The Auroville Appeal Process revisited

In 2015, the community approved the Auroville Conflict Resolution Policy which outlines three ways for dealing with conflicts. These are (1) mediation, where parties with the help of one or more trained mediators try to come to an agreement; (2) Restorative Circles, which address conflicts between people in a series of facilitated meetings to find a mutually acceptable solution; and (3) arbitration, where a decision is not made by the participants, but by the arbiters. But as their decisions cannot be considered as a conflict, the working groups did not want this Policy to be used in cases where there is a disagreement with the decision of a working group. To resolve this, a different policy, the Auroville Appeal Process, was formulated. It came into effect in February 2017

The facilitated meeting

In accordance with the Appeal Process, an appeal starts with what is called ‘a friendly attempt to solve the disagreement’, in which qualified facilitators help the parties to better understand the decision and what led to it, or reach a new decision. An appeal will only follow if no agreement is reached. These facilitated meetings have meanwhile proven their worth. Out of the 19 appeals that have been filed since the Process came into force, three were withdrawn after agreement was reached during the facilitated meetings, and another one, says Koodam, may also be withdrawn, as the individuals and the working group are trying to find a way forward acceptable to all.

These facilitated meetings have been shown to be essential for rebuilding trust between the members of the working group and the person who appeals. They are never held in the Town Hall, which is the source of the original decision. Instead, the people meet elsewhere. With the help of the facilitator all are invited to connect on a human level: they hear each other, explain and sometimes apologize. Sometimes it ends with an acknowledgement that a process was not properly done, and sometimes there is then a willingness to discuss the matter further and find a solution which is acceptable to all. In other cases, they had the chance to share and listen.

The facilitators have observed that very often the actual pain point of people who initiate an appeal is that they felt they weren’t ‘heard’. Sometimes they are invited to a meeting with the working group, but there is a big difference for them between being present in an official meeting and interacting on a personal level in a facilitated meeting. Often, in official meetings, the human connection disappears; the invitees feel imposed on and don’t feel able to fully express themselves. Sometimes it is different when people come together in a facilitated meeting; there an energy shift can happen and people can come to understand why a decision was made and what the consequences of that decision were on some individuals. The facilitators feel that this is something the community needs to look at: how there can be more conversation, how there can be more sharing on the personal level, how can working groups best take the feelings of affected people about their decision into account and how can the individuals understand more the responsibility and role of the working group members. “Irrespective of the outcome of the facilitated meeting, what is important is that afterwards people can smile again at each other when they meet,” says Elvira.

The acceptance of the appeal process and its facilitated meetings was not instantaneous. In the early days, working groups such as the Funds and Assets Management Committee and Town Development Council would argue that their decision was not appealable as it was made in the interest of the community as a whole. “Initially, there was a resistance to cooperate with the appeal process. Some working group members took it very personally when their working group’s decision was appealed against,” says Niva. “We met some of the working group’s members and explained to them that the main purpose of the process is to improve our working group processes, asked them to cooperate and told them that they will not be criticized just for the sake of it.” Gradually, the appeal process was accepted. Some working group members now appreciate the facilitated meetings and realize that they are of help to convey their views to the appealing persons. They understand and respect the right of the individual to submit an appeal. From the community’s perspective, as working groups are now aware that appeals against their decision can be submitted, they have become more careful in their dealings with the people who are affected, and are better at motivating and formulating their decisions.

Appeals, stay orders and learnings

Since 2017, 19 appeal requests have been submitted. Two appeals were not admitted as they did not meet the criteria; three appeals have been withdrawn and one more may be withdrawn after the facilitated meeting. In six cases, the working group’s decision was upheld. Four appeals are in process, one appeal was not conducted. In two recent appeals, which were dealt with jointly as it was about the same topic, that of the allocation the management of Roma’s Kitchen to new executives, the appeal arbiters decided that the decision of the Funds and Assets Management Committee (FAMC) could not be validated because there had been too many flaws and weaknesses in its decision-making process. This appeal was unique in the sense that, jointly with the appeal arbiters, the FAMC then made a new decision in the case, and also published the list of learning points which the appeal arbiters had identified.

The processing of this last appeal drew some criticism. Those to whom the FAMC had allocated the management of Roma’s Kitchen suddenly received a ‘stay order’ from the Auroville Council, which meant that they had to pause the work to reopen the restaurant and wait for the outcome of the appeal. This was in order to have a fair appeal process. But that stay order was not lifted when those who had appealed later publicly stated that they were no longer interested in getting the management.

“When the appeal body concluded that the working group’s decision-making process had been flawed, the arbiters recommended the working group to revisit its initial decision,” explains Mukta. “This is in accordance with the Appeal Process. The working group could have made an entirely new decision, or even decide to redo the entire selection process. The status quo could only be lifted after the working group had made its new decision considering the findings from the appeal.”

The use by the Auroville Council of the words ‘stay order’ and of ‘lifting of stay order’ when the appeal was over was wrong. The Appeal Process says that the Council can recommend maintaining the specific status quo, which means ‘pause’.

But ‘recommend’ is a weak term; one can argue that you don’t have to listen to a recommendation and can continue with what you are doing. The appeal arbiters therefore asked the Council to issue ‘a stay order’ to bring clarity. They have meanwhile recommended that this aspect of the appeal policy be looked into and be better formulated.

Two other learnings from this appeal are that decisions shouldn’t be considered as ‘final’ till the one-month period in which someone can file an appeal is over; and that it would be good practice if a working group explicitly mentions in each decision that an appeal against it can be filed within one month. This is particularly relevant for those who would like to immediately make investments or take steps that are not easily reversible.

Authority, power and human unity

Though there is a big improvement in the way working groups are functioning as compared to ten years ago, the question of the proper use of ‘authority’ and ‘power’ often comes up. After all, working groups consist of Aurovilians who have been selected by the community to do a certain work for a certain period of time. They assume ‘authority’ to make certain decisions. But Auroville has a framework of extreme freedom; many people reject authority and will not accept decisions from a working group just because it comes from the ‘authority’.

“The question is how to balance ‘authority’ and ‘power’ and Auroville’s value of human unity,” says Elvira. “Many times, the way decisions are arrived at and communicated causes pain and trauma to people, even more than the decision itself. For me, these are the big questions. It is not as easy as saying ‘We shouldn’t be authoritative and exercise power over others’, because we are not there yet either. How can we make difficult decisions that cause pain and grief in people, and hold this process together so we can heal?”

Judgmental attitudes

Over the last 25 years the awareness of the conflict resolution systems in Auroville has increased. There are now many more attempts to resolve problems using mediation, Restorative Circles, arbitration or appeal. But Koodam feels that the attitude of many Aurovilians is only slowly changing. There are still many people in the community who are asking for a process where someone decides who is right and who is wrong, and not “What is the right decision for the community?” or “How can we settle this conflict in harmony?” Often, they want someone to be punished for the mistake they believe he or she made.

Also, there is a growing tendency in a number of Aurovilians to look for ‘legal’ solutions: they expect working groups to keep extremely detailed notes of each meeting, and they complain to the Secretary or the Governing Board when they disagree with a decision. All this, says Koodam, is contrary to what we in Auroville aim at. “For almost a decade we have been trying to establish restorative processes, processes that focus on restoring relationships and enable everybody to move on. That is in line with the ideals of Auroville. But it only works if the people in a dispute or disagreement take responsibility for it themselves and not blame others,” says Elvira.

Sadly, the judgmental attitude also comes up in facilitated meetings. A harmful dynamic is gaining grounds that working groups and its members are by default power-hungry and somehow not part of the Residents Assembly, or are even actively trying to harm it. “That narrative is gaining volume and if people initiate an appeal process but come from this stance, it is very hard to make good use of the potential of a facilitated meeting. When someone just wants the whole working group to resign because there is a deep conviction that there is systemic abuse of power, a two-hour conversation will not help them arrive at the answers they want,” says Niva. “This is not what the Auroville appeal process is meant for. For in an Auroville appeal, the appeal arbiters, as representatives of the community, look at the decision and at the process that has been followed, with goodwill and in a spirit of service, and with a purpose to find a solution that will contribute to a growth of transparency and communication between all in the spirit of Auroville.”

Rewriting the Appeal Process

The Appeal Process 2017 states that it will be reviewed and fine-tuned after a year. But this has not happened. In 2018, the Auroville Council asked the community for feedback, but it didn’t receive any, probably because at the time the appeal process hadn’t been used much; only three appeals had been filed, and one of them was withdrawn.

The attempt to review the process was restarted late 2019. A task force was set up which met a few times and planned to ask for feedback from the community and from those who had been involved in an appeal. But the task force stopped functioning because of the COVID-19 lockdown, and some members resigned. The Auroville Council has taken it up recently again. The FAMC shared its feedback on the process. One interesting point mentioned is that the appeal process should not only focus on the working group’s process but also encourage a deep reflection by the appellants in regard to their hopes for the outcome of the appeal and how that relates to the wider community’s hopes and needs.

A good starting point for the review of the Appeal Process would be to study the arbitrations and appeal decisions of the last six years and make a list of all the recommendations and learning points that have been made. Many decisions contain not only recommendations from the arbiters on process deficiencies by the working groups, but also on systemic improvements that need to be done in the community as a whole. That list then should be discussed with the concerning working groups and shared with the community.

The arbiters

The appeal arbiters are selected from a so-called ‘pool of arbiters’, a group of people who are not connected to any working group. They received two trainings, and in the beginning, after each case, all the arbiters and the members of the Auroville Council and Koodam would come together to discuss the learnings from the case. Today, as the arbiters’ decision is final and binding, as a kind of safety net before giving the final verdict, the draft of each appeal decision is shared with a few others from the pool of arbiters to get their feedback, to ensure that the final decision is well-formulated.

Being an Auroville arbiter does not require a legal background. What is required is a willingness to serve and be open to listen to and to work together with others and then try and find the best solution in the interest of Auroville.

But not many arbiters are willing to do more than one arbitration or appeal. It takes a lot of energy, which is not always understood by those involved. “I have a deep appreciation for the work the arbiters are doing. They all have a full-time job somewhere else, yet they are willing to help solve an issue pro bono and meet for long hours three or four times a week for a few weeks. I see only goodwill and true dedication,” says Niva.

Her conviction is shared by all. “In the seven years of arbitration and appeals there was not once an issue with the arbiters,” says Elvira. “There were issues with accepting and implementing a decision, but I have never heard statements such as ‘Because of arbiter X, this decision is wrong.’ When Aurovilians come forward to help solve other peoples’ difficulties for Auroville’s Dream, we see real servitors, people who have goodwill and a true sense of service to the community.”

“In my experience, something higher comes out in these appeal cases,” says Tomas. “I am convinced that even people who have an aggressive attitude and have walked in complaining, will at some point cool down and be touched. That is the important part, that the governance of Auroville gets lifted to another level.”

Box:

The Auroville Appeal Process intends to:

1. Support fair, open and transparent decision-making processes.

2. Encourage accountability from our working groups.

3. Enable working groups to revise or change their decision-making.

4. Encourage the Auroville community to move towards shared responsibility.

5. Provide a framework to meaningfully address serious dissatisfactions of individuals with working groups’ decisions and thus harmonise and improve the relationship between working groups and the community.