#om decision-making

[bike4ethel]

Debby, I don't understand your objection to a member's use of "a lot of us" to support an idea or concern. This movement is all about many different people trying to work together, without individual causes or opinions dominating. So it seems to me quite normal and helpful to assess whether anybody else shares one's concerns and then to state that as suppport for one's ideas or suggestions.
On a slightly different track, I think this quote from the article in today's (Saturday) Missoulian article exemplifies one of the questions about consensus and why it seems not to work very well sometimes. "The occupiers wanted to pass it by consensus, but Makarowski said there was and probably remains discussion whether that means 100 percent consensus, which is difficult to attain."
Realizing John may have been misquoted, I maintain it DID pass with consensus. (period.) Forget about the "100%", because unless somebody walked away because they couldn't live with it, you do have "100%". In my years of experience on a non-profit Board which operated with consensus, our concept of it as explained by a professional facilitator, was that the person who didn't agree has had the opportunity to explain his/her objection, has been heard, and can live with the decision. That's consensus. I think the real purpose of using the block phrase or signal is that it stops the process for anybody who feels they haven't been heard. We have to trust and hope nobody abuses it, and if they do, facilitators have to handle it for the good of the group. A difficult situation, for sure.
I also think that part of the reason it's especially difficult to move on to a decision is our basic premise of equality and respect. We're all trying hard to listen to each other with compassion and kindness, so even in working groups nobody really wants to limit another's right to express him/herself. I expect that premise and practice will continue even if some working groups decide to use a modified form.

[johnmak]

i was actually referring to the continuing dialog we are having on the decision making process itself. ie what form of consensus we will ultimately be using. i suppose with journalistic liberty it got scrunched into the consensus vote regarding the declaration. also i am upset to have been given the label spokesman which we all know i am not. especially after a significant conversation with the reporter on the leaderless, horizontal participatory nature of this group. the media is continuing to learn of the wonderful nature of this movement of the people. they are lagging behind us. i suppose we will continue to educate them.

[denth]

I do not see the problem with the current system of consensus, and I question the motivations of those who wish to alter or reform it.

Henry Dent

[kirsteninmt]

Oct 25, 2011 8:11:14 GMT -7 @mjewell said:

This is to comment on how best to to reduce risk to future 11-year-olds as #om moves forward.

So --- in sum --- I think that the main change #om should adopt is to begin making democratcally legitimate decisions based on a supermajority for core issues and a standard majority for routine decisions.

I'm not following. Specifically how would adopting this change reduce risk to future 11-year-olds as #om moves forward? What specific proposal that would have prevented the recent incident was blocked due to the procedure currently in place?

[Debby]

((((POST REMOVED BY AUTHOR)))))))) Just not feeling like I am making a good contribution with my words... learning ....

sorry!

[johnmak]

i think that this new workgroup monte is putting together sounds interesting. without knowing much about it, it looks as though there is potential to actually broaden our base and seek out allies to this cause, or movement. think sustainability. think increased participation and education. i don't believe the consensus model aspect of this group is the focal point.

[kirsteninmt]

Oct 25, 2011 8:11:14 GMT -7 @mjewell said:

And there are signs and messages and actions associated with #om every day at the camp and on-line which, in my opinion, are counter-productive at best and sometimes bordering on fascistic --- and which never received consensus approval.

Another quick couple of questiosn here, Monte. What are specific examples of signs and messages and actions which you think are problematic, and how would your proposed changes to the decision-making process reign them in?

[bike4ethel]

Responses to Henry, Deborah, Kirsten --
Henry, a remark about "question their motivations" is negative and divisive and manipulative. I question your motivation in making it. (Do you see what I mean?)
Deborah, I don't understand your negativity towards Monte's ideas. As far as consensus goes, where's the consensus if small groups are making decisions, as you suggest they can? As a member of the Declaration working group I tried to get drafts out to people to be able to comment so that when we came to GA with a proposed draft, it might make it through consensus. Direct Action group, logistics, all seem to bring their work to GA for approval. Some people feel there's no room within the GA structure to get down to the kind of deeper discussion about how we can function better to reach out more to the community. A few people had to take the first steps to organize the first GA, and some, or maybe most, have stayed on and are perceived as leaders because they facilitate or do important work in communications and technology.
In whatever groups I've been in, when I mention Occupy Missoula people are supportive and wonder what they can do to support us. Seems to me the main thing we need to do is educate and activate the majority of the 99% who are doing nothing or are even against the Occupation idea because they don't understand. I may be wrong, but I think that's the point of what Monte's proposing. I would expect the group, by consensus OR super-majority vote, would decide what kind of organization they want to use.
At the first GA I attended, Jay organized the "development" group around the idea of study groups, and we came up with a list of 15 or 20 subjects individuals thought would be good. Have any of those groups been formed? Monte is simply taking the initative to try to form a work group that would look at how we can best support the movement. I can't imagine it in any way would be "outside" when he has invited all he can to join.
Finally, a note to Kirsten (I think that's right) -- you're referring to Monte's original post which is so long ago it's hard to even relate it except to say that MAYBE, if we had operated with a plan less time-consuming than consensus, we might have made some decisions that would have made the encampment safer and more inviting to the public. Meanwhile, many improvements have been, and are being, made. Still, some of us would like to reopen the subject of an end date or look at alternatives for continuing the Occupation. Maybe we would discuss that in a smaller group and then bring some proposals to the larger. But again -- suppose only 30 people are at the GA when an end date or an alternative is proposed. Consensus? It's really difficult when the makeup of the GA changes drastically from meeting to meeting.