GA revitalization, reform, or replacement

[Lucas Vereline]

Hello everyone,

I've spoke with many of you over the last couple weeks about issues with the GA, and there seems to be a broad consensus that there is a real problem with what we have right now.  Briefly; it is difficult to argue that the GA currently speaks for the movement as a whole, turnout is often so low that attendees don't want to vote on anything, which is creating a backlog of pending proposals, regular attendees are frustrated and there is mutual alienation between GA and committees.

We have evolved from where were in the fall or even two months ago, and the GA developed out of a specific historical context that no longer exists.  So it is natural for its role to evolve or be displaced as well.  Perhaps we simply have too many of them, or perhaps we need to begin using a spokes council model for action planning and use the new orientation sessions for outreach, or perhaps we need to revisit the 90% voting requirement and figure out how to ensure consensus instead of voting- or alternatively lower the requirement.  

Whatever we do, we need a way to do things like have big community discussions, issue "official" statements, allocate resources etc.  So here's the plan:

Tonight at GA I will suggest we vote to move GA's down to the Woodlawn occupation.

Friday, I will suggest we suspend the normal process and first go through all the pending proposals and then begin a broad discussion of the GA's.  The discussion will be broken into what we, as a movement, need from GA, what barriers there are to fulfilling those needs, GA participation etc., and then possible solutions.  This may need to extend to Saturday's GA, but hopefully not.  Based on this discussion, we will develop a proposal or set of proposals to be voted on next week.

If you already have an idea, please post it on the forums.

-Lucas

[Rachael P]

I have an idea, and I posting it here:

We have GA's twice a week, which should aid turnout.
We come with an approval system run through committees to make emergency decisions.

Rach

-Lucas

--
Occupy Chicago Press Relations Committee google group
internal (members only) email address: ocp...@googlegroups.com
external (non-members) email address: pr...@occupychi.org
To unsubscribe email: ocpress+u...@googlegroups.com
group url: http://groups.google.com/group/ocpress?hl=en?hl=en

--
Rachael Perrotta
773.653.5073
plus...@gmail.com
Twitter: @plussone
Occupy Chicago Press Relations
773.417.6491
pr...@occupychi.org
Facebook.com/PressComm
Twitter: @OCPress

[ochil...@gmail.com]

Agree with the other Rachael, but would add:

- it needs to be very clear what goes to GA (OChi action endorsements, funding decisions, etc) and what gets passed by committee (define scope of emergency proposals)

- maybe only 2 voting GAs / week, but could we still schedule some non-voting GAs for announcements, progress reports, discussion, etc? Especially to share what exciting proposals have passed in committee.

Rachel

Sent from my Verizon Wireless BlackBerry

---

From: Rachael P <plus...@gmail.com>

Sender: oc_dire...@googlegroups.com

Date: Wed, 18 Apr 2012 11:28:55 -0500

To: <ocp...@googlegroups.com>

ReplyTo: oc_dire...@googlegroups.com

Cc: ar...@occupychi.org<ar...@occupychi.org>; conf...@occupychi.org<conf...@occupychi.org>; coordi...@occupychi.org<coordi...@occupychi.org>; direct...@occupychi.org<direct...@occupychi.org>; dona...@occupychi.org<dona...@occupychi.org>; educ...@occupychi.org<educ...@occupychi.org>; hou...@occupychi.org<hou...@occupychi.org>; le...@occupychi.org<le...@occupychi.org>; me...@occupychi.org<me...@occupychi.org>; OccupyChicago LaborOutreach<union.taskfo...@gmail.com>; outr...@occupychi.org<outr...@occupychi.org>; pr...@occupychi.org<pr...@occupychi.org>; rese...@occupychi.org<rese...@occupychi.org>; secre...@occupychi.org<secre...@occupychi.org>; socia...@occupychi.org<socia...@occupychi.org>

Subject: Re: [OCPress] GA revitalization, reform, or replacement

[Michael Herbert]

Lucas is on point.

I posted this a few days ago without much response, but that may be because the thread took a different direction of focus. 

I think O.C. could benefit from starting to think about building campaigns.  I'm thinking, perhaps, a weekly or biweekly 45min. or so orientation on basic campaign principles, and general strategy planning, directly after which would be a series of half-hour or so spokes council meetings for different campaigns (environment sustainability, economic justice, prison rights, immigration rights,  etc.)

The spokes at each campaign meetings would be representatives of committees that already exist in O.C. (direct action, press, social media, etc.)  to coordinate a strategy toward some long term goals as a larger diverse group.

I think something like this would help O.C. find some focus and set/achieve some S.M.A.R.T. goals that work toward our vision of a world that prioritizes things like community, justice, and sustainability over private profit (or whatever vision is defined by this process.)

I also think it would be a good way for people to come, get oriented, and plugged into an issue that is important to them, in a way that engages their strengths and interests, and instantly start rubbing elbows with other comrades - all in a matter of hours.

I'd be happy to contribute to these campaign orientations if people are into something like this. 

Thoughts?

 

Warm Regards,
Michael Anton Herbert


www.michaelantonherbert.com

---

From: Lucas Vereline <lpver...@gmail.com>
To: "ar...@occupychi.org" <ar...@occupychi.org>; "conf...@occupychi.org" <conf...@occupychi.org>; "coordi...@occupychi.org" <coordi...@occupychi.org>; "direct...@occupychi.org" <direct...@occupychi.org>; "dona...@occupychi.org" <dona...@occupychi.org>; "educ...@occupychi.org" <educ...@occupychi.org>; "hou...@occupychi.org" <hou...@occupychi.org>; "le...@occupychi.org" <le...@occupychi.org>; "me...@occupychi.org" <me...@occupychi.org>; OccupyChicago LaborOutreach <union.taskfo...@gmail.com>; "outr...@occupychi.org" <outr...@occupychi.org>; "pr...@occupychi.org" <pr...@occupychi.org>; "rese...@occupychi.org" <rese...@occupychi.org>; "secre...@occupychi.org" <secre...@occupychi.org>; "socia...@occupychi.org" <socia...@occupychi.org>
Sent: Wed, April 18, 2012 11:05:53 AM
Subject: GA revitalization, reform, or replacement

[Ben Burton]

Michael,

I'm not sure if it directly relates to GA but your idea of setting goals is pretty much fundamental and essential. I'd bet we'd start to see steady growth again after that.

-Ben

[Babur B]

We spoke this little while ago  , I also think setting up objectives towards the issues and forming agendas are crucial especially how Occupy Chicago became weaker and lost some essential edge for a while. Im interested.

Babur B
Organizer/Press Relations DAC
Occupy Chicago & RP

[Ben Clifford]

These conversations should be happening at ga's not google groups, people are starting to feel that they are not important because the committies decide everything anyway, these are things I've heard from many people, though I do not speak for everyone. People need to feel involved to want to participate, yes the huge ga's were frustrating but they brought about our biggest actions and had large impacts on the movement as a whole not the movement that only requires masses during an action... Food for thought I guess.

[X X]

I really like the idea of revamping things.   The GA served its purpose back in September and October but is no longer needed in its current design.   I really think running more introduction sessions like the one on last Saturday are the best way to get new folks involved.  As it stands now the GA is not a good tool for recruitment, if you don't go out of your way to figure out whats going on there is no way to get involved.  The atmosphere is also very cliquish, if you don't have a type A personality its  very hard to break into our group at the moment.  With Love, Matt __________________________________________________________________________________ "You can blow out a candle but you can't blow out a fire, once the flames begin to catch the wind will blow it higher" ________________________________________________________________________________ "Your reputation as a putz certainly precedes you."David Krzesinski --- On Wed, 4/18/12, Ben Clifford <benclif...@gmail.com> wrote:

[Blaise Sewell]

I really like Michael Anton Herbert's ideas and would love to see some version of a spokes council structure. It is so badly needed for communication.

Blaise

[Kelly Hayes]

Spirit fingers to Mike and Lucas.  We need to be able to shift and grow as we evolve as a group.  What worked in the beginning is not working now, and that's okay.  We learn and change.  It's part of the natural progression, and it's a good thing.  We need to sharpen and show  that we can adapt, or we will not hold.

- Kel

[Evelyn]

*spirit fingers*

I would love to see us use the GA effectively. I felt for a while that there was kind of a fetishization of the GA that really discouraged me, but also think that our complete abandonment of it, which was a slow and arbitrary slide away, rather than an actual decision is really unhealthy. We still need to work together and make decisions together, or we stop being able to function.

On Wed, Apr 18, 2012 at 2:53 PM, Blaise Sewell <blaise...@gmail.com> wrote:

--
Evelyn DeHais

evelyndehais.com

Graphic Design, Illustration & Amateur Clowning

evelyn...@gmail.com

914. 439. 2960

[Lucas Vereline]

Ben C, I think you've expressed some of the current problems well.  Except that "starting to" is outdated.  Apparently only, only two people were at ga monday. 

We do need to have these discussions at ga, but developing ideas on the google monster makes sense to me.

Mikes idea is definitely related to the spirit if this proposal.  It's a need and solution related to movement wide decisions.

-lucas

[Mark Saulys]

    The fact is that people don't want to go to the trouble of coming down to GAs but, if that is so, they must accept that decisions will be made without them.  It is still a more democratic process than what is being suggested - if I understand it correctly.  To not show up to a GA is, in effect, an abstinence from voting or a "vote to abstain". 
      Incidentally, a similar voter apathy helps to make the greater society less democratic.  That is not to say that better voter turnout would be the solution to our corrupted - and to whatever extent, inherently corrupt - system but it sure would help.  Trying to keep voter turnout low is a very old strategy of those who would steal a democracy.  It was employed by the Teamster mobsters we were going against when I was in 705 and was used for a long time by the far right in the U.S..  In 705 and, no doubt, the far right Republicans, apathy was actively encouraged and was our greatest enemy - as it often is, to the activist or organizer.
     The idea is to keep most people from voting so that the minority of operatives and loyalists of the would be usurpers can carry the vote.
      One important elephant in the room is that the regular people, people with jobs families and mortgages, have stopped coming to GAs or anything else and the only people who stayed around were the professional protesters who don't legitimately speak for anybody but themselves.

--
Occupy Chicago Press Relations Committee google group
internal (members only) email address: ocp...@googlegroups.com
external (non-members) email address: pr...@occupychi.org
To unsubscribe email: ocpress+u...@googlegroups.com
group url: http://groups.google.com/group/ocpress?hl=en?hl=en

--
"To live outside the law you must be honest"
      Absolutely Sweet Marie  -Bob Dylan

[Kelly Hayes]

Without getting too argumentative, I question the term "professional protesters," and the idea that some of the hard core folks in attendance only speak for themselves.  I don't make a lot of GA's these days, but when I have attended, I have heard some people speaking some serious truth.  Just because a thought is radical, or specific to someone's own beliefs, doesn't mean it doesn't represent others.  There are definitely people who show up that fight for what I believe in, and I am hardly a "professional" at this.

That said, I think we need to restructure and reboot a number of things, or we will collapse.  Just my two cents, for whatever that's worth.  Obviously, a decision like this would be made by vote, at a well promoted GA, giving everyone the opportunity to weigh in if they wish to do so.  If they don't, that by itself proves how obsolete the current system really is.

- Kel

[Mark Banks]

regular people?  professional protesters?  LOLOLOLOL at saulys once again. 

[Lucas Vereline]

Just to clarify, there is not a suggested alternative process yet.  We are going to identify multiple needs and multiple possible solutions.

Perhaps moving to two gas s week will revitalize them and half the problems go away.
-lucas

[Mark Saulys]

        Actually, the truth is that NOBODY speaks for anybody but themselves with any legitimacy.  Advocacy is odious.  It is OK for PETA but human beings must speak for themselves.  That is what organizing (as opposed to advocacy) is all about, getting people to step up, speak for themselves and thus be empowered.
        The way to increase legitimacy is to get more different kinds of people to join.
        As far as GAs are concerned, if people don't want to make the trip then perhaps they should be fewer and made a more special occasion.  To dispense with the democratic character of OC because of apathy, I think, is a serious mistake.
       

On Wed, Apr 18, 2012 at 3:34 PM, Kelly Hayes <kellyh...@gmail.com> wrote:

[Mark Saulys]

     Are you saying you represent ... ah, that is ... resent that comment?

[Kelly Hayes]

Well, Mark Saulys, the fact that I am asserting that some people speak for me, on occasion, sort of makes your last argument invalid, unless you are attempting to speak for me yourself, in which case your argument is likewise invalid. 

[Ben Burton]

When it comes to a vote though, there are no proxies. That means while your words might be involved, your actual participation in the democratic decision is not if you're not physically on location at a GA.

-Ben

[Mark Saulys]

     There is ALWAYS a crisis of legitimacy for a movement if it is peopled only by advocates for others.  Anybody and everybody CLAIMS to speak for everybody else, everybody from the RCP to the Tea Party - and everybody in between.  

[Mark Saulys]

     Was not excluding present company.  My critcism is often as much toward me as others.

[Benjamin Burton]

My criticisms as well, which often times gets me in trouble on the interwebz. ;)

-Ben

Sent from my iPhone

[Kelly Hayes]

Of course there are no proxies.  My vote isn't counted if I am not there.  That's totally fair, but if people are not showing up, then the votes are not representative of the wishes of the larger group (that word, in my opinion that word applies - I guess some of us can just agree to disagree), hence the problem.  I feel that there are people who represent my views (sometimes), just fine, but that's not really the issue.  The issue is whether the current system is effective, and we all seem to agree it is not.  I get that showing up is a HUGELY important aspect of activism, but people have reasons for not being there (some quite fair), and either way, it's just not working.  Reducing the number of GA's makes sense.  A spokes council just plain makes sense.  Not every decision needs to be voted upon by the larger group, and that's not happening anyway.  A good chunk of the proposals lead to nothing anyway.  If something claims to outline the philosophy of our group, or some such, a larger vote is clearly called for, but some things just don't require a long stack line and a 90% majority to be dealt with.  We don't want to over empower the committees, but leaving too much to the GA doesn't quite work either.  I trust Lucas and others who will be working to resolve this, and will attend any vote on the matter.  I look forward to reviewing their thoughts about this, and would be happy to toss ideas around with whoever, for whatever that's worth. 

- Kel

[Mark Saulys]

     I, again, don't want to dispense with or diminish our democraticness because myself and others have been abdicating our responsibility.  I, personally, think some odd proposals got passed recently because an odd sampling showed up for GAs but that is a consequence of our shirking and the nature of democracy and democratic processes.  Process is necessary for democracy to ensure fairness and prevent stronger people and stronger personalities from dominating.
     If a new process or system being proposed would be equally democratic to the current one I may get behind it. .

[Lucas Vereline]

Phase one is successful-with modifications:
Ga will move for friday and saturday only.  Of course this may be extended by future gas.

Also any committees organizers etc. should hold there meetings st woodlawn if the are able to.

Finally, we want this advertised as broadly as possible.  So can we get this blasted by SM and on the front page asap.

-lucas

[Mark Banks]

To Lucky and others:  I recommend you stop wasting energy on taking Saulys seriously.  He's a decent guy in person (usually), but something happens when he gets behind a computer screen.  It's like a Bruce Banner-Incredible Hulk thing, but with an arrogant, comical twist.  Let it be.  Your life will be more fulfilling.  

[Ben Burton]

Banks,

I think you misunderstand (or misrepresent?) Saulys. 

-Ben

[Mark Banks]

Doubt it. 

[Lucas Vereline]

This has been a remarkably positive and productive thread.  Lets not let the personal derail the larger discussion.

-lucas

[Mark Banks]

Fair enough...I was attempting to issue a warning in order to avoid a (typical) derailment.  I'm out.  As you were.