[New-imc] Consensus, Conflict, Obstructionism

[freedom]

Summary:
Beginning a discussion about how to deal with conflict and obstructionism.

If Indymedia fails to deal with process questions until there is a crisis, it
could spell the end to Indymedia.  Several individual IMCs have experienced
fractures.  Concern is warranted.

People's greatest concern about consensus decision-making is obstructionism.
The purpose of this posting is to begin a discussion of how to deal with the
connected issues of obstructionism and removing someone from a group.

Consensus is inherently conservative.
How a group defines itself, its mission, and it's decision making process and
procedures at the beginning is very important because it is difficult to
reach consensus to make changes later.  This is something that is very
important for new-imc to address with imc applicants.  An adequate foundation
goes a long way toward mitigating concerns about obstructionism, and provides
mechanisms for dealing with conflict when conflict arises as it inevitably
will.

Banning / removing individual from an imc, working group, or list:
In my opinion there has been too much loose talk about removing people from
lists, working groups, and IMC's.  This kind of talk, along with personal
attacks, has the effect of silencing important dissident views.  People have
already stated their reluctance to speak up.  Furthermore, people we most
need to hear from are silent, and we are not hearing from them.  The calls
for banning this person or that person may come from legitimate fears about
obstructionism, but the response to ban people creates more problems than it
solves.

Conceding that an individual's behavior may be so egregious that removal from
an imc, working group, or list is required, I propose that no group be able
to independently remove one of its members.  I believe that to consider
removing a person from a group that person's behavior must be so obviously
egregious that a deliberative body (neutral to the group, issues, and
individuals involved) would immediately reach consensus on the need to remove
the individual from the group.  (Of course, lists and working groups could at
any time contact the imc the individual is from and ask the imc to remove the
person.)

Defining blocks:
A block is not an expression of mere objection.  A block must rise to the
level of strong moral conviction about the issue; it must be about core
values and/or mission of the group.

Some issues are not blockable.  I was recently asked by several frustrated
members of a local peace group about how to deal with a situation created
when an individual blocked a motion to use three workshop presentation spaces
rather than the five she/he was proposing.   I explained that no block was
possible.  The group's will was clear, so there was no grounds to block on
the basis that there was no clear will of the group.  The issue itself, and
no part of the issue itself, (three versus five rooms) was blockable.
His/her block was actually only an opinion, and had no grounds on which to
rise to the level of a block.  His/her opinion was not convincing to the
group, and should not have carried the day because the group's will was
clear, to use three rooms.

In a group where there is a high degree of mutual respect, a strong objection
will receive serious consideration whether or not it rises to the level of a
block.  Likewise strong support will receive serious consideration.

When conflict or obstructionism occurs:
I have argued on this list that consensus with a fall back to majority rule
(whether it is 2/3, 3/4, 4/5,or other) is not consensus, but rather majority
rule with a condescending nod toward consensus.  I have offered other
possibilities for dealing with obstructionism that I believe are more
appropriate than resorting to majority rule.  John Windmueller has
corresponded with me about my proposals and how to create a fall back to
majority rule that is compatible with the principles of consensus. (John's
comments are quoted below.) Besides what John says about it, I'll note that
the harder it is to resort to voting, and the higher the required majority
(4/5, 6/7, 7/8), the more true to the principles of consensus the situation
will remain.  If resorting to majority rule automatically and immediately
happens when consensus is not reached, then that is simply majority rule.

Whether voting with the sorts of modifications John and I have suggested is a
reasonable modification of consensus, or not, I am still evaluating.  I will
be interested in hearing how people compare that to resorting to an
arbitration body when conflict is beyond a group's ability to deal with
through normal consensus procedures.  There may be other ideas for dealing
with conflict in consensus situations, and I would like to see them presented
on this list.  This is an issue we must come to grips with.  Soon.  Several
IMCs are experiencing serious conflict.

Excerpts, with minor editing for clarity, of what John W. wrote to me:

I don’t think it’s a coincidence that the larger and older IMC collectives
 are starting to shift toward adopting more formal consensus process models
 and conflict resolution policies, and I think other growing collectives and
 the global network as a whole will eventually (again, I hope) follow suit in
 their own unique ways.  The DC IMC is in the midst of shifting to a
cooperative model, with a meaningful notion of membership based on
participation, a defined decision making process, conflict resolution policy,
and everything from space guidelines to an internship policy, etc..  And I
think that helps.

My own view is that the (Indymedia) documents are helpful for IMC's, but for
larger IMC's an additional formal and defined process (which Randy Schutt
alludes to) is also useful.  Actually, I think a hybrid of Schutt's and CT
Butler's (who Schutt references) writings on consensus would be about
perfect.  Schutt does a great job of explaining the many core aspects of
consensus that are beyond just a formal process, but CT Butler's formal
consensus process--or similar ones--also seems vital for large group
deliberation and decision making.
Neither author does enough with conflict resolution.

[In response to my suggestion that there could be an arbitration body/working
group (probably regional bodies) to which irresolvable conflicts would be
referred to and with the power to resolve the conflict John responded: ]
But I think having a good formal process is just a necessary start, not an
answer.  I think there also needs to be some real skill building around
theIMC network in consensus and conflict resolution skills.  Having a
mediation policy, for example, is a fine idea.  But if you don’t have any
folks with some skills training in conflict resolution (and ideally the
people in conflict having some skills themselves), then the process might not
be all that helpful—or at least not nearly as helpful as it could be.  The
same is true with consensus, requiring or at least really benefiting from
facilitators and participants with some skills and experience with the
process.

I've seen a variety of mechanisms in secular groups practicing consensus that
allow for blocks to be overridden--sometimes in part through a vote--but that
still are very much in the spirit of consensus.  Going back to Schutt's
observation that consensus is far beyond just a specific process, the intent,
spirit, and purpose of how these blocks might be overcome are important to
consider.

For example:  Saying any block can immediately be overridden by a 2/3
 majority vote invites, as a process, a big departure from the spirit of
 consensus. But I've also seen very consensus-rooted decision making
 structures where, for example, a block can be overridden by a vote.  But
 that's not enough, the block needs to be given significant deliberation and
 time (never overridden at the same meeting for example), and often there's
 the requirement that the vote needs to be based on the mission or purpose of
 the group... For example, it's not enough that 4/5 or the group disagrees
 with the block... it's 4/5'ths seeing the block as being fundamentally out
 of line with the mission and stated principles of the organization

Links to materials John referred to are at:
http://www.vernalproject.org/RPapers.shtml#CoopDecMaking
http://www.consensus.net/flowchart.html
http://store.ic.org/products/democracy-in-small-groups.html

Consensus decision making is important for the same democratic principles,
 and principles of empowerment, as is Independent Media.  To the degree we
 improve our  knowledge, and skills at doing consensus and Independent media,
 and spread these concepts around the world, we change the world for the
 better.

Eric