Sociocracy is a decision-making methodology and structure that uses the absence of any reasoned and paramount objection as a standard for passing proposals and allows committees to operate freely within bounds set by the members of the group.

If you already have a basic understanding of how sociocracy works and want to know exactly how we use it in our community, click here. Read further on this page if you would like to read an example of sociocracy in action.

Here's an example: Suppose you are a member of our group, and you decide that it is important that we include some kind of swimming pond or pool in our landscaping plan. What do you do?

Your first step is to take your suggestion to the committee most concerned with the issue, the Land Use Committee. (Suppose you approach the wrong committee? No worries. Whichever committee you approach with your idea will steer you in the right direction).

So, having decided to approach the Land Use Committee with your idea, you sit down in the privacy of your home and type this on your computer: "I propose that we include in our landscape design a sandy beach for swimming, at a cost of not more than $15,000. A Swimming Committee shall be formed to research and carry out a plan." You email your proposal to the Land Use Committee Chair about 10 days before their next meeting. They add your proposal to their agenda and you attend the meeting specifically to speak on the details.

During the meeting, several other proposals are discussed besides yours. You participate in the discussions but you do not respond when the facilitator asks if there is any objection to any of them; such withholding or giving of consent is for committee members only. You have consented at an earlier meeting of the entire membership to allow this committee to function towards a specific aim under the leadership of the chair, who is a person you trust. And although you love to give opinions whenever there is an opportunity, you can see practical reasons for allowing this committee to operate freely within the bounds you helped to set for it. So you give your opinions when asked and let the committee do its work.

Then it’s your turn. The facilitator reads your proposal and asks you to explain it. You briefly summarize the background of your proposal, how you came to the $35,000 figure, where you think the money will come from, and why you think it is important for the community to have a swimming pond or pool. The facilitator asks if there are any objections to your proposal. Two of the five members consent to it as it is; one member is worried that our wetlands will need to be changed and we would therefore take longer getting Act 250 permits; another member says she wouldn’t want a swimming pool unless it had fresh water only, like Underhill’s swimming pond; and another member is worried that the landscape architecture budget will be over-run if this is done. The facilitator takes notes and asks you for comments. You explain that the swimming pond wouldn’t be anywhere near the wetlands, and that you agree that fresh water would be necessary to make it work for our community; and you point out that $40,000 of the landscape architecture budget was allocated to building a bridge that, with our new design, isn’t needed. The facilitator alters the proposal to add a phrase keeping the swimming pond out of the wetlands, and adds the words “fresh water” to your description. On this round, then, no member of the committee objects. Since this proposal does fall within the purview of the committee that heard it, someone proposes immediately to form a sub-committee with you as the chair with the aim of researching the best way to get this done and to propose contractors, exact fees, and dates, making reports to the Land Use Committee before spending any money. You go home happy.

This same basic structure and process, proposals presented to committees of people with a common aim, seeking an absence of dissent to move forward, is repeated on each level. The Land Use Committee, for example, has two members on the General Circle along with two members from the Marketing and Membership Committee and the Legal and Finance Committees. The General Circle, in turn, sends two representatives to the “Top Circle” (don’t cringe—it’s not as bad as it sounds), which consists of representatives from the General Circle, the Project Coordinator, and several experts from the surrounding community as consultants. This circle is concerned specifically with directing the development of the community’s buildings, on time and under budget, by hiring project management professionals, architects, engineers, lawyers, and so on, and coordinating their efforts with those of our enthusiastic membership. Our committees or circles draw on the energy of the general membership to design the community, to recruit new members, to help new members to feel at home, and to prepare for life after we move in.

Sound complicated? It’s not, once you know how it works. We find it to be elegant, efficient, and fair.

In addition you may wish to refer to the Slide Show on sociocracy developed specifically for Champlain Valley Cohousing.

If you’d like to learn more about sociocracy you can start by attending one of our meetings. See our Events and Meetings page for a schedule, and email us or call us to let us know you’re coming. Another good way to learn about sociocracy is to contact John Buck (sociocracy.com), who has been teaching us about it. Another community using sociocracy is Ecovillage of Loudoun County, VA, and they have some explanation of it at their web site.