This is from the September 2000 edition of the RadDisha mostly monthly newsletter of Nomenus, where amongst other things the minutes of the meetings are published.
The Sanctuary is selling a newly minted disk of all RadDish back issues now.
Here is where the now senior Caretaker Rabbit, then calling himself "Deadly Nightmare," closed the church doors after him.
I hope we can open this door back up.
Did You Notice We Changed Structure?
By Mugwort
This year's tiny Spring Great Circle left us with challenges to look at. But there's one decision in particular that ent by without much notice, and which is important! What may be the biggest organizational change in Nomenus'history was made by five people, without community discussion; many of us probably haven't noticed it's implications, since it sounds small at first.
Normally, I think you either make it to Great Circle or don't dish the decisions made there- weneed to delegate responsibility to the members who attend, and trust that they, by consensus, will discuss and arrive at policies that represent us well. Sometimes, however, this breaks down and mistakes are made, or process gets neglected in the heat of the moment. When these happen, the rest of us can and should speak up.
This particular case qualifies on both counts.
I'm not writing to trash the people involved, (in fact, I think the residential community is turning out nicely.) Everybody slips up occasionally, and all were in a difficult situation: with only one voting member (so I'm told) besides the four residents, and one of those heavily drugged after an injury, they were left alone to take the place of a circle of 20 or more. When stuck with a rump meeting, all you can do is try your best to deal with the situation.
In case you didn't read all 8 pages of minutes, item 12.d adopted the proposal:
"Caretakers are approved in Community On The Land Committee, per our usual consensus process and Great Circle will give half-yearly revues of the community, as a whole."
Why do I think this is a damaging decision we should reconsider?
This one sentence proposal drastically changed the structure of Nomenus: individual Caretakers are no longer approved by, or directly accountable to, the larger community.
Discussion about an ongoing or new Caretaker isn't even allowed at Great Circle, as I read the Raddish:
They're referred to the COTL, which means we can't hear and respond to each other; no general discussion. Great Circle's only participation is to "review" the community as a whole- which may be taken to mean we can comment,but don't have the power to say if thatresidential community gets renewed!
Many of us have tossed around the question of how to give the Residentsmore autonomy;
certainly, they should have the primary role in deciding who lives there. Butin this one-sentence proposal,autonomy went from zero to total. Regardless of whether the rest of us think a Caretaker is serving the tribe well, he can only be removed by a decision of the other Caretakers. I think that level of independence is inappropiate for Wolf Creek, which was bought with the donations (and bequests) of hundreds of faeries, and whose purpose is Gatherings first, then Retreats, and then a residential community.
There is a loophole: in theory, anybody can join the COTL to participate in the discussion and decision-making. COTL has always been a very small committee, which means it can't represent much of a cross-section of our active members. In fact, it's last non-resident member resigned this year, leaving just caretakers (and a candidate). In theory, you can show up at a meeting and give input; but to meaningfully participate in the committee, and certainly to have a decision-making role, it's necessary to show up every month, which few people can do.
Given the history of our first ten years, I think it's a breathtaking leap of faith to cut off any public discussion of, or Great Circle participation in, the bringing in or renewing of Caretakers.
Things are running smoothly now, but it hasn't always worked that way.
I believe the poor decision was partly a result of lax process; for several reasons, this item should have been deferred to the Fall Great Circle.If I'd been able to participate by phone, and had known the proposal was actually going forward (which I never dreamed would happen), I'd have opposed it for any one of these processproblems.
First of all, a rump meeting should only make the decisions that are unavoidable; although technically able (as a legally-constituted board meeting) to do whatever it wants within the bylaws, it doesn't have a genuine quorum to be able to represent the full community perspective. Deadly's proposal wasn't urgent; there could easily have been discussion and then a referral to the next, larger Great Circle.At most, it could have been an interim policy, to expire in the fall.
Similarly, the more important the decision, the more it needs to have community input, discussion, and reflection. You know how we like to talk things over! There've been topics discussed at a larger Great Circle and still deferred to the next one, so we could talk more among ourselves. This proposal appeared in the May RadDish
(aftr the disolution of inactive committees and clarification of food money on p.18). Submissions deadline for the next issue was seven days before Great Circle, leaving no chance for give-and -take.
Boards and voting groups usually have a conflict-of-interest policy, it's because no need was felt to formalize such matters. I think it's a widely-accepted principlethat a decision to give somebody money or power, for example, shouldn't be voted on by that person. By this standard, the Residents COTL might propose that we give them full autonomy, but then they should stand aside from the actual decision. At May's Great Circle, such stand-asides would have left exactly one voting member. And this for a major organizational shift which hadn't been widely discussed!
I do think the concerns behind Deadly's proposal are valid. I personallyhad the dubious pleasure of facilitating that lovely part of last Fall's meeting, when one member wanted to block Deadly's renewal out of anger at being told he couldn't extend his stay on the land;it took some minutes of hard work and anxiety before he was persuaded to stand aside.
Before this Great Circle came along and made it all moot,I'd been thinking about ways to address both this problem (which has come up only once in twelve years) and the broader "Star Chamber" effect.We could make it explicit that you shouldn't ask questions about somebody's private life ( like who on the land they've had sex with). Maybe create a new role for this part of the meeting, like a special type of vibes-watcher (you could call it "Advocate"): someone whose job it is to interrupt or challenge intrusive or hurtful questions, so the candidate doesn't have to. Change the renewal process so one person can't toss a Caretaker off the land.(I've long thought that was a lousy setup, very disempowering):
require that two people, or three, or 10% of those present are needed to not renew an existing resident. Last Fall , this would have avoided the whole trauma: we'd have listened to the member's complaints, heard he wanted to block, and asked if anybody else agreed. Clearly, none did.
There's the broader question of how to tell when it's time for a Caretaker to move on. We haven't figured that one out yet; to my knowledge, no resident has ever been formally asked to leave. Instead, it all happens in whispered conversations, and the long-standing pattern is for some Caretakers to stay long after their fire is spent, while others depart in a huff and leave everybody else in the lurch. (Some few actually leave at the right time, and with good feelings.)
I'd like to see us clarify the relationship between Caretakers and the rest of Nomenus.
What are their responsibilities? Who nominates or seeks out new residents? Can the residents be accountable to the tribe, and responsible for vital functions, without making them secretaries at the beck and call of any pushy queen?(It's happened.)
What do we ask of a Caretaker (In commitment and time), and what can we offer? Who sets priorities for what jobs will be done (for example the RadDish)?
How can concerns about a Caretaker be addressed? Do we want them to be permanent, or rotate out after a time?
Let's also think about how to make it possiblefor more of us to attend Wolf Creek Great Circles. Designate a carpool coordinator? Creat a fund for donations to cover participants who can't pay for the Green Tortoise? schedule Great Circle to be just before, or at the start of Beltane?(We could claim exclusive use of Garden House upstairs during those days.)
Borrow a speaker-phone that works, run a phone line to the meeting, and let a member ask to be called when a particular agenda item comes up? Get a trained facilitator for Fall Great Circle, so we get back in the habit of working quickly and smoothly.
What are yor thoughts?
The Sanctuary is selling a newly minted disk of all RadDish back issues now.
Here is where the now senior Caretaker Rabbit, then calling himself "Deadly Nightmare," closed the church doors after him.
I hope we can open this door back up.
Did You Notice We Changed Structure?
By Mugwort
This year's tiny Spring Great Circle left us with challenges to look at. But there's one decision in particular that ent by without much notice, and which is important! What may be the biggest organizational change in Nomenus'history was made by five people, without community discussion; many of us probably haven't noticed it's implications, since it sounds small at first.
Normally, I think you either make it to Great Circle or don't dish the decisions made there- weneed to delegate responsibility to the members who attend, and trust that they, by consensus, will discuss and arrive at policies that represent us well. Sometimes, however, this breaks down and mistakes are made, or process gets neglected in the heat of the moment. When these happen, the rest of us can and should speak up.
This particular case qualifies on both counts.
I'm not writing to trash the people involved, (in fact, I think the residential community is turning out nicely.) Everybody slips up occasionally, and all were in a difficult situation: with only one voting member (so I'm told) besides the four residents, and one of those heavily drugged after an injury, they were left alone to take the place of a circle of 20 or more. When stuck with a rump meeting, all you can do is try your best to deal with the situation.
In case you didn't read all 8 pages of minutes, item 12.d adopted the proposal:
"Caretakers are approved in Community On The Land Committee, per our usual consensus process and Great Circle will give half-yearly revues of the community, as a whole."
Why do I think this is a damaging decision we should reconsider?
This one sentence proposal drastically changed the structure of Nomenus: individual Caretakers are no longer approved by, or directly accountable to, the larger community.
Discussion about an ongoing or new Caretaker isn't even allowed at Great Circle, as I read the Raddish:
They're referred to the COTL, which means we can't hear and respond to each other; no general discussion. Great Circle's only participation is to "review" the community as a whole- which may be taken to mean we can comment,but don't have the power to say if thatresidential community gets renewed!
Many of us have tossed around the question of how to give the Residentsmore autonomy;
certainly, they should have the primary role in deciding who lives there. Butin this one-sentence proposal,autonomy went from zero to total. Regardless of whether the rest of us think a Caretaker is serving the tribe well, he can only be removed by a decision of the other Caretakers. I think that level of independence is inappropiate for Wolf Creek, which was bought with the donations (and bequests) of hundreds of faeries, and whose purpose is Gatherings first, then Retreats, and then a residential community.
There is a loophole: in theory, anybody can join the COTL to participate in the discussion and decision-making. COTL has always been a very small committee, which means it can't represent much of a cross-section of our active members. In fact, it's last non-resident member resigned this year, leaving just caretakers (and a candidate). In theory, you can show up at a meeting and give input; but to meaningfully participate in the committee, and certainly to have a decision-making role, it's necessary to show up every month, which few people can do.
Given the history of our first ten years, I think it's a breathtaking leap of faith to cut off any public discussion of, or Great Circle participation in, the bringing in or renewing of Caretakers.
Things are running smoothly now, but it hasn't always worked that way.
I believe the poor decision was partly a result of lax process; for several reasons, this item should have been deferred to the Fall Great Circle.If I'd been able to participate by phone, and had known the proposal was actually going forward (which I never dreamed would happen), I'd have opposed it for any one of these processproblems.
First of all, a rump meeting should only make the decisions that are unavoidable; although technically able (as a legally-constituted board meeting) to do whatever it wants within the bylaws, it doesn't have a genuine quorum to be able to represent the full community perspective. Deadly's proposal wasn't urgent; there could easily have been discussion and then a referral to the next, larger Great Circle.At most, it could have been an interim policy, to expire in the fall.
Similarly, the more important the decision, the more it needs to have community input, discussion, and reflection. You know how we like to talk things over! There've been topics discussed at a larger Great Circle and still deferred to the next one, so we could talk more among ourselves. This proposal appeared in the May RadDish
(aftr the disolution of inactive committees and clarification of food money on p.18). Submissions deadline for the next issue was seven days before Great Circle, leaving no chance for give-and -take.
Boards and voting groups usually have a conflict-of-interest policy, it's because no need was felt to formalize such matters. I think it's a widely-accepted principlethat a decision to give somebody money or power, for example, shouldn't be voted on by that person. By this standard, the Residents COTL might propose that we give them full autonomy, but then they should stand aside from the actual decision. At May's Great Circle, such stand-asides would have left exactly one voting member. And this for a major organizational shift which hadn't been widely discussed!
I do think the concerns behind Deadly's proposal are valid. I personallyhad the dubious pleasure of facilitating that lovely part of last Fall's meeting, when one member wanted to block Deadly's renewal out of anger at being told he couldn't extend his stay on the land;it took some minutes of hard work and anxiety before he was persuaded to stand aside.
Before this Great Circle came along and made it all moot,I'd been thinking about ways to address both this problem (which has come up only once in twelve years) and the broader "Star Chamber" effect.We could make it explicit that you shouldn't ask questions about somebody's private life ( like who on the land they've had sex with). Maybe create a new role for this part of the meeting, like a special type of vibes-watcher (you could call it "Advocate"): someone whose job it is to interrupt or challenge intrusive or hurtful questions, so the candidate doesn't have to. Change the renewal process so one person can't toss a Caretaker off the land.(I've long thought that was a lousy setup, very disempowering):
require that two people, or three, or 10% of those present are needed to not renew an existing resident. Last Fall , this would have avoided the whole trauma: we'd have listened to the member's complaints, heard he wanted to block, and asked if anybody else agreed. Clearly, none did.
There's the broader question of how to tell when it's time for a Caretaker to move on. We haven't figured that one out yet; to my knowledge, no resident has ever been formally asked to leave. Instead, it all happens in whispered conversations, and the long-standing pattern is for some Caretakers to stay long after their fire is spent, while others depart in a huff and leave everybody else in the lurch. (Some few actually leave at the right time, and with good feelings.)
I'd like to see us clarify the relationship between Caretakers and the rest of Nomenus.
What are their responsibilities? Who nominates or seeks out new residents? Can the residents be accountable to the tribe, and responsible for vital functions, without making them secretaries at the beck and call of any pushy queen?(It's happened.)
What do we ask of a Caretaker (In commitment and time), and what can we offer? Who sets priorities for what jobs will be done (for example the RadDish)?
How can concerns about a Caretaker be addressed? Do we want them to be permanent, or rotate out after a time?
Let's also think about how to make it possiblefor more of us to attend Wolf Creek Great Circles. Designate a carpool coordinator? Creat a fund for donations to cover participants who can't pay for the Green Tortoise? schedule Great Circle to be just before, or at the start of Beltane?(We could claim exclusive use of Garden House upstairs during those days.)
Borrow a speaker-phone that works, run a phone line to the meeting, and let a member ask to be called when a particular agenda item comes up? Get a trained facilitator for Fall Great Circle, so we get back in the habit of working quickly and smoothly.
What are yor thoughts?
posted by:
|
Portland
|
