"Representatives" of OA meet w/ Top City Officials

[benbrucato]

Occupy Albany meeting goes well but yields little
by jordan carleo-evangelist Staff writer
Published 08:05 p.m., Tuesday, November 1, 2011

ALBANY -- A nearly 90-minute closed-door meeting between representatives of the Occupy Albany movement and top city officials on Tuesday seemed to produce a wealth of good feelings but nothing concrete.

More than a half-dozen representatives of the protest's general assembly emerged from the City Hall conference room Tuesday evening describing the meeting as "an incredibly positive conversation" and saying that city officials made no specific demands or requests of the demonstrators who have been camped out across the street in Academy Park since Oct. 21.

Mark Mishler, an attorney who advised the demonstrators, said they did feel "a commitment by the city to respect their First Amendment rights." He also said they remain proud of the restraint so far shown by city officials.

Since the tent camp's inception nearly two weeks ago, those gathered there have argued their constitutional right to speak out against the concentration of the nation's wealth and the influence of big business in politics, among other things, trumps local laws that would otherwise require them to leave.

"We believe, and the city believes, that this is a model for other cities," Mishler said, citing the open communication between the protesters and city officials, as well as the so-far peaceful co-existence with police.

Neither has always been the case at other similar protests spawned by the Occupy Wall Street movement across the country, resulting in arrests and sometimes violence.

Representing the city at the meeting were the city's top lawyer, Corporation Counsel John Reilly, Deputy Police Chief Stephen Reilly, Assistant Police Chief Brendan Cox, codes Director Jeffery Jamison and Stephen Rehfuss, a former city attorney now in private practice.

With temperatures dropping as winter approaches, some demonstrators have broached the idea of erecting more permanent structures in the city-owned park. Both Mishler and Jamison said that issue was not discussed in detail Tuesday.

While the city has so far declined to enforce the park's nighttime curfew despite early pressure from Gov. Andrew Cuomo to do so, officials in Mayor Jerry Jennings' administrations have privately expressed concern that allowing the occupiers to build permanent structures on city land would pose safety and legal issues the city could no longer overlook. City attorneys have been researching what has so far worked elsewhere to promote positive relationships between protesters and their host cities.

"I think that the meeting was productive," Jamison said afterward. "We didn't talk about specifics"

Mishler said the topics did touch broadly on health and safety issues and that both sides pledged to stay in touch. Even if the city had made specific requests, the contingent of demonstrators who met with city officials Tuesday had no authority to accept or reject them, Mishler said. Any decisions for the largely leaderless movement would have to be made at its general assembly, which convenes each evening in the park.

Clotheslines have sprung up among the several dozen tents across Washington Avenue from the Capitol, as have at least three portable toilets, at least one generator, outside space heaters and a tent that appears to serve as a defacto library. Several protesters could be seen sweeping the park's walkways Tuesday afternoon, and demonstrators have laid hay across the grass to prevent it from becoming muddy.

Asked whether city officials inquired how long the protesters intend on staying there, Mishler said that is one issue not on the agenda.

"There's nothing to discuss," he said. "Occupy Albany is in the park. Occupy Albany is going to stay in the park."

Deputy Police Chief Reilly noted that the protesters are not costing the city any police overtime.

Read more: www.timesunion.com/local/article/Occupy-Albany-meeting-goes-well-but-yields-little-2247453.php#ixzz1cVjnbAgQ

[anonanon]

when did we elect these representatives? Who were they?

[benbrucato]

Who were these "representatives of the Occupy Albany movement"?
Who chose them?
Who decided to send them?
Who decided that anyone would go to such a meeting?
What were the expected goals to come from this?
What were the parameters for the discussion?
What information was provided?
Why wasn't the meeting at the occupation and open to all to attend?
Why weren't all of these items discussed at length and at a well-publicized GA meeting with ample time for communication and deliberation?

The fact that a financial transaction tax was an item agonized over for nearly a week and something like this happened continues to demonstrate the issues we discussed when the caucus was first proposed.

This meeting and anything like it is something that requires much more deliberation than a particular direct action.

[Ryan R.]

Oh the wondrous joys of a 'leaderless' movement, having unelected leaders working as representatives without any democratic accountability and operating from a non existent political platform (i.e. there own).

[vincent]

Ben raises some excellent questions.
The questions raise the issue of how a leaderless, borderline structureless group and movement deal with the issues that seem to require (at the very least) temporary representatives and a structure for producing that.

I commend all the work that has been done and have a great deal of respect for those who are doing it. If nothing else, it is a humbling experience for me to see many people who are quite dedicated acting on their convictions.

That being said, we may have sprinted before we knew how to walk. In other words, norms are being established that no one has consented to, especially when practicality requires that action be taken (e.g. the various tasks and functions to make the occupation on the ground work). We need to figure out what those norms and conventions are and democratically discuss and debate before consenting to them so that we know how to deal with each other and with our external relations (e.g. the media, the police, etc.). We may decide that we do not want to engage with them; but that is something that needs to be discussed and decided communally.

We need a format for asking questions and for trying to figure things out. The situation, as I see it, is very perplexing--no one has the answer. But if we have a way for discussing the problems, we have a shot at arriving at some answers that we can all subscribe to.

[hz]

A few clarifying points that may help this discussion:

1.) 'representatives' is a word used by the media. I don't think we should always trust them as a credible source of information. Mishler (of OA) corrected this notion with this quote "Even if the city had made specific requests, the contingent of demonstrators who met with city officials Tuesday had no authority to accept or reject them, Mishler said.
The TU added 'Any decisions for the largely leaderless movement would have to be made at its general assembly, which convenes each evening in the park.'

2.) the meeting was not closed door to anyone but the media

3.) anyone from OA was welcome to attend

4.) it was first announced at the GA a few days ago. You can see the minutes here:
occupyalbany.proboards.com/index.cgi?board=facilitation&action=display&thread=703

Ben you were at that GA, as I believe you presented a proposal.

[vincent]

Thanks for the clarification.

[benbrucato]

I don't recall this being discussed. At the beginning of the meeting I was in conversation with others about the person who showed up at the GA after just minutes before screaming at people "F*#$ you all!" and throwing a sign at someone. I was discussing how pointless a "Good Neighbor Policy" with "Zero Tolerance" is if no one knows or is welling to back up the "Zero Tolerance" end. But I digress... I don't recall this being explicit. If it was during the "report back" section, that seems inappropriate. This is a serious manner requiring a proposal.

[napoleanbonaparte]

These "representatives" sound like collaborators to me.

[hz]

1.) Legal initially proposed this in the proposal 'section' and it was consensed, or as these minutes say, 'approved'

2.) It is important to pay attention at GA in order to know what is going on. I agree that side conversations often do detract and often inhibit this process. Reading minutes can be helpful in clarifying concerns, especially if members have not be able to attend meetings at all, and have not be able to accurately keep abreast of discussions that have taken place. Many times there is a contact WG listed that you can follow-up with,in this case Legal, and any concerns not met by contacting the group can be brought as a proposal to GA. Here, there were about 4-5 days to do so.

3.) I can not stress enough that pro-active participation is essential in this movement.

(Come to meetings. Pay attention. Read minutes when available. Connect with working groups in areas of your concern. Participate in the process)

4.) Regarding Good Neighbor Policy: Peoples Safety has tackled this as a working group and presented an action proposal to GA for follow-through in instances where GNP is ignored. This was discussed thoroughly at the GA and consensed. Please contact PS WG if you would like an update on procedure (its detailed & hence lengthy). This procedure may already be available at info. If not perhaps you can assist PS in getting it printed & out there. I know they have their hands full on site keeping the occupation safe, and don't always have spare time for the paper end of things.

[joshred]

Mark Mishler made a proposal that he be allowed to have a dialog with the city. He made it clear that he would not make any agreements. He was just going to communicate with some city officials and bring back anything they said to the GA. Saying representatives of Occupy Albany had a closed door meeting with city officials is just cliched writing.

The reason this came to consensus so easily is because Mark made it clear that he would not portray himself as someone who "speaks for the group".

[vincent]

The City has called for another meeting for this Wednesday at 4 pm. I believe that there will be a pre-meeting among Occupiers at 345 (but check on that).

Here is my issue (which I did raise at GA): assuming that we should even take the meeting (I do not see a problem with hearing what the City has to say necessarily, but am also not committed to that position, either), the question of whether or not there is a meeting with the City of Albany cannot be separated from the question of who from the Occupation attends said meeting. In other words, that there should be a meeting with the City depends upon who gets to go.

I raised the question of "who gets to go?" In a leaderless movement, does it not seem obvious that those who do the speaking (official or otherwise) for the group could potentially come to develop authority? Other people were clearly wondering the same thing...

Someone suggested that there be some rotation of those who get to go. Someone else suggested that there be some carryover so as to lead to continuity while opening the process up to new participants. This last position carried the day, as it should, I think, if we are assuming that the meeting should be had in the first place.

Mark Mishler--who has been fair so far as I can tell--suggested that no more than 15 members of the Occupation attend. Someone did what amounted to a "friendly amendment" to suggest that 1/3 of the delegates be from the past meeting, and 2/3 are new.

We still have no basis or criteria for selection of delegates (still keeping in mind that we are assuming that we need to take the meeting, which is growing more dubious as I write this).

A genuine conversation needs to be had if this is a meeting we want to have. We don't even know what the meeting is about, but we were asked to come to consensus about whether or not to attend said meeting. The legal working group also doesn't know what the meeting is about. I think we should not attend a meeting if we don't know what the meeting is about. The idea that rejecting the meeting outright was something that the environment didn't allow for, or so it seemed.

No one knows what this meeting is for; to me, these meetings are a way of softening us up, the way an interrogator offers the interrogated a cigarette at the beginning of the proceedings to see if he will take it. In short, we have taken the cigarette.

If my interpretation is wrong, please suggest others. But the whole point of the Occupation Movement is to break away from the status quo of "talks" and pseudo-negotiations. The people who are camping out and making it work are amazing, and I think the best way to support them and the Movement is to avoid such talks unless there is a compelling strategic reason for them that is publicly discussed and consented to by the members of the group (I hate the word "consensed;" I don't even think that it is a word).

[dylan]

I agree with Vincent. I think this meeting coming so soon after the last is suspicious. We should at least wait until we have a response to the MOU. Then we can spend the meeting telling them what we think of their MOU. We get to set the agenda.

But in general, unless there's some pressing need, we already meet every day. If they have something to say let them come to us.

[hl2]

Why don't the people from the city who want to talk to us come and speak at the GA during other business?

[vincent]

I think Dylan and hl2 have it right. The point is to have those vested with authority legitimize it: speak with us, not to us--publicly. This would solve any questions of representation as well. Bring it into the daylight.

[benbrucato]

I've said this before: Any talk between the occupation and those outside of it should happen at the park, over the people's mic, at a predetermined time that is widely publicized. I do not consent to any other kind of communication being preauthorized. Perhaps on a case-by-case basis, exceptions could be considered. I can't imagine what such a case would be -- perhaps if there was some bizarre scenario where people from OA could only speak face-to-face with someone who was somehow physically incapable of being on premises. What that would be, again, I couldn't imagine. Perhaps we tell the city that any invitation to their offices may result in an occupation of their location -- "if we come, we might not leave, and you don't want that, do you?"

[dylan]

I should add, though I don't want to cause alarm or paranoia, that during the walkthrough it was mentioned to a city official that our garbage was being picked up by DGS.

Since then we have not had our garbage picked up. I am concerned that by meeting with the Jennings administration, which is tolerating us but which clearly wants us out, we are potentially opening ourselves up to things like this.

We have an alternative solution for our garbage, but I wanted to get this info out there and let people know that there is a potential risk with these meetings.

[anonanon]

continuing these meetings is just a bad idea all around. it's starting to sound like we are negotiating with them - and we are not. When they present some MOU which is entirely unacceptable and GA rejects it they give pretense to evict, city says we 'refused to negotiate' - which we allow them to say by legitimizing this negotiation process thru meetings in the first place.

[shage]

I want to chime in and agree that consenting to private meetings is a bad idea. It sets the wrong tone. Of course, we can't control who individual occupiers talk to. But as a GA we do not have to agree to send 'delegates' to closed door meetings. What do we possibly stand to gain from doing so? What is there that city officials could possibly have to say to us that we shouldn't want heard by the entire GA and public?

I suggest that we reject the possibility of conducting any closed door meetings on principle. We are here as the 99%, we operate in the open, and a substantial part of what we want is for our government to operate in the open. We have nothing to hide, and they should have nothing to hide. Let's set a different standard by rejecting politics as usual and requiring government to abide by our principles in how they interact with us, by interacting with us in the open. It is then their choice whether they choose the path of open dialogue or open repression.

That is our position of strength - we operate with total openness for all to see, with full participation of all concerned, whereas they prefer to work through 'representatives' and backroom deals. Let's show the public we operate by different principles that allow for greater legitimacy and fairness, and categorically reject this political game.

Either way, bring it all out into the daylight where the entire network of Occupy and the public can witness all of it.

[citizen]

I don't know of any law that gives some one else the right to sign my rights away or the rights of any one else thats not a party to this contract.

I have some serious reservations to any one signing away my first amendment right to free speech. Which I fee any one asking to go in there own park is asking for a right they already have and don't need to go begging for.
nore does any one have any right whats so ever! to waive my 2'nd amendment to bare arms as guaranteed by the Constitution of the untied states. Or to waive the rights of any one else.

also this contract will only be used against the group once the government decides they want to shut it down. any one that signs it will be held responsible for the actions of any one else thats not even part of it. If the park gets trashed who ever is on that contract will be held as a leader or some one in authority. If a riot breaks out the leaders will be the ones blamed or who will be held accountable for the group.

I have seen this many many times with the government trying to screw over the rainbow family by trying to get them to sign permits as if any one has authority to in the first place. They have been for years trying to pin any thing on any one they can call a leader of the group. When they are not a group and have no leaders. just individual people that all just so happen to on their own. pick the same place to all go and camp on the same month and same place in the national forest as the others.

Some times as big as 25k people turn out to the national gatherings in July each year. 1 person cant sign some thing that holds the other 24,999 people to something. But the goverment can hold the contract against any one that did sign it and make them financialy responseable for the rest of the 25k people that show up.

One gathering in pa some fool signed the permit and some guy got bitten by a snake and had to be air lifted out. The town tried to slap the $250k medical bill to the guy and his girl friend that signed the permit. as well as billing the over time cost to the police that were there to harass the gathering and were not asked to come.

Basically what I'm trying to get at is. This contract with the city will do no legal good for the group and is not binding to the group only those that sign it. So its a bogus pcs of useless paper. that gives up some important rights and don't gain ANY rights whats so ever that arnt already our rights in the first place. Yet at the same time it gives the impression one needs to ask for rights which they already have guaranteed by the constution and gives the impression that its the government that gives us our rights and not the other way around.

The contract can only legally be enforced on who ever signs on to it. So in the long run they are going to be opening them selves up to all sorts of legal troubles if snit hits the fan.

To give an example. lets say some one is walking threw the park and slips and falls on a damaged side walk. when they go to try and sue the city. the city will say oh no the group signed a waiver and took responsibility for injuries. OK thats when that persons lawyer says OK who are these people that took responsibility and will sue them instead. esp once the lawyer starts finding out the person that took responsibility never bothered to get a liability insurance policy for the park that they signed off on permits to use and be responsible for. Next thing yo know they are getting sued personally and losing there house or any other thing of value. if they happen to own a house or have any thing of value that the lawyers could go after..