1/28/2012: An Accountability Proposal To Hold OWS Members to OWS Standards of Conduct

Posted by & filed under Assemblies, Past Proposals.

An Accountability Proposal To Hold OWS Members to OWS Standards of Conduct

“There are going to be times when we can’t wait for somebody. Now, you’re either on the bus or off the bus. If you’re on the bus, and you get left behind, then you’ll find it again. If you’re off the bus in the first place — then it won’t make a damn.”Ken Kesey

Occupy Wall Street (OWS) desires a better world for all and creates its standards of conduct accordingly, to be of benefit to all persons throughout the world. OWS conducts its affairs in a manner welcoming to all. Members of OWS as a global movement abide by the Principles of Solidarty, as well as individual Community Agreements or Codes of Conduct, that define appropriate behavior to one’s fellow occupier and within the Occupation as a whole, such as a commitment to peaceful non-violent civil disobedience and the engagement of direct and transparent participatory democracy for all decision-making.

Because OWS, as a primary concern, wishes the safety and encouragement of everyone, we therefore open our proceedings and spaces to all, provided those who accept our invitation abide by our standards of conduct. Our standards of conduct are not rules to restrict anyone, instead, they are boundaries to protect everyone.

SUMMARY: Those present at or participating in OWS activities agree to abide by our standards of conduct. They may end such obligation by departing and ceasing participation. OWS may also discontinue its relationship with any party, via direct and transparent participatory democracy, based on there adherence to the standards of conduct that define a member as part of OWS, thus releasing that party from any further such obligation.

“All persons, groups, or other entities, while present at, represented at, or participating in Occupy Wall Street (OWS) meetings, assemblies, councils, occupations, encampments, or other OWS functions or events, If you come to our events…
and/or while participating by any means in any OWS online or other electronic activity …or to our web sites, phone systems, etc…
shall, regardless of affiliation, purpose, manner of constitution, or other considerations, …it doesn’t matter who you are…
agree, in all dealings with OWS and its sub-groups and participants, to abide by any and all OWS standards of conduct then in effect. …you agree to follow our community standards.
“A person, group, or other entity may release this obligation exclusively by departing the place of and ceasing participation in any and all OWS functions or events, as well as ceasing participation in any and all OWS on-line or other electronic activities. If you leave the relationship, you don’t have to follow our standards.
“OWS may, to ensure the protection of all who choose to work with us and agree to follow our standards of conduct, choose unilaterally to discontinue entirely its relationships with any person, group, or other entity. The OWS General Assembly may propose to cut ties with those who do not follow appropriate standards of conduct, via direct and transparent participatory democracy, if the failure to maintain appropriate standards cannot otherwise be remedied. The General Assembly is empowered to sever ties with those who do not follow the Principles of Solidarity or other standards of behavior that have been agreed upon.
“Such persons, groups, or other entities will remain thereby released from any OWS standards of conduct for so long as they and OWS maintain no relationship. If we leave the relationship with you, you also don’t have to follow our standards. It stays that way as long as we’re not involved in each other’s business.
“For the purposes of this proposal, ‘other entity’ shall include any corporation, company, affiliation, or other collective enterprise and its employees, agents, and assignees.” If we get involved with companies, they have to follow our standards, too.
“For the purposes of this proposal, ‘sub-groups’ shall include all OWS-recognized Working Groups, Caucuses, Movement Groups, Operations Groups, similar collectives, or other entities within OWS, regardless of type or size of membership, operating method, or how constituted.” Our standards apply to OWS as a whole and also to all our working groups, caucuses, and so on.

Submitted by the Town Planning Working Group


16 Responses to “1/28/2012: An Accountability Proposal To Hold OWS Members to OWS Standards of Conduct”

  1. Urbaned

    @christopherabrownart5 I don’t think that OWS is a crime fighting organization at this time. Considering an Article 5 Convention is not in the cards for us now. We need a Vision and Goals statement, a set of basic rules that enable us to meet safely, and a decision about whether we support violent tactics or nonviolence. Anything else right now, including next year’s elections, will probably have to wait until the 99% can come up with ways to function, such as the Accountability Proposal above.

    I also find the occupywallstreet.org forum to be confusing, and I have no idea who moderates it. On this forum, at least you have contributors with predictable points of view and open discussions.

    • christopher guerra

      @christopherbrown. You are correct. We are not a crime fighting unit. We have been infiltrated by people who want to stop this movment. Knowing this we have a duty to find out who has been causing a disruption (a.e. nan). If they are disrupting our GA’s, these people need to leave. I understand why it had to come to this. Remember none of us have ever done anything like this before. We have learned a lot by our mistakes. An example of this is: when I formed the ows black knights to help defend (the park) with the help of ows security) from people that want to do harm to the occupiers.
      You wouldn’t believe how many crazy people come out of the woodwork.

      • Christopher A. Brown

        Considering urbaned brought up 2 things I’d not mentioned, but you christopher guerra reinforce what was said, that I’d not mentioned, I will say this. Anything not constitutional from officials, if it violates rights is criminal.

        The demands of OWS only exist because of an unconstitutional congress and supreme court.

        YES, OWS has been infiltrated, and that includes admins of the forum which reaches globally. The biggest disruption is not meetings, it is on the forum. Accordingly, I need this acknowledged.


    • Christopher A. Brown

      Urbaned: “I don’t think that OWS is a crime fighting organization”

      Never mentioned that.

      Urbaned: “Article 5”

      Never mentioned that either. Since you bring it up, how can you be sure vision and goals mean anything to a government that has unlimited campaign financing by corporations? Since its already decided that it is non violent, why is this to be decided again?

      Accountability to the demands comes first. Since you can provide no guarantee that vision and goals statements will be met by any official action, there is no onus, no legal duty invoked, WHY are you not ready for an Article V? Be accountable to answering that!

      Article V should be at the front, always. If not you are giving up the only possible authority to meet any demand.

  2. Christopher A. Brown

    chiara said on January 31, 2012
    you can Watch the whole GA concerning the proposal
    NYC GENERAL ASSEMBLY (1/28/2012) : An Accountability Proposal To Hold OWS Members to OWS Standards of Conduct

    Accountability is everything when it comes to unity. The issue of censorship at teh OWS forum is huge, because the general public is trying to unify there. OWS is blocking very meaningful communications.

    Sure, people at the meetings could be trying to stop that. I don’t think its mentioned there though. If I cannot get people to talk about it here, there is almost no chance it will be brought up there.

    I’m seeing an anti constitutional agenda in the censorship. Americans that are supporting occupy need to know this. We can see where the right to assemble is being seriously damaged on the ground while no measurable gains in functional strategy are found. Occupy is alienating the majority of Americans while not overtly defending the rights they are using by defending the constitution.

  3. David Andrew

    Can the National General Assembly serve as a reasonable platform to defend the constitution?

  4. Sally Marks

    Terrific document.

    The heart is certainly in the right place. Just lets hope all participants follow it in real life and not just with lip service.

  5. Steve Scher

    Very well thought out, potential for positive outcomes globally enhanced.