Unanimity, Consensus, and “Show Your Work”
A property owner asked a fair question after watching my video:
If our Standards of Conduct say directors should strive for unanimity, fall back to consensus, and accept majority votes — how does “unanimous votes aren’t required” fit?
Here’s the clearest way to frame it.
✅ 1) Unanimity is the goal. Consensus is the method. Majority is the fallback.
Consensus-based decision-making is about building broad support by listening, refining options, and addressing concerns — especially when decisions impact many stakeholders.
But consensus does not mean we pretend everyone thinks the same way, and it should not become a veto system that prevents timely decisions.
A practical approach is:
- ✅ Strive for unanimity (because it usually produces stronger buy-in and smoother execution)
- ✅ Work toward consensus (meaning: do the deliberation work, don’t just take a vote)
- ✅ If you can’t get there, decide (majority vote), then execute professionally
👀 2) Why unanimous public votes can still feel “staged”
Even when the Board does thoughtful work, owners often only see the final hand-raise.
When owners can’t see the underlying analysis, the public meeting can feel like the final scene — not the real decision-making.
The fix isn’t “more drama.” The fix is better visibility into the non-sensitive work product:
📌 Decision packets (for major topics) that show:
- What decision is being requested
- Options considered (including “do nothing”)
- Costs, timelines, risks, tradeoffs
- Who is accountable (staff / vendor / committee)
- How progress will be tracked and reported
That “show your work” approach is baked into a basic consensus process: define issue → gather info → generate options → discuss → resolve concerns → finalize.
🗳️ 3) Surface dissent without turning meetings into theater
One of the most practical tools I’ve seen is a spectrum of support (0–5) used before a formal vote — often as a quick straw vote to reveal where people stand and what concerns still need attention.
This does two important things:
- ✅ Encourages real deliberation (not “yes/no” camps)
- ✅ Shows whether you’re about to pass something “legally sufficient” but operationally fragile (a narrow majority can create divisiveness or poor implementation)
That’s the difference between:
- ✔️ a vote that passes, and
- ✔️ a decision that will actually succeed
🔁 4) “Good enough for now, safe enough to try” — and set a review date
Not every decision needs to be permanent.
Another useful concept is consent-style decision-making, where a proposal can move forward if it’s considered “good enough for now and safe enough to try,” with a planned review.
This model separates:
- Objections (reasons the proposal creates unacceptable risk), from
- Concerns (preferences that don’t block moving forward)
And it encourages something boards often underuse:
📌 Set a review date. Measure outcomes. Adjust if needed.
In plain language: move forward when it’s responsible, track results, and be willing to improve based on data.
✅ 5) My stance as a Director
Here’s what I will do — consistently:
- ✅ Support striving for unanimity and using consensus-building to get there
- ✅ Not pretend unanimity is required for good governance
- ✅ Debate, test assumptions, and treat dissent as normal — handled professionally
- ✅ If disagreement remains, vote “no” in public and explain respectfully
- ✅ After a vote, support the Board’s decision operationally (execution discipline matters)
✅ Bottom line
Strive for alignment. Don’t hide dissent. Decide when it’s time. And “show the work” behind major decisions — within lawful limits.
Roger, I hope all is well. I watched the January board meeting and made a few observations. I was a bit taken aback by the body language of a few of the board members. It was very evident in the context of the video. I know audience members Bill and Pam had some difficulty framing their discussion points and struggled to get to the point. It was odd to me that Jim immediately put his head in his hands and Mark kept emphatically looking at his watch. Their actions were condescending. It’s extremely difficult for people in general to get up in front of an audience and speak. As homeowners we are encouraged to be aware of issues and to ask questions. Listening in a respectful manner is not a huge ask. I understand that some issues are contentious, but a reasonable response from a leader would be to not dump fuel on the fire. Hopkins lands in a different category because of his conduct. He doesn’t necessarily deserve the same respect.
As I have said before there is a leaker somewhere in the organization. Someone is talking out of school in a big way and that cannot be condoned.
I knew the organization would be in capable hands with respect to choosing members for the search committee. Thanks again for the confidence in my knowledge, skills, and abilities. It sounds like an impressive group and my hopes are that we get some outstanding candidates. Hopefully we aren’t looking for someone who doesn’t exist.
I need some assistance. Is there any information available that outlines the potential timeline for the spillway project? I may have missed it. Also, do you have a sense of project duration…guesstimate is fine. I know the RFP would likely spell that out, but I thought I would ask.
Best of luck in the election. Please only answer if you feel compelled to do so. Sometimes I just need to put pen to paper. I respect the board, but I am looking forward to a much more focused aspect to the public meetings. I am very impressed with Rich’s ability to frame issues and get to the point without any unnecessary fluff. Everyone brings something different to the party, but at the end of the day it’s important to lead with a professional demeanor. Personally I always hold leaders to a very high standard.
Take care, Mary Ann