Cohousing-L Mailing List: Re: CH use rules

[Kristen Simmons (simmonskristen]

Wayne,
Most cohos that I am aware of, including the one that I was a member
of, work on a consensus basis, which results in rules that everyone
consents to. The "rules" therefore are simply codified social mores,
not something imposed by one group on another. Our group had a very
good process this process.

To answer your question, we did find that rules were necessary. During
the development phase, we were working with large amounts of money. We
all wanted rules about how much money people needed to provide, who
would take care of money, etc. We wanted some order to our meetings,
because with large numbers of people, things could get out of hand;
this of course lead to a meeting structure that we all agreed on. Call
it greasing the social wheels or rules, but it was something that
helped us to work better together.
Aren't rules just social mores codified anyway?

Lastly, to give an example of one rule we as a group consented to, we
all agreed that there would be no smoking on the coho property (units,
common space, or outdoors). By stating this rule, everyone understood
the expectation, including potential new residents. Better that some
folks choose not to become members and residents, than try to find a
solution after the fact which would most likely please no one.

You might want to check out Diane Christian's book "Creating a Life
Together". It talks a lot about these issues, particularly decision
making by consensus, as well as conflict resolution. Whether or not to
have rules isn't a debate that I am interested in.

Cheers,
Kristen


> Please correct me if I am wrong, but it appears that the prevalent taboo is 
> against questioning the concept of rules, and that no discussion of social 
> engagement as an alternative to posted rules (avoidance of social engagement) 
> is permitted. Is this universally agreed to by virtually all co-housing 
> residents or is there a minority, other than slackers, who would prefer to 
> engage the slackers after a violation of social mores (everyone should know 
> that consideration of others--in common houses and beyond--is their 
> responsibility as adults or children) rather than posting a set of rules in 
> advance of said (presumed) violation?
>
> WT
>
> PS: Sharon's interpretation seems much more reasonable to me--should they be 
> incorporated into the posted "community agreement?" She also is very 
> perceptive with her remark about "condo commandos" (are "commanders" social 
> or authoritarian?) who "don't want to have any fun."
>