get our newsletter or

facebook

Twitter

EQUIPTO
Great question..... Safety hazard?? I’m interested in how sheltering folks from this toxic air is not beneficial fo… twitter.com/i/web/status/1…

Retweeted 12 hours ago

GPCA
Utilities Commission President Unacceptably Promises To Pass Wildfire Liability Costs To PG&E Customers! sfchronicle.com/california-wil…

Retweeted 12 hours ago

yanisvaroufakis
Time to apologise for those who denied that Julian Assange is on the run for revealing the truth we should all know… twitter.com/i/web/status/1…

Retweeted 2 days ago

MMSFOceanBeach
This is why I opposed giving the City control of the trees. $2K to plant and water a tree is 75% non-horticultural… twitter.com/i/web/status/1…

Retweeted 2 days ago

AdamKimSF
Thank you to everyone who helped out in my campaign, including but not limited to @sfberniecrats, Michael Coorlim,… twitter.com/i/web/status/1…

Retweeted 2 days ago

SFGreenParty
How are the burgers at #FiveWhiteGuys? We haven't tried them.

3 days ago

SFGreenParty
All the Dems' leaders are awful people who should be fired. We're just surprised that they haven't yet pinned this… twitter.com/i/web/status/1…

3 days ago

sfberniecrats
The 2018 elections are over but San Francisco is still the most expensive city in the world. Now it’s time to brin… twitter.com/i/web/status/1…

Retweeted 4 days ago

SFGreenParty
Willie Brown could teach a master class on "pay to play" but we doubt he'll divulge those secrets in a free lecture. pic.twitter.com/oEMGRjjZRx

4 days ago

 

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.