The sieve

"How does this task empower anyone?" (Ohmer & DeMasi, 2009, p. 306)

The supervisor of a crew of consensus organizers, reviewing the collected work plans, would ask this question at the weekly meeting. If she got no good answer, she would draw a line through it. 

That question related to the principles around which all their consensus organizing revolved. Those principles constituted filters through which all decisions ran. When something could not pass through those filters, it was not done. 

Clearly, said Ohmer & DeMasi, a written set of principles comes before much of anything else. Those principles are a sieve, even for employment as a consensus organizer. So, for example, if one of the principles of the organization was to meet people where they are and respect local norms, a consensus organizer from a Muslim-majority country would not quote Sharia law as a guide when working in eastern Oregon, just as a US consensus organizer operating professionally in Riyadh would not invoke a "What would Jesus do?" talking point. 

Similarly, if one of the principles of the consensus organizing team was nonviolence, the question might be, "Does this element of the work plan enable or encourage nonviolence?" If the answer is no, that element might not be a wise investment of the consensus organizer's time. 

In any organizing environment, it is oppressive and stultifying to have too many stated unbendable principles. A few that guide decision-making can really help, but too many can feel constricting and arbitrary. Many posited rules are fine and should be a living document that flows from a few absolute principles. The policies can be revisited, but revisiting the few basic standing principles should be a rare moment, if ever, in a consensus organizing operation.

References

Ohmer, Mary L. & DeMasi, Karen (2009). Consensus organizing: A community development workbook. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.