decision-making models

December 6, 2004 at 11:24 pm | In Uncategorized |

For the better part of a year I’ve been involved in a process to build a housing cooperative. We’re to the point where we’ve been approved for a mortgage and have a closing not-quite scheduled for the 17th of December, but out bylaws haven’t been officially adopted yet in full. We’ve adopted Articles I-IV, but tonight got hung up on Article V which details the decision-making process.

In April we adopted a decision to use consensus (votes to approve, approve with reservations or abstain allow an action to go forward while any vote to object blocks the action) whenever possible but to fall back to majority voting when consensus fails. We’ve never had to fall back on majority voting and have more or less been acting as though that fall-back wasn’t there. In fact, Article V that we looked at tonight doesn’t have that fall-back at all. It allows for mediation if consensus fails and ultimately for arbitration if the mediation fails.

We were 7-1 to adopt the article as written (we didn’t vote, but it was clear where people stand). One person see consensus as wonderful when we’re all getting along and believes even with a majority vote model we’ll mostly act by consensus. He doesn’t see consensus as a realistic way to solve conflicts when something really gets stuck, however.

It’s a paradox in a way because if his proposal was in effect, we would simply vote for the consensus proposal and he would lose. If the consensus proposal was in full effect (it is, I suppose), then he has the power to block a decision. Which he did. Or maybe he didn’t. Maybe the rest of the group was not willing to force the issue. If we did force the issue, he’s in the position where he can approve with reservations or he can scuttle the entire co-op.

Very interesting. Anyone have any relevant experience to share here? We’re meeting again Wednesday night to give it another go.

categories: co-op housing

2 Comments

  1. I was once in a spiritual group which had a rule of always operating by consensus. In the end, it didn’t work and the group fell apart. One member can hang up the entire group, even with the best intentions in the world on everybody’s part. Setting it up in your rules that consensus must always be unanimous is setting your group up for interminable discussions (I mean, these things can go on month after month after month!) with no mechanism, and no possibility, of resolution. I think you need to have the agreement to abide by majority vote in there somehow. Maybe make it a super-majority. But I’ve found in my experience that there will be times in the life of any group of more than two people when absolute agreement among all the members is just not possible. I think you need to have a process built in by which members can agree to disagree and still be able to come to a group decision.

    Hope this helps.

    Comment by Lori — December 9, 2004 #

  2. Lori,
    Thanks much for sharing your experience. The only other response I’ve received so far was by email and mirrored what you’re saying. I didn’t see either of them before tonight’s meeting. The solution we came up with is going to be a post of its own.
    peace,

    Comment by Ted Ernst — December 9, 2004 #

Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.

Powered by WordPress with Pool theme design by Borja Fernandez.
Entries and comments feeds. Valid XHTML and CSS. ^Top^