MINUTES

3RD MEETING OF THE CONSENSUS COLLECTIVE

JULY 26, 2002

Those Present: Judith Kidd (facilitator), Bonnie Kelly, Fred Herman, Christine Hall, Hilary Heyl, Suzanne Kryder, Mary Roy

Visitors: Shaila Catherine

 
  1. APPLICATION OF STEPS IN "STAGE 1 OF CONSENSUS BUILDING: UNDERSTAND THE PROPOSAL," FROM RULES FOR REACHING CONSENSUS (excerpts had been discussed at meeting #2)

Discussion: The group decided to use the issue of diversity as a case example to develop according to the consensus protocols laid out in the article above. Below is the case example:

A. Development of a proposal:

a) Purpose: To increase diversity in the Albuquerque Vipassana Sangha (AVS) by age, ethnicity, sexual orientation, disabilities, gender, etc.

b) Proposal: AVS will have the Journal, Tribune, and Alibi print the following announcement on a weekly basis: "The Albuquerque Vipassana Sangha meets at 6:30 p.m. at the Buddhist Center of NM, Wat Buddhasothorn, at 145 Madison NE each Thursday for 40 minutes of meditation followed by 40 minutes of discussion or a talk. All are welcome. Please contact Suzanne Kryder at 771-8498 for further information."

c) Time Parameters: 6 months

d) Cost to Sangha or fundraising required: $0

e) Implementation Plan: Fred Herman will be responsible for the publications and gathering the evaluative feedback

f) Evaluation of Impact/Follow-through: Ask people how they found about us at weekly meetings for the first 3 months
  1. Clarifying Questions:

    2. Most of the clarifying questions became part of fuller development of the proposal as described above. We experienced that the more well thought out a proposal, the less time needs to be spent by a membership meeting on clarifying questions.

  2. State Concerns:
  1. Question of whether the content of the proposal, while valid in itself, would meet the objective of increasing diversity
  2. Nature of the evaluation activities - would this be an announcement? Informal discussion? Done by a small group of people or one person or a form? (This could also be a clarifying question.)

Practice of this section showed the group that it is important to elicit ALL concerns before opening discussion on any one concern.

ACTION: The Consensus Collective unanimously recommends that all proposals to go before the sangha membership for consensus decision-making should be presented in written form, with details provided in the six areas of information described in 1.A. above. It was decided to review at the next meeting the Meeting Guidelines previously developed by Suzanne Sluizer to see how they fit with this recommendation, and to determine the next step for this recommendation.
  1. SATIR GROWTH MODEL

Discussion: Mary Roy presented information on the Satir Growth Model, a therapeutic model for inner growth that focuses on the congruence of feelings, words and actions. She led the group through exercises that demonstrated (physically and verbally) placating, blaming, distracting and

super-reasonable or computing states of mind. She explained the imbalance of self, other

and context that was present in each state.

Mary also introduced Satir's communication tool of "temperature reading," which involves the voluntary and self-initiated expression by group members of appreciations/excitements; complaints with ideas; puzzles, questions and concerns; new information; humor; and hopes/wishes. Its purpose is to build safety and communication, and to clear the air of distractions.

The group responded favorably, and discussed ways that this tool might be used in consensus meetings (e.g., using it at the start, using parts of it at the start, due to time). No conclusions or recommendations were reached.

3. EVALUATION OF USE OF MINDFULNESS BELL AT LAST MEMBERSHIP MEETING

Discussion: Mary Roy presented the results from a short, written evaluation of use of the mindfulness bell , which was used at random intervals determined by choosing variable time intervals on slips of paper in a bowl. Wynette Richards rang the bell, which allowed for 20 sec of silence and inner reflection before resuming the discussion at hand. The results of the evaluation were mixed, although a majority thought we should use the tool regularly. A comment was written that this tool may be much

more effective during a meeting with more controversial content. Another comment that was discussed and agreed on is that the evaluation tool did not provide adequate feedback regarding the "sense" of the meeting -- a [spiritual] "process that relies consciously on the Spirit, and is….not synonymous with consensus process," as the Quaker article describes it. This is probably a greater area of impact of the mindfulness bell than meeting effectiveness.

4. OTHER: The group agreed to have the facilitator of each C2 meeting give feedback about the experience of facilitating at the end of the meeting, and to discuss any new tools practiced with the group.

ACTION: JUDITH KIDD AGREED TO REVIEW THE FORM AND DEVELOP A DRAFT BY NEXT MEETING THAT CAN BE USED TO EVALUATE ALL INNOVATIONS AT MEMBERSHIP MEETINGS. THE GROUP WILL REVIEW THIS AT THE NEXT MEETING.

NEXT MEETING: FRIDAY, SEPTEMBER 6, 2:30 - 4:30, CHRISTINE HALL'S HOME, 10315 PROPPS ST. (NEAR CANDELARIA/MORRIS, EAST OF EUBANK). Please arrive 15 minutes early for socializing; we will start promptly at 2:30 with Bonnie Kelly as facilitator, Judith Kidd as recorder.