MEETING PROCESS MANUAL

A slightly different version of this manual was originally printed by the Green Party of Alaska and has provided meeting participants with a common basis for developing effective group decision-making techniques. It is hoped that this manual will be useful both as a means of orientation for new participants and as a reference for veterans.

This manual is intended to provide a starting point. Modification and improvement of this manual should be an ongoing process. Your input and suggestions are needed and requested.

Most of the concepts presented herein originated in other groups. Democratic, participatory group decision-making processes based on CONSENSUS have a long history. In general, these processes are designed to enable the group to make decisions based on the collective knowledge, experience and creativity of all the participants. FORMAL CONSENSUS is a profoundly egalitarian and spiritual form of decision making which works best when participants share a common purpose, a high degree of trust and experience. Quakers have used it for over 300 years. John Dewey developed a more scientifically oriented approach in the 1930's. More recently, the Movement for a New Society has developed some useful guidelines and the Center for Conflict Resolution has done some excellent work to develop these processes. Large national groups such as the Free Speech Movement, the Bioregional Movement and the US Green Committees of Correspondence helped develop an AGREEMENT-SEEKING process which resembles FORMAL CONSENSUS, but allows decisions to be made using a fall-back vote. Since a decision is possible by voting when "consensus" has not emerged, the AGREEMENT-SEEKING process is not, and should not be referred to as CONSENSUS. Since both FORMAL CONSENSUS and AGREEMENT-SEEKING processes allow "standing aside" from a decision they differ dramatically from DEMOCRATIC CENTRALISM, which insists that the losing minority adhere to the voted-upon decision.

This manual is divided into two parts: Functionaries and Process. the first deals with the specific tasks that members of the group may perform to help make the meeting run more smoothly. The Process section is mostly a menu of techniques which may be used as needed to make decisions in a large group.

FUNCTIONARIES

Types
The Greens have traditionally used four types of functionaries: facilitators and co-facilitators, minutetakers and scribes, timekeepers, and process observers.

Facilitator / Co-Facilitator
The facilitator conducts the process of the meeting, their primary task is the orchestration of the flow of input into the meeting. The facilitator is never the presenter of an agenda item. Their role is (literally) to make it easier for the group to express its ideas and come to agreement on issues. One of the most important functions the facilitator serves is to recognize and make possible the participation of each of the members while at the same time limiting the over-expression of very dominant meeting participants.

Other tasks include: calling the group back to the agenda, keeping member comments short and to the point , restating comments for clarity as needed, applying various processes and rules when appropriate, being attentive to the needs and input of the timekeepers, minutetakers, process observers, starting and stopping the meeting on time, and generally keeping things moving along at a timely pace.

In some situations (large meetings, highly charged issues, inexperienced facilitators, etc.), it is helpful to have a backup facilitator. The two co-facilitators can then divide the duties and stress to make a difficult situation more manageable.

Facilitators must remain non-partisan and objective. If they perceive a conflict of interest or become emotionally charged by a particularly intense exchange or agenda item, they should allow their co-facilitator to facilitate the meeting for a "cooling-off" period.

Minutetaker
The minutetaker is responsible for recording the proceedings of the meeting, noting all decisions as separate "minutes", and for producing a written copy of the minutes for distribution to the group if required.

If meetings are recorded on audio tape, the minutetaker's task during the meeting may become more focused.

At the time of a decision by the group, the minutetaker should read out loud a written copy of the tentative agreement. In this way, the agreement is stated clearly prior to the decision and the participants know exactly what they are agreeing to. This written agreement can then be read back as needed during the meeting. The general content of major discussion should also be noted in the minutes.

As an aid to the minutetaker, a proposal that is submitted to the group should be written in its final form including amendments, clarifications and refinements, and given to the minutetaker for inclusion in the minutes. This guarantees that all agreed upon items get included and frees the minutetaker for other duties.

Scribe
A scribe is helpful in making large lists or notations on a blackboard or on large sheets of paper which are visible to the whole group. These can be lists of ideas generated during brainstorming or an evaluation, when consolidating information, breaking proposals into smaller decisions, etc.

The scribe may be asked to list names during "stacking" (see process), and post other relevant data before the entire group. Some of these functions may be more efficiently provided by a co-facilitator, if one is present. All sheets of paper and notes made by the scribe in front of the group should be taken by the minutetaker for inclusion in the records of the meeting.

Timekeeper
Timekeepers track the progress of the agenda according to the agreed upon time limits. They let the group know when the allotted time is used, and may periodically indicate to the group as segments of time are used during longer agenda items. Occasionally, they may have to keep track of several things at once. For example, timing a general agenda segment, a subsegment's overrun period, and the length of a speaker's comment. If the tone of the meeting is more informal, they may only be keeping track of an agenda segment's starting and stopping time.

Generally, the use of visual signals to indicate how much time remains is preferable since it does not interfere with the spoken information flow.

A gentle sound the group recognizes is a fairly unobstructive way to let the group know when a time limit has been reached. If that signal is ignored, the timekeeper may need to become vocal. Once an agreement is made to limit time on an agenda item, such as during the initial adoption of the agenda, the group must contract for additional time on that item in order for time to be extended.

Process Observer
Often when groups go awry and the atmosphere becomes tense, it is because the agreed upon process has subtly broken down thereby creating frustrations. An outside observer can sometimes more easily spot these breakdowns and bring them to the attention of the group. In this way they perform a role similar to a parliamentarian.

These functionaries are objective observers. They are not directly part of the discussion so they are in a position to catch things those more closely involved may miss. They are to attune themselves to the emotional climate of the meeting and should keep track of moods, point out "hidden agendas", individual power struggles, role playing, extrinsic conflicts (conflict not related to the discussion item) etc., pointing these out when and if they become impediments to the groups progress.

Process observers inject their comments when necessary and are called upon during the evaluation phase of a meeting to present their general observations.

PROCESS

Types
There are a variety of process mechanisms that groups using AGREEMENT-SEEKING decision-making may apply. The appropriateness of each is unique to each group and each situation. They should be selected and applied as need dictates.

Agenda Review
Assuming a tentative agenda has been assembled by a working group prior to the meeting (a recommended procedure), a copy of that agenda should be written by a scribe and posted so it is easily visible to everyone at the meeting. The entire tentative agenda should be reviewed by the group with presenters providing clarification as needed. The facilitator may then call for limited discussion to arrive at an agreement on the appropriateness of the agenda. Items to be added or deleted, the order of the items, the amount of time each item is allotted, and if necessary, the priority of the items should be established at the beginning of the meeting and the first decision made by the group should be the adoption of their agenda. The words "tentative agenda" can be used above the proposed agenda, and once the group has made its agreement, "tentative" may be crossed-out, indicating the adoption of the agenda. An agenda should have at least 4 columns, including the the item's title, the presenter's name, type of item (report, decision, brainstorm, etc.) and the item's time limit. In addition, there might be more than one facilitator during the meeting which should be listed alongside the items, and an indication of the priority of items or their numerical order.

Seating and Introductions
Everyone should position themselves wherever they feel most comfortable in a circle (the preferred configuration for effective communication) and introduce themselves, stating their names, the group they belong to, and other relevant information such as their status at the meeting, i.e., voting member, delegate, observer, etc.

Unless there is a specific group of decision makers, a single circle with no one "outside" the circle is preferable. A "fish-bowl" sometimes can be used when a select group, voting delegates for instance, is seated in a circle, with observers in concentric circles or in designated areas around them.

Discussion
In a large group format, several formalized processes have been used successfully to help make the discussion process workable. The process of "stacking" is a means of ordering member's input. Those wishing to speak raise their hands. The facilitator generally uses body language to acknowledge them and either logs the order mentally, or perhaps with the assistance of the scribe or co-facilitator, records them on a list and they are called in that order. This helps equalize participation. Periodically, the facilitator may wish to state the order of the stack or to inform the group of the number of people in the "stack".

There are variations and exceptions. Generally, no participant should speak twice on an issue until all participants wishing to do so have had an opportunity to speak. However, when discussion is heated, people often become too eager to speak or respond to allow proper attention to be paid to other's input. In this instance, LIMITED EXCHANGE can be allowed after the person in the stack has spoken, It must be carefully guided by the facilitator, however, so that it doesn't get out of hand. The facilitator must indicate when a limited exchange should be terminated, and will call on the next person in the stack.

Other interruptions allowed during the stacking process or in general discussions include POINT OF INFORMATION, POINT OF CLARITY, and POINT OF PROCESS. If a participant has information unknown to the rest of the group that is immediately relevant and necessary to what a speaker is saying, that participant should interrupt by saying "POINT OF INFORMATION". The facilitator should then allow that participant to briefly and concisely present their strictly informational, non-opinionated input. Following the interruption, the regular sequence of discussion is resumed.

If a participant is unclear about what has been said or what is going on and interrupts with "POINT OF CLARITY", the facilitator may suspend discussion briefly to respond to that participant's question. If the facilitator is unable to clear up the confusion, another participant may be recognized to briefly offer the necessary information. This allows the participant seeking clarity to be brought up to speed so their input can be included in the on going discussion. Once the issue is resolved, or reasonable effort has been expended trying to do so, the facilitator should direct the group back to the regular sequence of discussion.

The call for "POINT OF PROCESS" should come from any participant who sees a problem developing due to the process breakdown. Once recognized by the facilitator, the participant should briefly indicate what "point of process" is involved (such as an impeding time limit, straying form the topic, dealing with a non-agenda item, etc.) and offer a proposed solution.

Time Limits
When an issue is hot and everyone wants to address it, the facilitator may need to impose time limits. Generally, limiting each speaker to one or two minutes helps speakers to be concise, to emphasize only the most important ideas, and not to dwell on long, rhetorical arguments.

Proposals
Proposals may come complete from a single author, group, committee, or may be formed through discussion and brainstorming during the meeting.

In general, detailed or complicated proposals should be in writing and circulated prior to the meeting. During discussion of a particular item, a "sense of the meeting" often emerges that can be put into words. When a participant feels that it would be helpful, s/he should state their understanding of the "sense" as a proposal. A presenter should have the proposal written out for clarity.

Calling the Question
When the facilitator or any participant of the meeting feels that discussion is complete and no new input is forthcoming, s/he may say "call the question." If it is a simple and clear proposal or decision, the facilitator may briefly restate it, check to see if there is general agreement on calling the question, and ask "Is there any call for clarification?" If there is no call for clarification, the facilitator will ask " Is there any call for concern?" Participants should clearly indicate their position either with body language or vocally so that the facilitator has no difficulty determining the sense of the meeting. If there are no questions or concerns, a test for agreement is made, where the facilitator may ask for an action by the group to indicate their AGREEMENT. The facilitator should then move the group on to the next item. If there are questions and concerns, discussion should continue.

In more complicated decisions and for issues which may require exact understanding of the proposal, the minutetaker should be prepared to read the proposal to the group prior to testing for agreement.

Call for Clarification
The facilitator or minutetaker will state the proposal and ask if there is any call for clarification. Questions about the proposal are answered during this part of the process, concerns are saved for later discussion. Once the group is satisfied that the proposal is clearly understood, the facilitator will ask if there is any call for concern.

Call for Concern
The facilitator or minutetaker will re-state the proposal and ask if there is any call for concern regarding the proposal.

A concern is a statement of how the proposal as stated might conflict with the group's stated purpose and shared values. The facilitator will recognize those who have concerns, distill their concerns into short phrases and a co-facilitator or scribe may list them on a blackboard or easel. Listing concerns in this manner helps the group focus on the concern, not the presenter or the person raising the concern. Concerns should be impersonal. After all the concerns have been listed, the facilitator will deal with each in turn to resolve the concerns through group discussion and friendly amendments.

Group Resolution
Concerns are resolved as the proposal is explained or changed to address them. To make AGREEMENT more easily attainable, it may be possible for a participant having difficulty accepting a proposal to offer a "FRIENDLY AMENDMENT" that expands somewhat on the original idea or changes it to a minor degree in a manner that satisfactorily addresses their concerns without altering the "sense of the meeting" on the issue. If accepted by the presenter and the group, the friendly amendment should be worded into the proposal being discussed.

If, after further discussion, the proposal seems satisfactory, it should be carefully restated and the facilitator should call the question. The accepted proposal with amendments should be written down by the minutetaker and confirmed by the presenter in its final form for inclusion in the minutes.

Stand Aside / Withdraw
If, after reasonable discussion and exploration, the group cannot resolve the concerns through friendly amendments, the facilitator should try to determine the depth of the concerns. The facilitator will ask if those with concerns will STAND ASIDE to allow the group to reach AGREEMENT. The individuals who "stand aside" from the decision may be noted in the minutes with their reasons recorded. Many decisions can be made in this way without resorting to voting and without harmful consequences to the group.

However, if a large percentage of the group is "standing aside", the rest of the group should weigh the consequences of making the decision without the support and inclusion of those who are "standing aside". If those with concerns are not willing to stand aside from the decision, the facilitator will ask the presenter if s/he will withdraw the proposal or the part of the proposal which is causing concern so that AGREEMENT may be reached. If not, the proposal can be delegated to a committee of resolution.

Committee of Resolution
This smaller group should include skilled representatives of all sides of the issue who are acceptable to all members of the larger group. They may meet during a break or temporarily withdraw from the larger group, which should then occupy itself with some other relatively minor issue, and attempt to come to AGREEMENT. The resolution they develop may then be carried back to the larger group and introduced for discussion and approval. It may be necessary to reconvene the smaller group for further attempts at achieving a workable solution before AGREEMENT can be reached.

Defer Decision / Vote
If the committee of resolution or group absolutely cannot reach AGREEMENT, and it is determined that a decision must be made at the particular meeting, the facilitator will call for the group (voting members only) to vote on whether or not to defer the issue. If the vote to defer passes (by a percentage to be agreed upon by the group 50+1%, 66 2/3%, higher?), then a decision on the item is postponed for consideration at a future meeting. If the vote to defer does not pass, the facilitator then calls for a vote on the proposal. In place of the AGREEMENT-SEEKING process a vote is then used to decide the issue. If the voting members or delegates vote to accept or reject the particular proposal (66 2./3% on substantive issues, 50% +1 on procedural issues) the decision becomes binding and is entered into the minutes with a record of votes for and against, including abstentions. This process should be used only as a last resort and it can be percieved as an abandonment of the principles of the consensus model of decision-making. Sometimes, with pressure of time and a sense of urgency, the group may decide to vote on much of its agenda

Evaluation
If the process is to improve, there must be an opportunity to review what went on and why, and a time to suggest ways to make it work better next time.

For a large group the scribe can make a list on a blackboard or a large sheet of newsprint that the whole group can see. Headings should be placed at the top: a "-" on the left side, and a "+" on the right side. In brainstorming fashion and without argumentation or discussion, the group should create a list of all the things that did not work well under the "-" and of all the things that did go well under "+". After listing, the group should briefly discuss how to improve those items listed under "-" and, where necessary, ways of maintaining the "+" items. Suggestions and listings should be included in the minutes.