The Low & High Ring Relationship

As stated in the previous webpage, the high ring is the ultimate decision maker in Consensus. The low ring committees can carry motions forward to the high ring, but these motions are only advisory in nature. If the motions from the low ring committees really have no legal obligation in the governance of Consensus, what is the purpose of the low ring in the first place? There are three main purposes for the low ring.

The first purpose of the low ring is training. As low ring members work in their committees, they come to a better understanding of the inner workings of Consensus and learn to work in a culture of consultation. When a few of them are elected to the high ring, they will have some great experience and attitude behind them to participate immediately and effectively in the high ring.

The second purpose is to provide a proving ground to advance low ring members into the high ring. By working together on the committees, low ring members will have a great perspective of those low ring members who are worthy of being moved to the high ring. Any low ring member who moves into the high ring will be capable, committed, and consultative.

The third purpose is to relieve the high ring of the details of Consensus. With a proper culture of consultation, many of the motions passed by a low ring committee will be accepted by the high ring. I envision the high ring providing each low ring committee with certain boundaries (for example, there will usually be financial constraints and priorities). If the committee can keep within these boundaries, their motions are more likely to be passed by the high ring. Or the high ring may address a committee decision by asking the low ring committee to consult again, but use certain facts the committee did not have before. In other words, the high ring should provide a general direction for Consensus, but committees will do much of the detail work to effect this direction.

If Consensus uses a traditional board structure (with only one level of governance), there are three drawbacks. First, Consensus will see members elected to the board without having any experience or interest in the governance of Consensus. With three or more such members, more work has to get done by the more committed and capable elected members. Second, the elected members will also be spending more time on the various details to make changes to Consensus. We should expect a lot of burnout if these board members take their job seriously. Two rings allow more participants into Consensus governance with well-defined responsibilities and less overworked elected members in both the low and high rings. Third, a board structure enhances the opportunity for a member (or a slate) to gain election by offering the general membership a certain mandate or unrealistic promises. Such elected members are usually not very consultative and the decision-making body falls into factions and a state of semi-dysfunction. By using two rings of governance, Consensus removes “mandate” driven candidates or slates.