Cohousing-L Mailing List: RE: CC&Rs in California: decision making clauses

[Rob Sandelin (floriferous]

I might have misunderstood something Eileen said.

I would avoid like the plague using consensus as your official legal
decision making process. For one reason, banks often see that as 100%
majority voting, and will require a backup procedure with a less than 100%
majority. Second, you will want a fall back in case a member goes sour, and
having a voting clause in your legal document of 2/3rds majority
automatically gives you that backup if you need to vote somebody down. This
happens and voting is really important sometimes to save yourselves from a
bad situation.  To assume you will always we able to reach consensus, is in
my experience, very foolish. You may never need your voting backup, but you
will never get highjacked either if you have one.'

There is also a very important function of having a backup. It makes people
more cooperative. If I know that I can't stop the group just by blocking
consensus, and that they will outvote me at a future meeting, then even the
most uncooperative person is likely to make some moves towards compromise,
because they know they will simply get outvoted a couple meetings down the
road.

I recommend something like the following. Attempt consensus at two meetings,
with a third meeting automatically a vote is taken unless the group chooses
by consensus, not to hold the vote. It takes 67% (2/3rd) to approve.

Rob Sandelin

-
---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.332 / Virus Database: 186 - Release Date: 3/6/02

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