Newcastle 2019 Governance Decision Making - 2 proposals
Animorph Co-op
Public
Seen by 90
As outlined on the wiki, we came up with two proposals that were presented to the gathering at the end of day one, and further workshopped on the second day. There were no objections to the proposals hence we would like to put them forward to a vote by all members of CoTech.
Proposal One - Voting Membership of CoTech
This proposal puts forward the model of “Voting Shares”. A Voting Share is held by an individul when ALL of the following are TRUE:
- They are a member of their own co-operative
- Their co-operative is a member of CoTech
- Their co-operative contributes £1 per week for their individual voting share
If ratified, the proposal will come into effect on the 28th of February 2020. More details on wiki page.
Proposal Two - Voting Membership of CoTech
Making binding decisions involves two steps:
1. The Proposal Loop
2. Voting (Ratification / Binding)
The Proposal Loop step is an iterative process of refining a proposal so that it may be taken to Voting. Any individual member or group of members may put forward an idea to refine into a proposal and they may make use of any communication channel to do this e.g. sending out emails to interested parties, collaborating over forums, etc. Once the individual or group is happy that their idea has matured into a meaningful proposal that requires a binding decision they inform CoTech that they wish the proposal to be discussed at a Monthly Meeting call (which are held remotely). The task of Monthly Meeting (as it relates to the proposal) is to engage with the proposal and decide if it is mature enough to send to a vote, or whether it needs to be iterated further. A mature proposal will embody the SMART Principles.To be taken to Voting the proposal needs to be seconded by any voting member of CoTech who was not involved in making the proposal. The purpose of this seconding is to provide a minimal check on proposal readiness before it goes to Voting -- if nobody will second the proposal perhaps it needs more engagement and iteration.
Voting occurs using the Loomio platform. A vote on Loomio is created which links to the proposal details and members are informed via appropriate channels. A proposal is subject to the rules of the constitution. To pass -- a two thirds (67%) vote in favour of the proposal is required. Once a proposal has passed the Loomio poll becomes the documentation of the decision. Any actionable items outlined in the proposal should be assigned appropriately for implementation.
Once the second proposal is ratified, the two-step process will be valid for all votes. The outcome of voting on the first proposal will imply how the voting occurs on Loomio.
Again, more details on wiki page and in the minutes
Please have a say, your vote matters!
One vote per co-op please!
Animorph Co-op Wed 18 Dec 2019 11:29AM
Thank you for taking part in the discussion. I share the sentiment expressed by Simon. People should be able to proceed with their initiatives unless these involve aspects mentioned by Simon. Perhaps worth listing what qualifies for voting and what does not require it and reflecting it in the constitution at the coming gathering if these proposals pass?
We thought that giving individual members right to vote will stimulate more discussions in the co-op but also in the network. We also considered capping total voting share for the biggest co-ops (e.g. one co-op cannot have more than %% per proposal) but it did not seem like something we need to worry about right now.
Fund has been effectively integrated into the proposal. Spending from fund would follow the same decision-making process as other proposals. The pilot fund should end in February 2020 so if these proposals pass, it will adapt to reflect the situation by the 28th of February.
Chris Croome (Webarchitects Co-operative) Mon 16 Dec 2019 5:53PM
In a few discussions in Newcastle I mentioned to people that Radical Routes has two types of members, member co-ops and associate members, I think we might need to implement something like this if we don't want to find ourselves in a position of having to expel some of the 41 co-ops that are currently members of CoTech.
Animorph Co-op Wed 18 Dec 2019 11:33AM
This would certainly be a topic at the coming gathering and indeed something like full members and associate members division seem appropriate.
Shaun Fensom Wed 18 Dec 2019 11:54AM
Expel? Why would we need to expel?
Chris Croome (Webarchitects Co-operative) Wed 18 Dec 2019 12:04PM
@Shaun Fensom currently there is no fee to join CoTech, the proposal above is that voting members of CoTech would have to pay a fee, my concern is what would happen to existing members who don't pay this fee? Would they simply become non-voting members or would they cease to become members (in effect, be expelled) or something else?
Shaun Fensom Wed 18 Dec 2019 1:02PM
Yes. I see. A minimum contribution of £52 per year for a coop to be a member with a vote doesn’t seem very onerous. But looking at it this way invites the (possibly mischievous) interpretation that it is possible to buy votes. There’s a slight grating noise here as two different membership models (individuals or coops as members) rub in this (arguably hybrid) idea.
Animorph Co-op Wed 18 Dec 2019 1:39PM
@Chris Croome (Webarchitects Co-operative) I am sure we will reach a sensible agreement on restructuring membership (e.g. into two types) if the need arises, happy to be involved in the process.
@Shaun Fensom throughout the first day in Newcastle we weighted approaches and this hybrid model seemed worth trying. We opted for offering members of particular co-ops direct input into the decision making process at CoTech, curious whether this could make internal conversations at co-ops more lively (rather than relying on ~1 person from each co-op as it often is). Importantly, this is paired with providing clearer benefits to joining CoTech developed by Bizdev/Membership team in Newcastle, now available on Join page. Building up resources would enable us to potentially hire a coordinator, the idea also discussed at the gathering.
Regarding 'buying votes', as mentioned in my the reply to @Chris Lowis (Go Free Range) we would aim to cap voting share so that no co-op can overpower others... Now wanting to get the minimal framework through so we can see how it works in the wild!
Shaun Fensom Wed 18 Dec 2019 2:09PM
Thanks @Animorph Co-op and sorry to have missed the discussion. It is only a slight grating noise and I appreciate the practical aim in the approach. @Chris Croome (Webarchitects Co-operative) ’s associate member status would smooth the edges a bit.
Mark Simmonds (Co-op Culture) Wed 18 Dec 2019 3:13PM
The use of associates, particularly in consortium co-ops, is common and well understood. It provides a way to engage with a supporter class who may be less likely to engage with the governance anyway. It is also often used as a route to membership - become an associate while you test the water. Think of it as members being in in low orbit and close to the action, whereas associates are in a higher orbit with the option to move into low orbit.
Simon Grant · Tue 17 Dec 2019 10:41AM
Seems like a good question to ask, what needs to be agreed and what can be done anyway, in "do-ocracy" fashion? The answer may not be hard to guess -- something like, if it doesn't involve other people's money, or shared public-facing material, go ahead and do it -- but it would be good to make whatever it is explicit.
My understanding is that while technically larger coops have more voting potential, if they choose to take it up, nevertheless the essence of our decision-making process will be consent-oriented (i.e. unanimous approval not necessary) consensus. Voting will be principally for ratification, and maybe the occasional picking up of something that hasn't been consulted on as well or as widely as needed for building a good enough proposal. Do I have roughly the same idea as others on this point?