Cohousing-L Mailing List: Re: Risk Management

[David Heimann (heimann]

See comment between the line markers below:

Regards,
David Heimann
Jamaica Plain Cohousing



Date: Wed, 12 Jul 2017 09:25:19 -0400
From: R Philip Dowds <rpdowds [at] comcast.net>
To: Cohousing-L <cohousing-l [at] cohousing.org>
Subject: Re: [C-L]_ Risk Management <was: Re: Marketing question ...>
        seeking examples
Message-ID: <36EE469A-8EC2-44A2-90B2-38F18F49395B [at] comcast.net>
Content-Type: text/plain;       charset=utf-8

My general experience with the consensus process is this:  For any 
proposal X, a few activists / advocates really want X to happen; most 
people are OK with X; and a few people have concerns or objections to X. 
Objections can be risk / fear driven, or personal preference driven, or 
community preservation driven; no matter which, all objections start out 
as legitimate and important.

The job of a properly run consensus process is to close the gap between 
the proposal and minority opposition.  Closing the gap is a two-way street 
involving both (1) identifying and mitigating defects in the proposal, and 
(2) relieving the anxieties, or modifying the views, of the minority 
opposition.

Sometimes, proposal X ?fails? because dialog reveals that it has 
unsuspected and unavoidable bad consequences for the community.  But more 
often, consensus ?fails? due to a combination of two factors:

      (1) Even after weeks or months of sincere effort on all sides, the 
gap(s) cannot be closed.  Maybe it?s because some of the opposition is 
immune to information.  But just as likely, the last hold-out or two have 
core values or preferences that are unmodifiable ? e.g., they simply 
cannot agree to the new pet policy because they do not have, and do not 
like, pets.

	And (2) the methodology in use stipulates that nothing can change 
until everyone is happy.  In other words, the community has pre-agreed 
that the only acceptable outcome of the consensus effort is unanimity. 
Widespread participation in improving the proposal, elimination of as many 
objections as possible, and enhanced buy-in are not by themselves good 
enough; unanimity is essential, or else X can?t happen.  This begs the 
question, What?s best for the community, really?  The status quo?  Or, a 
change strongly desired by some, and acceptable to almost everyone else?

===================================================================================

Re: (2) -- Not really.  It's "everyone agrees with the decision 
(thumbs-up) or can live with the decision (thumbs-sideways)".  That's 
quite a bit different than "everyone is happy".


[At any rate, that's the way we do it at JP Cohousing and the way I 
understand consensus (and sociocracy for that matter) to operate.]

===================================================================================



Which cycles me back to my assertion of origin:  We are convened in 
cohousing, at least in part, to help each other get what we want.  Viewed 
through this lens, irreconcilable objections to proposals should be very, 
very rare.

Thanks,
Philip Dowds
Cornerstone Village Cohousing
Cambridge, MA

> On Jul 12, 2017, at 8:02 AM, Liz Ryan Cole <lizryancole [at] me.com> wrote:
>
>
> If you (and others who have posed along those lines) can figure out a way to 
> write about this (perhaps  Risk Management is the right subject line), without 
> exposing anyone to embarrassment, I think it would be incredibly instructive 
> for anyone on this list.  Perhaps it needs a separate subject line?  Perhaps 
> one could already find a great deal using the Archives (which I confess I have 
> never figured out how to use)
>
> My question is...How can one or a few people, using uninformed or very poorly 
> informed fear, keep their community from moving forward on something.  Philip?s 
> example is fear based, but not fact based, resistance to electric cars. Ann?e 
> example is a glass blowing kiln (and I have no facts about those safety 
> concerns).  Is this a misunderstanding of/misapplication of consensus?  or does 
> living in cohousing, at least the communities that use consensus based decision 
> making, have to mean (as some potential members fear) giving up making science 
> based decisions (as an example) when one or more members have beliefs that make 
> them discount data in favor of other factors?
>
> I understand that this is a huge topic.  Perhaps we could begin by simply 
> sharing other examples of communities that have struggled with these decisions. 
>  One example I think of? what if someone in a cohousing neighborhood or 
> community decided they didn?t want to have their children immunized?
>
> thanks   liz
>
> Liz Ryan Cole
> lizryancole [at] me.com
> Pinnacle Cohousing
> Loch Lyme Lodge
> Lyme, NH
> Home 802.785.4124
> Work 802.831.1240
> Lodge 603-795-2141
>
> I arise in the morning torn between a desire to improve the world and a desire 
> to enjoy the world. This makes it hard to plan the day.?
> ? E.B. White