Red Card and Plenary Decision Making

The intention of this policy is to make the red card a part of our process rather than a stop to our process.  This agreement and the criteria it names are intended to be flexible, but outlined so everyone can know how to engage the process.

 

General Assumptions

  1. Please assume that all participants are competent and of good will.

  2. Please assume that the community both values and is committed to having those who disagree with proposals help seek mutually acceptable and workable solutions.

The goal of the red card process is to make it so that people who believe that a decision is not in the best interest of the community can stop that decision. Use of a valid red card blocks a proposal. It is expected that those stopping the decision will work with the proposers to resolve any issues, usually in time for the next meeting of the plenary.

The second time the same, perhaps revised, proposal comes to the plenary, if there continue to be valid red cards around the same issues, any member, including the facilitator, can call for a decision on whether the group is deadlocked.  If a deadlock is declared, the decision on the proposal proceeds to a vote, to be held at the next scheduled meeting of the plenary, or at a special meeting, depending on urgency.  The agenda for the meeting will highlight that a ‘Community Vote’ will take place.  Cohousing proposals require a 75% majority of those present to pass.  

HOA decisions will follow the voting policies outlined in sections 4.1, 4.2, 5.9.3, and 5.10 of the Mosaic Commons Declaration of Trust:

Mosaic Commons Declaration of Trust, filed (mosaic-commons.org)

HOA Voting Process Page (mosaic-commons.org)

At each pass, people using red and orange cards will be given the opportunity to choose to stand aside rather than block the decision. To stand aside is to say that you have an individual objection but a willingness for the community, having heard your objection, to move ahead.  Stand Asides do not block. People who stand aside are not exempted from the results of the decision.  There are circumstances where Facilitation may decide that we have not really come to consensus and the issue will be referred back to the proposer(s).

Valid Red Cards

After the person who used a red card explains their objection, the facilitator calls for a second member to affirm their reasoning to help make sure that the community's interests are upheld.  This person does not have to AGREE with the block, just agree that the reasoning is valid.

On the first pass a valid use of a red card is one where

  1. The person using the red card argues that the proposal is not in the best interests of this community as a whole:

    1. The content does not further or protect Mosaic Commons’ values, mission, practices, or vision.

      AND/OR

    2. The process used to develop the proposal conflicts with Mosaic Commons’ values, mission, practices or vision.

    AND

  1. For content objections, the person using the red card has been involved in some way with this discussion before this meeting - either online, at a past meeting, or in conversation with one of the proposers or team members presenting.  If the proposal has come to the plenary for first discussion and decision in a single meeting, the discussion in the meeting counts as involvement.

    AND

  2. After the person who used a red card explains their reasoning, one member of the plenary affirms the validity of the reasoning with respect to #1 above.


On the second pass a valid use of a red card is one where

  1. The person using the red card argues that the proposal is not in the best interests of this community as a whole - it does not further or protect Mosaic Commons’ values, mission, practices, or vision.

    AND

  2. The person using the red card

    1. has been involved in the revisioning process.
      OR

    2. is red carding for a new reason because of changes to the proposal (and has not been involved in the revision process.)

    AND

  1. After the person who used a red card explains their reasoning, one member of the plenary affirms the validity of the reasoning with respect to #1 above.