HOW ARE DECISIONS MADE AT TVC?

TVC has a condominium legal structure. All decisions are made by the members. We use a process called, "Formal Consensus" in order to meet all members' needs and most of their desires. Below is a description of the formal consensus process.

CONSENSUS DECISION-MAKING(1)

Consensus is both a decision-making process and a product (a decision). The process is one in which:

• Everyone is respected and all contributions are valued.
• One proposal is considered at a time.
• People who do not agree with a proposal are responsible for expressing their concerns.
• Everyone listens to others' concerns and in turn feels their concerns were heard and understood by others in the group.

Based on these guidelines, everyone works to improve the proposal to make it the best
decision for the group It is not the choice of the individual alone to determine if a concern prevents the proposal from being adopted. The group must consider whether the concerns is based on the commonly held values of the group and whether it is in the best interest of the group as a whole.

This process results in a decision that is acceptable to all even if it is not totally satisfactory.
Consensus is 100% consent, not necessarily 100% agreement.

The consensus process may or may not involve conflict and conflict resolution. However, it works best when conflict is dealt with openly and resolved cooperatively with respect, nonviolence, and creativity.

CONFLICT

Thomas Kilmann states that a conflict occurs when one or more members of a group feels that their interests or concerns are threatened.

WIN-WIN CONFLICT RESOLUTION (2)

There are four basic principles of win-win conflict resolution:

1. Focus on interests, not positions.
2. Separate the people from the problem.
3. Invent options for mutual gain.
4. Use objective criteria to choose an option.

The following describes each principle in more detail:

1. Focus on interests, not positions.

Determine what is important for all parties. Interests are at the heart of every conflict. They
define the problems and are composed of the needs, desires, and concerns which motivate
people.

Positions are things you have decided upon; they are your demands. Avoid taking
positions. It is easy to get locked into them, and focusing on them can escalate the
conflict.

The advantage of reconciling interests rather than positions is that every interest has
several positions that can satisfy it. People often adopt the most obvious position, but when
you look for the interest behind opposed positions, you can usually find alternative
positions which address all parties' interests.

2. Separate the people from the problem.

Everyone has substantive interests, and also has an interest in the relationship with others.
The problem is that the relationship tends to become entangled with the substantive
problems. One reason is that people often make assumptions about others' intentions and
attitudes toward them, based on comments about substance, e.g., "Smith disagrees with
me on this. I know he is out to get me."

Positional bargaining tends to put relationship and substance in conflict because it frames
a conflict as a contest of will over position. Deal with the people problems directly. Don't try to solve them with substantive concessions.

Where perceptions are inaccurate, look for ways to educate.

If emotions are high, find ways for each person involved to let off steam. Where misunderstanding exists, work to improve communication. Face the problem, not the people. Think of yourself as partners with others in a hardheaded, side-by-side search for a fair agreement advantageous to all.

3.Invent options for mutual gain.

Identify a range of solutions. Do NOT assume there are only two possibilities.

4. Use objective criteria to choose an option.

Examples of criteria are:

• precedent
• scientific judgment
• professional standards
• policy
• efficiency
• costs
• moral standards
• equal treatment
• tradition
• reciprocity, etc.

Frame each issue as a joint search for objective criteria. For example, say, " Look, you
want X and I want Y. Let's figure out what a resolution would be.Reason and be open to reason.

Come to the table with an open mind. Insisting on objective criteria does not mean insisting that it be based solely on the criterion you advance. One standard of legitimacy does not preclude the existence of others. When people are advancing different criteria, look for an objective basis for deciding between them, such as which criteria is more frequently applied by similar groups.

If, after a thorough discussion of the merits of an issue, you still cannot agree to a
criteria, you might agree on someone you all regard as fair and give him or her a list
of the proposed criteria. Ask the person to decide which are the fairest proposed
criteria.

Never yield to pressure. Pressure can take many forms: a threat, a manipulative
appeal to trust, or a simple refusal to budge. In all these cases, the principled
response is the same:

• invite others to state their reasoning
• suggest objective criteria you think apply
• and refuse to budge except on this basis.
  

1. Adapted from C.T. Lawrence Butler and Amy Rothstein. On Conflict and Consensus: A
Handbook on Formal Consensus Decisionmaking. Portland, ME: Food Not Bombs
Publishing, 1987.

2. Roger Fisher, William Ury, and Bruce Patton. Getting to Yes: Negotiating Agreement
Without Giving In. NY: Penguin Books, Inc., 1991