Cohousing-L Mailing List: Insecurity in Cohousing

[O3C11N6G (normangauss]

For somebody like me who needs a strong structure in which to 
live, the
loosy-goosy way things are done around here is very unsettling.  I 
have been
advised by some people in cohousing land to become a 
non-participant.  But knowing that departures from the
assumed structure, especially when it comes to property 
management, makes me
feel like the place is falling apart.

If I felt secure about the way this organization was managing the 
property,
I would, indeed, become a non-participant.  However, when I see 
the
following happen, I cannot comfortably remain distant.
(1) changes implemented that I have not had enough time to discuss
(2) refusal of the community to discuss a matter beyond their 
patience
(3) property alteration proposals that are unnecessarily declared 
urgent and
falsely declared in need quick approval
(3) strong pressure to approve a proposal just because the people 
working on
it deserve recognition for their effort
(4) facilitators declaring closure and seeking consensus on a 
proposal prematurely in order to
feel a sense of accomplishment, rather than have another meeting 
to
reconsider and perhaps have a more sustainable agreement
(5) feeling confused about a proposal because not enough 
explanatory
material has been presented
(6) not requiring proposal writers to write carefully prepared 
proposals
with full documentation because it is too much of a burden on them 
to do the work

  Often I get such an overwhelming hostility to my requests for 
continuance,
that I am threatened with deciding by vote instead of consensus.
This is tantamount to saying, "to hell with you; if you don't like 
it, move
out".  This is hardly the philosphy promoted in the agreements we 
signed
when we became members.

I attend all Board meetings and have a chance to evaluate whether 
the Board
is working to my satisfaction.  For the most part, they are doing 
a good
job on the small details.  It's the business meetings of the whole 
community where personal goals
seem to outweigh community concerns.  Here, major proposals are 
presented and decided on in community meetings, but requiring the 
Board to examine and ratify the decisions.  In all occasions where 
I have seen the Board in action, not once has any time been spent 
on examining the consensed proposals from a fiduciary viewpoint. 
The Board is required by law to act as a fiduciary, but they often 
rubber-stamp proposals sent their way.  Often, they are so tired 
of hearing about these proposals, especially the more 
conterversial ones,  they just want to get on with their work and 
not delay any longer.

I would like to remain distant.  But I frequently feel insecure 
about what
everybody is deciding if I have not taken part in the decision 
making
process.

Norm Gauss