Skip to main content

Bylaws

Background

In September 2025, Greens & Beans passed a formal proposal and voting process to support transparency, participation, and consistent decision-making. This process currently defaults to ranked choice voting for formal decisions. In practice, members have also used alternative approaches during discussions and meetings, including consent-based decision-making and scaled support voting (“vote by five”), to better assess alignment, surface concerns, and move decisions forward efficiently. As the cooperative evolves, there is a need to formally recognize and standardize these additional methods so they can be used consistently and transparently within the existing governance framework.

Problem

Relying on a single voting method creates several limitations:

  • Mismatch between method and decision type: Ranked choice voting is not always the most effective approach, particularly for decisions that are iterative, low-risk, or require alignment rather than competition.
  • Limited ability to capture nuance: The current system does not allow members to express intensity of support, willingness to contribute, or threshold for objection.
  • Informal use without standards: Alternative methods are being used for unofficial polling during meeting discussions, but without formal guidance. This creates risk of inconsistency, confusion, or perceived unfairness.
  • Inefficiency in decision-making: Some decisions could be resolved more quickly through consent-based approaches but currently default to more formal and time-intensive processes.

Solution

This proposal introduces a multi-method voting framework that allows the cooperative to use different voting approaches depending on the needs of the decision, while maintaining clear rules and safeguards.

    • Ranked choice voting remains the default method for formal decisions.
    • Alternative voting methods may be used when explicitly selected and communicated in advance.
    • The proposal owner determines the voting method.
    • The voting method must be clearly stated in the proposal.
    • Discussion of the proposal can include comments about the voting method.
    • As currently done, all voting methods must meet standard quorum requirements.

This proposal does not replace the existing proposal lifecycle. It modifies only the voting stage by introducing additional approved methods. All other steps, including submission, discussion, refinement, and result sharing, remain unchanged.

Expected outcomes include:

  • Increased efficiency in decision-making
  • Greater member engagement and expression of perspectives
  • Clear and consistent use of methods that have already emerged in practice
Method Description/Rules Guidance when to use
Ranked Choice Voting (default)

Members rank options in order of preference.

  • Decisions with multiple options
  • Elections

Consent-Based Decision-Making (Sociocratic Model)

A proposal is approved unless there is a reasoned objection.

 

Standard: “good enough for now and safe enough to try.”

 

Rules:

  • Objections must be based on a clear risk to the cooperative or its functioning.
  • If an objection is raised, the proposal must be revised before proceeding.
  • Decisions made through consent are reversible by default and should be revisited as needed.
  • Operational or low-risk decisions
  • Time-sensitive decisions
  • Iterative or experimental actions

Scaled Support Voting

(“Vote by Five”)

Members indicate their level of support using a scale:

  • 5 – Strong support and willing to lead or actively implement
  • 4 – Strong support
  • 3 – Neutral or acceptable
  • 2 – Reservations or concerns
  • 1 – Do not support, but will not block
  • 0 – Fundamental objection (blocking)

Rules:

  • A score of 0 automatically blocks the proposal.
  • Any blocked proposal must be revised and resubmitted through the standard process.
  • Gauging alignment before formal voting
  • Prioritization across multiple initiatives
  • Identifying member willingness to support or lead implementation