Reaching Consensus – Gradients of Agreement

In an ideal world, Central Committees should aim for a fair and respectful decision-making process that results in group consensus on the issues that come before its members.

A vote usually leaves someone feeling aggrieved if they are in the minority. But consensus is sometimes time-consuming and is overlooked in the desire for efficiency in running a meeting. The following notes could well be helpful for Chairs trying to achieve a good working relationship with all members on the committee.

Consensus is defined as general agreement with “enough group solidarity/agreement that the group can move forward”. Participation in a consensus process implies that all members are engaging in good faith discussions and are searching for an accommodation of interests.

All members recognize the legitimacy of the interests and ideas of other members. It is understood that there may be disagreements on the issues under discussion and that members will always be respectful of one another’s ideas and opinions. The facilitator will ensure that everyone has the opportunity to share their opinion. A show of hands may be used for simple decisions or where there does not seem to be much differences of opinion. In any situation where the show of hands is or will not be effective a more formal, structured process as defined below will be used.

This modified consensual decision-making model employs a tool called “Gradients of Agreement” which is used to poll group support along a five-point continuum from “Endorse to Oppose”. The designated facilitator then ascertains whether there is sufficient consensus within the group for the decision to be finalized, or if it needs to be discussed further. The gradients are as follows:

Endorse
Agree with reservations
Mixed feelings
Don’t like, but won’t block/willing to live with
Oppose

If, after discussion, it is clear that general agreement by all members using the Gradients of Agreement method is not possible, the facilitator will ask for a formal vote in which the majority opinion will carry. In order to preserve the goal of having as many people in agreement as possible, and still giving those who disagree the chance to express their disagreement without blocking progress, a supermajority threshold of 75% can be used.

The objective of avoiding a sense of winners and losers could well help to improve Committee relationships and in the long run, improve the efficient running of meetings. It’s worth a try!

What Exactly is a Proxy Vote?

In a recent CDP Convention Pre-Primary Endorsement Caucus process there was at least one occasion where a proxy vote was used by a delegate to endorse a candidate not supported by the person giving his proxy. This was unfortunate and partly the fault of the delegate who did not explain how the vote would be used and partly the fault of the proxy-giver for not asking. Either way, it seems that consideration should be given by the Rules Committee to a tightening up of the process.

Wikipedia definitions: Proxy voting is the delegation to another member of a voting body of that member’s power to vote in his absence. Proxy appointments can be used to form a voting bloc that can exercise greater influence in deliberations or negotiations. A person so designated is called a “proxy” and the person designating him is called a “principal.”

Proxy voting is automatically prohibited in organizations that have adopted Robert’s Rules of Order or The Standard Code of Parliamentary Procedure as their parliamentary authority, unless it is provided for in its bylaws or charter or required by the laws of its state of incorporation.

Riddick’s Rules (Riddick’s Rules of Procedure is a manual on parliamentary procedure written by Floyd M. Riddick. based on Riddick’s experience as parliamentarian of the United States Senate as well as the procedures of assemblies using parliamentary manuals such as Robert’s Rules of Order) notes that under proxy voting, voting for officers should be done by ballot, citing the difficulties involved in authentication if a member simply calls out, “I cast seventeen votes for Mr. X.”

While Riddick opines that “proxy voting properly belongs in incorporate organizations that deal with stocks or real estate, and in certain political organizations,” it also states, “If a state empowers an incorporated organization to use proxy voting, that right cannot be denied in the bylaws.” Riddick further opines, “Proxy voting is not recommended for ordinary use. It can discourage attendance, and transfers an inalienable right to another without positive assurance that the vote has not been manipulated.”

Riddick’s Rules seems to ban delegated voting, noting, “Proxy votes are non-transferable, containing the name of the member transferring the proxy, the person to whom the proxy is granted, and the name of the person for whom he wishes the vote to be cast or the opinion desired by the transferring member.”

US Senate definition of proxy voting – The practice of allowing a Senator to cast a vote in committee for an absent Senator. Senate Rule XXVI provides that proxies may not be voted when the absent Senator has not been informed of the matter on which he is being recorded and has not requested that he be so recorded.

Your ideas are welcomed and suggestions for improving the process of proxy voting can be forwarded to Gary Shay, Rules Committee at gss1@aol.com.