Table Mountain Ranch Association
Annual Circle: August 2006

Observations and Questions

Here are some of my photos from the 2006 Reunion and Annual Circle at Table
Mountain: Table Mountain Ranch 2006
(It’s a flash file; broadband suggested) It was really wonderful to be camping with this amazing community on the Mendocino coast this summer. Wonderful to see the faces of our friends, new faces, old faces, and missing some dear faces. The reunion also brought up some serious reflections, some thoughts that I want to share with you.

Observing how a group manages its commons, and the health of that commons,
is a window into the health of the group. A group with a commons that thrives
benefits all members, while a commons exploited by a few will wither and die.
We see this on many scales, from the whole Earth (greenhouse warming) to the
micro family level.

It's especially important at Table Mountain Ranch, as we consciously created a commons both on the land and in our hearts, even in the midst of a society where every pressure is counter to cooperation and counter to tribal affinity, encouraging purely selfish behavior.

A healthy group will treat its commons as a resource that is respected and
replenished by the members, one that members draw upon in a sustainable way. The commons may be physical, as in some land; it may be emotional, as in a safe space; perhaps it's a web space; maybe it's a coalition of allies but in any case we look to the health of the commons and the dynamics of the interaction to gage the health of the group overall.

Applying this framework to Table Mountain Ranch Association, we have a commons in the land, a commons in the circle where we gather each year to share fellowship and make decisions about the association, and on our board.

The land seems healthy and vibrant, so on that level we get a "B", but the circle was not well and shows signs of malaise.

The disrespect that Doug and Willow showed to the other members of the circle as they made disparaging remarks and sulked sullenly away was painful to see.

The withholding of support by senior members is a vote of no-confidence in the residents’ group and the board. There were several founding members who voiced this position, including Zoe.

The board had some meetings where respect and decency were discarded and distracting theatrics used to avoid talking about the serious violations of the agreements that took place on the land last year. Board meetings need to be a space where respect for each other is a reliable assumption, and where board business is discussed in a collaborative setting.

Uproar is a tactic that doesn’t belong in the circle or at the board meetings.
Doug seemed to feel that it’s OK for him to storm out instead of talking with us about what’s going on. His show of sullen disrespect seems to confuse resident status with ownership. If he’s going to live on the land and benefit, then he belongs at the one most important meeting, treating us with respect, and we must respect the residents’ need to make good operating decisions.

Residents must build a viable farm economy in order to create a sustainable
ranch, so some autonomy is essential.

With Google Earth and similar neutral observing platforms in operation, we must understand that any structure won’t be hidden for long, and, once discovered, will make the land vulnerable to government interference unless it complies with county requirements, etc.

The bylaws define an important commons, the way that the land will be managed, and the process that we members agree to use to govern this commons. It’s a powerful tool and shouldn’t be discarded in the rush to exploit the commons that we see underway today.

The board has a duty to carry out duties as specified in the document, and to do less is to expose the land and the assets of TMR to decay or worse. The board cannot permit a cabin to be built without knowing about the proposed structure, evaluating how it would fit in, and who owns the resulting structure/improvements!

Where is such a contract? Vennie's draft of a residents’ contract is a good start. I think that it should add the elements of a lease, since the residents don’t have ownership rights and we can write it to take into account our unique relationships. Not a burden, a tool.

We’ve seen that when the board tells, and verbally agrees with, a resident to
limit some behavior that may affect us all, sometimes it’s not honored. In these situations it's often best to have an contract as a basis for resolution. Clearly contracts could protect the land by giving us leverage when folks use strong-arm tactics to take what they want.

I’d suggest that the Board immediately obtain a signed “hold harmless” document from everyone staying on the land. The board did a good thing in developing the "hold harmless" and I’d say that without the “hold harmless,” it's goodbye to the non-signing residents.

We should have a written contract from everyone who is a resident at TMR: A simple way to clarify what isn’t clear now. The land is owned by the Table Mountain Co-Op with a board that has oversight responsibility. We either have squatting, or we have residents as defined in the bylaws of TMR, and it’s clear from this year’s circle that it’s time to write it down, or we may well see more and more bullying tactics.

When Ishvi spoke about one side of the commons (how residents should benefit from living on the land), he was right, but not complete. I believe that each resident should do well, and as he or she does well, so should Table Mountain as those residents,visitors, and general members put back in a fair share to the common good.

In an era when the political elite has declared war on the "safety net", war on the underclass, in an era when our rights are eroding, where the very web of life is under attack, we need to nurture our precious centers of cooperation and sanctuary. We must understand and appreciate the precious gem that is the Table Mountain Ranch Association.

Bruce Bagnoli