[Oscar Regen Tribe 🔺]

Inspo from N-street cohousing on consensus

Consensus Process

We make community decisions through a consensus process. Like all things at N Street, our consensus process is an evolving framework that we update to fit our changing needs. Here is the most current version of our process, passed in June 2019.

Decisions by consensus:

The goal of our consensus-based decision making process is to govern with the support of
community members in an efficient and friendly manner. The process uses thoughtful discussions, is inclusive and welcoming of all members’ perspectives, and attempts to reach a decision that can be agreed upon by all. The process fosters compromise and progress while maintaining an equal voice among all members. However, in the rare case when consensus is not possible, and after a block resolution process, a decision can be made with a 66.67% super-majority vote.

Definitions:

Absentee block: When any member(s) notifies the community of their opposition to a proposal within two weeks of the publication of the meeting notes via the N Street listserv.
Abstention: A voting member who abstains on a decision is removed from the total when
determining if the 75% majority threshold has been reached.
Block in a meeting: When 75% or more of voting members are in favor of a specific proposal, one or more of the opposing voting members may “block” the decision from being implemented by starting the “resolution meeting” process (see below).
Blocker(s): Any voting member(s) not in the 75% or greater majority who wants to use the
resolution meeting process to find a compromise all can live with.
Consensus: Agreement without significant opposition to a decision.
Proposer: A person or people on a committee who takes responsibility for advancing a
proposal.
Resolution meetings: Meetings held as part of the blocked resolution process.

Proposals and decision process at a community meeting:Outcomes of a proposal

When a proposal is made and decided on at a community meeting, possible outcomes are:
● If no voting member opposes a proposal at a meeting, it passes but an Absentee Block
(see below) can stop the proposal from being enacted and send it to the resolution
process.
● A block occurs when 75% or more of voting members at a meeting support a proposal,
and any member in opposition wishes to instigate the “resolution meeting” process.
● If less than 75% of the members at a meeting support the proposal, then the “meeting
resolution” process is not triggered. The proponents can come back to a future meeting
with a revised proposal.

Blocking a Decision:

Any voting member may block a decision at a meeting or within two weeks of the posting of the meeting notes. Members are encouraged to announce any absentee block as soon as possible. The blocker(s) then makes contact with the proposer(s) in order to schedule a first meeting where the proposal and concerns are clarified. If the blocker(s) decides to withdraw their block, the proposal passes. If a resolution can be made at that first meeting, the amended proposal is brought back to the next community meeting. If the parties still disagree, the blocking resolution process is initiated (see below). If a decision from a community meeting is not blocked within two weeks, the proposal passes.

Resolution Meeting process:

The blocker(s) must be willing to schedule and attend at least three resolution meetings within a two-month period in an attempt to resolve the situation. The purpose of the resolution meetings is to see if the opponents to the proposal, the proposer(s) and any interested members can develop a compromise. One of these resolution meetings must be held within one month after the meeting at which the proposal was blocked.
● If the blocker does not attempt to organize a first resolution meeting within a month of
the distribution of the meeting notes, then the item passes by default.
● If the proposer does not cooperate with the blocker to schedule the meetings, the
decision in support of the proposal is withdrawn and the proposer needs to put the item
back on the community meeting agenda.

Within the resolution meetings, possible outcomes include:
● If a compromise is reached, the resolution meeting members write up and circulate the
new proposal. The proposal will be given priority at the next community meeting.
● If no compromise is reached after three meetings, the proposal can be brought by either
party to the next community meeting for the super-majority vote. However, as long as
both sides want to keep working on a mutually acceptable solution, as many block
resolution meetings can be scheduled as desired.

When the proposal is brought to the community meeting after the block resolution process fails to reach a compromise, the “final” proposal will be voted on. A 66.7% (⅔) super-majority vote is required to pass the proposal.
● A quorum of at least 10 people is required to be present at this final meeting.
● Once the final supermajority vote occurs, the results are not subject to an absentee
block.

Appendix 1: Strategies for building consensus

Consensus achieves an acceptable resolution, one that can everyone can support, even if it is not the favorite of every or even any individual. A proposal changes and adapts until it becomes one that all can live with it. Some suggested strategies for building consensus include:
● Use N Street Guiding Principles and Goals as a framework for a proposal.
● Before the meeting, have discussions with potentially affected community members. Most proposals should go through a committee whose participants think through the
ramifications of a proposal.
● Come to community meetings open to changing a proposal as alternative perspectives
are brought forth.
● Value dissent as it may provide important information and lead to a better solution.
● Consider abstaining from the decision in the interest of community progress.
● Quickly acknowledge any self-interest one has in the outcome of a proposal.

nstreetcohousing.wordpress.com

N Street Guiding Principles

Adopted by consensus on November 10, 2014  Introduction:   In communities using consensus, principles help guide members in their individual and group decisions and actions. These pr…

[Oscar Regen Tribe 🔺]

📢 Feel free to copy & distribute this handout free of charge as long as you include this credit line & info
🌐 DianaLeafeChristian.org • 📰 EcovillageNews.org • 📧 Diana@ic.org • 📞 828-669-9702

🏘️ How the “N Street Consensus Method” Helps N Street Cohousing Thrive

I criticize what I call “consensus-with-unanimity.”

🤝 Understanding Consensus-with-Unanimity

The “consensus” part is the process — the intention to hear from everyone in the circle, asking clarifying questions, expressing concerns, and modifying and improving the proposal.
The “unanimity” part is sometimes called the “decision rule” — the percentage of agreement needed to pass a proposal.

In many communities it is 100 percent or “unanimity” or “full consent.” Except for anyone standing aside, everyone in the meeting must agree to a proposal — unanimity or full consent — before the proposal can pass.

📚 (This distinction was first pointed out by Sam Kaner, et. al. in Facilitator’s Guide to Participatory Decision-Making (New Society Publishers, 1996).)

In practice, consensus-with-unanimity means essentially that anyone can block a proposal for any reason, and there’s no recourse — such as, for example, having criteria for a legitimate block, or requiring anyone blocking to collaborate with others to co-create a new proposal.

In my experience, consensus-with-unanimity is what most communitarians mean when they say “consensus.” I don’t think consensus with unanimity works well for most intentional communities. In fact, as noted in the articles, I think using it can cause harm.

⚠️ When one or more people block proposals a lot, a community can experience form frustration, discouragement, dwindling meeting attendance, and low morale.

🌱 A Better Way: How N Street Cohousing Uses Consensus

N Street Cohousing in Davis, California, has been successfully using a different consensus method for almost 25 years.

📋 N Street’s Process

N Street Cohousing has a simple, straightforward way of using consensus. Here’s what they do:

1. When the facilitator calls for consensus on a proposal and no one blocks, the proposal passes.

⛔ Up to Six Meetings

If one or more people blocks a proposal, however, the person(s) blocking are obligated to meet with small groups of other members in a series of solution-oriented, consensus-building meetings.

• Their job is to think through the issues and mutually agree on a new proposal that addresses the same problem as the blocked proposal.

• They present the new proposal at the next business meeting.

• The small groups are required to meet up to six times and in no more than three months after the proposal was blocked.

⏳ They’re not required to take six meetings or three months! In fact, in 25 years it’s never taken them more than two meetings to do this step.

• The people who supported the proposal can send representatives to these meetings, but they don’t have to attend all of the meetings.

• The person(s) blocking is responsible for organizing the meetings, and the meetings must take place.

📢 Feel free to copy & distribute this handout free of charge as long as you include this credit line & info
🌐 DianaLeafeChristian.org • 📰 EcovillageNews.org • 📧 Diana@ic.org • 📞 828-669-9702

🆕 A New Proposal

If a new, mutually agreed upon proposal is created in one of the meetings, it goes back to the whole group and is taken up as a new proposal.

🗳 75 Percent Super-Majority Agreement

If the person(s) blocking and the other members cannot come up with a mutually agreed-on new proposal during the series of meetings — or if the meetings don’t take place for some reason — the original proposal goes back to the next Council to be reconsidered.

• But at this meeting, it can be passed by a 75 percent super-majority agreement of the members present.

🚫 If more than just a few people block a proposal, depending on the size of the group, of course the proposal doesn’t pass because it clearly doesn’t have enough support, and the group does not invoke this process.

👍 Why the N Street Consensus Method Works Well

This consensus method makes anyone who wants to block take more responsibility for the effect of their block on the group.

💬 “If you’ve blocked,” says Kevin Wolf, cofounder of N St. Cohousing and originator of this method, “you’ve got to be part of the solution. Anyone who wants to block has to ask themselves, ‘Do I oppose this proposal enough to go through all this?’”

😊 Satisfaction

When I visited N Street Cohousing several years ago, I asked various community members how they liked their decision-making method.

🗣 “We like it,” I heard over and over. “Our meetings run smoothly.”

An unusual aspect of N Street Cohousing is that 75 percent of their members are renters (60% of the homes are rentals), and having both renters and owners in the community decision-making process sometimes triggers conflict. But not in this community.

🛡️ Deterrence

While this method could seem like a lot of work and bureaucracy, N Street members believe it’s effective not only because it works well but also because it exists.

It’s a deterrent to the kind of frivolous, personal blocking one can see in many intentional communities.

🗣 “Someone blocked a proposal in one of our meetings recently,” N Street member Pamela Walker told me when I saw there.
“We’d forgotten to tell this person how we work with blocks here. So when we told them, they said,
‘Well, if I’d known I had to do all this I wouldn’t have blocked!’”
(Pamela told me the person then rescinded their block.)

In the nearly 25 years since N Street was founded, Kevin Wolf estimates there have probably been about 12 blocked issues total.

• Of these, only 2 or 3 have invoked this process.

• Each time the blocking people and proposal advocates only reached a second small-group meeting before they mutually crafted a new proposal.

Thus they’ve only held about six small-group meetings in nearly 25 years to deal with blocks!

📌 (The other 10 blocked proposals were resolved informally outside the meetings, by coming up with let’s-try-it new solutions that worked, or often because assumptions just needed more time to be clarified.)

🙌 Respect for Community Members

This method is effective, in my opinion, because it respects both the person blocking and those who support the proposal.

• ✅ It respects the person(s) blocking because it offers up to 3 months of informal opportunities — and up to 6 formal opportunities — to share his or her views with others in a more intimate setting, mutually create a new proposal, or persuade at least 26 percent of the people that the proposal should not be passed.

• ✅ It respects the people supporting the proposal because, if the small groups cannot build enough consensus to reach agreement, the later 75 percent super-majority agreement will ensure that the most number of people will get the most of what they most want. “Tyranny of the minority” isn’t possible.

⚖️ Balancing Power with Responsibility

Community-based consensus trainer Tree Bressen highly values inclusivity in community and is passionate about consensus. She considers N Street’s Consensus Method to be inclusive and fair to everyone.

💬 “It seems like consensus to me,” she says. “And I like how it balances power with responsibility.”

🔄 Alternatives to Consensus-with-Unanimity

Over the last year I’ve studied Sociocracy, a governance and decision-making method developed in The Netherlands in the 1970s and used by an increasing number of intentional communities instead of consensus.

I’ve also studied Holacracy, a governance and decision-making method developed in the US in the early 2000s, and with which at least one community, ZEGG in Germany, replaced their consensus method.

✅ I believe these methods result in more effective, productive, and satisfying community business meetings and committee meetings than when a group uses consensus-with-unanimity.

✅ And I believe the N Street Consensus Method works very well too, and is easier for a group using consensus-with-unanimity to implement, because they don’t need to learn anything new.

🧙‍♀️ About the Author

Diana Leafe Christian, author of the books Creating a Life Together and Finding Community, is publisher of Ecovillages, a free online newsletter about ecovillages worldwide (EcovillageNews.org), and a columnist for Global Ecovillage Network (GEN) (gen.ecovillage.org).

She is a trainer in GEN’s Ecovillage Design Education (EDE) program, and speaks at conferences, offers consultations, and leads workshops internationally.
🌐 http://www.DianaLeafeChristian.org

📌 Future Articles in the Series

Will describe:

• ✅ “Four Decision Options/Choose Your Committee Members” (Ecovillage Sieben Linden)

• ✅ Systemic Consensus

• ✅ Tim Hartnett’s Consensus-Oriented Decision-Making

• ✅ Sociocracy

• ✅ Holacracy

• ⚠️ Politically incorrect tips for adopting a better method (even if your older members love consensus-with-unanimity)

📚 Resources

• 🌳 Tree Bressen – http://www.treegroup.info

• 📘 We the People: Consenting to a Deeper Democracy by John Buck & Sharon Villines (2007) – http://www.sociocracy.info

• 🌐 SocioNet online discussion – http://www.socionet.us

• 🧭 Governance Alive (John Buck) – http://www.governancealive.com

• 🌀 Holacracy One – http://www.holacracy.org

📄 Full document from: https://l.cohousing.org/n-st-consensus.pdf

• This reply was modified 1 year, 6 months ago by  Oscar Regen Tribe 🔺.