colin
New Member
Facilitation & Logistics
Posts: 45
|
Post by colin on Nov 8, 2011 8:12:55 GMT -5
I just want to clarify a couple points. The legal working group has been completely open and democratic every step of the way here. The city requested another meeting to discuss our continuing occupation and to address health and safety concerns in the park.
Legal's response?
They presented the issue of whether we should have the meeting to the general assembly for democratic discussion. The group discussed and reached consensus that a group should attend the meeting and that the group should to be open to, and include, folks who weren't able to attend last time. It was made perfectly clear that the group was not empowered to reach any agreements or speak on behalf of the Occupation, they are simply attending to gather information from the City and report back to the broader group. Had the general assembly not agreed to the meeting - the meeting would not be happening.
The city sent legal a proposed Memorandum of Understanding. - Legal's response?
They immediately announced this to the GA. They made the MOU publicly available. And they called for an open meeting that any member of the Occupation could attend to discuss. 35 to 40 people met and discussed the MUO. That group was of the opinion that we should NOT sign the MOU and they drafted some proposed talking points in response to present to the GA.
The talking points were read to the General Assembly and posted online. It was suggested to the GA that we wait two days so that everyone has a chance to read the MOU as well as the talking points and THEN after everyone is up to speed we democratically and collectively discuss it at this Wednesday's GA. Last night's GA agreed with this suggestion - so thats what we are doing - no further action will be taken without the consensus of the GA.
So.....what is the problem? To me it seems like the process is working very well.
|
|
|
Post by anonanon on Nov 8, 2011 8:57:35 GMT -5
I don't think many are criticizing legal, the actions of which you seem to be defending when you say the process is working well. Agreed, no defense necessary.
I think people are uncomfortable with the idea of any group sitting down with any officials, in any capacity, for whatever purposes whether information gathering, communication or negotiation, in a meeting that a. does not involve the whole GA/occupation in attendance, b. does not take place in the open (i.e. the park).
If my interpretation is correct, then the problem is that the GA did consent to having these meetings. If there is significant opposition to it now, then either people did not have the foresight or the process fucked up. I think its a little of both - those with experience probably knew sitting in a room with officials inevitably will lead to them making demands of you and did not make this a point of info, and the vast majority did not consider the possibility and went along.
The process has now led to a situation where we have to (it seems we will at least) reject requests made by the city and we are not in control of the story that follows and how emboldened they become as a result.
|
|
benbrucato
New Member
Occupation Member
We are practicing "a politics and a life that are yet to be entirely thought." (Agamben)
Posts: 261
|
Post by benbrucato on Nov 8, 2011 9:54:10 GMT -5
I think we should draft a proposal that addresses this behavior to counter this. The good thing about consensus is that decisions are never set in stone.
I think we should propose tonight that as a general principle, no meetings will be conducted off site, that all communications that happen between OA and officials happen on site, over the people's mic, at a pre-agreed-upon and widely publicized time.
Is anyone able to propose this tonight? I am teaching and have office hours late enough that I cannot be at the GA. I'm in class during the GA on Mondays; my schedule on Tuesdays, Thursdays and most Fridays makes it so that I would miss most or all of the GA; Wednesdays I'm often taking care of my daughter during this time. This is where the process doesn't work in a way that allows my involvement -- I would have absolutely blocked the proposal to meet again off-site. But it also seems that the consensus reached was not consensus, as my impression is that Vincent was there and expressed concerns that were not resolved.
I will be there later for the caucus meeting tonight. Looking forward to seeing you all.
|
|
dylan
Forum Coordinator
Outreach Member Media/PR Member
Posts: 374
|
Post by dylan on Nov 8, 2011 10:45:21 GMT -5
First I just want to point out that nothing is effed. In fact we may be stronger because of what happened since we learned something, our waste disposal is now more sustainable, and we are involving more people.
That said it's not the meeting with ofticials in and of itself that bothers me, it's that we're meeting with them on their turf at their request. We should only be meeting with them on their turf on our terms when we have a clear concise agenda.
I am planning to propose that we postpone our meeting on Wednesday until we have finished consenting to our response to the MOU. Then we could set up a meeting with them to present our proposal. Nothing else should be on the table.
In the future when they request a meeting we should politely refuse and invite them to the ga.
In addition, as much as I trust and respect Mark Mishler, I think it's important that we cycle out our legal representatives, and I'd like to see if Kathy Manley can attend the next meeting.
|
|
benbrucato
New Member
Occupation Member
We are practicing "a politics and a life that are yet to be entirely thought." (Agamben)
Posts: 261
|
Post by benbrucato on Nov 8, 2011 11:36:43 GMT -5
Great suggestions.
|
|
colin
New Member
Facilitation & Logistics
Posts: 45
|
Post by colin on Nov 8, 2011 11:49:55 GMT -5
Good points y'all! Since the General Assembly already reached consensus to attend this Wednesday's meeting and since, I believe, city officials and press have already been notified of this, I would suggest that any proposal for having meetings on site at the GA refer to future meetings. If there is consensus for this, it could be announced to city officials at Wednesday's meeting: "i.e. we're happy to be here but the next meeting will have to be at the occupation and open to the whole GA."
And just to clarify, I was at last nights' GA and the consensus reached approving the meeting was genuine consensus. As folks know, reaching consensus doesn't mean that everyone is thrilled about the decision or completely gets their way. It means that after clarification, discussion and opportunities to raise and have concerns incorporated into the proposal, there are not any blocking concerns. There weren't any blocking concerns last night. No one, including Vincent, even stood aside. So technically it was genuine consensus. I think we should respect that and we should respect the process. I don't think we'd be well served trying to go back and over-turn democratic-consensus after the fact and I doubt there is support for doing so. Again, if there are disagreements, I think it makes more sense to raise them moving forward with respect to future meetings.
|
|
dylan
Forum Coordinator
Outreach Member Media/PR Member
Posts: 374
|
Post by dylan on Nov 8, 2011 12:31:20 GMT -5
I agree that there was genuine consensus last night and I don't have a problem with that. However there was a missing piece of information at the meeting last night: the city's disruption of our trash pickup.
I think many people would have felt differently about the proposal had they known this. I also believe we need to hold the Jennings administration accountable here.
I'd like to hear others' opinions, but I still think I should make my proposal.
|
|
benbrucato
New Member
Occupation Member
We are practicing "a politics and a life that are yet to be entirely thought." (Agamben)
Posts: 261
|
Post by benbrucato on Nov 8, 2011 13:00:32 GMT -5
Please do, Dylan. This is important. Can people from the caucus be there tonight to help back this up?
|
|
|
Post by vincent on Nov 8, 2011 22:19:20 GMT -5
To all those who either directly or indirectly responded to my post about the meeting with the City: I think we are on the same page--no meeting with representatives, only meetings in the open before the GA. Sound about right?
I am convinced that more people than just us would agree, if only this were put to debate. I don't know what happened at GA tonight (yet--I had to work and GF also couldn't go; same for our absence at RC), so it could be too late for the Wednesday meeting at 4pm. However, it is NOT too late to weigh in and oppose a response to the City and to set the tone for all future meetings (i.e. have them before the GA, no representation!)
This movement is about getting away from having others act on my behalf and acting for myself alongside others. I think it is time to respectfully draw the line: lets actually have a discussion about this at GA. I have a strong feeling that we can carry the day and persuade others on this. This would qualify as a "blocking concern," without doubt, as something that goes against the "spirit of the Movement."
|
|
|
Post by vincent on Nov 8, 2011 22:36:45 GMT -5
I did not stand aside. I did not block. I did consent, warts and all. But this isn't necessarily "buyer's remorse," either.
Its also clear that I had some reservations and after the meeting and upon further reflection, have developed deeper concerns, especially in light of new information.
Here is one: if I understand it correctly, the blocking concern implies that if overridden, the person with the blocking concern would be willing to leave the movement over it. That creates a problem, forcing all sorts of agreement on a whole host of issues that otherwise might not necessarily be consented to...it puts too much pressure on all parties, most especially the dissenters; in other words, "consent or effectually...get out."
Dissent needs to be encouraged; nay, demanded. It needs to be articulated, but so do the reasons for consensus as well.
There needs to be dissent at every meeting, or, at the very least, a discussion of what the negatives would be to a given decision and/or course of action.
I believe that the process as practiced is leaving something wanting in terms of discussion, debate, and genuine dissent. This has been bred out of our cultural DNA, and we need to splice it back in. Immediately.
|
|
|
Post by vincent on Nov 8, 2011 22:54:51 GMT -5
Here is a sentiment that someone close to me expressed, and I share it; I know we aren't alone, either:
'We don't have to and we shouldn't BLINDLY "respect the process" when the process ISN'T working!!! We should be reflective ALL THE TIME and when we see something isn't working we should respond and change it! No one is being critical of "the process" and "the process" has major problems! Any "process"--if necessary at all--should be intended to work for us, not the other way around. The process is prohibiting authentic conversation from taking place. People are not speaking up because it doesn't fall under one of the hand signals!"
|
|
|
Post by vincent on Nov 9, 2011 12:56:12 GMT -5
I will post here what I posted in the Facilitation Working Group board:
Mike brings up many things which I am sympathetic to and agree with (the developmental/evolutionary nature of the rules and their applications during GA--I too think patience is paramount). I also see the need for a rule structure of sorts to set up the way in which we engage with one another, lest it become chaotic.
(Please keep in mind that "rule" can be very loosely construed to mean "sense of" rather than some sort of "strict" understanding--i.e. "rule" need not mean "strict" or "hard-ass" but could just mean "understanding.")
I am concerned with the rule structure as it is now; there seems to be the invocation of "process" at moments where people have neither a "point of information" nor "a clarifying question" (the latter is a bit vague to me; it seems to be somewhat variable from GA to GA, from facilitating team to facilitating team, from facilitator to facilitator), but try to ask a question nonetheless.
The nature of these questions vary, but I will give one kind of example: Monday night (11/7) there was the proposal about speaking to the City at a meeting scheduled by the City for today at 4 pm (right time?). There were concerns about this, many revolving around what would the composition of the Occupation "delegation" look like, i.e. who would be there? This went around as we tried to clarify how this might work; at some point, Mark Mishler made a very logical point but one with which I strongly disagree: the decision should be made whether or not to have the meeting first, then worry about the make-up of the delegation.
I understand Mark's logic, but the problem is the latter concern is inseparable from the first: many of us probably do not want to have a meeting unless it is under certain conditions (e.g. at the GA, or with a certain number of people, or with a certain composition of delegates, etc.). We cannot answer the question of whether or not to have the meeting unless we can agree about under what conditions said meeting is to be held.
When attempts to bring this up occurred, it was met with what I will call "procedural resistance": the question on the table was whether or not to meet, not the composition of the meeting. The "process" as practiced effectively separated out key concerns that had bearing on the proposal.
If I am not remembering perfectly, I apologize. But I have seen this kind of a thing happen at other GA's. This is one of my main concerns, and is an impediment to what I described as "genuine conversation."
|
|
benbrucato
New Member
Occupation Member
We are practicing "a politics and a life that are yet to be entirely thought." (Agamben)
Posts: 261
|
Post by benbrucato on Nov 9, 2011 13:42:12 GMT -5
We informally talked about this last night after the caucus meeting.
I think they are two separate proposals. I don't think there is consensus to ever have such meetings. I don't consent to them, that's for sure. In fact, I don't know that I consense to ever having any communication with officials conducting official business. As C.J. reiterated, he can only see negative things following from this.
You point to an interesting flaw in the process that I mentioned last night that shows how flimsy the consensus can often be. Another example was this:
I proposed the Robin Hood Tax action, and there was a lot of debate, and the original proposal was blocked. In both humor and frustration at the GA, I suggested I put forward a second proposal that "Occupy Albany agrees to do nothing in support of the international day of action for the Robin Hood Tax." That second statement would not receive consensus, but neither was the action.
I don't think we have consensus to categorically authorize meetings with the city. I also don't think we have consensus to categorically deny meetings with the city. This means that we're in the category of a major proposal. I suggested that one strategy of handling such a major proposal was that the proposal receive a consensus vote during three different GA's, including at least one scheduled on the weekend. It also means that the proposal be very sensitive and specific; and by this, I don't mean "what time, location, and who would go." I think we need to be specific about the type of meeting we consense to. I think the consensus would be something like: We agree to have meetings with public officials on official business only at the occupation, during a GA or pre-arranged and pre-publicized time, with at least 48-hours notice.
Hezzie and I had taken two differing positions. I'll try to summarize hers: our broader positions are determined through a series of specific proposals, rather than on statements of principle and strategy. I suggested that this is a potentially insidious way of developing procedure without acknowledging it, and that since there is not sufficient consistency in how proposals are presented, facilitated, attended, discussed, debated and voted upon, that this is doubly dangerous.
We also tried to come up with a strategy for accommodating both positions and finding a resolution. It seemed that presenting at multiple GAs and require that consensus be reached several times is important on proposals that set significant precedent.
Many actions define conditions by which people, organizations and systems operate. Some of those are much easier to initiate than to revoke. In my field (science and technology studies), there is a concept that has considerable traction that can be summed up as "technology as legislation." It encourages thinking about non-governmental instances that end up governing social life. There are organizational technologies that serve as a legislative function, and this is what we're seeing here. The first meeting with the city seems to be one of those that was easy to make happen, and now we are put in a double-bind. I mentioned last night that these two meetings could have the consequence of altering the occupation in ways that are more significant than all the consensus decisions made at all the GAs to date. This is a way in which authority and control slip into non-authoritarian, horizontal organizations.
|
|
|
Post by vincent on Nov 9, 2011 14:14:33 GMT -5
If I have understood your points and concerns correctly, then we are in agreement. Most significantly, I agree with the need to truly be vigilant in regards to the ways in which decisions are made, to what can be trojan-horsed in with any given decision.
In political science, and perhaps parallel to the logic of your example above (and to other writings of Lindblom, whom you have cited previously, e.g. "The Market As Prison") , there is a concept known as the "mobilization of bias" (see Bachrach and Baratz, 1962). All that this means is that the formal rule structure and norms of a body have as much if not more power over its members than any particular decision rendered by that body. The rules, the norms, the conventions are all means for organizing "in" certain interests, and organizing "out" others. Precedent certainly is part of this, too. These means not only add to the rule-making edifice, they also are means for "non-decision" making, as means for avoiding those issues that might not sit well with some, especially the powerful (e.g. the gag on speaking about slavery in the pre-Civil War Congress). We need to engage with each other to eliminate this, if and where it exists, and we need to find ways to constantly check its creeping into our engagements and relations.
|
|
|
Post by theancientflack on Nov 9, 2011 14:54:06 GMT -5
Without taking a position on these meetings, as I believe many very good points have been raised that merit further discussion, I just want to point out one element for everyone's consideration: forcing the city to conduct these discussions in public, in the presence of media and anyone else who cares to be present, may serve our principles but not, ultimately, our interests. That change of venue would take away a great deal of flexibility at the city's end to float compromises or speculate aloud -- so while transparency is inherently healthy, it might also yield less desirable outcomes for the occupation. Not saying that makes it a bad idea, just want us all to keep that potential consequence in mind as we weigh the issue.
|
|
|
Post by vincent on Nov 9, 2011 15:53:08 GMT -5
Worthwhile consideration, to be sure. Of course this assumes that we want to have a discussion with the City at all, which we may not. But I think it is good for you (and others) to float out possible consequences of our actions. It is, in fact, a necessity if we are going to have a shot.
|
|
hz
New Member
PR Member
Posts: 188
|
Post by hz on Nov 9, 2011 18:12:54 GMT -5
Hezzie and I had taken two differing positions. I'll try to summarize hers: our broader positions are determined through a series of specific proposals, rather than on statements of principle and strategy. I suggested that this is a potentially insidious way of developing procedure without acknowledging it, and that since there is not sufficient consistency in how proposals are presented, facilitated, attended, discussed, debated and voted upon, that this is doubly dangerous. Since I'm mentioned, I am just going to jump in and clarify. Ben got my point mostly right on the surface, but missed the fundamental concern. It is not that I think our positions are determined by the proposals (& actions etc) but rather that they are revealed by them. It is my hope that this movement is about authentically coming up with solutions and actions from within the Occupation itself, rather than ascribing a preconceived notion that we then check each decision against. I understand the concern about gradually getting led astray, but this only reconfirms my advocacy that every single decision need to be weighed and considered on its own merit. This is more cumbersome, true, and perhaps, yes, the danger is that people may get lazy and simply consense things out of complacency, but I would say if people are complacent, then it is a larger issue that we are facing. If we are ascribing a set of parameters around our actions, before we can independently look and discuss those actions, or instead of simply letting our actions speak for us, it seems a bit too top down to me. Ben's Robin Hood Tax March is actually a good example. I was against the way the proposal was handled, 1.) because I felt that I would like the actions to come from discussion within, after debate and inspiration and commitment. However, we passed this proposal, because a suggestion from someone outside (Adbusters?) said we should do it. And Ben was a bit miffed that the GA actually wanted some information on the subject before it could be 'approved.' 2.) I don't think these should be outside edicts that we decide on, as in the dialog above, I believe that our individual actions are what determines/ reveals our support. What happened was that on the day of the Robin Hood March, many marchers didn't even know that's why they were marching. To me that's an example of how a statement fails to accurately show the intent but that the actions prevail. My course of action would have let it happen thusly: 1.) announce the action 2.) people's authentic and informed participation in the action determines the extent to which they believe in the action This is very different than coming to the GA with a proposal that wasn't germinated from within. So yes, I prefer that our actions speak louder than pronouncements. But +1 on the good discussion with Ben about how to address maximum inclusion and participation on important issues.
|
|
benbrucato
New Member
Occupation Member
We are practicing "a politics and a life that are yet to be entirely thought." (Agamben)
Posts: 261
|
Post by benbrucato on Nov 9, 2011 19:23:39 GMT -5
I think I completely agree with Hezzie in an ideal sense. I am very hesitant to get behind it due to practical reasons. Perhaps I could say that her approach as outlined is something we should strive for, and our processes and practices should (be made to) allow for this to happen. The challenge that I see is that our current processes and practices do not regularly encourage this ideal. In their absence, some consensed principles and strategies that are mulled over and muddled through to express and get agreement might serve to make sure we're not making short-run errors. These errors may arise due to complacency (as Hezzie identified), or due to inconsistency in how proposals are presented, facilitated, attended, discussed, debated and voted upon (as I stated). It's a tough situation, because Hezzie's argument fits my own politics and ethics, though I think the field is unprepared for either of our ideals. So I would guess the solution is to figure out how to get there, and what to do until then.
Keep in mind that many of our problems are faced by things equally foreign as the Robin Hood Tax: the consensus-building model, the general assembly, the modes of facilitation, the occupation, etc. These are imported strategies for most participants. Having been involved in anarchist movements, I'm familiar with consensus-based organizations and general assemblies. The occupation strategy was also rooted in anarchist and autonomist marxist movements. But even for me, the model seems a bit inorganic at times. These things didn't emerge or realize for us, either.
|
|
|
Post by vincent on Nov 18, 2011 12:32:16 GMT -5
I hope to see people at tonight's GA (Friday 11-18) to engage in a conversation about our relations with the City and about how they might be conducted (or not conducted if that is what we decide upon). I think that the "radical" thing to do here at OA is to force a conversation where there appears to be foregone conclusions, to engage with each other rather than passively acquiescing to the force of inertia and differing interpretations of the course of events.
Autonomy requires active engagement.
|
|