Kia ora koutou Below is a summary of the topics we touched on when we spoke to Rowena of Sunward Cohousing. Attached are their mediation policy and copies of relevant decisions from their "Book of Agreements". *Cathy Angell from Earthsong has offered to have a zoom with any of our group who are interested in quizzing her on the same sort of questions - "how to avoid division". Our small self-selected group will now be known as the "Getting Along" group (GAG!) and we will let you know as soon as we've agreed a zoom time with Cathy.*

*Governance at Sunward CoHousing, Ann Arbour, Michigan*

We started the community with consensus unanimity – ie decisions must be unanimous but we allowed up to 2 “standasides” (equivalent of our orange cards). If there were 3 or more standasides the policy would need to come to another meeting

After many years we had slowed down so much it felt like we’d ground to a halt. There were difficult patterns entrenched. As long as people can block a decision, it allows the situation where you have people who don’t go to any of the meetings to have input into the policy, but turn up to the final meeting and block it. Groups would put off presenting policy, because they knew that it would be blocked at the full meeting.

We sought outside help and did a workshop with Tim Hartnett (who is highly recommended) https://www.consensusdecisionmaking.org/ . From this work we caught the idea of a consensus building process rather than consensus requirement. Now we work towards consensus, but when it is time to call for decision then rule is …. And your community can choose whatever; unanimity, or 90% or whatever you choose. For us we had unanimity, but now we have 66% required for the ordinary decision-making process. If we end up having to vote (after attempts to reach consensus, run expertly by their specialist facilitators have been unsuccessful), those who vote against the policy are invited to give a succinct statement of the reasons for their opposition – and that statement is recorded alongside the ‘passed’ minute.

*We operate a number of committees; which include*

· Coordinating committee (responsible for maintaining panoramic view of community life)

· Board of directors (our legal and financial team – they’re a nimble group who interact with outside agencies as required)

· Budget team (they develop annual budget and each year take community through process of building and approving it)

· Buildings and infrastructure

· Common house committee

· Land use committee

· Membership committee

· Work committee

· Facilitator guild

· Mediator guild

All committees report back to whole group. Whole community meets monthly.

Ideally the larger community gives empowerment to the more specialised committee, delegating authority to that group, and this has happened in many cases (recorded in our book of agreements) however for some committees it hasn’t when it probably would be easier if it had, so they operate with status quo.

*Toiora people asked for more detail about three of these groups:*

*Work committee *

We’ve been through a whole variety of different approaches. First when we started we said every adult will give 10 hours of work a month, but we soon realised that was too much. We came down to 4 hours adult give per month. We then tried a move to a credit system because some work can be more challenging, so maybe should be given higher value. Now we are on another iteration looking at carrot vs the stick. Under every system you have people who don’t do it and how shall we respond? We’ve been together a while now and it is the same people. Do you get all upset about it because it is not fair? Do you publish their names to shame? Do you have the work committee knock on their door each day to hassle them? At the moment we’ve decided to make our work parties so much fun, put on great food and all have get a lot of enjoyment out of it – using carrot rather than a stick. That’s been going for about two years now and maybe due for another look.

*Facilitator Guild*

These are the people who are willing to lead the community meetings. They learn about facilitation and gain skills but they need to have a basic orientation towards the role. For example they need to be an ally to everyone, be neutral and know when to stand aside if they’re not neutral.

They start with some basic tools eg knowing when and how to call for a decision, but as they gain more skills, they get more tools, for instance ability to take on a conflict management role during the meeting. They start the meeting by asking everyone if they agree to the agenda and the ground rules. Then they begin the first topic, manage the questions, ensure everyone is heard, notice if the emotional level is getting too high and people are getting so emotionally activated that they’re not thinking and can’t participate effectively.

Individuals will often go outside the community for training to get more skills in this area. The agenda items come to them from the groups such as the ones already listed.

*Mediator Guild*

The skill level of the mediator guild is higher than the facilitator guild. They can work at all levels; from a minor disagreement between two neighbours to a major split creating factions within the community. We initially started a mediator guild with self-selected voluntary membership, but that wasn’t effective. It is now our only elected group. That learning came from our outside trainer who talked to us about managing conflict.

Our mediator guild system grew from a community process. We had Tim Harnett in and did a bunch of work over the weekend, but that weekend group were not empowered to be decision making. That material was brought back, and we went through our usual decision making process to get it set up.

Our mediator guild is made up of 5 people. That gives us enough diversity so that everyone in the community has someone in the guild they feel comfortable approaching, but keeps the group small enough so that they can find a meeting time and work together easily.

*Election process*.

Two community members who do not wish to serve as mediators are chosen to run the ballot. It is critical that they promise to run the process and keep all information confidential (because there is the potential for people to get feelings hurt if voting results are leaked. The poll could be seen as a popularity contest.)

These two prepare ballot with all adult residents other than themselves. On the ballot papers all community members are asked to check the names of all any people who you feel comfortable doing mediation. Prior to this going out, the group meeting will have collaboratively identified the skills that would be needed for a mediator, and people know it is coming up so that if someone wants to be a mediator, they can indicate that well before the voting.

The ballots get distributed and collected by the team of two. They tally them and approach the person who got most votes to ask if they would be willing to be a mediator. If they say yes, they are then shown the next name or two on the list and asked “Would you be comfortable serving with that person?” so they have chance to decline and go down to the next person. If the first person is happy with the next-highest scoring person, the ballot team then approaches that next person to ask if they would be happy to serve with the first person picked, and so on. A new election is held every two years.

Our book of agreements has policy for conflict resolution*. For example at the first level, if you have a disagreement with someone you could work it out yourself and live with it, or if that doesn’t work you could talk directly to the person involve, or at next level you could go seek trusted counsel with a friend to get feedback and prepare yourself for conversation …. And so on … if it gets to higher levels then the policy is to involve the mediator guild.

The mediator team is on reserve for when their help with conflict is requested. Our community agreement specifically tells us ways to work on conflict resolution and to use a mediator when needed. However sometimes in the muck of a conflict, when you lack trust in a person, you might not reach out. If the conflict is harmful to the community the guild may be proactive and reach out. They would meet and ask “what conflicts are in the community?”

Initially training for the guild was provided by a member of our community who was about to move out. Our neighbour-consultant was a facilitator at the university and it was brilliant to be able to use him because a lot of available mediation training is very specific, eg couples, business, families. As time has gone on, we have developed a lot of institutional memory. The people in the group are so remarkable that we are always building skills by working together. There are no exact roadmap or details of how meditation will work. It’s more of a toolkit that is available.

We have no idea how often the guild is called upon. It is so secret! The guild is a steel trap. Nothing gets passed on! There have been times when part of the mediation process has been making a statement for the community to let them know how something has been resolved, but that is only done with permission from everyone involved.

There have been a couple of occasions where we have gone for an outside mediator. Normally the people in the group identify a couple of mediators who have the available time and the right relationship with the people involved. However sometimes we have found that there is no one trusted enough in the mediator guild, so outside mediation is the next option.

*Rowena kindly forwarded this policy, perhaps inadvertently, to the whole UCOL group. I’ve attached it again to this email.