Cohousing-L Mailing List: Re: Sociocracy and blocking

[Sharon Villines (sharon]

On 19 Apr 2012, at 6:25 AM, R Philip Dowds wrote:

> 
> For a decade, Cornerstone Cohousing has followed its own, unique version of a 
> consensus process ending in a "decision rule" of unconditional, unilateral, 
> blocking — that is, if any individual says "I block", then it's game over.  
> Our Bylaws don't exactly describe it this way, but that's how we've been 
> operating.

In governance issues that affect everyone — pro or con — it's important to 
create a decision-making context that allows everyone to live happily and 
harmoniously. This can only be accomplished by understanding everyone's needs 
and desires and working out solutions that address them as completely as 
possible. Obvious statement but in these conversations we forget that the point 
of decision-making is to make good decisions and move forward toward a goal. 

We create vetoes by talking about blocks. There is no such thing as a "block", 
a veto in consensus decision-making. A veto only exists if it is an agreed upon 
action. There is only consent and object. That's all. Once someone objects, 
they have to explain their objection and address the aim and context of the 
decision. They have to explain themselves to their neighbors. And their 
neighbors have to explain themselves.

How many people take objections to meetings and do a round specifically on the 
objection that seems unresolvable? One in which everyone else in the room 
addresses their own reasoning for consenting? Consent can be as ill considered 
and dangerous as objections.

I find that more often people just grumble and take the decision off the table. 
They don't really address the issues. How do objections ever get resolved that 
way? How do you clarify aims and goals and how everyone else feels?

All this is what is forgotten the minute someone begins thinking in terms of 
vetoes.

I agree with Richart:

> 1. to be clear that there is a thorough community-wide understanding of the 
> basis for the concern so that the outcome is well-grounded--including in its 
> rational and emotional dimensions, 

> 2. by such consideration, to acknowledge and respect the consensus process, 
> and

> 3. to use the opportunity to strengthen relationships within the community. 
> 
> A healthy community should be a continuing, central goal in any 
> decision-making process.

The desire for inclusiveness on the one hand and avoiding conflict on the other 
makes it very difficult to address either the objections or the consent of 
households.

I've been looking for a word that is as negative a characterization of consent 
as block is of objection. "Pushover" is the best I've come up with so far. 
Maybe "avoidance" is nicer but I'm looking for something as soft for consent as 
"block" is immovable. 

Ill considered consent is as dangerous to building a harmonious community as 
vetoing. 

> We do allow for an escape hatch.  If, after three Plenaries (meetings of the 
> entire community), we still have one or more people blocking, then, by 
> consent of 2/3rds, we can go to a series of majority rule votes.  At the 1st, 
> the affirmation threshold is 90%; at the 2nd, 70%; and finally, at the 3rd, 
> 50%.

The problem is that counting discussions in hours or sessions takes the focus 
away from the quality of the proposal. All consent and objections should be 
focused on the quality of the proposal to address the aims of the proposal — 
not how many times it is discussed. Or someone pretends to discuss it.

> C T Butler, of course, does not recognize individual blocking.  In his 
> universe, the "block" is owned by the group as a whole, after a good faith 
> process fails to resolve important objections.  Further, the latest thinking 
> in Sociocracy is that a "decision rule" requiring unanimity, as the outcome 
> of a consensus effort, is inappropriate for cohousing.

The reason Gerard says that cohousing can't use consensus decision-making is 
that consensus requires that people make decisions with people they choose to 
make decisions with. If you are trying to reach consensus with people you don't 
care about and with whom you do not have common aims, another form of 
decision-making is required 

Most people in cohousing and other forms of consensus decision-making have been 
open to making decisions with whomever cares enough to join the community. 
Sometimes there are screens to joining but in cohousing this is rarer. I think 
the problem is that as cohousing becomes more mainstream and even idealized, 
more people are joining who are less likely to share the aims of cohousing. 

We have people who have never read a cohousing book, read this list, read the 
website — know nothing of cohousing except what they saw in a newspaper 
article. In the beginning we also had those people but we had more time to 
explain it to them. The group was smaller and those who were seriously 
committed were able to carry them along. Now we have a steady stream of people 
attracted by articles in the NYTimes. Their aims are not the same. Consensus 
may not work at all. Which will be sad.

Sharon
----
Sharon Villines, Washington DC
Coauthor with John Buck of
"We the People: Consenting to a Deeper Democracy"
ISBN: 9780979282706
http://www.sociocracy.info