get our newsletter or

facebook

Twitter

cynthiamckinney
It's true, folks. One has to pledge not to boycott Israel in order to get funding to rebuild your home. ci.dickinson.tx.us/documentcenter…

Retweeted 2 hours ago

TenantsUnionSF
@LondonBreedSF @savemidtown @SFCity_Hall holds meeting about demoing hundreds of homes & their Supervisor nor staff… twitter.com/i/web/status/9…

Retweeted 12 hours ago

zabethsue
Chariot is on the agenda for the SFMTA today. Demand fair market charges: MTABoard@sfmta.org. sfexaminer.com/regulate-chari…

Retweeted 2 days ago

SFGreenParty
They still continue to spam us with ads for fake taxis, though. #deleteUber #deleteLyft twitter.com/katienotopoulo…

3 days ago

AngryBerner
#MondayMotivation Even the Hindenburg needed a spark to explode. Hillary's campaign had no spark. #BlameTheBerntwitter.com/i/web/status/9…

Retweeted 3 days ago

SFGreenParty
This reminds us of the "Willie Brown endorses Bevan Dufty" signs posted by some of Eileen Hansen's dumber supporter… twitter.com/i/web/status/9…

4 days ago

SFGreenParty
Californians make $124 million per year from just one form of slavery! twitter.com/SeanMcElwee/st…

5 days ago

SFGreenParty
Twitter will be pretty boring after they ban all Americans. twitter.com/jack/statuses/…

5 days ago

BarryH4Congress
Health care is a HUMAN right, I have been fighting 4 this 4 years. #SB562 #MedicareForAll #Hermanson4Congress youtu.be/ZxVSwgXMJLo

Retweeted 5 days ago

PNHP
Calif. #SinglePayer activists will push for #SB562 in all 80 state assembly districts this weekend. bit.ly/2kMKQSC via @4HealthyCA

Retweeted 6 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.