caroline estes: consensus ingredients + other links

like many others, the bioregional movement has successfully practiced 
consensus for over 25 years at all levels from neighbood/watershed to continental and 
hemisphere.

i offer below a small wealth of links on the subject~

   curtis andrew beckwith, listening to the slushy splatter of the beginning 
of what might be a major snow storm, something seen more rarely these days in 
these cross timbers of the osage hills of northeast oklahoma.

IC Web Site: Communities Directory: Article - Consensus Ingredients  article 
posted below
Consensus Decision-Making 
Consensus Decision Making 
A Guide to Formal Consensus  a links page
IIFAC - International Institute for Facilitation and Consensus training
 American Community Gardening Association training 


[Copyright the Fellowship for Intentional Community 1996]

Consensus Ingredients

by Caroline Estes    Caroline Estes of Alpha Farm traces the history of 
consensus process, describing the basic elements necessary for its success, and 
offers insights about how it can be implemented. During the past few decades, 
while we have been searching for new ways of doing things in order to be 
inclusive, the decision-making process known as consensus has begun to be used 
increasingly and in many different situations. Government is using it to try to find 
ways that do not involve court cases on controversial laws, such as in the 
Forest Service. Hewlett-Packard uses it in its factories; and many social 
services are beginning to use it in their work. In simple terms, consensus refers to 
agreement on some decision by all members of a group, rather than a majority 
or a select group of representatives. The consensus process is what the group 
goes through to reach this agreement. The assumptions, methods, and results are 
different from Robert's Rules of Order or traditional parliamentary 
procedure. Over the past nearly 40 years, since I was first introduced to the use of 
consensus in Quaker business meetings, I have been in widely different 
situations in which it has been used, and I have been teaching it for the past 15 
years. The Greens Party of North America used it in the beginning of its 
organization, and the bioregional movement of North America uses it exclusively in its 
biennial meetings. Many intentional communities use the process, as well as the 
board of the Fellowship for Intentional Community (FIC). Departments within 
government and universities, school faculties, and administrations are 
beginning to find it useful and efficient. 

The Basis

Consensus is based on the belief that each person has some part of the truth 
and no one has all of it (no matter how much we like to believe that we 
ourselves know it all). It is also based on a respect for all persons involved in 
the decision being considered. In our present society the governing idea is that 
we can trust no one, and therefore we must protect ourselves if we are to 
have any security in our decisions. The most we will be willing to do is 
compromise, and this leads to a very interesting way of viewing the outcome of working 
together. It means we are willing to settle for less than the very best -- 
and that we will often have a sense of dissatisfaction with our decisions unless 
we can somehow outmaneuver others involved in the process. This leads to a 
skewing of honesty and forthrightness in our relationships.  In the consensus 
process, we start from a different basis. The assumption is that we are all 
trustworthy (or at least can become so). The process allows each person complete 
power over the group. For example, the central idea for the Quakers is the 
complete elimination of majorities and minorities. If there are any differences of 
view at a Quaker meeting, as there are likely to be in such a body, the 
consideration of the question at issue proceeds with long periods of solemn hush 
and meditation, until slowly the lines of thought draw together toward a point 
of unity. Then the clerk frames a minute of conclusion, expressing the "sense 
of the meeting".  Built into the consensual process is the belief that all 
persons have some part of the truth in them, or what in spiritual terms might be 
called "some part of God." We will reach a better decision by putting all of 
the pieces of the truth together before proceeding. There are indeed times when 
it appears that two pieces of the truth are in contradiction with each other, 
but with clear thinking and attention, the whole may be perceived including 
both pieces, or many pieces. The traditional either/or type of argument does not 
advance this process. Instead, the consensus process is a search for the very 
best solution -- whatever the problem. That does not mean that there is never 
room for error -- but on the whole, in my experience, it is rare. The 
consensus process makes direct application of the idea that all persons are equal -- 
an idea that we are not entirely comfortable with, since it seems on the 
surface that some people are "more equal than others." But if we do indeed trust 
one another and do believe that we all have parts of the truth, then we can 
remember that one person may know more of the truth at one time, while another 
person may know more at another time. Even when we have all the facts before us, 
it may be the spirit that is lacking; and this may come forth from yet another 
who sees the whole better than anyone else. Everybody's contributions are 
important.  Decisions which all have helped shape, and with which all can feel 
united, make the necessary action go forward with more efficiency, power and 
smoothness. This applies to persons, communities and nations. Given the enormous 
issues and problems before us, we need to make decisions in ways that will 
best enable us to move forward together. When people join their energy streams, 
miracles can happen.

The Process

How does the consensus process actually work? It can be a powerful tool, yet 
like any tool, this process needs to be used rightly. To make the most of its 
possibilities we need to understand the parts and the process.  Consensus 
needs four ingredients -- a group of people willing to work together, a problem or 
issue that requires a decision by the group, trust that there is a solution, 
and perseverance to find the truth.  It is important to come to the meetings 
with a clear and unmade-up mind. This is not to say that prior thinking should 
not have been done, but simply that the thinking must remain open throughout 
the discussion -- or else there is no way to reach the full truth. Ideas and 
solutions must be listened to with respect and trust, and must be sought from 
all assembled. This means everyone, not just some of the group. Consensus is the 
practice of oneness for those who are committed to that idea, or it is the 
search for the best possible solution for those who are more logic-based.  The 
problems to be considered come in all sizes, from "who does the dishes" to "how 
to reach accord on limiting the arms race." The consensus process begins with 
a statement of the problem -- as clearly as possible, in language as simple 
as possible. It is important that the problem not be stated in such a way that 
an answer is built in, but that there be an openness to looking at all sides 
of the issue -- whatever it may be. It is also necessary to state the problem 
in the positive: "We will wash the dishes with detergent and hot water," not 
"We will not wash the dishes in cold water." Or "We need to wash the dishes so 
they are clean and sanitary," not "The dishes are very dirty, and we are not 
washing them correctly." Stating the issues in the positive begins the process 
of looking for positive solutions and not a general discussion of everything 
that is undesirable or awful.  The meeting needs a facilitator/clerk/convener, a 
role whose importance cannot be too strongly emphasized. It is this person 
whose responsibility it is to see that all are heard, that all ideas are 
incorporated if they seem to be part of the truth, and that the final decision is 
agreed upon by all assembled. Traits that help the facilitator are patience, 
intuition, articulateness, ability to think on one's feet, and a sense of humor. 
It is important that the facilitator never show signs of impatience. The 
facilitator is the servant of the group, not its leader. As long as the group needs 
the clerk, he/she should be there. It is also important for a facilitator to 
look within to see if there is something that is missing -- a person who is 
wanting to speak but has been too shy, an idea that was badly articulate d but 
has the possibility of helping build the solution, anything that seems of 
importance on the nonverbal level. This essence of intuition can often be of great 
service to the group by releasing some active but unseen deterrent to the 
continued development of a solution. The facilitator must be able to constantly 
state and restate the position of the meeting and at the same time know that 
progress is being made. This helps the group to move ahead with some dispatch. And 
last but by no means least -- a sense of humor. There is nothing like a small 
turn of a phrase at a tense moment to lighten up the discussion and allow a 
little relaxation. Once you have found a good clerk or facilitator, support 
that person and encourage them to develop their skills as much as possible. Often 
there are participants who want to talk more than necessary and others who 
don't speak enough. The facilitator needs to be able to keep the discussion from 
being dominated by a few and to encourage those who have not spoken to share 
their thoughts. There are a number of techniques for achieving this. One 
method is to suggest that no one speak more than once, until everyone has spoken; 
another is for men and women to speak alternately if those of one gender seem 
to be dominating the discussion. However, it is not good to use any arbitrary 
technique for too long. These methods can bring balance into the group, but 
artificial guidelines should be abandoned as soon as possible. For instance, the 
technique of alternating men and women speakers might be used in only one 
session. My experience is that a single two- or three-hour session using such 
techniques will establish a new pattern, and there will be little need for 
guidelines to be continued any longer. No matter how well the discussion is carried 
forward, how good the facilitator, and how much integrity there is in the 
group, there sometimes comes a point when all are in agreement but one or two. At 
that point there are three courses open. One is to see whether the individuals 
are willing to "step aside." This means that they do not agree with the 
decision but do not feel that it is wrong. They are willing to have the decision go 
forward, but do not want to take part in carrying it out. If more than two or 
three persons start to step aside from a decision, then the facilitator should 
question whether the best decision has been reached yet. This would depend on 
the size of the group, naturally. At Alpha it is OK for one person to step 
aside, but as soon as others step aside also, the facilitator begins to watch 
and to reexamine the decision. At such a time the facilitator might ask for a 
few minutes of silence to see if there was another decision or an amendment that 
should have been considered but had been overlooked, something that would 
ease the situation. Another possibility is to lay aside the issue for another 
time. Although this alternative always seems to raise serious questions, we need 
to have some perspective on what we are doing. It is likely that the world 
will continue to revolve around the sun f or another day, week, or year, whether 
we come to a decision at this moment or at another. The need to make a 
decision promptly is often not as important as the need to ultimately come to unity 
around a decision that has been well seasoned. Personal experience has shown me 
that even the most crucial decisions, seemingly time-bound, can be laid aside 
for a while -- and that the time, whether a few hours or days, is wisely 
allowed if a later meeting can create a better decision than was possible in the 
first attempt. The third possibility is that one or two people may stop the 
group or meeting from moving forward. At that time there are several key 
considerations. Most important, the group should see those who are withholding 
consensus as doing so out of their highest understanding and beliefs. Next, the 
individual(s) who are holding the group from making a decision should also examine 
themselves closely to assure that they are not withholding consensus out of 
self-interest, bias, vengeance, or any other such feeling. A refusal to consense 
should be based on a very strong belief that the decision is wrong -- and 
that the dissenter(s) would be doing the group a great disservice by allowing the 
decision to go forward. This is always one of those times when feelings can 
run high, and it is important for the group not to use pressure on those who 
differ. It is hard enough to feel that you are stopping the group from going 
forward, without having additional pressure exert ed to go against your examined 
reasons and deeply felt understandings. In my personal experience of living 
with the consensus process full-time for 23 years, I have seen meetings held 
from going forward on only a handful of occasions, and usually the dissenter(s) 
was justified -- the group would have made a mistake by moving forward. 
Sometimes, though rarely, one person is consistently at odds with everyone else in 
the group. Depending on the type of group and its membership, it would be well 
to see if this person is in the right organization or group. If there is a 
consistent difference, the person cannot feel comfortable continuing, so the group 
needs to meet and work with that person concerning alignment of basic values 
and goals. Consensus is a very conservative process -- once a decision has 
been made, another consensus is required to change it. So each decision must be 
well seasoned and generally be relied on for some time. While decisions should 
not be made in haste, they can be tried on a temporary basis by including 
expiration dates. At Alpha Farm we have made temporary decisions on a number of 
occasions, usually trying the decision for a year and then either making a final 
decision or dropping it entirely. This necessitate s keeping minutes, which 
is another aspect of consensus that needs consistent attention. Minutes on each 
decision should be stated by the clerk, facilitator, or minute-taker at the 
time of the decision, so that all present know they have agreed to the same 
thing. It is not sufficient for minutes to be taken and then read at the next 
meeting, unless there is to be another meeting very soon. Copies of the minutes 
should be distributed promptly, because those who make the decisions are also 
the ones to carry them out. If the minutes are not distributed until the next 
meeting, some of the original decision-makers may not be present. The minutes 
may or may not be correct, but the time for correction is past. This is a 
particularly important but little respected part of the process. Several years ago, 
I was privileged to facilitate the first North American Bioregional Congress, 
held in Missouri. Over 200 persons arrived from all over the continent, and 
some from abroad. We worked together for five days, making all decisions by 
consensus. Some of those present had used the process before or were currently 
using it in the groups they worked with at home, but many had not used it. There 
was a high degree of skepticism when we began as to whether such a widely 
diverse group of people could work in the degree of harmony and unity that 
consensus demands. On the final day of the Congress, there were very many 
resolutions, position papers, and policies put forward from committees that had been 
working all week long. All decisions made that d ay were made by consensus -- and 
the level of love and trust among the participants was tangible. Much to the 
surprise of nearly everyone, we came away with a sense of unity and forward 
motion that was near miraculous.

A Second Point of View

by Ianto Evans   Thirteen years of experience at Aprovecho Institute has 
taught us some valuable lessons about consensus and our practice of 
consensus-minus-one. Initially, coming from conservative backgrounds and fearing an 
inability to achieve unanimous agreement, we decided to ratify decisions if all but 
one person agreed. We saw this as a way to get business done without some 
obdurate individual holding up the whole show. Our bylaws say something like "with 
one member dissenting." What it means is if two people oppose something, they 
can block it, but an individual can't. In fact, we seldom get a dissenter, but 
we're protected against unaccountable insanity or temporary bouts of 
grumpiness. Neither has ever been an issue, but we've found that if one person strongly 
opposes something, we usually try to discuss it to a point where they at 
least feel OK about the group going ahead. Then the dissenter can say, "Well, I 
still dissent but I don't feel unsupported in my views".  Effectively, this 
gives everyone a vote, as of course they have with total consensus, but there's a 
difference. In total consensus, one individual can gradually take control of 
an organization by cumulatively swaying what doesn't get done in a direction s 
/he wants to see it go. By refusing to agree to black, the group is left only 
with white to dark grey. Later the options can be narrowed further by refusing 
to support darker shades of grey. Over a period, and sometimes going 
unnoticed, a single subversive can push the whole group to accepting only white.

Reflections on Consensus-Minus-One

by Caroline Estes    At one level, the differences between these two 
approaches are slight -- in practice probably hardly noticeable. Yet there is a 
difference in spirit that harks back to the difference between unitary and adversary 
democracy. Total consensus assumes and requires a high level of trust and 
maturity. If these qualities can be developed in the group, then using total 
consensus is well rewarded by a bonding that goes deeper than the reserve implied 
in consensus-minus-one. But even with the most unpromising groups a good 
facilitator can do wonders. On the other hand, there are many groups -- especially 
with loosely defined memberships -- where it would be naive to assume that 
every member will act in "unitary good faith," especially since our society 
trains us to act as adversaries. Consensus-minus- one can permit these groups to 
gain many of the benefits of consensus and avoid risking the subversion that 
Ianto fears. The lesson, it seems to me, is to have lots of tools in your 
toolbox, and use each where it fits. 

Bibliography
Auvine, Brian et al., A Handbook for Consensus Decision Making: Building 
United Judgment, 1981, Center for Conflict Resolution, 731 State St., Madison, WI 
53703, 608-255-0479. Auvine, Brian et al., A Manual for Group Facilitators, 
1978, Center for Conflict Resolution.  (In Context: A Quarterly of Humane 
Sustainable Cultures, is available for $18 per year, $25 surface or $36 air mail 
outside the United States, from Context Institute, Box 11470, Bainbridge Island, 
WA 98110.)

About the Author

Caroline Estes is a founding member of Alpha Farm and a board member of the 
Fellowship for Intentional Community. She is a facilitator of mass meetings, 
including Turtle Island Bioregional Gatherings and meetings of the FIC. Caroline 
is a Quaker with long experience as a trainer in consensus decision making 
and is writing a book on the subject. This article is adapted from a piece 
published in the Fall 1983 issue of In Context: A Quarterly of Humane Sustainable 
Culture, Bainbridge Island, Washington (reprinted by permission).