Co-op Tools

Governance Links

2007-05-10T15:04:00.000-05:00

Boards and committees, by-laws and policies: these are some of the core elements of traditional governance. Below are links to recommended resources that delve into this topic.

Institute On Governance: Learning Tools - From basics to assessment. Great explanations and examples. Start here.

BoardDevelopment.org - A great collection of guidance for boards and committees.

BoardSource.org - Excellent collection of nonprofit board Q & A.

Co-operative Governance Manual by the Co-operative Federation of Victoria, Australia.

Co-operative Governance Newsletter Archives from the Canadian Co-operative Association

jannicemoore.com - A policy governance specialist with excellent introductory resources.

Policy Governance® Defined - A complete and useful theory for how an organization and it's board can effectively conduct themselves based on the use of policies.

Free Toolkit for Boards of Directors - Large collection of links assembled by Carter McNamara, PhD.

Examples of policies from assorted Egalitarian Communities

Bylaws: How Strong Is Your Co-op's Foundation?- An article by Karen Zimbelman

Distribution of Powers between the Board of Directors and Members in the
Co-operative Corporations Act - from Lawyer Iler-Campbell

Sample By-laws

http://www.iog.ca/publications/sample_bylaws.pdf

http://www.ilercampbell.com/files/GeneralByLawCoop.pdf - worker co-op

http://www.ilercampbell.com/files/GeneralByLawNonCoop.pdf - non-worker, non-housing co-op

Roberts Rules of Order

Although Co-op Tools recommends consensus decision-making, we realize that many organizations still use a Robert's Rules structured meetings and voting guidelines.

Robert's Rules of Order - Some Basics Edited by Carter McNamara, PhD

robertsrules.org

Answers about abstaining

Committee Report Template

2007-05-10T14:09:00.000-05:00

Committee's are often required to report their progress to the board and/or to the larger group. While such a report may be presented orally at meetings, it is often recommended, if not required, to also publish a report in print format. Below is a suggested format for such a committee report.

The number of items and depth of detail depends on the nature of the committee and the issues being addressed. In general, it is a good idea to keep points of information short for easy review, with additional information available through a committee contact.

Committee: (committee name)

Liaison to the Board: (board member name)

Date of last meeting: (day month year)

Date of next meeting: (day month year)

Action Items Completed:

(item)
(item)
(item)

Action Items In-progress/Pending:

(item)
(item)
(item)

Announcements:

(item)
(item)
(item)

Questions for the board/larger group:

(item)
(item)
(item)

Other Notes:

(item)
(item)
(item)

-- END OF REPORT--

Consensus Decision-Making Glossary of Terms

2007-05-10T13:55:00.000-05:00

Below is a list of key terms often used to discuss the facilitation of consensus decision-making meetings.

Active listening

Seeking to understand what the speaker is trying to communicate. Being attentive. Asking for clarification. Confirming understanding. Being open to rational persuasion. Concentrating on understanding before thinking about counter arguments.

Agenda

A document that specifies what will be discussed during a group meeting.

Blocking

When one or more individuals opposes an otherwise agreed-upon decision that has been thoroughly discussed through a group meeting. Blocking is when an important concern has not been resolved and the supporters of the concern refuse to stand-aside. Blocking may or may not be a policy practiced within a group.

Constitution

A document that all group members agree to. The constitution defines the group, how it will organize it self, and usually provides a greater vision of what the group aims to achieve.

Conflict

When members discover incongruent opinions on a common subject. Conflict is a normal part of any decision-making process. When dealt with in a spirit of cooperation, conflict is an opportunity for greater understanding and improved solutions. When dealt with in a spirit of competition, conflict is often destructive and painful.

Cooperation

The pooling of energy, resources, intelligence, and skills into collaborative efforts that yields greater results than the sum of their parts. It is a combination of people that work as one. Cooperation is the basis of every healthy society and is founded on empathy. Cooperation can also be described as teamwork, sharing, and helping one another.

Competition

The separation of energy, resources, intelligence, and skills into fragments that aim to succeed over others. Competition is founded on selfishness and individuality of persons and groups.

Consensus

The consent of all group members. This does not necessitate enthusiastic satisfaction from all members, but at least united acceptance.

Concerns

These are statements that raise a question, or point out a challenge or problem in a proposal. Concerns should be presented in the context of a certain stakeholder’s interests. Concerns should include an explanation of the reasoning behind the concern. Any participant can bring up concerns.

Creativity

The practice of using diverse knowledge, intuition, exploration, insight, and experience to create new possibilities that were previously not acknowledged.

Democracy

Government by the people. It is a form of decision-making, control and organization that aims to distribute power equally amongst all the people. Ideally, the only restrictions on people within a democracy are restrictions each person has accepted onto themselves. Some related keywords: liberty, freedom, equality, opportunity, justice, and cooperation.

Experts

People who have an above average knowledge in a specific field of significance. They usually have experience, training, education, and/or an enthusiasm for the field of significance. They are useful for giving the group greater insight into their specific field of interest. They may be internal or external to the group and may act as impartial resources or active stakeholders.

Group

A group is simply a collection of people that aim to work in cooperation. Some examples of groups include: a workers co-op, a household, a non-governmental organization, a not-for-profit business or most importantly, a community.

Interests

A group’s or individual’s underlying values and needs. Interests are the core goals that decision-making aims to fulfill. By focusing on interests rather then requests, groups are open to more options for satisfying the real needs of the people and supporting their fundamental beliefs. For example: an employee who is also a good mother might request a higher wage, but her interest is more likely to be security and opportunity for her child. Once we realize this fundamental interest, other opportunities become apparent, such as company paid insurance plans and scholarships.

Information

Clearly stated and commonly agreed upon facts. Information can be presented in any number of ways (e.g. chart, paragraphs, reports, etc). Information should be made easily accessible to the whole and placed in the context of the issues they relate to. Information is one of the key resources for sensible decision-making.

Information Facilitators

These are the individuals that come to the meeting with large amounts of organized documentation that may be referenced throughout the meeting.

Linguistic Facilitators

These are the impartial individuals skilled at drawing out, understanding, and communicating the meaning of others. The may offer services such as reading of written statements, rephrasing, summarizing, clarifying, relating, and combining the different messages presented by participants. These people make issues, concerns, proposals, and other elements of the discussion explicit, i.e. they will clarify and label an idea or collection of ideas for what they are.

Minutes

The detailed notes documenting what communication took place during a meeting. It is a good idea to make these as specific and accurate as possible for future reference, conflict resolution, and clarification. Main points, key decisions, and important information should be highlighted and made easily accessible to the entire group. Minutes are most useful for those who have missed a meeting. Minutes should be accepted by all members of the group before being entered into record. Accepting minutes can be done by distributing the minutes of a meeting after it is complete but before the next meeting. At the following meeting, the first item on the agenda could be to approve the last meeting's minutes.

Moderators

These are ideally impartial individuals who enforce the structure of a meeting. This position is also known as the Chair. They call on speakers, follow the agenda, and generally act as a central guide for the meeting.

Monitors

These are the impartial individuals who attempt to take a step back from the meeting to recognize larger patterns, trends, and issues on the meta-level of the meeting. That is to say, they are not so concerned with what is being discussed, but how it is being discussed. These people keep facilitators and moderators in check. It is their special responsibility to recognize and address more environmental, systemic, structural, personal, and emotional issues that may be affecting discussions.

Participants

These are the general members of a meeting. They may include members of the group, external experts, or outside stakeholders. Participants are responsible for agreeing to the constitution and knowing the meeting guidelines and procedures. As individuals they are expected to represent their different preferences, biases, perspectives, and interests. But as members of a consensus building team, they are also expected to think socially and aim for mutually acceptable situations.
Monitors, Facilitators, Recorders, and other institutional roles may also act as participants to some degree, but this will most likely affect their ability to concentrate on their assigned task and act impartially within that task.

Policy

An agreed upon way of doing things. A formal statement that defines how the group should proceed in the case of a certain kind of situation. Examples of policy types: safety, conflict resolution, food distribution, economic, working hours, communication methods, etc.

Proposals

Clearly stated suggestions for action that take into account all presented information and attempt to satisfy all stakeholder interests presented to the group. Proposals must also fall within the framework of what is practically possible for the group and desirable under the group constitution.

Precedent

Guiding principles established by previous decisions. The amount of precedent a decision will set should be part of the decision-making process. Decisions made by a well-deliberated and strong consensus should set more precedent then a hurried majority vote.

Reformulation

The interactive process of discovering an improved mutual judgment. It is the emergence of new common agreements where there used to be difference. It is the redefinition or reframing of the current item of discussion. It is the combining, modifying, rephrasing, adjusting, and reorganizing of issues, questions, proposals, and ideas in general. It is not necessarily a compromise. It is when, through discussion, the meeting realizes new options that match all parties’ interests. Reformulation through group discussion is the essence of consensus decision-making.

Reflection

The time spent thinking about an item outside of discussion. The human mind has a way of gaining improved understanding of an issue even without discussion or the input of further information. Reflection is this process which allows the mind to make connections and come to grips with the necessary ideas. It often leads to a more clear view of the ideas and potential options. It allows people to think free from disruption and without concern for making an immediate decision.
Reflection is usually achieved between meetings. On occasion, the moderator or someone else may suggest a moment of silence for reflection, especially during a heated debated. This often helps people open their minds to others’ views and to take a less competitive stance.
Reporters/clerks:
These are the impartial individuals who record the minutes of the meeting and maintain the group documents (such as the constitution and precedents).

Stand Aside

The decision by a meeting participant to allow a proposal to go through even though her/his concerns have not been resolved. Standing aside shows that the concern still exists, but it is perceived not to be of such a grave nature that it should stop the group from making a decision. The alternative to standing aside is blocking consensus.

Stakeholders

These are people that will be affected by a decision. There are many degrees by which a person could be affected by a decision. For example: a municipality’s decision to promote biking rather then cars affects its traveling citizens, local car industry, local bike industry, and all breathing animals. How much weight is given to each stakeholder's interests should be openly set in relation to the group’s culture.

Shelve

This is the decision to not continue discussing an agenda item. This generally means that item is temporarily ignored and potentially forgotten forever. All documentation pertaining to the item should still be kept, just in case it is ever introduced again. This does not necessarily cancel related proposals or activities. The group meeting should explicitly define what repercussions shelving will have.

Technical Facilitators

These are the impartial individuals skilled at designing, setting up, using, and maintaining the instruments of communication used in a meeting. Different skills may include the set-up of projectors and PA systems, the designing of effective slide shows, design of reports, design, printing and distribution of voting ballots, and other expert use of communications tools.

Tentative

Being tentative means presenting and discussing ideas in a careful but uncertain way until explicit agreement is reached. It is not assuming a statement is fully correct, but discussing it to see if it is. Being tentative is an important part of consensus discussion because it reduces conflict over ideas before they are even understood and always leaves room for confirmation and improved understanding. It allows people to discuss different options without assuming anyone of them is correct. From this process, agreement will form around what ideas seem to match with the group’s stated needs.

Transparency

The workings of the group should be visible to all members. People should know why decisions were made and why policies stand. All information, procedures, agendas, rules, records and minutes should be easily accessible (and possibly promoted) to all group members and stakeholders (and possibly the public which are almost always stakeholders to some degree).

Working Group

Either an already formed or ad-hoc collection of people responsible for a certain set of tasks. Working groups put plans into action. These people have a defined set of goals they must achieve and a limited jurisdiction for autonomous decision-making. They may structure themselves as a flat democracy or some form of cooperative hierarchy. Their activities should be transparent to the group.

Tips for Productive Meetings

2007-05-10T13:36:00.000-05:00

Meetings are a standard part of every organization, but they often feel too long and end without clear or useful results. Below are a few tips that I hope you will find helpful for making your next meeting more productive.

Save meeting time for important deliberation and decision-making only: distributing information, making announcements, and trading gossip should be done using other means such as email, a collaborative documentation web site (AKA extranet or wiki), bulletin boards, newsletters, memos or chats over drinks.
Create a realistic and useful agenda: for each item include a practical allotment of time, some key background information, and the key questions to be answered, e.g. what is our policy related to this matter, what are some potential solutions, or what is our plan for action.
Have all your information on hand: have at least one person responsible for bringing and organizing by-laws, policies, budgets, minutes, and other organizational documentation to be easily referenced throughout each meeting.
Use concise point form in your documentation: make it easy for members to skim and reference backgrounders, reports, plans, minutes, and other written materials before and during meetings.
Allow the chair to interrupt speakers: establish meeting rules that include the option for a chair to interrupt a speaker and ask if they are on subject, being concise, or repeating already stated points.
Share the responsibility for effective chairing of the meeting: everyone present should work to ensure that the meeting follows the agenda and that discussion stays constructive and on topic.
Push for concrete outcomes: while deliberative process is important, your organization needs a clear direction to move forward. Throughout the meeting drive discussion towards answering the key questions, documenting decisions, and delegating action items.
Give clear direction for delegated responsibility: use the meeting to decide basic plans and then empower individuals to make them happen. Give them goals, parameters, scope, a time line with milestones, any related policies, and specify when and how they will report on their progress.
Immediately publish concise meeting outcomes: distribute point form action items and decisions from a meeting to the members as soon as possible in order to promote momentum towards their application and completion.
Display key information in the meeting to inform the discussion: use a white board, flip chart, overhead projector or data projector to allow all participants to read and reference pertinent questions and information for the current topic of discussion. This will help reduce the chance of a “What were we deciding?” conversation occurring.
Refrain from creating unnecessary debate: playing the "devil's advocate" is popular in our culture, but if you don't really believe in a counter argument, don't waste the group's time by raising it.
Don't deliberate about what you don't know: if an issue under discussion requires further investigation in order to make a sensible decision, then specify the required research, delegate it as an action item, and move on to the next item on the agenda.
Don't let meetings deal with issues that should be delegated: don't give agenda time to issues that should be addressed by an individual responsible for that area of a project or organization.

Committee Terms of Reference Template

2007-05-10T13:19:00.000-05:00

It is a good idea that each committee of an organization (AKA team, working group or sub-group) be clearly defined in writing. This promotes understanding of who is in the group, what they aim to achieve, and how they intend to go about doing it. Below is a detailed template of what such a committee charter or definition sheet might include. Of course your group should customize this format to best match your group's unique needs and tendencies.

Also See Standard Committee Terms of Reference - Advice from the United Way of Canada

Committee Terms of Reference

Name:

(Official name of the committee or working group)

Members:

Name, Contact Information - Roles / Responsibilities (e.g. chair, secretary, treasurer, report to the board)

Goals:

(primary)
(secondary)

Deliverables

(Specific outputs required/requested from the committee.)

Scope / Jurisdiction

(What are the bounds of responsibility and authority of the this sub-group? What do they need to address and what is outside their area of concern? What can they decide on and what needs group/board input?)

Guidance from the Board / Lead Group

(Initial direction and suggestions from the board and/or larger group.)

Resources and Budget

(E.g. equipment, materials, rooms, funds available to the committee.)

Governance

(Decision-making technique, e.g. consensus, 2/3 majority vote or chair's authority, etc. Relationships of authority within the group and with the greater organization.)

Additional Notes

Relationships to other committees
How communications outside of meetings will be conducted, e.g. phone or email. *Where shared information, such as plans and contact information, will be stored.
Related policies / by-laws.
How reporting back to the organization will be conducted.
History of the committee.
Schedule or meetings and/or other important timelines.
Information about specific committee projects.

Consensus Decision-Making Techniques

2007-05-10T12:22:00.000-05:00

Below is a list of recommended techniques that can be called upon, modified, and/or combined to help facilitate an effective concensus process.

Brainstorm

The collaborative creation and recording of idea without analysis or judgement. The aim is a high quantity of diverse ideas relating to the same issue. This is a group tactic usually used at the beginning of a decision-making process or when there seems to be a creative block.

Dotmocracy

Use advanced dotmocracy sheets to collect ideas and record levels of opinion. See dotmocracy.org for the complete handbook.

Round-robin

This is a process which provides each person in the meeting a brief opportunity to give their views on the subject at hand. Participants can choose to pass or take their turn later. Generally conducted by the moderator who directs the turn taking around the room. This is a good way to involve quieter participants.

Anonymous Notes

This is the submission of unsigned written comments into a hat that are then mixed up and read back to the group. This allows people to present ideas without fear of personal judgments by the group. It is especially useful when issues are sensitive.

Collaborative Writing (AKA Single text)

All stakeholders take part in writing a common document that explains the issues, interests, proposals, concerns, reasoning, and conclusion. Video projectors, overheads, white boards, and flip-charts are very useful for this kind of technique.

Break-out Groups

When there are many people in a meeting and several issues to discuss, have the group break into sub-groups, each investigating a specific issue. Then have a report back on each group's results. This can speed up discussion and provide increased opportunity for participation. It is also a more intimate format useful for sensitive topics.

Breaking-up in Stages

A complex issue often takes time to understand and formulate a plan of action. Discussions of complex issues can be broken up into stages that are accomplished over several meetings, giving more opportunity for reflection and needed research.

Silence

Opportunity for reflection, calming, and reading of documentation.

Survey

A survey is a form of vote that is non-binding. It allows the group to recognize the depth and pervasiveness of views. This is often a good way to gauge how close the group is to consensus. Surveying can be done systematically using written questions or more organically with simple hand expressions during discussion (e.g. nod to approve, wiggle fingers to strongly approve, shake head to disapprove, swipe hands to strongly disapprove).
Surveys should include methods for registering how confident each participant is with their choice. This is useful for recognizing how deep or shallow opinions are and thus how open the group is to continued reformulation.

Fishbowl

A subgroup of active participants that represent different views discuss a topic in front of the whole group. After a set period of time, the group reconvenes and discusses the discussion. This is a good way of allowing some people to speak more while others can critically examine and consider what is said.

Pass the Page

For deciding on simple specific issues (e.g. date of next meeting; preferred flyer design). Have all the options written on pages and passed around the group. Members can add check-marks and/or comments to share their opinions of the options. Once complete, discuss results.

Delegate

For dealing with issues that require constant engagement, e.g. project management, delegate to a trusted person or team. Have this person/team report back to the group regularly.

Elect an an Artist

When a group can not decide on a subjective decision (e.g. the best colour of chairs to buy; best poster image) elect someone with respected artistic taste and let them decide, based on guidance from the group.

Calling for Consensus

After a thorough discussion, have the chair person ask... “Can anyone suggest some improvements to this final proposal? Does anyone have any concerns that have not yet been addressed?” If not, then there is consensus.

Who is doing similar work?

2007-05-10T11:41:00.000-05:00

It's nice to know that there are many other people out there doing similar and related work to myself. Following is a list organizations and people who provide concrete methods for conducting large group consensus decision-making, deliberative democracy and various models of flat organizing and participatory governance. This list is helpful for recognizing and orienting how Co-op Tools fits in this emerging sector.

I specifically include organizations that have a strong emphasis on offline solutions (i.e. not Internet dependent) although they may use some web services and high-end technology.

In priority of similarity to Co-op Tools...

grove.com
Provide a wide array of books, templates, kits, facilitation training and consulting services for organization-change. (USA)

dialoguebydesign.net
Consultants who specialises in running public and stakeholder engagement processes, using online, paper-based and face-to-face methods. (UK)

worldblu.com
Consultants on democratic workplaces.

americaspeaks.com
Provide a complete solution for deliberative democracy where hundreds of citizens participate in "21st Century Town Meetings". (USA)

dialoguecircles.com
Consulting and service providers for public consultation processes. (Canada)

covision.com
Online and offline tools and facilitation. (USA)

National Coalition for Dialogue & Deliberation

This association defines the democracy sector within North American (USA).

tamarackcommunity.ca
Resources and consulting on community engagement processes.(Canada)

The Community Planning Handbook

An excellent resource for conducting citizen consultation and engagement into neighbourhood development.
consensustools.com
Larry Dressler is a consensus consultant. He is one of many international consultants that provide materials and training in consensus processes, although they all tend to focus on small groups (under 20) while the Co-op Tools Dotmocracy process is designed for larger groups of over 50.

blueoxen.com
Think tank devoted to studying and improving high-performance collaboration.

Deliberative Polling
James S. Fishkin has defined a technique that combines polling and deliberation to recognize informed public opinions.

inscapepublishing.com
Provide workbooks for team development. The focus is on smaller groups in traditional business stuctures.

optiontechnologies.com
Electronic audience polling technology.

This list is incomplete and in progress. I'd appreciate suggestions for who else to add.

Hosting for Online Discussion Groups

2007-04-28T16:28:00.000-05:00

If the high majority of the members of your organization or community use the Internet, you may find online discussion groups helpful for hosting communication in between meetings.

Below is a list of some of the best discussion mailing list hosting options available today...

groups.yahoo.com
The standard that others compare against. Incudes many features such as polls, photos, calendar and more.

groups.google.com
Simple but useful features like comment voting and custom information pages.

npogroups.org
Hosted by a not-for-profit. Uses Sympa open source software with decent web archives.

jiglu.com (formally mailspaces.com)
A new hybrid wiki and mailing lists.

onlinegroups.net
Uses open source software modeled after Yahoo groups. Note there limits on the number of subscribers.

Suggest others in the comments below.

The Co-op Tools List v2.0

2007-04-28T14:38:00.000-05:00

A collection of simple techniques that help make co-operation a whole lot easier.

Does your organization aspire to practice democracy beyond simple elections?

Does one of your organization's aims include being: egalitarian, equal opportunity, boss-less, bottom-up, grass roots, member driven, to use deliberative democracy, collective responsibility, participatory management or other ideals of a flat governance structure?

If so this list of suggestions should be helpful for your goals. I aim to update the list and improve the recommended resources on a regular basis.

Establish ground rules for respectful discussion.

Within the many meetings required within a democratic organization it is possible for some speakers to dominate by the way they speak. The tone, volume, pacing and kind of language used in a discussion can greatly affect the results and outcomes. Some aggressive characters can cause others to feel insulted, pressured or silenced. Many conflicts, misguided priorities and poor communication can be avoided if people can recognize the problems in their speech habits and work towards more fair and respectful forms of talk.

Use breakout groups and dotmocracy to make decisions in your big meetings.

In the standard plenary format meeting the more people participating the less opportunity each person has to speak and the less chance you will find collective agreement on an ideal decision. Using breakout groups of 5-7 diverse people, everyone can participate in thoughtful dialogue and deliberation. Use dotmocracy sheets to recognize agreement among all the participants across all the groups. With this format it is much easier to make more decisions as a group. Questions about mission, aims, objectives, project priorities, group policies, and strategic plans can be collectively answered using this process and thus creating a common base for cooperating effectively.

Recommended Resource: Dotmocracy Handbook (PDF)

Recognize a common plan and celebrate it.

Having a common plan that everyone believes in is the key to an effective democratic organization. When everyone knows what they are collectively working towards, why and how, they have less need for a boss to tell them what to do. To achieve this you need to carry-out a collective process of making a plan and then continually reminding yourselves of that plan. Clear and realistic milestones give short term focus within long term process.

Recommended Resource:Using the Preferred Futuring Process (PDF), Preferred Futuring (Book on amazon.com)

Documentation part one: Love it. Share it.

Information is power. When you write down information and share it your are sharing that power. When you document and share details of decisions, plans, results and other aspects of organization activities you are creating transparency for collective oversight and understanding for cooperation. Common important documents include:

Organization's mission, goals and objectives.
By-laws and policies.
A map of the activities and responsibilities within normal operations.
Project plans and progress information.
Contracts for persons with special responsibilities.
Employee manuals.
Committee terms of references.
Contacts: internal and external.
Budgets.
History and contextual information.
Frequently asked questions.
Minutes from meetings.

Documents are useful for referencing between collaborating parties and for informing people taking on new responsibilities. Without shared documentation people are always dependent on asking someone, creating hierarchy, delays and potential misunderstandings. Keep your documentation up-to-date and ensure everyone who wants or needs certain documents gets a copy. Empower the librarian types in your organization who have a passion for organizing, filing and labelling. Have a decent photocopier and give away binders for people to keep their documents in. Ideally keep copies of documents on-line linked from your organizations web site.

Recommended Resources: Google Docs, Exploring the World of Wikis

Documentation part two: Write with clarity, brevity and structure.

Documentation is only useful if people read it and can find the information they need. Eight pages of dense paragraphs describing discussion from a meeting is generally not helpful. A point form list of facts, decisions, actions items and pending questions is useful. Three years of chronological policy decisions is frustrating to search. A collection of active policy decisions organized by theme and/or relevancy to roles in the organization is easy and sensible to browse. Digital documents are most easily searched on the web.

Recommended Resources: Plain Language guide

Use an open application process and contracts for all important roles.

Any role of responsibility for the organization should be acquired through some form of competitive application process based on merit and capacity. Publicize openings, what is needed from the applying party, and use an ad-hoc panel to conduct a fair hiring process, even for volunteer positions. Once the person or group for the position is selected you will need to negotiate a detailed contract that specifies expectations and the extent and limits of authority and responsibility. Any future performance reviews can than be compared against documented contracts. Contracts should be continually referenced and updates negotiated as needed.

Recommended Resources: Finding and Hiring Good Employees

Use ad-hoc panels to make politically sensitive decisions

To avoid power concentrating in elected directors and other executive positions, ad-hoc panels of 3-7 members can be temporarily formed to investigate a question and make a decision that is not suitable or timely for a general assembly. The members of the panel should be a combination of representatives of the various interests involved in the decision and people independent of conflicts of interests. Examples may include a hiring process, work reviews, interpreting dotmocracy results and addressing conflicts. Using ad-hoc panels decreases the chance of cronyism, nepotism and hidden agendas affecting organizational decisions. This model depends on clearly documented plans, contracts and other organizational details to inform the panel's decision.

Recommended Resources: Citizen Juries

Provide non-work opportunities for community building.

Create time and space for members of your organization to be together without any responsibility. Examples include lunch rooms, retreats, dinners and parties. Use formats that encourage members to break out of their normal work teams and to talk with people they normally don't work directly with. The greater familiarity and trust among the members, the easier communication will flow. When people know each other they will find it easier to empathize, compromise, make agreements and feel the social pressure to keep their agreements.

Recommended Resources needed

Have an official democratically controlled newsletter.

A frequent newsletter can be an essential communication tool for publishing plans, project updates, requesting input and help, disseminating important information before collective decision making meetings and generally promoting common understandings and accountability. The key is recognizing the newsletter as a serious and formal element of the governance process that should be controlled by democratically agreed editorial policy and edited by an non-affiliated contracted individual. For example, the editorial policy may require a pre-publishing review process by an ad-hoc panel, the inclusion of accounting metrics, regular reports from specific roles, fact checking, encouraging multiple perspectives in submissions, and/or other methods of promoting transparency and useful insight. Format the newsletter to look legitimate and distribute it widely. It may help to include some fun elements and light reading so not to make it so boring that no one picks it up. If most of your members have email, you may want to consider using a mailing list.

Recommended Resources needed

Use discussion mailing lists and/or physical bulletin boards for internal communication.

If all the members of a team or committee have internet access then a discussion mailing list can be very useful for communicating in between meetings. Without web access a well organized bulletin board with supplies of pens and sticky notes can be very useful for posting messages and getting feedback within an office without requiring a meeting. In both cases each medium should be considered official and controlled by an agreed policy.

Recommended Resource: Hosting for Online Discussion Groups

Please post comments of feedback, suggestions and questions below...

And here is the rest of it.

A Positive Review of "The Community Planning Handbook"

2007-04-27T18:13:00.000-05:00

An excellent resource for conducting citizen consultation and engagement into neighbourhood development.
The Community Planning Handbook:
How people can shape their cities, town and villages in any part of the world.
by Nick Wates.
Published by Earthscan Publications Limited, 2000.

This book is the A-Z of community lead local planning. It includes 200 pages of concise and clearly explained principles, methods, example scenarios, forms, check lists, a glossary, contacts and other incredibly useful how-to resources. This manual is very useful for urban planning consultants, progressive municipal authorities and communities leaders that want to ensure the voice of the people who will be affected by local construction are part of the decision making process. Nick Wates writes from a perspective of real world experience with lots of practical tips for situations that vary from ideal community owned projects to last minute public consultation in a traditional city planing process.

This manual is designed to be easily searched for ideas and practical direction in planning and organizing events, managing processes and establishing organizations to involve and empower citizens to give informed direction to the designs and implementation of changes to the architecture in their communities. The text is written from a UK perspective although there is considerable effort made to include photos and context from other nations, especially from rural villages in places like China, India, Fiji, Kenya and the Philippines. Jeremy Brook's graphical design is very user friendly with hundreds of illustrative photos, diagrams, time lines and information boxes.

Although “The Community Planning Handbook” is written within a limited scope of physical planning and design for villages, towns and cities, many of the principles, methods and suggestions are still applicable to other situations of participatory planning, such as public policy and organizational change. If you want to help manage organization and community efforts that are bottom-up, buy this book and keep it on your desk.

A Review of “The Deliberative Democracy Handbook”

2007-04-18T12:59:00.000-05:00

An excellent collection of case studies of public deliberation in the aim of influencing government decision-making.

The Deliberative Democracy Handbook:
Strategies for Effective Civic Engagement in the Twenty-First Century
John Gastil (Editor), Peter Levine (Editor)
ISBN: 978-0-7879-7661-3

John Gastil and Peter Levine have done important service for the academics and practitioners in the field of public participation in government decision-making. This 300 page text book provides 19 chapters of research into diverse contemporary demonstrations of deliberative democracy mostly within the U.S.A. but also some in-depth reviews of important European, Australian and Brazilian systems. An excellent variety of models are discussed including all levels of government decision-making from city planing to national policies. The research is presented by diverse authors with first hand experience. The writing is a good balance of academic rigour and perspective as well as practitioner friendly explanations and observations.

The only problem with this text is the use of “handbook” in the title. While the clearly written case studies are insightful for practitioners and the various practical suggestions found through out book could help inform a processes plan, they do not constitute the definition of handbook, which is supposed to be an easily referenced manual for implementing a system. For a real handbook in deliberative democracy try “The Community Planning Handbook” by Nick Wates which clearly written and structured to guide people in the practical implementation of community deliberation to direct local decision-making. You may also be interested in handbooks for specific participatory democracy systems such as the classic “Preferred Futuring”, the popular “Open Space Technology”, the proven “Consensus Conference” or the new and ultra-simple “Advanced Dotmocracy”.

A Critical Review of “The Change Handbook” (first edition)

2007-04-18T12:47:00.000-05:00

A good introduction to the field of participatory change implementation and an overview of known methods, but not enough detail to actually implement anything.

The change handbook: Group methods for shaping the future
Editor: P Holman , T Devane
Publisher: Berrett-Koehler Publishers, Inc.
San Francisco, CA Copyright 1999

The first edition 1999 textbook gives basic descriptions of 18 different methods for getting many people to collaboratively make a plan for system wide change in their organization. The language and examples are written mostly from a Western business management perspective, although they do include references and useful insight for community organizations as well.

“The Change Handbook” begins with a brief discussion of the nature of change and some general points to consider when planning a change process. It continues with 18 chapters each dedicated to a different method, written by the model's creator or leading practitioners. Models are presented with standardized sections that include: success stories, basic explanations, how to start, roles and responsibilities, impacts on authority, conditions for success, theoretical basis, sustaining results and biographies. It concludes with several synthesized implementation suggestions, interesting predictions for the future, a great list of resources and a pull-out “Comparative Matrix” chart of all the models.

The text provides a birds eye view on the variety of organizational change models, which is is a much higher level of perspective than your typical manual of '101 Meeting Facilitation Techniques'. In fact, it does not include any specifics for how to practically structure or facilitate the various meetings called for by each model, or how to address potential problems that are likely to pop-up. The self congratulating format of the success stories lacks the critical and independent perspective of academic case studies. Many of the how-to type sections and advice from experienced consultants are useful for leaders looking to support change, although you will have to sift through many paragraphs of 'promotional speak' and repeated advice.

Peggy Holman and Tom Devane do a great job in selecting experienced contributors, but unfortunately it reads more like a catalogue of consultants and their approaches than a practical handbook for practitioners and organization leaders to use in the field. The reader gets a taste for each method, but is never satisfied with enough details of how to fully implement any process. This is not so much a fault of the editors as it is of the reality of trying to survey a field that is filled with consultants each selling their own slightly different magic approach and each wanting you to buy their own books and services.

With names like “Future Search”, “Search Conference” and “Conference Model” it is not easy to clearly identify the differences between models, besides the names of the consultants, their particular focus and their preferred jargon. Across all the methods there is a common process of getting dedicated support from leadership and including representatives from all types of roles and stakeholder groups related to the organization in a series of meetings where they discuss to understand their situation and deliberate to plan for a new common future that generally includes empowering workers and improving communication. Most of the differences between the models seem to be concerning what topics and approaches to address at each meeting. Other differences in applications can likely be attributed to the philosophy, style and skill of the consultant, and the culture and situation of the organization.

As a consultant, manager or board member this book provides you with many useful nuggets of insightful advice and suggestions for innovative approaches to organizational change, but you will probably find the lack of specifics to be frustrating, the redundancy to be tiresome and the stories and academic sections of little value.

For those who need to lead a system wide change in an organization or community you would be better served with a facilitators manual for participatory meetings and an in depth book on one method of choice. If you are not sure what method to choose, the recently released second edition of the “The Change Handbook” with 61 models, might be worth purchasing first.

- Written by Jason Diceman (jd AT cooptools.ca) who is yet another consultant promoting his own magic approach to collective decision-making: Advanced Dotmocracy (www.dotmocracy.org)

Venezuelan Communal Councils - a new model for participatory democracy

2007-04-04T13:23:00.000-05:00

I recently wrote and posted a complete article on Wikipedia describing Venezuelan Communal Councils. This new model of community based deliberative and participatory democracy is being intensively promoted accross Venezuela as the base of popular power in their effort towards demonstrating a new kind of "21st Century Socialism".

In April 2006 the Venezuelan government passed The Law of Communal Councils (consejo comunales) which empowers citizens to assemble, deliberate and vote on the creation of neighbourhood development plans and to elect local spokespersons to oversee their implementation. Meetings regularly include 50 to 150 citizens and may be convened on a weekly basis during planning stages.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Venezuelan_Communal_Councils

Also special thanks to Josh Lerner for his research and contributions.

I'll be inviting others to help revise the article and will add details as learn more from my research here in Cumanà, Venezuela.

Quotations from Clients

2007-01-03T09:46:00.000-05:00

Training Workshop Clients

"The Centre for Social Innovation was extremely excited to partner with Jason Diceman to present his introduction to Dotmocracy. The event generated a lot of interest among our audience and was one of the best attended and most highly rated workshops we've held. Jason delivered the workshop with expertise and good humour, encouraging the group to work together in real time using the Dotmocracy process. This was the perfect strategy for explaining the process and encouraging all participants to delve deeply into this unique and promising facilitation technique.

Dotmocracy is an excellent way to make decisions within a large group, facilitating equal contributions among all participants and ensuring that the final results are truly reflective of the group."
Eli Malinsky
Program Manager, Centre for Social Innovation

"I've been dotmocracized twice and loved every minute! An excellent energizing way to bring "interactive brainstorming" to a whole new level. A process that gets EVERYONE involved!!

One of the things that I appreciated the most about Jason's facilitation technique is his "energizing style" and his ability to be inclusive of everyone."
Kathy Marshall
Executive Director, Womenspace

"I was really impressed by Jason's facilitation skills throughout his workshop. I thought that he was really good at reading the energy in the room and keeping it up when needed.

I've actually thought a lot about the dotmocracy process and how well it worked. I was even thinking about suggesting the process for a feminist collective I'm on where we notoriously get together 2 full weekends per year to make ONE decision. What struck me was the ease with which common ground could be identified with such simplicity (and places of tension, for that matter). I was a little worried that it would not be an engaging process because there wasn't as much discussion as usual, but I felt engaged, listened to, and invigorated by how much was accomplished."
Kirstin Beardsley
Communications & Research Officer, Developing Human Resources in the Voluntary Sector

"I am very appreciative of how user friendly you made the training and of course the time you took to explain everything in non-techi terms."
Beth De Long
Executive Director, Pillar - Voluntary Sector Network

Web Development Clients

"The Karma Web Binder is an easy to use and interactive tool that has helped Karma Co-operative promote democracy and participation. The binder has allowed the board, committees and staff of Karma to develop policies, programs, roles and responsibilities with everyone's involvement and in a quick and comprehensive manner."
Graeme Hussey
Former president and current General Manager of Karma Food Co-operative

"Jason helped our organization set up an interactive online environment where our members can develop their ideas collaboratively, in real time, from anywhere, at anytime. That is what democracy looks like.

It is always a pleasure to work with someone as brilliant, professional and committed to a better world as Jason."
Michael Pilling
Head of Platform and Research, Green Party of Canada
Visit the Green Party Living Platform

"Because of Jason's skills and vision we have something wonderful: two large, user-friendly websites that seamlessly share content through a common database. We can now add more websites to share more content across the portal. Jason was able to brilliantly tailor the open source software to meet our needs. Always patient, skilled and quick to sort out problems, Jason was a real pleasure to work with, directly, and as a crucial link in a collaborative team effort."
Kathleen Cooper
Senior Researcher, Canadian Environmental Law Association (CELA)
Visit HealthyEnvironmentForKids.ca

Jason Diceman's Homepage

2006-12-29T14:13:00.000-05:00

Jason has been consulting on systems for participatory democracy since 1999. His research originated in the academic study of media and public discourse technology and has evolved to focus on practical decision-making methods for large co-operative organizations and effective collaborative governance.

Jason is best known for inventing the Advanced Dotmocracy process and providing easy to use and affordable web solutions for large co-operatives and non-government organizations. He often presents at conferences and conducts technical and dotmocracy facilitation training workshops.

Recent Workshops & Presentations

2006 National Conference on Dialogue & Deliberation (San Francisco, USA)

Presented Dotmocracy process as part of the facilitation techniques showcase.

2005 Building Strong Communities Conference (Toronto, Canada)

Participated in a panel on participatory democracy techniques.

2005 World Social Forum (Caracas, Venezuela)

Jason was invited and hosted by the Venezuelan Servicio Autónomo de la Propiedad Intelectual (SAPI) to give a workshop in open source software development and to demonstrate his Dotmocracy process.

Recent Clients

Centre for Social Innovation (2006)
Dotmocracy facilitation training workshop.

Voluntary Service Overseas - Canadian partner (2006)
Technical consulted on migration of web sites.

Ontario Council for International Cooperation (2006)

Facilitated a 2.5 hour group decision-making process as part of their annual Youth Symposium.

Canadian Co-operative Association (2005/06)
Planned and implemented the redevelopment of CoopZone.coop.

Social Innovation Canada (2004/06)
Designed and implemented online group decision-making tool set and web site.

Toronto General Hospital (2005/06)
Consulting on public engagement system selection and implementation for the Centre for Global eHealth Innovation.

Ashoka: Innovators for the Public (2005/06)
Selected and oversaw the implementation of a multi-site custom Drupal development and content management framework for Ashoka.org sites.

Sierra Club of Canada (2003/06)
Web development, consultation and training for various Sierra Club of Canada web services, including mailing lists, extranet and content management system.

City of Toronto (2005)

Facilitated Advanced Dotmocracy community decision-making process for City of Toronto meeting concerning Pedestrian Sundays in Kensington Market.

The Ontario Network of Employment Skills Training Projects (ONESTEP) (2005)

Provided strategic direction for web services.

Green Party of Canada (2003/05)

Developed the "Living Platform" system for the Green Party of Canada's collaborative policy development in 2005.

VoluntaryGateway (2003)

Conducted two day training course for 17 different NGO leaders using four different web systems for voluntarygateway.ca

Canadian Partnership for Children's Health and Environment (CPCHE) (2002-2006)
Designed and developed a shared content management for Healthy Environment For Kids . ca

Read quotations from clients

Education

Masters in Design for Interaction (2002)
The School of Communication and Creative Industries at University of Westminster (London, UK)

Honors BA in Radio and Television Arts (2001)
Ryerson Polytechnic University (Toronto, Canada)

Masters in Multimedia - one semester, exchange program (2000)
Karlstad University (Karlstad, Sweden)

Contact

E-mail:
jason(at)cooptools.ca

Phone:
416-538-co-op (2667)
1-866-519-co-op (2667)

Postal address available on request.

Jason lives in Toronto, Canada, but is traveling to Cumaná, Venezuela for 2007.

Links

Dotmocracy - Facilitators resource site.

Co-op Tools - List of tools for participatory democracy.

Jason's Photos on Flickr - Snap shots from my work and travels.

Jason's Videos on YouTube - Short clips from the past and my time in Venezuela.

Publications

Dotmocracy Handbook
An easy to read facilitators guide to the Advanced Dotmocracy process for large group decision-making. August 2006

Consensus Decision-Making Booklet (646 KB PDF)
A thorough explanation and collection of suggestions for consensus facilitation. April 2004

Choosing Open Source: A guide for civil society organizations
Co-authored with Mark Surman. January 2004

Ideal Public Discourse Technology (912 KB PDF)
130 pages on how to critique and design mass communication technology to support democracy. April 2001

The List of Co-op Tools

2006-12-29T13:16:00.000-05:00

Below is an evolving list of recommended techniques and technologies to conduct effective participatory democracy within a large organization.

[pre-draft / in progress]

1. Democratic Media

People need to be in control of the media that informs them. Whether it's a small newsletter or national broadcast, editorial decisions affect everyone and thus they should be made democratically. There are many web technologies that make it much easier to share ideas and information. Using rating scales and dotmocracy, any committed group of people could collectively author and distribute publications based on the explicit audience interest.

2. Open Dialogue and Deliberation

Dialogue and deliberation is the important conversations we that aim for understanding and agreement. Conflict resolution, community building and group problem-solving is best conducted in many small diverse groups of committed and informed people.

3. Consensus Driven Group Decision-making

Using the dotmocracy process, trusted decision-makers can easily recognize group preferences and author formal group decisions that closest approach consensus. Dotmocracy directed decisions and policy creation has the potential to provide a complete alternative to the traditional model of elected representatives.

4. Recommendation Based Delegation

Positions of power, such as managers and editors, should be posted based on the positive reputation of the applicants. Those who have served the group well in the past are most likely to serve well again in the future. This is a very different model than simple elections which are commonly superficial contests between a small group of power hungry individuals. It's more like hiring a general manager by committee or peer recommendation. There are many well proven reputation systems and hiring best practices that can be applied.

Repeating this process should allow any group of co-operative people to collectively direct and collaborate on shared projects and operations.

Writing for the Web

2006-12-29T10:22:00.000-05:00

People read web sites differently then they read paper pubications. On the web, people visually scan for chuncks of useful information and link to and from related pages and sites. With this in mind, here are some key tips for writing effectively on the web.

General

Get to the point. Start with the conclusion (see Inverted Pyramid diagram).
Be yourself. Write conversationally.
Write short, tight paragraphs.
Stay on topic.
Avoid unnecessary wordiness. Half the word count (or less) than conventional writing.
Make your title attention grabbing and still descriptive.
Preview your edits. Make sure mark-up and links work.
Proof-read and spellcheck your work.
Include many useful link references.
Avoid "marketese" e.g. "hottest ever" and “leading edge”.
Write for your audiences’ needs.
Avoid hyperbole e.g. “My Web site has a zillion pages.”
Check your facts and include links to support your claims.
Remember your audience is global.

Write to be Scanned

Chunk the information into bite-sized bits.
Write meaningful headlines for each thought.
Use bulleted lists or a table instead of narrative paragraphs.
Use keywords in the title and introduction / abstract.
Bold keywords throughout.
Use action verbs, i.e. avoid flat verbs like: is, have, was.
Make links describe their destination. Avoid the use of “click here”.
Use one idea per paragraph

Editorial Style

Establish a consistent writing style and use of terminology through-out your site.
Decide on a common reference, e.g. The Canadian Oxford Compact Dictionary
Recommend spellings: e-mail Web online Internet
Avoid jargon and spell-out acronyms the first time used on each page.

Attribution Best Practices

It's OK to link to any page on the net without requesting permission.
Reposting anything more than a link and quoted paragraph requires getting the author’s permission.
Use and recommend the use of Creative Commons licenses – these promote the easy distribution of great content. See http://creativecommons.org/

Dotmocracy Handbook and Idea Sheets

2006-12-29T09:28:00.000-05:00

Dotmocracy is an established facilitation method for collecting and prioritizing ideas among a large number of people. It is an equal opportunity and participatory group decision-making process.

You can download the Co-op Tools Dotmocracy Handbook (PDF) and blank Idea Sheet (PDF) at Dotmocracy.ca