Missing minutes and passed proposals

[benbrucato]

It looks like we're missing minutes for Nov. 12, 14, 17, 18, 20-23. Can someone who has the minutes please post those?

I know some proposals have been passed and those have not been posted either.

Is it reasonable to expect that WGs and individuals who propose things post what was passed in a timely manner (within 24 hours)?

Thanks,

Ben

[vincent]

I was wondering the same thing; if someone wasn't taking minutes, were the proposals recorded someplace?

[tooladder]

I wish I could take minutes, I was at several of these GA's, but due to hearing issue I can't. I can however report that 11/23 meeting just fell apart within a few minutes of assembly. From what I gathered a woman who was there for the first time wanted to discuss the porta-potties and we 'shut her down' with process by asking her to wait and while explaining the process to her she left in a huff. All the other women in the group left within a minute or two there-after. I don't get it, but there is defiantly a problem with GA's and I'm baffled as to suggest how to correct it. I don’t understand the issue at hand, but recognize there is one. We need to figure out a way to have an orderly discussion without people feel like they are being excluded from discussion while at the same time I really don’t think it’s fair for ANYONE to just pop into a meeting, instantly try to monopolize the discussion/change the topic to what they want to talk about so they can leave immediately after they’ve gotten to say what they came to say.

[mtnclimber]

I noticed the missing minutes too.

Just to share some details about 11/23. There was a women's caucus meeting at 6 at the Women's Building on Central Ave., so people might have been leaving for that.
.

[joshred]

11/23/11's GA had only about a dozen participants and the facilitator (Mary) had never facilitated before. The woman either didn't understand or didn't respect the process and Mary wasn't really equipped to handle it. It got a little ugly. It might have helped if I stuck out the GA but I was doing WiFi tests with Fong.

[colin]

I know that an important proposal was passed at the Sunday, 11/20, General Assembly. The following GA's on 11/21 and 11/22 were rather small and quick and no proposals were passed. Facilitation has been short-staffed recently and is trying to recruit more people to help with minutes and facilitation. There is a training this Saturday at 11am. Volunteers to help?

With regard to the 11/20 proposal we reached consensus on a proposal to select a liaison/go-between to coordinate communications between Occupy Albany and Albany City Officials. The proposal was initially introduced 11/14 by Legal WG, was debated and tabled 11/17, and Justin re-raised it as an individual compromise proposal that was introduced and consensed to on 11/20. The key provisions are that the liaison is not empowered to make any decisions or commit the group to any agreements. All decisions must go back to the full General Assembly and be passed by at least two GA's. Also for in-person meetings with the city we must have members of Occupy Albany's operations, sanitation, safety, food, etc... working groups present. The individuals representing those working groups must rotate monthly.

Justin has all the details of the proposal down in writing in his notebook - hopefully he can post them soon.

With regard to tooladder, I wasn't at last night's GA, but yay it is a tough balance to strike between not letting people to jump in and interrupt the process whenever they want to say something versus using common-sense and allowing something to be addressed if it is super-pressing and needs immediate attention. The key is to be respectful and make clear to folks that if now isn't the right time to raise an issue there will be a time for them to do so if they remain patient.

[mtnclimber]

Colin, and everyone, do you know why the People's Safety proposal that was approved at a GA never made it into the minutes when it happened, or hasn't appeared here?

The proposal was a response to issues of sexual harassment and sexual and physical assault. I am sure we all agree that this needs to be dealt with in the right way. My impression is it is not. I can see how finding the "right way" takes time, but it does not seem to be happening.

Back to the minutes: if I had just seen it in the minutes, or seen it here, it would matter. These proposals and policies get credence when they are in public. Otherwise, it is under the rug, until the next victims.

[mtnclimber]

Colin and everyone, I came back after I figured out something that puzzled me cuz something didn't fit.

I want to be as clear as I can be that I am saying this respectfully. We are all volunteers and we do what we are able to do.

Colin, on the 21st, you said this:" In response to Caroline's question there was a People's Safety meeting about this and a policy was adopted and read at General Assembly last night outlining some standards of acceptable behavior and establishing procedures to report and respond to violations of those standards. "

And here you began saying: "I know that an important proposal was passed at the Sunday, 11/20, General Assembly. " And I said good.

Then you said this:"With regard to the 11/20 proposal we reached consensus on a proposal to select a liaison/go-between to coordinate communications between Occupy Albany and Albany City Officials."

Again, no disrespect. I agree there are many good things happening with the proposal you explained, the one with the City, and I agree that that is a very positive way to go.

But what happened to the People's Safety proposal that happened the same night? Why isn't it in the minutes?

I am raising it because it matters.

[colin]

Yay I totally agree it matters mtnclimber. I think the issue was that as a practical matter on the day the people's safety proposal and the city-liaison proposals passed no one had a computer at the GA site and the person who took notes on paper failed to post them online. This is unfortunate but these things happen.

I know the people's safety proposal was printed and posted at the info tent so maybe someone can type it up and post it. If it isn't done by Saturday I'll do it. Also, I know Justin has the liaison proposal written in his notebook with all the friendly amendments and his organizational chart. I'll try to get in touch with him and ask him to type it up and post it.

[mtnclimber]

Thanks for your response.

Some follow up. I have been there since. I did not see anything posted in a place for people to see. And I like that info tent so I visit there the most and I was looking for it, thinking if it was not online it was probably there. Maybe something blew it away or it got covered up. Maybe I got there before it was posted too (Tuesday). Maybe someone took it down temporarily. Maybe I missed it.

Thanks again for your efforts.

[maryb]

Nov. 24 (Thanksgiving) had a truly novel GA. Even though only about ten of us were present, we wanted to preserve the Occupation's unbroken record of daily GA's. We agreed in advance that no major proposals would be adopted, but would be re-introduced at a future GA with more representation. Topics included procedures for identifying, securing, and scheduling the usage of the 3 (so far) bicycles that have been donated to OA, and the purchase of helmets. IT reported that field tests of wi-fi are on-going. There was a request for and a request for a way to identify Occupiers, perhaps voluntarily wearing armbands, pins, or some way of telling when non-members are wandering the encampment, and even entering tents where they have no business. It was agreed that this is a concern that definitely needs to be brought to Peoples' Safety for a formal proposal to be brought before a future GA. There was one visitor from Bennington, VT who said he found our encampment, and even our minimal GA, inspiring. But the exceptional "guest" was the llama, who arrived with his owner shortly after the GA had begun, and whose behavior throughout the GA was exemplary! An aside: When I boarded my bus home at the Hawk St. shelter, the driver and passengers were laughing hysterically over the "camel" at the encampment. I was happy to enlighten them on the true nature of the visitor.) His owner waited for the Speak Out to distribute print material and ask for attention to proposals he had about the need for removing the influence of Corporate power in our government. Unfortunately, I did not have the presence of mind to record the names of the attendees or the facilitators, but I think it is accurate to say that we all left with a sense of mission achieved.

[maryb]

More info about 11/23. There were actually two disruptions. The first, already identified, was the woman who clearly had no concept of GA process, and who desperately wanted to understand why her questions were "out of order." The second was my (I hope uncharacteristic) response when I felt that I was being disrespected and - a word I have never before used with reference to myself - marginalized. I will begin with the second point, because it explains my frustration about the first.

Walking down to the GA, I asked Trevor if he wanted to co-facilitate if there were no others present. His response was that he hadn't had "the training," but would be willing to help. We began with the Welcomes, and at that time no one indicated being a Newbie, so we omitted reviewing the hand signals - which didn't really matter, since the disruptive person was a late arrival. During the WG Reports, Sanitation reported that the post-o-johns had not yet been cleaned out, which would clearly pose a sanitation problem over the holiday weekend. Since I had been given the money for Schodack Septic, I asked the Sanitation WG rep who was present to meet with me after the GA and we would resolve the problem. (The cleaning out actually took place shortly after 6:30pm.). Meanwhile, the woman referred to earlier shifted the focus of her questions from how the cleaning out would be paid for, to how much money OA has. There were Point of Process signals, and I apologized to the woman for not having the Agenda sign for her to follow the sequence of the meeting. Josh arrived at this point, and stepped in to explain that this was an atypical GA, that there would normally be additional members of the facilitation team, including someone to explain procedural points to newcomers, but that "all we had was Mary, who had not facilitated before," or words to that effect. He then returned to the wi-fi project, and I was ready to resume the Agenda. At that point, Trevor stepped in and began to explain hand signals to the confused woman, who could care less at that point. She kept saying that all she wanted to do was ask how/when there would be a time to get her questions in. Trevor's response was a totally-authoritarian, "There isn't one," which is when she stormed off. Trevor later clarified his statement, saying that if Working Groups have done their jobs, questions of that types have already been dealt with, so there is no place for them in the Process. But for her, and those who left with her, the damage had been done. Actually, two things had happened. 1) She had essentially been told that Process trumps Common Sense. (BTW, Colin, I appreciated the comment you wrote without knowing exactly what had transpired: "it is a tough balance to strike between not letting people to jump in and interrupt the process whenever they want to say something versus using common-sense and allowing something to be addressed if it is super-pressing and needs immediate attention.") 2) When I attempted to get Trevor's attention to ask if he was taking over the facilitation, he was too totally focused on what he considered "helping" me to notice me. And here is where my behavior became inappropriate. I raised a Point of Process and asked who was actually facilitating the GA, and then decided I was too angry to continue. I apologized to those present, and left the GA. It was certainly a learning experience for me, reinforcing my appreciation of the skilled facilitators among us who keep far more complicated agendas flowing smoothly!

[hz]

As PR I often take notes at the meeting. Sometimes there is no facilitation person taking minutes due to under-staffing. I can share my notes for a few of those missing days. Just give me a bit to locate them. And I actually may have 'official/inclusive' minutes for at least one of those meetings.

I would be happy to help facilitate etc on a regular basis, but have been getting flack from some members of the Radical Caucus for the level of my participation, so I thought it was best to 'step back'

Hope this helps!

-Hezzie

[mtnclimber]

This makes me very uncomfortable:

"I would be happy to help facilitate etc on a regular basis, but have been getting flack from some members of the Radical Caucus for the level of my participation, so I thought it was best to 'step back'".

There is a dominance of men in the Occupy movement. I've been reading a lot of individual blogs and comments and see it coming up often: how the media favors talking to men, how people do not complain if a man seems to be taking on a "leadership" role. Your comment reminded me of this tension. But that's all I'll say, because you didn't raise it that way. It's just what it reminded me about.

I hope you don't step back.

[mtnclimber]

Mary, I appreciate what you said. I can't offer any more response -- except that it sounds difficult -- because I have never facilitated. Hell, my first time at a GA, I was stumped by the first question: "Is there anyone new who wants to introduce themselves and say why they are here?" I just wanted to soak it all in.

[joshred]

For clarification, I said something along the lines of "we only have Mary tonight, it's her first time facilitating, and she's been brave enough to try and do it on her own so please be patient and understand that facilitating these meetings isn't the easiest task to take on". It wasn't meant to be disparaging toward Mary at all. I was trying to tell the woman who kept speaking out of turn to respect the facilitator and be patient.

[Emma]

seems to me that perhaps an "unbroken record of daily GA's" isn't the highest priority. We have never had the conversation about what constitutes "quorum" at GAs, despite it being raised at least a few times that I'm aware of. There's also the issue, which had been raised at least a couple times in the facilitation working group (before it started meeting daily at times I couldn't attend often enough to keep up), of how many facilitation team people are minimally required to consider a meeting "facilitated."

These are big important questions, *especially* as they relate to the participation of "traditionally marginalized groups." One of the main reasons I initially joined the facilitation working group was that I saw good facilitation as one key aspect of making sure there was room for non-dominant voices to be heard. I know that this has been happening less and less as OA has gone on.

It is time for a change.

When the only people who are licensed to make a change are those for whom the current system is working best (those who can attend GAs and feel empowered to participate in them), we are at an impasse. It has been brought up many times that we need to examine and address the issue of the current GA format/structure not working for a large minority (if not majority) of OA participants, and I'm saying it again... This really needs to be addressed!

[hz]

1.) Could this be a topic for one of the community discussions? How do we have this discussion? There are at least two contingents feeling left out.
one: the people not able to get to the site
two: people at the site that have been alienated by the process

2.) There does seem to be a disconnect between the Occupy site & many of the offsite Occupy supporters in general.

3.) At many of the GAs I have been to I have collected emails. We have several hundred people now on our email list. All these people have been on site at one time or another. There are probably another 1000 people who have attended GAs and been on site whose email we don't have. Maybe this is one way to start to connect more directly to people who have already shown interest though?

I also have software to do polling questions, and can send out main topics/proposals for GA consideration to the list as well??

We use the list solely as an events email list right now, and I think maybe it is underutilized in that respect. Can we make it another instrument of participation?

Maybe I/we could be more proactive about gathering contact info from those who wish to continue to be involved.

I know another email in an inbox isn't the most elegant solution, but just thinking out loud...

[mtnclimber]

hz,

You have a lot of great ideas there!

Just a piece of info. I gave my email weeks ago at a GA on the paper passed around, and I gave it again at the book at the info desk when invited to do that one day.

But the only email I have received is from a group I took another step to join, the women's caucus.

I don't think the collected email addresses at GA and Info are being used. Yet.

We are far away from bothering people, IMHO.

mtnclimber

[hz]

Thx mtnclimbr,

Good to know.

We do seem to be a little behind on inputting a couple lists.
I will check on status of those, but I think one of our key volunteers said she would have more internet time this week. So hopefully anyone still missing will be added shortly.

-Hz