|
Consensus Process
The Steuben Greens and most other Green groups use consensus process
for our meetings. We use a modified form, in that we go to a vote if we
are not able to achieve consensus. In true consensus, no action is taken
that is not agreed by each person in the group.
An excellent article about the consensus process was posted on a national
Green listserve by Tommy Tolson in 1996:
Democracy In The Raw:
Consensus Process For Facilitated Meetings
Facilitated meetings are the backbone of the social change movement.
It would be nearly impossible to challenge oppression if our individual
groups' processes were conducted in an authoritarian manner. Form and
content are intimately linked.
The consensus facilitation process was developed by feminist and peace
groups oriented towards action, but the format can be used whether or
not consensus is required or for discussion groups where no action is
planned. The main goals of the process are to 1) allow everyone to participate
in discussion and decisions, 2) keep discussions focused on the topic
at hand 3) prevent individuals from dominating the process, the group,
and its actions 4) keeping the agenda to a set time schedule and 5) making
sure actions decided upon have a mechanism for being carried out.
When groups adhere to good process, they find that people keep coming
back to meetings, leadership is developed and distributed, gender ratios
stabilize close to 50/50, and the group's work is distributed well among
its members.
The Circle
Facilitated meetings are arranged so that participants can sit in a circle.
This is very important both practically and symbolically. Sitting in a
circle allows everyone to see and hear each other, and it visually demonstrates
equality, promoting democracy.
Beginning The Meeting
Beginning on time is a sign of respect to each member of the group. Late
arrival says to people, "I am too busy and important to give this group
my time."
If there is just one new person at the meeting, introductions are in
order. Go around the circle and have everyone say their name and maybe
a sentence or two about why they are there. This establishes to new people
that they will be heard and allowed to participate.
Facilitator
After introductions, the group must choose a facilitator. The facilitator
should know how the process works, and not be a person who has a lot to
say about topics likely to be discussed. Some people are better than others
at facilitation, but even so, the facilitation role should be rotated
from meeting to meeting to demonstrate that no one person or "junta" controls
the group. In small meetings, five to ten people, the facilitator can
also fill the roles of timekeeper (who makes sure agenda items are completed
in the time alotted), stack-keeper (who takes the names of people who
want to speak to a topic and calls on them in order), and even notetaker.
In larger meetings, it is best to divvy these tasks to other people.
Participants
Meeting participants should be prepared to speak clearly and concisely.
They need to listen actively and avoid whispering to their neighbors.
Personal attacks, no matter how veiled, have no place in facilitated meetings.
Tendencies to interrupt, speak out of turn, off subject, too loud, too
often, or too long, are childish personality problems that are embarrassingly
obvious to people in a facilitated process. Participants are most effective
if they have pen and paper to outline their thoughts before speaking,
and a calendar to refer to.
Agenda
The facilitator helps the group develop an agenda for the meeting by
asking for items for discussion. With the help of the group, the items
are prioritized and given time alottments. It is best if the agenda can
be written on a chalkboard or flip sheet so everyone can see it. A typical
agenda might look like:
- Introductions
- Announcements (Quick notices that don't require discussion)
- Review of last meeting and unfinished business
- Quick and easy discussion item, or subcommittee reports
- Time critical discussion/action item needing immediate attention
- Discussion/action item that may take a lot of time, be complex, or
controversial
- New issue for discussion and planning
- Evaluation of meeting (optional)
- Announcements
- Closing - set time for next meeting, make a proposed agenda
Meetings should last no more than two hours, so the group should set
reasonable time limits for each item.
The Process
Often, the facilitator will open a discussion item by asking for an introduction
to the issue, especially if new people are present. From there, discussion
proceeds. If many people want to speak, or especially if people begin
to speak at the same time, the facilitator or the stack-keeper will ask
people to raise their hands to be called on to speak. A "stack" or list
of names will be kept, and each person will be called on in order. It
is the responsibility of the facilitator to make sure that people are
staying on topic. S/He will also stop people from speaking out of turn,
being repetitive, or from engaging in a two-person dialogue.
As the discussion proceeds, a skilled facilitator will try to guide the
group to a proposal that everyone can agree upon. ("What I'm hearing is
this, that and the other, is there anything else we need to know?") The
stack-keeper and time-keeper are the only other people who can interrupt
the stack, and then ONLY for the purposes of attending to their jobs.("There
are 12 people on the stack, and we only have five minutes left for this
topic.") Other than that, there are two ways to break the stack. By holding
up an index finger, a participant is indicating that s/he has "point of
information" that will clarify an issue, and save time in the discussion.
By raising up both hands with palms facing each other (||) or with the
fingers touching (^), the participant is indicating a "process breakdown"
that needs to be addressed immediately. ("The facilitator isn't calling
on people," "Only two people are talking about this, the rest of us are
bored," or "Some people keep insulting the eurosocialist femnazis in the
group, we want it to stop," or simply, "nobody is talking about the agenda
item, lets stay on the subject.") Silent applause or "twinkling" - holding
hands up and wiggling fingers is a non-interruptive way to show support
for what is being said.
The facilitator should ask the group for a proposal when all concerns
have been aired. After a proposal is made, the facilitator should first
ask the people on the stack if they need to speak before the proposal
is developed. Usually people are ready move on an issue by this time.
The facilitator asks for concerns or friendly amendments to the proposal.
The notetaker is often called upon to read back the proposal with amendments,
so people can keep track of its development. After amendments are made,
the facilitator checks for consensus. If everyone gives the "thumbs up,"
then consensus has been reached, and the meeting goes on to ironing out
the details. ("Who's going to write the press release," "Can so-and-so
bring their car," etc.) Make sure somebody can coordinate the event and
remind people of what they volunteered for.
If someone gives a "thumbs down", they are signalling a "block" to the
proposed action. A block is a serious, often ethical objection to the
proposal, out of concern for the group's reputation, legal or safety issues,
the bigger strategy in the community, or something of that scale. Unless
amendments can be made that will convince the person to either remove
the block or "stand aside" (signalling that the person removes themself
from the group for the purposes of this issue), a block means that the
group takes no further action. This is a situation to avoid, obviously.
A person who blocks proposals very often will eventually be asked if they
really want to be in the group.
Some groups have amended the facilitation process to include for "consensus
minus one" or even by using majority votes for certain types of actions.
This is a bigger decision that needs to be resolved before a group moves
to action items. Which version is used depends on how big a group is,
how diverse its members are, and how much patience its members have. Even
if consensus is not required, it should be the goal. Consensus decisions
strengthen the group and inspire more commitment.
Next Up
As the group proceeds down the agenda, the facilitator should watch people
to see if they are getting fidgetty, and if needed, call for a break so
people can stretch their legs, go to the restroom, or get a drink of water.
Breaks can also interrupt the flow of the meeting, so other ways of maintaining
peoples' interest can be used: allowing a little chaos to break out, changing
the discussion format (from stack discussions to circle go-arounds,) or
by changing the order of the agenda to give variety.
Evaluation
Although this step is often skipped, it is called for especially if it
has been a stressful meeting. A go-around in the circle can ask and answer
questions that can be very helpful to facilitators: how did the process
work? What could we do better? When this happened was it ok?
Announcements
Announcements are often done at the beginning of a meeting, but people
will be much briefer with them if they are done at the end of the meeting.
Alternatively, fliers can be passed around, or an announcement sheet can
be passed around or pinned on the wall.
Close
Almost done! The meeting close is when the next meeting time and place
are set, and if possible, a preliminary agenda is sketched out.
The Future
Facilitated meeting can at first seem slow and stilted. This is because
we are culturally conditioned towards heirarchical decision making. All
our lives, in the family, at school, and on the job, we are taught that
the loudest voice gets the attention, the toys, the promotion, the glory.
Less aggressive people are conditioned to stay out of the way, and to
gripe in private if they don't like what is going on. Democracy and equality
need to be re-learned (remembered?) and practiced. Once a group has mastered
this way of making decisions, it will never go back to "Roberts Rules
of Order," because it will seem too inefficient and uncreative!
Obviously, there are a lot of places to take shortcuts in this process.
This is alright, but if a group gets too sloppy and lazy with its meeting
process, problems may begin to manifest - often in ways seemingly unrelated
to meetings. If disgruntlement, hurtful gossip, lack of enthusiasm, or
flaking out start to become a problem for your group, a return to more
formal meeting process will often go a long way to remedy the situation.
Also notice that there are no rules in consensus-style facilitation against
fun, laughter, and personal growth. Every now and then, the "group mind-meld"
made possible by this format can be a spiritual experience.
Although this process is meant for no more than fifty people, adaptations
like the "fishbowl" or the "spokeswheel" (where affinity or focus groups
have a representative at the circle) make this consensus process theoretically
available to groups of thousands. Now THAT would be a worthwhile experiment
in democracy.
From: Tommy Tolson, Date: Tue, 03 Dec 1996
|
