Methodological Guidelines by l'Université du Nous

• Electing relevant representatives for a group for a specific mandate
• Avoiding power concentration
• Giving an opportunity for introvert or not charismatic people to take roles and responsibilities they would most probably not have endorsed by themselves
• Highlighting team members talents.

Duration : 45-60 minutes

> Step 1 : DESCRIPTION : FUNCTIONS, CRITERIA, TERMS Done by the circle.

The secretary writes all circle comments on a board in order to have them visible for all. He/she can rephrase but he/she cannot cancel or interprete what is phrased.

Describing functions
To clarify duties, ongoing activities expected for the role. For what purpose ? What accountabilities ? What domain ?
Usually, the functions of the role are already defined before the election process takes place. It helps the circle to listen to the centre and to run a decision by consent to define the role before conducting an election.

Listing criteria
Each gives his/her point of view about the required criteria to fulfill the role. Everybody speaks to the centre. Criteria can be opposing one another and serve as the basis for an open discussion. This way, everybody can listen to the group.

Specifying a term
How long ? What are the conditions ? (lenght, compensation…)

> Step 2: FILL OUT BALLOTS

“I, X…., nominate Y….”
Each participant fills out a sticky ballot, writing his/her name and the name of the choosen candidate.
It is not a secret ballot, there is no need to fold the paper.
The secretary collects all the sticky ballots and give them to the facilitator

> Step 3: NOMINATION ROUND

X…you nominate Y… Can you tell us why ?“
The facilitator shares the content of each ballot one at a time, and asks the nominator about his/her choice for the nominee he/she has selected.
Each participant explains his/her choice to the group. He/she points out the skills that he/she believes the nominee has to fit the role.
On the board, the secretary writes down the name of the nominee and sticks the corresponding ballot(s) just besides.

> Step 4: NOMINATION CHANGE ROUND

“From listening to the shared arguments, who would like to change nominations?”
Once all arguments are shared, the facilitator gives each participant the opportunity to change their nomination for another candidate already proposed on the first round.
It is optional, not compulsory.Everybody speaks to the centre.If someone changes his/her vote, he/she explains why.
If a nominee has no vote left after the nomination change round, he/she is not eligible for the rest of the process

> Step 5: PROPOSAL

The facilitator asks all the circle members for someone to make a proposal to elect a candidate.
This proposal is the basis to begin a decision by consent process in order to elect the proposed candidate.
Any candidate with at least one nomination after phase 4 can be proposed.
This process does not propose the candidate with the most nominations (majority rule), it comes from Gilles Charest. Thus, the wisdom of the group is sought.
The facilitator can offer a silence phase so that everybody can connect with his/her inner self to get to know who would best fit the role. At this point, each circle member is invited to remember about the change of paradigm put forward by the election by consent process : we are not looking for the “best” candidate, but for the one who would best fill the role.

> Step 6: OBJECTIONS ROUND

The facilitator gives the opportunity to each participant one at a time to raise an objection to the election of the proposed nominee.
He/she does not ask the nominee straight away but will check with him/her at the very end of the round.
If objections are raised, there are shared with the group. The secretary writes them down on the board alongside the name of the objectors.
Objections are not stated against the nominee. They do not show a preference for another nominee either.

> Step 7: IMPROVEMENTS

Depending on the number and content of objections, the facilitator can :

• go back to phase 4 and ask if somebody wants to submit another proposal, in order to check if another proposed candidate would be easier elected with less objections ;
• address the objections one at a time.

When the facilitator deals with an objection, it then belongs to the group. This is a space for back and forth discussion and collaborative process to help resolving the objection.
The facilitator checks now and then if the objection is resolved for the objector or not. If a discussed solution may resolve an objection, the person who raised it informs the group.
Once all objections are resolved, the facilitator asks eventually the proposed candidate if he/she has an objection in being elected :

• If “no”, the proposal is adopted. Go to the celebration phase.
• If “yes”, the facilitator deals with the objection. If there is no way to resolve the objection, go back to phase 4.
  

When there is no objection left, the proposal is adopted by mutual consent. The nominee is elected !

> Step 8: CELEBRATION

Time for celebration ! Pat each other for this milestone reached together!
Up to the group to choose the best way to celebrate (applause, meal, party…)

• Blank paper and pen for each person
• A flipchart and markers.

Click here to access to the Consent Decision Making guidelines designed by l'Université du Nous and there to access to the graphic resume they drew of it.