[candidate-development] Fw: [Platform] Bob's Rules ----------- Re: appropriate and inappropriate uses of the consensus process

Wed Jun 25 13:10:32 EDT 2008

--- On Wed, 6/25/08, gary hicks <watermelongreen2003 at yahoo.com> wrote:

From: gary hicks <watermelongreen2003 at yahoo.com>
Subject: Fw: [Platform] Bob's Rules ----------- Re: appropriate and inappropriate uses of the consensus process
To: "gary hicks" <gooberthink06 at yahoo.com>
Date: Wednesday, June 25, 2008, 1:06 PM

--- On Wed, 6/25/08, gary hicks <watermelongreen2003 at yahoo.com> wrote:

From: gary hicks <watermelongreen2003 at yahoo.com>
Subject: [Platform] Bob's Rules ----------- Re: appropriate and inappropriate uses of the consensus process
To: statecom at green-rainbow.org, platform at green-rainbow.org, candidate-development at green-rainbow.org, "Larry Ely" <tetrahedrons at crocker.com>
Date: Wednesday, June 25, 2008, 12:29 PM

This is a brief description of Bob's Rules, from the National Alliance of
HUD Tenants, in which I was a VISTA member/employee for over 2 years. I thought
I'd cut and paste this, in response to Larry's concerns about the limits
of consensus.

Gary Hicks
=================================================================

National Alliance of HUD Tenants

A multi-cultural, tenant-controlled alliance of tenant organizations in
privately-owned, multifamily 
HUD-assisted housing. Hundreds of tenant associations representing thousands of
tenants in every 
region of the country are already involved, working together to:
Preserve affordable housing * Protect tenant's rights * Promote tenant
ownership and control 

Organize, agitate, educate, must be our war cry.
-Susan B. Anthony 
National Alliance of HUD Tenants
42 Seaverns Avenue
Boston, MA 02130
tel: (617) 267-9564
fax: (617) 522-4857
naht at saveourhomes.org

BOB'S RULES OF ORDER
For most organizations in which people share a sense of trust and a common
vision, these simple rules are enough to run meetings in a friendly yet
efficient manner-- without the need for using hundreds of specific and
sometimes obscure rules of parliamentary procedure.
Rules of Order

To speak at a meeting, a person must be recognized by the chair. Only one
person can be recognized at a time. 
A main motion must be made and seconded before discussion can begin on any
proposal for action. 
Only three things can happen to a main motion: It may be amended, tabled, or
either adopted or rejected. 

An amendment can be debated, amended itself, and finally adopted or rejected by
a majority vote of those voting. If it is adopted, it becomes part of the main
motion. If it is rejected, the debate returns to the main motion. 
A motion to table requires a majority vote of those voting. If a main motion is
tabled, it cannot be brought up again at that meeting. 
The main motion (as amended) can be adopted, or rejected by a majority of those
voting. Once the main motion has been voted upon, there can be no further
discussion of it. 
After sufficient debate has taken place on an amendment or a main motion,
anyone can “call the question”--i.e. move to end debate and proceed
immediately to a vote. This can be done either “informally” or
“formally”. 

If the question is called “informally”, the chair asks if everyone is ready
to vote. If there is no objection, an immediate vote is take, with no debate
allowed. 
If someone objects to ending the debate, an immediate vote with no discussion
allowed is taken. If two-thirds of those voting wish to end debate, then no
more discussion is allowed. If less than two-thirds vote to end debate, then
discussion continues until someone else “calls” the question. 
A motion to adjourn a meeting can be made at any time. There is an immediate
vote, with no debate allowed. If a majority of those voting wish to adjourn,
then the meeting is adjourned. If less than a majority wish to adjourn, then
the meeting continues. 
Under “Bob's Rules of Order” all other questions regarding the running
of the meeting should be decided by the chair on the basis of...common sense!
If someone tries to speak out of turn or disrupt the meeting in any way, the
chair can rule that person “out of order”. If anyone objects to any
decision by the chair, that person can “challenge the ruling of the chair”.
When this occurs, each voting participant--including the chairperson-- can speak
to the challenge once and for only one minute. Then debate is ended and a vote
is taken immediately to either uphold or reject the decision of the chair. If
the majority of those voting uphold the ruling of the chair, then the meeting
proceeds. If the majority vote to reject the ruling of the chair, then the
chair must announce a different decision, which can also be challenged if it is
not acceptable.
<==GO BACK TO MEETING CENTER

--- On Mon, 6/23/08, Larry Ely <tetrahedrons at crocker.com> wrote:

From: Larry Ely <tetrahedrons at crocker.com>
Subject: [Platform] appropriate and inappropriate uses of the consensus process
To: statecom at green-rainbow.org, platform at green-rainbow.org,
candidate-development at green-rainbow.org
Date: Monday, June 23, 2008, 10:06 AM

GRP,

The following points from Wikilpedia about the inappropriate uses of the 
consensus process are worth thinking about given the current makeup of 
StateCom.  I, for one, see a lot of sleepwalking behavior in our group 
dynamics - we say we are this and that, we hold up the 10 KV that describe 
a cohesive band of trusting warriors against the barbarians at the gates, 
but how we really function belies what we say and hold about 
ourselves.  Frankly, using the consensus process given the current state of 
our human material is bound to fail.

Larry

Critics of consensus decision-making often observe that the process, while 
potentially effective for small groups of motivated or trained individuals 
with a sufficiently high degree of 
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Affinity_%28sociology%29>affinity, has a 
number of possible shortcomings, notably:
    * Preservation of the Status quo: In decision-making bodies that use 
formal consensus, the ability of individuals or small minorities to block 
agreement gives an enormous advantage to anyone who supports the existing 
state of affairs. This can mean that a specific state of affairs can 
continue to exist in an organization long after a majority of members would 
like it to change. 
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Consensus_decision-making#cite_note-17>[18]
    * Susceptibility to disruption: Giving the right to block proposals to 
all group members may result in the group becoming hostage to an inflexible 
minority or individual. Furthermore, "opposing such obstructive behavior 
[can be] construed as an attack on freedom of speech and in turn [harden] 
resolve on the part of the individual to defend his or her 
position."<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Consensus_decision-making#cite_note-18>[19]

As a result, consensus decision-making has the potential to reward the 
least accommodating group members while punishing the most accommodating.
    * <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abilene_paradox>Abilene paradox: 
Consensus decision-making is susceptible to all forms of 
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Groupthink>groupthink, the most dramatic 
being the <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abilene_paradox>Abilene paradox.
In 
the Abilene paradox, a group can unanimously agree on a course of action 
that no individual member of the group desires because no one individual is 
willing to go against the perceived will of the decision-making 
body.<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Consensus_decision-making#cite_note-19>[20]

On the other hand, consensuses specifically asking for, and wanting to 
hear, unresolved concerns and reservations, tend to diminish this 
effect.<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Consensus_decision-making#cite_note-20>[21]

    * Time Consuming: Since consensus decision-making focuses on discussion 
and seeks the input of all participants, it can be a time-consuming 
process. This is a potential liability in situations where decisions need 
to be made speedily or where it is not possible to canvass the opinions of 
all delegates in a reasonable period of time. Additionally, the time 
commitment required to engage in the consensus decision-making process can 
sometimes act as a barrier to participation for individuals unable or 
unwilling to make the 
commitment.<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Consensus_decision-making#cite_note-21>[22]

="_______________________________________________
Platform mailing list
Platform at green-rainbow.org
http://www.green-rainbow.org/mailman/listinfo/platform

_______________________________________________
Platform mailing list
Platform at green-rainbow.org
http://www.green-rainbow.org/mailman/listinfo/platform