The CLC has designed this checklist, and revised it based on community input, to operate in the context of our already established decision-making process at CCH. We hope it will contribute to the effectiveness and success of task forces. As you put it to use, please let us know what you learn about how we might improve it.

• 1. Hopes and Fears. Has the community had the chance at a General Meeting to explore hopes and fears regarding the project assigned to this TF?

  2. Charge. Have the community’s hopes and fears been translated into a clear charge for the TF? A clear charge will spell out desired parameters for the project, the expectations and needs to be met in order to fulfill the needs of the community, and what would constitute success. (An initial assignment for a TF can be to sort through the issues and come up with a proposed charge, which the TF can bring back to the community by posting it on the decision board for comments, and/or by bringing it to a General Meeting.)

  3. Mandate re. Method of Decision-making. When the GM authorized this TF, did it entrust the TF with deciding on and implementing a project? Or, has the TF been asked to bring a proposal to the community for a consensus decision?

  4. Time frame. Did the GM suggest a time frame for the work of the TF? If not, does this taskforce want to set time-frame expectations and let the community know these parameters, or can this project be more open-ended?

  5. Input

• • Is the task force seeking input in effective and varied ways?

  • E.g. notify residents personally of upcoming meetings; do a survey; post info on the decision board for comments; take time at a GM to brainstorm or try out evolving ideas; meet with individuals or committees who have expressed concern(s), with whom a face-to-face conversation might be helpful.

  • Are we willing to rework our ideas based on community input no matter when it comes?

  • If a person comes in with input at the very end, perhaps the TF didn’t reach out well enough. But, also, late individual input should be checked with the community.

• 1. Informing the community. Have we updated the community at general meetings often enough to prepare people for our project or proposal? Are we making TF meeting minutes (or a record of our evolving conclusions) available to the community?

  2. Stamina and persistence. How’s our stamina, and what would help us keep going?

  3. Community Life Committee. How might the CLC be helpful? (If the TF feels stuck or in conflict, for example, a conversation with the CLC might be helpful. Also, it’s a good idea to try out any proposal with the CLC before presenting it to the general meeting, since CLC discussion provides a good microcosm of the kind of reactions you may encounter.)