Cohousing-L Mailing List: Re: Revisiting Consensus

[Oliveau (Oliveau]

Hey Joel,
    In our group we have a Facilitation Team which is  responsible for 
creating the agenda for Plenary meetings.  Often there are  a lot of issues 
competing for group discussion time.  The Facilitation Team  needs to prepare 
for 
discussion, often sending out supporting  documents prior to the meeting.  The 
team also makes sure that issues don't  get lost, and that low priority issues 
also get some discussion time.  In  the early days of our community, when there 
was a lot of conflict, the  Facilitation Team preparation meetings ran longer 
than the actual Plenary  meetings.    
    I've seen groups fall into talking about what to  talk about.  Usually, 
it means that there's a part of the group that really  doesn't want to talk 
about that issue, and they are using procedure to block  actual discussion.  
They 
are so afraid of the issue, that they  would prefer to spend lots of group 
time talking about whether or not  it's appropriate to talk about it, usually 
in 
the name of not wasting group  time.  In that case, your facilitators need to 
realize that there is  emotion around this issue, and it needs to be 
confronted, not swept under the  rug.  Refusing to discuss something is 
"non-negotiable negativity,"  i.e. "I refuse to agree and I refuse to talk 
about why I 
refuse to agree."   This is a consensus no-no.
    Refusing to re-consider issues can have bad  long-term consequences.  One 
way to resolve a conflict is to agree to try  it one way for a fixed period 
of time and then re-consider.    If  people feel that once a decision is made, 
it can never be changed, you won't  have that option for reaching consensus 
and people will be much more fearful  about making the wrong decision.
    On the other hand, if this is an issue that the  group feels is resolved 
but one person is unhappy about it.  Or there is a  new person who wants to 
reconsider everything.  You need to be balanced,  respectful of group time, and 
prevent individuals from hijacking the agenda  whenever they feel like it.  
Time limits on discussion are a good tool  here.  A facilitator can say, "OK, 
I'm hearing that Jim really wants to  revisit this issue, but the rest of the 
group feels that there's not much value  to such a discussion and there are 
more 
pressing issues.  So let's limit  the discussion to 15 minutes and then move 
on."  You give the person a  chance to be heard, and to hear others, but you 
give the lets-move-on-group a  point in time when the group will turn to other 
issues.
 
Hope that helps,
-Kevin Oliveau
Catoctin Creek Village
 
In a message dated 9/10/2007 7:35:21 A.M. Eastern Daylight Time,  
fholson [at] cohousing.org writes:

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







************************************** See what's new at http://www.aol.com