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

[Sharon Villines (sharon]

On Apr 7, 2009, at 11:02 AM, Lyle Scheer wrote:

> So much of what I've heard about processes of when to override a block
> don't seem to take into account that the people deciding to override  
> the
> block are the majority that disagree with the block.

What is the definition of "block" in these communities? I find it  
problematic that there is not a distinction being made about the  
difference between an objection and a block.

I agree that having an out easily available will distract from the  
whole point of requiring consensus.

> I'm at the point where I think the card system detracts from our
> conversation [snip]  just keeps us looking at numbers
> and colors and not talking about the issue.

I totally agree. I think we also forget that consensus is about making  
the best decision possible. A card can't say anything about the  
quality of the decision or the concern or the objection.

The cards end up being a count, no matter how complex that count is.  
Some of our facilitators used to use thumbs up, thumbs sideways,  
thumbs down to take a "temperature check" before asking for consensus.  
I found this objectionable because it becomes intimidating to the one  
person who is still thumbs down. Intimidating the minority is not a  
good way to reach consensus.

I also have trouble giving black and white answers -- even if they are  
red and yellow and green. Or thumbs.

From another of your messages:

> I suppose I would be better with those sorts of processes if the  
> arbiter
> of the override was a neutral third party.

In sociocratic governance, if a group cannot reach consensus, the  
decision is sent "upstairs." if a team couldn't make a decision, it  
would go to the general management circle, then to the Board, then to  
an outside expert and their organization.

Each of those levels except the outside expert, would include  
representatives of the group that couldn't reach consensus in the  
first place.

> Now, I remember from reading in one of these books about I think it  
> was
> the Sierra Club, or Greenpeace, or one of these environmental
> organizations who had a full consensus process until some anarchists
> came in with the express purpose of disrupting the organization and  
> sat
> in and blocked everything.

In sociocratic governance, consensus is only used when a group shares  
a common aim. In this instance they didn't and consensus could never  
have worked. The group put consensus, their decision-making process,  
above their aim. This is consensus as religion, not aim realization or  
even decision-making.

In cohousing, where at least part of the aim is inclusiveness,  
consensus is part of the aim.

But if the anarchists showed up, cohousing might have to use majority  
vote, and probably lawyers, to preserve the community. Consensus is  
probably not possible with people who have your destruction as their  
only aim.

Sharon
----
Sharon Villines
Takoma Village Cohousing,Washington DC
http://www.takomavillage.org