What Happens When a Peace House Engages in War?

Reprinted from Taos Horse Fly Daily news December 27, 2009

January 17, 2010

Several years ago, the genesis of the Taos Peace House began with a meeting at Wired? Café. Keith McHenry, co-founder of Food Not Bombs, applied for and received a grant from Ben and Jerry’s to rent a space and pay for a part-time assistant. McHenry’s intention was that Taos serve as the global coordination office for Food Not Bombs but also invited other similar minded groups working for peace to utilize the building. This is not the basis of the dispute.

What is at the center of the dispute is whether old-fashioned envy is what killed the peace. Having established the Peace House enabled McKenry to continue his writing of books and the Food Not Bombs lecture tours of U.S. colleges and universities. The proceeds from the tours and books sales is what enabled the continued work of Food Not Bombs and pay the rent for the Taos Peace House.

Beginning in the early part of the summer of love campaign in Taos, signs of fracture at the peace house were becoming evident. A feud between the part-time employee and McHenry regarding support services for Food Not Bombs were tiny fissures that by November were the basis of the intractable crevasse that blew the unity apart. McHenry complained that money was not being collected and tour locations were not confirmed. McHenry would show up to a university to speak but since there was no confirmation, there was no stipend as well.

By August, the Cannabis Action Network, Viva Bikes and Grassroots Jerusalem appeared to be the dominating inhabitants. After suspected arson burned down the Men’s Homeless Shelter last August, the regular members attending the peace house allowed a group of homeless men to unofficially utilize the space until the more permanent structure and land could be acquired from the Taos Municipal School District and the Town of Taos.

According to McHenry, fights and violence were reported, the phone went mostly unanswered and inquiries for Food Not Bombs were met with statements that it was no longer a part of the peace house.

The purpose of the November monthly meeting was to decide if Food Not Bombs had a future in the peace house. It convened at 7:00 p.m. with a packed room of supporters for both viewpoints. Using C.T. Butler’s teaching on conflict and consensus, the group utilized an in-house facilitator who faced challenges of detachment through the entirety of the meeting.

During the course of the meeting, allegations of sabotage from both factions were aired with neither side offering documents or proof. As the talking wound down from heated words to worn-down truth, several members of the faction working against McHenry voiced their reluctance to remain under the shadow of an “icon� and could care less about the ruined 30th anniversary tour of Food Not Bombs.

Unlike other models of consensus building, the ground rules were that when queried, one dissenting voice would be enough to block the consensus of how to move forward. The antithesis of authoritative power also runs the risk of too much singular power that negates the majority voice. By 10:30 p.m., any hope of ironing out a mutual compromise was lost.

In the days and weeks that followed McHenry relinquished the lease of the building to the victors of the coup d’état, but they too lost the building. McHenry, owner of the signage and the Katrina bus, packed up and vacated but refused to allow the group access to the website or post office box, both owned by McHenry. In retaliation, McHenry’s voice mail was hacked.

The landlord told the group that in order for them to retain the use of the building, a new lease with a deposit plus first and last month’s rent would be required. The reformulated group is looking for a new space at this time.

So, what does happen when a peace house engages in war? The answer is rather evident. No house of peace and with no compromise, everyone loses. It sort of reminds me of my mother’s old rule of resolving disputes when as children we could not agree to share. Both parties lost the ability to have access to whatever was at the center of the conflict. The end result is that everybody loses equally, especially the concept that Taos is a model for peace.