Presentation of provisional decision making process agreed on in 2/4/16 meeting *
In the discussion as to how to improve the decision making process for PassMass the following items were suggested and agree to by everyone present, with the understanding that the agreement was provisional and that these ideas would be “tried on” by the group and modified as needed before a final decision to adopt them is reached.
There should be a set of “Agreements” for discussions at meeting. Group
will use the CDSC set until another is proposed.
Roles of facilitator, note taker and “coordinator of agenda” should
rotate among members.
Meetings will start with a “check-in” (how are you feeling today) and
“check-out” (how do you feel about this meeting)
Each meeting will set an agenda for the next meeting.
New items can be added by email. All requests to add a new item will be
Time will be set aside in each agenda for new items.
Agenda will note “items to decide” to alert people to the fact that a
decision may be made.
Responsibility for preparing the agenda will rotate.
Agenda will follow a set format (the specifics TBD).
The agenda will be reviewed and approved at the beginning of each meeting.
Items on the agenda will be discussed.
During this discussion proposals may be put forth. The initial proposal
should be put in writing for clarification, with a check for definition of
No decision will be made on any proposals until there has been a full and
Before making a decision there will be a check to see if the group feels
they have enough information.
If one or more members feel there is not enough information to bring the
issue to decision will be tabled until the next meeting At that point it
will be the responsibility of the Proposer *(or any interested party)* to
bring necessary information to the next meeting. *[If that information in
posted on line prior to the meeting, it is the responsibility of all
participants to read it before the meeting.]*
*Possibility of voting on line if decision needs to happen quickly - before
If all members affirm they are ready to make a decision the procedure will
be as follows:
The final version of the proposal will be put in writing so it is clear
to all what they are voting for.
Check for consensus (“Are there any objections.) If there is consensus
the proposal is passed. If there are objections discussion will continue.
Objectors will be asked to say what they would need to come to agreement.
This process will continue until there have been three checks for consensus.
NOTE: *Consensus means either (a) there are no objectors or (b) any
objectors agree to “stand aside” and this should be recorded in the minutes
of the meeting.*
If there is no consensus after 3 checks the issue will be sent to a
committee that will include the proposer, the objector and possibly one or
two other people *[TBD for each case?] *This committee will try to come
up with a proposal that is acceptable to all.
If the committee is not able to come up with a new proposal the group
will vote on the original proposal. The proposal will pass if 75% or more
of the voting members approve it.
If committee presents a new proposal it will be considered by the group
with up to three go-rounds of discussion followed by a check for consensus
If there is no consensus after 3 checks the issue will be put to a
vote. The proposal will pass if 75% of the members voting approve it. If
less that 75% approve, the measure will not pass.
The proposal as passed will be recorded in the minutes of the meeting.
*For item # 6. TBD - THINGS LEFT “TO BE DECIDED”*
The following suggestions came out of the brainstorm about a decision
making process but were not fully discussed or agreed upon. They were
marked “To Be Decided” at a later date - possibly the next meeting.
Remote decision making where possible.
The issue was raised of agreeing to vote (seek consensus) by email in
some situations where the group was close to a decision in the meeting, but
perhaps needed only a little information.
General membership votes on by-laws.
General membership votes on strategic plans.
Regional coordinators represent their regions in decision making process.
“Membership” should be based on 7 criteria which Terra outlined (*in an
email or on the Wiki?*}
Decisions will include noting who will do what to implement the
There will be a set time frame for implementing the proposals
Two similar suggestions were made: (1) There should be advance notice
of meetings and (2) There should be a calendar of meetings. The difference
seemed to relate to how far in advance. A related issue came up in the
discussion which was:
Core group meetings should be quarterly rather than monthly.
All quorum issues. Who is in the core group? What issues are decided by
core group and what by a larger group? How many voting members have to be
present at the meeting? Do they have to be at the meeting to vote? etc.
internal_-_notes_from_the_facilitated_meeting.txt · Last modified: 2018/07/23 11:48 (external edit)