get our newsletter or

facebook

Twitter

SFGreenParty
"Ma'am, those are scented candles." twitter.com/TheRealWBTC/st…

12 hours ago

SFGreenParty
Condolences to Dems on the loss of their conspiracy theory. Can we finally #impeach Trump for the many crimes he ac… twitter.com/i/web/status/1…

23 hours ago

SFGreenParty
Hope it can tunnel under the floods. twitter.com/ksinglewine/st…

3 days ago

jeff_kaye
Pelosi parrots line of John Bolton and Elliott Abrams. Meanwhile, where are the protests about this from her “libe… twitter.com/i/web/status/1…

Retweeted 4 days ago

SFGreenParty
@dc_us If you can't eat their free lunch, drink their booze, go on their radio show, then vote against them, you've… twitter.com/i/web/status/1…

4 days ago in reply to dc_us

SFGreenParty
Hope they self-drive the company into the ground! #deleteLyft #deleteUber twitter.com/TheMarinaTimes…

4 days ago

MMSFOceanBeach
Concise statement on the free market fundamentalist scheme put forward by the super-rich and their minions to corne… twitter.com/i/web/status/1…

Retweeted 5 days ago

SFGreenParty
@FuckCons We've heard there's an effective vaccine against cooties, but it doesn't work on us because we once talke… twitter.com/i/web/status/1…

6 days ago in reply to FuckCons

SFGreenParty
@charliearchy Kind of a stretch to infer Holocaust denial from Baraka's comments about oil wars.

6 days ago in reply to charliearchy

 

Consensus

The SF Green Party uses the consensus process for making most of our decisions, including endorsements.  In the consensus process, we seek the agreement of a supermajority of participants, and also to resolve or mitigate the concerns of the minority in order to achieve the most agreeable decision.

The consensus process starts with a presentation of a proposal by one or more presenters.  After the presentation, the meeting facilitators take a "stack" of questions designed to clarify any parts of the proposal or facts concerning it that are not clear.  The facilitators alternate between calling on male and female participants ("gender stacking") and may call on people out of turn in order to encourage participants who have not previously spoken.

After the clarifying questions are answered, the facilitators take another stack of concerns and affirmations about the proposal.  People with concerns are encouraged to provide "friendly amendments" that will change the proposal to resolve or mitigate their concern; these amendments may be accepted at the option of the presenters.  All such actions are noted in the minutes.  When all concerns have been heard, the facilitators test for consensus.

If there are no remaining concerns that have not been resolved by friendly amendments, consensus is reached and the proposal passes.

If there are remaining concerns, the presenters may withdraw the proposal, or have the facilitators ask those people with concerns to "stand aside."  If all those with concerns agree to stand aside, the proposal still passes by consensus.

A person with a concern about the proposal may not agree to stand aside, especially if they feel that enacting the proposal would not be consistent with our Ten Key Values.  This is called a "blocking" concern.  If there are blocking concerns about a proposal, consensus is not reached.

In cases where we do not reach consensus, the presenters have the option of attempting to pass the proposal by supermajority vote.  Business decisions (i.e., carrying out an existing policy) require a 2/3 threshold, endorsements a 3/4 threshold, and adoption of new policies requires a 4/5 threshold.  Details of our voting procedure are given in our bylaws.