BB’s Home Page > alt.gathering.rainbow > Part 1 > 2 > 3 > 4 > 5
Table of Contents
Vision Council – part 5
From: Paisley Rainbow
Subject: Vision Council Protocol
Date: May 8, 2001
Newsgroups: alt.gathering.rainbow
Dear Family,
A difficult project I have been working on for months now (and many others as well), and seem to get good support from all the people I talk with about it, is that we as a family are in need of making a change in our Vision Council process. Over the last several years, Vision Council has degenerated far from what our founding Mothers and Fathers in the Rainbow Family intended for this most important of our councils. In this council that decides where our Gathering is going to go the next year, we should be able to plainly see some of the highest and most beautiful ideals of our family in action - cooperation, respect, listening, sharing and vision. However the Vision Counsels of the last several years have become a travesty of this idea. You may have heard about the ‘Division Council’ or ‘Pouncil’, at the Pennsylvania Gathering, where people were threatened with violence, arguing, and yelling, to the point where some of the children from Kiddie Village about 150 yards away had to go over to the Council and ask them to please be a little quieter and act more like adults as they were disturbing the children playing in Kiddie Village. As a result of that ‘Council’, where it was plain that most of the family wanted to have the Gathering in Wisconsin, there were two people that kept holding out for Montana. And they argued the most, yelled the loudest, threatened the worst, and finally, held out the longest till the others got tired of the bullshit and left the counsel. Not the ideal of coming to a consensus of everyone there.
Then, when the scouts went to Montana to look for a site for a National Gathering, the family in Montana had no vision or even any idea of anywhere to have a Gathering or even to look for one. “Hey, it’s a big state and there are lots of National Forests here, I’m sure you can find a site somewhere.” Well, there was one site they recommended, it had a highway running right through the middle of it. The scouts never did find a place for the Gathering. They looked in many places, and couldn’t find a spot. Spring Counsil never had a site to consense on. There was never a consensus to have the Gathering where it was last year, it just ended up being where it was by default, at the scouts holding camp. We were in an area where cattle grazed and there was shit all around the pastures, the water wasn’t safe to drink, and we had to pipe it in from over a mile away.
At the ‘Vision Counsil’ there in Montana, the same thing happened (even some of the same people). Finally after everyone got sick of the arguing, bickering, yelling, fighting, and violence just four people were left there in counsel. Two were against California for next year’s site, and two were against having it in Utah. (And obviously neither of the two sides had any Vision whatsoever.) After the 4 of them had had enough arguing over the same points for 3 or 4 days, someone passed by and yelled at them, “Hey, what about Washington State?”.
After a few minutes of silence, they said, hmmm ... , why not Washington State? So the four of them made the ‘un-consensus’ for our entire family about next year’s Gathering. I do hope that the brothers and sisters in Washington State do have some ideas of where they might send the scouts this spring or will get a chance to go out and do a little scouting themselves beforehand if they don’t.
We the Rainbow Family need to first be able to change ourselves as individuals, and then as a family, if we do expect to be able to change and have a positive effect on the world. The way that Vision Counsel has degraded over the last several years is disgraceful, and any new people in the Gathering who may have accidently attended the counsel would certainly be turned off by it. It certainly does not look like a better attempt at improving human relations.
We as a family need to establish a new protocol for the Vision Council process. There are people who come to the Vision Counsil because they have real vision and they want to share their vision with the Family. There are lots of us who have wishes, wants, desires, and dreams. But we need to establish by common sense consensus that Vision Counsil is for Counselling about and Sharing Visions, not arguing about our mutually exclusive wishes and wants. People who have had visions in the family about National Gathering sites do not want and will not sit through very much bull-shit in the counsil before geting a gut full and leaving. These people are perfectly willing to share their vision with people who have different visions, as visions are not exclusive. And the most telling proof of a vision’s difference with wishes and wants, is that those who have vision have gotten off their dead asses and gone out and found the places of their visions. They have seen the meadows, woods, water sources, roads, and parking areas. They come to the Vision Counsil with pictures, diagrams, and maps, well prepared to share their vision with the family.
Visions can be shared. Two people with different visions do not have to negate each other but can accept that there are possibly many visions. But say for example, that I had a vision about Georgia as a site (which I don’t) and someone else had a vision of say Wisconsin (which they do), we could share the visions along with any others. We could look at all their pictures, diagrams and maps, and look at mine. I could say, “well, it looks like you have really found a beautiful site, I think that it would be good if some of us did a little more scouting in Georgia over the next year or so and maybe it would be good to have a gathering in Georgia some other time depending on what we find.” The counsil could then decide what sites would be more suitable. In order to establish protocol in the Vision Counsel, we will have to at least have a good number of people who agree this needs to be done. And then when we start to share our visions in Counsil, and someone says ‘I want to have the Gathering in MY STATE next year so I don’t have to drive more than 200 miles’ or ‘I want the Gathering to be in state “X” so I can visit MY AUNT MARY on the way there next year’, etc., we will have to inform them right then and there on the spot that this counsel is not about hopes and dreams, wishes, wants, and desires, but is to counsel about Visions, and that there are people there who have really had a vision about where the Gathering site could be and have actually gotten off their dead asses to go and look for it. And do you have a VISION?
(We might also find it expedient to have a separate council at the same time for hopes, dreams, wishes, wants, and desires, it would be called a ‘Heart Song Circle’)
Scouting for a National Gathering Site is not easy one bit. There are large areas to cover, much hiking, searching for that combination of woods, open meadow areas, convenient pure water, parking, and easy access in and out of the Gathering. It is time consuming, expensive, people have to drive long distances to look for a site, very often on bad roads, and have to and feed themselves during that whole time. As a family we should have more respect for the brothers and sisters who contribute their time, energy, shoe-leather, vehicles, and money into the long and arduous scouting process. If we have vision, and send them to scout out our visions, then they will hopefully find that the hardest part of the job has already been done for them. Then at Spring Council, the scouts can report on what they have found at the sites, take people to see the site, and then hopefully the Spring Counsil will be able to come to a consensus on a site that is appropriate and has all the things we need as a family to have a successful Gathering.
I have talked with as many people as I can about this and have asked them to talk to others and spread the word. I hope to make it to Washington to help with scouting if possible and to be there at the beginning of Spring Council. I want to bring this up there and talk the Gathering as well, at main counsil everyday at noon, or at least know that there is someone else there that will bring it up and about it with the people in that counsel every day, and then during discuss this issue thouroughly. As I said, this seems to be well received by all I have talked to.
Actually, at this time I have only encountered two ideas that have run counter to this. One is that our ideas of council and consensus we have held since 1972 only work well in a small group. “Now that the Rainbow Family has grown large, these ideas don’t work so well anymore”. I completely disagree with this. I think the ideals of people working together in council for a common consensus is not only good for us in the Rainbow Family now, but could even work for the entire world.
The other idea I heard counter to this is that, “We are the Rainbow Family, we can’t actually change anything, we don’t have the balls...”.
We don’t have the balls???
I HAVE GOT THE BALLS DAMMIT!!!!!
I have not heard any ideas other than these that run against us trying to change the Vision Council process. I do think there may be other reasons why that people would object to changing the process, but I can’t think of any other reasons other than that they are the ones who intend to disrupt our councel process in order to rail-road their ideas about where next year’s Gathering site will be.
Anyway, the Counsil should be a sharing of ideas, of people listening for vision, showing respect for each other, and making responsible decisions. And that would make our counsel process a remarkable example of how people can cooperate with each other successfully and would further encourage others to practice these ideals in their everyday life. I and many others feel that this is what should be expected from our Vision Counsel. This highest of all our cousels should represent our highest ideals as a family, and should be almost a sacred and holy event, responding to our highest visions and responsibly addressing our common needs. And from the response I have heard from just about everybody I have spoken with about this, we have the right as a family to expect this.
So what do you think? If you agree with this that we as a family need to take back our Vision Council and restore it to something that we can all respect and be pleased with, please speak about this to as many of our brothers and sisters as you can. Also, if you don’t agree with this, please let me know how you feel. And please tell me of any other solutions to this problem you can think of. You can email me at -
pai...@cannabismail.com
Lets DO something about this! and let’s not continue this travesty as if we were the largest most disfunctional family in the world, but let’s become a shining example of how people can share, cooperate, get along with each other, and comunicate effectively.
Lovin you,
Paisley
http://members.dencity.com/paisley
http://members.dencity.com/zipolite
visit my web site at -
http://members.dencity.com/paisley
or the Zipolite Tribe’s site at -
http://members.dencity.com/zipolite
or call my voice mail at 1-888-Excite2 (1-888-392-4832) extension 000-666-1313
and you can get your own free web site at
http://www.dencity.com
------------------------------------------------------------
YourName@CannabisMail.com for FREE ! http://www.CannabisMail.com
From: Butterfly Bill
Subject: Vision Council Protocol
Date: May 8, 2001
</vacation>
(I just couldn’t stand this particular one any longer.)
Paisley,
I sat thru MT Vision Council for all of the five days of it, I decided I finally just had to go myself in order not to lose my links in Babylon at what turned out to be about two hours before it ended. There were still about 20 when I left, so if it diminished to four, it did so very fast. The idea of Washington came up about mid afternoon on the fourth day, there was almost consensus but for one guy who held out because he thought that the rest of the people still on site should be consulted before such an unexpected decision be made. He held firm in spite of sometimes acrimonious pressure from almost all the rest there, I was admiring his steadfastness under pressure after a while. Predictably, there were blocks all over the place when council resumed the next day, it took until almost sunset for the consensus to be achieved. I wish I had known to stick it out that last two hours, I don’t know the exact story of the final coming to consensus.
There was a five day debate that continued to the end between the people who thought this was supposed to be a vision council, where people share their visions, and the pragmatists who wanted to limit the discussion strictly to site selection. If you try separating the vision from the business, you will run into more blocks than a Lego set. There were also enough people there who wanted 100% consensus to block any consensus on consensus-minus-one or any thing else like that.
Never in all my experience have I heard of a person coming with maps and research results and actually having that site accepted. It looks to me more like that’s the sure way to get your choice blocked. People will always come up with nitpicking reasons that site is no good.
On the very first day, we tried the ritual of each person taking the feather, holding for a few seconds without saying anything, then passing it on until it had gone all the way around the circle. It didn’t look to me like it worked very well afterward.
I’m sorry, Paisley, but most of what you have offered as solutions look to me like variations of the much repeated themes of we all need to have openness and respect and a readiness to put our own feelings aside for a common good. Reduced to it’s simplest, you say that if everybody were good, then good results would come. Everybody knows this, but all it takes is for several people not to do this, and the council is powerless to restore itself in the face of this. What do you do when people aren’t good?
What would Your Favorite Insect acting as an individual who somehow has been given dictatorial powers do to improve the council process? A few things:
I’d do away with addressing the feather for the first few rounds, let it be what the stories say it is, each person speaking without interruption, and the others listening. Addressing the feather has become a means for people to butt in out of turn and bog down the discussion for hours. Several times at the MT council I saw a person holding the feather try to start a discussion on a particular topic, ask people to address the feather on this one question, try some new twist to getting the decision about where to go made - and then try to chair that discussion, while others were waiting for the feather. This would go on for maybe 30, 45 minutes, then people from around the circle would start yelling “pass the feather” and complaining, and it would then stop.
After a few rounds, when the choices are becoming clear, then I’d allow feather addressing, because there comes a point where immediate questions and responses will help to clear last things up faster.
I would have some means for others to make a person who is rambling on and on and repeating oneself to shut up and pass. The method that is in use now is for first one, then a few, than many to start yelling “pass the @#$%!! feather” as the speaker is still talking. It sometimes takes as much as 20 minutes, but the person finally passes.
On the third day of the MT council, during such a wearing down, Dog Man came into the circle and announced that he knew of “an old tradition, I think it was used by the Indians, it’s the Seventeen Man Rule”. He then explained it to be that if 17 people there could agree that a speaker should stop talking, then he had to stop. Nobody else there was sure if he hadn’t made it all up, but there were immediately 17 people (including YFI) who all thought it was a good idea and were voicing their yes, he should stop. He did. I never saw this happen again as this or any other council, but it goes to show there can be ways other than having a chairperson there with a gavel.
I’d have everybody accept that on the first day, with 200 to 300 people there, even without addressing the feather, it is going to take 4 or 5 or 6 hours for the feather to go all the way around the first time. There’s no way the whole council can last only one day. The second day, lots of people are gonna have some idea of la onda, they will have had the chance to talk about it with others all night. That’s the day a good decision can be made.
I’d have people accept that any site you select will have at least one and probably two major problems. If it ain’t water, it will be parking or wood or insects or heat or something else. There ain’t no National Forests in Heaven.
Now all this would only happen if there were consensus that I am the official high holy owner of the biggest lodge in Tipi Circle. The only trouble with trying to reform council is that any reforms inevitably come out against somebelly’s idea of the True Rainbow Way.
What I think may actually happen may be like what happened last year with all the people who wanted to reform Dinner Circle (and IMO succeeded in many ways). (You can go to http://www.grapevine.net/~butterflybill/MontBank.htm , then scroll down to the first horizontal line to read about it.) Enough people who agreed just got together and did it.
<vacation>
(I’ve been doing some stuff these past few weeks. I’ve gotten on mp3.com)
-Butterfly Bill
homepage:
http://www.grapevine.net/~butterflybill/BB.htm
music on mp3.com:
http://artists.mp3s.com/artists/247/butterfly_bill.html
From: hombre
Subject: Vision Council Protocol
Date: May 8, 2001
In article <200105082231.PAA09440.alt.gathering.rainbow@mail14.bigmailbox.com>, Paisley Rainbow says...
> Then, when the scouts went to Montana to look for a site fora National Gathering, the family in Montana had no vision oreven any idea of anywhere to have a Gathering or even to lookfor one. “Hey, it’s a big state and there are lots of NationalForests here, I’m sure you can find a site somewhere.” Well, there was one site they recommended, it had a highway running right through the middle of it. The scouts never did find aplace for the Gathering. They looked in many places, and couldn’t find a spot. Spring Counsil never had a site toconsense on. There was never a consensus to have the Gathering where it was last year, it just ended up being where it was by default, at the scouts holding camp. We were in an area where cattle grazed and there was shit all around the pastures, the water wasn’t safe to drink, and we had to pipe it in from over a mile away.
I have nothing to say against your concerns, but this paragraph is almost completely untrue. Where did you get it? I was there before and stayed through the move to the “holding camp”, which was actually the choosen site of some of the local family who had visioned, scouted etc. The only other site I heard about was 20 miles away and was said to have problems other than a highway. I only mention it because it might give some an excuse to dismiss your whole thing out of hand.
> Actually, at this time I have only encountered two ideas that have run counter to this. One is that our ideas of council and consensus we have held since 1972 only work well in a small group. “Now that the Rainbow Family has grown large, these ideas don’t work so well anymore”. I completely disagree with this. I think the ideals of people working together in council for a common consensus is not only good for us in the Rainbow Family now, but could even work for the entire world.
> The other idea I heard counter to this is that, “We are the Rainbow Family, we can’t actually change anything, we don’t have the balls...”.
There’s a third: “If it doesn’t matter, why fix it, even if it is broken.” My only thought on this is that it might be the “canary in the coal mine” indicating a greater problem that ought not be ignored. It’s just a thought. I suspect that what you’ve really encounted is very few who say it ain’t broke. But, few seem to care where the gather happens. This is the big gap in you rap. I trust you won’t equate council apathy to family apathy.
> So what do you think? If you agree with this that we as a family need to take back our Vision Council and restore it to something that we can all respect and be pleased with, please speak about this to as many of our brothers and sisters as you can. Also, if you don’t agree with this, please let me know how you feel. And please tell me of any other solutions to this problem you can think of.
I really don’t much about counciling, being too busy camping. But, I had a bad idea along the lines of the kitchens somehow getting together and deciding where they would go, if they could, maybe after listening at Vision council for awhile. “Where the kitchens go, the people go.” One thing I think can be done without is blocking. If someone wants to block a consensus they just need to be un-quiet.
You’ve put in a lot of effort. I hope you don’t take it to the side.
Your loving brother,
hombre
From: SwiftRain
Subject: Vision Council Protocol
Date: May 8, 2001
Paisley Rainbow wrote:
> I HAVE GOT THE BALLS DAMMIT!!!!!
I think what the people at Vision Council have to have the balls for -- or the clit for, as some of our sisters have suggested ; ) -- is to NOT ACCEPT blocks for personal reasons. No effective consensus process allows people to block just for the hell of it.
If someone explicitly says “I block such-and-such a place because it’s too far for me personally to drive” then that is NOT a block at all as far as I’m concerned. If someone blocks and refuses to give reasons why the proposal is bad for the family as a whole -- and not just them personally -- then that is NOT a block.
The current “process” (or non-process) of Vision Council is such that any one person, for any random reason, could just sit themselves down and block everything until hell freezes over. They could say “I block because I don’t like your hat” and people would just roll over & let them control the process -- change their hat, change whatever they have to change in order to placate that person’s pettiness.
That has nothing to do with consensus. That’s pure stubbornocracy.
I think if a proposal is made at Vision Council and the only objections are personal, the people who have vision & respect for the process have to say: “If no one makes an objection to this proposal which is not personal, I personally will consider it consensed.” If no real blocks are made but a few people insist on continuing to argue, people should stand up, leave the council, and tell everyone: “We consensed on state X, except for one person who ‘blocked’ because it was too far for them personally to drive. We consider consensus to have been reached and we plan to gather in state X.”
I don’t know if the council will be brave enough to do that, but I think that the only way to regain the integrity of this process is to put genuine agreement before strict interpretation of the ‘rules’ -- & who made those ‘rules’ anyway?! A good place to start would be by attempting to reach a consensus at the beginning of Vision Council -- before any conflicts have come up -- that there is no such thing as a personal block.
love,
brett
From: Lookingheart
Subject: Vision Council Protocol
Date: May 9, 2001
Paisley Rainbow wrote:
> A difficult project I have been working on for months now (and many others as well), and seem to get good support from all the people I talk with about it, is that we as a family are in need of making a change in our Vision Council process.
Hey Now,
Thank You for that vision, I enjoyed your counsel.
Lookingheart
From: Lookingheart
Subject: Vision Council Protocol
Date: May 9, 2001
> But, I had a bad idea along the lines of the kitchens somehow getting together and deciding where they would go, if they could, maybe after listening at Vision council for awhile. “Where the kitchens go, the people go.” One thing I think can be done without is blocking. If someone wants to block a consensus they just need to be un-quiet.
Heya,
Can some kind sole tell me/us when blocking became popular?
Has it always been that way?
Seems to me that to “block” is to not participate in a consensus.
Who would have the right to block say “The Rave Scene” if it was consented to by a family tribe, on the land and in open circle from happening?
Do folks “Block” by kick`n out the fire at cowboy camp?
Just confused on the whole block thing, seems obstructive.
Anyone?
Lookingheart
From: Sky
Subject: Vision Council Protocol
Date: May 9, 2001
From: Lookingheart
> Can some kind sole tell me/us when blocking became popular?
> Has it always been that way?
all too often the object is to freeze you out and wear you down and lock you out until you finally say to heck with it and one more voice, one more vote...yours...finally says to heck with it...and you leave...and this continues until the right few are all alone and finally say see we did it again we got our way. Consensus sounds better sometimes on paper but in practice there is potential for abuse as with any other system. And blocking is one area with a p-poor track record of abuse.
:-)Sky
From: Karin Zirk
Subject: Vision Council Protocol
Date: May 9, 2001
I’ll take a stab at this. A block can be used as a construcitve tool for looking at a situation in more detail. Then again, it can be used in other ways as well.
Example:
A consensus is proposed. I as a person sitting in council block the consensus. The first responsibility of the council is to ask me why I blocked. At that time, I should explain why I was uncomfortable with the proposed consensus.
My objections may relate to logistics such as how can we have a gathering for 2,000 people when only 3 people have committed to help, they could be because I don’t quite understand what we are concensing to, they could be a point of process such as who are we to consensus that meat no longer be served in the captiol, or enviornmental/health issues such as my concern about taking folks to gather in the low desert during the summer when it’s 120 degress every day.
The point is that a specific and explaininable “concern” should be the driving force behind the block. By blocking, I now get the opportunity to present my concerns to the entire council. Concerns sound like “I think it is bad for our family’s health to gather in the desert in the summer;” “if we only have 3 people committed to help, perhaps we are not ready to handle all the responsibilities of a regional and should plan a picnic instead;” or “I have knowledge that the spring water at that site is filled with arsenic or other toxics.”
A responsible council then discusses the concern. Hopefully, I presented my concerns in enough detail that others realize it is not safe to gather in the desert if the temperature will be 120 degrees.
After the council discusses the concern, one of three things may or may not happen. 1) The person who proposed the consensus may withdraw it. For example, maybe she did not know that the desert would be 120 degrees in July. 2) The consensus may be modified. For example, instead of calling for a desert gathering in July, the consensus is changed to call for one in February. 3) The council addresses the concern, the sames consensus is proposed and if no one else blocks, perhas I should step aside.
Which leads us to stepping aside. If you are at a council that has addressed your block, and you are the only one who is blocking, then often it is responsible to step aside. Register that you do not agree with the consensus, but that you are not blocking it.
Remember it’s the CONCERN that blocks a consensus, not a person.
Lastly, when we sit in council, we need to think about the issues in terms greater than our own needs and wants. We need to think about the needs of our entire family and the earth and the local communities. Unfortunately, there are many of us who at times get wrapped up in what we want, not what’s best for the family.
Blocking a consensus because “I” don’t like to gather in the desert is not a valid block. Blocking going to the desert is July protects the health of our family. See the difference. If I block all desert gatherings, then I’m out of line. If I block desert gatherings at certain times of year due to extreme heat, I am presenting a valid block.
However, there can also be times when one person sees a problem that others don’t see. In that case, the one person needs to be blocking.
Finally, we are all responsible for the process. When we sit in a council where the process is not being honored, the first order of business should be to address how to get back on track.
This is all my opinion and is the way the process should work. I know life doesn’t always work this way, but it doesn’t mean we should try.
I hope this answers your question.
Love,
Karin
Small Business Automation Solutions
http://www.sbas.ws
San Diego Writers’ Cooperative
http://www.sandiegowriters.org
From: RainboWoodstock
Subject: Vision Council Protocol
Date: May 9, 2001
> A difficult project I have been working on for months now (and many others as well), and seem to get good support from all the people I talk with about it, is that we as a family are in need of making a change in our Vision Council process.
(paisley, you are wrong about 4 people left in PA-for Montana/Idaho - I know that because I held the feathers when consensus was reached. I was NOT going to attend Vision Council that year, but then I had heard “Montana” in the parking lot which was a rail-road attempt and I have been on the track to expose this- so I went down and they were all at eachother’s throats- same high holy crew that railroaded in Oregon for Arizona did the railroading, and folks must realize that chronies are sent in to do this and it is planned. Vision Council continued for many more days. At one point, Sunbear was having an attack and someone ran over to us and announced this- many of us ran down there and about 8 of us carried Sunbear out. As a side note, the high holies railroaded that particular site and we were lied to about a much better site which was at the first PA site- ie was told “all the elder scouts told us NOT to go there” lies- as I personally asked many known elder scouts, and they said that was not true at all. Sunbear might have lived- it took us over half an hour to get up to the locked gate. If the gate had been open, he might still be alive today. He was the only Rainbow that died in my presence, but not the only one who expressed to me to please keep trying to help bring the family together before they died. Here again, is a basic format for council that we have not been following- this is meant to work together- not in parts. Read it.)
There are a few basic elements that facilitate the purpose and focus of a true Vision Council. The feather that is passed to the left (in traditional circles passing to the right in times of war, passing to the left in times of peace, obviously, we have always passed to the left although I have seen it otherwise perhaps in ignorance) The feather is a SYMBOL for RESPECT and FOCUS. There are a few things necessary to facilitate this: (although some elements have come through in recent years, we need to have a consensus on process, and if there ever was one, it has serious faults or has totally erroded)
1. When the conch is sounded and Vision Council is called on the first day, all who are present at the moment it begins are the circle. The person introducing the feather to the circle explains that listening is more important than speaking at Vision Council. It is also asked that anyone who cannot respect the feather to please step outside the circle
(ideally a sweat should be near by, but at least a place to meditate is necessary for those who become filled with temptation to speak out of turn- additionally, the use of non-participant facilitators are key to the enhancement of this aspect of process- ideally, 2 male and 2 female facilitators, one at each of the four directions around the circle for balance are best, and if possible should be folks that have previously held the feather in previous years when consensus was reached - more on facilitators functions below)
So the feather is passed around the initial circle once without anyone speaking in order to strengthen the circle and unify mutual respect- (the concept is this: begin with a complete circle you will end with a complete circle, begin with a broken circle, you will end with a broken circle)
This had been tried many times at various councils, but other elements needed were not present such as the facilitators having a clear remedy for folks who could not remain silent on the first pass of the feather, or for folks walking up and sitting in the circle without first having heard about process etc. the thing is that the first time you get the feather the person remains silent as a show of respect and to strengthen their listening skills, and if they enter the circle after the initial circle has begun, they need to sit to the right of the person then holding the feather so that it goes all the way around before they get it the first time, and then remain silent the first time they get it, speaking, if they wish, the second time it comes around to them.
Without the facilitators in place this worked for the first time at the Vision Council that consenced on last summers National Gathering (PA for MONTANA) the feather went all the way around without anyone making a sound, AND IT WORKED! Last year, however, Vision Council took on a life of it’s own, unofficially started before the day it has always started, and moved to another area other than had been previously announced. When I got there, it had already begun without the feather, and everyone was already fighting (not physically, but yelling and arguing) and so I held up the feathers we had used for the last few years, including for that gathering until folks who had attended the council the year before recognized them from the year before. Was that why we had a weird council last year? Perhaps, but I do know for sure that when it is focused properly from THE VERY BEGINNING the integrity of the circle is preserved.
So, the passing of the feather once around the circle without anyone speaking is one thing. Hopefully the wisdom in this is clear to all.
2. Facilitators role:
As noted earlier, 4 facilitators are needed who are not participants in the decision, and therefore cannot have any personal interest in a particular region/state/site and should be composed of folks who have had experience in calling for consensus and reaching it. Their main role is to facilitate and preserve the process of the Vision Council. For example: one of the first things that might happen is people walking up after council has already begun. The facilitaor would intercept the individual and briefly explain that council has already begun and that they can either sit outside the circle and watch/listen, but may not speak. It would further be explained that in fairness to all, if the latecomer wishes to speak, then they need to sit immediately to the right of the person holding the feather at that moment, and that when it comes the first time around that they give respect by remaining silent the first time it comes around to them. If we can agree to these few basic points we can begin a Vision Council that not only effectively promotes respect, selects a site, becomes a tool for discipline, etc, but can also facilitate Visions that have been looking for ways to be heard and manifested by the family. -woodstock-
From: RainboWoodstock
Subject: Vision Council Protocol
Date: May 9, 2001
BB, I need to address some of the things you say below, paisley’s version is inaccurate at best. -woodstock-
“Butterfly Bill” <butter...@grapevine.net> wrote in message news:Pw0K6.137$0d.5553@newsfeed.slurp.net...
> I sat thru MT Vision Council for all of the five days of it, I decided I finally just had to go myself in order not to lose my links in Babylon at what turned out to be about two hours before it ended. There were still about 20 when I left, so if it diminished to four, it did so very fast. The idea of Washington came up about mid afternoon on the fourth day, there was almost consensus but for one guy who held out because he thought that the rest of the people still on site should be consulted before such an unexpected decision be made. He held firm in spite of sometimes acrimonious pressure from almost all the rest there, I was admiring his steadfastness under pressure after a while. Predictably, there were blocks all over the place when council resumed the next day, it took until almost sunset for the consensus to be achieved. I wish I had known to stick it out that last two hours, I don’t know the exact story of the final coming to consensus.
First, let me say that Arizona was rail-roaded. The same crew attempted to railroad for Montana, again without a Vision Council concensus. Although the gathering ended up in Montana, the consensus was Montana/Idaho (as a punch in the nose to the Montana railroaders) and there were 20/30 people left as I recall, and not 4. I can’t place who paisley is, and I don’t know if he was there when consensus was reached.
In Montana for this years gathering- as I had posted a while back, it was moved from the originally decided area. That caused pandemonium (sp) then it was moved once again. It turned out to be the shortest Council I ever attended. There were quite a few people left when consensus was reached. That Russian sister held the feathers when consensus was reached. ie Washington/Idaho as a back-up. I believe we will get it right, but it has to begin that way from the very beginning. Before Vision Council, I think we need to address this at Main Council (Rainbow Family Council) and I would like to ask as many elders to attend this. The need for our elders to come together and pass on their wisdoms with blessings to us younger old timers is neccessary. It is the first gathering of the new millenium, and we need to reaffirm everything good.
> There was a five day debate that continued to the end between the people who thought this was supposed to be a vision council, where people share their visions, and the pragmatists who wanted to limit the discussion strictly to site selection. If you try separating the vision from the business, you will run into more blocks than a Lego set. There were also enough people there who wanted 100% consensus to block any consensus on consensus-minus-one or any thing else like that.
Yes, that’s basically true. The Vision part has to be kept (Visions are NOT heartsongs as some suggest) Most people have no clue about Visions. A proper platform must first be established. The attitude of some who say that Vision Council is purely a site selection process perpetuates extinction of true Visions. We cannot allow ourselves to be enveloped by this attitude. The few kind folk that come must not allow the negatives to run them off. I realize I am not alone in this.
> I ’m sorry, Paisley, but most of what you have offered as solutions look to me like variations of the much repeated themes of we all need to have openness and respect and a readiness to put our own feelings aside for a common good. Reduced to it’s simplest, you say that if everybody were good, then good results would come. Everybody knows this, but all it takes is for several people not to do this, and the council is powerless to restore itself in the face of this. What do you do when people aren’t good?
we need to re-employ facilitators once again.
> I would have some means for others to make a person who is rambling on and on and repeating oneself to shut up and pass. The method that is in use now is for first one, then a few, than many to start yelling “pass the @#$%!! feather” as the speaker is still talking. It sometimes takes as much as 20 minutes, but the person finally passes.
again- facilitators
> I’d have everybody accept that on the first day, with 200 to 300 people there, even without addressing the feather, it is going to take 4 or 5 or 6 hours for the feather to go all the way around the first time. There’s no way the whole council can last only one day. The second day, lots of people are gonna have some idea of la onda, they will have had the chance to talk about it with others all night. That’s the day a good decision can be made.
For one thing- Spirit has already maped out our path. Vision Council is REALLY a way for us to tune into it. It’s a misconception to think it is some sort of democratic voting process. No matter what- much wisdom can be developed from suffering through the whole movie. It’s good for the soul.
> I ’d have people accept that any site you select will have at least one and probably two major problems. If it ain’t water, it will be parking or wood or insects or heat or something else. There ain’t no National Forests in Heaven.
The Vision of many of us, including myself, is that we will begin gathering forever. When I bring this to Vision Council, and it is blocked, I work through the pain, and through this suffering I learn patience. If we cannot gather permanently this year, perhaps we can consent to it for next year. ie wherever we go, consent that lands be made available in that region for folks wanting to prepare a real Home for the family.
From: RainboWoodstock
Subject: Vision Council Protocol
Date: May 9, 2001
“hombre” <nos...@newsranger.com> wrote in message news:gK1K6.7077$vg1.574059@www.newsranger.com...
> I have nothing to say against your concerns, but this paragraph is almost completely untrue. Where did you get it? I was there before and stayed through the move to the “holding camp”, which was actually the choosen site of some of the local family who had visioned, scouted etc. The only other site I heard about was 20 miles away and was said to have problems other than a highway. I only mention it because it might give some an excuse to dismiss your whole thing out of hand.
Dear hombre, some of us are working with all spirit has given us to bring Vision Council back into the light. It has not happened in a day. I stand firm in my post about the basics of Vision Council. Please read it and then let’s discuss that. -woodstock-
From: RainboWoodstock
Subject: Vision Council Protocol
Date: May 9, 2001
“SwiftRain” <swif...@geocities.com> wrote in message news:3AF8B875.358D4D41@geocities.com...
> I think what the people at Vision Council have to have the balls for -- or the clit for, as some of our sisters have suggested ; ) -- is to NOT ACCEPT blocks for personal reasons. No effective consensus process allows people to block just for the hell of it.
The problems of blocking are not the only issue. As with any process, all the parts have to work together. As far as blocking, I think Karin Zirk’s response to this is pretty good (see a few posts down) We have not yet stayed on the process, not that the process hasn’t worked. Again, it won’t work with pieces of the process being used, and other parts excluded. Please find my post on Vision Council basics. In a nutshell, once process is explained to the group, the feather is passed once around in silence to facilitate respect for the feather and to focus our listening skills. If we do not have facilitators, then people walking up either do not get it explained to them, or we have to explain process to the whole circle everytime someone walks up. If we DO have facilitators, then they take them aside to fill them in and they come in without disturbing the circle in progress. (please read my original post for more details) Once we have set up this basic platform, any disruptions can effectively be dealt with because of the facilitators. It is their job, and not of the participants in the circle- otherwise individuals start yelling or attempting to police the circle, and that has never worked. -woodstock-
From: RainboWoodstock
Subject: Vision Council Protocol
Date: May 9, 2001
“Karin Zirk” <kz...@earthlink.net> wrote in message news:3AF943C5.3C21@earthlink.net...
> I’ll take a stab at this. A block can be used as a construcitve tool for looking at a situation in more detail. Then again, it can be used in other ways as well.
I like your address of the block issue Karin. Yes, blocking has become a power tool for some, but if we can get the rest of the process consented upon, then it will become once again understood as a useful function in the Vision Council process. I want to emphasize that we, (ie everyone in the Vision Council circle) are collectively responsible to address blocks. The person calling for consensus addresses any blocks, and can call on individuals for support in addressing a particular block. There is also a great potential for healing when addressing blocks. When most of the dark/bad energy/ negativity has been removed from the circle, who ever is left and has suffered through the whole movie usually is left with a sense of kinship of having gone through such an ordeal. This creates an often overwhelming positive vibe, and if properly applied to the block, has the power to heal the block. -woodstock-
From: Lookingheart
Subject: Vision Council Protocol
Date: May 9, 2001
“Karin Zirk” <kz...@earthlink.net> wrote in message news:3AF943C5.3C21@earthlink.net...
> A block can be used as a construcitve tool for looking at a situation in more detail. Then again, it can be used in other ways as well.
Heya,
Great thread.............
Those who know me, know i have sat in many circles, im not new so..... I asked that question to get to the root of the problem as I see it. And here is a key provided by a very knowledgeable person.......
Here’s some thought vibes*
Is it then not a “Block” but rather a redirection, clarification, more info. needed? I speak in general counsel terms not necessarily “vision counsel” but all RFOLL counsels.
And here is the question again..
> Who would have the right to block say “The Rave Scene” if it was consented to by a family tribe, on the land and in open circle from happening?
This is important, its how we are as a people.
Until / Again
Lookingheart
From: hombre
Subject: Vision Council Protocol
Date: May 9, 2001
In article <3af9...@news.newszilla.com>, RainboWoodstock says...
> Dear hombre, some of us are working with all spirit has given us to bring Vision Council back into the light. It has not happened in a day. I stand firm in my post about the basics of Vision Council. Please read it and then let’s discuss that. -woodstock-
Me too mine. I did, you too. And finally: OK. While the one and only rule of brainstorming is “no negativity”, it DOES help to have weakness pointed out.
With moral support,
hombre
From: RainboWoodstock
Subject: Vision Council Protocol
Date: May 9, 2001
“hombre”
> Me too mine. I did, you too. And finally: OK. While the one and only rule of brainstorming is “no negativity”, it DOES help to have weakness pointed out.
I’ll be here brother. -woodstock-
From: Smiley Dragon
Subject: Vision Council Protocol
Date: May 15, 2001
On Tue, 8 May 2001 15:31:17 -0700 Paisley Rainbow
> A difficult project I have been working on for months now (and many others as well), and seem to get good support from all the people I talk with about it, is that we as a family are in need of making a change in our Vision Council process.
yeah...if you can’t keep your mouth shut while someone else has the feather then you don’t belong there...this goes for those of you who, after twenty-some vision councils STILL haven’t learned this basic courtesy...
everyone needs to feel heard and if every other person is iteruppted we end up with a vision council that lasts for days...
some of us american rainbows could use to go to some gatherings outside the US...
my pleasant surprise when attending my first quebec gathering was that it wasn’t five hundred people each knowing exactly how a gathering was “supposed” to go...
love
From: Smiley Dragon
Subject: Vision Council Protocol
Date: May 15, 2001
On Wed, 09 May 2001 00:50:33 -0600 Lookingheart <Lookin...@peaceconspiracy.org> wrote:
> Can some kind sole tell me/us when blocking became popular?
ahh the power of having hundreds of rainbows on hold because of little ole me...
ahh the attention...negative attention is as good as any to some...
From: Karin Zirk
Subject: Vision Council Protocol
Date: May 15, 2001
Smiley Dragon wrote:
> yeah...if you can’t keep your mouth shut while someone else has the feather then you don’t belong there...this goes for those of you who, after twenty-some vision councils STILL haven’t learned this basic courtesy...
Ah,
But each of us sitting in council has the power to start an om when the focus is lost. If others agree, they will perhaps join in. And hopefully, soon all will be oming and focus will be regained.
karin
From: Sky
Subject: Vision Council Protocol
Date: May 15, 2001
Smiley Dragon Wrote on Tuesday, May 15, 2001 7:41 PM
> ahh the power of having hundreds of rainbows on hold because of little ole me...
> ahh the attention...negative attention is as good as any to some...
aww, c’mon, dude, hurry up-n-pass the feather awready, wouldja?
From: SwiftRain
Subject: Vision Council Protocol
Date: May 16, 2001
Sky wrote:
ahh the attention...negative attention is as good as any to some...
aww, c’mon, dude, hurry up-n-pass the feather awready, wouldja?
FOCUS!!! FOCUS!!!
From: s.kell
Subject: Vision Council Protocol
Date: May 16, 2001
> So the feather is passed around the initial circle once without anyone speaking in order to strengthen the circle and unify mutual respect-(the concept is this: begin with a complete circle you will end with a complete circle, begin with a broken circle, you will end with a broken circle)
is this tradition? this 'no word', silent first circle. why not a 'one word' circle? each getting to add just one word to the circle the first time around. would be about the same amount of time spent passing the feather, but would add so much to that first circle. i've seen it done before with goodly size circles (200+), and it adds much to the process, not that silence does not have it place at circle as well, but the feather is for speaking.
this would set the seed for listening to the words spoken from the feather, in that first passing, as well as filling the feather with pointed thought (a single first word) from each.
pax
steve kell
From: RainboWoodstock
Subject: Vision Council Protocol
Date: May 17, 2001
“s.kell” <drw...@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:3b0486e6@nubby2....
> is this tradition? this 'no word', silent first circle. why not a 'one word' circle? each getting to add just one word to the circle the first time around. would be about the same amount of time spent passing the feather, but would add so much to that first circle. i've seen it done before with goodly size circles (200+), and it adds much to the process, not that silence does not have it place at circle as well, but the feather is for speaking.
There are many ways to council. “tradition” has not yet developed in rainbow. Silence is in the beginning, and silence is at the end at consensus. Your ideas complicate the circle. ie, everybody speak a word. It’s not a matter of the time it takes for the feather to be passed in silence. Words happen in between the silence. Please understand this, words are for people- Spirit communicates through silence and not words. When we listen to the silence we may then see what Spirit has to show us. If we must use words, we must first learn to listen. Also, we are unified in the sound of silence. -woodstock-
THE END
Google Advanced Group Search can be accessed by first calling up a group name in Google Groups (alt.gathering.rainbow is at https://groups.google.com/forum/#!forum/alt.gathering.rainbow) and then clicking on the little black arrowhead inside the search window at the top of the page – at the extreme right, just to the left of the blue magnifying glass search button).
Not all posts can be found in Google’s archive; posters had the option of putting “X-No-Archive” in their headers, and some other posts are apparently completely lost for other reasons. Using their search engine is also hit and miss; I sometimes had to try several combinations of words to find some posts. The originals of all of these posts can most easily be found by enclosing the thread name in quotation marks in the Subject: box.
BB’s Home Page > alt.gathering.rainbow > Part 1 > 2 > 3 > 4 > 5 |