Cohousing-L Mailing List: Re: Implementing Sociocracy in Cohousing

[Sharon Villines (sharon]

On 11 Oct 2010, at 7:39 AM, Evdavwes [at] aol.com wrote:

> For example, Westwood Cohousing has "Team Charters," which give authority to 
> Teams, but in our case, they in many cases conflict with our Bylaws, which 
> give the same authority to the Board.    In the Sociocracy model, if the 
> General Management Circle is not the Board, but the organization wants the 
> General Management Circle to approve Rules and Regulations or the Budget, the 
> Association needs to make sure to adopt a "non-standard" Declaration 
> specifying this.  If the roles change, the Declaration would have to be 
> changed. 

The Top Circle would be or include the board, not the General Management 
Circle. The Board would include outside experts — the lawyer, the accountant, 
etc. The Top Circle in Gerard's bylaws example the same as and equal to the Top 
Circle. In corporate law, the Board has certain functions that they would not 
have in sociocratic organizations, just as investors have rights they do not 
have in sociocratic organizations so Gerard's solution was to create two bodies 
with a complex relationship that I'm not sure is necessary on non-corporate 
situations, certainly not in cohousing. In a corporation, the organization is 
owned by the investors who are represented by the board. In a non-profit 
corporation, the organization is owned in public trust, essentially, and has an 
obligation to public service. Most cohousing associations are "common interest" 
organizations where the property is held in common.

The way the law can be observed but the organization is still a whole free 
being, is to look at the distinction between responsibility and decision. Our 
lawyer says the Board has the legal responsibility to ensure that decisions are 
made following the agreed upon organizational process. Board responsibility 
does not mean no one else can make the decisions. The General Circle can make 
the decision, the board to ensures that it was made well, or legally.

> These considerations operate whether the organization is sociocratic or 
> consensus-based.  It is far simpler to accept the assumptions of the law and 
> have the Plenary operate as the Board than to fine tune the Bylaws and 
> Declaration to specify which of the standard roles of the Board the Members 
> will have, and which the Board will have.

In sociocracy there is another option which is the full circle meeting — 
Reserve a set of decisions for the Full Circle Meeting. In condominium law, for 
example, the budget must be passed at an annual meeting of the owners. It 
follows naturally to have at least one meeting a year in which policy decisions 
of that magnitude are made by the full body.  

This was also the reason that some communities might want to continue to have 
all their owners on the board. The large policy decisions are made there — 
those that affect the organization in its larger context.

It's  helpful in this analysis to think about who the decision affects. 
Decisions need to be made with representatives of all the circles the decision 
affects.

The Board makes decisions that affect the whole organization and the 
organization's environment — the town, the neighborhood, the tax-environment, 
the investors (if any). That's the only level of decision the board should be 
making.

The General Circle _only_ makes decisions that affect more than one circle or 
that a circle can't make.

A Circle only makes decisions that affect its own performance. If it needs a 
decision that affects other circles, that decision moves to the General Circle.

> The option of having the Top Circle be the Board, but the General Management 
> Circle, Teams, and subteams being "informal" groups of volunteers, but not 
> clearly being Committees of the Board, is less attractive based on the 
> considerations reviewed above. 

Aha! But in sociocracy there are no volunteers. If you are a part of an 
organization as a worker giving time and labor to  it, you have a right to say 
how your time and labor will be used. Thus you have to have decision-making 
authority, leadership authority.

This is why each person has to consent. And consent begins at the bottom with 
as much strength as at the top.

> We have heard by some in our Community that there is some benefit in electing 
> a Board to make any and all decisions on behalf of the Plenary (ie, some 
> benefit in the form of "representative democracy" over "direct democracy").

Unfortunately, this often means they want to absolve themselves of 
responsibility. There was a lot of benefit to having a king and not having to 
worry about where the money was coming from. As long as it was a good king and 
times were good.

If you are a golf club and all the members need to do is pay their dues (not 
even play golf), then not having decision-making power works. But if you want 
to people in a cohousing community to assume responsibility for work, you don't 
want them to be able to be passive.

>    Personally, I have a conviction that "direct democracy" can work, and can 
> yield significant benefits to the group.

But democracy for what? This is where things usually get murky. Why are we 
making this decision? Why am I involved in this? Your people sound as if, as in 
most of our communities, drifting around with little clarity about the why and 
who and when.

> I have sometimes heard the argument that "how a Cohousing group is set up 
> legally doesn't really matter, as long as they are getting along and making 
> decisions together using consensus."

The purpose of the legal documents is to ensure that everyone's rights are 
protected. "Good will" only works until one person's rights cross over those of 
another. It is foolishness to believe that this won't happen at some point.

> In my opinion, it is a great gift to the future of the Community to be clear 
> and precise about the form and rules of governance, and to create a "vision" 
> which prospective members may be attracted to or repelled by, depending on 
> their personal preferences.  Ideally the Community will attract others who 
> share the same vision.

I should add to the ways to practice sociocracy as in individual a point that 
says start with yourself in terms of legal documents as well. Just begin 
keeping track of decisions and questioning decisions. Don't expect everyone to 
sign on — just write it down and make it available to everyone. 

We have a practice of posting things for objections. Once something is posted 
to no objections, it is an agreement. So posting a provision of the bylaws 
along with your understanding, might get a new response. I don't think you can 
just give up. These things move in cycles. First tight control, then loose. It 
sounds like your community might be ready to move toward clarity again. It is 
only hopeless as long as  no one does anything.

Sharon
----
Sharon Villines
"Those who profess to favor freedom and yet deprecate agitation ... want crops 
without plowing up the ground." Frederick Douglass