Re: Fallback Voting Methods- By Household or Member? | <– Date –> <– Thread –> |
From: normangauss (normangausscharter.net) | |
Date: Tue, 29 Mar 2005 09:05:15 -0800 (PST) |
Sharon: Recently our community had an issue sitting around for a few weeks being debated endlessly. One member was so frustrated about no action being taken on the issue that she offered to facilitate a meeting in which a vote would be taken without first asking for consensus. In your opinion, what would be a reasonable number of attempts to get a proposal passed by consensus after which going for a vote would be the next step? Norm Gauss ----- Original Message ----- From: "Sharon Villines" <sharon [at] sharonvillines.com> To: "Cohousing-L" <cohousing-l [at] cohousing.org> Sent: Tuesday, March 29, 2005 8:54 AM Subject: Re: [C-L]_ Fallback Voting Methods- By Household or Member? > > On Mar 28, 2005, at 4:10 PM, David Demaree wrote: > > > We're currently writing our bylaws and we've come up > > against the issue of how to allocate votes in the > > event that consensus fails. > > Firstly, don't agonize over this too much as it happens very > infrequently. > > Secondly, there are many solutions to every problem and if only one or > two people are refusing to agree, they also know they will lose a vote > so they figure something out. > > > Some prefer to allocate votes by unit in order to > > protect their economic investment. We have considered > > one or two votes per unit. > > > > Some prefer to allocate votes by member since we are a > > community of members (not units) and all members > > should have an equal voice. > > If it does come down to a vote, you are in trouble and need to be as > conservative as possible. The community in all likelihood has broken > down and allocating one vote per resident or member will probably not > be a good idea. When the community gets down to voting, it also is more > vulnerable to people not acting in good faith (out of anger) and > manipulating votes by moving in 10 friends. > > If it should ever come down to a vote, I would suggest going with the > condominium law in your state or city so that you are operating in a > manner that will be interpreted by the courts as proper and prudent. > This is usually one vote per unit or a percentage vote per unit based > on the percentage of common elements owned. > > You also want this provision so people can get mortgages and the banks > will more comfortable with something that looks like it follows > standard practice. > > It is unlikely to happen and this is the least of your problems at this > point. Don't agonize over it. > > Sharon > --- > Sharon Villines > Building Community: A Newsletter on Coops, Condos, Cohousing, and Other > New Neighborhoods > http://www.buildingcommunitynews.org > > _________________________________________________________________ > Cohousing-L mailing list -- Unsubscribe, archives and other info at: > http://www.cohousing.org/cohousing-L/ > >
-
Fallback Voting Methods- By Household or Member? David Demaree, March 28 2005
-
Re: Fallback Voting Methods- By Household or Member? Sharon Villines, March 29 2005
- Re: Fallback Voting Methods- By Household or Member? normangauss, March 29 2005
- Re: Fallback Voting Methods- By Household or Member? Sharon Villines, March 29 2005
-
Re: Fallback Voting Methods- By Household or Member? Sharon Villines, March 29 2005
-
Re: Fallback Voting Methods- By Household or Member? normangauss, March 29 2005
- RE: Fallback Voting Methods- By Household or Member? Rob Sandelin, March 29 2005
- Re: Fallback Voting Methods- By Household or Member? David Demaree, April 5 2005
Results generated by Tiger Technologies Web hosting using MHonArc.