Tweets for Mon, 02 Jan 2012

Posted by & filed under Livetweets.

RT @OWSFacilitation: Spokes Council at 7pm tonight. West Park Presbyterian Church.165 W 86th St,1/B/C to 86th St. This is an all-inclusi …

Hi fam! The #OWS Spokescouncil meeting tonight is starting. Follow here, @LibertySqGA2, @LibertySqGA3, and @LibertySqGA4 for tweets. #nycsc

Daryl and Hermes will co-facilitate tonight. We’ll refer to them as “Stairs” for short. #nycsc #ows

Tonight’s meeting has a hard end time of 10. “There are items on the agenda from last week, so we’ll review, then reportbacks, then agenda.”

1: “Empower the body as a spokescouncil,” 2. “Talk about how to deal w/ disruptors,” 3. A proposal from town planning for those things…

Cont’d: 4. Discuss issue from last week of exclusion, 5. Defining what a Spokescouncil is / its purpose. #nycsc #ows

Stairs takes the room’s temperature: “Do we all agree to start w/ how to deal w/ disrupters?” “That’s pretty mixed.” #nycsc #ows

Daryl gets a much warmer response for discussing completing the formation of the Spokescouncil. Ths process was interrupted by eviction #OWS

Now we’re temp-checking discussing what happened at Friday’s spokes. “That’s pretty mixed.” #nycsc #ows

Someone says: “The GA is the only body that can nominate spokes.” [I don't think that's true. -Ed.] #nycsc #ows

“How does the current group feel about discussing the definition of the Spokescouncil as the second agenda item?” Mixed… #nycsc #ows

Nan came in. “Just in time!” she said. @carriem213 raised the issue that Nan was a spoke last Wednesday, so she cannot spoke tonight. #nycsc

Nan is saying she came just to make an announcement, but Carrie says the list says she signed in as a spoke. #nycsc #ows

Robert notes that the once-a-week Spoking proposal, passed recently, says in the text “even momentarily” counts as Spoking. #nycsc #ows

Carrie: “The proposal this body passed says that people cannot Spoke twice in a 7-day period. She spoked Wednesday.” #nycsc #ows

Nathan: “The only thing we can go by that’s not opinion or a statement is that sign-in sheet that Minutes is empowered to maintain.” #nycsc

[Livestream of tonight's Spokescouncil thx to @TesselizaTC: http://t.co/gOQzGBgT] #nycsc #ows

Nan’s discussion with Stairs and Carrie turned into a back-and-forth, with Nan filibustering, raising noise and tension in the room. #nycsc

Lots of people put up “respect the house” hand signals, which is with two hands making a roof overhead. #nycsc #ows

Someone else really wants to talk about how working groups shouldn’t disavow people. I have a feeling what that’s about. #nycsc #ows

WG reportbacks! Facilitation: “Last night, we were evicted from a POPS space that was supposed to be open 7am to midnight.” #nycsc #ows

Cont’d: “We’ll be holding the GA tomorrow at 100 William St, in solidarity w/ DA, @OWScom, NLG, maybe ACLU and city council members.”

Cont’d: “We need all of you to go for this action.” Robert: “What we’re doing tomorrow is very important, and that we’re on our best…”

Cont’d: “..behavior.” Asks that anyone with interest in more dramatic action hold off tomorrow, and that we focus on our GA process.#nycsc

Next, Lopi from Direct Action Painters: “I need 6 ppl tomorrow to hold banners that talk about free assembly, so they can form protective..”

Cont’d: “…space around” the GA tomorrow. Safer spaces next: “We’re working on a community agreement process. We’ve been…” #nycsc

Cont’d: “…circulating copies, and we have copies here tonight.” Would like feedback & for working groups to adopt it as their own. #nycsc

Legal’s rprtback: “RE: meeting tomorrow @ 56 Walker from 5-7pm, Legal wants NLG to hear more from OWS, answer Qs abt movement legal issues.”

Also, Legal is working on lawsuits against the city and Brookfield and is planning broad actions in support of those filings. #nycsc #ows

Ashley from PoCC is telling us about the debriefing we heard about before two Spokescouncils ago. Someone else calls her out for her…

Cont’d: …report not reflecting PoCC meetings or listserv. She lifted up facilitation accountability and commitment to justice. #nycsc #ows

Accounting: “Bring us receipts, plus we always love to see you!” Volunteer Services: “We’ve changed our name to OWS Works!” #nycsc #ows

Arts and Culture: “We have a number of the Declaration of the Occupation flowchart posters here tonight for folks who have a use for them.”

Jackie: “You may have read in the press that both the 32J and Nurses’ contracts were settled, and they think it’s because #OWS was…”

Cont’d: “…involved.” Not the greatest contact, but it’s “our victory!” #nycsc #ows

OK, so we’re moving onto empowering this body as a Spokescouncil. “The first process was to approve groups, and then we’d be empowered…”

Robert notes that the proposal for tonight was to just plain call the Spokescouncil empowered. Carrie clarifies… #nycsc #ows

Carrie: “Melanie’s item was to decide, once and for all, whether we are empowered as a Spokescouncil.” #nycsc #ows

There’s some confusion as to whether to treat this as a proposal, to empower the Spokes, or to temp check whether we feel empowered. #nycsc

Facilitation: “There’s some confusion about what the procedure is. Can we review what the process was of creating spokes?” #nycsc #ows

Robert offers to pull up the original document that created Spokescouncil; Nan yells out she doesn’t trust Robert to do so. #nycsc #ows

CQ: “Does the document specify when Spokes would become active?” Robert says it doesn’t. Someone else says we should just do stuff. #nycsc

Also in question: do we start over approving groups, continue where we left off, or do we consider it empowered without doing so? #nycsc

Robert’s take: “The question before the body tonight is, ‘is it empowered or is it not?’, yes or no.” #nycsc #ows

Tonight’s Stairs seem a little unsure how to proceed in determining which question we’re answering: ‘empowered already?’/ ‘how to empower?’

Nathan, spoking for Facilitation, suggests that we need to have a common understanding of where we are before we can move fwd. #nycsc #ows

Someone points out that during the ‘weird period’ after the assembly process for SC broke down, “everyone was a Spoke”, meaning all WGs.

Cont’d: “Does that mean that we’re already spokes or not?” Someone else asks if we really want to return to arduous confirmation process.

Someone: “It’d be better than what we’ve been doing,” arduous or not. De-escalation spoke continues, asking whether we want to develop…

Cont’d: …another process. POP: “PoC did not empower Ashley to act as our spokes. We’ve been in communication w/ other members of our…”

Cont’d: “…caucus, and this kills me to interrupt this productive discussion, but this is not cool. This is not OK.” #nycsc #ows

POPer: “We’re empowered as a caucus to convene.” PoC is convening! [I love this superpower. Surprise unity moment!] #nycsc #ows

They’re convening outside the room tho, my impression is it’s not to halt the process as last time. #nycsc #ows

Next, someone points out, someone could show up in 6 months and say, “hey, you got everything back on track on January 2nd, but looking..”

Cont’d: “…at your documents from before, you’re still not actually valid.” That’s what he’s concerned about.. suggests that 19 groups…

Cont’d: …that have been previously approved could spoke and approve new groups. Or, we could return to full pre-spokes process. #nycsc

Cont’d: “We may also need a new proposal on how to include new groups, if we choose to start w/ existing 19.” #nycsc #ows

Stairs summarizes: “2 options: 1 is that we empower the 19 groups as current sitting spokescouncil, then have new process for adding more.”

Cont’d: “..or, we can go back to where we were before, and vote them in as if last 2 months had never happened.” #nycsc #ows

Nina, Spoke for Info: “I think we should acknowledge that stuff has changed significantly since Spokescouncil passed.” Trying to stick…

Cont’d: ..to process established pre-eviction is “like sticking a square peg in a round hole.” We should be easier on ourselves. #nycsc #ows

Nina cont’d: “Do we have enough intelligent people in the room to make decisions?” Imagines what we’d be talking about if not this. #nycsc

Robert: “Either this group of people decides that we’re a body that’s empowered tonight, or we’ve got to resume the intake process.”

Stephen: is 3rd option: “Whoever is in an approved working group, thru working group process now in place since GA proposal, gets a spoke.”

Someone: “We’ve already made plans as spokes, acted as spokes. Deciding whether or not we’re spokes is like deciding whether we’re human.”

Legal agrees w/ the “concise gentleman.” “We’re all in the room, we’re all spokes; this convo should end, we can remove groups in future.”

Facilitation: “Spokes is empowered to modify spokes; we felt empowered to do that, & can make everyone who’s involved now a spoke, be done.”

Next two people agree with this idea. Stairs requests that minutes read back the list of options and then somehow choose. #nycsc #ows

PoCC re-enters the room, and Ashley has officially been given the power to Spoke for PoCC tonight. #nycsc #ows

Tech notes that they don’t feel the eviction changes the definition of “operational” very much. #nycsc #ows

Tech: “Spokes has the ability to change itself… we allowed groups not confirmed to speak, no one complained. So I think we changed…”

Cont’d: “…Spokes in doing that, and we shouldn’t have to go back to that decision.” #nycsc #ows

Stairs notes there’s an issue, which is whether or not we are going to deviate from the official process written by the GA. #nycsc #ows

Others say, “We’ve already done it.” Ashley says that PoCC folks “she’s talked to” thinks proposals being brought shld be run by caucuses…

Cont’d: …before being brought to Spokes. “And not all disruptions are visible; some are subtle.” #nycsc #ows

Safer Spaces says their understanding is that the 19 groups approved are the Spokes, except for the decision we made to let all be spokes…

Cont’d: …which we could re-state now, or just continue w/ without further resolution. #nycsc #ows

Stephen notes again his suggestion that the proposal that “becomes effective on the 20th” to define working groups could resolve the issue.

Next: “This discussion started again b/c a financial proposal was brought to Spokes, and Finance WG questioned its empowerment.” #nycsc #ows

“I don’t want us to stick to process so much that it will be problematic.” Since GA is definitely the empowered decision-making body…

Cont’d: …this might be a conversation that should be brought to the GA. “I know that’s unpopular,” but there might be issues. #nycsc #ows

@Scott1850 eh? can’t do this on facebook. what do you mean tho?

Labor Outreach working group notes that the proposal on the floor solves the problem by just straight-up declaring whether we’re empowered.

“Another proposal can come up to determine who is a spokes. But let’s get thru this question of whether this body is empowered.” #nycsc #ows

Stairs agrees, and wants to put the question of whether or not this body is empowered — people are excited. “Right now!” everyone says…

…in actually profound unison. I’m not even exaggerating. Not everyone, but like many people. Loud refrain: “Right now!” #nycsc #ows

So, Stairs is going to temp check moving to consensus on empowering Spokescouncil, “pending working out rest of details.” #nycsc #ows

Someone asked who (which working groups) would receive this empowerment since we may empower the SC… Stairs says, “Everyone in this…”

Cont’d: “…room will be empowered for now.” We’ve done a temperature check and are moving to consensus on empowering the #nycsc. #ows

CONSENSUS! Everyone flips out as we resolve a small question that’s festered and grown since eviction: cn we approve budget requests? #nycsc

Stairs: “The spokescouncil is currently empowered to move forward and to make decisions, the first two of which will be what we do about…”

Cont’d: “…moving in groups.” Someone nominates Housing to join the Spokescouncil, trying to get right down to business. #nycsc #ows

Nathan (Facilitation) proposes that “the guidelines for membership in the Spokescouncil would be in keeping w/ accepted guidelines…”

Cont’d: “…of what is needed to be a working group or caucus in #OWS” as per the Comhub proposal from 12/20. #nycsc #ows

CQ: “In original SC proposal, didn’t it give the SC the ability to admit or not admit a working group?” GA may have criteria, but SC…

Cont’d: …can set additional criteria. “They don’t need to be admitted just because they meet GA criteria.” #nycsc #ows

[For the record, re: conflict b/w Nan and Minutes, Nan is standing to the side, not spoking nor currently disrupting the meeting.]

De-escalation suggests we just let new WGs or caucuses come to one meeting, watch the first time, then be Spokes, until/unless removed.

Press: “What does that mean for working groups that aren’t working groups? Like the “Destroy Spokes” WG, or NYCGA Council WG?” #nycsc #ows

POI: “An option: on the 20th, when the Comhub proposal kicks in, we’re going to have far fewer working groups.” Spokescouncil… #nycsc #ows

Cont’d: …could require that Spokes meet those minimum standards, as a given. Also, “this may be an opportune moment to have an open…”

Cont’d: “…discussion about what the Spokescouncil ought to be.” Reviewing: min 5 members, minutes need to be posted, must… #nycsc #ows

Cont’d: “…meet somewhere in the area once a week.” Those are some of the Comhub criteria for being a working group. #nycsc #ows

[The OWSNYC streamers have had some technical difficulties tonight, but they want you to know they're back up: http://t.co/gOQzGBgT ! ]

Robert complained that this discussion isn’t part of the agenda we agreed on Friday and wants to go to previous items, starting w/ the…

…confirmation of his WG as a member of Spokes. But Stairs isn’t certain we’re ready to have that discussion until we decide how Spokes..

Cont’d: …will be added. De-escalation agrees, Housing’s inclusion proposal is moot until we’re sure it’s even needed. #nycsc #ows

Stairs asserts that we agreed to continue to question of adding Spokes immediately following empowerment consensus, and should go forth.

Someone asserts we can’t make that decision now anyway because there’s a 24-hour review period on agenda items. [Not in Spokes. -Ed.] #nycsc

Labor Outreach says again that we have a 24-hour rule; Stairs finally recognizes Press’ POP to correct this misinfo. #nycsc #ows

Labor Outreach suggests that we wait
to discuss this until after the 20th, and Stairs suggests we move forward with it. Press POPs…

POP from Press; “There were other ideas raised. We shouldn’t just move forward on the most recent proposal.” #nycsc #ows

Nathan’s concern: “So, b/w now and the 20th, all groups that show up would be members of the Spokescouncil?” #nycsc #ows

Proposal restated: “We continue to function as we have; groups that come here function until the 20th, at which point the GA procedure…”

Cont’d: “…kicks in, plus whatever other criteria we decide.” #nycsc #ows

FA from Press: “Let’s just set the GA criteria up to kick in to determine who is a Spoke on the 20th, until/unless we set more criteria.”

Cont’d: “That way it won’t be open-ended after the 20th, but we can set more criteria later.” #nycsc #ows

Restarting the proposal: “We don’t discuss criteria until the 20th, when GA criteria kick in, and then we can set own criteria if we…”

Cont’d: “…want to.” OK, temp checking the spokes’ views of this proposal! “That looks pretty good! Any standasides?” Housing, Accounting?

Daryl asks for blocks. NO BLOCKS! “Then the proposal passes!” Yay, clarity. #nycsc #ows

So, we have 30 minutes left, and are working to decide which proposals we’ll hear next. Stairs suggests discussing exclusion last week…

Cont’d: ..is the most time-sensitive prop. “Can I get a temperature check on discussion wht happened last week w/ exclusion of individuals?”

Not an overwhelming response. Also, could discuss Thoren/Livestream and defining spokes. Nan: “I think we should talk about Friday.” #nycsc

Also, could talk about Oakland solidarity actions, but the Facilitation spoke reminds us that SC can’t discuss movement items. #nycsc #ows

Carrie clarifies, it was agreed on as an agenda item last meeting, so we can temp check it down, but already agreed to bring it up. #nycsc

Nathan again asserts that we can discuss it, but not decide on anything as it’s movement-related and only GA is empowered to discuss. #nycsc

The other one is the discussion about Thorin and Livestream; it has something w/ the document that’s been circulating disclaiming him…

Thorin: “There are two issues; one is some amount of money folks say was stolen from Finance, that has nothing to do w/ media or me.” #nycsc

Thorin is just explaining what the agenda item is, b/c many are confused. “This is a separate issue [from the finance thing].” #nycsc #ows

[To untangle that a bit: someone is here to propose disallowing working groups from "disavowing" people. I think this is basically a...]

[...roundabout way to address Thorin's beef, which is w/ the Media WG disavowing association w/ him due to mostly-unspecified concerns.]

After several lukewarm temp checks on agenda items, Stairs decides the most support was for discussing Friday’s exclusion. #nycsc #ows

Stairs: “We’ll discuss this for 15 minutes and then leave 5 for closing,” #nycsc #ows

Nathan: “There was confusion last week abt how the list was created, what the Pastor’s role was.” Wants explanation of what happened. #nycsc

Someone suggests that since Jason isn’t a spoke tonight, he can’t explain what happened w/ the list of ppl who couldn’t attend Spokes…

…which we thought was from the Pastor, but later were told was created by Jason. Nan was on this list. It was a whole thing. #nycsc #ows

Ashley: “I want to make it clear that I disassociated myself 2 weeks ago from two ppl in this room,” because was blocking things just…

Cont’d: “…to block them.” And someone else, “shouldn’t be able to have a GA Working Group” since they’re not the GA, we are. #nycsc

Ashley: “I <3 this community and want to move forward, but we have a rule you can only speak once a week, and you can’t break that just…”

Cont’d: “…because you want to break that.” Some claps. Ashley also threw in something about someone threatening someone physically…

Cont’d: …and she ain’t cool w/ that. Jason: “Just to be clear, no one was banned from SC. People were banned from the space due to the..”

Cont’d: “…conversations that were had w/ many ppl including the pastor of this church, who wanted to make sure ppl respect this space…”

Cont’d: …due to many people who meet here, multiple faith groups and now 100 occupiers who sleep here. “The Wednesday night display…”

Cont’d: “…of one of the ppl on the list, and one person who appeared to me and to the Pastor to be accompanying them — the anger…”

Cont’d: “..the language was so bad — vulgar, he said — that they were asked not to be allowed into the building.” Jason is listing a…

…laundry list of places Nan appears and disrupts. “It made sense to me to think this person shouldn’t be allowed in this space b/c..”

Cont’d: “..of the concerns raised. It was up to me. It was up to us. It was up to Spokes to decide whether to go or whether to stay.” #nycsc

Other names on the list: “In the office, it became clear others were making this body dysfunctional. breaking process, innuendo, breaking..”

Cont’d: “…spoke thing — and for the sanctity of the space we were just moving into, we decided they could not enter.” #nycsc #ows

Jason closes by saying he stands by the process and the list that himself and “about 15 other ppl” made during this process. #nycsc #ows

Robert: “It was decided… ppl were banned. Who decided and who did the banning?” #nycsc #ows

Jason: “The conversation started w/ one person.” Nan: “Who’s that?” Jason: “You. And it turned to… should I name names?” “YES!” many say.

Jason turns to another dude, whose name he doesn’t know, and who immediately interrupts him. He’s very confrontational… #nycsc #ows

Daryl mic checks, and Robert restates his question to Jason. “Who decided there’d be banning? Who created the list?” #nycsc #ows

Jason: “When it was started Weds, the list made itself, and came out of a room at the office.” Won’t name ppl not here, or who made list…

Cont’d: “…because they can’t…” Nan starts yelling. Jason says: “To take responsibility for my behavior, I’ll say it was me, taking…”

Cont’d: “…into account the concerns of the Pastor.” And to avoid disrespecting other users of the space. “It was a hard decision… “

Cont’d: “…but one that I felt I needed to make” for the good of the good, or something. Nan demands names. Jason takes fall. #nycsc #ows

Safer Spaces: “There’s about to be this huge controversy of having SC in the same place where ppl are staying,” combines questions…

Cont’d: …of who’s allowed to stay here, and who can attend meetings. “We need to make sure one subset doesn’t control access to entire…”

Cont’d: “..movement.” Also on the 21st, we tabled a proposal to set community agreements and process to exclude, and notes that these…

Cont’d: …events pre-empted the process that we decided to start then. “If we need to exclude, it needs to be decided by this body.”

.@NegestiC notes that Pastor said he wanted us to make a safe space, but didn’t mandate a list. Asks Jason if we needed the list for that.

Jason: “You’re right. I was in a position… but I’ll say this: the Pastor of the church cares deeply about this movement. Watches…”

Cont’d: “…livestream. Has a good understanding of consensus. Um…you’re right. I didn’t want to jeopardize this space..” for spokes…

Cont’d: “…& for ppl sleeping here. But you’re right. I made a decision that, tho I’m not sure I’d take it back, it was wrong. I admit it.”

Someone says he appreciates tht Jason apologized. Notes that we do have these individuals who disrupt, “need mediation” – Nan interrupts.

“When we did lose Far Rockaway, it was really bad, b/c it was really nice, beach, ocean. One individual destroyed that, and it was…”

Cont’d: “…merchandise was lost as well. Because one individual destroyed that, and things left there got moldy.” #nycga #ows

Speaks to Jason’s concern for broader movement, “people need places to sleep,” tho it was bad how it was done, no one else had acted. #nycsc

Libor: “I’ve done it for same reasons, but as an individual. List sort of matched names in my internal list.” Says Spokes are… #nycsc #ows

Cont’d: …equally at fault for standing by. Someone else: “It matters how we do things. We weren’t told the truth; people asked very real..

Cont’d: “…questions, and we were told the list came from the church. And we continued, but people were really uncomfortable doing it…”

Cont’d: “…and the discussion revolved around that. To Nan, as an individual, I’m sorry.” Kelvin also apologizes. #nycsc #ows

Kelvin: “If we’re going to be brave enough to stand up to the cops, we need to be brave enough to stand up to each other sometimes.”

“We need to be able to look at our peers and say, I’m sorry, but you’re not helping; you’re doing more harm than good.” #nycsc #ows

Nan is on stack. “Jason, I will never forgive you for what you did, and I honestly hope you burn in hell. Pastor, same to you.” #nycsc

Nan: “Now that I’ve gotten that out of the way: who the fuck — it doesn’t matter. We are a movement. When we say we are the 99%, we make..”

Cont’d: “…decisions as the 99%. 15 people do not have that power.” Nan wants names so she can ‘em to mediation. Folks are raising hands.

Folks started to drown Nan out with “I’m one of them,” way more than 15. Stairs interrupts, says that’s messed up, let’s Nan continue.

Nan: “That’s exactly what Congress and the Pres are doing; they’re excluding us. I think every one of us on that list is owed an apology.”

Next, Jason: “Jason, standing up and apologizing, props — that’s a really hard thing to do. I think that’s dope, and we should all take…”

Cont’d: “..a hint from that.” RE: people making folks feel unsafe, “We need a proposal to figure out how to deal w/ that. If someone is…”

Cont’d: “…sitting behind me, as they were 10 minutes ago, saying, ‘I’m going to rip her head off,’”, tht person shouldn’t be here!” #nycsc

Cont’d: “…because I don’t feel safe around that person.” We must have a process and stick to it to deal w/ these ppl. #nycsc #ows

Robert asks for the names on the list. Trish, Sage, Ashley, Nan, Michael. “Libor is right; even if we didn’t approve of how the bans…”

Cont’d: “…happened, we were culpable.” Suggests we owe them a statement of culpability. “We prohibited you from being heard in a meeting.”

Cont’d: “I believe we owe them a statement of regret,” and a pledge that we won’t let this same wrong happen again. #nycsc #ows

Jason: “I just want to acknowledge how important it is that we had this discussion for the healing of this group, and how important…”

Cont’d: “..it is that we come up w/ a compassionate way to deal w/ disrupters.” Thinks we can deal w/ this once and for all w/ love. #nycsc

Ashley feels someone threatening violence is an “excuse to ask that person to leave.” But “what happened Friday, where a clique made..”

Cont’d: “…decisions w/o getting consensus, not enrolling caucuses before voting on — I’ve never physically threatened anyone; for…”

Cont’d: “…Jason to put me on that list had to do w/ personal conflicts w/ him, and was a way to marginalize me.” #nycsc #ows

Cont’d: “We are a democracy and we need to step up or step back.” “We need accountability and transparency.” The messenger vs the message.

Ashley: “We need to practice what we preach and not be hypocrites.” #nycsc #ows

Someone: “I think a problem we have is we don’t understand each other. I keep saying this,” but we have different experiences. “We need…”

Cont’d: “…to have a meeting like this where we sit down, go person to person, and learn about each other. That way, when someone curses..”

Cont’d: “..in church, we might” have a wider perspective, not jump on ppl. “B/c I think some people’s problems get jumped on & some don’t.”

Jason: “I apologize to the body; if I didn’t say it before, I apologize to this body; I absolutely respect #OWS, as crazy as it is…”

Cont’d: “…sometimes. But I won’t apologize to people who won’t be accountable for their own behavior. I can’t, and I won’t.” #nycsc #ows

Jason: “I was involved in making a decision w/ weight I’ve never held before.” Took idea of exclusion seriously. “But we weren’t able…”

Cont’d: “…to make a decision I needed to make, and it could have cost a large amount to a huge # of people.” Doesn’t like how these..

Cont’d: …conversation tends to get flipped around back onto “victims”. “They drop unfounded accusations, race bombs in middle of the…”

Cont’d: “…middle of the room and watch them explode, and don’t always have command of issues they’re wielding.” Prays that we figure..

Cont’d: ..out how to draw some lines here. Dwayne: “I was going to come up and talk about myself, but I respect everyone’s time, and won’t.”

Dwayne: “I feel, as much as Jason should apologize to the group, you (Nan) should apologize to me, for wasting my time.” Rushes to SC…

Cont’d: …after work evry day. “If you’re asking Jason for an apology, you should give me an apology for wasting my time for 3 months now.”

Tessa: “Nan, I’m speaking to you, WADR for you as a human being and your dedication to the movement — I mean, anyone who’s here, at…”

Cont’d: “…any of these meetings, I implicitly have respect for. I know that you’re here for this. and the way things went down on Friday..

Cont’d: “..was wrong, and we know that. But I have never once heard an apology from you. And even the incident w/ the Aryan Nation sign…”

Cont’d: “…we were in the middle of a discussion about exclusion, and this guy put this sign up, in jest, however not funny that was…”

Cont’d: “…and it got noticed, and this guy quietly got up and left. And… we’re you. You have to start trusting us a little bit.” #nycsc

Nan interrupts. Tessa: “Then you’re not — you’re just speaking for yourself. And the idea of the room is it’s supposed to be consensus.”

Cont’d: “And you don’t want there to be tyranny of the majority. But at a certain point — it’s been well-established what those behaviors..

Cont’d: “..are that are unacceptable. Don’t curse, i.e. Don’t interrupt. Don’t tell people to burn in hell. Just start with that…” #nycsc

Nan interrupts. “That’s my personal opinion — ” Tessa offers to wrap up, while folks make space for her to finish. “You clearly want to…”

Cont’d: “…be in this. So just try! Try for one day! I’ve seen Sage do it! Pull back the behavior that’s problematic. Try to work — try..”

Cont’d: “..just try! Try! And I haven’t seen you try at all.” Nan is either on the phone or pretending to be on the phone. #nycsc #ows

Stairs offers Nan a chance to speak. “I will never trust some individuals in this group w/ my life. I’ll put it that way. For me, trust..”

Cont’d: “…is earned. Because I have learned that people’s hearts can change in a second for their own egocentric self.” #nycsc

“Some people have gone out of their way to earn my trust. And those ppl, I embrace. I’m sick and tired of you guys making rules and…”

Cont’d: “…regulations w/o getting to know people and their personalities.” She sits w/ occupiers, builds trust w/ them. #nycsc #ows

Cont’d: “I’m not that type of person that just lays out their life like a lamb. I’m a fighter.” RE: individuals, “I’ll be blunt: I don’t…”

Cont’d: “…care about you. I don’t. Because I care about the movement.” Folks: “But we *are* all the movement.” #nycsc #ows

Now Nan’s accusing us of doing “ill to so many ppl. It’s sickening!” “Until you guys change yr behavior, why should I change mine?” #nycsc

People were a lot more moved by @TesselizaTC’s speech than Nan’s, I think it’s fair to say. #nycsc #ows

OK, moving onto announcements. “We need more cameras out there,” Al reminds us. “It’s not fair”, camerappl targeted for arrests. #nycsc #ows

I guess just that one announcement! WHAT A SPOKES tonight! Wow. Recap: we empowered Spokes, clarified membership, and addressed Nan.. #nycsc

…directly, while still doing it together. Big steps. Thanks for following along folks! Qs, concerns, hit me up @DiceyTroop for post-show!

Comments are closed.