Occupy Seattle

CONCERNING THE BINDING DECISION MAKING AUTHORITY OF THE GA [preferred not to come to a vote, but to be developed in organic process by GA over coming weeks.]: the GA's only truly binding decisions are in the realm of the budget/other communal Occupy Seattle resources and in determining the process, time, and location of the GA. Under this model, GA does not deliberate over whether or not to endorse an action, because it is not the realm of GA to mandate participants of the GA to participate in or support various direct actions. It is only the realm of the GA to provide space for autonomous groups and individuals to assemble and communicate. Since this proposal still allows for GA to deliberate over the process of the GA itself, a future proposal could be brought which expands the realm of what GA may deliberate upon.

Proposed process order:


1) Facilitators call beginning of GA

2) New people introduce themselves, say why they came and what a healthy and useful community space looks like to them

3) Speakout period of any workers, campers, or anyone else

4) Go-around where each person expresses both their needs (what they require) and resources (what they can provide) to the group. This is meant to give everyone in the community the maximum opportunity for collaborations and to receive concrete assistance thus building solidarity and solidifying people's relationships to and throughout the GA. It is also meant to ensure that our time together in GA spent in a manner which truly values and utilizes and does not waste our extremely valuable and limited time assembled.

5) Scatter and talk based on needs and resources go-around to make contacts and plan whatever next steps are needed to connect needs and resources of different individuals/groups to execute successful projects and help each other out

6) Announcements: reconvene and do a go-around of all items which must be added to a collective calendar and communal notepad such as upcoming events and unmet community needs//unused resources. This information is to be posted online and it is recommended that a group forms to compile a daily, weekly, or bi-weekly periodical of all relevant information.

7) Open for broad discussion, if necessary, on any subjects raised so far in the process of the GA. This would also be the period where any group-wide decisions that need to be made while the collective is assembled are made. [I suggest that this overall layout be used during discussion GA's and "deliberation"—whether voting or consensus—GA's with the difference being that on the former this stage of the GA is used to determine discussion/group breakouts and the latter it is used to deliberate using whatever consensus/voting model the GA is currently operating with.]

8) Establish and break into final discussion groups//group activities (e.g. Could include teach-ins, skill shares, or any activities that even involve leaving the convention center. Some discussion groups/topics will have been consolidated during the scatter and talk and/or there will be skill shares/teach-ins/transformative justice circles/project meetings which have been organized well in advance]

9) Reconvene and say goodbye.



-proposed by Cody, 1/25/12

_________________
Brian Firfer - Mod/Admin
Member ICT
Contact me at occupy (at) firfer (.) com

I would like to inquire why this proposal is being offered. Is there a problem or concern that this proposal would solve? Why would we want to restrict the decision-making ability of the GA?

It is my understanding that there has been conflict in regards to the GA endorsing specific events or direct actions, and that overall it has been counter productive. We are dealing with a diverse group, some of which want to work outside of the system, and others that want to work within the system, some that are conservative, others that are liberal or radical, etc. The labels are arbitrary, but the diversity in principals is real, ranging from semantic to fundamental.

Using GA time to debate whether a specific direct action falls within the fundamental principles of the movement, specifically when there has not been a consensus on what that even means, has been deemed by this proposal as not worthwhile. Thats my understanding of it.

_________________
Brian Firfer - Mod/Admin
Member ICT
Contact me at occupy (at) firfer (.) com

Now that even the lawyers have left OS over the 'diversity of tactics' debate (see the livestream from Feb. 2), at best this proposal looks like an attempt by those who no longer want nonviolence even discussed in the OS GA to get their way. It may be too late for OS to denounce violence, but it's the last hope for a once promising group. Otherwise OS and Occupy Oakland stand together as the pariahs of the Occupy movement.

Not sure what the exact status is on the violence vs non violence debate. It is my understanding that the movement and this forum still stand behind the anti-oppression statement, but that there is still the question as to what sort of violence if any is acceptable when dealing with self-defense. http://occupyseattle.org/resource/occup ... principles "We do not accept any of the following in our community: ■ Instigation of violence in all its forms, explicit or implicit, whether physical, emotional, sexual, verbal, written, graphical, or through indirect means..."

That said, there are several active working groups who are expressly non-violent, and it is my opinion that they are of the most active groups, specifically Get Money Out of Politics, Healthcare for the 99+1%, Parents for OS, Reasonable Solutions, and the Non-Violence Group. For sure there is still a consensus that must be reached, but it seems like things are moving in the right direction.

http://www.facebook.com/events/197977260301370/

_________________
Brian Firfer - Mod/Admin
Member ICT
Contact me at occupy (at) firfer (.) com

I appreciate your optimism. I hope that some of the new groups will do well.

I think we need to stop dwelling on the things we don't agree on and start working together on the things we can agree on that will begin to dismantle he power structure of the 1%. The other side wants nothing better than to see us tied up in endless discussions that go nowhere.

That has my unequivocal support.

_________________
--
Nobody Important
http://www.nycga.net/groups/political-and-electoral-reform/docs/amendment-28-status-of-created-entities
http://www.nycga.net/groups/political-and-electoral-reform/docs/amendment-29-publics-right-to-know
http://www.nycga.net/groups/political-and-electoral-reform/docs/amendment-30-holiday-voting-act