Cohousing-L Mailing List: Re: qualifying a block as legitimate

[Sharon Villines (sharon]

On Apr 6, 2009, at 9:35 PM, Muriel Kranowski wrote:

> This is a topic we are now discussing.  Do any communities require an
> announced consensus block to be judged to be valid or legitimate  
> before
> allowing it to stand?

We don't have anything in our bylaws but have never overruled an  
objection.

There is a distinction in sociocratic governance that might be helpful.

People may object but may not veto. A block, as I understand it is  
essentially a veto.

An objection must be (1) paramount and (2) reasoned.

"Paramount" in a cohousing community would mean that if this proposal  
is adopted it will affect your ability to live in or to support the  
community. Being able to live happily in the community, to  
enthusiastically support it, is a value "above all others" for most  
cohousers. If painting the barn neon purple will affect you this way,  
you may well be "missing in action" the next time the community needs  
you. You will have emotionally withdrawn your consent. You have an  
obligation to let the community know this.

"Reasoned" means you must explain your objection sufficiently well for  
others to help resolve it. An objection may be vague like a bad  
feeling, it doesn't have to be "factual," but you must participate in  
efforts to clarify those feelings. Many objections start as feelings  
so "reasoned" means "expressed." Reasoning requires you to help  
clarify and resolve the objection.

If you say "No" and walk out of the room, that is a veto. If you say,  
"No, I don't like this" and refuse to explain why or to help people  
understand your reasons, that is a veto. You are in effect being a  
dictator and not engaging in your community's decision-making process.  
If you say no and give a speech no one understands and you refuse to  
explain it, that is a veto.

The decision-making standard in sociocratic governance is that  
everyone in the community should be able "to live with it." At first  
this sounds like a pretty low standard, but it is balanced with  
continual "measuring" to determine if the decision is producing the  
desired results. Decisions are often made in small chunks for short  
periods of time so better decisions can be made based on the  
experiences gained from the previous decision.

Successive approximations are considered to be the best way to move  
forward -- not one big decision to last for all time. A small step may  
either resolve the objection or demonstrate to everyone else that the  
objection was well founded.

Sharon
----
Sharon Villines
Coauthor with John Buck of
"We the People: Consenting to a Deeper Democracy"
A Guide to Sociocratic Principles and Methods
ISBN: 9780979282706
http://www.sociocracy.info