Holacracy Community of Practice Archive, 2015-2019 Community Holacracy Web Site

Election & Multifilled role / Minor Allocation

Using the Multi-filled role policy or the exclusion for minor allocation, tension can still be convey from excluded partners through the representatives for the first, the LL for the latter.

However, question : What about Elections ? In the constitution only the core members participate to the vote : I got some frustration feedback coming from excluded partners on this matter. The vote done by the representatives does not relay excluded partners voices. And it cannot be as the representative has only one voice.

Any similar experience ? Feedback ?

4 Replies
Margaux
11/21/2017

Hi Xavier,

 

The Lead Link can still invite the person to the meeting as core circle members and they can fully participate to the election process. But that's one shot.

If you'd like to integrate it in the governance records, I guess you could create  policy specifying that...

Karilen Mays
11/27/2017

Xavier, I have heard of some situations like this. One thought is that the constitution only says that Lead Link may exclude the members as a core circle member, not that they have to. I would suggest proposing a policy changing which ones are core circle members by default since in my view the constitution only gives some starting points on this matter if you have a case where you want to encode something different than what happens by default in 2.2.2 and 2.2.3.

I would be happy to give feedback here if you want to run a policy by me on this. I think it is a sign of positive engagement that you have these issues. 

Bernard Marie Chiquet
11/27/2017

[@mention:491495232183315418] To add to Karilen's comment, I would create a Policy to allow excluded partners to participate in the election process if needed (i.e. real tension being sensed by someone)

And I would dive in more into the tension to get it deep. By experience, very often the exclusion process for minor allocation triggers emotion onto the excluded partners, as they feel personally excluded. In such case, by experience, there may be some other work to do with the people.

Xavier Boëmare
12/05/2017

Thanks for your inputs.

[@mention:449974511452179429], I'm not sure I caught the connection with articles 2.2.2 and 2.2.3 in this matter. I guess you meant 2.3.2 and 2.3.3 ?

If I try to synthesize all the pieces :

Governance meeting attendance (section 3.3.1) : All Core Circle Members are entitled to fully participate in all Governance Meetings of a Circle [...] no one else is allowed to participate in a Circle’s Governance Meetings unless explicitly invited by a Policy of the Circle.

Exclusion from multi-filled role (section 2.3.2) : [...] the Circle may enact a Policy that limits how many of them are Core Circle Members [...]

Exclusion for minor allocation (section 2.3.3) : [...] the Lead Link may exclude that Partner from serving as a Core Circle Member [...]

Still not clear sometimes for me of what I could do or not with a policy, especially when trying to "overrule" the constitution.

My understanding is : 

  • Election takes place in the governance meeting
  • To be able to attend the governance, you need to be core circle member or invited (many ways)
  • An election is a tension brought during the governance. You can ask for a specific governance meeting for an election, but you don't have to.

 

=> So, what we would need is a policy that somehow could ask for dedicated governance meeting for any election and allow all circle members (not only core members) to attend to it.

Nothing would forbid that ?