11.6 Minutes

Posted by & filed under .

Politics and Electoral Reform

11.6.11 3pm

In attendence:

Peter

Frances Otero

Jesse

Walter Gufforio

Jackrabbit

Ed Brady

Sam

Rob

Gabe

Adrian

Jarret

Frank

Tim

Scott

Olaf

Gary

Casey Bowman

If you were here but are not noted please feel free to add your name.

Next meeting: 11.10.11 Thursday 8pm

 

Action items:

Jackrabbit will post the subgroup meeting times and any events if they are submitted to him or to Ahmed.

Tim will incorporate the changes/amendments to Electoral reform document.

Process subgroup will continue to work on the doc.

 

Key decisions:

Consensus on the People Before Parties: Recommendations for Electoral Reform document.

 

Agenda

People before parties is read and discussed before reaching consensus. Some feedback: Local action, accountability, runs long professional editing offered, publicly funded elections should be its own initiative, the list should be categorized, citations, suggestions on non-partisan redistricting as performed by toddlers, no confidence vote, confusion with term limit section, set aside suggestion to include support for national initiative for democracy

 

Process document

Quorum was the main concern. Unequal distribution of power if permanent members, keep it simple, funnel online proposals through one person, suggestions for defining quorum, no remote voting

 

Announcements:

  • Glen Greenwald teach-in Tuesday at 6pm @ 60 Wall
  • Voting experiment has some pledges but needs more $ for ipad
  • Suggestions for a subgroup to develop teach-ins as a means of outreach to other groups and obtain more diverse participation.
  • Viral campaign – sunday meeting at 1:30pm, working on mission statement, meeting on Wednesday – Jared is the point person for the Wednesday gathering Casey raised a concern about grandstanding.
  • Ed = meeting next Saturday civics organizing agitating getting groups together for a common purpose, don’t get cooped.
  • visions and goals statement
  • ballot initiatives on city charter lowercased.org
Raw minutes follow:

11.6.11

introductions

new to the process?

Sam introduces and goes over process

Minutes read back

Sam didn’t get feedback from reportbacks

should we have regular reportbacks?

tim on voting experiment kay couldn’t make it

tim goes over what the voting experiment is

funds couldn’t be got from GA but pledges are up to ~200

what is the purpose? Tim explains the experiment.

question about cost of ipad

~500

Outreach proposals

other working groups

subgroup develop teach ins

protest action

jackrabbit talked about direct action support

dont

Ed brady

independence party Ed brady upper east side and spanish harlem

a week from this saturday

point of process – announcements

out of time for item

reportback

viral campaign of money in politics

momentum getting organized

sunday 1:30 meeting

mission statement

how do we fit in the big picture ie other

meeting this wed.

talk to jared to get involved

we could have it at the square

Casey concern about grandstanding

campaign finance support of campaign finance

people agree

post on GA website for feedback subgroup consideration

subgroup meetings posted?

Jackrabbit will post meetings/events

Process report back

how to deal with membership

what constitutes a quorum re: # of people in the group

short discussion

table it till the end and if there is time at the end of the meeting to read and discuss the process

how to deal with membership who can do what who can raise/block/pysical presence

online concerns

tim this is a reportback

surprised this isn’t done already

we have an online membership that is trying to

horizontal democracy is an issue

if you get people together to do it it gets done

votes for everything creates hostility

Tim

20 minutes for electoral reform proposal or not

hands out the proposal for electoral reform

stack open for questions

victor new guy – this is great we should get the local people the people underneath it is important to be able to fire someone.

patrick – visions and goals – runs a little long – offer of professional editing

key to democracy – free and fair – publicly funded elections

adrienne – list is split up into different groups took campaign finance off the list

it is too important and needs its own effort

two kinds of things – get back to old system and some that are new

two sections

I like it concise citation

how do you get non-partisan redistricting? tech solution map area by population. have the kids draw the map.

new members  – what this document is a skeleton it is open for further investigation start a sub group the reason for general statements is for the purpose of expanding on. a structure to create a recipe with

 

fraud prevention general education in civics

vote of no-confidence/recall – Olaf

where do I go to add this to?

question about no confidence or a

Tim

you can vote for none of the above in Nevada blank counts as blank.

campaign finance was not on because publicly funded elections needs to be the focus of its own thing

citation can be put in

computerized non-partisan redistricting

within 2 minutes

tim will add some stuff

casey concern

agrees with Patrick to length of  preamble

it is too long

there is some repitition

it is a little long and loses its punch

proportional representation is disagreed by some

there are people who disagree

term limits isn’t really clear what is the confusion there?

Sam I agree in some regard. A little more information.

Tim poi the length has been cut down. Should can be taken out

the documentation is available and people can add to the docs

maybe some people don’t know enough

summary online

Kerry

add new agenda items at next meeting

read through the threads

equal ballot access clarifying and synthesizing

I believe that all of us here public finance reform

point of process

clarifying question

take to the GA when?

consensus taking?

national initiative for democracy Mike Gravel

reached consensus

document for concern with consensus building

break up into smaller groups to read the document and got through the document

7 minutes to read and then discuss

stack is open

creation of privilege decisionmakers – permanent quorum members should be based on percentage or average attendance it should be fluid not just people who are there.

don’t take people’s name count people once a month and just check that way

jesse local v remote

simple should be simple is better

I have a computer science degree not a law degree

keep it simple

difficulty with integrating remote members

internet

concerns you have could be with anyone who shows up this is not nesecaryly a voting group it has to get to the GA to be voted on. So we’re not really voting. If you don’t contribute you don’t have influence

spokes council we are a movement group an autonomous group within the institution we need to make a proposal through a operational group we are a part as an autonomous group but because we have no say over logistics or finance we don’t have votes. Technically we’re not part of OWS if we want to get anything done we need to join another group we need to get a caucus together.

we can still go to the GA if we pass a proposal we take statements to the GA as a movement group

funnel online proposals through one person could speak for. I would hate to shut out people and would hate to dismiss. If someone has something to say could we bring that to the group.

quorum seem to be establishing a heirachry in the group it seems to be what is going on it shouldn’t be define quorum as non trivial number of members

needs to be a different way refer to quorum.

program # of people present you are not locked into one number

non present people should not have voting

question can the person speaking for people block for other people

clarification on non-binding meetings.

closed

I love that this is flat

meeting a week from this saturday about civics organizing agitating getting groups together for a common purpose

my only concern is don’t get cooped. it is easy it will come in different aspect this has juice. there should be guidelines or process. we operate outside of the mainstream. 3pm saturday. post to forum

vision and goals

10/23

presented to the GA with the attempt to put stuff together it is a draft and approaches what we’re looking to

reads draft (post this)

a lot of momentum behind campaign finance.

would you be opposed to that.

are we endorsing this?

we would take this to the GA

would those sitting in the group have a problem with campaign finance

brought up endlessly getting money out sounds fantastic and I’m not going to say it is impossible there is no way in hell the way we are set up you can remove $ from politics. You can pass an amendment the only way you can get it out. Just make it so that whatever they spend gets posted. or they do time. the people who vote on it.

issue with money. you need money for whatever you do money out of politics.

 

The idea of private money not all money. so people can’t contribute. how do you contribute without money. instead of money look at money.

 

public financing of campaigns.

 

thanks for the feedback it is not fair to say something

 

ongoing effort to amend the city charter put on the ballot creating ballot initiative in NYC. lowercased.org

Comments are closed.