NYC Operational Spokes Council 11/21/2011

Posted by & filed under Assemblies, Spokes Council Minutes.

NYC OPERATIONAL SPOKES COUNCIL DAY 66

Date/Time: 11/21/2011 / 7:30PM

Location: 65 Walker Street

Facilitators (F): Marissa and Ethan

 

[Editor’s Note: Anytime someone speaks from the council but has not put their name on stack will be marked with a [SC]]

 

SUMMARY

66.1.  Introduction & Process Discussion

66.2.  Announcements/Report Backs

66.3.  Legal Proposal (Raising Bail Cap)

66.4.  Announcements

F: We are going to get started.

F: Hi good evening everyone we have someone to do an intro right here.

Opener: Hi everybody my name is Emery. For those who don’t know, this is Amy. This is Ted, this is Becky. We are going to do the penguin dance but we need assistance. Stand up.  It will start slow but it will pick up.  If you want to be a penguin act just like me…penguin at attention, penguin at salute, right flipper, left flipper, right leg, left leg…..Dancing!!

Alright then! I don’t know about you all, if we had coordinated on eviction night the NYPD would be confused. We would still be in the park for GA, take that back.

 

66.1.  Introduction and Process Discussion

F: Everyone could sit down that would be helpful. We are going to wait a minute for everyone to find their seats and settle in.

F: So how is everybody doing? Fine.

F: Hi I am Marissa I am going to be co-facilitator tonight.

F: I am Ethan and I would like to co-facilitate if that is cool with you. [positive] Some other folks: Stephen on time, Ted vibes, step up. Elain stack, Jason stack, Chris facilitation, greeting. Danny, scribe ideas on paper.

F: Before we start who is here? Go around, if you are spoking say your name and group. Raise your sign so we can visualize

Attendance: Screen Printing Guild, Minutes, DA, mobile Occupation , Comfort, Media, OWS drum group, POC, Solidarity, Training, Community Alliance, Sustainability, Movement building, SIS, WoW, Arts and culture, Fire safety, Tech, Occupiers with restrictive diets and alternate kitchen, Education, Translation, Cigarettes, Info, Occupy dignity (listening only), Finance, Black feather-info widespread to reach those who don’t have text or email, Legal, Facilitation, Kitchen, People’s Library, Press, Medical, Safer space, Support, Outreach, Design, Tea herbal medicine, Town Planning.

F: Has anyone not picked up your sign?

[No]

F: So now we are going to jump into reviewing community agreements over the past few meetings. These are intended for us to establish the norms for how we want to work together as a group. Listen and don’t interrupt; WAIT (why am I talking); stay on process; be respectful; no shouting out; rotate spokes; no name calling; active de-escalation; and spokes speak to the whole room.

F: Before we move forward, any pressing community agreements, anything else not on this list you want included, like how are we going to operate?

F: Are we cool with keeping the ones we have?

SC (Nan): Do not gossip about other groups last week and we that’s not there, it will be added.

SC (Nicole): Can I suggest trust, intent, nothing anyone says is trying to hurt you. We are all trying to work together and it’s not personal.

F: So for the last couple of sessions we have been having conversations about where we are as a movement. In light of the raid we wanted to talk about immediate needs so we broke out into groups and made priorities.

Q: Where are we going to be speaking about the movement [groups]?

F: Just to clarify, there is not a movement spokes council (SC). Maybe there will be, but we would like to move forward with the occupational SC.

F: Any group that was movement may be wondering how do they participate, we still have a GA to have larger conversation. The people that are here are stakeholders in moving forward on logistical and operational needs.  We are feeling like this is a whole community making decisions, less concerned about those delineations.

F: What we are going to propose for tonight is move forward with our topmost priorities. We are at a moment where we will need to reevaluate where our process is and how it works.

SC: Can we turn down the lights?

F: We are wanting to acknowledge we are going as if we thinking as if SC is moving forward with this spokes council. Perhaps there will be something as we move forward perhaps an ah hoc group to address structural issues in light of the emergency situation.

F: For tonight, to meet the needs of tonight, do folks want to move forward with this process?

F: So we are treating ourselves as a SC, not a forming group. We are all here invested in this process while acknowledging there are issues that will need to be resolved.

Sully: This is just a PoI. This sort of question of ambiguity about membership for this group and opinions about how that process could be better and more inclusive. What I would like to suggest, I am going to have an ad hock meeting tomorrow at 2pm at 60 Wall Street to put together a proposal to better handle membership process.

F: For tonight we want to address announcements from housing, legal and finance, and some of the main priorities from Friday at the end of the agenda.

F: Proposed agenda includes priorities from Friday’s meeting. They are: Space, communication, outreach, and action. And we want to follow up by breaking out and coming back.

F: Straw poll if folks are all right moving forward with the process we have been using.  If you are unable to make that meeting drop your ideas in the comment box to figure out how this process works.

F: Confer with spokes, raise your sign if you are ok with moving forward.

F: Bringing it back. There is a lot to do tonight so at last week’s SC. Nalini brought this really cool hand signal. Respect the house (hand together at a point above your head). We are all in this together. I’m going to use it to bring us back.

F: Bringing it back just to have that straw poll one more time, signs with those not ok with moving forward?  One sign, does the person who raised that sign want to speak?

Sage: Maybe we should hear options instead of yes or no, options are better.

F: That’s great feedback. Since it’s not a block, I think we should move forward and I will incorporate that feedback into how we run the meetings.

F: I didn’t hear the sign of respect, respect the house, bring it back to center as opposed to mic check. I am going got try using it to see if it works.

F: So we are moving on which is great.

 

66.2.  Announcements

66.2.1.  Housing (Max): We don’t have Judson tonight. They never thought they could keep us this long. We have three other churches, just text that comm number listed up front. The more important part is this: after Tuesday night we don’t have any churches. Behavior has not been ideal. We are not sure if we will get them back. Synagogues, other options and schools, but it would be really helpful to know who else is working on this, who else is looking into housing options.

F: Have any groups here been working directly on housing? Please give a thirty second report back. We will open a stack, not questions just information. Let’s open stack. We are taking stack for folks who have info about housing.

F: We will be having a breakout later about space.

F: If there is none that’s ok too.

66.2.1.1.  Greg: In an emergency people can sleep in the Staten Island ferry terminal in the chairs. In the terminal tons of …

PoI: They have dogs there.

66.2.1.2.  Sage: If you have a sleeping bag I have two spots if you can sleep on a hardwood floor see Sage.

F: Last meeting we said that there was a subgroup meeting after to discuss space. That delegation might want to contribute on this.

66.2.1.3.  Occupy Newark: If it’s feasible for someone to pay for the PATH ticket, I am from Newark and we are actively seeking people.

F: Occupy Newark is taking people in during the weekend for now.

F: Comm has been working on how to communicate.

66.2.1.4.  Housing (Max): If you have information about housing, if you can help out finding housing please call this number: (917) 524-8732. If you are working on housing and you can help us out, if you any other info that the movement needs to know about, also call that number. If you want to join the text loop text @owscom to 23559.  I’m going to go over the churches: First, Riverside at 490 Riverside Drive, 120th street. Next, St. Paul and Andrew 263 west 86th Street. There will be a system checking you at the door otherwise we aren’t going to be able to stay there.

F: That number is written up on the board.

F: Five more on stack and we are going to close.

66.2.1.5.  Comfort: There is the Parsons Occupation, they can fit 140. You may or may not need a student ID. I was there the other night, thirty people were staying there. It’s for everyone if they let you in.

Sage: You don’t need an ID but they are screening at the door.

Community Alliance (CA): I thought we had both churches through tomorrow as well.

Housing (Max): Yes, Tuesday is the last night.

66.2.1.6.  CA: We had a team after Judson closed. We put in more strict rules for living there. I think the problems are going to be over for tonight. We have a team there.

Benedict: Right now there is a spokes council for 040, squatters rights, not affiliated but some OWS people are there. But it may be something that people are interested in getting involved with at 55 3rd Street Catholic Worker.

66.2.1.7.  Anthony: Tomorrow at 5:30 we are meeting at 60 Wall Street to discuss new space. We are pressuring Trinity to give us space at 6th and Canal. You can call them to ask as well.

SC: One of the members led the New School Occupation. Ask for Michele, that may help you get in.

SC: They may not let people in there tonight because there was a student march that came to the school, became a violent confrontation. It may not be the best place to go after the circumstances tonight based on today.

Q: Can you clarify what times the churches close and what time people need to leave?

A: I don’t know any times. I know that that 86th Street closes around 11 or 11:30. The later you show up the more we are causing trouble. It will take you a while to get there. Riverside opens at 9 and I don’t know what time they close, I think they are open all night.

F: That’s it for this stack and this announcement. If you have questions call the number.

66.2.2.  Finance: We have two general announcements. We handed out a form for general budget gathering.

F: At the end we will give them out.

66.2.2. (continued) Finance: If you can get it to Finance, do it.  Desk is back open 50 Broadway 12-5pm.  If you want that 100 limit cash we are back up.

66.2.3.  SC (Adam): At GA on Saturday it was announced that the one week notice was given to dissolve the Spokes Council. I will be happy to answer questions, it’s not my proposal but it’s out there.

F: In the SC proposal there is a section that states if a group or an individual wants to abolish Spokes they have to go to GA and give a weeks notice to both GA and SC.

SC: One more bit, it will be on the 29th that it will be debated at the GA.

Q: Who is bringing it up?

A: Trish.

F: If this is something you care about you should go to that GA (11.29).

66.2.4.  Public Relations (PR): I’m not a spokes but I’ll address. There is a site that just launched occupywallstreet.net that was purchased by our GA. Reports to be the official site of the OWS movement.  PR has issues about that language. There are many concerns. We hope some people in our community share the concerns that a single entity could be the official site. Please address this when we breakout.

F: Is there a meeting outside of this meeting for folks want to discuss this?

PR: I was thinking breakouts but if not we can have a meeting.

F: Let’s put it on the bike rack but we have a lot going on.

66.2.5.  Tech: Over the past couple of weeks we have been beta testing voting systems. We’ve begun public workshops.  We have had clickers to generate stack, temp check, etc. in real time. We would like to invite everyone to come and test these products. Our intention is to introduce a proposal. Our meetings are at 60 Wall Street, Monday at 3pm, Wednesday at 5pm, Friday 3pm, Sunday 3pm. Information is online, look for the Internet group under the events section.

66.2.6.  DA: Yesterday we had a passing-of-the-torch event with civil rights activists. It went very well. We are pressuring under Trinity, we are tenting around the city, tabling at the park every day, developing a database so everyone can get plugged into the DA meeting. Once established you can get into by coming to the park.

F: Medical, info movement building and that’s it for announcements.

66.2.7.  Communications: Comm cluster went really well today we are going to keep doing them every Monday and Thursday at 2pm at the Atrium, if you want to help comm get on the same page.

F: If you have great ideas but are not in a comm group there is space for you.

66.2.8.  Movement Building: On Saturday there will be a conference call for emerging occupations. If you have a group that has something to share with occupations getting off the ground, finance, kitchen, housing, etc., get in touch with me so we can get you on the call this Saturday. See me!

66.2.9.  Medical: After the raid our stuff got taken. None of our stuff is at sanitation, including charts and prescriptions. We are trying to develop a lawsuit for violating HIPA. If anyone remembers when they came to see us, come see us now so we can get you on another chart or prescription. If you had prescriptions there come see us right now. We are reorganizing, so we don’t have a constant presence. We do have a twenty-four hour phone number: (917) 657-6845 and also we have talked with several doctors and unions on a press release we will be releasing tomorrow.

F: Thank you amazing groups.

 

66.3.  Legal Proposal: Raising Bail Cap

66.3.1.  Legal: We have a few things to say. Originally when the occupation started anybody could bailed out but with a cap on $1,000.  No one was getting bail set, few prior convictions. Now a few months later many of you have prior convictions and many of you are getting bail set and a lot of the bail is over $1,000 and we are working out revising the process for getting bail. We are asking for you to lift the $1,000 cap.

F: Working with the consensus that we had at the beginning of this meeting we empowered each spoke to make a decision on this proposal to temporarily lift the cap on bail for Legal until they bring a more comprehensive proposal. Spokes confer with your group.

F: Some of you might be new, each spoke speaks when we come back. We are conferring and we will come back, then your spoke can speak.

F: We are going to bring it back. Legal requested we take five more minutes. You can continue to discuss.

F: We are going to bring it back. Thank you so much for your patience. So many groups here dealing with this crazy situation, we are in a lot of CQs and so much to get done tonight. We are going to start with CQs. Opening stack on the proposal from Legal to temporarily lift the bail limit until they bring an official proposal.

66.3.2.  Clarifying Questions

66.3.2.1.  Mobile Occupation: What is the timeline for the full proposal? And the amount of people this applies to? So we understand what this looks like for the budget. And is there a new cap in place of the $1,000?

A: The timeline is we had hoped to bring one tonight, hopefully before the end of the week but it might be next because it is Thanksgiving this week. New caps will be addressed in the new proposal. We are hoping to set up a bail escrow account. We do not have a new cap yet. It applies to five to ten people but we expect more.

Legal: Right after I just made that proposal people were attacking me from all sides. Please address the group.

66.3.2.2.  Solidarity: We just had a discussion amongst us four. We came to a conclusion on what we thought would be fair for a grandfather clause so people avoid being arrested in the future. [This upset the group] It would be good to know what people did appreciate.

66.3.2.2. (continued) Solidarity: Is there anything to do with someone’s prior arrest, does this affect whether or not they will be bailed out?

A: There are a lot of nuances on how bail is set. Usually bail implies a prior arrest but maybe not conviction. There are a lot of politics in that question: race politics, class politics. That will be included in our proposal. We are going to flesh that out in our proposal next week. Our working group doesn’t want to decide who is getting bailed out and who has to suffer in the prison industrial complex. Because of that and because we are getting a lot of pushback, we want to change the proposal. There is someone in jail right now.  We need $25,000 to get this individual out of jail ASAP.

F: Because this proposal has been changed we are going to give you a few more minutes to talk about the new proposal.

F: We are going to bring it back. Mic check! Thanks ya’ll for recognizing there are a lot of questions. We are going to keep this discussion to twenty minutes so we can address all the other issues we have. If you hear your question take your name off stack. First on stack to allocate $25,000 to bail someone out of jail.

66.3.3. Legal: Two clarifications. First, when you pay out bail, when the person shows up for the duration of their time with the court we are fronting this money and it will be returned to us. Second, the legal working group feels very strongly that it is not the working group’s choice to make.

66.3.3.1.  Finance: Two clarifications First, when bail comes back the money goes to the person who is bailed out and it will be up to them to return us.  Second, the one that won’t cause debate. We have a standing process that deals with bail to make it not a political process. There is a process that had been developed within the first two weeks to make sure bail allocation is not a political discussion. It will take a long time to read but we can.

F: CQs to get someone out of jail.

66.3.4.  Clarifying Questions

66.3.4.1.  SIS: Who is the person, why is it so high and what is the reason?

Legal: Bail comes back to the person who signs for the bail. We can answer the question if you want as a group to have all the details out on the floor, but the political details… as Legal we have been talking about this a lot. We think we shouldn’t have to go through the details of the individuals we support movement wide. We will leave it up to you and would like to address other questions and if we need to flesh it out we can do it then.

66.3.4.2.  SC: We had a similar question. We were concerned why the bail was so high and does is have to do with the person violating our principles of solidarity?

Legal: Since that is in the same vein and we have internal dialogue about revealing the specifics of the case and we are going to wait, our opinion is that they did not violate the principles. We want to actively express that is not everybody opinion.

F: Can Legal talk amongst yourselves and generate a response to these questions?

F: Are there CQs that don’t pertain to the specifics of the case?

66.3.4.3.  Visions and Goals: Why aren’t you using a bail bondsman for the big amounts where you have to pay 10 or 15%? You don’t get that back.

Legal: Can you clarify what that is?

Visions and Goals: He will take this risk and will front the money for us.

Legal: We have been talking to a bail bondsman, it’s not our preferred option.

66.3.4.4.  Lopi: Whether or not the legal team is considering negotiating the bail down?

Legal: That is not on the table.

66.3.4.5.  Medical: Doing the whole bail, who would be the one taking the bail, someone part of jail support?

A: I believe Legal and Finance would skip happily hand in hand to deliver $25,000 to the fucking man to get our people out of jail.

Another legal member: Just to be clear we aren’t happy but we will do it.

Medical: So could this be a part of the support team?

Legal: The people who are waiting at central booking rotate, I don’t know your questions exactly. A medic would be welcome to go with them. We need more help at central booking for jail support.

66.3.4.6.  Medical: Regarding the whole raising the bail thing if a person is being accused of a capital offense would you still support that?

Legal: I want to clarify that question, I think it is in the proposal that is coming. There are a whole bunch of what ifs and the proposal will address that. We don’t want to ignore or dismiss those questions.

F: We are going to close stack on CQ’s. Please let’s have one mic.

66.3.4.7.  Gabriel: (Religious Life WG) We would like to propose to give us funding for basic funding to buy basic supplies.

F: There was an announcement from Finance that they have a budget form that you can fill out to try and get those needs met. Right now we are going to go back to clarify questions about this proposal.

66.3.4.8.  POCC: I wanted to know, maybe its specific details, what are the implications if the individual is not bailed out.

Legal: I am going to let people who have been doing jail support on the group take that question.

Jail Support: If people are not bailed out, and I would like to remind you anyone can be arrested for anything, heroin, domestic violence, etc., that doesn’t mean you have done it. That’s why we have our system and part of the reason we are having this movement. The implications are that you stay in a cell until your trial and likely in this case you will be sent to Rikers and those who are in this situation tend to be young poor black men and we want you to understand why Legal wants to badly for you to be mindful.  They will stay for months in Rikers until their court date.

66.3.4.9.  Nan: The first question is I heard the union had gave OWS $75,000 to bail people out? Second how much exactly does Finance have right now and how much do they cough up on bail?

Legal: No that’s a rumor, we don’t have that money.

Finance: We are on stack. I’d like to address it when we get on stack.

66.3.4.10.  Outreach (Eli): I just want to know what other exceptions for this cap have been made in the past.

F: Finance can answer that when they get up.

F: Hey everyone this is obviously – a very complex issue.

We can’t hear you.

F: This is such a complex issue….

F: Two different discussions are going on. There’s a process for who gets bail and who doesn’t get bail…

Finance: In the future once we hit a certain monetary limit we would discuss it. We’re not ready to do that yet… there is a specific individual who needs $25k bond to get out….

I’m shaking right now… just to do a little context info, this is generally the process we’ve been working on for how you get bail money: First, you’re part of OWS. Second, our understanding is that we pay bail with things associated to OWS. Third, if you have an outstanding crime in another state, we do not want to be a weird way to pay people’s bail. This bail proposition went before the GA twice.. this is the process we’ve been working on so far. We as finance…

F: Based on the 25k proposal…

Nan: Can you let him finish?

Finance:  …oh crap if we don’t get them bail they’re going to Rikers… Finance feels bad about this (going over $1,000). Number four, non-violent offences. We understand in a non-violent protest – cops say whatever they want to. Number five, a percentage of funds went towards bail. We had a hard time coming up with a percentage, we’re about at that limit now. ..about $10k now. This is how Finance has been operating bail, it’s how Finance understood GA. We feel if we’re going to have this discussion about this one…$25k, it sucks, they go to Rikers.

Finance: 501C3  informed by ACT UP…they showed us if you deal with 501C3,,, it’s something we have to talk to lawyers about, we have never had to deal with $25k before….

Finance: I can give you a number, but the total amount of money we have doesn’t matter because it can’t all go towards bail. We have approx $450k in the bank. We do not have access to that money right now, some of it is still pending. We cannot use it for bail.

Legal: It’s not Legal working group’s understanding that this is how we’ve been … we understood it as everyone gets bail. There’s disagreement here between Legal and Finance.. we have to look at the minutes.

Legal: Those five points are not the framework the Legal working group has been operating… the proposal …

Legal: So we feel prepared to talk about the specifics if that’s the direction the group wants to move.

66.3.4.11.  Screening Printing Guild – my question was answered

66.3.4.12.  Facilitation working group:  We would like to know if there are other people in jail who have bail over $1,000 and if there is, why is this person ($25k) taking priority over them.

Legal: We’re talking about it – there are people being arrested right now.

F: Originally we wanted to limit this conversation to twenty minutes. We’ve gone past that. We’re going to do, following Legal, a breathing exercise.

F: Legal is ready.

Legal: Ok so the answer to that question is that a young queer African American male, who should not be sent to Rikers, he has $2,000 bail. He will be savaged if he’s sent to Rikers.

F: The question was why are we isolating this one person who has a $25k bail.

F: There’s other arrests happening, but we’re only talking about this one person….

F: So there is someone in jail with bail of $2,000, the question would be how does Legal… Why prioritize…

Legal: We want to get everyone out of jail as soon as possible. We just want to get the $1,000  limit lifted…our priority objective is this $25k and now $2k guy out of jail….I’m getting mixed messages from my group, we need to discuss.

F: Let’s do a breathing exercise real quick.

F: Full inhale, full exhale… two more times, all deep in… out…. One more… fully out… feel the ground underneath you, supporting you. Center yourself and your heart. Then come back to the room… clear perspective…. Thank you everyone….

Mic Check:  I’m speaking as an individual – I can’t believe we’re having a conversation about whether or not our comrade should get out of jail. I’m going to speak about my experience of one night in jail, which is not a long time… we got peanut butter sandwiches with this much peanut butter on it – we’re talking about someone who is marginalized… (if they are not bailed out) I am leaving this movement. I have been here since day ONE.

Legal: We realize there are a lot of important issues… news about this second person just came in.

Legal: We would like to have the $1k cap lifted. We are ready to answer specifics about the case. When Finance outlined their five points, Legal doesn’t feel this is breaking any  of those guidelines.

F: Still have people on stack. Where are our stack takers?

F: Are there any outstanding clarifying questions?

Finance: Can Legal clarify about proposal to lift $1k bail versus the proposal for R25k for this one individual?

F: Next on stack is Music.

Music: Our question was answered.

F: We’re opening stack again, now that there’s clarification on the proposal.

66.3.5.  More Clarifying Questions

66.3.5.1.  Tech: Is there any precedent on us giving bail $ and then people leaving?

Tech: Finance made the statement, if I heard correctly, Finance made the state that this case doesn’t meet any of those five points, and Legal says it meets all five points?

Finance: No, no one we’ve paid bail for has left.

66.3.5.2.  POCC: I had taken back my question, it got answered. Finance is saying there are five guidelines that we’re consensed on. It was addressed.

66.3.5.3.  Support: We are raising the bail to what limit?

Legal: Just in the past eleven years, bails are set incredibly high for political arrests. Including … ACT UP  fundraised a million dollars. It’s not unprecedented to raise large amounts of bail money for political arrests.

66.3.5.4.  Support: Still want to ask, if there’s a limit on bail?

Legal: No, the proposal is for no limit.

Human Rights: I’m against putting cap on bail, this is a movement…. we need to bail out people regardless of what the charges are…

66.3.5.5.  Wow: We’re wondering about the risk – is the organization helping us out with the 5013C at risk?

Legal: Right now Gideon is talking to other lawyers about this risk. We’re not proposing to jeopardize our legal sponsor. That’s why we have all our lawyers working on this.

Legal: It would send a strong signal to our sponsors if the SC consensed on the proposal to remove the bail cap.

66.3.5.6.  Town Planning: How do we define who is part of this Movement?

F: Before there… if anyone participates…[missing text]

F: We have two people on stack.

Nan: I want to find out this status…. I remove myself from stack…

66.3.5.7.  Info: Why is the subject of using a bail bondsman off the table? We could use a bondsman so we’re not holding ….

F:  The question is back to issue of why were not using a bail bonds person.

Legal: We would need three people who make at least $25k a year to sign the contract… it’s a whole process.  It’s far more complicated, but if you come to a consensus…Legal is open if people want to sign …if they make the big bucks…

F: We said we’re going to close stack, we’ve gone through a few rounds.

Legal: This is a large amount of money. We’re prepared to tell ya’ll the story.

F: Right now?

Legal: Right now. Once upon a time….

Legal: Right now we’re talking about a proposal to life the $1k cap to bail people out of jail. There’s one particular case…

F: Everyone talk to their spokes….

F: Mic check. Let’s bring it back, we need to bring it back together. If everybody could sit down in a SC we are going to break out and come back. We can’t take five minutes to bring it back each time. There is a CQ from the Minutes working group.

66.3.5.8.  Minutes: The proposal is do we lift the $1,000 cap on bail, so the answer to that is yes or no, the fact that there is someone in jail doesn’t matter for the proposal.

F: Thank you for speaking, the question we are addressing is do we want to hear the specifics of the case? Can we get a straw poll, raise your card if you would like to hear the specifics of the case.

PoP: What if we have not reached consensus in your group, does it become a stand-aside?

F: In your group if you have mixed sentiments you may stand-aside, we are not participating but we can.

SC: When you say we have introduced what does that mean and how was it consensed upon?  How was that approved? I am really not very happy that there is a power that has introduced a process.

F: Stand-asides are commonly used in SC. We passed a SC proposal empowered by the GA to have spokes, we have never consensed upon that as a group and the Facilitation team thinks it’s a good idea and it is a way to deal with mixed sentiments in the group.

PoP: I do not appreciate the way you stated our usage of the stand-aside as something concrete versus just an option. It was not given as a suggestion.

F: I am sorry if I over stepped. Let’s try to move forward and be patient with each other.

Do we want to hear the specifics?

F: If we are doing a straw poll, maybe we should decide for tonight, do we want to use stand-asides? I’ll explain again for those who did not hear. It is a registered concern, a serious concern, in the SC. A spoke could stand aside and you wouldn’t be counted in the straw poll. How do people feel about using the stand-asides for this evening? [postive]

F: There’s a PoI.

PoI: One of principles of solidarity is maintaining the people’s right to personal privacy, hearing their story.

F: Principles of solidarity – before we take the poll…

F: We’re taking a staw poll to decide whether we need to hear the person’s story who has $25k bail.

Principles of Solidarity: Someone can maintain their privacy but in this case they’re asking for something.

F: Can we not maintain the principles of solidarity by not saying their name?

Legal: We’re not going to tell you their name… we feel the merits of the case are not worth discussing.  Are we supporting each other as a movement or not. That is our position.

F: We’re spending lots and lots of time. Where are we at in the room?

Nan: You’re asking us to make a decision about $25k.. I will block this process… I want to know.

F: We have a common agreement to respect the process and be respectful…Not talk over each other.

F: What we want to do really quickly.. be respectful of each other… I want to test before we take a lot of time… other issues… it’s 9:38 and we have until 10:30. Can we test for consensus…. Do you have a serious concern in regards to whether or not to lift the $1k cap on bail?

F: Let’s take the straw poll – how many people need to hear this back story of the $25k case? (7 or 8 cards up.)

F: It also sounds like there’s confusion on what we’re doing right now.

F: So how many people do NOT need to hear the back story? (12 or so.)

F: We do not have a consensus…

Financial: This is not up to Legal. This gentleman was on the news last night.

PoP (Sage): We are taking a straw poll onto whether or not to talk about a person in jail this is specifically irrelevant to what the proposal.

F: There has been a lot of confusion because the proposal has changed multiple times during this process. People feel they need to know…

F: There was a mixed response – maybe Legal can give whatever they’re comfortable giving?

Sage: I have two questions which will make this story telling more efficient.

F:  I can’t listen to all of you at the same time… going to take

PoP: We’re all being disrespectful. We agreed to twenty minutes. How much more time do we want to invest in this?

F: Right now what were really trying to do is see if we can reach a consensus…

Sage: I have two questions One: When you said something about solidarity – anyone who does anything at OWS movement…. We’re going to bail them out? The fact that this bail is higher than our regular bail amounts, did the judge raise the bail that has to do with his … details of his case – are they related?

F: I just want to say there are a lot of questions here, lots of people are keeping to themselves because they are trying to be respectful of the process.

F: Legal has an opportunity to respond

F: We have some outstanding PoP.

PoP: We’re currently discussing whether or not to break a principle of solidarity.

F: That is not a PoP.

Sage: We’re talking about an individual who is not here – that is about violating their privacy – not an opinion, that is a FACT.

Tech: Basically the only reason we in tech have a question mark is because two groups we have respect and trust for – Legal and Finance –  have unintentionally confused us. We do not need to hear this story.

SC: Right now, because we’re in a situation where we are talking about breaking the principles of solidarity, everyone needs the opportunity to leave the room if they don’t want to hear.

Legal: We do not think it’s our job to share the details of the case. They have been accused and we feel that by posting bail we’re saying we support you in solidarity, but by not posting we would be falling in line with this person’s accusers.

Rabbi:  Someone has broken a sink toilet downstairs.

Sage: Maybe he’s making a metaphor!

Rabbi: It’s a divine sign that if someone here in this audience broke the sink, that we need to know what’s going on.

PoI: We need to recognize…

Sage: He’s talking about accountability.

POCC: I don’t understand how we’re talking about a broken sink. We have a set time to leave. If we do not do this, this person or two people will be sent to Rikers. Can I get some clarification from Legal? Let’s not discuss anything else if it’s not … [speech missed]

F: We have a decision we need to make …take a quick deep breathe together.  We have less than an hour.

Legal: We’d love to share how this person is related to Occupy Wall Street.

Friend of $25k bail guy: I was in Ashville. I found out there were tents for Town Planning in Ashville. I was asked to deliver them back. I did not have a valid license. I found two amazing people – one person had a CDL and one with a CC. Halfway here I got a million texts saying the park was being raided, everyone is in crisis mode. The person who rented the truck left. We’re babysitting this truck. There’s crisis, the park has been raided. That night I spoke to someone in Town Planning. They said to just get rid of them, find a locker. These are really large tents. We discussed we’d drive into the city and find people and communicate… talk to SIS. We were not ot allowed in SIS. We get in back of U-Haul in front of cops, crowd chanting. Driver didn’t have an ID. He is taken, under pretext that something was in his bag, that … he is part of OWS completely committed… I trust him so much.

F: Do people feel they need more time to discuss with their groups?

[Rabbi says he has CQ on what she just said.]

F: That was just info on how this person is related to OWS. How do people feel about moving forward?

PoI: I was in jail with this person and I saw at the park after and he is definitely part of OWS.

F: Are there any further CQs from the spokes… I feel like I’m losing people. Are you discussing…?

MIC CHECK

?: Let’s have a little quiet for a second – just to remind everyone we’re doing something incredible tonight. A conversation that would be difficult between two people and we are having it between hundred people! Has anyone seen South Park, just to get everybody back,, I’m going to make a statement, ravel over this – THE SKY IS BLUE. [group ravels]

MIC CHECK

F: Please please please respect each other….we need to move forward. We have half hr to come to a decision.

Finance: I really hate, I hope I’m not coming across as the bad guy here. Finance wants everybody out of jail. We’ll be working with Legal in the future. Finance is understanding this kind of discussion we’ve had in GA. If you are a member of OWS you should get bailed out. We went a step further… two exceptions, if you’re being warranted with a crime not related to OWS, or if your crime is intentionally violent. We weren’t sure this particular case… um… if we vote to go over $1k and our bail limit should be over $1k as Finance feels it should be … To summarize, we are under the understanding…

?: Your position on this …

Finance: If someone…

?: Let legal talk.

Legal: Cool, so we bail people out who the NLG is defending, and NLG defends people who are arrested. They do not post bail for people who commit crimes outside OWS.

Nan: My PoI what I understood that… did he have an illegal gun?

F: That’s not a PoI. What we’ve heard is the back-story of how they’re involved with OWS.

Legal: To clarify, being accused of a crime does not mean you have committed a crime. We want to express solidarity so people come out and support.

F: Test for consensus… we don’t have much time left.

PoP; We don’t agree in our group… what do we do?

F: You stand aside… your vote won’t count. You can choose to stand aside to make it easier…

F: Lots of questions, lots of concerns. Do we want this $1k bail cap lifted… to get people out of jail?

F: This is temporary, so Legal and Finance will come up with something going forward.

F: We don’t vote, we try to reach consensus… We’re just going to see how many people are standing aside… how many are standing aside… you’re not going to block. It’s hard enough to hear each other, do not have side conversations.

F: Counting… please place your placard high if you are standing aside.

F: Are there any blocks to this proposal? One, two, three blocks.

F: How many consense to this proposal. I need a clear count. 28.

Modified consensus – we go to 9/10’s vote… that’s why we’re counting… doing math. 28 yes, two. Not three because one of those blocks has same spoke as last time.

[Clarification: there were four blocks, two of those 4 were spokes at the last meeting and therefore their blocks are not valid: a total of two valid blocks]

F: Which means we have consensus.

66.3.6.  Consensus

[CLAPPING & CHEERING]

F: We’re done with this conversation.

SC: The blocks have a right to explain.

F:  Do people want to hear the explanation why?

[No]

MIC CHECK

Bring it back

Sshhhhh

F: We tested for consensus. We reached a modified consensus. We have fifteen minutes left in this meeting. We have many announcements. Space, communication, action and outreach. Four priorities we did not get to address tonight. We weren’t able to get to those.

 

66.4.  Announcements

66.4.1.  Announcement: Ad Hoc groups for housing were complete bunk…

F: Do we want to try again?

66.4.2.  DA: If you want to talk about space you can come to Direct Action at 5:30pm at 60 Wall Street.

Response to housing announcement: Everyone has different opinion on how things go… the most import thing to remember is…

66.4.3.  Communications: The Comm cluster meets Monday and Thursday at 60 wall at 2pm – not on Thanksgiving. The minutes will be posted through Info on nycga.net. Anyone is welcome. Tech Ops, PR, all those groups who deal with communication. Monday & Thursday at 60 Wall at 2pm.

Nan & Gabriel: Saying they blocked because they do not understand the proposal (both spokes at the previous meeting).

MIC CHECK

F: We have community agreement to respect each other to not shout each other down and follow the process.

Marissa: I don’t have an announcement, I wanted quiet so others could make an announcement .

66.4.4.  Legal: Document what you’ve been robbed of, I have forms, if you can include photos and receipts, estimate price value… this will be perhaps brought up as a class action suit. We don’t know yet. Document all your items so we have a record just in case we do have a suit.

66.4.5.  ?: 4pm tomorrow is the last time you can go to Sanitation NYC to pick up your things.

Q: How can the occupants who live at the park – the 50% at the park who lost everything –  how can they get that documentation to show what they lost?

F: Can we get some folks who are going to the churches to take these forms?

?: Is it true that you need an ID… no you tell them it’s first on your list and that it is inside inside.

Legal: We’re trying to get everything out so we can get things back to people.

Legal: I can fill out this form for you.

[Legal is working separately with working groups – this is for individuals who lost their things.]

66.4.6.  ?: At 8am a group will go with a truck to Sanitation, 630 West 56th St. There will be a truck there who will help you get your things out of sanitation so we can take it to a facility and sort through it.

?: Did sustainability get back their bicycles…no.

?: If you do not have an ID – go to precinct and tell them your ID was stolen and they will give you a form, MTA recognizes it for transportation.

66.4.7.  Finance: I have the forms for the survey for working groups to fill out.

66.4.8.  Music: A quick point, if you go to sanitation and find broken instruments, etc… we’d like to get it to make a project about broken sound.

People asking about Baruch CUNY: Students sat down and were pushed out of the space, some were arrested, they were very emotionally distraught.

66.4.9.  Bea: Telling everyone to pick up after himself or herself in this space. The space is our Monday and Wednesday space… if they have a high paying gig, we’ll need a different space. This Friday will probably be at DCTV, I’ll let you know Wednesday.

?: We’re really close to 100 Center Street where jail support is, we should go support them.

?: Cheers for Facilitation… let’s thank Minutes and Food!

Can we close with a unity clap CLAP CLAP CLAP!

One Response to “NYC Operational Spokes Council 11/21/2011”