Cohousing-L Mailing List: Consent & Responsibility

[Sharon Villines (sharon]

In dynamic governance there is no option to stand aside — the only options are 
consent or object. If you don't have tangible objections, ones that can be 
teased out and addressed, then you consent. It maybe a passive consent, "I 
don't see any reason not to do this", or an active consent, "I really think 
this is a good idea." Both are consent.

We have members who insist on having a stand aside option, in my opinion, 
because they don't want the responsibility of making a decision. They always 
want more time, more information, more reassurance. The status quo doesn't 
require them to take responsibility. It just is what it is.

We have a lot of people who don't want to make decisions so they don't come to 
meetings. They are happy to have others make the decisions and they will abide 
by them.

But the stand asides are different. They want to actively be on record as not 
taking responsibility for this decision. Even if you have come in late and 
don't know anything about the issue, you can consent to allow the group to move 
forward. Standing aside doesn't stop the decision, so why do it? 

In consensus decision-making each person is responsible for that decision if 
they allow it go forward. Accepting that responsibility is hard. What if we are 
wrong? How can I say yes to a budget if I have no concept of budgeting and 
can't imagine being responsible for facilities maintenance costing $100,000 a 
year?

Because consent can be given for a million reasons. This is why I like to know 
why other people are consenting. My decision is based on theirs as well as on 
my own. If Joe is consenting to a proposal to do xxx because he believes xxx is 
a good idea or if he is consenting because he knows xxx is a bad idea but 
"people have to learn," I need to know that because my decision is informed by 
his.

I consent if I know nothing but trust that those making the proposal do know 
something or have consulted experts. I recently consented to a proposal that I 
have no faith in at all but those making the proposal are acting in good faith 
and have consulted the dubious, in my view, but only experts that exist on the 
subject. The damage, if any, to the facilities will be minimal if they are 
wrong. If the solution is too labor intensive, it will die a slow death anyway. 
People know my logic and have decided to move forward.

When we decided to accept the gift of a fountain when we moved in, I objected 
because I had lived in a condominium with a fountain and knew it had created 
work and conflict. Even with a full staff, it was constant conflict and 
expense. I laid out my questions and experience and assured myself that 
everyone had considered them and was aware of potential problems. All the 
problems have occurred but I understand what was important to people — the 
romantic idea of a fountain and what they regarded as a work of art in the 
piazza. That was worth the aggravation, and for some people, still is.

It's a lot easier to allow others to make decisions that you can complain about 
later, but when you consent you are taking responsibility. That is a new 
experience for many. One way to handle it is to accept that decisions are based 
on the best knowledge available at the time, and can be changed. Measure 
results, and improve the decision, but get on with the decision.

Sharon
----
Sharon Villines, Washington DC
A Deeper Democracy
http://www.adeeperdemocracy.org