Re: Quorum at meetings | <– Date –> <– Thread –> |
From: Tim Mensch (tim-coho-l![]() |
|
Date: Tue, 2 Oct 2007 10:34:51 -0700 (PDT) |
Brian Bartholomew wrote:
What's the difference between someone in a meeting saying 'if you do X, I will call for a vote, and you know you'll lose' vs. actually going through the paperwork of the vote? What's the difference between meeting participants doing this math silently in their heads and then 'giving consent' vs. actually going through the paperwork of the vote?
I think the answer is in what Terry said earlier:
Living in a community where decisions are based on consensus demands that individual members trust each other, and that members are willing to consent to decisions that they don't believe are perfect--and that in fact they may not like at all--in support of the wishes of community. If what you really want is final say over everything, then the plan you (Brian) posted a while back on coho-L of having a group of single family homes where there's no shared ownership interest is a fine one--but that doesn't negate the benefits of consensus decisions for those who are willing to trust in their neighbors, and who are willing to bend to the "will of the group" after they've had a chance to speak their position. The truth is no one is ever truly bound by a consensus decision or a vote, as you always have the option of leaving the group--or not joining a consensus-with-vote-based group to begin with.But in the end, it is relationship and trust that makes it all work, or not.
Communities seem to work best when formed by a group of people with compatible values; your position that "voting overrides is wrong" is an example of such a value, and can neither be proven valid nor invalid. Find a group of others who share your values, start your own community, and you'll be golden--no need to argue with people about whether voting is a good thing. Convincing others your values are the right ones is futile, however. Describing your values and seeking like-minded folks is something else--and if that's all you're attempting, I'm sorry to have misinterpreted your comments. I just feel frustrated when I see messages on the list that appear judgmental of fall-back voting, when I personally wouldn't join a community without a method to override a block. You're not confident that everyone won't vote against you; I'm not confident that someone won't hold the community hostage to get their way. There are probably others who don't have either fear, and are likely wondering what we're worried about. :)
In the real world, many communities are often assembled from people who showed up at the right time, and who have vastly different ideas of what cohousing means--and in the real world you can't (typically) restrict who buys a new unit. Despite these differences in objectives, sometimes decisions have to be made. I have seen and heard about what I consider to be unreasonable blocks, and while I do support discussing and learning the details and reasons behind every opinion, there is a limit to how much time and energy I am willing and able to put in. While I'm willing to trust that consensus process will improve the result of a decision, and improve overall buy-in to a decision, I'm not able to trust that there won't (eventually) be someone willing to block a proposal that basically everyone else wants, for no reason in line with the community's stated values*. Yes, falling back to vote may alienate the blocker, but much of the rest of the community is in danger of being frustrated, burning out, pulling back, and even leaving by the time it comes to this point. So the question to me is: Would I rather see a community controlled by its inflexible members, or a community that's less welcoming to people who have to have things their way and more welcoming to those who trust their neighbors and who are willing to bend to the needs of the community? That's an easy answer for me--and a description of a personal value, not some ultimate truth. YMMV**
-- Tim Mensch Currently at Wild Sage (Boulder, CO): http://www.wildsagecohousing.org Founding member of Tumblerock, a Boulder, CO area community in its forming stages: http://tumblerock.org * Tumblerock is using Sociocracy, so technically may not need a "fall-back" vote, per se, since in Sociocracy there's a loosely defined concept where a facilitator or group may have the ability to decide that an objection is not valid, i.e., it's not based on group values, or not reasoned, but instead just a personal preference or irrational. The details of this "objection override" will work are not well defined for us yet, however. Maybe I need to read Sharon's book... ** Your Mileage May Vary: Your answer probably will differ.
-
Quorum at meetings Terry (Sarito) Whatley, October 2 2007
-
Re: Quorum at meetings Brian Bartholomew, October 2 2007
- Re: Quorum at meetings Tim Mensch, October 2 2007
-
Re: Quorum at meetings Brian Bartholomew, October 2 2007
- Re: Quorum at meetings Charlene McNamara, October 2 2007
Results generated by Tiger Technologies Web hosting using MHonArc.