Do We Have Consensus? by Ross G. Paul One of the hardest things about being a member of a vestry is making decisions which we can believe to be the will of God in a particular circumstance. We try various ways of testing the decision and use many names for the process which we use. Some vestries simply vote, others are based on a unanimity rule ~ where all people on the vestry must agree toa decision before any action is taken. However the former approach, while leading to timely decisions, often will allow the majority to ignore legitimate concerns of a minority and make a decision which is unmodified by constructive suggestions or alternatives put forward. The latter approach rarely allows for timely decision making - even when circumstances dictate and urgent response - and necessary decisions can be “highjacked" or prevented by a single or small minority who refuse to go along with a decision, either because of some ideological concern or until some concession is won on another issue Unanimity, often mistakenly also called consensus, is primarily concerned’ about the content of a decision, and only tangentially - about the process of making a decision. The literature on consensus, however, is much more interested in the process of making a decision “ how do we incorporate the legitimate concerns of every party to the decision-making process without giving the power to any group or individual to ramrod deci‘sions through or to hold decisions up. "Real" consensus is then about designing such a process. It will take more time than voting, and could take as much as unanimity. It will attempt to take all views on an issue into account and incorporate the concerns of all involved into framing the decision. It will need leadership from the chairperson and commitment to the decision by all who participated in the process. Based on research into consensus I suggest that the point of consensus can be determined when members can each attest to a fourfold statemen' 1, I believe I understand your position. 2. I believe you understand my position. 3. I will support (the decision), whether I agree with it or not, because it was arrived at openly and fairly. 4, I will accept responsibility for the outcome of the decision, whether I agree with it or not, because it was arrived at openly and fairly. Consensus, then, is about having an open and frank dialogue, taking time to ensure that all parties and positions are heard, andcoming to a decision which can be supported by group members who will take responsibility for the decision. ‘he requirement for commitment is significant. Under voting or unanimity there is the temptation, and in some cases the actuality, of undermining the decision by those who do not agree with it - éven a person who may have "voted" for it so as not to break the image of unanimity, or just because they were sick of deadlock. If we do not trust each other enough to have our say and to listen to each other then neither consensus nor unanimity can be effective. What then is the "consensus" process of making a decision in a vestry, particularly on tough decisions. I suggest the following process. After a prayerful introduction to the problem or issue by the chair, each person on the vestry should put forward their position on the issue. Each person when speaking needs to be frank about their feelings and concerns, and every other person needs to be actively listening to what is being said. My experience is that people will need at least two chances to speak as there will be said things after their turn which may need to be addressed. The chairperson needs to be listening most closely to see if there is a common mind or an opportunity for a decision which all can support. After the initial discussion the chairperson should test the group as to whether they are at a point of decision and can attest to the four-fold statement above If not each person should be given the opportunity to speak again and then the will of the group be sought again. After a time, if little progress is made and people believe that they have not been heard and had their concerns recognised, then the decision should be deferred for private prayerful consideration. When all can attest that they have listened and been heard and can agree to a decision because the process. has enabled them to be heard and have their concerns considered then the decision should be put. Unlike unanimity, every person may not actually agree with the content of the decision, but all should agree with the process of by which the decision was made, and will support the integrity of the decision because their concerns were heard and taken into account. The main issues arising from this approach are group size and leadership. It is clear that the chairperson will need to demonstrate leadership in the group so that all viewpoints are put forward and are heard. This will need work such that vestry members have trust in the process and some degree of trust in each other - at least to the point that they believe that they can make their points and that their contribution will be listened to. The second issue is of group size. It is clear that the process will not be effective in large groups. Where such a process has been implemented a group size of no more than 15 has been found to work well. In summary what does this form of consensus decision-making bring to a vestry? It provides a process in which the contribution of each person in a group is equally valued and regpected, in whicheach member is “obligated” to speak and to listen, and in which a decision cannot be pushed through by weight of numbers alone nor held to ransom by a small group or individual. Is it perfect? Of course not, but it can be an improvement over either simple majority or unanimous approaches providing that there is commitment to the process and there is leadership and some degree of trust. This article is based on research undertaken for my dissertation titled Consensus, Decision-making and the Anglican Church and observations of vestries which have developed and use such an approach.