We spend a large amount of time and effort trying to improve the way we reach decisions. Here are some extracts of documents on consensus which we have found helpful.

Approaches to consensus decision making - some prototypes of the wheel

1. Arizona State University ( from the course literature for a course on continuous improvement tools)

"Consensus decision making is a style that reflects the ideas and thought of all team members. Reaching consensus ensures that decisions are explored thoroughly and strong disagreements resolved.

It is a decision that is acceptable to everyone. It is not unanimity (the outcome may not be everyone's first choice) nor a majority vote.

It requires

• Time
• Communication skills including listening, probing, conflict management
• Viewing disagreements and conflicts as part of the process
• Keeping an open mind and thinking creatively

Because it requires all the above, especially time, the appropriateness of its use must be weighted against the importance of the decision to be made. At the end, people must be able to support the decision even if they do not feel it was the best one.

Formal techniques to help include nominal group technique, multi voting, criteria/prioritisation matrices.

2. How they do it at Thames Region Ecological Association, Ontario

Someone presents the motion, the reasons for needing the decision and the options. Others then discuss. No repeating points already made and people asked to listen carefully.

If there are substantial disagreements, facilitator asks if anyone has any solutions. Any proposed are discussed. Alternatively, facilitator asks reps of the differing viewpoints to try to reach compromise outside the meeting. Their proposals are brought back to another meeting.

If one or two members object, they can either "block" or "pass". Blocking is not supposed to be used to resolve (sic) personality clashes.

3. How they do it at Island Cohousing.

There is a quorum of 60% for general meetings. Emphasis is put on the importance of the process of decision making. They acknowledge that consensus based decisions are not ones everyone agrees with but ones everyone will try to live with. They have some ground rules for the process

• We will give an opportunity for quiet participants to speak and we will discourage monopolising
• We will strive to stay focused on the task
• We will pay attention to strong disagreements since these often lead to creative solutions
• We will strive to hear what everyone is saying and to make ourselves fully understood
• We will take notice when agreements are reached too easily and ask if everyone has really participated
• We will acknowledge each other's contributions and the group's progress

They have guidelines for stalemates

• We will resist using majority voting and instead adopt a "what can I live with" perspective
• We will state points of agreement along the way; this helps group morale and may lead to agreement on principle
• We will ask those who disagree to come up with alternatives

They also use a variation of the card voting system, using the blue and yellow cards to look at necessary refinements. Members are urged to "be conscious of the seriousness of blocking consensus and only do so for principled objections.. but when an individual member strongly believes that the fundamental interests of the community are not being served by a particular decision, they should block as a vote of conscience even if unpopular."

4. What they think at Deer Island Village

A consensus decision has three essential ingredients

• It is made from the community's perspective
• Everyone feels heard
• Everyone agrees not to hinder its implementation

They use consensus to make "important " decisions. Important means it meets one or more of these criteria

• Impacts every member of our community
• Requires broad support for implementation
• Is viewed as significant by a substantial number of members
• Has serious financial implications

(eg changes in expectations about use of the common house)

All other (unimportant ?) decisions require two thirds majority vote. Most of these "lesser" decisions are expected to be made by committees or task forces outside the general meeting (eg varieties of tomato in the common garden)(sic). The decision to delegate a decision to a committee is taken to mean that the committee's decision will be accepted by all. Committee meetings are open to all.

When the facilitator calls for a consensus decision, they ask whether everyone understands and whether anyone feels "conquered" (not respected as a person) or compromised(values not respected) by it. The idea is that you do not have to agree, but you should feel respected. They recognise that you have to ask the conquered/compromised question in a way that does not encourage people to say they have been because the decision did not go their way.

If someone blocks consensus, they are asked "how does blocking this decision contribute to the best interests of our community ?"

5. What they do in Mac Thomson's community

1. Strong emphasis on delegation of decisions to sub groups whose decisions are then final though they are themselves based on consensus
2. They have a range of alternative decision making methods for times when they believe this is necessary eg because of shortage of time. Design details and issues of personal taste are never dealt with by consensus.
3. They acknowledge some shared values underlying their consensus decision which are

• Unity of purpose - we are making decisions in the best interests of the group
• Cooperation - we are willing to look for a solution that best meets everyone's needs
• Mutual trust - we believe others will be fair with us, respect us and care about our feelings
• Common ownership of ideas - personal attachment to an idea hinders the process
• Feeling are valued
• Conflict is valued
• Equal power
• Time and process - we respect the process and give it the time it needs
• Willingness to learn skills - we need skills of communication, meeting participation etc which we may not all have. We are willing to learn those things.

The role of the facilitator (University of New Brunswick course on consensus decision making for those involved in environmental policy making)

• Convenor - defining the terms of the discussion
• Teacher - helping people negotiate successfully
• Facilitator - ensuring effective communication and progress in meetings
• Realist - guiding people to seek the achievable
• Broker - ensuring everyone understands the views of others
• Chair - driving towards consensus but confirming closure carefully

Neil Corcoran - Samzidat Letter - guidelines on consensus decision making

Process involves - presentation; clarification; discussion; general feelings; calls for major objections or strong concern. Major objection means "I can't live with this because..." Major objection blocks the proposal. Strong concern is recorded for posterity but does not block the proposal necessarily.

If discussion goes on too long without apparent resolution, the options are

• Drop the proposal
• Vote on specific aspects of it
• Send it to a "reconciliation committee" - or back to the original proposer for more work.

On Conflict and Consensus: a handbook on Formal Consensus decision making by C.T. Butler and Amy Rothstein

Front Matter from the Printed Book

C.T. wrote the first edition of this book for the Pledge of Resistance in Boston when it had over 3500 signers and 150 affinity groups. All policy decisions for the organization were made at monthly spokesmeetings, involving at least one spokesperson from each affinity group. Members from the coordinating committee were charged with managing daily affairs. Spokesmeetings were often attended by over one hundred people; they were usually seventy strong. For almost two years the process of consensus worked well for the Pledge, empowering very large numbers of people to engage confidently in nonviolent direct action. The forerunner of the model of consensus outlined in this book was used throughout this period at spokesmeetings and, particularly well, at the weekly coordinators meetings. However, it was never systematically defined and written down or formally adopted.

The first edition of this book is the result of a year of research into consensus in general and the Pledge process in particular. It was mostly distributed to individuals who belonged to various groups already struggling to use some form of consensus process. The fourth printing included an introduction which added the concept of secular consensus. The secular label distinguishes this model of consensus from both the more traditional model found in faith-based communities and the rather informal consensus commonly found in progressive groups. Unfortunately, the label of secular consensus gave the impression that we were denying any connection with spirituality.

We wanted to clearly indicate that the model of consensus we were proposing was distinct, but we did not want to exclude the valuable work of faith-based communities.
Therefore, since the sixth printing we have used the name Formal Consensus because it adequately defines this distinction. We hope that Formal Consensus will continue to be an important contribution to the search for an effective, more unifying, democratic decision making process. Formal Consensus is a specific kind of decision making. It must be defined by the group using it. It provides a foundation, structure, and collection of techniques for efficient and productive group discussions.

The foundation is the commonly-held principles and decisions which created the group originally. The structure is predetermined, although flexible. The agenda is formal and extremely important. The roles, techniques, and skills necessary for smooth operation must be accessible to and developed in all members. Evaluation of the process must happen on a consistent and frequent basis, as a tool for self-education and self-management. Above all, Formal Consensus must be taught.

It is unreasonable to expect people to be familiar with this process already. In general, cooperative nonviolent conflict resolution does not exist in modern North American society. These skills must be developed in what is primarily a competitive environment. Only time will tell if, in fact, this model will flourish and prove itself effective and worthwhile.

We are now convinced more than ever that the model presented in this book is profoundly significant for the future of our species. We must learn to live together cooperatively, resolving our conflicts nonviolently and making our decisions consensually. We must learn to value diversity and respect all life, not just on a physical level, but emotionally, intellectually, and spiritually. We are all in this together.

-- C.T. Butler and Amy Rothstein
-- August 1991

Food Not Bombs Publishing
295 Forest Avenue #314
Portland, ME 04101
1.800.569.4054

(c) C.T. Butler, 1987.

This internet version is free. You may copy it to other computers, and you may print it.
If you'd prefer a pretty printed book with a binding that lays flat for use during meetings, or if you'd like to arrange a workshop or consultation, contact C.T. The book costs $15 US, including postage. C.T. Butler's email: ctbu...@biddeford.com ; Amy Rothstein's email: a...@tiac.net

In conclusion: dos and don'ts

• Present your position lucidly and logically - listen to others and avoid arguing solely for your own ideas
• Do not assume someone wins and someone loses when discussion reaches stalemate - look for the second best solution for all
• Distinguish between major objections to the core of the proposal and discomfiture with bits of it
• Don't change your mind just to retain harmony
• Avoid conflict reducing techniques such as majority vote or bargaining - don't feel obliged to reward the one dissenter with their solution to something else
• Seek out differences of opinion and try to involve everyone- this increases the chances of finding good solutions
• Decision making via consensus involves discussion and accountability of view points rather than power struggles
• The idea behind consensus is to empower not to overpower - act as a member of the group
• Use your minds- think before you speak.

And some other points:

• Do not assert positions but discuss interests - this means not saying what the solution should be but what is required of a solution.
• Brainstorm solutions. Encourage creativity in the search for solutions not commitment to specific ideas.
• Construct "packages" to satisfy a range of interests
• Act responsibly - the "power" to block consensus should be used very sparingly and only in defence of the interests of the group.

"The group is constantly trying to find their common ground amongst their differences - not in defence of their differences".

Some tentative conclusions

• Consensus may not be appropriate for every decision - but it is important for the key decisions, however defined (if definable)
• Consensus requires a high degree of individual responsibility and commitment to the process and the group - "blocking" should only be done in the best interests of the group (which may not be the same thing as the best interests of other things from the individual to the world economy)
• Effective consensus decision making requires close attention to be paid to the process
• Consensus decision making requires everyone to have skills in communication etc - this may require the group to undertake training
• We should not pretend that power is not sometimes at stake
• People have to get used to letting go and looking for a solution that will work for the group - then the process has the potential to be excitingly creative
• A strong facilitator is important
• Experience is probably very helpful.