Twin Oaks' Planner/Manager System

by Kat Kinkade

I have thought for some years that any government system will work, provided only that the group being governed is reasonably contented with it and expects it to work. For groups that like Consensus Process, that procedure makes them happy and proud of themselves for reaching agreement. For impatient groups that prefer a straightforward majority vote, simple democracy works just fine. As to Twin Oaks, where I live, we have long used the Planner/Manager system, and most of us agree that it serves us better than most other suggested systems would. So as I describe Planner/Manager government, I am not necessarily recommending it for other communities. I am just explaining it for the curious and for anybody else who might want to try it.

There is a superficial impression that the Planner/Manager system gives that is quite mistaken. That is the assumption that we are a hierarchy, with the citizenry reporting to the managers and managers reporting to the planners. This is not true. There is no 'reporting' relationship in our system at all. There are levels of authority coupled with responsibility, and it is true that the planners can overrule a manager, but this rare occurrence does not constitute a hierarchical arrangement on a day-to-day basis. It is merely something that can be done to get a disagreement settled if necessary.

We have probably 50 or 60 managers, and they are basically autonomous. The system was originally created out of the theory that a lot of people like to have a little bit of authority. So a great many members can call the shots in their particular area. The Food manager decides whether we're going to buy bananas or not, the Bikes manager determines whether a given bike is worth fixing, and so forth, multiplied by dozens of decisions that are made every day, quietly and without having to consult anybody else. This doesn't mean that managers don't consult other people about their decisions. On the contrary, consulting another member or two who probably knows something about one's area is a daily occurrence. The point is that this consulting isn't required. The managers are empowered, within their budget, to act on their own judgment. It is only when that judgment seems to other people to have been wrong that their decisions might be appealed to the Planners, where they might be upheld or overturned or compromised.

Planners are three members who agree to serve for 18 months (plus a Stand-in Planner who served from three to six months and may go on to be a full planner later). They are in charge of the Community's general welfare, and their theoretical authority is sweeping. In their turn, they can be overruled by a majority written vote of the full membership. This happens once every couple of years. These days the Planners mostly don't even have hurt feelings when a majority vote overrules them. They figure, "We used the best judgment we could and tried to protect the Community from (whatever it was)and if the Community doesn't want to be protected, fine. At least our conscience is clean"

Planners usually meet about three times a week and deal with whatever issues come up at the time. Issues can be large or small. The larger they are the more time the Planners use in coming to a decision. They talk to people, perhaps have a meeting or two on the subject, maybe even put out a written survey to gather group opinions. Then they examine all this information, compare their own opinions to the general public input, and eventually announce a decision. This may take several months, though they have been known to move faster when a particular issue seems to require it.

Though there are norms around planner behavior, there are almost no solid rules controlling it, which means that the kind of decisions that come out of one Board of Planners might have a totally different feel from those of a different Board. Just about any member who really wants to serve as a planner will get an opportunity to do so. Members know that they can always overrule any outrageous decision the current planners might make, so they are fairly relaxed about the original appointment.

We are not always satisfied with our form of government, but we have never been able to get any agreement on how to change it, so it goes on, year after year, giving us decisions we can live with.