|
|
Summary Introduction Functionaries Process |
|
of the Maryland Green Party Draft May 31, 2000 Summary of Green Meeting Process Each group determines its own process. These guidelines suggest ways to promote fair participation and effective use of time in meetings but are not binding: Adopt a written agenda with clear time-limits on agenda items and on individual remarks. Begin and end meetings on time. Open with a round of brief introductions. Choose a facilitator, a timekeeper, and a minutetaker. Each participant should have an equal opportunity to speak briefly. Put decisions and important proposals in writing. Consider various points of view and seek to achieve agreement before rushing to a vote. Set aside a few minutes of the Agenda at the end of each meeting for evaluation of the meeting process.  This manual can be used as an orientation guide for new Green participants and as a reference for Green veterans.[1] The approach outlined in this manual has provided meeting participants with a common basis for developing effective and democratic group decisionmaking techniques. Participatory democracy is a notoriously inefficient method for accomplishing decisions, but Greens are nevertheless committed to it. An unstructured free-for-all would be an especially inefficient and unnecessarily frustrating format for meetings. In order to increase efficiency and effectiveness of meetings, while at the same time protecting basic democratic participation, parliamentary customs that evolved over time have been developed into various sets of formal “rules of order.” Probably the most familiar American set of rules of order is Robert’s Rules of Order (originally published by Henry Martyn Robert in 1876), which drew upon Thomas Jefferson’s Manual of Parliamentary Practice (1801) and Luther S. Cushing’s Manual of Parliamentary Practice: Rules of Proceedings and Debate in Deliberative Assemblies (1845). Greens have generally avoided reliance on Robert’s Rules of Order, although many of the basic principles of Green Meeting Process are quite similar to those in Robert’s Rules. Among the similarities are respect for the rights of minority points of view; respect for the rights of individuals freely and fully to participate on a basis of equality; concern for the interests of absentees; and regard for the rights of the majority. An important difference between Green Process and general parliamentary procedure is that the latter adopts a more majoritarian approach, which differs in significant ways from the Green agreement-seeking process.[2] Most of the concepts presented here originated in other groups. Democratic, participatory group decisionmaking processes based on CONSENSUS have a long history. In general, these processes are designed to enable the group to make decisions based on the collective knowledge, experience, and creativity of all the participants. FORMAL CONSENSUS is a profoundly egalitarian and spiritual form of decisionmaking that works best when participants share common experience and a common purpose, and have a high degree of mutual trust. Quakers have used consensus process for over 300 years. John Dewey developed a more scientifically oriented approach to consensus as a democratic process in the 1930's. More recently, the Movement for a New Society has developed some useful guidelines and the Center for Conflict Resolution has done some excellent work to develop these processes. The theory and practice of consensus have recently been studied under the auspices of UNESCO. Large national and international groups, such as the Free Speech Movement, the Bioregional Movement, and the US Green Committees of Correspondence helped develop an AGREEMENT-SEEKING process which resembles FORMAL CONSENSUS but allows for decisions to be made by using, if necessary, a fall-back vote. Because a decision is possible by voting when a decision by consensus has not emerged, the AGREEMENT-SEEKING process is not, and should not be referred to as CONSENSUS. Because both FORMAL CONSENSUS and AGREEMENT-SEEKING processes allow "standing aside" from a decision, they differ dramatically from DEMOCRATIC CENTRALISM, which insists that the losing minority adhere to the voted-upon decision. Work in Progress This manual is only a starting point. Modification and improvement of this manual should be an ongoing process. Your input and suggestions are needed and requested. It goes without saying that this Maryland Green Meeting Process Manual is by no means binding upon any Local Green organization (unless a Local has decided to adopt this manual expressly) . Principle of Construction The processes outlined in this manual are not to be given an overly technical interpretation. This manual shall be construed so as to enhance equality of participation, to avoid undue delays, and to bring about principled and democratic decisions in keeping with Green Values. Division of the Manual This manual is divided into two main parts: I. Functionaries and II. Process. The first deals with the specific tasks that members of the group may perform to help make the meeting run more smoothly. The Process section is mostly a menu of techniques that may be used, as needed, to make decisions in a large group. I. Special Roles of Functionaries “Functionary” meeting roles traditionally used by Greens can be divided into four types: (1) Facilitation; (2) Minutetaking and Scribal duties; (3) Timekeeping; and (4) Process observation. (1) Facilitator / Co-Facilitator The facilitator conducts the process of the meeting, by orchestrating the flow of input into the meeting. The facilitator is normally not the presenter of an agenda item. The facilitator’s role is (literally) to make it easier for the group to express its ideas and to come to agreement on issues. One of the most important functions the facilitator serves is to recognize, and make possible the participation of, each of the members while at the same time limiting over-expression of very dominant meeting participants. The role of a facilitator thus in some ways resembles that of “Chair” or presiding officer.[3] The right to select its facilitator belongs to the assembled group. The organization may decide to use a system of rotating facilitators or, if the group is especially satisfied with the unique facilitation skills of some individual, the group may wish for that person to serve routinely as facilitator. In Maryland Green Party meetings, the Co-Chairs would serve as default facilitators unless the group were to decide otherwise. Agenda and Introductions At a very early stage of the meeting, the facilitator announces the presentation of the Agenda (normally by distributing copies of the proposed Agenda or by asking a Scribe to write it on a chalkboard or a large paper on an easel) and asks the group for concurrence that this is the agenda. Often an easy way to do this is to call the meeting to order by asking the group to take a few moments to review the proposed Agenda. The facilitator then can call for a round of introductions (in which people identify themselves). During these introductions, each person in turn can suggest any changes to the Agenda. Opening Statement of Facilitator It is often useful, either before or immediately after the adoption of the Agenda, for the facilitator to make an opening statement to the assembled group. The following “Facilitator’s Opening Statement Script” draws upon the “Clerk’s Script” used in some Quaker meetings. In the agreement-seeking process used in the Maryland Greens, we normally operate without formal motions. My role as facilitator is to draw together the threads of the discussion and to articulate the sense of that discussion — where we have agreement and where we have threads that remain to be considered. I will check with the group to verify and modify this description of where we are. Whenever possible, we will produce a written minute of our agreements. If we cannot achieve agreement this evening [morning / afternoon], we can develop a clear statement of where we stand in the decisionmaking process and we will agree on the next steps we should take to reach consensus or otherwise come to a decision. It is important that we all consider the good of the Green Party and the implications our decisions may have here and elsewhere in the world, as we discuss the matters on the Agenda. We should all try to place Green Values at the center of our efforts. As facilitator this session, my role is to remain neutral about the issues and solutions, and about our discussion of them. I will provide guidance to the group only when it seems appropriate to make sure we are following consensus-building practices. Here are some suggested ways you can help this process along:
Other tasks of a facilitator include: calling the group back to the agenda; keeping member comments short and to the point; restating comments for clarity as needed; applying various processes and rules when appropriate; being attentive to the needs and input of the timekeepers, minutetakers, or process observers; starting and stopping the meeting on time; and generally keeping things moving along at a timely pace. In some situations (large meetings, highly charged issues, inexperienced facilitators, etc.), it is helpful to have a backup facilitator. The two co-facilitators can then divide the duties, and share the stress, to make a difficult situation more manageable. Facilitators must remain non-partisan and objective. If a facilitator perceives a conflict of interest or becomes emotionally charged by a particularly intense exchange or agenda item, a co-facilitator should step in to facilitate the meeting for a "cooling-off" period. (2) Minutetaking Recording Secretary (Minutetaker) The minutetaker is responsible for recording the proceedings of the meeting, noting each decision separately in the "minutes,” and for producing a written and/or electronic copy of the minutes for distribution to the group if required. The Minutetaker corresponds to the more familiar role of “Recording Secretary.” If meetings are recorded on audio tape, the minutetaker's task during the meeting may become more focused. Prior to any decision by the group, the minutetaker should clearly read out loud a written statement of the tentative agreement. In this way, the participants know exactly what they are agreeing to. This written agreement can then be read back as needed during the meeting. The general content of major discussion should also be noted in the minutes. As an aid to the minutetaker, a proposal submitted to the group should be written in its final form (including amendments, clarifications and refinements) and given to the minutetaker for inclusion in the minutes. This increases the likelihood that all agreed upon items are properly recorded and frees the minutetaker for other duties. Scribe A scribe is helpful in making lists or notations on a blackboard or on large sheets of paper visible to the whole group. These can be lists of ideas generated during brainstorming, during an evaluation, when consolidating information, when breaking proposals into smaller decisions, etc. The scribe may be asked to list an order of names of persons seeking recognition during "stacking" (see process), or to post other relevant data before the entire group. Some of these functions may be more efficiently provided by a co-facilitator, if one is present. All sheets of paper and notes made by the scribe in front of the group should be taken by the minutetaker for inclusion in the records of the meeting. (3) Timekeeping Timekeepers track the progress of the agenda according to the agreed upon time limits. A timekeeper lets the group know when the allotted time is used, and may periodically indicate to the group as segments of time are used during longer agenda items. Occasionally, a timekeeper may have to keep track of several things at once (for example, timing a general agenda segment, a subsegment's overrun period, and the length of a speaker's comments). If the tone of the meeting is more informal, the timekeeper may only be keeping track of an agenda segment's starting and stopping time. Generally, the use of visual signals to indicate how much time remains is preferable to a voiced announcement since it does not interfere with the spoken information flow. A gentle sound the group recognizes (for example, a soft chime) is a fairly unobtrusive way to let the group know when a time limit has been reached. If that signal is ignored, the timekeeper may need to become vocal. Once an agreement is made to limit time on an agenda item, during the initial adoption of the agenda or at other times, the group must contract for additional time on that item in order for the time to be extended. (4) Process Observation Often when groups go awry and the atmosphere becomes tense, it is because the agreed upon process has subtly broken down, thereby creating frustrations. An outside observer can sometimes more easily spot these breakdowns and bring them to the attention of the group. A process observer performs a role similar to that of a parliamentarian. Process observers are called upon to observe the meeting objectively. They are not directly part of the discussion, so they are in a position to catch things those more closely involved may miss. They are to attune themselves to the emotional climate of the meeting and should keep track of moods, "hidden agendas," individual power struggles, personality conflicts, counterproductive role playing, and other extrinsic conflict (conflict not related to the discussion item) etc., pointing these problems out (in a nonaccusatory way) when and if they threaten to become impediments to the group’s progress. Process observers should not stifle frank discussion; their role is instead to help reduce communicative “noise” that could distract the group from its mission. Process observers inject their comments when necessary and are called upon during the evaluation phase of a meeting to present their general observations. II. Process Types There are a variety of process mechanisms that groups using AGREEMENT-SEEKING decisionmaking may apply. The appropriateness of each is unique to each group and each situation. These mechanisms should be selected and applied as need dictates. Agenda Review Assuming a tentative Agenda has been assembled by a working group prior to the meeting (a recommended procedure), a copy of that Agenda should be written by a scribe and posted so it is easily visible to everyone at the meeting. The entire tentative Agenda should be reviewed by the group, with presenters providing clarification as needed. The facilitator may then call for limited discussion to arrive at an agreement on the appropriateness of the Agenda. Items to be added or deleted, the order of the items, the amount of time each item is allotted, and if necessary, the priority of the items, should be established at the beginning of the meeting. The first decision made by the group should be the adoption of the Agenda. The words “Tentative Agenda” can be used above the proposed agenda, and once the group has made its agreement, the scribe may cross out the word “tentative,” to indicate the adoption of the Agenda. A three-column Agenda would include (1) a name identifying each item and its type (for example, Review of Minutes from Previous Meeting; Report of Electoral Committee; Proposal to Purchase Internet Domain Name; Brainstorming about Publicity, etc.); the presenter's name; and the item's time limit. Seating and Introductions Participants should position themselves wherever they feel most comfortable, normally in a circle (the preferred configuration for effective communication) and introduce themselves, stating their names, the group they belong to, and other relevant information such as their status at the meeting (for example, voting member, delegate, observer, etc.). Unless there is a specific group of decisionmakers, a single circle with no one “outside” the circle is preferable. A “fish-bowl” sometimes can be used when a select group, voting delegates for instance, is seated in a circle, with observers in concentric circles or in designated areas around them. Discussion In a large group format, several formalized processes have been used successfully to help make the discussion process workable. The process of “stacking” is a means of ordering members’ input. Those wishing to speak raise their hands. The facilitator generally uses body language to acknowledge them and either logs the order mentally, or perhaps with the assistance of the scribe or co-facilitator, records them on a list and they are called in that order. This helps equalize participation. Periodically, the facilitator may wish to state the order of the stack or to inform the group of the number of people in the “stack.” There are variations and exceptions. Generally, no participant should speak twice on an issue until all participants wishing to do so have had an opportunity to speak. However, when discussion is heated, people often become too eager to speak or respond to allow proper attention to be paid to others’ input. In this instance, LIMITED EXCHANGE can be allowed after the person in the stack has spoken. This must be carefully guided by the facilitator, however, so that it doesn't get out of hand. The facilitator must indicate when a limited exchange should be terminated, and then should call on the next person in the stack. Other interruptions allowed during the stacking process or in general discussions include POINT OF INFORMATION, POINT OF CLARITY, and POINT OF PROCESS. If a participant has information unknown to the rest of the group that is immediately relevant and necessary to what a speaker is saying, that participant should interrupt by saying “POINT OF INFORMATION.” The facilitator should then allow that participant briefly and concisely to present strictly informational, non-opinion-laden input. Following the interruption, the regular sequence of discussion is resumed. If a participant is unclear about what has been said or what is going on and interrupts with “POINT OF CLARITY,” the facilitator may suspend discussion briefly to respond to that participant’s question. If the facilitator is unable to clear up the confusion, another participant may be recognized briefly to offer the necessary information. This allows the participant seeking clarity to be brought up to speed so that input from that participant can be included in the ongoing discussion. Once the unclarity has been resolved, or after reasonable effort has been expended trying to clarify, the facilitator should direct the group back to the regular sequence of discussion. The call for “POINT OF PROCESS” should come from any participant who sees a problem developing due to a process breakdown. Once recognized by the facilitator, the participant should briefly indicate what “point of process” is involved (such as an impeding time limit, straying form the topic, dealing with a non-Agenda item, etc.) and offer a proposed solution. Time Limits When an issue is hot and everyone wants to address it, the facilitator may need to impose time limits on individual remarks, if the group has not already established such time limits. Generally, limiting each speaker to one or two minutes helps speakers to be concise, to emphasize only the most important ideas, and not to dwell on long, rhetorical arguments. Proposals Proposals may come complete from a single author, or from a group or a committee, or may be formed through discussion and brainstorming during the meeting. In general, detailed or complicated proposals should be in writing and should be circulated prior to the meeting. The presenter of a proposal should have the proposal written out for clarity. During discussion of a particular item, a “sense of the meeting” often emerges that can be put into words. A participant who feels that it would be helpful to do so may try to formulate this “sense” as a proposal. Calling the Question When it is felt that discussion is complete and that no new input is forthcoming, the facilitator or any participant in the meeting may say, “call the question.” If the proposal or decision is simple and clear, the facilitator may briefly restate it, check to see if there is general agreement on calling the question, and ask, “Is there any call for clarification?” If there is no call for clarification, the facilitator will ask “Is there any call for concern?” Participants should clearly indicate their position either with body language or vocally so that the facilitator has no difficulty determining the sense of the meeting. If there are no questions or concerns, the facilitator may ask for some symbolic action by the group to indicate whether the group has come to AGREEMENT. If so, the facilitator should then move the group on to the next item. If there are questions and concerns, discussion should continue. In more complicated decisions or for issues that may require exact understanding of the proposal, the minutetaker should read the proposal to the group prior to testing for agreement. Call for Clarification When the facilitator or minutetaker states the proposal and asks if there is any call for clarification, questions seeking to clarify understanding of the proposal are appropriate. Questions seeking clarification may be answered during this part of the process; however, requests for clarification are distinguished from expressions of “concern,” which are not appropriate at this point and are saved for later discussion. Once the group is satisfied that the proposal is clearly understood, the facilitator will ask if there is any call for concern. Call for Concern Before asking if anyone has any concerns regarding the proposal, the facilitator or minutetaker should restate the proposal. A concern is expressed as a statement of how the proposal as formulated might conflict with the group's stated purpose and shared values. The facilitator will recognize those who have concerns and will distill their concerns into short phrases; a co-facilitator or scribe may list those phrases on a blackboard or easel. Listing concerns in this manner helps the group focus on the concern and not focus on the presenter or on the person raising the concern. Concerns should be impersonal. After all the concerns have been listed, the facilitator will deal with each in turn to resolve the concerns through group discussion and friendly amendments. Group Resolution Concerns are resolved as the proposal is explained or changed to address them. To make AGREEMENT more easily attainable, it may be possible for a participant having difficulty accepting a proposal to offer a “FRIENDLY AMENDMENT” that expands somewhat on the original idea or changes it to a minor degree in a manner that satisfactorily addresses any concerns without altering the “sense of the meeting” on the issue. If accepted by the person making the proposal and by the group, the friendly amendment should be incorporated into the proposal being discussed. If, after further discussion, the proposal seems satisfactory, it should be carefully restated and the facilitator should call the question. The accepted proposal with amendments should be written down by the minutetaker and confirmed in its final form for inclusion in the minutes. Stand Aside / Withdraw If, after reasonable discussion and exploration, the group cannot resolve the concerns through friendly amendments, the facilitator should try to determine the depth of the concerns. The facilitator will ask if those with concerns will STAND ASIDE to allow the group to reach AGREEMENT. The individuals who "stand aside" from the decision may be noted in the minutes with their reasons recorded. Many decisions can be made in this way without resorting to voting and without harmful consequences to the group. However, if a large part of the group is “standing aside,” the rest of the group should weigh the consequences of making the decision without the support and inclusion of those who are standing aside. If those with concerns are not willing to stand aside from the decision, the facilitator will ask the presenter to withdraw the proposal or the part of the proposal that is causing concern, so that AGREEMENT may be reached. If not, the proposal can be delegated to a committee of resolution. Committee of Resolution This smaller group should include skilled representatives of all sides of the issue who are acceptable to all members of the larger group. They may meet during a break or may temporarily withdraw from the larger group, (which should then occupy itself with some other relatively minor issue) and attempt to come to AGREEMENT. Any resolution the Committee of Resolution may develop should then be carried back to the larger group and introduced for discussion and approval. It may be necessary to reconvene the smaller group for further attempts at achieving a workable solution before AGREEMENT can be reached. Defer Decision / Vote If the Committee of Resolution or group absolutely cannot reach AGREEMENT, and it is determined that a decision must be made at that particular meeting, the facilitator will call for the group (voting members only) to vote on whether or not to defer the issue. If the vote to defer passes (by a percentage to be agreed upon by the group 50+1%, 66 2/3%, higher?), then a decision on the item is postponed for consideration at a future meeting. If the vote to defer does not pass, the facilitator then calls for a vote on the proposal. In place of the AGREEMENT-SEEKING process, a vote is then used to decide the issue. If the voting members or delegates vote to accept or reject the particular proposal (66 2/3% on substantive issues, 50% +1 on procedural issues), the decision becomes binding and is entered into the minutes with a record of votes for and against, including abstentions. This process should be used only as a last resort. It can be perceived as an abandonment of the principles of the consensus model of decisionmaking. Sometimes, with pressure of time and a sense of urgency, the group may decide to vote on much of its agenda. Evaluation If the process is to improve, there must be an opportunity to review what went on and why, and a time to suggest ways to make it work better next time. In a large group, the scribe can make a list on a blackboard or a large sheet of newsprint that the whole group can see. Headings should be placed at the top: a “—” on the left side, and a “+” on the right side. In brainstorming fashion and without argumentation or discussion, the group could create a list of all the things that did not work well under the “—” and of all the things that did go well under “+”. After listing, the group should briefly discuss how to improve those items listed under “—” and, where necessary, ways of maintaining the “+” items. Suggestions and listings should be included in the minutes. Group Decisionmaking The notion of a “group will” is puzzling, yet groups of individuals regularly seek to arrive, by various means, at decisions expressive of the “general will” of a group. If the theory of democratic decisionmaking is paradoxical, so too is the practice of participatory democracy. [1] This manual is a reworked version of a document published by the Ohio Greens in 1996, based on a manual originally printed by the Green Party of Alaska. [2] There are dangers in insisting on a rigid CONSENSUS-based approach; to require absolute unanimity can create a kind of tyranny because a single person (and most likely the least cooperative individual) is thereby empowered to thwart, through stubborn noncooperation, the wishes of every other individual in the group. It is not hard to imagine that people with political goals, especially if accustomed to an adversarial political culture, might wield consensus “veto” power in an abusive way. Apart from the danger of such a veto, the notion of CONSENSUS has possible drawbacks also coming from an opposite direction. In groups that have enshrined consensus as the norm and that frown on conducting votes as a first-line decisionmaking technique, individuals having important critiques of, or insights into, a proposal, could misguidedly decide not to share those ideas, for fear of provoking divisive controversy or for fear of seeming an obstacle to agreement. The group could thereby be deprived of the benefit of extremely valuable ideas. To prevent this, Green meeting participants should sensitize themselves to the importance of participation. [3] In some contemporary Quaker practice, it is normal to divide the facilitation responsibilities by having both a “Convenor” and also a so-called “Clerk”—despite the title, the Quaker “Clerk” in this sense is not a recording secretary, but is essentially the facilitator during the course of the meeting. The Convenor would typically be responsible for receiving agenda requests and arranging them in a coherent proposed order before the meeting, securing the meeting site, giving appropriate notice (including reminders) of the meeting, and calling the meeting to order. |