NYCGA Minutes 10/30/2011

Posted by & filed under Assemblies, General Assembly Minutes.


Meeting Date/Time: 10/30/2011 / 7pm EST

Location: Liberty Plaza

Facilitators (F): Kelly, Leo


Time Keeper: Daniel. Stack Taker: Isaiah. Stack Reader: Chris. Minutes: Stephanie, Diane and Paul



44.1.  Agenda Items (Budget Proposal from The Political and Electoral Reform Working Group, Budget Proposal from the Screen Printing Working Group, Proposal from Demands Working Group, Breakout Discussion from the Theory and Practice Working Group, EMT Proposal from Direct Action)
44.2.  Working Group Report Backs
44.3.  Announcements

F: Welcome to GA! We’re going to start by introducing our facilitation team. We’ve worked hard in facilitation to know our process well and stick to it. We ask from the beginning that you trust us to hold the GA to the process that the GA has agreed upon.
F: I’m Kelly, I’ll be co-facilitating this nice GA.
F: I’m Leo and I will also be co-facilitating.
F: I’m Daniel and I will be timekeeper tonight. People have one minute to speak. I’ll give you a sign for 30 seconds left and a sign when time is up. Thanks.
Stack (S): I’m Isaiah. I will be the stack taker. I’d like to note that we will be using a progressive stack by which folks from marginalized communities may move up a step in stack, as well as those who have not spoken yet. This is not to remove anyone. No one will be removed from stack; this is to ensure that we can hear people’s voices.
S: My name is Chris, I will be the stack reader.
F: We already have a clarifying question.
Clarifying Question: When was it decided that speaking time would go from two minutes to one minute?
F: As facilitators, we think it’s our responsibility to keep this GA on process and proceeding in a timely manner. For a long time now, we’ve asked that you try to keep your statements or questions to one minute and working group report backs to two minutes. These time limits obviously flex, and it’s more a question of respect for everyone’s time here. There are a lot of people here, and a lot of people who will want to speak. Another principle that the GA abides by, besides progressive stack, is Step Up Step Back. This is a self-imposed principle. We ask you to take note of the privilege in your life, and if you have been traditionally encouraged by society to have your voice heard, we invite you to step back and make room for others in this conversation. If you feel that you have been traditionally discouraged by society to make your voice heard, we ask you to step up and take your place in this GA. I’ll now announce the order of the agenda for tonight, and the time limits we hope we can keep each agenda item to.
F: First will be a budget proposal from the Political and Electoral Reform working group. We will try to keep this agenda item to 15 minutes. Second is a budget proposal from the Screen Printing Guild working group. The time limit for this is twenty minutes. Third we will have a proposal from the Demands working group, which we will try to keep to thirty-five minutes. Fourth we will have a breakout group discussion from the Theory and Practice working group that we will try to keep to twenty-five minutes. Finally we have an emergency proposal from the Direct Action working group that we hope to keep to fifteen minutes.
F: First, before we go through hand signals we use for this process, I’d like our wonderful minute takers to introduce themselves. I’m Stephanie, I’m Diane, and Paul is somewhere, and we’ll be taking minutes tonight.

F: [[Review of hand signals.]] Are there any people here with disabilities that cannot stand for the entire meeting? Can we make some room up front so they can sit down? There’s room up here.
F: One thing to add about the hand signals. “C” has started to be used a lot. It runs the danger of being used to get around the process. Ideally if you have a clarifying question, you’ll get on stack to ask your question. We want to reduce the amount of back-and-forth conversations.

F: There will be time for working group report backs [WGRBs] and announcements. If you have WGRBs or Announcements we’ll ask you to get on stack then.

F: Political and Electoral Reform Proposal is the first agenda Item. Come on down.


44.1.  Agenda Items

44.1.1. Political and Electoral Reform Working Group Proposal  Hello! We’re from the working group for Politics and Electoral Reform. We’re working on a number of projects. One of these is a voting project. We’ll compare alternative voting methods with the most common method used in this country today. It is widely understood that a number of alternative methods lead to more democratic outcomes than the system used today. The point of this experiment is to ask, is that true? We’re asking the people of the GA to support us in this experiment. We’re asking for funding in the amount of $538 to purchase an iPad that we would set up as a mobile voting booth to set up in the Plaza here for people to come and participate in the experiment. We’ve already gotten the help of a poll analyst, voting system design expert, ….to help with this experiment. So we’re asking the people of Liberty Plaza to help us put this experiment together.
F: Opening stack for clarifying questions [CQs]. We have twelve minutes for questions.  Clarifying Questions  What is the experiment we speak of?

Response: The experiment will compare (sorry for the jargon), plurality voting with ranked voting, approval voting, and range voting.  I’m Debbie. Please explain the jargon in English.

Response: Plurality voting is the system we have today: pick one of the below. Ranked voting says rank your top three choices in order of preference. Approval voting says check all that you approve of. Range voting asks you to put a 1-5 approval for each candidate, similar to the way you would rate movies on a website, and such.
F: We’d like to start closing stack on CQs. Please raise your hand and get on stack with Isaiah.  Tom: How long will the experiment run?
Response:  As long as we can keep it going. After we get the program up and running, we can also use the tablet to function as a mobile survey and polling apparatus in-house to poll people here and potentially confront mainstream and corporate media narratives being constructed about us.  Kim: Have you asked for a donation for either the iPad or monetary support?
Response: We did that within our group, which is kind of a large group. A number of people offered donations but then rescinded them.  Christopher: Simply, how are you going to be using the data? For what purpose are these polls being done?
Response: First purpose is a scientific study actually comparing these various methods with one another. There have been some experiments done, but they are limited to just two. We can add to the body of scientific literature of voting methods. We want to find out whether or not there are superior systems to the one we have. Our suspicion is that there are.
F: Stack is now closed for questions.  Rudy: Can you please be more specific about what you will do with your findings?
Response: They will be published directly on our group page. Anyone will be able to analyze them. We will synthesize and present them in a way that’s readable by anyone.  Have you searched for cheaper options than an iPad? For example, a used iPad or an iPad borrowed from someone of the movement?
Response: We thought about a borrowed iPad, but we want the pad to be just for this purpose. We also asked for donations, but they were rescinded. The reason we need an iPad is because the programmer who is donating a lot of his time programs for iPads. A refurbished one is possible. Maybe that could be a friendly amendment.
F: We have five minutes for this topic, and one final CQ.  Do you have a plan for security for the iPad, because we have a problem with certain things being taken from the camp?

Response: Volunteers from the group will be necessary to actually administer the polls. So it will be in our volunteers’ possession at all times.

F: We will now open stack for concerns.  Concerns

S: First on stack: Greg  Greg: How do you propose to control ballot box stuffing? In other words, somebody could vote twice if you don’t recognize their face or if different volunteers are holding the iPad at different times?
Response: From our proposal submitted to Facilitation yesterday, an administrative protocol is being devised by volunteers to make sure that members of the public to not vote more than once. Also we have a generous donation of India ink to dip fingers in to secure the vote as is done in voting systems all over the world.  Is this going to go for multiple days?
Response: We will be devising multiple experiments over multiple days. India ink stays on for multiple days.
F: I appreciate that these follow-up questions are important to the persons posing them. That being said, let’s try to keep questions and concerns to one statement so that we limit the back-and-forth.  Marissa: Hi, I actually do have a concern. We use consensus process. The methods they’re proposing are all voting systems, so it seems like this could be a way to circumvent the process of the GA. Also, the donations they received were rescinded, so what does this say about the support for this project? Also, I have a concern about how that information could be used? It could easily be used for existing political candidates and campaigns.
Response: With respect to the GA: this is not about circumventing the GA, this is about testing alternative voting methods that could be used in our government. One of the methods we’re testing is actually a lot closer to consensus than plurality voting. It might show that approval voting for instance is a far superior method than plurality, which would be an argument in favor of consensus-based decision making. Second, about the iPads that were “rescinded,” it wasn’t really “rescinded” so much as it was basically two or three guys saying “I might know of someone who can lend us their iPad,” but then it didn’t happen. Number three, political candidates and campaigns. We are always being talked about in mainstream media, candidates are already polling us and publishing the results, that we have no control over. This could be an in-house polling and survey center that we have control over, that is fully transparent and open to everyone in the general public and Liberty Plaza, and unlike the general media, is fully transparent.
F: Closing stack on concerns.
?: …democracy can be like two wolves and one sheep voting on what’s for dinner. Therefore, this process is only as good as what one is voting for. However, there are the internal principles that pertain to everyone that should not be voted on, in or out, because they are always in everyone’s best interest, for instance “do unto others as you want them to do to you.”
F: Thank you. Stack is closed for concerns. We’ll now open stack for friendly amendments. My apologies. We still have people with concerns already on stack. I’ll try to do better to let folks know how many people are left on stack.  Henry: [not here]  Anthony: Since we work on a process of consensus, the whole concept of this proposal seems irrelevant to what we’re doing here. That is my concern. If you want a grant for this proposal there are plenty of organizations that support democratic voting.

F: We’re now opening for friendly amendments for this proposal. Raise your hand if you’d like to be put on stack.

F: Mic check! Are there any friendly amendments? Stack is now closed for friendly amendments. We have one friendly amendment.  Friendly Amendments  I’d like to propose that there be a time frame where the experiment will be concluded, to be determined by the committee that’s facilitating the experiment. It could be two or three months, but I believe it should be a definite stop date.
Response: There will have to be, that way we can analyze results, and that is going to full group for discussion in devising the experiment.

F: We’d now like to take a temperature check how people feel about this proposal, and to see if we’re moving towards consensus. [[Temperature check mixed, a fair amount of positive hands.]]
F: It looks as though we’re building towards consensus. We’d now like to call for any blocks.
F: We have a CQ back here.
CQ: Did we just do a full consensus check?
F: We’re calling for any blocks.  Blocks  With all due respect, I don’t know whose credentials can verify that this is a good experiment. I’m not a scientist. Is there any way that you can satisfy this concern?
F: Just to remind everybody, we’ve already closed stack on concerns. Maybe the presenter can respond to this concern, but going forward, let’s try to keep on process.
Response: In working on this project, we have a professional programmer, a database expert, an expert in voting system design, and a professional polling systems analyst. When we publish our results, anybody will be able to see and analyze the data.
F: Would we like to open up stack for five more minutes of concerns? [nobody does.]  There are no blocks, so we’ve reached consensus on this proposal.

Point of Process (PoP): Anthony: I was wondering how it looked in terms of up and down hands, I was near several down hands, but had a hard time seeing the other ones. I wanted to ask for separate checks on those. I also wanted to note that we don’t always have to reach consensus for every proposal, we can table them for further development.
F: I appreciate that PoP. It is the facilitators’ responsibility to read the temperature check that we call for. There have been some calls to separate the temperature check so that we’re able to see each hand signal separately. The Facilitation working group has decided not to do that for the time being, but it is an ongoing conversation. We welcome you to our meetings to weigh in on that decision. But right now in the middle of GA is not the time to change the process by which we reach consensus.
F: So with respecting the concerns and the PoPs we’ve just heard, we’d like to ask for another temperature check on this proposal. Will the proposers please restate the proposal?
F: Just to inform everyone, we’re now fifteen minutes over the time we hoped that this issue would take. That’s not to say the time frames are set in stone. Just FYI.  The proposal is for $538 to get an iPad to serve as a mobile polling vote to conduct surveys and a scientific voting experiment in Liberty Plaza.
F: Temperature check on this proposal? [Lots of positive, a few on the fence, a few down.] It doesn’t look like we’re reaching towards consensus. The proposers are interested if you have any friendly amendments to this proposal that might help us reaching consensus. Stack is now open for friendly amendments (FAs).  Friendly Amendments  My name is Woods. Perhaps to reach consensus, you would consider that when you’re done with your experiment, the iPad would become a communal iPad that other working groups could use after they bring their proposals to the GA, instead of only an iPad for your working group.  I’d like to propose that you add to your study a consensus decision making portion. Be creative.
Response: It’s my understanding there already is in the experiment.
F: We’d like to close stack for FAs.  My FA was more or less the same as hers except I don’t recall your mentioning anything really like consensus being one of the experiments that you would include.
Response: That’s approval voting.  I’d like to propose as FA to only go forward if an iPad is donated or bought for half the price as a used one.
Response: A refurbished one?
FA: Or used off the Internet or donated by a community member.
Response: The problem is the programmer wants a warranty on it. We could get a refurbished one with a warranty, but it wouldn’t be half the price.  My FA is related to hers, to formulate the proposal as $538 or less.
Response: That FA is accepted. We will try to find the cheapest one and give the rest of the money back into the general fund.
F: We have three more FAs.  Tom: My FA is that I believe it would be much better than democracy to be voting on reasonable issues themselves rather than somebody else picking issues to be voted on, because when we go to vote we have a lot of questions that can’t be answered.
F: Point of Process: This is not a FA, it’s a complaint.
Tom: I said it’d be better.  I suggest that your group spend a week tabling and educating this community about the ideas behind your experiment, because it’s clear to me from this discussion that people need to learn more to see why it’s valuable to Occupy Wall Street.
Response: The sooner we get it, the sooner we go through testing, the sooner it gets done, the sooner we can pass it on to another group.
PoI: I just found an iPad refurbished at the Apple store for $299 +tax. [cheers]
Response: We’ll take it!
F: One more FA. Just to clarify, the current proposal as I understand it is for this iPad that’s refurbished and costs $299 +tax.  My question if you haven’t already considered it is to ensure that people feel welcome to let the working group know about obstacles to voting in their neighborhoods.
Response: We talk about this in our group regularly.
F: We now have a new proposal with a FA of a $299 +tax price tag. We have one PoP.
PoP: I’m sorry but I was on stack for a FA. You took my name.
F: Speak!  My FA is very simple, seems like a very well-designed program, and I wonder if you have considered trying to raise money on kickstarter for this proposal? If you did that I bet you could raise $300 easily. If you don’t, maybe we can promise to make up what the difference is.
Response: We’re not sure if we have the resources and time to do that, which is a whole other process. We thought that’s what the GA budget proposals are for.
F: At this point we’re going to take a temperature check with the $299 + tax price tag. Temperature check on this proposal now? [mostly positive, still mixed] The reactions seem pretty mixed right now, so we will table the proposal. We are going to continue and move on to the next agenda item.
F: Mic check: people in the back finding it hard to hear, suggest people come to the front.
44.1.2.  Screen Printing Guild Proposal  Hi, I’m Lisa from the Screen Printing Guild. We have been making t-shirts for the past three weeks. All the proceeds are going to the support of the camp. We have raised about $10,000, although we have been making t-shirts that people have been selling and pocketing the money and that cuts into what we can raise for OWS. So we want to buy some shirts, but we need to do it with materials we can be proud of. Sweatshop free! But, when you’re looking at t-shirts, there’s a lot of things to consider. There is the labor. Is it union? Is it fair wage? Is it USA? Is it fair wage in another country? There’s materials to consider. Is it organic cotton? Which means that labor wasn’t soaked in pesticides while they worked. Or there’s …post-consumer waste t-shirts, either post-consumer textiles cotton or recycled soda bottles.

So I’d like to get a temperature check on our options before I tell you the particulars of the budget. There’s one other thing to consider, there’s also fashion. Do we want to get nice t-shirts that people will actually wear? That would be my preference.
F: Is it important that is be USA made? (temp check)
F: We didn’t really open stack for questions yet, but we’ll do that now, if you’ve finished stating your proposal.  The proposal is for money, about $4,000 to buy about 500 t-shirts, depending on which — USA, union, post-consumer organic all cost different amounts, for example, non-organic….cost $5.38, USA made fitted organic are #7.38 each. That’s $3,318.

F: In the interest of time, and in the interest of the autonomy and empowerment of working groups, as facilitators we want to recommend that this GA come to consensus or not on giving them money, and empower the working group to make the decision on what kind of t-shirts to buy. Temperature check on this alteration.  Ok, on the site, all these options are there, and there’s an ongoing discussion. Please join us there for an ongoing discussion about the materials. So the proposal now will be for 500 shirts to start and $4,090 would be the max amount for this 500.
F: We’d now like to open stack for questions. We have ten more minutes scheduled for this topic.  Clarifying Questions  Hi. I think you need to specify to reach consensus, that the money that you get from the selling of the shirts will be of course, applied within the occupation, ‘cause otherwise it will look like merchandising.
Response: That is absolutely what we are doing. All of the proceeds have been going here and will continue to go here. I did this proposal with the help of finance because we’ve been doing so well, bringing in donations.
F: Stack is only for questions right now and then we’ll move into concerns. To be clear, we are opening stack for questions first and concerns second. We haven’t gotten to concerns yet.  My question, what ever happened to printing on clothes people are already wearing?
Response: We love getting people to take off their clothes so we can print on them. We will continue to do this for free. It is really important that we are not running a souvenir shop.
F: We’d like to close stack on CQs.  Have you considered asking for voluntary donations so that when someone gets a shirt they can get money and you can give that money to GA
Response: That’s what we’ve been doing. We’ve also been taking t-shirt donations. We got 400 t-shirts just today.  (Continued) In that case maybe you don’t need money for all the shirts.
F: We’d like to keep back and forth down. And also regardless of the amount of money, they are requesting …for funds.  I’m not hearing any dollar amounts that reach as high as $4,090. So I’m going to act on the assumption, correct me if I’m wrong, that anything you spend if it comes in under $4,090 will got back to the occupation.
Response: In the interest of not reading everything on my list, I went for the $4,000. $4,090 is for USA made recycled soda bottle t-shirts.
F: We’re now opening stack for concerns. We have five and a half minutes left and then we’d like to move on to the next agenda item.  Concerns  My name is Hampton. I’m expressing concerns about this proposal about the t-shirts, regarding this capitalist business of making t-shirts and selling them. We are against Wall Street, we are against capitalism. We need to allocate our donations for our struggles against capitalism. That is why we are here. I strongly vote against this proposal. Alternatively, if we are to spend our money, I would like to save it for our political prisoners for continuing our struggles.
F: We have a PoP. Normally a concern would be pertinent specifically to the question. To clarify the PoP. This is a proposal for using money in a specific way. If you have a proposal to use money in another way, that’s a separate conversation.  My concern is that people in GA don’t understand the amazing promo opportunity this is, because if people are wearing their shirts to the colleges and in the mall and on the street it will rally more support for our cause. So my suggestion is instead of nit-picking I’d like you to explain why this is an amazing promo opportunity for our cause.
Response: I guess I didn’t presume to need to tell this crowd why it’s important to have your message out in the world. A lot of people have taken back t-shirts to their states and their countries and their churches and their schools, etc. So it’s a fundraiser but it’s also to get our message out. And we’re doing it for free most of the time because we want to circumvent the capitalist souvenir part of it.  I propose that sweatshirts and long-sleeve shirts be bought, as it is cold.
Response: The problem with sweatshirts is that they cost more than $20 each from a sustainable source, and I was afraid to bring that large of an amount to this assembly the first time. We’d like to raise money with the t-shirts, which basically double their amount.  I was by the t-shirt area and there was lots of poison going into the air and I’m very concerned. That seemed to be what was going on. It seems to be, I was specifically concerned for the person spray painting, as this is poison. My second concern, is that all this talk about anger about other people making money off of t-shirts, seems to be just what the greedy corporations are doing.
Response: The screen guild feels that it’s very shady for individual entrepreneurs to take bogus donations for blank t-shirts and pocket the money when it should be going to the general needs of this occupation. That’s really why we want to buy shirts.
F: We are two minutes over time for this topic. We have one last concern  I think that if we want to turn Occupy Wall Street into a brand, then professionally printing t-shirts is the best way to do this, but if our concern is for individual entrepreneurs making money then we should make this a no kiosk zone to stop it.
Response: We are graphic artists that have been printing. If we as a group want to print the t-shirts professionally, that’s someone else’s proposal. I’ve been on site for three weeks doing it here, individually screening shirts to try to change the model of screening shirts with our logos.  Could I just say as well that if you want to propose the no-kiosk zone, to present that as a separate proposal on another day?
F: Mic check! We have our first friendly amendment. We’d like to close stack on friendly amendments.  Friendly Amendments  To simplify this proposal, why don’t we try buying large amounts of fabric and printing patches that can be sewn onto any article of clothing desired.
Response: We’ve already been doing that, it’s way easier to get donated sheets than donated t-shirts.  What if we adjust the price so that not much profit is made off of these shirts, in this way we can undercut the entrepreneurs and avoid capitalistic intention
Response: Our problem with the entrepreneurs is that they are selling blank t-shirts, and they pocket the donations and then I screen the t-shirts, and then the occupy movement doesn’t get any donations.  My amendment is that you do teach-ins for a week about why …will help the cause immensely.
Response: I think there are people who know more about this than I do, so I don’t feel comfortable lecturing about political graphics. But thank you.
F: At this point, no more FAs. We will take a temperature check on this proposal. Please restate as concisely as possible the proposal.  The Screen Guild proposes to buy blank t-shirts to screen print OWS graphics. The dollar amount is $4,090 or less, depending on the type of t-shirt we buy. We are starting with 500 t-shirts, which we’ll probably go through in two days, but it’s a start and in the meantime we’d like everybody to check out our proposal online so that future proposals can have consensus on the type of t-shirts we buy.
F: It looks like most people like this. We’d like to ask if there are any blocks to this proposal. [no blocks]  If there are no blocks then we have reached consensus!
F: Real quick, just want to tell you all that facilitation is a rotating thing. And you’re all welcome and should take a turn as facilitation. There are daily meetings at 4;00PM at 60 wall street in the atrium, additionally every day there is facilitation at 5:00PM, to come. I don’t like doing this, ‘cause then I don’t have a say. Let’s remind ourselves to be compassionate with each other and respectful. We’re expressing our concerns, we are disagreeing with each other, but we are doing it in a way that is productive.
44.1.3.  Demands Working Group Proposal  My name is Chevisa Woods, here with Demands working group. We are people who have come to OWS and who think that OWS, in addition to the great work we are already doing, should make some demands. We are presenting our first demand to the GA. And now to go through the process. This is a quote from Frederick Douglass: “Power concedes nothing without a demand. It never did, and it never will.” First we have constructed a preamble: “We retain the right to make multiple and/or continuous demands of ourselves, our society, and our government, as there are numerous and varied problems to be addressed by our people’s movement. We reject the insinuation of connecting these demands to the support any political party. Demands are only one integral part of an already successful movement. Many of us wish to effect a dramatic transformation of our society and economy, in order that the 99% can control their workplaces, local communities, and the environment. This is offered to the GA as an initial, transitional demand, in the hope that others will follow, so we can build alliances with the workers, the homeless, the unemployed, and the undocumented. We expect that as the movement grows, our demands will grow. Our movement is just beginning. The demands we make and will make are just one of the ways we will take collective control of our common world and our common future. The demand is titled: Jobs for ALL – A Massive Public Works and Public Service Program. We demand a massive, democratically controlled public works and public service program, with direct government employment to create 25 million new jobs at good union wages. This is to be paid for by new taxes on wealth and the income of the rich, financial transactions and corporate profits, and reinstatement of the Glass-Steagall Act, as well as by ending all US wars, disbanding US mercenaries, ending aid to authoritarian military regimes, and closing military bases. The new jobs will aim to radically expand access to affordable education, health care, housing, and mass transit, and will be open to all, regardless of immigration status or criminal record.”

F: MIC CHECK. There has been some controversy about bringing up the discussion of demands at all. Some have noted that they believe at one point the GA said there would not be demands. We have noted on the back of the sheets that two instances that proposals have been brought to the GA concerned with demands. The first was brought September 27th. It was tabled. On 10/16, there was a discussion about a release of a statement in response to demands and the New York Times, saying that the GA has not reached a consensus regarding demands or the preamble. And that the list of New York Times demands was never presented to the GA. The source is the NYCGA website. We hope that we now collectively and democratically can discuss this topic of demands.
F: OPEN STACK for CQs. We first have a P of I. Demands validate the US government. Seeks the US government to allow us what are our rights.
PoP: There will be time for concerns. We are now opening stack for questions first, followed by concerns.
F: We have twenty-five minutes for this agenda item. This is obviously a discussion that will have a lot of input. Let’s remain respectful and remind ourselves that everyone will have an opportunity to speak. We have another PoI. Before she speaks, let’s clarify that a PoI is factual information that is directly relevant to this topic.
PoI: On the back of the paper it says that on September 27 the issue of demands was tabled. This is true, however, it was tabled because there was a proposal brought forward that the Demands working group is not an actual working group and did not have the ability to bring demands to the GA. There is live documentation of this on the live stream
PoP: I wanna make a recommendation to the Facilitation team. Conducting an open discussion like this with so many people and so many opinions all at the same time is going to be incredibly difficult, if not impossible, for everyone to feel like they’re heard. Can I recommend that we go into breakout groups….
F: Mic Check! That decision is up to the presenters of the proposal. Also, it is important to clarify that there is now a 24 hour proposal requirement for a proposal to be put to the GA. To clarify, there is a waiting period….Demands brought this to Facilitation yesterday about being on the agenda tonight. We have to respect that process that was taken on consensus in the Facilitation group.
F: One more PoP: If it is true as Marissa said, if this group is not in fact a working group but an affinity group, and it has been decided that an affinity group is not allowed to present proposals to the GA, that is a breakdown of process….

F: To respond very quickly, I agree that the difference between working groups and affinity groups should be clarified, for right now, given the current state of the …we are going to go ahead with this agenda item.
Response: We, the working group of Demands, are under the impression that we are a working group.  Clarifying Questions  My question is, who are we making these demands to?
Response: We are making these demands to our government, not in the expectation that they will fulfill them easily or at their own volition. They can only possibly fulfill these demands if they are forced to by a mass movement involving all parts of our society!
PoP: Responding to questions is a matter of responding to questions, not making a speech. I don’t even know what the answer to her question was.
F: Let’s have a question, a PoP, and the presenters of the proposal responding. Yelling out disrupts the process and creates a sense of chaos for everybody. Moving on to the next CQ.  You are issuing a demand. The previous GA had previously consensed not to issue demands. Is it your intention to repeal this consensus?
Response: As stated earlier and shown by the timeline that was taken off the NYCGA official website, we could not find a point where we had consensed upon not making demands.
PoI: As part of the Facilitation working group that created a document of institutional memory, we acknowledge that it is not complete. There are moments on there where it says no minutes available. There is a call at the bottom of the document for anyone to come forward who has minutes. So while we’ve done our best with this document, we acknowledge that it is incomplete. If anyone has a record of past GAs and proposals that they have consensed upon, those records are valid and still need to come forward. This whole GA and the record of its decisions is a work in progress.
PoI: We are currently creating a Youtube channel of all the past GAs.  I’m Eric. My question is this: Back in 1968, we and others occupied Columbia University. We had six demands. My question is this: From 1968, to the most recent movements in Egypt and Spain and Greece, has there been any movement that succeeded in creating social change that has not had demands? And therefore, do the makers of this motion feel as I do that this demand will win for us greater unity and greater support from the entire….?
PoP: This gentleman’s question was not to clarify the proposal but to speak on behalf of the proposal. That’s not a clarifying question.
Response: This proposal is absolutely about creating unity. I have attended a meeting of the NY Central Labor Council. Of the delegates in attendance, when I mentioned that OWS was considering a demand of this nature, they were highly enthusiastic, and agreed unanimously to support a march of hundreds of thousands around a demand for a public works program.
F: Once more, we ask that responses to points of process or responses to CQs be limited to responses to those questions. We have ten minutes longer for this topic. Closing stack for CQs.
PoI: According to my understanding, it’s problematic for a working group to speak to outside organizations and suggest that anything has been agreed upon by the GA that hasn’t been. It’s out of order.
F: The presenters of the proposal….
Response: At this meeting, I specified that the Demands working group was considering, not the GA, which was information that was already publicly available.  I have a clarifying question Two weeks ago at the Demands working group, PoP was not followed, we were not allowed to…why if there was a block of 14 to 11 to not even bring this to the GA, why is it here?
Response: We had a meeting three or four days ago, a lot has been happening. We did open the demand up to amendments. We spent three hours amending the demand through a consensus process. The meeting he is referring to was a very difficult meeting and difficult to get anything done, that’s all I can say.
PoI: I participated in this demands working group from the third meeting. Already at the third meeting a list of demands essentially identical to the paragraph you heard tonight was already approved by a quote unquote democratic process. We were not allowed to question….there was a block on bringing that list to the GA.
F: We’ve got another PoI: For the record, I went to the last two meetings of the working group. Last meeting there were at least four alternate preamble proposals discussed. One of them was adopted with modified consensus. In addition there were no less than six or seven radical changes and amendments to the demands. The minutes are available for anyone to read on the Yahoo group of the Demands group. Demandsows Yahoo group, also on the website.
PoI: I’m confused even if a few weeks ago there was a consensus not to have demands, isn’t everything we do a living document?
F: PoP: That’s a great concern but not a point of information.
F: PoP: It has been said many times that this one demand was allowed to be changed. However the last thing …tried to attend, tried to find this 6:00 meeting…were unable to find this meeting. At the meeting prior to that, there were no amendments possible, and this was available on live stream.
F: His point is legitimate that we are not following procedure. That does not justify misusing points of process, or points of information. The only way that this difficult conversation can proceed is to follow process. I know we’ve got a lot of emotions about this issue, but hold on, we are doing our best. You have to too.
PoI: I’ve facilitated the last Demands meeting. The only way we got anything passed even within Demands was with a modified consensus of three quarters. Demands has passed nothing with nine tenths consensus.
F: (PoI is factual information that is directly responding to some issue at hand. I’m not saying that’s not a PoI but I’m also not sure it is. After CQs there will be time to express concerns.)

F: The proposers want to respond to that PoI really quickly.

Response: We had adopted a three fourths consensus after we did not have any process of modified consensus because at our first two meetings we reached unanimous consensus, which means we reached consensus beyond nine tenths. But regardless, this section of the discussion is supposed to be addressing questions about the proposal right now.
F: We’ve already used up the hoped-for 35 minutes for this agenda item. As a facilitator, that is concerning. The time limits are not set in stone, but let’s bare it in mind. We still have over 10 people on stack for questions. I think we’ve only addressed one, and we haven’t even opened stack for concerns yet.
F: We’re going to take one more PoP and then hear CQs that followed process by getting on stack.
PoI: I was at the second meeting and what she just said was a lie [outbursts from all sides]
F: PoP: This is a point of process, this is used when the process we follow in a GA has been side-tracked. These are all valid concerns and questions. We need to respect the process of stack.
F: At this point we are going to hear another clarifying question. Can we make some space here for at least two members of Facilitation…  Is this one demand or multiple demands? I am concerned that some of the members or some of the people who are occupying and are part of this movement may disagree with some of the demands embedded in this single demand, and that may be a destructive force for the movement.
Response: We have extensively discussed how the demand can be achieved. There is a single demand which would not be workable or progressive without the sub-points.
F: We now have sixteen people on stack for CQs. Stack is now closed for CQs.  Although I agree we need a Demands group, my question is this: have you considered, by asking a criminal organization for jobs that they may very well give you jobs for nuclear plants, military establishments, GMOs,…?
F: Mic check!
PoP: Should we not, if we’re going to take extra time, decide how much time it’s going to be and take a temperature check?
F: Good call. Perhaps we should do that.
F: I appreciate that PoP but I still ask that you wait for us to acknowledge you.
F: Let’s proceed with suggesting another twenty minutes on this agenda item. Once we reach twenty minutes we can reassess. Temperature check on twenty more minutes. [positive]  The demand reads: We demand “democratically controlled” etc. We do not acknowledge the legitimacy or democratic capabilities of any political party presently existing to carry out our demands. We trust only ourselves.
F: There are now fifteen more CQs. Stack is closed on CQs. The person speaking lost her voice, so he’s going to speak for her.  I want to know why there is no explanation for how you considered achieving these demands? For example, I’m a teacher who would like to know how you propose to radically reform the education system?
Response: We would like to further specify things that have been discussed, such as free public education, but we may not have time. We’re going to continue for now with another CQ.
PoI: Specifics are available online.  It’s unclear to me what it means that this is a demand. We’re demanding from a government who you say we don’t think is legitimate to meet these demands. Are we demanding of ourselves, and if it’s the government, what are we going to do if they don’t do it? Are we going to leave if they do? What is this?
Response: Perhaps one way we can answer this good question is this: Look around, this crowd is great but this is not the 99%. This is exclusivity, and the way this demand is phrased can reach out and expand this struggle to parts of NYC that know nothing about this movement because for some reason, for some it seems controversial to make a political point, which is, we demand of ourselves first of all, like we said in the preamble. Public education for example is something we’re fighting for in our movement, to make the movement broader, these demands can help us do this.
Susan? [not here]
PoP: I’d like to know why my question was dismissed earlier, because it was a question with an example, but related to the actual demand.
Response: I don’t understand the CQ.
F: Mic Check! If I may, I think she’s asking that the group makes a number of demands that require specification about how those demands would be met. Education is one example, but there are several others.  I’m not asking for demands, just for clarification on why we should pass anything without knowing how it is going to be achieved specifically first.
Response: It will be achieved by a social movement. It is not the function of a social movement to propose detailed administrative procedures at the outset, but to unify us around something we need.  Could the presenters of this proposal clarify in what way it does not presuppose the legitimacy of the institutions to which the demand is made? As far as i’m aware, all revolutions started by making a demand to a state that could not fulfill them.
Response: The legitimacy of the government does not matter. We cannot ignore that it exists and has a chokehold on us.  If you’re not expecting a response from the government and you’re not articulating the specific needs, can you clarify the difference between current living documents like the principles of solidarity and the declaration of the occupation, what’s the difference between those and this demand?
Response: I’d like to answer that if I may. By making demands, we don’t send a message, in my opinion, that we expect the government to fulfill them or respond to them. We make these demands because they’re important to millions of Americans! For example, the issue of health care, of imprisonment, of jobs, it’s something that unifies our struggle along with everything else in this movement.  What’s the difference between what you’re proposing and the other documents I mentioned?
Response: The difference between this is that there are specific issues that must be addressed now, but the institutions that are destroying our people nationwide – I go from OWS to the different communities of the city, especially communities of color. There are serious issues of housing, health care, that are being…in Congress now, that will destroy all communities, particularly communities of color and the poor. They will not join us until issues of poverty are addressed,
F: Mic Check! Let’s all take a deep breath. We’re all doing good, we want to continue with the process. Let’s also ask that everyone in front please sit down. We want to remain calm as best we can. I also want to notify everyone that we have seven minutes left in the agreed-upon extended twenty minutes. We haven’t even come to close to answering all the CQs. We have to consider the possibility that we will not reach consensus tonight. There are a lot of possibilities for education…teach-ins that can continue this process.
F: The presenters hope to hear three questions at once, due to the time constraints for this meeting. Many of the questions raised have similar concerns, and maybe this way we can hear more and respond to more. From our perspective as Facilitators it’s the right of the presenters of the proposal to decide how often they respond. We are going to proceed with CQs. MIC CHECK.  The way the demand is phrased makes it seem as if a public jobs program is the only demand, when in reality there are several. Have you considered keeping the unions and the labor movement from taking over these demands? And, leaving out “ending wars”?  Stephanie: Is it your intention to the use the preamble, which gives essential context to your demand, everywhere the demand is published, as much as you have control over?  I would like to know if this one demand, which seems to be many demands, is going to apply to just to NY or to all of America, because in my opinion if we are going to make this demand as the central body of this movement it should apply to all of the US.
Response: (In reverse order): The GA would be endorsing this demand, and we would hope to use this demand to influence other people’s opinions so it would be read widely, and the GA can decide to make the demand official. On co-optation: I, and many of us, are very concerned about co-optation, and that is precisely why we need demands. For example, If we had this just as jobs program, Obama has a jobs program – but Obama cannot co-opt a demand in this form. Additionally many people have brought up this issue of several demands. A gentleman over there brought up concerns about how jobs could be democratically dispersed. The language was trying to get at the problem of how to avoid co-option. Nevertheless we recognize our faults of being such a small group. We were hoping to dialogue with you guys to make it better. Mic check!

F: We now have about two minutes left in the 20 minute extension. We have not even gotten to concerns. As a facilitator it is my suggestion that we hear the rest of the CQs and then table this agenda item so that there’s more opportunity for more of this feedback in a way that’s more productive and more direct to the group.
F: I would agree. However, I would like to be able to say that this conversation be able to continue next Saturday kind of like the situation with the spokes council so that we can engage in wider conversations, hear more concerns, talk about it more clearly, next Saturday.
F: Next Saturday is very far off in NYCGA terms. There will be plenty of time in the next week to figure out when next this discussion occurs. But it absolutely can and should.
F: There has been a request, and as Facilitation it is something that we typically do when there are a lot of thoughts on both sides in the GA. It’s a temperature check to see how people feel about this proposal. After questions, perhaps we should take a temperature check before saying we’re going to table the issue. Mic check!  My question is, and it’s a very simple question, when was Demands Group registered as an official NYGCA working group? The only reason I ask this is because I had a difficult time attending your meetings. There was no information at the Information desk. And I want to know also if your minutes are available on the NYGCA website.
PoI: I believe that about a month and a half ago, not exactly sure of the date, I registered this working group with the proper forms that were given to me by Info, at the Info desk. I also forwarded the information in an email to Lea that same week to verify that she had received our forms. I never got an email back, but I was told by Information that we had been properly registered.
F: We have two PoPs. Then we will continue to finish these CQs.
PoP: I think it’s good to have this piece of information, but the previous question and the information has very little to do with the actual proposal. These questions, the validity of this group could be answered at Facilitation work group, and continuing to bring it up sounds like prejudice and derailment.
PoP: Earlier it was said by someone that the document that was being presented was approved by ¾ majority. In that case, how is it order to have this proposal?
F: Mic Check! There are obviously a lot of concerns with this working group’s meetings, but I reiterate that this is not the time to make those concerns heard. There is a proposal on the table, and it has already been agreed by this working group to table this proposal for further discussion. Let me ask that we finish the CQs. Once we do that, we will take a temperature check on whether or not to open stack for concerns. If people really want to continue this conversation here, we will of course have to respect the feeling of the entire GA.
PoP: When, in your opinion, is an appropriate time to question the transparency of a group that is offering a proposal?
F: That is not a PoP. The question is legitimate though. I invite this working group, this group, to be very open at the end of this agenda item, and going forward, with its meeting time and further opportunities for people to give feedback on this obviously contentious issue.
F: I would also like to suggest that this issue of questioning this working group could be brought to the GA as an agenda item on a future day, because they brought this proposal to the GA, and it seems a lot of the people in the GA are unhappy with the proposal or in disagreement with this working group, so perhaps it would be an option to explore this through the same avenue that this group is.
F: Next up for CQ: Ashley  I wanted some clarity on the great Frederick Douglas quote that you guys presented with your proposal, which said that power concedes nothing without a demand, it never did and it never will. Was this included with the proposal because, while it’s great to have marches and get angry and get arrested, that closed mouths that do not ask for demands do not get fed? Are we hungry, or do we just want to throw temper tantrums? I think we need demands. Thank you.
F: That was not a CQ.
Next up: Betty [not here] Mic Check!
F: That’s the end of CQs. They want to respond to the CQ, which is their right. [One more on stack.]  My question is, in what way does this demand address the issue of accountability from big businesses for the fiscal crisis of 2008, including the massive bonuses received by CEOS in that year? One of my issues that I brought to this occupation was a search for justice for economic crimes committed in recent years.
Response: I will respond for this one. I too thought that the most important thing to bring up initially was corporate personhood and the lack of accountability corporations have of the power that influences our lives. However, contrary to some beliefs, we don’t all agree in the Demands working group. We had a lot of heated discussion, and I realized that that was important to my peers, but more important to them right now, first up, was jobs. It’s important to me too. So I listened, and we agreed to go this route. And now I hope, moving forward in meetings that you are all welcome to attend, we can discuss more and different demands.
F: Mic Check! We’re going to have one more response from the presenters. After that we’re done with CQs. It’s their request that we take a temperature check on whether or not the GA wants to proceed with a ten minute concerns stack. That’s up to you, we’ll take a temperature check after this.  The question was posed, why was the Frederick Douglas quote used before the preamble? For those who know black history it’s very obvious that Frederick Douglas was a slave, and he didn’t have the opportunity to get angry and go on pretty little marches. His demand was for freedom, and he said “Agitate” even his deathbed. I can’t imagine agitation without demands.
F: Mic Check! There was a woman here under the impression she was on stack, so let’s please hear her question.  My question is regarding the wording of the demands. You state that you want to tax the rich. Who are the rich? I believe we should be clearer.
Response: I can respond to this. We had ample debate about what constitutes “the rich”. That term is what we agreed upon in our small group, once again hoping to come here and consult with a broader basis that would amend, tear up, fix, make it better, other representation of our collective ideals.
F: Mic Check! We have now spent an hour on this agenda item. We have one P of I and then we will take a temperature check about extending this conversation for ten minutes. If it is clear that this GA wants to continue this conversation for ten more minutes even though they know that this proposal is already tabled for now, then we will do that, but we will not go beyond those ten minutes.
PoI: To address his concerns, he said this proposal does not contain anything concerning the banks. That’s not true. It proposes that we reinstate the Glass-Steagall Act, which already exists in Congress, HR1489. It already has 49 co-sponsors. I know that people think Congress doesn’t work anymore, I understand that, but there are a few good people in there that are still proposing legislation, and as FDR said to one of his constituents, make a movement, go out there, and make me do what you want me to do!
F: To clarify, a PoI is not an opportunity to express your support for a proposal. That first half was informative. The second half was not.
F: We are now taking a temperature check on whether or not to open stack for ten minutes on concerns. The question is whether or not to continue this conversation now. [mixed, mostly negative]  Keeping in mind this proposal is already tabled. The response is very mixed. The presenters feel comfortable tabling this conversation until future notice. I invite everybody to find out from them, online and at Info, when their meetings meet. They’re going to explain right now, briefly, when their meetings meet, and then we’re going to move on to our final agenda item.
Response: Our next meeting will be on Tuesday, 7PM at 60 Wall St. And our minutes are available online. We also have Yahoo groups open to all, OWSdemands. Mic check! Our minutes are at the Demands Working Group logo on the NYCGA.NET website.
F: Thank you so much for your proposal and your patience.
F: Thank you for bearing with all of us, especially for Facilitation.
F: The last Agenda item is an emergency proposal from Direct Action. We will try to keep this to fifteen minutes.
44.1.4.  Direct Action Emergency Proposal  In light of the unexpected raids on five major occupations, this past week, Direct Action is requesting $3,000 to purchase equipment for an emergency park defense strategy. This will include creating multiple human lockdowns throughout the park. We believe that this coordinated response will provide time for community support and a massive media presence to gather, and that this will be sufficient to deter any police attempt at eviction. If you would like to participate in the continued development of this emergency response plan, we invite you to attend a Direct Action meeting weekdays at 2PM at the Trinity graveyard. Thank you.
F: So let’s open stack for CQs. I’d like to thank our stack taker who is from Occupy DC!  Clarifying Question  Could you quickly give us a rundown or itemization on what exactly the $3,000 will be spent on?
Response: the $3,000 will be used for U-locks that will be used to secure people to each other and stationary objects. The specifics of the plan, due to security culture, cannot be released fully, but if you would like to know more, attend the Direct Action meeting.  [pass]  My question, but also a concern about that, on transparency. Can you show at least what a U lock is?
Response: [example shown] This is an 11 grid U lock, it takes ten minutes to saw through this with an industrial strength grinder. Each one costs $100.
F: We’d like to close stack for CQs.  Has this tactic been used before elsewhere, and can you describe how that went?
F: Stack is now closed for CQs.
Response: Locking down is a really old tactic. It’s used a lot. To go into every time it’s been used requires us to stay here for a couple of weeks. This would be a hard lock, we can talk more about what that is at Direct Action tomorrow if you want, where we discuss things like tactics and their effectiveness. Or maybe after GA.
PoI: You can go to any website where people lock themselves in trees in Oregon any time in the last fifty years to see this tactic used by both single people and multiple people.  Do you have a plan for addressing the use of tear gas and other problems that might arise if you chain people together, and one suggestion is you get one of the unions representing EMTs and Paramedics, I’m representing one of them from Seattle today, to see if they would provide people to provide assistance to anyone who might be hurt on the spot.
Response: That’s great. We’ve been thinking about that too. We don’t like to be pepper sprayed. The people who would be locking down would be making a choice to be subjected to that. So come to the Direct Action meeting to talk about the options or come see me to participate in the blockade training that Ruckus will be conducting on Thursday, time TBD.
F: Now opening stack for concerns.  Concerns  Where is the DA meeting being held? 2PM in the Trinity graveyard.  For the U locks to cover a great distance, $3,000 accounts for 30 locks, correct?
Response: This is a tactical: with cast iron pipe between 2 people, interlocking hands inside the pipe, potentially with handcuffs in between, these 30 people can cover a much greater distance.
F: If you have suggestions for specific DA tactics, please go see them. I’m sure they’d love to hear from you. This is a time for concerns about this proposal.  Would the $3,000 have any funding for protection from pepper spray and tear gas?
Response: The $3,000 wouldn’t be spent only on U locks. Obviously we need to prepare for things like pepper spray, and buy things for lock boxes like that gentleman suggested. If you’d like to be part of the park defense plan, which hopefully will have a budget of $3,000, we can discuss these things further!
F: Stack is now open for friendly amendments. [none]
F: Closing stack for FAs.
F: Temperature check about this proposal. [lots of positive, a few middles]
F: Are there any blocks to this proposal? [none]  Alright, we’ve reached consensus. [cheers!]
F: Mic check! That’s the end of the agenda items for tonight. Next up, working group report backs. Please get on stack for WGRBs.

44.2.  Working Group Report Backs

F: Mic check! So far, on stack, for WGRBs, I have Direct Action and Sustainability. Is there another group that would like to be on stack?
44.2.1.  Direct Action has three marches to report. Tomorrow 11AM there will be a march to Governor …..’s office. This march will be protesting the expiration of the millionaire’s tax. Sorry, my apologies. That’s Tuesday. Tomorrow is Halloween. For Wednesday we have a pair of marches that are twinned. They are the Occupy Oakland solidarity marches. From 10Am to 4PM we’ll be marching on Wall Street. This will be a circular march, we will keep walking. We will bring brooms and Simple Green, and we will clean up Wall Street. There is another march leaving at 5Pm. Going to City Hall and 1 Police Plaza. It intends to be back in time for the spokes council. The third march we have to anounce is for November 18. It is a civil rights rally followed by prayers. They are marching against CIA and NYPD repression. 12-4pm, Foley Square.
44.2.2.  I’m from Sustainability. Due to the diligence of Occupy Boston and a bunch of people from Occupy New York, tomorrow there will be another bike generator in operation.
44.2.3.  Working group from Principles of Solidarity and Consolidation, which has been working to consolidate and synthesize vast inputs of principles going to meet at 2PM, Charlotte’s Place, Tuesday, unless we get really big, then we’ll move to 60 Wall St. This is our first big meeting, you are all invited to help synthesize. Thanks!
44.2.4.  Vision and Goals: Meets every day of the week. MWF 5:30 PM to 7PM and Th, Sat Sun, noon to 1:30 pm, always at 60 Wall St. at the Atrium. We especially invite people living in the camp, because we don’t have enough people living in the camp at the meetings. We also invite people marginalized due to their race, gender, gender identity, socioeconomic level, religion, or anything else. Thank you.

44.2.5.  Arts and Culture: Olma: It’s Occupy Halloween! We’ve been invited to be a part of the NYC Halloween parade. So if anyone wants to join the parade, show up tomorrow, 6th Ave and Grant, between 5 and 6PM to line up. If you want to join a specific group like corporate zombies or Anonymous masks, go to to check out the group contacts. All costumes are welcome. We also need pacers. If you can volunteer please see me, or email me at We also need trucks to move giant puppets, an emergency situation because our transportation has fallen through.
F: End of WGRBs, opening stack for Announcements. Announcements are statements of factual information, such as time and place of a future march or demonstration or notable speaker. This is not the time to give your opinions. There will be time after the GA for Soapbox. That’s the time to express all your personal opinions.

44.3.  Announcements

F: Stack is now open for announcements.
44.3.1.  Mic check! Greetings form Occupy Atlanta! You inspire us! I’ll keep this brief. I am returning to Occupy Atlanta tonight. I am driving. I do not need gas money. I am wondering if anyone wants to go south with me. I have space in my car, and some music. I will be at this corner in 10 minutes. If you would like to participate in this conversation please join me. Liberty and Broadway right at the light. Occupy Atlanta needs your fresh and positive energy. Thank you all. It’s 10 to 15 degrees warmer!
44.3.2.  I’m a mom from Occupy Boston here to give and receive knowledge. I’m around until the 4th. If you want to talk to me, go to the Info desk to communicate.
44.3.3.  I just heard there were 46 cases of hypothermia last night and two people went to the hospital, so the situation with the generators is very serious.
F: Closing stack on announcements.
44.3.4.  Hi my name is Steve, I’m from Occupy San Diego. Just wishing solidarity, and I’m going to be here tomorrow, and keep up the good work.
F: Stack is now closed for announcements.
44.3.5.  Hello my name is Ashley, there is a new working group staring called WON, which stands for Women Occupying Nations, this is a closed group and safe space for women only. We are addressing the UN regarding a logo that was created to be the new human rights logo. It was created this year, it is a dove with a hand, and the logo is “free as a man”. We believe it should be “Free as a human”. If you people are interested, meet me at the cube after the GA. Thank you.
44.3.6.  Occupy DC is in solidarity with you! I also wanted to say that I had the great fortune of working with a group called Students Occupy DC to hold a 150 person student march and rally against student debt and student loans on Friday. This would not have been possible without the folks from OWS, who also inspired students across the world, and as a student I just want to say thank you. Thank you!
F: That concludes this GA. Thank you so much. Soapbox is open.

2 Responses to “NYCGA Minutes 10/30/2011”

  1. Zoë

    These minutes reflect the consensus process very differently than the others, and I’m curious about whether the process has actually changed or not. From previous minutes, I thought the process went something like this: Proposal. Clarifying Questions. Concerns. Friendly Amendments. Re-statement of Proposal with any Friendly Amendments. Blocks. TEMP CHECK FOR CONSENSUS. This last step seems to be missing during this GA, from how I read the minutes. I didn’t think that no blocks equaled consensus. Can anyone clarify for me?!


  2. Zoë

    (By the way, very thoroughly taken minutes, kudos to the minutes-takers!)