is in charge of the
>> whole shebang.  Power is shared as people rotate through steering councils
>> or whatever the highest part of the governance hierarchy is in that
>> community.  Of course there are always power differences in any group,
>> people have varying amounts of charisma, articulateness, and so on.  Every
>> group has members that are more widely respected than others.  But
>> community-oriented structures try to balance things out and prevent any
>one
>> person from holding too much sway over the group.  I'm not sure if my
>> statements here make it more clear or not. . . .\
>
>Yes, actually, your explanation is very helpful. It sounds like a way of
>avoiding autocracy through establishing an attitude of turn-taking. Is it?

Yes, i think avoiding autocracy is the goal and turn-taking is a big part
of how to do that.


>We haven't decided what to do with the "functional leader" once we're built.
>Any sociocratic organization does have one.  I'm guessing we'll still have
>somebody who works for the top circle and makes sure that when balls drop
>they don't hit the floor--but then the balls might be something like lawn
>mowing rather than like paying the architect or
>choosing the contractor.

Hey folks--assuming others besides Sheila and me have had the patience to
read this far!--are there any other cohousing communities out there that
are operating in this way, with a general manager or some such role?  I
would be very interested to hear about it if so.

>>This is not my area of expertise, but my impression is
>> that different communities in development handle this in different ways,
>> for example, some communities have a committee to handle that stuff (such
>> as Sharingwood's "Emergency Bullshit Committee") rather than one person.
>> Or in some groups, i imagine that committee chairs consult the whole group
>> when necessary, potential recruits are routed to an outreach committee, a
>> legal committee deals with permitting, while a design committee liaisons
>> with the architects and builders.
>
>Interesting. How does one build that from the ground up with constantly
>changing membership?

I don't think i'm the best person to answer that question because i've
never actually developed a cohousing community.  But my impression is that
while there is certainly some turnover, there's also a gradual building
toward critical mass, and that in successful cohousing communities enough
people stick around through the whole process (or at least through large
chunks of it) that things get done and there is an adequate amount of
continuity to handle the flow through of other people.  Also sometimes
someone who ends up not living there or is only involved for a short time
can still provide critical support during development phases.  When a
particular need arises (e.g., it's time to start researching what
contractor to hire), i think one or more people come forward to do the work
from whoever is around and involved at that time.

Thanks for this dialogue, which i am really enjoying and learning a lot
from.  I really hope to sit in on a sociocratic meeting some time to see
what you're talking about in action.  Do you know of any groups using the
method out here on the west coast?

Cheers,

--Tree



-----------------------------------------------

Tree Bressen
1680 Walnut St.
Eugene, OR 97403
(541) 484-1156
tree [at] ic.org
_______________________________________________
Cohousing-L mailing list
Cohousing-L [at] cohousing.org  Unsubscribe  and other info:
http://www.communityforum.net/mailman/listinfo/cohousing-l