Re: Consensus as primrary decision-making method w/voting back-up | <– Date –> <– Thread –> |
From: Lautner, Patricia (Patricia.Lautner![]() |
|
Date: Mon, 14 Jan 2013 08:19:21 -0800 (PST) |
At JPCohousing we have a list of common values, extracted from our Vision Statement. A member is not allowed to ever 'block' anything unless they are protecting a commonly held value. In the dog example below, the only way the member could 'block' the creation of a committee is if there were a community "common value" that there should be absolutely no rules/restrictions/ or policies about pets. In the absence of this stated common value, the facilitator would not allow the block and most likely a conflict resolution session would get scheduled. To me, it seems like the dog member is worried that her fears won't be validated and respected, and that her very real and profound emotional needs will not get met by her neighbors. She does not trust her community's process. Sometimes however, blocking could be important. If it looks like the community is heading toward a decision that is against a common value, a member should stand up in defense of the value. At JPC we haven't had any blocks once we agreed that the blocking tool may only be used in this way. Patti - JPCohousing - Boston, MA -----Original Message----- From: Sharon Villines [mailto:sharon [at] sharonvillines.com] Sent: Monday, January 14, 2013 10:49 AM To: Cohousing-L Subject: Re: [C-L]_ Consensus as primrary decision-making method w/voting back-up On Jan 12, 2013, at 11:24 AM, Diana Leafe Christian <diana [at] ic.org> wrote: > Each time someone proposed they create an ad hoc committee to draft a > pet policy proposal, one member always blocked the creation of the committee, > saying she didn't want her four dogs to have any limits on their freedom, so > she adamantly opposed their even being a committee to talk about it! And > the community let her get away with this. This is something that kills communities and convinces people they don't want to live in cohousing. A block is a veto. Vetoes are absolute. They don't have to be explained. The President of the United States has veto power which was given to him by the government. Who gave your members veto power? Objections are things you discuss. They have context and nuance. They are raised by people who are rational and can explain them. Not "explain" like an expert in logic but enough to understand and resolve them. A person raising an objection can sit down with people and examine their own feelings and understand their objection better. Then you can decide if you share a common aim. If you don't you won't be able to reach consensus until you find one. Unless your community has given someone veto power, they don't have it. Why would you allow them to get away with it? This is a rhetorical question because I know why. People are intimidated and afraid to confront the reality that on this issue they don't share a common aim. This person is not thinking of the physical or emotional welfare of her neighbors and in fact is not thinking of the physical or emotional welfare of her dogs. To allow her to continue this is to endanger her dogs as well as everyone else. Should dogs have more freedom than her neighbors who are afraid of dogs or who have young children who cannot play when her dogs are out roaming around? This kind of situation can be dealt with by voting, but better to get expert help. Who knows if the vote will produce an intelligent decision either? We finally broke this chain in our community by looking at local laws and it was resolved in two minutes -- well, two weeks, but quick considering it had been 13 years. Since before move-in. Get a grip. No vetoes. Sharon ==== Sharon Villines Co-author with John Buck of We the People: Consenting to a Deeper Democracy, a Guide to Sociocratic Principles and Methods http://www.sociocracy.info _________________________________________________________________ Cohousing-L mailing list -- Unsubscribe, archives and other info at: http://www.cohousing.org/cohousing-L/
-
Consensus as primrary decision-making method w/voting back-up Diana Leafe Christian, January 12 2013
-
Re: Consensus as primrary decision-making method w/voting back-up Sharon Villines, January 14 2013
- Re: Consensus as primrary decision-making method w/voting back-up Lautner, Patricia, January 14 2013
- Re: Consensus as primrary decision-making method w/voting back-up Sharon Villines, January 14 2013
- Re: Consensus as primrary decision-making methodw/voting back-up Wayne Tyson, January 14 2013
-
Re: Consensus as primrary decision-making method w/voting back-up Sharon Villines, January 14 2013
Results generated by Tiger Technologies Web hosting using MHonArc.