Cohousing-L Mailing List: Re: Consensus [was balance] - voting

[Ann Zabaldo (zabaldo]

Brian --

Thank you for this very interesting glimpse at your experience in  
using a voting back up.

If you don't mind ... I have some additional questions?

Concerning the issue on which the vote was taken --  I'm assuming that  
you tried many avenues to reach consensus over a period of time but  
just want to check out your process so I'm not doing too much  
assuming ...

How many times did you meet as a party of the whole to discuss the  
proposal?

What other methods were tried to reach consensus?  Small groups?  One  
on one?

Who actually called for the voting process to be "activated?"

And once the vote was called for ... what was the process used to  
actually take the vote?  Did you have to have Super Majority present  
to call the vote?  Was the vote on the proposal done immediately?

When you say voting is less divisive than struggling for consensus  
this is because_______?  Can you flesh this out a little?  If it's  
truly less divisive I'm wondering why we don't simply vote?  Just  
wondering out loud ... (there's nothing wrong w/ Robert's Rules of  
Order ... I think ... of course there's the Congress to think  
about ... but ...?)

Thanks for sharing all this, Brian!  The more information we have  
about reality than theory ... the better!

Best --

Ann Zabaldo
Takoma Village Cohousing
Washington, DC
Principal, Cohousing Collaborative, LLC
Falls Church VA
703 663 3911

On Feb 26, 2010, at 6:26 AM, Brian Tremback wrote:

> Ann,
>
> We have resorted to voting once in our 2+ year history. Our bylaws  
> allow
> voting after failure to reach consensus twice. Voting on the issue can
> only take place if a simple majority agrees to allow a vote. And  
> again,
> a simple majority rules when voting on the issue.
>
> There was a mix of feelings expressed after the vote was resorted to.
> One was that it became clear that there was a winner and a loser.  
> There
> was also a sense of failure that we weren't successful coming to
> consensus. For some, there was a sense of relief that we got the issue
> behind us.
>
> Once the discussion of an issue develops "sides" that are for and
> against, I think voting has the potential to be less divisive than
> struggling for consensus. However, the failure of the consensus  
> process
> probably begins to occur at the moment of polarization, not later on
> when voting is resorted to.
>
> Brian Tremback
> Burlington Cohousing
>
> _________________________________________________________________
> Cohousing-L mailing list -- Unsubscribe, archives and other info at:
> http://www.cohousing.org/cohousing-L/