[Northampton-GP] Statecom Update & Consensus/"Blocking Concerns"

[Jim Bosman]

The Green-Rainbow Party (GRP) state committee meeting yesterday was good. Much more productive than last, and the general overall vibe was very good. At times we had difficulty maintaining quorum because a lot of people didn't show up. The full (well, there's only four at the moment) Hampshire County contingent was there all day. We took care of some bylaws changes, made initial plans for the State Convention. It will be a two-day event this year, probably in the Worcester area, over a weekend in the middle of June. Our county convention will be held Saturday June 7th in the pavilion at Maines Field in Florence. It turns out that the delegates elected last summer/fall are in for two years, but, the number of statecom delegates has increased for Hampshire County from 6 to 8, so there are now 4 vacancies to fill, plus we should elect some alternates too. Also, in the not so distant future, new Massachusetts representatives to the GPUS are going to be needed, so that is something to think about as well.

Regards, Jim Bosman

PS - Here are the GRP Treasurer's thoughts on Consensus and Blocking Concerns. 

Message: 2
Date: Sat, 29 Mar 2003 02:48:35 -0500
To: statecom at massgreens.org
From: Daniel Melnechuk <isis at isisdesign.com>
Cc: GRP Ad Com <adcom at massgreens.org>
Subject: [adcom] Consensus and "Blocking Concerns"
Reply-To: adcom at massgreens.org

Betty,

I want to continue talking about "blocking concerns" and the 
consensus process. Aimee had concerns about the War Statement that 
she said were blocking concerns. As Gil pointed out, and i brought 
out from the bylaws, Pat has the authority to put out press 
statements so Aimee could not have had concerns that in turn could 
block consensus.

But i am bothered every time i hear someone say they have a blocking 
concern (Aimee, don't take it personally as you are not the only one 
by any means). Why am i bothered? Well i'll tell you.

First, ALL concerns are just concerns. Some may be harder to address 
or resolve than others but in the end they are all something that a 
person brings up about an issue or proposal that a group is working 
on.

Second, if a concern can not be resolved, the person with the concern 
is asked to step aside. If they do, then concensus is reached. If 
they do not step aside then our process has some more steps to 
resolve the concern. Only after all that, can the concern be called a 
blocking concern as it is then blocking concensus. It takes a lot to 
get to the point where a concern is a blocking concern. And even then 
in our "Consensus Seeking" process, we can go to a vote if the 
concern is still not resolved.

Third, a blocking concern in consensus decisionmaking, as Betty 
mentioned, has to be based on the good of the group. Just because 
someone has a concern that is not resolved does not mean that the 
concern is based on the principals of the group, in our case, the 
10KVs. That is obviously not a given. It has to be shown that the 
concern is for the good of the group based on the 10KVs. This concept 
was left out of the "Consensus Seeking Process" we have as Addendum A 
of the Bylaws and i intend on making sure that it is explicitly 
added. But i believe that have operated this way.

Forth, one can not state that they have a blocking concern before 
communicating the concern as that would be foretelling the future, 
which presumably one does not know. How can one know that a concern 
can not be addressed before it has been discussed? By stating that 
one has a blocking concern from the start raises the hackles on the 
back of my neck (and i bet other's too) and starts the adrenaline 
running when instead everyone should be discussing what to do about 
concerns.

Consensus process is about the group working together to get the best 
answer. When someone states they have a blocking concern, it is all 
of a sudden an adversarial process as if that person has thrown down 
the gauntlet to say "i am the most powerful here... watch me stop 
this process... ha ha ha." And that sucks.

Yet it is important that everyone has a voice to help us get the best 
answer. So it is important to voice your concerns. That is at the 
heart of the consensus process... a space where we are all equal and 
are listening and can speak our minds. That doesn't suck.

So when we are in a consensus seeking process, which we will be in on 
sunday, NO ONE should be saying that they have a blocking concern 
before they state what the concern is, or even at the end of stating 
their concern. Trust that if you state your concern, it will be 
heard. If people don't understand your concern, then it may be that 
we may not be seeing what you are seeing so don't get frustrated, 
just explain again in another way if possible.

And remember this -- a concern only turns into a blocking concern if 
and only if the concern can not be addressed and is based on the 
principles of the group and is for the best interests of the group.

In fact i am sooooo adamant about this and it is sooooo important for 
people to understand this that at this next statecom meeting on 
sunday, where i am co-facilitating, i am intending on doing the 
following educational experiment if my co-facilitator Sara agrees.

If i hear someone say they have a blocking concern, i will stop them 
from continuing to speak, and not let them speak until everyone else 
has spoken and other issues addressed. When they get their turn 
again, they can mention their concern as long as they do not say they 
have a blocking concern.

Peace,
Dan Melnechuk
Middlesex




---------------------------------
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Platinum - Watch CBS' NCAA March Madness, live on your desktop!
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.green-rainbow.org/pipermail/northampton-greens-discuss/attachments/20030331/60b1b3f4/attachment.htm