Core values spiel shouldn't include "no drugs and alcohol"

[Joe Cooper]

Hey guys,

It's been noted on a facebook group thread that our core values spiel includes something that is not actually a consented to "core value": "no drugs and alcohol". The no drugs and alcohol guideline was consented to by GA, but not identified as a core value. Since it is a source of contention, and since technically the GA has never consented to call this a core value, I believe we should list only three "core values", and then include the no drugs and alcohol guideline as a request from the GA, e.g.: "The general assembly asks that you be sober while participating in Occupy Austin."

[Rich Elrath]

No drugs and alcohol at city hall has been a core value since the beginning

[Joe Cooper]

I agree, and I made the exact same argument with the folks who have a problem with it. It has been a policy of the group from very early...but it was never called a "core value", until we started doing so in our pre-GA patter. It's semantics, and I agree that the "no drugs and alcohol at the occupation" was consented to very early on. But, people are bothered by calling it a core value, since when it was passed, it was not referred to as a "core value", and never has been called that until facilitators started including it in the spiel at the beginning of each GA. Facilitators have occasionally caused ire with this sort of thing, and I'd like to avoid that kind of accusation now. If the GA consents to call it a core value, I'll call it a core value. Until then, I plan to keep mentioning it, because I think it is important and I think the GA still believes in it, but I'm going to call it something other than a core value. Perhaps similar to "step up, step back".

Our "core values" statement, which was consented to at GA only has three actual core values, and "no drugs and alcohol" is not one of them; the fourth value is more of a recommendation to future GAs that the core values should only be changed in solidarity with the movement as a whole..which is pretty difficult to fit into a pre-GA spiel.

If you have another preference for how to phrase it, or how to more accurately remind everyone of this GA-consented guideline without calling it a core value, I'm happy to hear it.

[Rich Elrath]

So what were we calling it in October?  It's certainly always been a part of those things, if they weren't known as core values then use other terminology.

[Joe Cooper]

I don't know that we really called it anything. It was just this thing we all agreed on. ;-)

Which is why I think phrasing it along the lines of "The General Assembly asks..." should work fine. We need to make it clear that everybody agreed on this, but we also want to avoid the semantic arguments of what makes something a "core value". I have no idea, really, what the difference is between the statement of "core values" and any other agreement of values or rules that the GA has consented to. They all amount to the same thing: These are the things we've agreed to do and be as part of the occupation, if you do otherwise, you are opting out of the occupation.

[April Nealy]

It's a shame that there has to be an issue with something a basic as this.  If the police catch us at City Hall with the suspicion of Alcohol we're toast.  It was what prompted us to address the issue in the first place, since they were always looking for the least excuse to arrest us, and we didn't want to give them even the smallest opportunity to take out one of our members.  I hope the GA will consent to keep it as a core value.

[Joe Cooper]

April, it's not a question of "keeping it as a core value". It never was referred to as a "core value" before we, as facilitators, started calling it that. I don't know why the semantics matter to anyone...but, they apparently do. And, no one, as far as I know, is planning to try to overturn our agreement that the occupation is drug and alcohol free, so that agreement remains in place and will remain in place for the foreseeable future.

[Patrick Jones]

Core values are different than policy in that core values are a
minimal description of what unites us, and that they play a special
role of consensus decision making in that "blocks" must at some level
refer back to core values. It seems to me that "no drugs/alcohol" at
the occupation" is more like policy than a core value, where something
like "nonviolence" would be a core value.

-Patrick-

[April Nealy]

It's odd that, those values are one of the things I was working on as a proposal, following up on a work group we had.  I think we lost some of the minutes, but I had a copy and put them in a file to see if we could get everyone to agree on some of them, (the ones each group had in common for start) I'm still working on it, but I wonder if it's way too late.

[James Raines]

it was never really specified as to what we meant by no drugs or alcohol. I was under the impression that during active participation in the movement that being under the influence was against core values. This does not necessarily mean that the GA cannot consent to being pro legalization or that our members cannot be users, but rather participation cannot coincide. 

I view this as a safety net for people showing up to assemblies and meetings under the influence to not be taken seriously. If you come to a GA drunk, i dont care if you block something, your drunk.     

[April Nealy]

Where's the like button for that James .