Cohousing-L Mailing List: "Blocks", Vetoes, and Objections

[Sharon Villines (sharon]

Beating the drum: I still think using the word "block" creates half the 
problem. "Unresolved objection" opens the way to resolution. A cement block can 
only be removed — no resolution. It's a veto, and vetoes aren't allowed because 
they mean that people do not have equal power. The vetoer has more power.

In dynamic governance there is a procedure used in evaluations, salary 
discussions, and firing people that can be adapted to situations in which a 
person does not share or is not supporting the group's aims. It is a last 
resort because it does send the message that "you are outside the group," even 
if you can't exclude a homeowner.

I can imagine situations where this might be necessary — mental illness for 
example. Or an estate sale that puts a person in the community that has no 
interest or conflicting interests. Someone whose aims have drastically changed 
and they are becoming messianic about it and the group has to make a decision 
quickly. They don't have time for this person to come back to reality.

Using dynamic governance, the group would discuss the issue of why they think 
it is necessary to reach consensus over the objections of a person who is not 
working toward resolution or a resolution seems impossible. The person can 
participate in the discussion but not in the consent round. Thus consensus can 
be achieved without the person's participation.

In dynamic governance, consensus is only used for policy decisions — those that 
set the rules for future behavior. If the decision is whether to weed on 
Saturday or Sunday and there is no policy that determines this, the leader of 
the task will make the decision using whatever method is most effective in 
their judgement. Moving forward, acting, as effectively as possible is the 
purpose of organization in the first place so that underlies the aim in most 
instances.

The requirements for using consensus decision-making are:

1. Consent to a shared aim.
2. The ability to choose with whom you make decisions.
3. The willingness or the ability to deliberate as long as necessary to resolve 
objections.

Gerard has said that he doesn't think cohousing can use consensus because we 
have no choice about ownership. I think we have more choice than we exercise, 
but that cohousers have also chosen to make decisions with anyone who buys a 
unit, and for some, anyone who moves in and wants to participate.

I think most of us are lax on defining clear aims for our decisions (that's a 
big decision right there), and many are not willing to debate issues for as 
long as it takes to resolve objections. We have had success resolving 
objections in some cases by having someone the objector will listen to talk to 
them outside the meeting. One of these was a sole objection to have a TV in the 
CH because he thought TV was the cause of all problems in modern society AND we 
agreed not to have a TV in the CH when we moved in. Often the objector just 
doesn't attend the meeting when they don't want to be on the record as having 
supported a proposal but the facilitator will report that objections were 
resolved.

On a very emotional issue about which people were in tears on both sides, small 
group discussions were effective.

Sharon
----
Sharon Villines, Washington DC
"Behavior is determined by the prevailing form of decision making." Gerard 
Endenburg