Decision on Method for Selecting Working Group Members

Overview

The Auroville Residents' Assembly conducted a RAD (Residents' Assembly Decision-making) process in December 2020 to decide on the method for selecting working group members. This decision involved a unique two-part voting process, first establishing a deviation from the standard 50% threshold requirement, then selecting among four different proposed selection methods.

Participation and Results

• Total participants: 224 registered residents

• Quorum requirement: 10% of eligible residents (213 votes required)

• Total eligible voters: 2,127 confirmed Aurovilians (as of December 2020)

• Participation rate: 10.5% of eligible residents (just meeting quorum)

• Outcome: Proposal D was selected as the community's preferred method

  
  

The Decision Process

This RAD employed an unusual two-part structure addressing both the decision-making threshold and the selection method itself.

Part 1: Deviation from 50% Threshold

Question: Whether to accept deviation from the standard 50% in-favor threshold for this specific decision

Results:

• 64% (143 residents) agreed to deviate from the 50% threshold

• 6% (14 residents) chose to "give their voices to support the majority"

• 30% (67 residents) did not accept deviation from the 50% threshold

Outcome: The community agreed that for this decision only, the proposal receiving the most votes would be accepted, even if it received less than 50% support.

Part 2: Selection Method Choice

The community chose among three distinct approaches to working group selection:

Proposal A - Fully Accountable Organisation (18% support): Proposed a permanent 7-member Evaluation Team serving 2-year terms to interview and evaluate all nominees based on integrity, capability, and accountability. Featured strict transparency requirements and penalties for false accusations.

Proposal-A.pdf

Download PDF • 471KB

Proposal B - Draw by Lots Process (11% support): Combined screening with random selection. A 5-member Screening Panel would verify qualifications, then final selection would be made by drawing names from a box, with the youngest person in the room drawing the names.

Proposal-B.pdf

Download PDF • 566KB

Proposal D - Amended Final Selection Process (59% - SELECTED): A refined version of the earlier interim process featuring community-wide participatory selection with detailed nomination procedures and collaborative decision-making.

Proposal D.pdf

Download PDF • 85KB

Results:

• Proposal D: 132 votes (59%)

• Proposal A: 41 votes (18%)

• Proposal B: 25 votes (11%)

• None of the above: 26 votes (12%)

Outcome: Proposal D was selected as the community's preferred method for selecting working group members.

What This Decision Means

The Winning Process (Proposal D)

The community selected a comprehensive selection process with these key features:

Nomination Process:

• Working groups submit detailed role requirements to RAS for publication

• Self-nomination or nomination by others (with nominee consent)

• Detailed nomination forms covering work experience, qualifications, and commitment

• Strict eligibility rules (no family members in same group, land ownership restrictions, term limits)

Selection Process:

• Open community meetings where residents, nominees, and current working group members jointly select new members

• Screening panel receives and shares feedback confidentially

• 50% trust threshold required for selection - candidates need support from at least half the selectors

• Current working group members and nominees excluded from voting for their own group

Key Requirements:

• At least 2/3 of each working group should be residents for 5+ years

• Emphasis on age, gender, and nationality diversity

• Immediate integration of selected members

• No post-selection feedback solicitation