• • Home
  • Contact Us
• Homes for Sale
  • Homes Available
  • Site Plan
  • 3 BR Interior Townhouse
  • 3 BR End Townhouse
  • 2 BR Upper Flat
• Living in Community
  • What is Cohousing?
  • Scheduled Events
  • Resident Profiles
  • Making Decisions
  • Mission & Vision
• Our Old-Fashioned Neighborhood
  • About Lawrence
  • Where is DSC?
  • Surrounding Community
• Telling Our Story
  • In the news
  • Professionals
  • Community History
  • Construction History Blog
  • Construction Photos (3000+)

Decision-Making Agreement

Adopted by Lawrence Cohousing on July 1, 2000.

Quorum

All decision-making requires that a quorum of the community be present. A quorum is no fewer than 50% of the member households.

Consensus

Consensus is the method we favor above all others for community decision-making. With this method a decision is reached when: 1) everyone is heard, and 2) all members either agree that a proposal is in the best interest of the group or agree to accept it and help implement it. We respect everyone's opinions and wisdom and only make decisions after everyone can say, "Whether I am in complete agreement or not, I feel I have been heard and the decision appears to be in the best interest of the community, so I will accept it and participate in its implementation."

Consensus is different from other kinds of decision-making because it stresses the community's perspective and employs the cooperative, problem-solving development of a decision. Since the goal is group unity rather than winning a majority of votes, every member is considered important and the group tries to listen to and respond to each person's opinions. Because it incorporates all members' wisdom, consensus results in better decisions.

Although reaching consensus can often take more time initially than other forms of decision-making, the decisions will be better implemented because all members own the decision. There will be less time required to "fix" poorly implemented decisions.

Members may "stand in the way" of a decision they believe is seriously wrong for the group (not because they personally disagree with it). A decision to stand in the way must be taken very seriously by all members. Any members unwilling to support or accept an emerging decision are asked to explain why. They are asked to clearly state their concerns and the group listens. (The purpose is to understand, not to win over or coerce.) The dissenters and the rest of the group must work together to modify the decision and/or to help the dissenters come to terms with concerns. Consensus is sought using some or all of these steps (some may be repeated):

1. The proposal is modified (maintaining community perspective).
2. Members break into small groups to reconsider the issue.
3. A break is taken for pondering the issue and/or for gathering more information.
4. The pending decision is postponed until the next meeting (after attempting consensus).
5. The dissenting members are asked to more fully explain their position.
6. The dissenting members are asked if they are willing to "step aside" and not impede consensus (always precedes the implementation of an alternative decision-making method).

Although resolution is sought using consensus, "urgency" or "impasse" conditions may exist or arise, calling for alternative decision-making methods (see below).

Alternative Methods

Although consensus is the method we favor, for some decisions alternative methods will be appropriate or necessary. The conditions listed below must be met before the related alternative method may be used. Note: Except for color selection, cohousing communities rarely use alternative decision-making methods.

Alternative Decision-making Methods

Method	Typical Use	Conditions for Use	Implementation
Delegated Subgroup Consensus	when larger group participation is not required	group agreement (verified by implementation)	by group consensus
Delegated Individual	when group or subgroup participation is not required	group agreement (verified by implementation)	by group consensus
Super-majority Vote (requires a min. 75% majority)	when member(s) stand in the way and consensus methods are exhausted	urgency (determined by implementation)	by a requested and 75% majority vote
		impasse: after two postponements	required by consensus failure
Simple Majority Vote (requires a min. 51% majority)	example: aesthetic decisions like color selection	no proposal "best meets the needs of the community" (by implementation)	by group consensus

Changing Decisions

We respect the wisdom of our decisions, especially those where the group reasoning that led to the decision may have been largely forgotten. Therefore, any decision-making that may change a previous decision or its effect on the community must begin with a review of the previous decision.