Pacifica Decision Making Guidelines
version 1.0

1.1 Why Consensus?
1.2 Group Problem Solving Process
1.3 Tools for Group Problem Solving

2.0 The Phases of Decision Making

2.1 Time Frame
2.2 Problem Phase
2.3 Solution Phase
2.4 Gradients of Agreement
2.5 When to Seek Enthusiastic Support
2.6 Quorum
2.7 Proxies

3.0 When Consensus Cannot be Reached

3.1 The Supermajority Vote
3.2 Urgent Matters
3.3 When Consensus Isn't the Right Tool
3.4 Small Groups and Expert Teams

4.0 Meetings

4.1 Five Goals for a Good Meeting
4.2 Tools for Achieving the Five Goals for a Good Meeting
4.3 Key Components of the Meeting Plan
4.4 Meeting Format
4.5 Meeting Roles

5.0 Document History

Top of page

1.1 WHY CONSENSUS?
Pacifica community chooses to use a consensus-based decision-making model. Consensus works by a cooperative method. Essentially, everyone in the group agrees that the decision is made based on what is good for the group as a whole, not the individual. To this end, everyone works to find the best possible solution that everyone can feel good about. You use all the power of all the minds in the community to create the 'best' decision. Group members must understand in this situation that conflict can be good - once a conflicting opinion arises, it leads to discussion, and then to the growth of a better, more-widely accepted solution.

To reach consensus decisions, we choose to use The Group Problem Solving Process.

1.2 GROUP PROBLEM SOLVING PROCESS
Get agreement on the problem before trying to get agreement on a solution. Start open, then narrow, and finally close.

Step 1: Perceptions
To raise an issue, make it OK to discuss a difficult issue, share different points of view, and agree twork together. The objective is acceptance by the group to address a problem.

Step 2: Analysis
To gather information, determine why, how, where and when a problem exists, and to discover the causes of the problem. The objective is group understanding of the problem.

Step 3: Definition
To give direction to problem-solving, filter out unimportant issues, clarify the group's priorities, and identify the real problem tbe solved. The objective is a common goal for improving the situation.

Step 4: Options
To generate new ideas, bring creativity into problem solving, and explore all possibilities. The objective is to uncover alternative ways to reach the group's goal.

Step 5: Evaluation
To narrow choices, test alternatives, compare options, and identify the best option. The objective is to determine group preference for some options over others.

Step 6: Decision Making
To select a solution to the problem and reach closure on an issue. The objective is group commitment.

1.3 TOOLS FOR GROUP PROBLEM SOLVING
Step 1: Perceptions (acceptance by the group to address a problem)

• Group members explain what they are seeing, hearing, experiencing and feeling.
  
• Each group member explains how he/she is affected concretely by the situation.
  
• Listen attentively.
  
• Assure one another that it is OK to raise problems.
  
• Accept that different people see things differently.
  
• Consider what might happen if the group ignored the issue
  
• Consider what might happen if the group addressed the issue.

Step 2: Analysis (group understanding of the problem

• Identify the details: who, what, when, where, how, and why.
  
• Clarify the needs of the different people affected by the situation.
  
• Break the problem into smaller parts.
  
• Cluster similar aspects of the problem into categories.
  
• Diagram the problem.
  
• Clarify key terms.
  
• Consider: what's keeping the problem from getting worse? From getting better?
  
• Consider if any kinds of experts could provide useful insights.

Step 3: Definition (a common goal for improving the situation)

• State the problem as an open-ended question: "How to..."
  
• Define the problem in terms of people's needs and interests.
  
• State the problem as a question that bridges all the main concerns: "How to satisfy x and y while also satisfying z."
  
• Suggest an over-arching goal that everyone would work toward.
  
• Consider: where does the group want to wind up at the end of this?"
  

• Research what others have done to achieve similar goals.
  
• Solicit ideas from people with no stake in the issue.
  
• Consider whether any experts could provide useful insights.
  
• Brainstorm. Explain and enforce the rules:
  
• Don't judge anyone's ideas.
  
• Be free (unfettered, crazy, funny, creative) with ideas.
  
• Build on each other's ideas.
  
• Make up lots of ideas.

Step 5: Evaluation (group preference for some options over others)

• Compare the options to the goal.
  
• Discuss the advantages and disadvantages of each option.
  
• Rank-order the options.
  
• Take a non-binding straw poll.
  
• Consider: What standards usually apply in similar situations?
  
• Generate and apply new criteria tfit the particular situation.
  
• Consider whether any kinds of experts could provide useful insights.

Step 6: Decision Making (group commitment)

• "Everybody seems to like Solution A; is that the way we will go?"
  
• "Any objections trying Solution A?"
  
• Combine alternatives instead of choosing.
  
• Improve one or more of the alternatives to make them more acceptable.
  
• Create a new alternative from the strengths of the existing options.
  
• Eliminate the least popular alternatives.
  
• Poll for each individual's level of enthusiasm (see: "gradients of agreement", sec. 2.4)
  
• Ask if all group members would abide by the outcome of a vote. If so, then vote.
  
• Delegate the decision (to a subcommittee, expert, or higher authority).
  
• Return to an earlier stage of the problem solving process.

Top of page

2.0 THE PHASES OF DECISION MAKING

2.1 TIME FRAME
Under the consensus model, there should be adequate time for discussion before any decision is made. However, discussion time should be limited to a reasonable period of discussion, and a clear method of resolution should be available if consensus is not found. In general, if consensus cannot be reached after several meetings, alternative methods should be enacted to reach a conclusion by the third meeting. The timeframe for any particular issue depends on the nature of the issue and how much time is needed to deal with it, however.

2.2 THE PROBLEM PHASE
During "The Problem Phase," once the group has done initial brainstorm and analysis of the problem, it will often be useful to create a research sub-team.

A research sub-team is charged with further exploring the issue at hand outside of the whole-community meetings. This group might be made up of experts on the topic, but its membership should also reflect a balance of the community's views on the issue. It is assumed that a primary block to consensus is lack of information. The team's responsibility is researching the issue and returning information and a recommendation to the community at the next meeting.

Note: Ideally, the research sub-team could also be formed at any stage, to fill an information need. At all times, when sub-teams are formed, it should be clear both to them and to the group what they are to work on and what they are to bring back to the group and when.

2.3 THE SOLUTION PHASE
During "The Solution Phase", once the problem has been defined, and a number of solutions have been brainstormed and discussed, it will often be useful to create a proposal sub-team. Note: The research and proposal sub-teams may include some or all of the same people depending on the issue.

A proposal sub-team is charged with continuing the discussion of the issue outside of the whole-community meetings and finalizing a proposal with a smaller group. The membership of this group should be representative of the community, but may well be made up of the most outspoken proponents of each facet of the issue. The team's responsibility is to report to the community meeting with a prepared proposal (or proposals, if appropriate).

If there is an especially contentious topic, this team may also benefit from the help of an arbiter, from within the community (possibly from a "resolution team") or from outside, to help reach consensus among the smaller group.

As members determine their stance on any particular issue, it is useful to remember that there are several "Gradients of Agreement".

2.4 GRADIENTS OF AGREEMENT

• Endorse: "I like the proposal."
  
• Endorse with minor point of contention: "Basically I like it, but..."
  
• Agree with reservation: "I can live with it"
  
• Abstain: "I have no opinion."
  
• Stand Aside: "I don't like this but I don't want to hold up the group."
  
• Disagree formally and willing to go with the majority: "I want my disagreement noted in writing, but I'll support the decision."
  
• Disagree formally and request tbe absolved of responsibility for implementation: "I don't want to stop anyone else, but I don't want tbe involved in carrying out the decision."
  
• Block: "I veto this proposal."
  

• The stakes are so high that the consequences of failure would be severe.
  
• The decision is not easily reversible (i.e., result will be with us for a long time).
  
• Tough, complex, ambiguous problems (as opposed troutine ones)
  
• Many people will be affected by the outcome.
  
• Many people will have a role in implementation.
  

2.6 QUORUM
At each meeting there must be a minimum number of community members present in order to make any decision (a "quorum"). We recommend that this number be a percentage of the households in the community. In the short term, this number will be based on those households which have signed a contract and invested money in the project (currently 15 households). This percentage is open to discussion, but for now we're using 50%, which can be later adjusted based on attendance. In essence, this would mean that substantial decisions can't be made at this time without at least half of the financially-invested members present.

2.7 PROXIES
In the event that a community member is not able to attend a meeting, it is suggested they submit a short "proxy statement", describing their position on the issues to be discussed at the meeting in question. This statement will be read aloud and taken into consideration by the group. However, it is understood that the organic flow of discussion may vary significantly from what was addressed in the statement, and therefore the statement won't count as a vote on the member's behalf. Likewise, the statement won't stand in place of the member in regards to reaching the quorum.

Top of page

3.0 WHEN CONSUSUS CANNOT BE REACHED

3.1 THE SUPER MAJORITY VOTE
A super-majority vote is the final option for the community when consensus cannot be reached in a timely fashion. It is assumed that this measure will be viewed as a last resort, after sufficient discussion, and that most issues will be decided by consensus. This system assumes one vote per household once the community has been completed. During development, however, the vote balance is designed to favor those who are financially committed to the group, giving each of these house-holds two votes to one vote for those on the waiting list. Observers do not have a vote.

The idea of the super-majority is that most of the community still has to favor one solution, even if complete consensus isn't possible. We recommend that the super-majority be 80% of the total votes, assuming the quorum has already been exceeded. Although this allows for some level of dissatisfaction among the community members who lose the vote, it is assumed that every effort for consensus has already been made.

3.2 URGENT MATTERS
If a decision needs to be made immediately due to circumstances (whether internal or external), the group should be able to make the decision (as long as there is quorum). If consensus can't be reached, due to time pressures, super-majority vote can be used. These decisions should not involve expenditures over $500.

3.3 WHEN CONSENSUS ISN'T THE RIGHT TOOL
There may also be some decisions (like social items and design decisions) that can be made by super-majority vote. Rob Sandelin, in discussing consensus, says, "I see groups routinely fail using consensus when they try to use consensus to decide everything, sort of like trying to use a chainsaw to pound in a nail. Consensus is good for some kinds of decisions, very poor at others." He mentions color selection, multi-faceted design decisions where it is a matter of preference rather than finding the "best" answer.

3.4 SMALL GROUPS AND EXPERT TEAMS
There will be many types of decisions where only a single person or a small group has the interest or knowledge to make the decision. Maintenance, landscaping and other items can be assigned to individuals or small groups who can make decisions. They will report their committee activities to the group. Again, items over a given dollar amount (perhaps $500) would need to be cleared by the group.

Top of page

4.0 MEETINGS

4.1 FIVE GOALS FOR A GOOD MEETING
In order to best create an efficient consensus-building environment, we refer to the Dispute Settlement Center's "Five Goals for A Good Meeting":

• Participants concentrate on one subject at a time.
  
• Participants follow a clear and agreed upon process.
  
• Conversation is open tall group members and balanced among them.
  
• Roles are clearly defined and agreed upon.
  
• Participants' feelings and ideas are taken intconsideration

4.2 TOOLS FOR ACHIEVING THE FIVE GOALS FOR A GOOD MEETING

Participants concentrate on one subject at a time

• Agree in advance on desired outcomes & agenda for the meeting.
  
• Keep agenda in view during the meeting.
  
• Facilitator has explicit permission to keep the discussion focused.
  
• Use flip chart to record discussions.
  
• Keep record of meeting discussion in full view of group.
  
• Summarize and confirm agreements and next steps.
  
• Remind group of the subject it agreed to discuss.
  
• Ask group to defer "side issues."
  
• Ask group to revise the desired outcomes and/or meeting agenda if "side issues" cannot be deferred

• Group agreement in advance on an agenda.
  
• Keep agenda in view during meeting.
  
• Facilitator has explicit permission in advance to keep group using a clear and agreed upon process.
  
• Get agreement on a way to proceed, before proceeding.
  
• Remind group of the process it agreed to use.
  
• Try one approach, if it doesn't work then try something else.
  
• Educate the group about process
  
• Offer a suggestion on how to proceed.
  
• Ask group to revise the meeting agenda if the process must be changed.
  
• Conversation is open and balanced

Set up the room: all meeting participants on one level; participants can make eye contact and hear each other speak.

• Get group agreement on ground rules: e.g., "Listen attentively," "One person speaks at a time," "Share the floor."
  
• Keep the ground rules in view during the meeting.
  
• Facilitator gets explicit permission in advance to promote an open and balanced conversation.
  
• Model excellent listening and assertion skills.
  
• Be positive to encourage participation.
  
• Thank people for contributing ideas.
  
• Establish a queue when several people want to speak.
  
• Ask for reactions to people's ideas.
  
• Go around the room asking each person tspeak.
  
• Ask the quieter people what they think.
  
• Ask people who speak a lot to give others a chance.
  
• Float a trial balloon: "I haven't heard anyone mention ... yet, is that relevant here?

Roles are clearly defined and agreed upon

• Clarify roles in advance of meetings.
  
• Include role definitions as part of ground rules.
  
• Facilitator gets explicit permission in advance to keep people in their roles.
  
• Establish a process for rotating some roles among group members.
  
• Offer reminders when people step out of role.
  
• Deal with questions about roles when they arise.

Participants' feelings and ideas are taken into consideration

• Calm yourself.
  
• Model courtesy.
  
• Set up room comfortably
  
• Explicit and agreed-upon ground rules
  
• Facilitator gets explicit permission to enforce the ground rules.
  
• Keep the ground rules in view during the meeting.
  
• Record ideas on flip charts without attribution.
  
• Acknowledge people's feelings when they are expressed.
  
• Diffuse intense emotions by looking at the speaker, accepting their feelings as legitimate, paraphrasing to ensure you understand. Do not try to minimize, joke, or resolve the feelings.
  
• Listen to and watch the group for any evidence of discomfort.
  
• Offer your perceptions of the group's moods/dynamics.
  
• Ask the group to deal with questions about safety and respect when they arise.
  
• Call for breaks/caucuses.

4.3 KEY COMPONENTS OF THE MEETING PLAN
The meeting plan is composed of a desired outcome, an agenda, and some ground rules.

The desired outcome
A clear and concise statement of the results or products that the group wants from the meeting. "What will we have in hand at the end of the meeting?" Use nouns, not verbs.

Examples:

• A list of concerns about a situation or a proposal.
  
• Ideas for reaching a goal.
  
• Options for solving a problem.
  
• A plan (tasks, assignments, deadlines) for conducting a project

The Agenda

The Agenda is a meeting guide that helps people prepare for and participate in the meeting.

The facilitators and record-keeper are responsible for working together to gather agenda topics from the community (submitted publicly via the web or bulletin boards, for example) and organize the agenda for the coming meeting, based on such factors as priority and timeliness. Agenda items will often spring from topics considered at the prior meeting. This agenda will be made public before the meetings, preferably one week beforehand, so that community members can consider the topics thoroughly. Each agenda item should be identified with who will be the presenter. Facilitators should check with presenters prior to the meeting to be sure that they are prepared to present the issue at the meeting. Presenters' role is to present material and answer questions. In general, the facilitator will continue to run the meeting. Agendas should specifically state if a final decision on an issue is to be considered.

Every meeting should have a clear agenda, with specific times allotted for each part of the discussion. The agenda will be reviewed at the beginning of each meeting, to discuss possible adjustments in the established topic discussion times. The agenda should be designed to most efficiently use the group's time, while still allowing for sufficient discussion. The facilitation team will be responsible for monitoring (and limiting) discussion to keep the group on topic, creating new agenda items and adjusting the times (possibly with help from the group) as necessary.

Agenda topics are to be submitted by the community to the facilitation team. Any topics submitted by community members should be accompanied by resources or additional information to allow other members to prepare to discuss the issue. Some agenda topics are announcements, others are discussions. However, in the interest of efficiency, announcements should be kept to a minimum (using other means of communication outside of meetings instead).

The agenda identifies four essential items: The content, process, roles, and time allocated for each activity.

Content: What issues or topics will be discussed?
Process: What activities, meeting procedures and formats will the group use to address the issues? For example:

• presentation
  
• questions & answers
  
• full group discussion
  
• break-out groups
  
• each person takes a turn
  
• brainstorming
  
• creating categories
  
• sorting items into categories
  
• rank order
  
• identify the pluses and minuses of a proposal
  
• straw poll
  
• vote
  
• consensus decision

Roles: Whis responsible for child care, room set up, welcoming, introducing topics, giving a report, note taking, facilitating, decision making, room clean up?

Time: Realistic allocation for each item or activity. Pay attention from meeting tmeeting tlearn how much time your group uses tperform similar tasks. Base time estimates on experience, not wishful thinking.

Include adequate time at the start of every meeting for welcome, introductions, and overview (reviewing and approving desired outcomes, agenda and ground rules), and include adequate time at the end for clarifying decisions and next steps and for evaluating the meeting.

There should also be a clear list of the community's goals and principles (i.e. a vision) on which any decisions should be based. Group discussion of these goals, and how they may or may not differ from what has already been stated for Pacifica, is an important first step. (Attach our values statement when completed.)

The Ground Rules

Ground Rules: Shared expectations about how discussions will be conducted and how decisions will be made. There should be a visible list of ground-rules for meetings available at each session; this list should be short and clear. These ground-rules should be based on effective communication principles, thoughtful feedback, and self-disclosure. Two-way communication is important for the experience of all group members to be included. In general, it will be assumed throughout the consensus system that silence equals consent and agreement.

Some ground rules we have informally adopted:

• One speaker at a time
  
• Keep task and topic
  
• Listen attentively
  
• Share the floor
  
• Be concise
  
• It's OK to disagree...please do so respectfully
  
• Treat as confidential other people's personal stories
  
• Decide together
  

4.4 MEETING FORMAT
The format for these meetings will change from time to time, but roughly consist of the following (more detail follows):

The Setting:
Seating arranged in semi-circle or circle to maximize ability of all participants to be able to see and hear.
Post relevant information at each meeting, i.e. Agenda as well as ongoing factors to keep in mind: Ground Rules, Values Statement, Problem-Solving Process overview, Gradients of Agreement, etc.

The Meeting:

• Gathering together.
  
• A moment of silence.
  
• A "get to know you" exercise - 5-10 minutes
  
• Agenda review
  
• Announcements, committee reports as appropriate
  
• Deal with one to two issues depending on what stage they are in (i.e. if a decision was getting final tweaking only, it might go quickly; a new issue should have a good chunk of the meeting)
  
• Meeting review - Summarize the group's work for the day. Confirm establishment of sub-teams, review next steps. Review agenda bin and consider priorities for the next meeting.
  
• Meeting evaluation - Feedback on the meeting/facilitation process from the group
  
• Close

4.5 MEETING ROLES
Meetings will be led by a facilitation team, consisting of a record-keeper, a primary facilitator and a secondary facilitator. These individuals will assume the responsibility of leading community meetings for extended periods of time (6 months or so) to make best use of their experience. These team members should, as a general rule, be objective and removed from the discussions; if necessary, they might seek an alternate so that they can participate in issues they feel strongly about. The following team roles can be exchanged between the members as they see fit for flexibility and experience. The essential responsibilities of these roles are as follows. :

The primary facilitator is responsible for leading the group in consensus-based discussions and brainstorms, filtering responses at each stage of the process, and making sure everyone is heard. Also responsible for keeping the group on topic and on time, adjusting the agenda as necessary to make room for important discussions.

The assistant facilitator is responsible for assisting the primary facilitator by writing down brainstorm ideas, handing out information, and helping to keep track of time. Furthermore, this facilitator will be helping to monitor the tone of the group, and make sure that no one is left unheard and no thoughts are overlooked.

The record-keeper is responsible for tracking attendance at meetings and recording the results of brainstorms, discussions, and decisions. Also responsible for making these minutes available to the community in a public forum.

Top of page

5.0 DOCUMENT HISTORY

•   May 3, 2003 - Version 1.0 of this document was accepted by consensus

Top of page