Meeting minutes, Dec. 4

Posted by & filed under .

Meeting starts at 6:16

 

Erik and Steven are co-facilitators

Peter takes stack

 

Erik: We had a tentative agenda

New demands

report back

process

outreach

 

Erik: Timing for taking back jobs for all

Walter: Solutions cluster

Erik: We thought that we should have that with framework discussion

Derrick: What is demands group doing with Tuesday’s action: Occupy Homes, and the housing agenda

Alvin: Two: Glass Steagall, can we vote on it tonight or have more discussion. Or Draft I placed on the site that hasn’t been discussed. The impeachment of barrack obama.

Greg: Subgroups on economic security and rights

John: Restore democracy subgroup, resolution

Erik: I believe this and campaign finance, and Glass Steagall,

Craig: Just to bring up early, I took names and emails about a possible demand. Didn’t hear anything back. Anyone who approached me at the time catch up with me after the end of the meeting. The demand I’ll floated it is, specific proposal on increasing taxes on the wealthy and tax break for job creation.

Walter: could we allocate certain amounts of time for each demands group.

Steven: The demands I have tonight

  1. Glass Steagall
  2. Impeachment
  3. Economic security
  4. rights
  5. restore democracy
  6. campaign finance
  7. Housing
  8. Jobs for all to the GA

Erik: Are these seeking resolution or introduce a discussion.

John: We want a full debate on ours.

Steven: how many want a vote tonight.

Alvin: a vote on Glass Steagall and debate on Impeach Obama

Walter: Does everyone have three people, start by articulating the demand.

Erik: It doesn’t sound like we can actually have a debate on all of these. We could do something like allot 5-10 minutes for each one and allow time for other more procedural items. My suggestion is to talk about procedural ones first.

Why don’t we set out what the procedural, not substantive, and allocate time in the beginning and then move on to discussion of actual demands.

Procedural is framework and spokes council, JFA, and how often the group should meet.

Can we do 5 minutes for framework

10 for GA

Steven I”d like to move back to one a week. 10 minutes.

Erik : Temperature check on these times (consensus). Temp check on starting these discussions and then moving to allocate time on the substantive demands.

Walter: Here’s the problem we have since the beginning of the demands. There are so many different ideological and political currents in our movement. We have been in many ways having an internal debate and missing out on the lots of other groups internal debates. Now there is a new impetus in the movement because of the violence in Zucotti Park, and more people are talking about structures and how we deal with it. People are having many debates in the spokescouncil. We propose that the Demands Group work closely with other working groups what has been working on how to create the identity and ideology of their movements. We have friends in these groups. Everyone’s debates are important as ours. We can’t just say we are Demands Groups. We are cutting them out of the process.

Clusters are being formed with Working Groups at the Spokes council. We’re proposing a “Solutions” cluster. Visions and Goals has been having big debates about about what this movement is about, with Tihnktank, with Call to action who work our statement of solidarity, we in Demands endorse a statement saying that we’d like to work with them in a cluster. 2-3 of us would be responsible to go these organizations/groups. We’d like one or two delegates to sit with us so that all of us can talk about a process of issuing concrete statements. Whether in your in any subgroup. This meeting is the place where we hash out demands. This was where we sit with people and has things out, so that by end of the year, the NYCGA can put out a specific platform of what we want. The statement is more about this idea. I want the Demands group to approve of a solutions cluster, negotiation with our cluster group. Each one of us will commit to going to at least one group and say what we’re doing and invite them to join the cluster.

Open stack

Alvin: I think that there are a lot of good intentions here in what Walter’s laying out. I don’t think time is on our side. I think this Working Group has accomplished very little together. I’d like to make a counter proposals. The Demands Working Group moves forward and give every other working group to respond and allow it to be reintroduced for amendments. How long have we been out there. I’m interested in Eric’s idea of how long it will take to get the JFA forward. We’re on a titanic. We’re taking on water and negotiation. We need to put demands out there and give everyone a chance to participate. We’re all here. They’re welcome to participate.

Jake: This working group has an image problem. Part of this image problem is creating demands ourselves. We need to make clear that we are brining in demands from other working groups. We should get demands from the outside and reach consensus within the entire movement. A few of us meet a few people from other groups and we report back. We want to make sure that we’re not just cooking up stuff here.

Erik: Temp check on closing stack

Walter; We haven’t created nothing. We have a framework. We’ve made up 6 demands. We’ve done what you’ve said. We came up with things on our own and tried to get the movement to agree to them. I’m not saying that we drop existing demands but rather to open channels of communication, and be connected to more solidified within the movement. Unless someone wants to block, I’d like a vote. We’re proposing a cluster, we’d like you to join.

Derrick: We went to eh visions group, I went to People of Color, I went to Alternative Banking. It’s important for them to know we’re out there and we’re willing to work with them. We went through the GA but we found out there was a communications problems with us and the GA. They thought we were self-creating the movement, that’s not true. We want to work with everything There is no elitism here. We need help.

Jessica: I agree with Walter on what he’s saying about Communication with other groups. However, other groups don’t run to us asking what we think about what they’re doing. For us to continue not putting something forward, we should engage in communication, but we should have something clear on the table, we have demand that we’ve voted on. We can ask for cooperation and coordination. I don’t see anyone running to us. We need to have something concrete there to say this is what we’re doing. Join us with it. That’s the way we should do it.

Walter: Point of information: I feel what you’re saying. You should remember that Open source livestreamed our meeting, Visions and Goals have invited us to participate. When we go to these other groups, we can say “These are the demands that have been produced and we’re interested in talking to you.”

Craig: I Would say in response to the back and forth about how much we’ve accomplished. In two months we should have accomplished more. Continuing to do what we have done will continue with more stalemates. If communication with other groups and networking will increase chance of success, the decision is clear. IF groups out there are working in general territory- visions and goals, things they want the movement to do, to tell the movement what we are about. What possible reason is there to not work.

Xxx: Clarification question: Do you mean that we should continued ahead on what we planned but not lose communications with other groups.

Craig: Going to other groups, communicating with them, while continuing all the work we have going on , all the subgroups, as we bring other groups into our process, is what I’m proposing.

Erik: As i understand it, an earlier sense we had, we’d go to other groups to seek their endorsement, and that would help us get approval with the GA. As I understand it, this relates to forming a group within the spokes council, essential a spoke, it specifies a number of groups for this spoke. IN terms of reaching out to other groups and moving forward, I don’t think this changes anything we’re trying to.

Xxx: think we need to pus forward with a sense of urgency. We’re on the brink of economic collapse and geopolitical conflict. In support of Alvin, great working with other groups, Demands needs to work on its own.

Greg: friendly amendment. What I think about reaching out. 1 or 2 people. What we’re really talking about is getting subgroup with demands to go out and get modification. Subgroups will want to get their demands going, that might be the most sense. You’ll find that there’s another group there too.

Walter: I want to be more organized about that. It will be easier for you to know the point person to know how to get on the agenda. I could try to run around to 15 meetings. If I could instead take everyone’s approved demands and ask them which ones they’ll get behind, that would be a good faith effort.

I want this group to commit to a solutions cluster and go to a few meetings. It doesn’t predispose that anyone doesn’t to outreach in their subgroups demands Doesn’t mean more meetings.

Jake: It’s not about us taking our demands but also see what other groups bring in terms of demands.

Walter: proposing a solutions cluster in the NYCGA. We’re going to a number of groups- open source, visions of goals, think tank, and we’ll ask them to endorse a cluster, and get one or two delegates and sit and arrive at a framework, can have a process to move forward. All this says is we’d like to be communicating with you and we’ve got demands, visions, goals, process. So some clear statements can be made by NYCGA.

Xxxx:does that mean that any demands proposals that already been passed and they’d be able stop this.

Walter: No, I’d like to invite you to read our framework. This isn’t about demands, it’s about bad communications.

Erik: those in favor? 19

Erik: All those against? 7 against.

Total: 35 people.

20%, so this passes. No blocks.

Erik: Motion is passed. Next item.

Eric L: We’ve been discussing this a little bit within broader group and subgroup. When do we go back to the GA? What we’re proposing is to announce now that we’ll try to go back to GA Dec. 17. First, we’ve got considerable momentum. Dec. 13 is our forum. Broadcast, web cast, live stream. Supported by our group, Labor, Spanish Speaking, Occupy Harlem, and few other. IN the broader movement, Dec. 12 will be a major day of mobilization, All West Coast Occupies are trying shut down west coast ports. December 17 is last weekend before holiday. We’d have to reestablish moment after holiday. We don’t see much opposition against this demand. We’d get publicity to get people to go to the GA. People will come to the GA, both for and against. Saturday, get maximum people.

We will be going to all the other groups. Jay is at the other endorsing group to consens on a certain dates.

Erik: 5 speakers, one minute

Rick: I think it’s a bad idea to announce it now. We should wait until the public forum. It will look like the public forum is a sham. We should wait and see what the feedback is.

Erik: I think we should move forward. I think there is urgency that we get this and other demands passed before the new year. This is the way it can be done. I went to a LA. There was a GA that passed very easily a demand. Many other GA’s pass demands very easily. I know there are people who oppose demands but it’s reasonable to try.

Greg: It’s good to move ahead

Jessica- the demand you want to talk about. That had Glass Steagall removed from it. If we’re going to have Jobs for all, that requires that this be a part of the information. GS is an integral part of the jobs. This creates separation between commercial and speculative banking. This will free up money for the jobs. This is constitutional. G-S creates the opportunity for the US government to give credit for capital projects. This is the vehicle. If we’re going to have a demand for jobs. Historically. Look it up. It is an integral part of that demand. If we’re gonna pass this through the GA, let’s do it. That’s Glass Steagall.

Erik: POI: We consensed early to take G-S on. It made a more focused demand and made space for a Glass Steagall group. And G-S doesn’t concern revenue or raising funds.

Susan: Are we going to talk about who can talk at the forum? Can the new cluster members come?

Eric L.: This is more about after the forum. But we should discuss the specifics of the forum at a future meeting. Maybe on Tuesday.

Alvin: Glass Steagall is going to be discussed soon.

Xxx: this is an idea as revolutionary as Occupy Wall Street movement. They spent trillion dollar on the war. That could have paid 40 years of free college. That would really stop the media in its tracks. That would change the face of this country.

Erik: Temperature check on moving forward.

Eric L: So this motion is about bringing jobs for all demand which has been approved by this group by consensus, which has been approved by this group and other groups to bring this to the Dec. 17 GA.: And we’ll announce that best we can, including at the forum on Dec. 13. And to go and ask for the consensus of other group.

Erik: All those consensus: 27

Jay: Clarifying question. I would like to ask this group that all the concerns and question s have been address.

Jake: We’d hold up a hand otherwise.

Steven: Who is opposed to this? 2 against. This passes by 90%.

Erik: Would Steven like to propose about the meeting frequency.

Steven: Currently we meet 2x a week. We meet Sunday and Tuesday evening. Since we’ve adopted a procedure that allows us to meet in subgroups, some feel that 2x a week is too much. Then it would be best for us to meet once, Sunday at 6PM. Whether or not we want to meet once a week Sunday at 6PM. Or maybe meet informally on Thursday. Our formal meeting would be Sunday at 6PM. There have been Tuesday meetings that are very small. We were so small last Tuesday we felt uncomfortable voting on something controversial. Also some people want to close down this group.

Erik: Point of information: We did decide that the group can not be disbanded in this way.

Erik: Can we open stack for concerns, clarifying questions?

Lee: I think we’ve got two different points of view. We’re not moving ahead fast enough but now we’re meeting just once a week. The way we’re operating, flat, with no one appointed, that is going to cut back even more. That’s going to be counter productive.

Alvin: I would say for me, coming on Tuesday is becoming a problem, but I don’t think we should stop meeting. We could talk about a Wednesday. I could handle that. I don’t think we can afford not to meet less than twice a week. I urge that you organize other people to be here, if you can’t be here. I don’t think we can afford it.

Derrick: I feel that this is a movement of escalating issues and that we have to be on top of things and move quickly an decisively, we can’t do that with . Just one meeting. If we don’t meet Tuesday, we’ll have to compensate. We need to not cut back while things are accelerating.

Craig: I reluctantly support this proposal. But realistically, the holidays are coming up. We could increase the number of meetings on the holidays. We’re not losing meeting time but replacing that time with when members of this group will network with other groups.

Xxxxx: reducing meeting time is a bad. Issues are escalating. We are in the vanguard. I can’t make every Tuesday either. The group needs to meet twice a week. Group needs to move forward. Let’s not believe that emails is ever the same as meeting in person.

Xxxx: what is the historical reason is that we have two meetings a week. Was this from a perceived need to have a meeting twice a week. A meaningful meeting once a week is better than demoralizing Tuesday meeting.

Steven: We adopted twice a week on the second week. But our procedure has changed a lot since thing.

Xxx: i don’ have much authority, but to me, I would like, what is the most important group, it seems like demands, what do we want out of wall street. But is it direct action? What’s the most important group here? Tell me? It’s not an opinion?

Erik: I’d like to get tow temperature checks. Who can come on this Tuesday and next Tuesday. About 12 people.

Rick: Can we move to a vote?

Steven: My proposal is that we meet Sunday at 6PM, and an informal bar meeting, maybe Thursday evening, we can meet, bounce ideas, hang out, but we won’t have anything to vote on, so if we have a smaller meeting, we won’t have to vote.

Robert: Point of information: we were able to have a meeting and go to the bar, as there were few people, we couldn’t make major decisions. Second meeting could a bridge. You can still do something productive and go to bar.

Rick: point of process. We’re are discussing whether to get rid of Tuesday, not a bar meeting.

Jake: Friendly amendment: we make decisions on Sunday. If we meet any day, we don’t make any decisions.

Steven: Yes, Sunday we have binding votes., other days is not

Erik: Temp check on discussing the amendment?

Lee: If we move to Sunday we vote, Tuesday we don’t, Tuesday becomes much less relevant, and I won’t go.

Erik: All in favor of reducing: 13 in favor

Steven: any blocks?

How many opposed: 10 against. Out of 36.

Doesn’t pass. 27% are against.

Erik: Since it didn’t pass, we stick to two meetings a week. Discussion on proposals. We take a temperature check on check. Each proposal will state the general nature of their proposal, and tell whether you want a vote tonight.

Steven: Can you get on stack if you have a demand to get discussed tonight.

 

Michael?: Restore democracy subgroup: OWS GA endorse people’s rights amendment to US constitution- ending corporate personhood. Asks all candidates for office (Congress) and state legislature. We will oppose any candidates who does not support. Also ask for sister occupations to join this demand. We’d like a vote

Greg: Two subgroups: one is the economic security subgroup- social safety nets: (reads the demand text)unemployment benefits, Medicare for all, universal retirement and disability, free higher education, free public preschool and childcare, sick and family leave, and ban on at will firing without good. Wants a vote on both.

Rights demand- discussion. We want get rid of all oppressive laws..

Dericck: I am with the Housing Working group: the issue that struck us is that we are fighting against federal law that pub all subsidized housing under the banks. Obama signed it last week. There is apart that directly effects NY. Obama wants certain cities to use this a demonstration project, than the whole country, move all subsidized housing under Bank of America. Here in NYCHA, they put a resident commission on the board, but he was selected, not election. Want NYC to be disqualified for RAD, as the resident commissioner was selected, not elected. We can discuss some of these things now. Things are escalating like crazy, between DC and here.

Alvin: Jessica stated Glass Steagall in an nutshell. You have a draft of what we’ve been talking about. There’s all types of chatter on this. Anything we can do. We should vote and move in this direction tonight. I have another demand that I’d like to discuss. On removing Obama from office. I don’t know if we’ll have time. We have to discuss it.

Xxx: I think free education for 40 years of college is completely legitimate. I don’t think it could be taken care of Obama, he’s (not) gonna get elected again. I’d like to see it discussed.

I’m putting forward the proposal- a language on a document for next Sunday, present in relation to Glass-Steagall proposal. Have a vote next week on Toibin tax- a 1% financial tax that Wall St. Pay, not asking American people. Next week, the nationalization of Federal Reserve. If we are to issue public credit for Jobs for All, it needs to be in the hands of the government.

Jessica; Point of Information: this is a point of information. On what you’re saying. Eric. I think it’s excellent what Eric is saying, because some people are under the mis perception that G-S won’t create revenue. G-S will generate revenue. We have to start thinking about how credit issued through the US government creates money for capital projects. It’s many different things that issues.

*xxx: G-S is the enabling act.

Lee: I still have a proposal.

Status quo is that money influences every political decision in our government. Those with the most at stake will naturally invest in political outcomes irregardless of the common good. The only issue that really resonates with the 99% is the effect money has on government. Only the 1% can put enough money in to get what they want . What put together this proposal for demands. Separation of money and state. NYCGA demands a ban on all money and gives to federal state and money. PAC, lobbyist, special interest groups. Fair total public financing of all federal and state funds. Must be changed by state law or constitutional change… (read more of the demand).

Steven: do you want a vote . Just a discussion.

Alvin: We I be able, this Obama thing, I have a hand out and I want three minutes. At some point of the evening.

Erik: Temp check on hearing it now? (some concerns).

Erik: it’s 7:30. This meeting is supposed to end at 8. We have 4 demands that want votes. 6-7 that want discussion. Since those that want a vote want this approved as quickly as possible. We should go for those that have widest support first. We should do a temp check on each of the four wanting a vote. And do in sequence.

Xxx: Are we being asked to vote for this version?

Erik: We’ll take a full discussing, including friendly amendments.

Erik: temperature check as adopting this as our method.

Erik: Glass Steagall: who wants to discuss soon- 17 people

Restore Democracy: constitutional amendment to end corporate personhood: 15

Economic Security: unemployment benefits: 19

Rights proposal: Labor rights, discrimination, human rights: 18

 

Steven: Economic security got the most votes; rights demand 18, G-S: had 17, Restore Democracy with 15 votes.

 

Erik: I think we should try to get through them in this order, and as much as we can.

Josh: After we vote on, it’s not set in stone. The wording would be morphed a little according to cluster.

Erik: In prior cases we bring it to the group before bringing to the GA. There will necessarily be another meeting.

Greg: With feedback we can bring it back.

Steven: The longer we wait to modify, the harder it will be.

Xxx: will these be at the forum?
Eric: Point of Information: we have co-endorsements from a number of other groups.

Erik: Let’s open stack on the economic security proposal. Can we have a temperature check on 10 items, 1 minute each.

Greg: Restates his proposal, reads his preamble.

Xxx: on firing, that means without just cause.

Greg: that’s what “at will”. If you say it that way, its confusing.

Derrick: Housing is missing. We had a UN special rapporteur and condemned the US for its violation of treaty obligations on housing. Housing is a human right. Subsidization. Will write a friendly amendment.

Jake: I agree with everything in this proposal. There are so many demands, that when we go to the GA, we’ll get different bits shot down. We should look at one bit of it that formulates a useful demand. It could be universal retirement. This kind of blueprint of society demand will get shot down at the GA.

Josh: at the next meeting we should discuss a structure to these demands. I agree with everything here. But before we go to the GA. So that if you throw one out, that if the GA doesn’t agree on one, you can still get through to others.

Lee: I’ve been around for 4 weeks. I’m not left leaning. I think govt should regulate and don’t let market forces to lead to bad outcomes. First thing we can ask ourselves- do we get 80% of the public, or 90% of public. I think these are great targets for society. I don’t think we’ll get 50%. This is a historical opportunity to do this. We shouldn’t be so left wing.

Erik: But we need to meet procedural requirements for us do within the procedure of this group and the GA. It’s expeditious to put as many demands as possible. Whether this will resonate with 99% with the American public. There is no single question. We are agitating for political positions that we support that we believe will allow our movement to grow. It’s voluntary. We’re not subjecting them to something they don’t want to happen. Hopefully the GA will speak to the rest of the country on these question.

Xxx: If a demands group is serious about a goal that is already supported, i just said one.

Craig: I am inspired by Lee. Proposals have been voted down because they are too left wing? What are the issues that inspired by? Income inequality, wall street. To claim that OWS is not left movement is a fallacy. To reject ideas because they are ideas- what are we doing here? What are doing if we are not promoting left wing ideas.

Jessica; The reason that OWS is passionate is because we lost our jobs, our homes, we lost our security, Homeland Security has taken over everything. We lost our rights and our sovereignty. We are losing our bank accounts. We are losing anything that keeps us alive. Net is our food. If anything that represents us, it’s this. These are our rights. For us an our posterity.

Rick: I think what Lee said made a lot of sense. Not that we should push left wing ideals. But I think that as a salesperson, you should get the person you’ll selling things to get on your side. We should push restore democracy first first. That’s not to say we shouldn’t do other things as well.

Derrick: i think it’s a semantic thing. Left wing or right wing? What we’re talking about is American. I don’t care what kind of wing it ha. It’s a five winged bird? Whatever. We should craft something so the American public can easily understood. The corporate world is trying to work on language. So they’re trying to change form economic freedom, instead of capitalism. We’re talking about American issues for American people. They’re so wing.

Xx: i want to say two things. Nothing here has been proposed that against the constitution. What we’re doing is to try to shore up parts of the constitution that have been stepped on. We’re getting two different areas. One is goals- what we want to see. Second- how to we get there. Let’s take them one at a time. If you confuse how with what we want, we’ll get stuck in a back and forth. We need to clarify when something is what we want and what comes later. How do we get public to listen to us.

Xxxx: is there any way to get any numbers of this? How much it costs?

Greg: There is. It’s quite large. I don’t have it off the top of my head. Some of these things have no price tag. Unemployment 10 of billion . Medicare for all- if you shut off private actors, it’s cheaper, universal retirement, extend payroll taxes, universal free higher education, some people will have numbers, I’m sure 10s of billions, free public pre-schools, moderate,

Erik: There is a place in the process where we will implement.

Can we extend 30 minutes.

Was the amendment is accepted?

Greg: I think it’s complicated and may need a specific demand on its own. I think that’s a demand where we can see demand. I think we should be working on and devolve it.

Erik: We are considering it in unamended form.

Xxx: I’d like to make a friendly amendments.

Erik: I will open stack:

xxx: I agree with all of these- but it seems like a laundry list. Seems like it’s for demands. … is unemployment and at will firing. Something on health, something on retirement, something on education. There are at least 4 distinct areas. I don’t see why it’s not four demands. They’re too complicated.

Jake: I totally agree. This is too capacious to pass the GA. A ban on “at will contracts.”

Greg: no this isn’t Europe. We don’t have contracts here.

Erik: We’ve considered friendly amendments. Can we move to vote.

Steven: do we have any blocks? No

Support this proposal? 21

How many are against: against: 8

Now we have to count the total numbers: 30

Just barely fails.

Erik: Outcome was against: 8.

 

Next is Rights demand:

Greg: demand an end to all repressive measures. (read demand)

Erik: Open stack: clarifying questions, concerns, whatever.

Eric: I don’t know if I am speaking in the right order. I strongly support this demand be supported. The attack on our rights is fundamental. This is fundamental for people to support their rights. Workers and unions are weak. Immigrants are terrorized. Our movement is being repressed. Our rights of free assembly are being violated. Maybe I’ll have to say this again in 10 minutes I strongly urge that the wording “End discrimination and legalize all who live here” be added to this. People who live here without rights is very fundamental. I ask for a friendly amendment. I hope its friendly.

Jake: I strong support this. This goes to the heart of the some of the concerns. I would like to shorten some of these amendments.

Greg: how do we do friendly amendment? What is the process if the subgroup voted for the language to be a particular way. The friendly amendment- “End all discrimination…” (goes back to earlier version).

Erik: We’ll consider that as a friendly amendment at the end.

Jake: Right now we go through stack.

Derrick: I”d like to add as a friendly amendment, that there be a civil Gideon, a right of protection against those being harassed by landlords and housing courts. We need to clarify with “elsewhere.” that’s any international thing.

Erik: I am strongly in support of this, the labor movement and immigrants movements are two of the most important groups that OWS needs to reach out to. They are organized and can be an asset to our movement. We need to demonstrate that we are committed to their cause.

Erik: Moving to close stack.

Lee: Surprising to some of you I am in favor of labor rights. The only way that people not on the top to engage is through collective bargaining. We can see labor rights being cut back bit by bit. So few people are protected in unions. Non-unions members are jealous by those protected by unions. That said, what I see here is, it’s tow or three parts. Labor and human rights. Or Labor human rights/immigration status. I go back to my point again about the 99%. I think with an organized effort we can get support for this from 99%. If you throw in their protection people regardless of immigration status, and think people will look at it and say “so what”? They will look at each individual part. We get this down to just labor. Labor law is really difficult. I’d love to get them involved to make sure this is worded correctly.

Erik: how do you want to handle friendly amendments.

Greg: The group has acknowledged one as friendly.

Lee: We table the demand and reformulate it as purely labor rights.

Greg: That’s not friendly. We’re talking about protecting the rights of the 99% even if the 99% doesn’t agree yet. Immigration is a key question of the working class. It’s fundamental to movement.

Eric: OWS in Espanol wants the language.

Derrick: my amendment about civil Gideon law. To add about people who are hurled into landlord tenant courts. Ask for them to having a public defender.

Xxx: shouldn’t that be in a housing demand?J

Jake: One of the strengths of this proposal is that focuses on repealing bad laws. I think that will help it gain consensus when we take it to eh general assembly. The phrase when it deviates is “end all violations of human rights. It’s too difficult. Change to “repeal all laws infringing on human rights and prosecuting all responsible for police violence, torture,”

Erik: I have a friendly amendment. This is a good point. I agree. From my standpoint that the state will prosecute all those responsible. I would also strike that part.

Greg: We demand violations stuff. We don’t want to be pepper sprayed. When a kid gets shot from the ghetto, that is a problem.

Jake: But the problem is that we are focused on repealing laws, and that is easier to get consensus.

Eric: I would propose another version of this bullet point “end police violation, torture, rendition.” These are all legal, and they have been committed by those in power. It’s a very clear demand to simply say “End policy violence, torture and rendition.”

Jake: I like that

Greg: I accept it.

Craig: I like this demand in principle. One thing, how do we define a human rights violation, if a legal authority was acting within the law, that we decide to be a human rights violation, there’s no way to prosecute them if its within the law. Those were action that we all disapprove, but they weren’t illegal and you can’t prosecute.

Peter: but these courts can prosecute regardless of legality.

Erik: a lot of back and forth. Up to them to accept the friendly amendment. Prosecution is impossible.

Greg: I have to disagree that technically that things are illegal.

Alvin: passed.

Greg: We are going back to original working on ending discrimination on immigrants.

And we’re changing “end police violence.”
(reads the revised amendments).

Erik:
Any blocks? No?
Steven: 22 in favor

How many against: 4 opposed.

28 here.

The resolution passes. 86%.

Rick: Can we get the next two proposals on the end of the next meeting?

Comments are closed.