Cohousing-L Mailing List: Re: Revisiting Consensus

[Mac Thomson (mac]

Here's our policy from our DECISION MAKING & MEETINGS agreement:

> All decisions remain in force until they are replaced by another  
> decision. A team may reconsider any of their previous decisions at  
> any time. A community decision previously made is reconsidered only  
> if:
>
> A) A majority of voting 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.

To see the whole agreement, go to:

http://www.heartwoodcohousing.com/AGREEMENTS/DECMAK.html



Cheers,

Mac


--
Mac Thomson

Heartwood Cohousing
Southwest Colorado
http://www.heartwoodcohousing.com


"Tae be yersel and tae mak that worth bein
  Nae harder job tae mortals has been gien."
               -Hugh MacDiarmid (Scotland)
**********************************************************



On Sep 11, 2007, at 4:16 AM, cohousing-l-request [at] cohousing.org wrote:

> Message: 1
> Date: Mon, 10 Sep 2007 04:35:00 -0700 (PDT)
> From: Fred H Olson <fholson [at] cohousing.org>
> Subject: [C-L]_ Revisiting Consensus
> To: -cohousing-L mailing list <cohousing-l [at] cohousing.org>
> Message-ID:
>         <Pine.LNX.4.62.0709100431290.12409 [at] farnsworth.tigertech.net>
> Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
>
> Joel Plotkin <joel.plotkin [at] sunyit.edu>
> is the author of the message below.
> It was posted by Fred the Cohousing-L list manager  
> <fholson [at] cohousing.org>
> since it was sent in html only which the list does not handle. We are
> working on finding a way for Joel to send plain text.  Fred
> --------------------  FORWARDED MESSAGE FOLLOWS --------------------
>
> COHOrts:
>
> A question regarding consensus--Our community uses consensus as our
> decision-making process, with CT Butler's essay as a guideline. A
> question arose yesterday about revisiting an issue on which consensus
> had been reached several years ago. The more procedurally-oriented  
> of us
> (still hearing crackles, perhaps, from remaining synapses of Roberts'
> Rules of Order) wanted first to reach consensus on a proposal to  
> revisit
> the earlier consensus. Others said that simply reopening discussion  
> was
> an implicit agreement to revisit the earlier consensus, but that  
> without
> a new consensus, the old decision stands. This last is what Butler
> writes in his essay.
>
> It seems to me, in the light of the morning, that trying to arrive  
> at a
> consensus to revisit an earlier consensus is inherently virtually
> impossible, given that some members have already expressed some
> disaffection with the earlier decision; that not agreeing to  
> revisit the
> issue undemocratically silences those who wish to reopen the  
> discussion.
>
> Our group has decided to continue work on the issue in a smaller group
> (a traditional consensus next-step), implicitly acknowledging that the
> earlier consensus IS being revisited, without a formal proposal to
> revisit.
>
> So here's where I'd like input: Do any of the consensus-based or
> sociocracy groups have language about revisiting earlier consensi
> (consensuses? consensim?) or experience that may help a group with  
> very
> varied backgrounds in consensus better understand this issue.
>
> A further question: the issue at question is that our current Rules  
> and
> Regulations require members of the Community Owners Association to be
> partners in our tree farm business venture, a separately-incorporated
> LLC. Those Coho groups with attached or covalent businesses--how do  
> you
> handle the issue of a COA member not wishing to be joined legally to
> that business?
>
> Joel Plotkin
> Hundredfold Farm
> Orrtanna, PA