13 Jan Housing Meeting

Posted by & filed under .

Facilitation: Ravi
Stack: Katherine

– CONSENSUS: Metrocard proposal to Spokes, will be presented by Leslie

– CONSENSUS:  Housing meetings, 330 MWF only starting 16 Jan

– CONSENSUS:  Glenn the mediator would like to facilitate Monday’s Housing meeting

– He would like to propose a mediation between Housing and the Safety Cluster; there’s a potential issue with Mediation running a process that includes that working group.

– Mina collected names of potential outside mediators and will report back to the group on Monday or Wednesday, depending on when she is able to make contact with people.

– REPORTBACK Park Slope has been reduced to 25 people per night maximum, which was the original limit. To get on the list for Park Slope

– CONSENSUS: Housing WG budget proposal will be presented to Spokes on Monday; we will ask people to share with West Park and Park Slope communities that people should check out the proposal on nycga.net and volunteer to present to spokes on Monday.


Discussion about WG membership as a pre-requisite for Housing

Chris: We’re trying to judge who is productive in the movement; there are people who are not in WGs who are productive in direct actions. Also, people would also just show up to WG meetings so it wouldn’t solve the problem.

Trish: with all the movement gives out, there needs to be contributions back. Its about accountablity; fair exchange is not robbery; what energy are you sharing with the world?

Teddy: Agrees with Trish; we’re not looking to exclude but there’s no such thing as a free lunch; you have to be accountable for what you’re being given

Stan: even if you’re not in a WG, you can join the WG at your space and contribute to the space around you.

Mina: we didn’t need to do that in the park; we’re replicating the outside world. That’s stupid. Especially

Teddy: CQ- how is it possible

* The discussion got a little chaotic around the question of who is an occupier and what we’ve accomplished in the last few months

Katherine: really feels the importance of accountability but sees the problem with the WG based model; maybe some kind of needs test since people who don’t ?

Chris: How do we validate who is contributing to the movement? Its important but how can we do that without creating hierarchy which is against our principles? He has a blocking concern issue.

Jason: People are abusing resources and we need to stop that; if you’re doing stuff, you’re probably in a WG. What do we do about people who just sit in meetings? The WG model is the least bad way of doing this?

Asa: concerns about a grace period for new people.

Trish: Would like to avoid lanuague of “having” to join a WG and who is a legitimate occupier. Housing is really key to the mvt. We want to be inclusive but people need to contribute as well

Teddy: The WG model is nice cuz there’s a point person where there is accountability

Katherine: Maybe we only give housing, etc. only people who report back in meetings, and show up in minutes can be signed off on. Info needs to be publicized more completely.

Mina: Why are we so concerned with excluded

Pause for re-cap

Consensus: people should contribute

Let’s discuss what contribution means.

Chris: WGs are a bad way to assess contributions; online contributions; organizations that are in solidarity with us. We’ll never be able to measure that.

Teddy: The donations that came to us are for people who are contributing to the movement

Clive: We’re in a media war; we need to be careful about inclusion and exclusion and also about how we talk to each other; there may be other ways that

Mina: Who cares if they are doing that? its not much money. It would be worse

Space: the spanging can support the movement; some do and don’t

Josh: Tech Ops metrocards person; Totally off topic- occupy farms people need housing; Stanhas dealt with it. Josh has a proposal at occuppyyourbrain.tumblr, agenda for tomorrow’s meeting

Asa: Some people’s contributions are really hard to quantify; we’re either going to err on the side of exclusion or inclusion. GIven our politics, we should be erring on the side of inclusion.

Comments are closed.