Updated: October 26, 2010 (PDF) (DOC)
This policy has been crafted to enable the Sky Dragon Community centre to make decisions in an egalitarian and efficient manner. As a social justice organization, the Sky Dragon aims to reduce oppression and hierarchy by building sustainable alternatives in the community. The decision to use consensus was made with this aim in mind, as consensus ensures that the voice of each board member is heard and equally valued. Thus, the Board is committed to using a consensus decision-making model for the vast majority of its decisions, with the one exception listed below.
1. Ideology
The Board has decided to use the consensus decision-making model due to the following characteristics of consensus:
- Inclusive: The process of consensus involves as many stakeholders as possible in the decision.
- Participatory: It actively solicits the input and participation of all decision-makers.
- Cooperative: Participants in an effective consensus process strive to reach the best possible decision for the group and all of its members, rather than opt to pursue a majority opinion, potentially to the detriment of a minority.
- Egalitarian: Consensus attempts to afford all members of the decision-making body, equal input into the process. All members have the opportunity to present, amend and block proposals.
- Solution-oriented: An effective consensus decision-making body strives to emphasize common agreement over differences and reach effective decisions using compromise and other techniques to avoid or resolve mutually exclusive positions within the group.
2. Roles
Each meeting must have a facilitator and a note taker. The board may decide to have a timekeeper, a stacker and vibe checker if they choose. These roles, especially the facilitator and note taker, must change after each meeting. This is to ensure that all members have the chance to gain experience in their areas and become active administrators of the decision-making process.
- Facilitator: The role of the facilitator is to help make the process of reaching a consensus decision easier. The facilitator accepts responsibility for moving through the agenda on time; ensuring the group adheres to the mutually agreed-upon mechanics of the consensus process; and, if necessary, suggesting alternate or additional discussion or decision-making techniques (i.e. go-arounds, break-out groups, etc.). The facilitator may take on the role of timekeeper if members present at the meeting agree.
It is essential for the facilitator to be as objective as possible when helping the group make decisions. Should the facilitator feel that they have a conflict of interest on a point of discussion (i.e. have a strong opinion, are blocking consensus, etc.), or if another board member feels that the facilitator is in conflict, another board member should take on the role of facilitator for the duration of that discussion/decision.
Note taker: The role of the note taker or secretary is to document the decisions, discussion and action points of the decision-making body. They are responsible for typing the meeting minutes and sending them to the rest of the board after the meeting. The Sky Dragon board has agreed upon a standard format for meeting minutes, which clearly outlines the item, the decision and the action needed. Also, the note taker should refer to the communications policy to ensure they are familiar with which items are in camera and which are available to the public.
Timekeeper: The purpose of the timekeeper is to ensure the Board keeps to the schedule set in the agenda. Effective timekeepers use a variety of techniques to ensure the meeting runs on time including: giving frequent time updates, ample warning of short time, and keeping individual speakers from taking an excessive amount of time. The timekeeper may ask the board if they would like to extend the time for an agenda item.
Vibe Checker: The vibe checker is charged with monitoring the “emotional climate” of the meeting, taking note of the body language and other non-verbal cues of the participants. Defusing potential emotional conflicts, maintaining a climate free of intimidation and being aware of potentially destructive power dynamics, such as sexism or racism within the decision-making body, are the primary responsibilities of the vibe checker.
In order to take on the role of vibe checker, the board member must be aware of their position in society and emotional state at the time. It is strongly recommended that all board members attend Anti-Oppression Training in order to best fill this role and create a safe space during board meetings.
- Stacker: During large meetings, the stacker records a list of speakers to ensure that everyone who wants to speak is able to. While the facilitator is able to do this during most meetings, a stacker is recommended for large meetings with vocal members.
3. Process
During each meeting, the Board will utilize the following process to make decisions:
- Discuss the item: The item will be discussed with the goal of identifying opinions and information on the topic at hand. The general direction of the group and potential proposals for action will be identified during the discussion.
- Formulate a proposal: Based on the discussion a formal decision proposal on the issue will be presented to the group. The facilitator should aim to identify potential blocks and help the group make the necessary amendments before the formal call for consensus is made.
- Call for consensus: The facilitator will call for consensus on the proposal. Each member of the group must actively state their agreement with the proposal using a hand signal. This hand signal is often a wiggling of the fingers to show consensus with the decision. Other hand signals (i.e. thumbs up) may be used if the board chooses.
- Take a consensus vote: There are three options when taking a consensus vote:
- Consensus: Agreeing with the proposal as it has been presented
- Stand Aside: Disagreeing with the proposal or a part of it, but not being so strongly opposed that you wish to block the group from making that decision
- Block: Fundamentally disagreeing with the decision so strongly that you cannot allow the decision to proceed, often for moral reasons.
- Identify and address concerns: If consensus is not achieved, each dissenter presents his or her concerns about the proposal.
- Modify the proposal: The proposal will be amended in an attempt to address the concerns of the decision-makers. The facilitator will once again call for consensus and the cycle will be repeated until a satisfactory decision is made.
4. Emergency Decision-Making
The one exception to the use of consensus decision-making is in the event that a decision must be made in a short time frame. This could occur in one of two ways:
- Between Board Meetings: Should a decision of an immediate nature need to be reached in between board meetings, the director will send an email to all board members asking for their input. The board will be given a date by which they must respond. For a decision to be reached, the majority of respondents (not total board members) must be in agreement.
It is the responsibility of each individual board member to be reachable by email. A board member may request to be called instead of emailed should they need to be reached immediately.
- At a Board Meeting: A decision may need to be reached before the end of a board meeting. In this situation, consensus must be attempted for one cycle of proposal, amendments and voting. If a consensus cannot be reached after the first round of amendments, the decision will be put to a vote. In this case, a majority is considered 60% of board members.
Principal of least impact: As a general policy, decisions reached under forced circumstances should be the least binding possible and/or on the shortest term possible. These decisions should be on the shortest term possible so a more permanent decision can be reached through the consensus of the entire board. If an emergency decision is made, then discussion of the decision is automatically added to the agenda for the next board meeting.
