Cohousing-L Mailing List: Re: Quorum

[Sharon Villines (sharon]

There is a long discussion in the archives that we had about a year ago on 
quorum. I don't want to repeat what I said there but will add to one 
perspective. 

The quorum of 51%  (or 50% plus 1) was set with majority vote as the standard. 
With a quorum of 51% present, 51% of those present _and voting_  was required 
to pass a proposal. 

Thus with 50 voting members, 26 had to be present. If all 26 voted yes or no, 
only 14 yeses were required. 

If 6 did not vote yes or no, the proposal would pass with 11 votes. This is 11 
of 50 members.

In the same situation with consensus, 26 yeses would be required. Twice as many 
as in majority voting. Why?

On top of that, I would guess that all communities postpone discussions if 
members who are significantly concerned, for or against, cannot be present. And 
delay the meeting if it conflicts with another event that a significant number 
of people want to attend -- even if a quorum can still be obtained.

I think it is a reasonable assumption that the people who care one way or 
another about an issue will be in the room for the decision or arrange for it 
to be rescheduled. Why should members who will support the decision either way 
or are unaffected have to be present in order for others to make a decision 
that is important to them?

The result of requiring a high quorum in our community has meant that many 
issues never get discussed because not enough people are interested in them. Is 
that the best way to address the needs or even the druthers of everyone?

Diversity is better supported by allowing for differences, even in meeting 
attendance.

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