Plenary Notes – Morning Session 12/11/05 (Sunday)

Notetaker: Adrienne Prince (if you have a check floating around you can mail it to me at 360 Landing Cove, Camarillo CA 93012!!)

Timekeeper: Kenny Mostern Vibes: Gloria Purcell, Jo Chamberlain

Facilitators: Erika McDonald, Barry Hermanson Stack: Tim Smith

9:25am

Decision item: Voting Threshold (Bylaws) 45min.

Presenters: Cat Woods, Marybeth Weurthner, Forrest Hill

Trying to limit question/concern/affirmation speakers to 1 minute each today.

Cat: When consensus fails; different states make decisions using lower thresholds than CA’s 80%.

“This system is a bastardation of the intentions of consensus…and leads a minority to dominate the majority.” “Small minorities block decisions.”

Proposal: To allow the party to move forward by lowering the voting threshold to 2/3.

Emotional attachment, not rational objections, block things from going forward.

Myths about consensus and voting. Supermajorities make NO votes 4X as powerful as YES.

Minority views are best represented by proportion representation, ease of bringing items, reports.

Purges, obstructionism often result from high voting thresholds. Less flexibility, democracy.

Forrest: Getting things done. High threshold leads to less productivity, “spinning our wheels.”

He prefers 50% threshold.

Clarifying Questions:

1. Gloria Purcell: define “minority” vs. ethnic minority

2. Jim Staufford: is this proposal abandoning the quest for simple majority voting?

3. Greg Jann: did presenters look at history of decision to go with 80%?

4. Michael Borenstein: why do presenters refer to other states when these states have been lambasted for bad process? More historical context needed.

5. Paul Encimer: did you restudy and analyze process used at actual plenaries.
6. Zach Beatty: I’m persuadable; is there an inconsistency between presenters’ assertions regarding consensus/majority rule?

Presenters Respond:

Cat: supermajority thresholds stifle minority groups who want to move forward; empower minorities who want to block. All presenters prefer simple majority threshold; Amendment has been presented for 80% on 10 KV. There has been dialogue and new solutions in the development of this. 2/3 looks like a good compromise. In the long-term there may be a desire to define times that come to light when a simple majority would be most appropriate. Purely consensus groups can be dysfunctional when excessive blocking occurs. Proposed measure would resolve

Concerns/Affirmations: (large number may limit time to 30 secs.)

1. Craig: Bylaws and 10KV need supermajority; friendly amendment for such.

2. : Local group decided not to lower threshold; a purge can be helpful

3. Bill Myers: prefers 80%; usual reason for failure is not enough consensus, presentation, compromise.

4. Gloria Purcell: their local prefers to strengthen consensus process

5. Michael: gamesmanship of 80%. Eliminates LA county’s veto power

6. Greg Jann: formal evaluation after 2 years; friendly amendment

7. : Many problems in consensus process can be fixed

8. Michael Borenstein: more resources for consensus culture (twinkles) instead of bylaws/thresholds.

9. Jim Stauffer: this proposal is one-sided, makes unsubstantiated claims.

10. : There’s not enough of listening as it is

11. Kamran Alavi: Consensus process is great but supports this proposal

12. Don Eichelberger: How can we make consensus process work better and get over gratuitious blocking.

13. Laura Wells: Consensus cultures had more time to work. Workshop process gets proposals in shape for presentation (twinkles)

14. Chuck Easy?: simple majority could repeal supermajority decisions; unfair

15. : things like 10 KV need consensus purely.

16. : Presenters aren’t giving consensus enough chance.

17. Chris Wold: a professional parliamentarian; prefers consensus. Proposes 75% for synergy.

18. Paul Encimer: Don’t kid yourself; this would change our culture.

19. Gerry Gras: still supports 80% because it yields better proposals/results.

20. : supports measure; as a capitol worker, he sees blockage and resistance

21. Kaycee Curry: let’s look to latin and south america’s movements to sympathise and relate.

Request: Please let some speakers speak longer/more slowly.

Friendly amendments: (5 min from lunch):

1. 10KV to 80% but not bylaws.

2. To amend to a threshold of below 2/3 will need 80% threshold to pass

3. 2 year evaluation period. Revisit at Winter plenary of 2008 need 80% to renew or sunsets.

4. Use language to improve/strengthen consensus process. Cultural study and learning.

Test for consensus did not succeed; Goes to vote that needs 80%. Time issue; 3 min to call a vote.

Point of process asks for it to withdraw and postpone. (the usual crisis and louder voices prevail.)

Vote: YES: 31 NO: 24 ABSTAIN: 5

Proposal fails; (please note that if abstentions were allowed to re-vote proposal would have gained 2/3 of vote!)

Decision item: Abstention Anomaly – Bylaws

Presenters: Jonathan Lundell, Jim Staufford

Jonathan: Proposal (note that there is no IRV vote) Very detailed language

Trying to get a sense of the room: choice of 2 possibilities.

“Abstentions are not calculated. If 20% or more abstain, the proposal fails.”

The spirit behind abstention is different than the results in practice.

Gives arithmetic examples.

We have 2 options to fix this: a. to remove language saying abstentions aren’t counted.

b. calculate quorum, base vote on 2/3 of quorum to affirm.

Jim: Clarification of proposal “b”; he opposes – lowers the vote to affirm too drastically

Minimum number of yes votes can be ascertained. Elegant solution; gives abstention test but

removes abstention anomaly. Defines minimum voting pool.

Jonathan: Weird effect of abstentions occurs in smaller voting groups, such as the CC.

Clarifying Questions
1. Susan: do abstentions count toward total votes?

2. O’Keefe: explain language that would be changed under a

3. Zac: some historical/background would be helpful.

4. Jean Brashear: under b, would abstentions effectively count as No?

5. Michael Borenstein: if this passes today, will we be using it for the rest of afternoon? What about changing language to “usable if feasible.”

6. Paul E.: perhaps there is a fundamental misunderstanding about what abstention is?

Responses:

Jonathan: Removed language would be the 20%. Background: consensus concerns standing aside is like minimum passing votes. The “Where possible” phrase will remain.

Jim: Abstentions as 20% of all delegates. Bylaws don’t fully define abstentions. People abstain due to various reasons – I’m stepping back and don’t want to affect the decision. The effect of modifying current

Concerns/Affirmations (10 min. taken from lunch)

1. Michael Feinstein: supports option b because it prevents “gaming the system.”

2. Jean Brashear: suggests 1/3 abstentions make a failure.

3. Bruce Wold: Need to work with our consensus dialogue

4. Adrienne: More dialogue before moving to vote; let abstentions re-vote

5. Larry Mullen:

6. Jo Chamberlain

7. Don: a stand-aside was originally considered lukewarm consensus.

8. Thanks to presenters for their clarifications; support of options a/and or b.

9. Cat: option a; amend to 1/3 or lower than lowest voting threshold.

10. Craig Peterson: consensus, abstentions feel they don’t understand issue; option b helps this

11. Gerry Gras: supports option b

12. Paul Encimer: not broke, don’t fix it.

13. Randy Hicks: “”

14. Zac Beatty: Gaming does happen; thanks for this; option b has too much math. Try the simple step of not including abstentions in %.

Replies:

Jim: Supporting option A means: 90% could abstain and yet 1 or 2 people could make the decision. That seems dangerous.

Jonathan: Let’s test for consensus on option B. I agree with argument for A but B could be effective with a minimal change. We can always work on this in the future. This couldn’t hurt.

Point of Process: Outstanding concerns who do/ don’t stand aside must be recorded in notes.

Proposal for approval of B does pass by consensus.