Proposal for Creating a Group Structure for Collective Democratic Governance at the Urbana-Champaign IMC
Ellen Knutson and Paul Riismandel, January 2001

Preface:  
This proposal attempts to piece together many elements of what we hope is the foundation for a working system of governance that is fair and democratic, but is also simple and not overburdened by procedures and rules.  

Nonetheless, there are several parts to be considered in the whole, some of which the IMC group may wish to change, amend or remove.  Thus, this proposal should not be simply given a single “yes” or “no” vote.  In order for the IMC membership to begin deliberating and making decisions about this proposal, we suggest that the following plan of attack:
1.	First, we should consider the overall idea of breaking down into a Steering Group and Working Groups, without focusing on the details of how each group should function.
2.	Second, we should consider the details that the Steering Group and Working Groups share.
3.	Third, we should consider the differing details of the Steering Group and Working Groups.
4.	Finally, we should take up the suggested decision making method of “Open Consensus”

Summary of the Proposal:
•	Formalize the various working groups, such that they actually exist outside the weekly meetings.  Minimally, a working group should:
o	Meet at a regularly scheduled time and place (should be the IMC space).  
o	Keep and post publicly accessible agendas, status reports and meeting minutes or notes.
o	Meet at a frequency of at least once a month or more, depending on the nature of the group’s work.
o	Have organized meetings with formal agendas so that new people can be easily welcomed and members’ valuable time is not wasted.
o	Have a consistent and clearly defined membership so that the group and members are accountable to the entire IMC and some institutional memory develops.
•	Form a “Steering Group,” which is the new version of the core IMC group that currently meets every Sunday.  This group, which takes on financial and legal responsibilities, is formed  by one representative from each working group, for a term of one-year and should meet bi-weekly.
•	Solidify a group known as the “general membership,” which is constituted by all current IMC members.  The primary function of this group is to maintain a sense of unity amongst the IMC membership, in addition to maintaining openness by making all working groups and the steering group accountable to this group.  This group also functions to take on large-scale decision making that should not be decided by a small representative body. This group should meet on a regular basis of anywhere from monthly to quarterly.
•	Establish open consensus as the primary decision-making method of the UC-IMC, with procedures established to help resolve stalemates.

Purpose:
The aim of this proposal is to outline a structure for the various working groups at the IMC that enable each group to have day-to-day practical decision making power over its area of responsibility, while also empowering a steering group to make larger financial and legal decisions that are larger than any one group’s area of responsibility, affecting the IMC as a whole.  The dual purpose of such a structure is to leave the critical decision-making work of a steering committee free of the practical and mundane details of any given project or effort, while also allowing each working group a certain degree of autonomy to make these decisions without being micromanaged or encumbered by members who are not involved in the efforts at hand.

Accountability is key to maintaining the delicate balance of any such structure, and this outline aims to ensure that both the steering committee and working groups are accountable to one another.  And, crucially, this plan intends to make sure that the steering committee and working committees are accountable, responsible, accessible and responsive to the general IMC membership.  Such inter-accountability is  key to maintaining an open democratic order that is also accessible to all IMC members, in addition to the general public.

Background:
Since its inception in Sept. 2000, the UC-IMC has been able to function remarkably well as what essentially amounts to a large “general committee” of all active IMC members.  When the activities of the IMC were limited in number and scope, quite a bit of business could be accomplished amongst a group that is also remarkable in its willingness to engage in cooperative decision making.  Part of the success of this method has relied up on the smallness of the group, which makes the U-C IMC resemble a sort of “circle of friends.”

However, as the UC-IMC grows in tasks and responsibility, the weekly two-hour meeting is no longer sufficient to cover the breadth of IMC activities, and attempts to do so try the patience of participants.  With the opening of the IMC space the ability to hold working group meetings in a central, publicly accessible space coincides with the need to more effectively delegate the day-to-day workings and activities of the IMC to these working groups.

Yet in achieving this delegation it is important not to lose the operating principles that have been key to the UC-IMC’s success thus far: cooperation and consensus.  Just because the UC-IMC grows in size doesn’t mean that it can’t continue to conduct itself as a “circle friends.”  But we cannot take for granted that these principles of operation will continue on their own.  Now is an important moment to document how decisions are made and work is done at the IMC, and to imbue an organizational structure with these principles and procedures.  Drafting and ratifying these will help guarantee that the UC-IMC operates under a principle of cooperation and consensus long after the founding members have faded from the scene.

Organizational Structure

This plan intends to create an essentially flat organizational structure that is as free of hierarchies as much as is possible and practical.  Yet, as the membership and diversity of the IMC grows, the need, ability and desire for all members to participate in all areas of decision making  decreases rapidly.  Therefore the need arises for tasks, decisions, and the responsibility for executing them responsibility to be delegated amongst the membership.  

The “Steering Group”
Summary:
•	Is responsible for the day-to-day legal and financial workings of the IMC, including, but not limited to: assembling budgets, approving small expenditures, approving/signing contracts, hiring staff, drafting Center-wide policy.
•	Meetings must:
o	Be open to the public
o	Occur at a regularly scheduled time in the IMC space
o	Have a publicly posted agenda
o	Have publicly posted minutes
•	Consists of one member appointed from each of the IMC’s working committees.
o	Official members agree to attend all steering group meetings, and miss not more than four consecutive meetings, nor miss more than six in any calendar year.
•	Steering Group members serve staggered nonconsecutive one-year terms.  Members may not serve again until a period of three years has elapsed from the end of their last term.  
o	For the very first Steering Group only: half the members will serve two-year terms, in order to ensure institutional memory and maintain a Steering Group that is familiar with operating principles and procedures.  These members will be chosen at random from amongst all those appointed to the Group.
•	All members must be appointed by a consensus of the members from each committee. No member may be appointed by more than one committee.
•	Operates under “Open Consensus” (see the Open Consensus section for explanation.)
•	In order to facilitate a smooth transition from our current weekly meetings into separate SG and Working Group meetings, we recommend that the SG not be formed until three months after this proposal—or some form of it—is accepted.

Discussion:
Due to the unavoidable nature of being a legal non-profit corporation, a certain subset of important decisions need to be made that exceed the limits of any given working group’s area of responsibility and require special responsibility and focus that a large general membership cannot practically be responsible for. This requires there be a specialized committee to undertake these responsibilities.  This plans calls such a committee a “steering group,” in that it steers the IMC through these important ongoing financial and legal responsibilities.

The Steering Group (SG) is similar in its duties to what many organizations call a “board of directors” (BODs) but is dissimilar in some fundamental ways.  First, most BODs are elected by a general membership of an organization for typically long terms of around two years.  By contrast the SG is to be made up of representatives appointed by each of the IMC’s working committees for a term of no more than a year (except for the first year of IMC operation, which will be explained forthwith).  The reasoning behind this arrangement is that working group members have significant investments in the IMC and therefore are best entrusted with the decisions that effect all working groups.  

Unfortunately, it is common for BODs and their members  to become more concerned with maintaining the power and authority of the Board and its membership than it is with the overall welfare of the organization.  We hope to mitigate this tendency by placing severe term limits on SG members, limiting them to 1 year terms that may not be consecutive, due to a mandatory 3 year gap between terms.  Under this scheme, the experience of being on the SG can be shared by a large variety of people in the IMC membership and the risk of a small minority becoming entrenched in power is avoided.

The second difference is that BODs  tend to make decisions using majority rule, and also tend to significantly limit their interaction, dialogue and deliberation with non-BOD members.  Under Open Consensus dialogue and deliberation between everyone attending an SG meeting is required, and consensus amongst the entire group is preferred.  This further dilutes the exclusivity of the SG’s responsibility and power and furthers the group’s accountability to all IMC members. 

Still, unlike the working groups the SG does have a defined and exclusive membership.  This is because there needs to be a consistent group of individuals in the Group who are familiar with the SG’s work and who are willing to take responsibility for it.  The SG cannot afford to be subject to the whims of open membership where people may or may not attend any given meeting in any reliable fashion.  

To bolster the reliability and experience of the SG there will be staggered appointments, such that each year only half the membership will turn over.  To jump start this process, half the membership of the very first SG will be appointed for a two-year term.   The members who serve a two year term will be chosen at random so as to avoid the possibility of certain working groups or members being purposely favored or disfavored.  Again, a two-year term will only be a feature of the very first SG—all subsequent SG members will only serve one-year terms.

Working Groups:
Summary:
•	Working Groups are the small organizations that do the work of the IMC.  Current Working Groups include: News, Librarians/Archivists, Space, Fundraising, Technology, Equipment, and Outreach.
•	New Working Groups can only be created by consensus of the steering group.  
•	Meetings must:
o	Be open to the public
o	Occur at a regularly scheduled time.
o	Be held in an accessible space.  The IMC is the preferred space.
o	Have a publicly posted agenda.
o	Have publicly posted minutes.
•	All decisions are made democratically under “Open Consensu.s”
•	Membership:
o	is limited to members of the IMC, but there are no limits on term of membership.
o	Should be defined and known so that there is accountability within the group.

Discussion:
Working Groups are where the real work of the IMC takes place, and where the day-to-day operating decisions are made.  Fundamental to Working Groups is the idea that the individuals who do work responsibly have the right to make decisions about how that work is done.  Also critical is the operation of Working Groups as democratic collectives, where all Group members come to consensus with regard to the how the IMC’s work is done.  

Working Groups should have relatively well defined memberships so that members are accountable to the group and to the IMC for their responsibilities and privileges.  In the spirit of autonomy, each Working Group should define for itself how membership is defined.  At  minimum Working Group members must also be IMC members, under the reasoning that basic membership is an investment and commitment to the IMC in exchange for enjoying the resources and privileges the Center provides.

Accountability to both the entire IMC and the general public is maintained by requiring meetings to be public posted, held in a publicly accessible space and open to the public.  Further, Working Groups are required to document their agendas in advance and their meeting notes and minutes post hoc, so that the meetings are, in effect, open to everyone, regardless of the ability to attend a meeting.  Such openness is fundamental to maintaining a democratic order where no work of the IMC is clandestine or unknown to its members.

The formation of new Working Groups should not be unnecessarily blocked or delayed.  However it is irresponsible to allow any individual or group to unilaterally declare itself a Working Group and begin acting in the name of the IMC.  Therefore consensus of the SG is necessary in order to form a new Working Group, which, in effect, serves as the consent of all the IMC’s Working Groups.

Decision Making: Open Consensus

The principle and procedures of Open Consensus (OC) are a formalized adaptation of the informal consensus model that has been used at the weekly general IMC meetings since inception.  In brief, the informal model is characterized by requiring all members of the group in attendance to agree to the terms of a decision as put forth as a proposal.  To date the proposal and agreements have been verbal in nature.  In contrast to a voting method, the IMC’s consensus method is to place a proposal on the table and ask for comments and objections.  The purpose of this discussion is to be able address members’ objections to a proposal in a cooperative manner, such that if objections arise the group can endeavor together to find a mutually agreeable consensus solution, which may be a revised proposal or a rejection of the proposal on the table.

Summary:
•	All individuals attending a meeting will be included in the discussion and decision making process. The goal is for everyone in the meeting to come to consensus.
•	If a consensus cannot be reached the decision will revert to the consensus of the “official” members.
o	A straw-poll of the official membership on the last proposal on the table is taken to determine for sure if the stalemate is caused by non-group members.  If there are no standing objections within the official committee, then it is considered to have consensus on the proposal on the table.
•	A stalemate will result after consensus is unattainable for two meetings.
o	An exception to the two meeting rule can be made for timely decisions.
•	Continued stalemate within the official group membership will result in a majority vote amongst the official membership which will be the final decision on the proposal on the table.

Discussion:
The model of OC, then, is primarily a formalization of the informal model currently in use.  The fundamental operating principle of OC is obviously consensus, with its procedures mirroring those already in use at the IMC.  In addition, OC specifies procedures for resolving stalemate where consensus—either to accept, amend and accept or reject a given proposal—cannot be reached, which will be detailed.  These resolution procedures become important because OC attempts to preserve the inclusive nature of the IMC informal operation.  Specifically, OC treats all IMC members attending any group meeting—whether a working group, like news, or the steering group—equally with established members of that group.  All meeting attendees may make proposals for action and actively participate in decision-making.  Further, and crucially, consensus in decision making must be reached amongst all meeting attendees.

An important effect of this facet of OC is that it makes it very difficult for any given IMC group to establish and maintain exclusive power over its area of responsibility over and beyond the objections of the overall IMC.  This is maintained by requiring any IMC group to actively cooperate with anyone from the general membership.  Yet this cooperation must be mutual—it presents a significant disincentive for any given IMC member to attempt to filibuster or create a roadblock against a particular decision being made, since the result of any effort is not utter stalemate but the invocation of procedures to resolve that stalemate.  As should be clear in reading the stalemate procedure outlined in the Summary above, the invocation of stalemate procedures is not in the interest of the someone who is not an “official” member of any given group, since non-members lose decision making power during stalemate resolution.

However, effort has been made to make stalemate unattractive to official group members as well, since it requires 2 meetings of a continued failure to reach consensus for stalemate to be declared and for a majority vote to become an option.  If too many decisions end up being made this way, then it is also certain that not too many decisions will be made at all.  Again, we hope that Open Consensus places a premium on cooperation and reaching mutually amicable compromises such that everyone who feels she has a stake in the issue at hand—regardless of group membership—also has some agency in determining the outcome.