Peace and Global Education Action Group of

The Committee for Action on Social Justice

(A BCTF Advisory Committee)
Prepared by Clay McLeod, LL.B., B.Ed., M.A.(Ed.)
#33 313 Whitman Road Kelowna, B.C. V1V 2J4
Telephone: (250) 860-7479 Cellular Telephone: (250) 801-1326 E-mail: claymcleod@shaw.ca

A PROPOSAL FOR CASJ TO ADOPT A CONSENSUS-BASED DECISION-MAKING APPROACH

To:
From:
Date:
Re:

Committee for Action on Social Justice (CASJ) Members

Clay McLeod, PAGE Action Group
May 18, 2009
Consensus-Based Approach to Decision-Making
I. Introduction

In the past, CASJ meetings have generally been managed using parliamentary procedure, or the
Simplified Rules of Order described in Part 5 of the 2008/2009 Members' Guide to the BCTF, partly
because By-Law 19 of the BCTF Constitution and By-Laws says, meetings of the Federation and its locals
shall be governed by rules of order adopted at an Annual General Meeting (BCTF, 2008, p. 17). These
rules are based on Robert's Rules of Order, a set of rules to govern meetings developed in 1867 by a general
in the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers named Henry Martyn Robert. General Robert developed these rules to
bring a sense of order to the many meetings held in San Francisco, which was heavily influenced, at the
time, by the historical peculiarity of the Gold Rush and the American Civil War and was experiencing a fair
amount of disorder. His main priority was to maintain order, and one of the philosophical underpinnings of
the rules that he developed was the notion that it was necessary to restrain the individual somewhat, in order
to allow an organization to accomplish its work.1
When one takes a deep view of the word democracy, parliamentary procedure seems somewhat less
democratic than one might wish the decision-making procedure of a socially-just organization to be (i.e., it
doesn't seem deeply democratic and socially-just to restrain individuals in decision-making processes the
results of which they will be required to live by using the BCTF's social justice lens as a tool to analyze
parliamentary procedure, one can easily see that it raises issues in relation to access, solidarity action,
agency, advocacy, participatory democracy, and transformative practice).2 The purpose of this paper is to 1)
critique parliamentary procedure on this basis, and 2) propose a consensus-based decision-making approach
that has the potential to allow for the authentic and meaningful participation of all members of the group in
the process of coming to decisions in a way that allows for each member to feel a sense of ownership in and
commitment to the end result of those processes. In this way, the proposed consensus-building decisionmaking process promises to both be more democratic, in a deep way, and more likely to result in decisions
that will be effectively implemented.

Henry Robert said that his rules were designed to `assist an assembly to accomplish in the best possible manner the work for
which it was designed. To do so, he said, it is `necessary to restrain the individual somewhat, as the right of an individual, in any
community, to do what he pleases, is incompatible with the interests of the whole (Cruikshank & Susskind, 2006, p. 8).
2
Democracy comes from the Greek demos kratia, which literally means people rule (Merriam-Webster, 2009). Although
we often think of democracy as rule by the majority, this divisive and alienating way of conceptualizing rule by the people in a
community need not be the only way to think of democracy; it is possible to conceptualize a model of democracy where all
people have an authentic voice and meaningful participation in the decision-making process of the organization to which they
belong.

The Peace and Global Education Action Group's Proposal for Consensus-Building Decision-Making

II. The Problem with Parliamentary Procedure

In Breaking Robert's Rules: The New Way to Run Your Meeting, Build Consensus, and Get Results
(Cruikshank & Susskind, 2006), the authors make a compelling argument against parliamentary procedure:
Good outcomes dont necessarily emerge from Roberts Rules. Why? There are
lots of reasons. Questions can be framed only in certain ways. They can be changed from
the way they were originally framed only when specific conditions are met. They can be
voted on only one at a time, in a certain order (so possible trade-offs are very hard to
consider). They can be reconsidered only under very narrow circumstances, even when
new information becomes available, and even when most people in the group want an
opportunity to reconsider.
The result of all this is an all or nothing situation: a winner-take-all outcome.
No matter if there were some very good ideas in the wreckage of the losing position. That
position has been vanquished, and those ideas were defeated.
The third and related problem has to do with the legitimacy of the outcome
achieved through Roberts Rules. Lets assume that at this meeting youre responsible for
chairing, there are three very different courses of action that might be taken. And lets
assume in advance of the meeting, a majority of your fellow committee members has
already decided to push one of those three solutions and has no interest in even weighing
the merits of the other two. Whats to prevent them from coming to the table, going
through the motionswhich is what the Roberts Rules procedure is aboutand then
voting for the solution theyve already embraced?
The answer is, nothing. As long as theyre scrupulous about amending the
amendment to the motion at the right timeand handling similar procedural issues
correctlythey can simply show up, vote, and go home
A final problem with Roberts Rules is that it puts too much power in the hands
of the most skilled parliamentarians, that is, the process experts. General Robert wrote his
rules in part to avoid what he called the caprice of the chairman. But the rules he laid
out are so dense and impenetrable that they actually encourage manipulation of the
process by the few people who understand it. They allow the chairman (or anyone else
who becomes an expert) to steer, channel, and limit debate.
Everyone expecting to take an active part in meetings of a deliberative
assembly should become sufficiently familiar with [the rules], General Robert wrote.
Why did he make that recommendation? Because if you dont, you can be pushed around
by those who do. The game is rigged, and if you dont understand the rules you will lose.
A final note about voting under a majority rule system. It turns out that majority
rule does not always get the majority what it wants! When there are at least three options
(or candidates) in a runoff, the winner does not actually have to be the favorite of a
majority of those voting. No matter which candidate wins, more of the voters might have
preferred one of the other candidates. While the analysis behind this counterintuitive
conclusion can get fairly complicated (indeed, Professor Kenneth Arrow won a Nobel
Prize, in part, for what he called his impossibility theorem), this dilemma was realized
as far back as the late eighteenth century when Marquis Condorcet, an expert on
probability, noted the same thing. By using strategic voting, rather than sincere voting
(i.e., voting for the policy or candidate that you know that your favorite will beat), it is
possible to subvert the democratic intent of majoritarianism. Whoever gets to narrow the
alternatives most notably down from three to twoin essence decides what will
happen. (pp. 12-14)

There are many others who criticize parliamentary procedure. For instance, Seeds for Change (a
non-profit training co-op helping people organize for action and positive social change) points out that
majority voting, creates a situation where there are winners and losers and promotes an aggressive culture
and conflict, and lends itself to steam rolling an idea over a minority that dissents with the majority opinion.
The will of the majority is seen as the will of the whole group, with the minority expected to accept and
carry out the decision, even if against their most deeply held convictions and principles (2009, 6).

The Peace and Global Education Action Group's Proposal for Consensus-Building Decision-Making
3
Essentially, the criticisms of parliamentary procedure, or majority rule, relate to the competitive,
rather than cooperative nature of parliamentary procedure, which can lead to a tyranny of the majority,
where the decision-making process results in the hierarchical manifestation of the authority of the majority,
the marginalization of the minority, and disunity in the community or group making the decision. CASJ
members should ask themselves, Is parliamentary procedure the most socially-just way to make decisions
as a group?
III. Principles of Consensus-Based Decision Making
According to Wikipedia (2009), consensus decision-making reflects these principles:
As a decision-making process, consensus decision-making aims to be:
Inclusive: As many stakeholders as possible should be involved in the
consensus decision-making process.
Participatory: The consensus process should actively solicit the input
and participation of all decision-makers.
Cooperative: Participants in an effective consensus process should
strive to reach the best possible decision for the group and all of its
members, rather than opt to pursue a majority opinion, potentially to
the detriment of a minority.
Egalitarian: All members of a consensus decision-making body should
be afforded, as much as possible, equal input into the process. All
members have the opportunity to present, amend and veto or block
proposals.
Solution-oriented: An effective consensus decision-making body
strives to emphasize common agreement over differences and reach
effective decisions using compromise and other techniques to avoid or
resolve mutually-exclusive positions within the group.
Most Logical: This happens when a solution appears to be impossible
to execute because of the lack of support and cooperation.

Consensus-based decision making does not require all members of the group to agree with the final
decision, but it aims to give all members of the group a genuine voice during the decision-making process,
to strengthen relationships and dialogue between group members, to enhance the participation of group
members, to make the final decision something that all members can live with and feel responsible for, and
to increase the chances that the final decision will be implemented effectively. Consensus is a process of
synthesizing many diverse elements together With consensus people can and should work through
differences and reach a mutually satisfactory position. It is possible for one person's insights or strongly
held beliefs to sway the whole group. No ideas are lost, each member's input is valued as part of the
solution (ACT UP AIDS Coalition to Unleash Power, 2009, 2-4).3
Consensus-based decision-making is consistent with the BCTF's social justice lens, since it
effectively and efficaciously cultivates and promotes access, advocacy, agency, and solidarity action, as
well as participatory democracy, systemic change, transformative practice, and civil society.

Consensus does not mean that everyone thinks that the decision made is necessarily the best one possible, or even that they are
sure it will work. What it does mean is that in coming to that decision, no one felt that her/his position on the matter was
misunderstood or that it wasn't given a proper hearing. Hopefully, everyone will think it is the best decision; this often happens
because, when it works, collective intelligence does come up with better solutions than could individuals.
Consensus takes more time and member skill, but uses lots of resources before a decision is made, creates commitment to the
decision and often facilitates creative decision. It gives everyone some experience with new processes of interaction and conflict
resolution, which is basic but important skill-building. For consensus to be a positive experience, it is best if the group has 1)
common values, 2) some skill in group process and conflict resolution, or a commitment to let these be facilitated, 3) commitment
and responsibility to the group by its members and 4) sufficient time for everyone to participate in the process. (ACT UP AIDS
Coalition to Unleash Power, 2009, 6-7).

The Peace and Global Education Action Group's Proposal for Consensus-Building Decision-Making

IV. Consensus-Based Decision-Making Procedures

Consensus-based decision-making can be implemented using a variety of processes but can be
conceptualized in general using a flowchart like this one,
obtained from the Wikipedia Commons (Wikipedia
contributors, 2009). Like instruction in the classroom,
skillful facilitation of consensus-based decision-making
involves choosing different processes for different types
of decisions, depending on the nature of the decision, the
attitudes and feelings of participants in relation to the
decision, the relationship that the decision has to the other
business of the group making the decision, etc.
Facilitators should select processes with these factors in
mind, with an intention to maximize participation,
cooperation, sharing of views, and the effectiveness of the
group as a whole.
Roles
Participants can play different roles in order to
make consensus-based decision-making processes run
smoothly (Wikipedia contributors, 2009). These roles
distribute responsibility for the running of the meeting to
several participants, rather than concentrating the
responsibility in the hands of a chairperson or a couple of chairpersons. This leads to the sharing of power
and encourages accountability. These roles may include facilitator, vibes-watcher, recorder, and timekeeper
(ACT UP AIDS Coalition to Unleash Power, 2009). Other roles can include agenda planner, facilitator,
peacekeeper, advocate, timekeeper, public scribe, notetaker, and doorkeeper (Butler & Rothstein, 2009).
Peter Gelderloos (2006) describes these roles:
The Note Taker records group decisions and records information about what was discussed at the
meeting;
The Timekeeper lets participants know when the time for discussing a topic is up and may give a
warning when time is running short;
The Vibes Watcher keeps an eye on the power dynamics and emotional energy of the group during
discussion, and interjects when there is an issue that the group should address out in the open;
The Facilitator makes sure that the group sticks to the agreed-upon decision-making process by
trying to balance flexibility with group efficiency; the facilitator needs to be careful not to exercise
his or her power to impose decisions on the group or influence decision-making itself (he or she is
meant to influence the form but not the substance of the decision-making process)4; and
The Stack Taker keeps track of the speakers list. (pp. 35-41)
Options Available to Participants in Relation to a Proposal
When there is a call for consensus (or a test for consensus) about a particular proposal, participants
have the following options available to them:
consent/agreement
non-support (I don't see the need for this, but I'll go along with it.)
4

See the selection of facilitative processes that are described below to see how a facilitator can use the form of the meeting to
help make the decision-making process more effective.

The Peace and Global Education Action Group's Proposal for Consensus-Building Decision-Making
declare reservations (I think this may be a mistake [for these reasons], but I can live with it.)
standing aside (I personally can't do this, but I won't stop others from doing it.)
veto/major objection/block5
agree to disagree (The group decides that no agreement can be reached on this issue and decides
how to address the situation.)
leave the group

The options described above represent a spectrum of attitude ranging from agreement to strong
opposition (Seeds for Change, 2009, ACT UP AIDS Coalition to Unleash Power, 2009, & Wikipedia
contributors, 2009).
Facilitative Processes
Peter Gelderloos (2006) describes several processes that can be used to facilitate effective decisionmaking:
Changing the format of the discussion: Shaking up the format of the discussion can be helpful for
people with different learning styles and mind styles (p. 44);
Step forward, step back: Calling for a step forward, step back reminds people of their
responsibilities and allows them to improve their own behaviour. It also increases awareness of
unequal participation in the group (p. 45);
Moment of reflection: This can allow people a moment of silence to relieve stress and allow time to
think;
Go around: One person, usually the one who suggested [a go around], starts by sharing their
thoughts and feelings for a few seconds to a minute. Then the next person shares, and the next
person, until everyone has spoken (p. 46);
Partnering: Simply call for partnering, and if no one objects, group members split into small groups
of two or three to talkPartnering helps explore complex ideas or controversies, and allows you to
see other points of view and work out a compromise (p. 47);
Fishbowl: A fishbowl allows a group to explore a contentious topic that has divided the group into
multiple sides or opposing camps. The different sides choose representatives to advocate their
positions. The larger group remains on the outside, in a circle, observing the representatives of the
two or more opposing sides meet in the middle to work out the disagreement. They may come to a
compromise themselves, or they may debate until the group as a whole is won over to one side or the
other. The fishbowl has the advantage of allowing for greater detail and continuity than is usually
possible in large group discussions, which can be helpful in evaluating solutions to difficult
questions (p. 47);

Peter Gelderloos (2006) describes the importance of the block to consensus-based decision-making processes.
The block is a very powerful action, and one of the things that makes consensus unique. Any one person in the group
can veto a decision. Just give a thumbs down during the vote, and the group cannot adopt that proposal. Consensus is based on
voluntary association. You cannot be forced to be a member of a consensual group, like you can be forced to be the subject of a
democratic government. Because the rest of the group is associating with your choice, they can't force you to do anything you
don't want to do, and the group, with you as an integral part, cannot do anything that you do not approve of.
Because the block is a serious power, it comes with serious responsibilities. Firstly, you have the responsibility to
explain your reason for blocking the decision, and you have the responsibility to express your serious disagreement during the
group discussion, before the proposal ever comes to a vote. If people are surprised when you block a decision, something did not
happen the way it was supposed to.
Because of the tremendous impact of a block, you shouldn't block unless you have a good reason. Consensus decision
making cannot exist in a competitive, individualistic culture. You shouldn't block a decision just because you didn't like the
proposal or thought your idea was better. You should only block a decision when you think it is a bad thing for the group as a
whole to do. (pp. 27-28)

The Peace and Global Education Action Group's Proposal for Consensus-Building Decision-Making
6
Brainstorming: This involves putting the linear discussion on hold and emphasizing creativity, even
if it means some conversational chaos for a time (p. 48);
Exercise: Taking a break and moving around can break the monotony, and give people more energy
when they come back together (p. 48);
Straw polls: Call for a straw poll and ask people to raise their hands if they
agree/disagreeConsensus means that everyone counts, but if someone sees that they are
outnumbered, they may silence themselves (p. 49);
Feelings check: A feelings check is a go around in which everyone in the group tells how they are
feeling, what they think is going well, what they think is going poorly (p. 49); and
Release valve: If you call for a release valve, other discussions are put on hold and you tell the
group about the problem you are having [which may relate to the behaviour or actions of another
participant or to the atmosphere of the meeting]. Other people in the group should try to address the
problem. If you can't solve it with a single discussion, set up a way to continue communicating about
it (p. 50).
Other Tools and Processes That Can Facilitate Inclusion, Participation, Communication, and Consensus
Dotmocracy
Dotmocracy is one process that involves using an instrument to gauge the level of agreement group
members have with a particular idea or suggestion. It involves group members putting a dot on a Likert
scale (with options ranging from Strong Agreement, through Neutral, to Strong Disagreement, and
including Confused. Participants put their dot in the appropriate place on the Likert scale and have the
opportunity to write comments to expand upon their opinion. As each participant completes the instrument,
he or she signs it to prevent people from voting more than once (Dotmocracy, 2009a & 2009b).
Coloured Cards
Red, yellow, and green cards can be used to communicate various participants' attitudes towards
ideas or proposals under consideration at the time. During the discussion phase, red indicates a breach of
process (e.g., off-topic discussion or a speaker going over time limits), yellow indicates the participant's
ability to clarify something or to answer a question, and green indicates a desire to be added to the speakers
list. During a call for consensus, red indicates opposition to the proposal (though there is an obligation for
the participant to work with those proposing the suggested action to create a suggestion that will gain the
support of all members), yellow indicates a desire to stand aside or to state reservations, and green
indicates consent to the proposal (Canadian Cohousing Network, 2009, Mosaic Commons, 2009, &
Wikipedia contributors, 2009, Colored Cards 1-5).
Hand Signals
Nonverbal communication, by means of hand signals, can also be used in consensus-based decisionmaking processes. These include twinkling, or wiggling fingers to indicate agreement, raising a fist to
indicate strong disagreement, and making a T with both hands to indicate that a point of process needs to
be addressed. Another common set of hand signals is called the Fist-to-Five or Fist-of-Five. In this
method each member of the group can hold up a fist to indicate blocking consensus, one finger to suggest
changes, two fingers to discuss minor issues, three fingers to indicate willingness to let issue pass without
further discussion, four fingers to affirm the decision as a good idea, and five fingers to volunteer to take a
lead in implementing the decision (Wikipedia contributors, 2009, Hand Signals 1, Seeds for Change,
2009b, & Fletcher, 2002). Peter Gelderloos (2006) suggests that an agreed-upon gesture can be used to
indicate that one want to make a direct response to another participant's comment in order to correct false

The Peace and Global Education Action Group's Proposal for Consensus-Building Decision-Making
7
information or to offer clarifying information; using this gesture (he suggests making a gun with your
hand and pointing at the person you wish to respond to, but we may wish to agree upon another gesture)
bumps you to the top of the stack or the speakers list and should be used responsibly (p. 43).
Other Models
There are many other models of consensus-based decision-making that can inform the development
of such a process, including Sociocracy and Quaker-based consensus.
V. Conclusion
Since CASJ is a BCTF advisory committee with the explicit purpose to promote social justice within
the BCTF, its decision-making processes should be deeply democratic, inclusive, participatory, cooperative,
egalitarian, and solution-oriented; moreover, its processes should cultivate rational dialogue. Since Robert's
Rules of Order, or parliamentary procedure, raise issues in this regard, CASJ should consider adopting a
consensus-based decision-making approach. Personally, I would like to see CASJ's decision-making
processes reflect what I call mindful, communicative kindness:
Mindful, communicative kindness is when both speaker and listener work
together in mutual awareness to deliberately share meaning with one another in ways
which support truth and wisdom, unclouded by ignorance, in order to reduce suffering,
for speaker, listener, and others, from a perspective of profound respect for, and a sense
of communion with, one another and all phenomena. Mindful, communicative kindness
incorporates an understanding of the profound interdependence of phenomena, and it
derives from a wholehearted aspiration to connect with others and cultivate wholesome
mind and heart states in oneself and others, as well as beneficial circumstances in the
world. (McLeod, 2007, p. 116)

Bibliography (* denotes recommended resources)

Books
British Columbia Teachers' Federation. (2008). 2008/2009 Members' Guide to the BCTF. Vancouver, BC:
Author. Retrieved May 17, 2009, from http://bctf.ca/uploadedFiles/About_Us/Members_Guide/guide.pdf.
Cruikshank, J. & Susskind, L. (2006). Breaking Robert's Rules: The new way to run your meeting, build
consensus, and get results. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
Flanigan, E. & Scott, J. (1996). Achieving consensus: Tools and techniques. Menlo Park, CA: Crisp
Publications, Inc.
*Gelderloos, P. (2006). Consensus: A new handbook for grassroots social, political, and environmental
groups. Tucson, AZ: See Sharp Press.
McLeod, C. (2007). The noble path of socially-engaged pedagogy: Connecting teaching and learning to
personal and societal well-being. Kelowna, B.C.: University of British Columbia Okanagan. Retrieved
May 17, 2009, from https://circle.ubc.ca/bitstream/2429/3000/1/ubc_2007_fall_McLeod_Clay.pdf.
Websites
ACT UP AIDS Coalition to Unleash Power. (2009). Civil Disobedience Training: Consensus Decision
Making. Actupny.org. Retrieved May 17, 2009, from
http://www.actupny.org/documents/CDdocuments/Consensus.html.
Butler, C. & Rothstein, A. (2009). On conflict and consensus: A handbook on formal consensus
decisionmaking. Intentional Communities. Retrieved May 17, 2009, from http://www.ic.org/pnp/ocac/.

The Peace and Global Education Action Group's Proposal for Consensus-Building Decision-Making
8
Canadian Cohousing Network. (2009). The Consensus Decision Process in Cohousing. Cohousing.ca.
Retrieved May 17, 2009, from http://www.cohousing.ca/consensus.htm.
Dotmocracy. (2009a). Dotmocracy. Dotmocracy.org. Retrieved May 17, 2009, from http://dotmocracy.org/.
Merriam-Webster contributors. (2009). Democracy. Merriam Webster Online Dictionary. Retrieved May
17, 2009, from http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/democracy.
Dotmocracy. (2009b). Step-by-Step Advanced Dotmocracy Instructions. Dotmocracy.org. Retrieved May
17, 2009, from http://dotmocracy.org/download/Dotmocracy_instructions_one_page_v4-00.pdf.
Fletcher, A. (2002). FireStarter Youth Power Curriculum: Participant Guidebook. Olympia, WA: Freechild
Project. Retrieved May 17, 2009, from http://www.freechild.org/Firestarter/Fist2Five.htm.
Mosaic Commons. (2009). Color Cards. Mosaic-Commons.org. Retrieved May 17, 2009, from
http://www.mosaic-commons.org/colorcards.
*Seeds for Change. (2009a). Consensus Decision Making. SeedsforChange.org. Retrieved May 17, 2009,
from http://www.seedsforchange.org.uk/free/consens.
Seeds for Change. (2009b). Hand Signals. SeedsforChange.org. Retrieved May 17, 2009, from
http://seedsforchange.org.uk/free/handsig.pdf.
Villines, S. (2009). About Sociocracy. Sociocracy. Retrieved May 17, 2009, from
http://www.sociocracy.info/about.html.
Wikipedia contributors. (2009). Consensus Decision-Making. Wikipedia, The Free Encyclopedia. Retrieved
May 17, 2009, from http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Consensus_decisionmaking&oldid=290056453.