Cohousing-L Mailing List: Re: Quorum

[John Beutler (jabeutler]

The reason is that consensus does not work unless the people are in the room. 

JAB (Liberty Village Cohousing, Libertytown, MD)

Sent from my tricorder

On May 12, 2013, at 9:28 AM, Doug Chamberlin <chamberlin.doug [at] gmail.com> 
wrote:

> 
> Seems to me that requiring physical meetings is a very old school
> requirement to achieving quorum (or for fulfilling that desire to include
> everyone in a decision). With today's ubiquitous electronic communication
> systems it seems to me you can publish a major issue, including all
> significant aspects, to the whole group using electronic means, and then
> use the same systems to obtain consent/vote.
> 
> Whether it is via a virtual circle meeting, or an actual vote via online
> poll, might that option provide for a way to resolve the problem of not
> having enough attendance at a physical meeting?
> 
> Doug C.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> On Sat, May 11, 2013 at 7:53 PM, R Philip Dowds <rpdowds [at] comcast.net> 
> wrote:
> 
>> 
>> Interesting.  By coincidence, we are trying to revise our Bylaws, and
>> quorum is a hot topic.
>> 
>> Our current system, stipulated in our Bylaws, is this:  Almost all
>> decisions of any magnitude must be made by the entire community in a
>> "General Meeting" (GM).  Two-thirds of 32 households = 22 households must
>> unanimously consent to the proposal.  But since it's very hard to ensure 22
>> of 32 actually appear on a Sunday afternoon, we allow proxies, whereby an
>> absent household authorizes an attending household to vote in its behalf.
>> This authorization is substantiated by oral report.
>> 
>> The new system we're trying to get to is this:  Minimum attendance for a
>> valid GM meeting is 14 households, a little less than half.  No proxies or
>> mail-in votes — in part, because we're hoping to benefit from more
>> creative, in-the-moment amendments.  Instead, we've added more process
>> requirements, more prep meetings and run-up meetings, more reconciliation
>> meetings if needed, to help ensure everyone knows what's going on and has a
>> chance to participate.  We are trying to swing back to classical Butler
>> consensus, where creative resolution of objections brings us to better,
>> more thoroughly accepted solutions and decisions.  Not everyone is totally
>> comfortable with this change, or with letting go of unanimity as the goal.
>> (We are looking at an 80% super-majority vote for situations where one or
>> two objectors simply cannot be satisfied.)
>> 
>> The other part of our experiment with reform involves more trust in our
>> volunteers, and more delegation of power and resources to our volunteer
>> groups.  Such that lesser business can be done outside of the GM process.
>> But 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.
>> 
>> At any point in time, we seem to have two or three units occupied by
>> tenants, with the true owners absentee and non-participating.  I remain
>> baffled why our tenants are not members in good standing, with
>> participation rights.  I mean, like, people have fought and died to
>> establish that citizenship and voting rights are totally unrelated to whose
>> name is on the property ownership deed.  I cannot understand why so much
>> cohousing is retrograde in this regard.
>> 
>> R Philip Dowds
>> Cornerstone Cohousing
>> Cambridge, MA
>> 
>> On May 11, 2013, at 6:32 PM, Lynn Nadeau / Maraiah <welcome [at] olympus.net>
>> wrote:
>> 
>>> 
>>> Looking for info on how other groups handle quorum.
>>> 
>>> At RoseWind Cohousing in Port Townsend WA, we designate significant
>> categories of decision as Class One. Examples are passing the annual
>> budget, selecting Steering and officers, decisions to sell commonly-held
>> real estate, financial items over $1000. For such decisions, we require
>> 10-day advance notice, and the presence of someone from each of at least 10
>> households.
>>> 
>>> We have 24 households total, but now, for example, there are 4 units
>> which are not occupied by owners, two households that don't choose to
>> participate, several more that rarely do, an elderly member, an ill member,
>> and several households that are away out of state on trips. Our monthly
>> meetings usually have 10-11 households (many with two members present).
>> These are regular participants and well-informed and thoughtful. Our
>> decisions have seemed successful.
>>> 
>>> We still have a requirement for a higher quorum (13 households) for
>> "amending the documents". The problem is that some changes to our Bylaws or
>> CC&Rs are minor (like removing obsolete references), and most are no more
>> momentous than stuff we do as regular Class One, with its quorum of 10
>> households. If we require 13 even for minor amendments, we might never get
>> it. A few people are concerned that if we make amending the documents
>> simply Class One, we might approve something drastic (majority rule??)
>> without adequate support.
>>> 
>>> Do you have special requirements for making certain types of decisions?
>>> 
>>> Maraiah Lynn Nadeau
>>> www.rosewind.org
>>> _________________________________________________________________
>>> Cohousing-L mailing list -- Unsubscribe, archives and other info at:
>>> http://www.cohousing.org/cohousing-L/
>>> 
>>> 
>> 
>> R Philip Dowds
>> Cornerstone Cohousing
>> Cambridge, MA
>> _________________________________________________________________
>> Cohousing-L mailing list -- Unsubscribe, archives and other info at:
>> http://www.cohousing.org/cohousing-L/
>> 
>> 
>> 
> _________________________________________________________________
> Cohousing-L mailing list -- Unsubscribe, archives and other info at: 
> http://www.cohousing.org/cohousing-L/
> 
>