Re: Quorum | <– Date –> <– Thread –> |
From: Muriel Kranowski (murielk![]() |
|
Date: Sun, 12 May 2013 10:44:56 -0700 (PDT) |
At 07:53 PM 5/11/2013, Philip Dowd wrote: <snip>
... we've not successfully figured out, yet, how to tell the difference between a "minor" and "major" GM issue. For instance, a proposal to make all community meals strictly vegan doesn't cost money, and is readily reversible ? and yet, would probably be seen by at least a few households as a Big Deal.
We too try to delegate many decisions to our committees, and while our bylaws define what should be a "major" plenary-level decision, they might not cover every issue that some might consider to be a Big Deal.
We handle this via a provision that any three (or more) households can ask for a proposed committee-level decision to be declared "major" and thus subject to plenary consensus decision-making. Such a request would automatically be granted.
Muriel Shadowlake Village Cohousing
- Re: Quorum, (continued)
- Re: Quorum R Philip Dowds, May 13 2013
- Re: Quorum Doug Chamberlin, May 13 2013
- Re: Quorum R Philip Dowds, May 13 2013
- Re: Quorum Sharon Villines, May 13 2013
- Re: Quorum Muriel Kranowski, May 12 2013
- Re: Quorum R Philip Dowds, May 12 2013
- Re: Quorum Muriel Kranowski, May 12 2013
- Re: Quorum R Philip Dowds, May 13 2013
Results generated by Tiger Technologies Web hosting using MHonArc.