{news} agenda 4/26/05 SCC meeting,part 2 of 2

[edubrule]

 Appendix 3  Proposal on event endorsement by the Executive Committee

     Green Party Meeting Proposal Form

PRESENTER:  2004-5 Executive Committee      

CONTACT:Elizabeth M. Brancato, 19 Smith Street, Torrington, CT  06790, embrancato at netzero.com

SUBJECT:  Event Endorsement by the Executive Committee                      

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE :  The Executive Committee has the authority to approve the endorsement of events when there is not time to bring the request for approval before the full SCC.  Most event endorsements are straightforward and not at all controversial.  SCC meetings often do not have quorum, and even when they have quorum, the agenda is full.  We believe that the time of the SCC would be better spent if the Executive Committee took on the task of approving routine endorsements.

 

PROPOSAL:  We propose that the Connecticut Green Party allow the Executive Committee to approve the endorsement of all events.  The EC will approve the endorsement if there is full consensus.  If the there is not full consensus, and there is time to put the endorsement before the SCC, it will be added to the agenda for the next meeting and will be discussed and decided-upon by the full SCC.  If there is not time to put the endorsement before the full SCC, a simple majority vote of the Executive Committee will prevail.

 

The Executive Committee will consider, and be directed by, the platform of the Green Party and the list of Allied Partners, when making its decision.

 

The Executive Committee will notify the membership, via a posting on the 'News' list serve, of the approval of any endorsement, within 48 hours of making that approval.

 

Any approval of the endorsement of an event may be reviewed at the next SCC meeting after the Executive Committee has granted the approval.

-------------------------------------------------------------

Appendix 4  Proposal on modified consensus process and facilitators

     Green Party Meeting Proposal Form

PRESENTER:  Green Party of CT Women's Caucus

CONTACT:  Justine McCabe, 860-354-9773; justinemccabe at earthlink.net

SUBJECT:

I) Training Green Party of CT facilitators in Modified Consensus Process*; educating Green Party of CT membership about Modified Consensus Process.

 

II) Responding to requests for facilitation by any member of any Green Party of CT committee; recommendation that facilitation be used by all Green Party of CT committees. 

 BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE:

 A hallmark of Green Parties worldwide is attention to the process by which decisions are made as well as to policies based on the 10 Key Values.  In other words, a significant part of the Green Party philosophy is expressed through our decision-making/discussion process at every level of organization.


Thus, a "Green" process seeks cooperation rather than competition; it attempts to sustain an interdependent company of empowered equals rather than reinforce hierarchical, and in many instances patriarchal, control by a few; and to transform not only deadening and unjust governmental policies but the deadening and overly hierarchical structures and relationships that sustain them.  To paraphrase Marshall McLuhan, "the policy is the process."

 

The group process that seems to best reflect a compromise between  this Green ethos and the expediency necessary to get things done, is "Modified Consensus Process" (MCP) rather than Robert's Rules of Order (RRO) that has been used for decades by groups like the Democratic and Republican Parties.  Again, in affirming MCP over RRO, Green Parties oppose the bias towards zero-sum decision-making (i.e., the gain of one is at the loss to another) inherent in RRO in favor of the more organic decision-making/discussion process characterizing MCP.  

 

In November 2001, the Green Party of CT (GPC) affirmed the use of MCP for facilitation of the meetings of its governing body, the State Central Committee (SCC). While the primary role of the MCP is facilitator, the process also calls for roles of stacker, timekeeper, and vibes watcher. However, since then, there have been difficulties finding GPC members who are familiar or trained in MCP facilitation.  As a result, some members more familiar with RRO have expressed the wish to revert back to RRO, in part because of its longstanding cultural familiarity in American group decision-making.

 

I) Thus, there is an identified need to provide education and training of GPC members in the roles comprising MCP--especially facilitators--for any GPC meetings, including of the SCC, Executive Committee (EC) and other GPC committees.       

 

II) Historically, the work of many non-facilitated GPC committees, notably small groups like the Executive Committee (EC), has been obstructed by inattention/non-adherence to process rules. Thus, requests for facilitation by any GPC committee member are constructive and should be honored.  

    

PROPOSAL:

 

TWO Parts: 

 

I) The GPC Women's Caucus proposes to organize ongoing training for facilitators and other roles comprising Modified Consensus Process, and to create a pool of male and female facilitators, stackers, timekeepers and vibes watchers from which GPC committees could draw. 

 

Such trainings would consist of two parts:

 

 a) One-day formal training sessions that would include instruction (pre-and post-tests), role-play and group discussion practice implementing basic elements/roles of Modified Consensus Process.  Training in MCP facilitation would be the primary focus with concomitant practice as stacker, timekeeper and vibes watcher as by-products.  Attendance and completion of training session requirements would then qualify GPC members as facilitator-stacker-timekeeper-vibes watcher "interns."    

 

b) Qualified facilitator "interns" would then be required to co-facilitate 3 meetings with an experienced "certified" GPC facilitator before becoming a "certified" facilitator and available as an independent facilitator for GPC meetings. 

 

II) That the request by any one member of a GPC committee for facilitation for that committee's meetings (including conference call and computer-based meetings), will be honored immediately (i.e., a facilitator will be provided by the next meeting of that committee); and that in the service of implementing the Green values of efficient use of resources (committee members' time, labor) as well as respect among members, facilitation of all GPC meetings, especially the EC, is strongly recommended by the SCC.        

  

*ADDENDUM:



I.  MODIFIED CONSENSUS PROCESS

 

Consensus Process Step By Step

1. Present proposal 

2. Clarifying questions 

3. List concerns & affirmations (may include general discussion) 

4. Seek to resolve concerns (including amending proposal) 

5. Test for consensus 

6. If concerns remain, are all willing to stand aside? 

7. If not, seek to resolve individual concerns one by one (time permitting): restate, clarify, discuss 

8. Test for consensus 

9. If unresolved concerns, are all willing to stand aside? 

10. If not, go to closing options: 

·       A. return proposal to committee/working group, or 

·       B. request additional time, or 

·       C. move to vote 

 

Presenting the Proposal

One or more presenters briefly explain the proposal to the group. Attention should be given to any aspects not covered in the written proposal, and to how the proposal furthers the interests and goals of the group. The proposal will be made available in writing to chapter representatives at least 72 hours in advance of the meeting; if possible, concerns and feedback should be communicated to the presenters prior to the meeting, so that the presenters can look for possible solutions in advance. 

Clarifying Questions

It is essential to consensus that everyone in the group understand the proposal in order to make an informed decision. For this reason, the facilitators will call for any 'clarifying questions' before any discussion or concerns. Generally, presenters answer questions, though anyone may offer a 'point of information'. Questions and answers should be brief and should not slide into argumentation. Some folks try to disguise concerns or opinions as clarifying questions; facilitators should ask these folks to hold their comments until later. It is important that all questions be dealt with before moving on. 

Concerns & Affirmations

Facilitators next call for concerns and affirmations. A concern is any objection or reservation about the proposal as currently stated, and may be based on personal views or values. Concerns should be briefly stated (and possibly scribed where all can see); concerns should not be repeated, except to state that "I share Carol's concern". Concerns may include suggested amendments or solutions to address the concern. 

Amending the proposal

Sometimes a concern can be addressed by modifying the proposal. Anyone may suggest such an amendment, usually during the 'concerns' period. The presenter(s) of the proposal may accept or reject any proposed friendly amendment. If accepted, exact wording of any amendments should be given to the notetaker, and read back before making a decision. 

Testing for consensus

Once all concerns are heard and addressed, the facilitators 'test for consensus' by asking if there are any unresolved concerns. If none exist, or if they are all willing to stand aside, then consensus is achieved and the proposal is accepted. 

Unresolved concerns ('blocking') & 'standing aside'

If concerns remain after group discussion and any attempts to amend proposal or otherwise address them, then these are considered 'unresolved concerns'. Those holding the concerns are asked if they are willing to 'stand aside'; that is, allow the group to move forward with the proposal, having heard and noted their concerns. Standing aside does not indicate agreement, or even a relinquishing of one's concern. It indicates that the person doing so recognizes that their concern is not so essential that passing the proposal would jeopardize the values, goals, or interests of the group. 

Closing options

If there remain unresolved concerns, presenters have three options: 

1. Ask for more plenary time to try to resolve outstanding concerns. 

2.  Refer proposal to committee or working group

3. Move to a vote. 



ground rules as last page
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://pairlist10.pair.net/mailman/private/ctgp-news/attachments/20050420/019d4b02/attachment.html>