Post by kim on Feb 20, 2012 20:25:43 GMT -7
Notes to Working General Assembly of 02/19/12
Call to order 1:10 pm.
≈20 people
Due to a shortened meeting time and several things to talk about today, we will go straight into discussion:
1. Start with Walter and discussion of Move to Amend, since he has to leave at 1:30.
2. Discussion of Consensus documents [See the documents that were discussed here: occupymissoula.proboards.com/index.cgi?action=display&board=gafacilitation&thread=331&page=1#1125. Those still to be discussed are attached to this post.]
3. Strategy meeting
1.) Move to Amend:
Pondering where do we go from here. Written handout passed around. Move to amend movement will have to become affiliated with a nationwide movement to be effective. Natural affinity is the Move to Amend coalition, the group that instigated the Occupy the Courts initially. MTA is strongly supportive of the Occupy movement. Want to maintain that relationship. Occupy groups can become affiliated with Move to Amend. It seems it may be more effective to splinter off into a sister organization that is specifically dedicated to Move to Amend, while still maintaining affinity. There are differences in approach, style, and goals. The problems that might arise with affiliation with a group like move to amend are that they have a very specific goal, which probably won’t be realized for several years. MTA is a single purpose, national organization with a hierarchical style. Raising awareness is less important than mobilizing people and getting them to become a part of the movement. Educate and raise awareness required to gain that membership, but operation is different and more defined. Occupy groups would have to explicitly accept the methods/goals of the Move to Amend movement. Sign up list and names would be limited to the Move to Amend work group. Funding another issue, would require autonomy as a group. Move to Amend and Occupy have a symbiotic relationship (liberating 99% from the 1%) but the parameters are different. A separation of groups does not preclude cooperation between Occupy and Move to Amend. POI: Relation of Occupy to local and national, part of statement of solidarity is a statement of autonomy. This allows us to work with different groups and sets “ground rules.” A goal of Occupy is amend the constitution. Some do not see Move to Amend as structural change. There is a wide range of views on it. Not appropriating the Occupy name on things we do not agree with./ Some cases cooperative, other times “turf wars” and so working together or affiliating can be difficult./ Originally wanted to stay together as it might be more beneficial, but now seems that it might be better to let MTA on its own. Wording interesting: Occupy uses “alliance” while Move to Amend wants “affiliation.” Alliance preferred, but harder to maintain that kind of relation with MTA. MTA is much more structured than Occupy./ A national campaign like they are running does require some structure. Structure not a burden, keeps them going in one direction. One direction more specific than Occupy, which is trying to figure our how to get something different./ Hierarchical structure? A: Board of directors, national steering committee. Not sure of exact details. Vision is that all the local mobilization groups will join up to create a state group, which will participate with the national organization./ Structure does not imply hierarchy. Bottom up organization can be very structured./ Suggest a model that before the revolution there were committees of correspondents that worked under model that evolved into the consensus model we know now. Hierarchical structure then, one historical way to present the two groups. Particular people have to meet together, and that can’t be done on a national level./ George Washington did not win the war, it was the people who didn’t buy English products and burned their own fields. Armies could not have done it themselves./ Working on how to reach the “99%.” Issues like MTA the coal issues, voters rights, important issues that need to be attended to and do take structure. Occupy successful doing one thing quickly: mobilizing and coordinated; helping lots of groups coming together quickly. Lots of people from each single issue might agree that MTA is a good idea—thus embolden Occupy to facilitate the coordination of each of those movements. Help create a larger voice for individual movements./ Could create ill-will because of the privacy of information, funding, etc. Maybe not a “good fit.”/ Each movement has a complexity. When the ideas come together into one pot it doesn’t work. Individuals from Occupy can bring those people together./ Reservations; a subgroup of people interested in MTA, rather than trying to organize Occupy into MTA’s structure./ Organization via political parties as an example: affiliate with actions rather than groups[?]./ Day to day reckoning with details might make our lives miserable. MTA split off and remain an affiliate. Members likely to continue attending GAs./ Might lose some members but might bring in some of the community not currently involved to MTA, those that do not want to be part of OM./ April 4 room reserved in library, would like to have that decision made by then./ Important to allow time for items of such importance./ Thank you for asking, respectful to the group rather than just breaking off. In support of letting single issue groups to do their thing./ Meeting on Monday, would be helpful to know, does anyone really object to that group splitting off?/ This raises a bigger issue, thus the discussion./ “Dedicated affiliate” one structure, harder to change later, but OM can ally themselves with it./ Biggest difference is how Walter can work, fundraising, etc./ First time dealing with another national organization. Move to table to other discussion as well, so we can continue that another time.
Announcement: Book: “The 99%” was passed around for everyone to see, if you want to read it check with Ethel.
2.) Discussion of Consensus Documents:
Who put the Consensus documents together?/Consensus group.
Overview of the documents (attached) from consensus working group: Draft was handed out at last GA, taken to a point that the WG felt it was ready for discussion and adoption at the next GA. Tweak it this week in preparation for next week’s GA. Documents handed out include 1) Structure of the meeting, 2) potential facilitation roles, 3) flow chart of how discuss proposals and how they are adopted by consensus, 4) principles under which we agree to conduct ourselves, and 5) Principles of Solidarity & Statement of Autonomy lifted from Occupy Wall Street which define the overall nature of the occupy movement. Refined from study of CT Butlers book. Statements from Occupy Wall street will published around Sept 17, right at the beginning, talked of changing it but they never did. For the final two documents, proposal is that we stand in solidarity with these two, which means we do not have to adopt them word for word. Give us guidance in our decision making. Provides a framework. Are verbatim from #OWS./ POI: Get an assessment of what will be the easiest to move through. E.g. the first pages seem the easiest to move through, whereas the back gets a bit more sticky./ First part is exactly that. Looked at what happens in the GA and what works. Structure & Roles developed that way./ Also, good to point out that this evolving. Not set in stone./ Formalizing the process and subject to improvement. Gives us something to hand out to newcomers at the door. We can make changes via a GA. Flexible, with goal of bringing clarity and consistency to meetings./ There are other models, and others advocate for other methods, but this is the one we’ve been using./ Footnote that these are based on the book?/Will add that, so people can reference back to Butler’s work./ Has come up before pure consensus vs. modified consensus?/ Putting forth the proposal based on full consensus, as the modified consensus will be a big decision. When that comes up, we’ll first have to look at the group structure./ The WG talked of companion documents like a mission statement, but wouldn’t try to write that as a WG./ Lots of consensus models to look at, some decision made by modified consensus, and others by full consensus./ Lots of considerations to look at. Consensus asks us all to commit to decisions and buy into the outcomes./Requires that there is a real concern for the good of the groups and the individuals./ Continuing to the flowchart: fine print is that there are two statements at bottom outlining that you may stand aside, accept, or serious concerns necessitating a block. Requires that we carefully articulate the purpose, goals, and values of the group. Will take work on our part to define those, but also prevents./ A stand aside is done “for the good of the group,” add to the flow. Even if you don’t agree with the proposal, you agree to stand aside for the good of the group, in order to prevent fractionation./ Work done is great! Move towards collective language./ Consensus is not about wearing out the opposition. Decisions should be in a timeframe, if it doesn’t work out in that time frame you table it./Flowchart review./Anyone in the room can call for consensus by asking “Are then any unresolved concerns?” If it seems like it is ready to pass, and the discussion is just going on./ In the case that someone does come in, would like to see the possibility of a majority vote./ A stand-aside should be noted, and that concern carries on with the decision./ Everybody in the process is valuable, to try to avoid the tyranny of the majority. We have the time to hear it through all the way./ But if a trouble maker type shows up, and is problematic, we might want to have a recourse./ Again, someone will have to articulate a block on the basis of the purpose, values, and goals of the movement, so some one cannot just come in and make a block based on opinion./ Saboteurs possible, but don’t be afraid to want what we want./ People who would block need to have been here for several GAs before./ The statement asks that people come invested in the movement./ Can a proposal pass without reference to modified consensus?/ Yes./ That said this is a living document that can be changed later./ How is a block resolved?/ Proposal is sent back tot eh work group, and the person with the concern should go work with the workgroup./ Reconstitution of the constitution and sovereignty. A sense of what the process is./ These principles are for the GA, and not for Occupy overall./ Principles are all from the book except the last one, that the WG added. /Try to adopt the first pages next week, and hold off until further discussion on the 2 statements from OWS.
3.) Strategic planning workshop
Gwen here for strategic planning working group, we need to have some time to discuss logistical planning of that.
1 day versus two days, date, location (Open Way?)
Events: NCBI mini-training, dancing/celebration (if planning around contra-dancing, first or third Saturday).
POI: NCBI workshops can be pretty long, so better to plan for two days.
Best to have it at another location to stimulate new thinking. Plus Union Hall banquet room not available during Saturday days. There are other location options that are free or low cost.
Have the workshop elsewhere, then reconvene here at the Union Hall banquet room for regular GA.
March 24th & 25th date decided. Agenda? Workshop arranged for one of those days. Celebration-Meet some where there is a band playing afterwards (a restaurant preferably, so we can eat together there)./ Agenda most vital: Who will facilitate, and discussion of the components. Many rich & vital discussions that will need to take place. Leads to a discussion of
Will meet 5:30-6:30 Tuesday at the UC Copper Commons area (eating area upstairs), prior to the lecture series to determine details, but will keep the agenda discussion to full participation.
Adjourned 3:00pm to join UM March Against Coal Exports.
Call to order 1:10 pm.
≈20 people
Due to a shortened meeting time and several things to talk about today, we will go straight into discussion:
1. Start with Walter and discussion of Move to Amend, since he has to leave at 1:30.
2. Discussion of Consensus documents [See the documents that were discussed here: occupymissoula.proboards.com/index.cgi?action=display&board=gafacilitation&thread=331&page=1#1125. Those still to be discussed are attached to this post.]
3. Strategy meeting
1.) Move to Amend:
Pondering where do we go from here. Written handout passed around. Move to amend movement will have to become affiliated with a nationwide movement to be effective. Natural affinity is the Move to Amend coalition, the group that instigated the Occupy the Courts initially. MTA is strongly supportive of the Occupy movement. Want to maintain that relationship. Occupy groups can become affiliated with Move to Amend. It seems it may be more effective to splinter off into a sister organization that is specifically dedicated to Move to Amend, while still maintaining affinity. There are differences in approach, style, and goals. The problems that might arise with affiliation with a group like move to amend are that they have a very specific goal, which probably won’t be realized for several years. MTA is a single purpose, national organization with a hierarchical style. Raising awareness is less important than mobilizing people and getting them to become a part of the movement. Educate and raise awareness required to gain that membership, but operation is different and more defined. Occupy groups would have to explicitly accept the methods/goals of the Move to Amend movement. Sign up list and names would be limited to the Move to Amend work group. Funding another issue, would require autonomy as a group. Move to Amend and Occupy have a symbiotic relationship (liberating 99% from the 1%) but the parameters are different. A separation of groups does not preclude cooperation between Occupy and Move to Amend. POI: Relation of Occupy to local and national, part of statement of solidarity is a statement of autonomy. This allows us to work with different groups and sets “ground rules.” A goal of Occupy is amend the constitution. Some do not see Move to Amend as structural change. There is a wide range of views on it. Not appropriating the Occupy name on things we do not agree with./ Some cases cooperative, other times “turf wars” and so working together or affiliating can be difficult./ Originally wanted to stay together as it might be more beneficial, but now seems that it might be better to let MTA on its own. Wording interesting: Occupy uses “alliance” while Move to Amend wants “affiliation.” Alliance preferred, but harder to maintain that kind of relation with MTA. MTA is much more structured than Occupy./ A national campaign like they are running does require some structure. Structure not a burden, keeps them going in one direction. One direction more specific than Occupy, which is trying to figure our how to get something different./ Hierarchical structure? A: Board of directors, national steering committee. Not sure of exact details. Vision is that all the local mobilization groups will join up to create a state group, which will participate with the national organization./ Structure does not imply hierarchy. Bottom up organization can be very structured./ Suggest a model that before the revolution there were committees of correspondents that worked under model that evolved into the consensus model we know now. Hierarchical structure then, one historical way to present the two groups. Particular people have to meet together, and that can’t be done on a national level./ George Washington did not win the war, it was the people who didn’t buy English products and burned their own fields. Armies could not have done it themselves./ Working on how to reach the “99%.” Issues like MTA the coal issues, voters rights, important issues that need to be attended to and do take structure. Occupy successful doing one thing quickly: mobilizing and coordinated; helping lots of groups coming together quickly. Lots of people from each single issue might agree that MTA is a good idea—thus embolden Occupy to facilitate the coordination of each of those movements. Help create a larger voice for individual movements./ Could create ill-will because of the privacy of information, funding, etc. Maybe not a “good fit.”/ Each movement has a complexity. When the ideas come together into one pot it doesn’t work. Individuals from Occupy can bring those people together./ Reservations; a subgroup of people interested in MTA, rather than trying to organize Occupy into MTA’s structure./ Organization via political parties as an example: affiliate with actions rather than groups[?]./ Day to day reckoning with details might make our lives miserable. MTA split off and remain an affiliate. Members likely to continue attending GAs./ Might lose some members but might bring in some of the community not currently involved to MTA, those that do not want to be part of OM./ April 4 room reserved in library, would like to have that decision made by then./ Important to allow time for items of such importance./ Thank you for asking, respectful to the group rather than just breaking off. In support of letting single issue groups to do their thing./ Meeting on Monday, would be helpful to know, does anyone really object to that group splitting off?/ This raises a bigger issue, thus the discussion./ “Dedicated affiliate” one structure, harder to change later, but OM can ally themselves with it./ Biggest difference is how Walter can work, fundraising, etc./ First time dealing with another national organization. Move to table to other discussion as well, so we can continue that another time.
Announcement: Book: “The 99%” was passed around for everyone to see, if you want to read it check with Ethel.
2.) Discussion of Consensus Documents:
Who put the Consensus documents together?/Consensus group.
Overview of the documents (attached) from consensus working group: Draft was handed out at last GA, taken to a point that the WG felt it was ready for discussion and adoption at the next GA. Tweak it this week in preparation for next week’s GA. Documents handed out include 1) Structure of the meeting, 2) potential facilitation roles, 3) flow chart of how discuss proposals and how they are adopted by consensus, 4) principles under which we agree to conduct ourselves, and 5) Principles of Solidarity & Statement of Autonomy lifted from Occupy Wall Street which define the overall nature of the occupy movement. Refined from study of CT Butlers book. Statements from Occupy Wall street will published around Sept 17, right at the beginning, talked of changing it but they never did. For the final two documents, proposal is that we stand in solidarity with these two, which means we do not have to adopt them word for word. Give us guidance in our decision making. Provides a framework. Are verbatim from #OWS./ POI: Get an assessment of what will be the easiest to move through. E.g. the first pages seem the easiest to move through, whereas the back gets a bit more sticky./ First part is exactly that. Looked at what happens in the GA and what works. Structure & Roles developed that way./ Also, good to point out that this evolving. Not set in stone./ Formalizing the process and subject to improvement. Gives us something to hand out to newcomers at the door. We can make changes via a GA. Flexible, with goal of bringing clarity and consistency to meetings./ There are other models, and others advocate for other methods, but this is the one we’ve been using./ Footnote that these are based on the book?/Will add that, so people can reference back to Butler’s work./ Has come up before pure consensus vs. modified consensus?/ Putting forth the proposal based on full consensus, as the modified consensus will be a big decision. When that comes up, we’ll first have to look at the group structure./ The WG talked of companion documents like a mission statement, but wouldn’t try to write that as a WG./ Lots of consensus models to look at, some decision made by modified consensus, and others by full consensus./ Lots of considerations to look at. Consensus asks us all to commit to decisions and buy into the outcomes./Requires that there is a real concern for the good of the groups and the individuals./ Continuing to the flowchart: fine print is that there are two statements at bottom outlining that you may stand aside, accept, or serious concerns necessitating a block. Requires that we carefully articulate the purpose, goals, and values of the group. Will take work on our part to define those, but also prevents./ A stand aside is done “for the good of the group,” add to the flow. Even if you don’t agree with the proposal, you agree to stand aside for the good of the group, in order to prevent fractionation./ Work done is great! Move towards collective language./ Consensus is not about wearing out the opposition. Decisions should be in a timeframe, if it doesn’t work out in that time frame you table it./Flowchart review./Anyone in the room can call for consensus by asking “Are then any unresolved concerns?” If it seems like it is ready to pass, and the discussion is just going on./ In the case that someone does come in, would like to see the possibility of a majority vote./ A stand-aside should be noted, and that concern carries on with the decision./ Everybody in the process is valuable, to try to avoid the tyranny of the majority. We have the time to hear it through all the way./ But if a trouble maker type shows up, and is problematic, we might want to have a recourse./ Again, someone will have to articulate a block on the basis of the purpose, values, and goals of the movement, so some one cannot just come in and make a block based on opinion./ Saboteurs possible, but don’t be afraid to want what we want./ People who would block need to have been here for several GAs before./ The statement asks that people come invested in the movement./ Can a proposal pass without reference to modified consensus?/ Yes./ That said this is a living document that can be changed later./ How is a block resolved?/ Proposal is sent back tot eh work group, and the person with the concern should go work with the workgroup./ Reconstitution of the constitution and sovereignty. A sense of what the process is./ These principles are for the GA, and not for Occupy overall./ Principles are all from the book except the last one, that the WG added. /Try to adopt the first pages next week, and hold off until further discussion on the 2 statements from OWS.
3.) Strategic planning workshop
Gwen here for strategic planning working group, we need to have some time to discuss logistical planning of that.
1 day versus two days, date, location (Open Way?)
Events: NCBI mini-training, dancing/celebration (if planning around contra-dancing, first or third Saturday).
POI: NCBI workshops can be pretty long, so better to plan for two days.
Best to have it at another location to stimulate new thinking. Plus Union Hall banquet room not available during Saturday days. There are other location options that are free or low cost.
Have the workshop elsewhere, then reconvene here at the Union Hall banquet room for regular GA.
March 24th & 25th date decided. Agenda? Workshop arranged for one of those days. Celebration-Meet some where there is a band playing afterwards (a restaurant preferably, so we can eat together there)./ Agenda most vital: Who will facilitate, and discussion of the components. Many rich & vital discussions that will need to take place. Leads to a discussion of
Will meet 5:30-6:30 Tuesday at the UC Copper Commons area (eating area upstairs), prior to the lecture series to determine details, but will keep the agenda discussion to full participation.
Adjourned 3:00pm to join UM March Against Coal Exports.
Attachments:
