Cohousing-L Mailing List: More about personal blocking and criteria for principled block

[Diana Leafe Christian (diana]

I've received more responses, mostly in emails to me directly, to my  
question about personal blocking, and communities that use criteria  
for assessing whether or not a block is principled. This is one way to  
reduce the resentment that can arise when one or more people block for  
purely personal preferences or their own individual values, rather  
than because the proposal violates the group's shared values, or  
because it would harm the community as a whole.

(1)  At Silver Sage Cohousing in Boulder, CO, members can't block for  
personal reasons, only for what they deem to be the good of the  
community.  If someone did block at Silver Sage and there was a  
question of whether it was for the good of the community or personal,  
the Steering Team would decide.

(2) Wild Sage Cohousing, also in Boulder, has the same provision.

(3) Two other cohousing communities may also have this agreement:  
Querencia in Fresno, CA, and Wolf Creek Lodge, a forming community in  
Grass Valley, CA. (If anyone from Querencia or Wolf Creek Lodge is  
reading this, please let us know. Thanks!)

(4) Rosewind Cohousing in Port Townsend, Washington, doesn't specify a  
criteria, but they do have a concept they call "Principle vs.  
Preference," which means the group would not support a block that was  
not grounded in the concern that the action would be unwise for the  
community, not just the person blocking.

Rosewind also has a "Resort to Voting" provision (although they’ve  
never used it in 20 years). It serves as a kind of deterrent to  
personal blocking just because it exists. Someone once tried to block  
a proposal for a reason that wasn't related to the proposal itself,  
but because they were upset with the community about a related issue.  
The group decided to use the voting fallback. However, in a private  
meeting to understand the blocking person’s deeper concerns, they were  
convinced that their concerns about the other issue were not related  
to the proposal itself. The block was dropped and so there was no need  
to use the voting fallback.

The most effective, elegant, and win-win way I've ever seen a group  
use a voting fallback this is the “solution-oriented meetings” method  
used by N-Street Cohousing in Davis, CA, and a similiar method used by  
Manzanita Cohousing in Prescott, AZ. Here's a link to an article about  
N Street's method, which appeared in the Sept 2009 issue of my online  
newsletter. http://www.ecovillagenews.org/wiki/index.php/Is_Consensus_Right_for_Your_Group%3F_Part_I

Hope you find this info helpful.

Diana

Diana Leafe Christian





> > http://www.DianaLeafeChristian.org
> > http://www.EcovillageNews.org