|
Post by mjewell on Oct 25, 2011 8:11:14 GMT -7
(cross-posted)
This is to comment on how best to to reduce risk to future 11-year-olds as #om moves forward. I think that #om should reconsider its decision-making procedure.
The current version of the consensus system has been wonderful in many ways, but it doesn't work for two of #om's key intended purposes.
Specifically, in its current #om incarnation, it
a) fails to effectively repudiate or prevent public messages and/or actions which are inconsistent with or never received #om consensus; and
b) it simultaneously fails to affirm decisions which express the will of a supermajority over the will of a sometimes idiosyncratic or marginally committed minority.
As a result, people in the Missoula community who were originally excited by the possibility of a national grass-roots movement to remedy inequitable distribution of wealth are less able to continue to meaningfully identify with #om and, by extension, #ows.
Every day that passes without #om finding the will to fix the problem invites other groups (e.g. Missoulian) opportunities to step in and offer alternative public definitions of #om.
And there are signs and messages and actions associated with #om every day at the camp and on-line which, in my opinion, are counter-productive at best and sometimes bordering on fascistic --- and which never received consensus approval.
It's tough for me personally (or professionally) to defend what others in #om do or say absent an adequate structure for accountability and a credible practical plan to protect and deliver economic help to those in our community (other than ourselves) who need need it.
It's also hard for me to envision (within the confines of the current system) how #om could effectively send a delegation to local groups and, eventually, a national assembly with proposals to remedy the current undemocratic and inhumane economy.
So --- in sum --- I think that the main change #om should adopt is to begin making democratcally legitimate decisions based on a supermajority for core issues and a standard majority for routine decisions.
|
|
|
Post by debbyflorence on Oct 25, 2011 11:25:50 GMT -7
Hi Monte,
Can you please provide specific examples and cases for some of the more controversial things you are referring to? I agree with you that a minority of voices are often dominating our group in a detrimental way. I hope 30 people join this conversation, and I hope those 30 people are a cross section of interested parties.
I am not sure I agree with your proposed solution, but mainly I need more information before I can come to an understanding with you about this.. So, Can you please provide links to messages that were fascistic , and can you quote some of the signs and messages you have seen that fall in the category of counter-productive ? Because without these specifics, I have a difficult time knowing exactly where you are coming from. I do share many of your concerns in general though.
Defining a structure for accountability sounds more agreeable to my sense of this movement than limiting what someone puts on a sign. But I could be brought to a different understanding with more examples, and more specific references.
Thanks for being willing to suggest a controversial topic.
|
|
|
Post by mjewell on Oct 25, 2011 15:15:11 GMT -7
Hi, Debby:
I won't risk embarrassing anyone by appearing to snipe after-the-fact at opinions that may be very important to them. And I expect we can all think of examples of public #om signs or posts which were not first vetted by consensus discussion.
For some, the "real" issue is whether we should continue using consensus decision-making at all when, for example, potentially controversial messages can be so easily communicated *despite* our consensus rules.
There's also something questionable about conducting protracted consensus discussions of even routine questions while kids in our community go hungry, get battered, get sick, lose their housing or otherwise suffer harm.
In my experience, we're more generally oppressed by anti-democratic economic forces than by people failing to listen to us in public meetings.
Most importantly --- it's not clear how consensus decision-making will enable us to deliver relief to others from economic oppression better than other democratic methods of decision-making.
Please don't misunderstand me. Maybe it will. But no one has explained how that will occur or why some other form of democratic decision-making (e.g. Robert's Rules) would fail to work just as well (if not better).
As always, I and others greatly appreciate your hard work and courtesy --- as well as your principled willingness to facilitate serious consideration of this and other important questions.
Monte
|
|
|
Post by Jim C on Oct 25, 2011 17:15:13 GMT -7
(cross-posted) ...but it doesn't work for two of #om's key intended purposes. Specifically, in its current #om incarnation, it a) fails to effectively repudiate or prevent public messages and/or actions which are inconsistent with or never received #om consensus; and b) it simultaneously fails to affirm decisions which express the will of a supermajority over the will of a sometimes idiosyncratic or marginally committed minority. Monte, I've participated in a variety of different consensus decision making processes over the last 35 years. Consensus processes vary depending on how they are structured, and used. The form of consensus I see being used at OM GA's is a bit different, but all instances of consensus vary, but the principles are the same. Consensus takes time for a group to define and learn how to use. A lot of people have misconceptions about consensus, and misuse it. I have stood back to watch how consensus evolved at OM because I felt my tech skills were better utilized. In order for consensus to succeed it has to be well defined, and its participants need to be informed of how a particular form works. We are just starting to get there. And I don't mean this in any disrespect for the participants or facilitators/moderators at the GA's, who hit the ground running figuring this stuff out as they went. Kudos to all of those who have taken the time to help facilitate meetings!!! The problems you point to can be addressed. The main problem we have is that we didn't work on how our consensus process was going to work before we began using it, so it is a work in progress which can be frustrating. If I had a suggestion, it would be for OM to identify how it wants to use consensus, and then write it out and follow it. Which of course, begs the chicken and the egg question, but you have to start somewhere. We do have the one page handout that got us started, but it sounds like it is not sufficient. Consensus can take on modified forms to handle blocks, and to address how to move forward with time sensitive decisions. But everybody has to realize that if the GA has adopted a form of consensus, and just because an individual may have used a different form elsewhere, or misunderstands consensus and the use of the block, i.e., that the process still moves forward. As to my comments on Robert's Rules, its a discussion I've had over and over when examining group decision making processes. For the purposes of the Occupy movement, to me it embodies much of what is wrong with our country. It is hierarchical, and works to marginalize minority viewpoints, as the decision and the expediency at which it is made supplants the desire to listen to, consider, and possibly implement minority positions. And I know that there are huge factions within Occupy that would no longer be involved, or not be involved in decision making if it were to use the Robert's form. You indicate the following: This statement could be equally true if Robert's Rules were used in our decision making process. It's just that the disaffected parties would be different. I might offer that it isn't the form of decision making that is our problem, but that it is the inexperience and misconceptions that lie at the root. But those two issues can be, and are being, remedied. Consensus decision making can be modified to fit a groups needs. Robert's, on the other hand, is a set of "Rules" and thus is rigid. respectfully, -jim c.
|
|
|
Post by Jim C on Oct 25, 2011 17:27:10 GMT -7
Here is a link to a book written by an old acquaintance that I have used over the years to work on consensus decision making processes. Fortunately it has been converted to html: "On Conflict and Consensus: a handbook on Formal Consensus decisionmaking" www.ic.org/pnp/ocac/I'm not saying we should adopt this form, just that it is a good guide on how to start, and by which we might inform ourselves on the history of consensus decision making. Here is the Afterword from the book:Formal Consensus is a specifc kind of decisionmaking. It must be defned by the group using it. It provides a foundation, structure, and collection of techniques for effcient and productive group discussions. The foundation is the commonly-held principles and decisions which created the group originally. The structure is predetermined, although fexible. The agenda is formal and extremely important. The roles, techniques, and skills necessary for smooth operation must be accessible to and developed in all members. Evaluation of the process must happen on a consistent and frequent basis, as a tool for self-education and self-management. Above all, Formal Consensus must be taught. It is unreasonable to expect people to be familiar with this process already. In general, cooperative nonviolent confict resolution does not exist in modern North American society. These skills must be developed in what is primarily a competitive environment. Only time will tell if, in fact, this model will fourish and prove itself effective and worthwhile. We are now convinced more than ever that the model presented in this book is profoundly signifcant for the future of our species. We must learn to live together cooperatively, resolving our conficts nonviolently and making our decisions consensually. We must learn to value diversity and respect all life, not just on a physical level, but emotionally, intellectually, and spiritually. We are all in this together. -- C.T. Butler and Amy Rothstein -- August 1991
|
|
|
Post by occupymissoula on Oct 25, 2011 17:35:41 GMT -7
I moved this topic to our facilitation board, and added in a statement to include consensus as a topic. I think this is a logical move, and this is a very important discussion to keep going and not bury as a general discussion. -jim
|
|
|
Post by debbyflorence on Oct 25, 2011 21:45:14 GMT -7
Thanks for the link to the handbook , Jim. I hope it is not heavy handed of me to come here to post another quote from it. I had not read your response when I grabbed the quote, but even after seeing you have placed some info here from it, I would like to share what leapt out for me, although I am not crusading it as my only thoughts or solution:
"Any group which wants to adopt Formal Consensus needs to give considerable attention to the underlying principles which support consensus and help the process operate smoothly. This is not to say each and every one of the principles described herein must be adopted by every group, or that each group cannot add its own principles specific to its goals, but rather, each group must be very clear about the foundation of principles or common purposes they choose before they attempt the Formal Consensus decisionmaking process.
Formal Consensus is the least violent decisionmaking process. Traditional nonviolence theory holds that the use of power to dominate is violent and undesirable. Nonviolence expects people to use their power to persuade without deception, coercion, or malice, using truth, creativity, logic, respect, and love. Majority rule voting process and Parliamentary Procedure both accept, and even encourage, the use of power to dominate others. The goal is the winning of the vote, often regardless of another choice which might be in the best interest of the whole group. The will of the majority supersedes the concerns and desires of the minority. This is inherently violent. Consensus strives to take into account everyone's concerns and resolve them before any decision is made. Most importantly, this process encourages an environment in which everyone is respected and all contributions are valued.
Formal Consensus is the most democratic decisionmaking process. Groups which desire to involve as many people as possible need to use an inclusive process. To attract and involve large numbers, it is important that the process encourages participation, allows equal access to power, develops cooperation, promotes empowerment, and creates a sense of individual responsibility for the group's actions. All of these are cornerstones of Formal Consensus. The goal of consensus is not the selection of several options, but the development of one decision which is the best for the whole group. It is synthesis and evolution, not competition and attrition.
Formal Consensus is based on the principles of the group. Although every individual must consent to a decision before it is adopted, if there are any objections, it is not the choice of the individual alone to determine if an objection prevents the proposal from being adopted. Every objection or concern must first be presented before the group and either resolved or validated. A valid objection is one in keeping with all previous decisions of the group and based upon the commonly-held principles or foundation adopted by the group. The objection must not only address the concerns of the individual, but it must also be in the best interest of the group as a whole. If the objection is not based upon the foundation, or is in contradiction with a prior decision, it is not valid for the group, and therefore, out of order.
Formal Consensus is desirable in larger groups. If the structure is vague, decisions can be difficult to achieve. They will become increasingly more difficult in larger groups. Formal Consensus is designed for large groups. It is a highly structured model. It has guidelines and formats for managing meetings, facilitating discussions, resolving conflict, and reaching decisions. Smaller groups may need less structure, so they may choose from the many techniques and roles suggested in this book.
|
|
|
Post by Eduardo on Oct 25, 2011 23:09:50 GMT -7
Folks, I'm new to Occupy Missoula; have been to one demonstration and one GA, and hope to participate more. I identify with the desire to achieve consensus. I think it comes from the best of intentions. But in my experience (I've done lots of other organizing), hoping for it isn't the same thing as requiring it. The latter is anti-democratic. What this ends up being in practice is minority (sometimes a minority of one) rather than majority rule. I think that goes against the grain of this movement of 99%. It also produces very long meetings that reward those who hold out and drive out those who have limited time to commit (like many people we want to attract to this cause). Movements will produce leaders whether we like it or not. In my experience, consensus-based decision-making produces leadership that's anti-democratic, informal, and unaccountable, instead of one that's, well, democratic, public and accountable. Eduardo
|
|
|
Post by rebecca on Oct 25, 2011 23:41:16 GMT -7
Hi all, I'm very interested in this discussion, too. So far, I don't have a lot of experience with how decisions have been getting made at the GA's, but I had a lot of thoughts after I participated in my first GA meeting on Saturday (I cannot attend meetings on weekdays). My first thought was that I was excited it was so BIG! I sincerely want my comments below to be read with the understanding that I am incredibly excited by the Occupy movement -- is the biggest and most exciting movement I've witnesses since I've been an activist (for too many years!) and I don't expect it to a clean, easy, conflict-free process. I think all of these discussion are important and I am AMAZED an SO HAPPY that finally, political ideas and organizing are happening on such a big scale. SO FIRST AND FOREMOST -- THANK YOU for taking on the beginning hard task of establishing Occupy Missoula in the first place. More power to you (and I mean power in a good way I also loved the range of ideas being discussed ... the Day of the Dead demonstration, the pulling money out of the bank idea, the idea of connecting with unions or stopping foreclosures (which was my idea, which somehow wasn't reflected in the minutes, but I don't how those get drafted up), the Oct. 29th solidarity demonstration. That said, I did find a couple of things frustrating -- things that are connected to this issue of consensus. As much as I love the range of ideas on offer, I also love unified action. From what I saw (and my experience with these GA's is admittedly very limited), there was very little actual discussion about any of these ideas. There was very little discussion about what we are trying to achieve with these actions and even less about whether any given action is more or less effective in achieving those goals. As a consequence, my sense is that either the group will dissipate into a myriad of small and less effective actions organized by those who have the most time OR an informal, somewhat unclear way of prioritizing suggestions will happen. In my view, both of these are troubling. On the one hand, I would hate to see our power dissipate into small, primarily symbolic actions (when around the country, the Occupy movement is increasingly taking on real issues and real struggles -- labor struggles, fights against racist police, etc.). On the other, I would also hate to have one or two ideas emerge as "Occupy" events without knowing how those choices are made, the reasons for those choices and how many people actually supported the choice. For example, in the GA notes, I was a bit concerned that the important discussion about whether or not to sustain the encampment was cut off, only to see that it was to be "continued for further discussion after the meeting." I don't know who would be part of that further discussion or whether informal decisions would be made in that discussion ... but I would vastly prefer a vote after genuine debate over an uncertain decision making process by those who can stick around later. Anyway, there is a lot to say on this question and I know that similar discussions are being had all around the country (again, hurray!). I hope we can continue the discussion and then have a process to decide how to "decide." Thanks! Rebecca
|
|
|
Post by debbyflorence on Oct 26, 2011 10:29:02 GMT -7
This is in response to an email Monte just sent out saying that 3 out of 5 of us want to change the model, which to me seemed like he is framing it like it is a campaign debate.
I object to treating this as a Pro and Con situation with two opposing sides who are in competition with one another. I would rather view the conversation more openly, so that people are not compelled to "stick to their guns" "choose a side" etc, until more opinions come forth and more discussion is had. I favor a collaborative model, especially when in the discussion phase... and I urge others to state their opinions while remaining open to some kind of future convergence of many ideas coming together in one helpful solution.
I am essentially opposed to changing the model -right now- because I dont think everyone is educated about it, and i was quoting from the manual so that people can have some stuff to contemplate in favor of consensus. I am more in favor of deepening our understanding of consensus before throwing the baby out with the bath water. But I also want this discussion to involve more than 5 people. That is not a fair sampling of our community.
|
|
kim
Occupied
Posts: 82
|
Post by kim on Oct 26, 2011 11:24:27 GMT -7
Debby: I agree. When things are framed this way (3 out 5 say.../60% support....) we are framing it in the manner of dominant discourse we are accustomed to, using statistics and over-simplification. I think that we need to have a serious discussion of consensus models, and perhaps discuss WHY OWS chose the consensus model as a core part of this movement. Monte, when you frame it like this it cuts straight past all the rest of the discussion which I feel is about how the model should evolve and develop--which is different from "change." I have not heard anyone say we need to adopt an entirely new model. In my opinion, we need to learn how and why to use a truly democratic decision process, and how to spread the word to new people about those same things. To me, I think our course of action is to develop our model (or find something written that outlines it well, in detail, that we can adopt and learn from) and then create the "sound-byte" version of it (1-2 page summary) to give to new people at the GAs. To really explore these things will take time (months? a year? more?) and meanwhile, as they say, "the show must go on"! Extensive discussion around seemingly insignificant details may be inefficient, but again is that through a hegemonic lens? What is efficiency? What is trivial to some might be monumental to others: One example: In the declaration, framing the "Them" that #OWS is against as "corporations," when some of us feel strongly that it is not the corporations but the capital behind them that is the problem. Small detail in wording, or complex discussion? I look forward to many complex discussions as we move forward with OM and #OWS!
|
|
|
Post by mjewell on Oct 26, 2011 15:13:15 GMT -7
Hi, Debby and Kim.
The point of the 3 out of 5 (60%) figure is only that there is not consensus for consensus. There are "blocking concerns." People are dropping away from #om because a minority within #om currently insist on using this form of the consensus model.
Of course, if people keep dropping out at the current rate, there will eventually be consensus. But that sort of consensus shows that consensus (in this form) is not inclusive, not democratic and not particularly helpful to those counting on #om to deliver real economic help to them. In other words, it would be a fail.
There are actual working families and others who are waiting for food, jobs, medicine, housing, education, debt relief, campaign finance reform and other help. Remember the "fierce urgency of now" quotes during the '08 campaing? We should be pragmatically figuring out how to help people who need economic help and quickly delivering results.
There are groups and individuals waiting to endorse us and to work with us. There are ballot initiatives waiting to be passed, news releases to write and candidates to elect, foreclosures to be stopped, malefactors to be investigated and exposed. We want to send an #om delegation with a list of demands to an #ows national assembly.
At this point, #om would include more people and help more people by using a straight majority vote for routine issues and supermajority for core issues.
No one would be harmed if #om chose to do it that way. People are oppressed (primarily) by economic conditions, not by majority voting in local community meetings.
Monte
|
|
|
Post by johnmak on Oct 26, 2011 16:46:07 GMT -7
cross-posted Not sure if I can make it to the GA this week. However we resolve our seemingly endless debate on decision-making, it seems to me our ultimate goal would be to affect the ballot box as a logical progression toward representative policy change in America. Importantly to both the State level, and the Federal level to enable a real functioning Congress, where policy and law can be crafted to the benefit of our middle, working, working poor and poor classes. And ultimately where the make-up of the Supreme Court can be achieved so we can overturn Citizen's United. Since an armed overthrow of our current government seems unlikely, it seems to me we need to stride toward using our current Electoral Process to elect people who are willing to resist the very powerful power- grab of the 1% and their bought politicians. I personally believe one of our primary functions would be to ensure that everyone who is an occupy member and or supporter be strongly encouraged to be eligible to vote. I suggest we start a voter registration initiative and have those materials available at every GA and at the encampment. I also suggest we engage the public with a constant voter registration drive. The 1% has most of the money in our systems, but only 1% of the vote itself. If we do decide to move to the X's, or even to disband over the winter, it would be a good way to remain visible and constructive. Monte is right - there are real things to change. Issues and living conditions we can change if we are focused. We are even now looking at the possibility of our message of economic fairness being clouded by having to engage against a police state mentality that is growing. We better get our shit together or we will blow this chance. There are real consequences to our actions. Philosophy is one thing, debate is great, but this is a time that requires definitive results. We need to settle quickly how to do this, or this movement won't be effective. Are we going to be a movement that exists simply to vent anger and frustration, or are we going to change this broken world ? Read more: occupymissoula.proboards.com/index.cgi?board=gafacilitation&action=display&thread=51#ixzz1bw0ET076
|
|
|
Post by Jim C on Oct 26, 2011 17:23:34 GMT -7
If there were a proposal to come before the OccupyMissoula GA to adopt Robert's rules, I would anticipate that a vigorous debate would ensue. It is my opinion that to "be in solidarity with OccupyWallStreet" that we would need to honor the Principles of Solidarity that were posted by #OWS. Here is that post: ---------- Principles of solidarity – working draft www.nycga.net/about/#Posted on September 24, 2011 What follows is a living document that will be revised through democratic process of General Assembly. On September 17, 2011, people from all across the United States of America and the world came to protest the blatant injustices of our times perpetuated by the economic and political elites. On the 17th we as individuals rose up against political disenfranchisement and social and economic injustice. We spoke out, resisted, and successfully occupied Wall Street. Today, we proudly remain in Liberty Square constituting ourselves as autonomous political beings engaged in non-violent civil disobedience and building solidarity based on mutual respect, acceptance, and love. It is from these reclaimed grounds that we say to all Americans and to the world, Enough! How many crises does it take? We are the 99% and we have moved to reclaim our mortgaged future. Through a direct democratic process, we have come together as individuals and crafted these principles of solidarity, which are points of unity that include but are not limited to: * Engaging in direct and transparent participatory democracy; * Exercising personal and collective responsibility; * Recognizing individuals’ inherent privilege and the influence it has on all interactions; * Empowering one another against all forms of oppression; * Redefining how labor is valued; * The sanctity of individual privacy; * The belief that education is human right; and * Endeavoring to practice and support wide application of open source. We are daring to imagine a new socio-political and economic alternative that offers greater possibility of equality. We are consolidating the other proposed principles of solidarity, after which demands will follow. 1 The Working Group on Principles of Consolidation continues to work through the other proposed principles to be incorporated as soon as possible into this living document.This is an official document crafted by the Working Group on Principles of Consolidation. The New York City General Assembly came to consensus on September 23rd to accept this working draft and post it online for public consumption. To find out more about recent items presented at the General Assembly, please read the General Assembly minutes. Interested in starting your own General Assembly in your area? Here is a quick guide to starting a General Assembly from Takethesquare.net. --------------- If a proposal to use other than a consensus decision making process were to be proposed to the OM GA, I would raise the concern that we would no longer be honoring the spirit of these principles of solidarity. Whatever problems we may have with our decision making process can be overcome if OM chooses to work on it. Consensus needs to be clear, concise, and used properly. Those who use consensus need to be trained on how to use it, and those who are facilitating need to adhere the process as it is adopted and taught. again, with respect, -jim c.
|
|
|
Post by johnmak on Oct 26, 2011 17:55:58 GMT -7
One thought toward this is that it seems we are ascribing a leadership position to OWS in a supposed horizontal, leaderless movement. Why can't OWS stand in solidarity with say OM, or any other Occupy group? OWS is having problems of their own with the decision making process. My point is that we have to make this work. As long as common goals are pursued nationally, in union and harmony, I don't see a lot of harm in having different procedures in use that seems right and works for each group, as long as we maintain the core ethic of transparency and democratically arrived at decisions.
|
|