Oct. 28, 2023 Review of Process at Oct. 25, 2023 meeting
Topics: Process at the October 25, 2023 ACM and possible ways to improve process
Present: Vinnie, Eliza, Lynda, Ben, Kerry, Jorge, Robin, Cheryl, Mike, Linda, Kay, Tobie, Alex, Laura
Reasons People Stood Aside
Jorge: Revision was distributed less than seven days AND Tobie and Coleman had made suggestions that were not incorporated. Proposal presented from one person's point of view rather than from the entire committee. No plan (or not enough) in the proposal for how the work was going to be done.
Robin: Collaboration is key. Every contribution should be considered. Tobie and Coleman's plan was given to Renae in plenty of time to incorporate into the proposal and it wasn't. No collaboration or consensus within the committee (based on conversations with other Parents Committee members). Have had meetings where motivations were questioned and members were spoken to/of disrespectfully. Seven days notice can be waived for an emergency but this wasn't one.
Ben: Doesn't feel good having to give reasons for stand-aside over email after the meeting. Facilitator should ask "Are there any unresolved concerns?" Give sufficient silence for diffident people to speak up, anyone feeling intimidated by everyone else supporting. The point of consensus is not that everyone agrees but that everyone's concerns are resolved. Felt seven days' requirement was not observed. Biggest problem was not that he had blocking-level concerns but that he had concerns that weren't heard. Parents Committee doesn't put out advance notice of meetings or minutes. Concerned by apparent feeling that a proposal is unnecessary bureaucracy.
Laraine: We've had multiple outside facilitators say that it isn't good to have power concentrated in a few committees or a few individuals. Agenda Setters is left with great responsibilities and inadequate members and then resented. Vetting proposals shouldn't be done by facilitators. Too many things that were being discussed that weren't in the proposal.
Eliza: Felt updated proposal should have been sent out with seven days notice. Not an emergency. Felt that if we couldn't keep to the set agenda time to ask for consensus, then the proposal wasn't ready for consensus. We need to respect people who care enough to give a proxy, by sticking to the announced agenda. Felt we'd spent a lot of time on this proposal and wanted it to happen, but is concerned that way it passed was detrimental to the community.
Kerry: Sent her comments by email.
Discussion
The focus on procedure/policy of decision-making has slipped since the process committees were revamped to put Agenda-Setters and Facilitators together. Agenda-Setters' focus is understandably on agendas and facilitating of upcoming meetings rather than the big picture. It would be a good idea to work on that.
The revised proposal was issued less than seven days before the meeting. Did it qualify for consensus? Clarify whether the seven days provision applies to the original proposal or also to any revisions. A lot of people's interpretation is that it does. Maybe set a shorter deadline of three or four days prior distribution for minor revisions.
There was a lot of tension at the meeting. Karen Gymnig has said that in order for members to feel safe there needs to be structure in the meeting.
Clarify role of proxies.
Eliza would like some things worked on by Agenda Setters (or a revitalized Procedures Committee):
- Solidified and consistent consensus process available to all.
- Policy for followup/next steps and an implementation process once a proposal has passed.
- Concern with Agenda Setters being the gateway for proposals. Want evidence of committee agreement (minutes).
- Defined role of facilitators.
- Agenda setters needs to send out an agenda before their meeting and send minutes after their meeting.
Parents did meet to discuss the proposal (admittedly didn't send out a notice or minutes). Renae had sent the proposal to the Parents and asked for comment; nobody on the committee responded. Felt awkward because some things that had been discussed weren't properly incorporated in the proposal.
For this proposal we were working from the Proposal Quick Guide. [Currently to be found under Welcoming & Orientation on the wiki.] It doesn't allow proxies for typical proposals, only for legal/financial. The facilitation didn't use a straw poll to draw out concerns.
If we change/amend a proposal in a meeting it doesn't have to wait until the next meeting before consensus. Changes in a meeting are not only allowed, they are expected -- which is the reason proxies aren't allowed. If we ask for changes and return a proposal to committee, in Lynda's opinion it probably does need seven days distribution.
Hard to speak up in a crowd, slow a moving train. Didn't feel concerns were being addressed; and proposal was pushed too fast.
Lots of mistakes made but everyone was doing their best. A lot of confusion. Plea for face-to-face collaboration, especially when a proposal is still under discussion.
Ten minutes extension at 12:00.
No thread within the discussion at the meeting, partly due to the format of round robin. Mike as facilitator saw themes of cost and safety and amended the proposal to incorporate those.
When a proposal is brought to the group it no longer belongs to the person/committee bringing it and can be changed by the group. Did having the facilitator make the amendment maybe distract him from facilitation?
Looking on as a new member, had the impression people came with opinions already. Can give grace periods; the Parents Committee in particular has other calls on their time and was only one day late on the seven day period.
Due to the changing weather there was some urgency to get the proposal passed if the work isn't to wait until spring.
Need to do an ACM on consensus process.
Would like to adopt a better defined consensus process such as Butler.
Proposal was complicated by the fact that this proposal was amending the year's budget on the fly, when Management and Maintenance are already deeply concerned about money. Might have liked to have a provisional approval contingent on Management looking more closely at the books.
Read the proposal guide and offer suggestions.
Agenda Setters Sunday before Sunday, Thursday before Wednesday meeting.
Emailed 10/29/2023.
No Comments