As with any grassroots organization, a solid structural foundation will help the Occupy Be the Change Caucus grow by avoiding “the tyranny of structurelessness” and minimizing power disputes.
The structure for the Caucus proposed here is based on democratic management principles rooted in participatory democracy. As such, it employs direct democracy when feasible and representative democracy when necessary.
These concepts may be relevant to other organizations as well.
Many thanks to Penn Garvin, formerly with the San Francisco Women’s Health Collective, who many years ago referred me to Boards That Make a Difference by John Carver. The thoughts presented here are greatly influenced by that book.
Structural issues can be boring and bureaucratic, but if we want to increase our numbers significantly in the future, I believe establishing a viable structure that members understand and embrace is important.
We’ve already made one important decision by establishing that we’ll try to make decisions with 100% consensus, but if necessary will use an 80% super-majority. It has been my experience that when close to 50% objects to a proposed decision, they usually have good reason and proceeding over their objections can result in sizeable defections. But if only a small minority objects, the majority is more likely to be on solid ground and the risks are less. So using a substantial super-majority as a last resort seems a good balance.
By precedent, we’ve also established another important principle: Important decisions should be circulated in writing at least 72 hours before the meeting. Doing so allows time for members to reflect on and discuss those proposals beforehand. This procedure renders less likely scenarios such as an eloquent, charismatic speaker spontaneously presenting an impassioned proposal and the group consenting, only to regret it later.
With the approach recommended here, the voting membership would be the governing body and would be in a horizontal partnership with “staff,” whether paid or unpaid.
It is my belief that voting members should be those who contribute to the work of the Caucus regularly. This requirement could be defined specifically, as in a certain number of hours. We could use the honor system. Or members could check off a box when they sign in.
And new members could be asked to observe at their first meeting, with the understanding that they would be entitled to participate fully thereafter.
Regardless, on principle, I believe participatory democracy means that those who participate have a voice and participation should involve more than merely coming to Membership Meetings. We could also establish a category of Supporting Members who sign the Pledge but aren’t regularly active and Endorsing Members who could be organizations that endorse the Pledge.
Another key principle is that the Membership should be empowered to guide the organization by:
· adopting written policies (including goals and Team job descriptions) to guide Caucus;
· delegating authority to implement those policies to specific individuals and/or Teams;
· monitoring and evaluating the work of those individuals and/or Teams, and;
· adopting new policies to re-direct the work of the Caucus when needed.
If and when members do not approve of the actions others are taking, they could propose that the Membership adopt new policies or re-delegate authority in order to guide the Caucus in a different direction. In this way, the Membership could hold accountable those to whom they delegate authority.
Putting matters in writing helps to clarify shared understandings, clear up misunderstandings, and correct mistakes. So posting a well-organized set of the guiding policies on the Web and having a copy available at Membership Meetings would be important.
Thus, the full membership would not micro-manage and Membership Meetings would not get bogged down with details. Those to whom authority is delegated would be empowered to implement their job description and other relevant Caucus policies in the name of the Caucus at their own discretion.
Teams would be obligated to publicly report their actions in writing at least three days prior to Membership Meetings and verbally at Membership Meetings, and when feasible, their plans for action. Using a listserv can enhance this transparency. In this way, our work would be open to the general public and our Members could better keep themselves informed so they could intervene if and when they have reservations about Team actions.
Each Team would have a Coordinator and a Co-coordinator (assistant coordinator) who would assume the responsibilities of the Coordinator in the event of the Coordinator’s absence or disability.
The Administrative Team would be responsible for:
1) facilitating the internal flow of information so as to minimize duplication of effort, and;
2) advancing our mission by taking needed actions that have not been delegated to another Team (or in an urgent situation, taking action if and when the primary Team becomes inactive).
It seems to me that it would be best for the Membership to select an Agenda Team to develop the proposed agenda for Membership Meetings. Preparing proposed agendas is an important task that involves weighing priorities and planning ahead so that some less pressing items can be considered later. Someone needs to do it. Having an Agenda Team perform this chore would contribute to a separation of responsibilities that would help reduce the concentration of power in the hands of the Administrative Team and/or its Coordinator.
Thus, the Membership, the Agenda Team, and the other Teams would all be in co-equal relationship to one another.
Each Team could nominate to the Membership a Coordinator and Co-coordinator for their Team, which would usually be ratified by the Membership. However, if those nominees were not acceptable, the Membership could ask the Team to nominate someone else. Again, this would constitute a balance of powers.
Each Team should work together democratically to the maximum extent feasible. However, especially with an organization composed of volunteers who have other obligations, allowance needs to be made for individual autonomy so that actions can be taken without always getting explicit consent from the Team. Not everyone needs to be involved in every decision.
As between the Membership and any one Team, it seems that there needs to be a balance of responsibility between the Team and individual members.
This issue is the one area about which I’m most unclear. Though I’ve discussed it with the Administrative Team, and we seemed to reach agreement, I’m still uneasy about it and welcome comments.
Concerning non-controversial matters, individual Team members could feel free to take action at their own discretion to implement Team policies. With possible actions that were potentially controversial, however, they could be expected to try to first seek approval from their Team. With those of us who tend to be impatient and try to do too much too quickly, this discipline can be hard to cultivate.
However, if the Team fails to respond within a specified time frame, like 72 hours, individual Team members could be authorized to take the planned action at their own discretion. This approach would help prevent inaction if and when others on the Team fail to respond, as can happen with a small group of busy, part-time volunteers. This same policy could apply to both Coordinators and individual Team members.
Full and open communication might be the sufficient solution. In this regard, using listservs could help immensely. Whenever possible, individuals would report their intent to take action before doing so, asking for explicit consent when appropriate. Then, absent any expressed reservations or opposition, they would feel free to proceed in the name of the Caucus. And afterwards, those members would report back on their action.
Thus, those who volunteer for a Team would be responsible to review emails from fellow Team members and speak up if they have problems. Otherwise, those who reported their intent could feel free to proceed.
A fundamentally different approach would be to require a quorum—that is, require that a certain percentage of the Team explicitly approve actions in advance. But again, with time-stressed volunteers, this may not be realistic. And it would be hard to draw the line between actions that can be taken autonomously and those that must be approved.
This dilemma is a delicate matter and one about which the Caucus will hopefully develop increased understanding over time. Again, I welcome comments and other proposals. These are merely my own best thoughts at the moment.
The bottom line is that with sufficient commitment to our mission, sustained effort, good will, flexibility, and trust in another, we should be able to agree on how we shall work together productively.
No comments:
Post a Comment