Process Leaders:

• Are mechanisms in place to confirm and regularly reconfirm congregational buy-in to both the decision-making process and to the possible or probable outcomes of the decision-making process?
• Is there focused, facilitated, widespread brainstorming about the issue before committing to go ahead or start down a particular path, with all options discussed? Does that include the history of past explorations and projects?
• Is there an “engagement leader” or team who will track and coordinate communication to/from members and who may recruit volunteers?
• Has a survey been considered to see how aware members are about the process and if their expectations align with the plan?
• Are there opportunities periodically during the decision-making process for small group/committee discussions as well as whole-congregation forums? Does this include ample time and patience to hear from as many as possible, and to reach as much convergence as possible on next steps? Are those concerned about or
  opposed to the project strongly encouraged to attend such sessions?
• Are there sufficient opportunities for congregants to get information and to ask questions about the decision and the decision-making process?
• If the project/decision involves building or altering a physical structure, are there models to view the proposed location and appearance?
• Are there multiple well-advertised ways for congregants to provide input (e.g., by emails and bulletins, posters, web-postings, announcements in Sunday services)?
• Are the decision-making leaders and groups seeking out all voices (including those historically underrepresented*, dissenters, and others with unstated points of view) right from the beginning of the decision-making process? (*Underrepresented members include IBPOC, youth, and others traditionally not heard from: people with language issues, less education, immigrants who have been taught never to contradict people especially their leaders, and people who are not able to get to forums or access online meetings.)
• Is there a clear mechanism for registering dissent?
• Is dissent explored early in big processes?
• Has every effort been made to let the dissenters know they have been heard and that there is a will to include their concerns in making the decision (even if their concerns may not be fully resolved)?
• If the dissent surfaces later in the process, is it clear whether this represents concerns about new information and information not previously addressed or represents ongoing resistance from the start (the latter not being amenable to a shift in willingness unless the whole project is changed)?
• If there are big or frequently expressed concerns, will a facilitated process be considered to hear and respond to these?
• When not many members are engaged or when some groups are underrepresented, is there a mechanism to gauge the degree of and determine the cause of apparent nonengagement and possible nonagreement?
• Is there an inventory of members’ skills and expertise to support or possibly replace outside experts for some or all aspects of the project?

Members:

• Do the members agree that the process leaders may proceed even with some residual disagreement, provided all efforts have been expended to understand and resolve these disagreements?
• Do those with concerns or who dissent agree to abide by the stated processes for feedback, and also agree to follow the Covenant of Healthy Relations?
• Are congregants informed about and encouraged to take responsibility to engage in the decision-making process by:
  • attending meetings
  • asking questions
  • keeping track of project-related communications and events
  • discussing with others
  • encouraging others to engage
  • assuming leaders are acting in good faith?

From: The Decision-Making Task Force report, UCV’s Redevelopment Exploration 2016 –2020: 

A Review of the Process with Lessons for the Future

LEADERSHIP AND THE PLANNING PROCESS 

PLANNING: 

• Is there agreement on the problem we are trying to solve: the key decision we are asking?
• Is there widespread discussion and agreement from the outset about the values and principles guiding the planning process, consistent with our UU principles and our Covenant of Healthy Relations?
• Has there been a process to develop a clear vision and goals for the project?
• Is the project consistent with the vision (and mission, if applicable) of UCV? Does the planning include considering the impacts for the more distant future, i.e., 10, 20, 30 years down the road?
• If some goals seem to conflict with one another, has there been a process to elicit common goals and/or prioritize the goals (e.g., Convergent Facilitation, sociocracy)?
• In a prolonged process, is there an opportunity to revisit these values and principles to remind the membership?
• Is there broad agreement that the outcome of the decision-making process will be accepted, knowing that it will be arrived at for the greatest community benefit?
• Does the planning/leadership group have clear terms of reference from the outset?
• Are the project scope and parameters, including constraints and projected costs, defined and clear to all?
• If there is disagreement about the goals and constraints, is there a system for participatory decision-making such as Convergent Facilitation or sociocracy? Is there conscious awareness and agreement in the community about how these decisions are made?
• Are there clear go/no go parameters that all understand?
• Is it understood by all that the scope and parameters will be revised only for very compelling reasons such as a big change in conditions, with widespread buy-in for the changes?
• Are there clear timelines and contingencies for not meeting those timelines?
• If the timeline is extended, is this a conscious choice that is transparently justified?
• Has a protocol been established for naming, dating and filing documents to facilitate retrieval?

LEADERSHIP: 

• Is there an overarching body (board, delegated individuals and teams) providing consistent oversight andsupport for the decision-making process, with continuity throughout the project?
• Is a leadership/planning team assigned to any projects and decisions that are complex and/or that potentially involve divergent positions?
• Is there a mechanism to check in with the project leaders to see what support they need?
• Are the leaders of the process and the other leaders involved equipped to lead a robust participatory decision-making process?
• Is there clarity about
• roles and responsibilities, such as who makes decisions on what aspects of the process (e.g., committee, delegated overarching body, board or congregation)?
• whether the minister will provide leadership and support for the decision-making process?
• expectations of congregation members?
• Are definitions and steps of the process clearly documented and accessible by the general membership, with the input of experts (inhouse or external) included?
• Is there general agreement that once approval for a next step has been granted by the congregation, and dissent has been addressed as far as possible, all while following the Covenant of Healthy Relations, the leadership team of the project may proceed without revisiting the addressed concerns — and if necessary, a facilitated process be undertaken to explore continued dissension?

For prolonged projects, is there a process to rotate leads or co-leads periodically (e.g., two people leading the process and then two people on the steering committee observing and learning in order to take over after an agreed term)?

Is there a reassessment of UCV’s capacity (human resources, finances, time, expertise) at every key decision point?

DEMOCRATIC PROCESS 

• If a decision is to be made by majority vote, is the voting threshold for congregational votes clear from the outset (e.g., simple majority, two-thirds, etc.) and is this consistent with UCV’s bylaws?
• When voting on a project, is it clear what the alternative is (status quo or something else)?
• Are mechanisms other than majority approval in place for decisions along the way, such as Convergent Facilitation, sociocracy, and “gradients of agreement”?
• If a final vote is undertaken, for efficiency, have written questions and oral answers been considered for the vote-related discussions?
• Is a vote wise and useful at the endpoint of this project? Have alternatives been considered?

From: The Decision-Making Task Force report, UCV’s Redevelopment Exploration 2016 –2020: 

A Review of the Process with Lessons for the Future

• Is there trust and support for the leadership of the project? Is there a process to build trust and robust buy-in for the leaders’ decision-making?
• Is there explicit commitment from all members to trust in the good intentions of everyone involved?
• Is there transparency of the board’s processes and role in the project?
• Is the minister’s position on the project clear (or are their reasons for not taking a position clear)?
• Is the board sufficiently involved so that when a new board is elected, there is institutional memory of the status and history of the project, sufficient continuity of board members, and a clear record of the board’s actions regarding the project?
• Do all members agree that regardless of how well they have followed or engaged with the process, they will respect the leadership and authority of the planning team, and will go first to that team with any concerns? Then, if not satisfied, do all agree they may next approach the overarching body?
• Do all members commit to trust that the project leadership will be the point of contact with outside consultants, and agree to go through the project leadership team with any questions or concerns?
• Are those who facilitate group processes trusted to hold all points of view with equal care?