Meeting minutes, Sunday November 20, 2011

Posted by & filed under .

Demands meeting, 11/20/11
Davey introduced himself.  Spoke informally about his collective voting project through open source technology.  Huge gamut of people wanting to express different demands.  Voting rubric that can go virally, or shuffle through emails.  100,000 votes on the last month, pilot program on only economic demands.  Demands could help create content.  Groups like Visions and Goals.


Meeting got started at 6:24.

Jay and Leah co facilitate.  Temp check.  Any objections?  (Consensus).

Steven volunteers to take stack.


Leah: Any announcements?

Vote on an agenda.  Open stack for agenda.  5 minutes.

Itzak: Now is the time to ask questions.

Jay: Point of clarification: If you want to suggest an item to place on the agenda.

Itzak: I want an agenda item on questions.
Alvin:  Read my submission to the committee: Impeachment of Obama.

Jay: You just want to read it?  Discussion on it?

Jessica; The re- introduction and information about Glass-Steagall (talk about it).

Walter: 5 minutes to confirm ratification on the structure, and introduce new demand “Money out of politics” (5 minutes)

John: Need for a third party.

Finn: I want to be put on the stack.

Jay: We’re taking suggestions for agenda.

Eric: two things left from last meeting.  One was to continue discussion of how to push forward Jobs for all demand, and also report back from people who have spoken to other groups.  Want report backs on top.  So first: Report back, 2: JFA, 3: Procedural proposal on how to deal with new demands.

Greg: I would like to suggest possible ranges of demands.  I’ve written them out.  Put on the table.  A lot of things have come up from people criticizing demands.  Not sure where that fits the agenda.  Someone passed out this paper.

Walter: We ratified a structure 3 meetings ago.

Greg: I’m going to pass out what I have it’s very broad.

Jay: We’ve got a long list.  Here’s a reasonable strategy. 1) Old business, 2) One new demand to begin a discussion today.

Lauren: Maybe something about media outlets.

Steven: Stack is closed for agenda items.

Jay: One strategy: Go with old stuff (JFA, report back, report on structures, procedure to deal with new demands), then we discuss about one or two new demands.

Itzak blocks.

Itzak: I think questions should be put on the proposal in the beginning.  I won’t take long. General questions.  I have a question- how do I know of the proposals made, how it was passed.  General overall process of this group.

Jay: Any disagreement with beginning with reports backs. (consensus).

Do we want what Itzak = do people want this agenda on this on a brief 2 minute “historical piece.”
then report back on JFA and discussion.  Then we have process for dealing with new demands.  Report part on new framework.  Then we have a list of new items.  So we got to try to narrow it down.  The question is how many more items of new items.

Walter: Can we consolidate all new demands to 2-3 minute window were presenters could present.

Eric: We could do baskets, so there is general discussion on each topic.

Itzak: there won’t be much time left.

Jay: Are there more proposals?  There is Eric’s and Walter’s proposal.  But it will be difficult to have a discussion.  Hopefully at the next meeting we will have a procedure for introducing new demands.

Walter: We have a procedure.  We can talk about it when we get to the agenda.

Alvin: The one that is introduce: 2-3 minutes to introduce.  Do we have 2-3 minutes to discuss.

Walter: We have a procedure ratified and modified.  The short version is that a group of 2-3 people creates a subgroup on the new individual demand.  From there, they can introduce it to the meeting.  But it has to move through a series of benchmarks.  Articulation, collection, strategy, after strategy we can then vote it 3/4 or not to endorse it as a demand.

Jay: Provisionally we work on the plan of 2-3 minutes to present your proposal.  Do we need to break up times?

Report backs: 5 minutes

JFA: 15 minutes

Walter’s proposal: 5 minutes

Greg: But it might need more discussion.

Walter: But it was already voted upon it.

Jay: Following report backs: Itzak’s questions: 3 minutes.

Then 2-3 minutes on the new proposals

Lauren: Are we going to decide those specific groups.

Eric: What we agreed about the subgroups is that we meet independently, but the end of the group meeting, people can say, “I want to be in this group,”

Jay: Steven is taking stack for report backs.  If you’ve done anything outside.

Eric: At the our last meeting, we decided to propose 2 steps to move JFA forward.  One is to be a public forward, webcast and radio- should OWS support JFA.  That was tentatively to be Nov. 28, but we decided to go tentatively to the GA the following weekend.  Since we now have 4 other groups co-endorsing the exam (Spanish, Labor, Unemployed, and People’s Organization for Progress) we decided to talk them.  I went to Labor Organizing committee on Friday and we had a discussion of this idea.  They were unanimously in favor of co-endorsing the open forum, but there was a sentiment that given the holiday, Nov. 28 is too soon, and they wanted to bring it to a subcommittee to decide on another date.  We have to do that.  In terms of going back to the GA, there was objection.  The vote of 22-5.  Since they have 90% rule at the moment, it was tabled.  The sentiment was that we’d be able to get their approval further down the line.  And WBAI will broadcast this if we avoid their fundraising week.  Dec. 1-8.

Alvin: I have informally met with several other members of the demand group on the subject of impeaching Obama.  One thing being considered- extending counts from 3-6.  I hope to work with Walter to learn about procedures better. I’ve done verbal part, I’m doing WG part, and I’m making references to support and outreach.  Maybe after the meeting.  Get a better understanding of what they mean.  Hopefully bring it to a vote.

Walter: I spent a lot of time at the eviction and various demonstration after the eviction.  I engaged in small talk.  I brought up JFA.  I spoke to a few hundred people a lot of people support on paper JFA and other demands being released with it.  I think with the eviction brought the importance of demands, but we should also make demands that are very very local.  I think it’s good, the consensus and the movement is changing about demands.

Craig: What I’ve done in recent weeks is I have attended facilitating training.  Some of us would remember meetings when people have tried to be disruptive and use consensus process to derail the group.  The more knowledgeable we are about the consensus process the more we can shut down this.  I recommend everyone do the same things.  If someone steps up with ridiculous excuses that are technically in the process, I should be able to come up with a process based reason to get them to step down.

Jim from vision and goals- tonight we will be presenting a vision statement to the GA.  This may help this group to get things done.

Greg: Point of information: do you have copies of the draft available.

Jim: If it doesn’t get blocked, it will be in the NYGA website.  It’s at the visions and goals NYCGA.

Walter: We want to work together.

Jim: We want to work also together with Think tank.  I’m going to the GA now.

Jay: we’re done with report backs.

Itzak: there are people who participate in this group who are more confused than I am.  I finally figured out how to participate in NYCGA.  What resolutions we pass and the status of which ones they are and up for consideration.  Our demand jobs for all, how if at all will we will consider it, will it be decided or considered.

Jay: Eric was key to put this group together.

Eric: I won’t accept that.  The JFA demand was initially adopted by in October in a longer forum, after the body voted, got a sense of the body, preferred longer to shorter form, that was reconsidered over time.  In the first place, we went out to other groups, brought back comments from other groups, and basically we shortened.  Then we went to the GA a second time and went with break out groups.  We had 10 break out groups.  They wanted it shorter.  So we again shorted and adopted it a third time by our consensus process, modified consensus, now this wording has been adopted by 4 other groups.  Process is very different.  If we thought it was urgent to change the wording, I’d have to get other 4 groups to approve the change.  That at the moment is the only demand we consensed on.  In no sense is that the only demand.

Greg: Along that line, actually at the very beginning, there was a series of demands; this was understood at the beginning as the first among tentative.

Jay: Was that helpful? Give people background?  Next item. How we move forward on JFA demands.

Opened stack.

Eric: In order to move this idea which outreach committee has taken up, a public broadcast forum, the one decisions we have to make now.  Is a day or range of dates for this forum?  My proposal is that we say that the 13 or 14th of December are most desirable.  We need a location.  Dec. 12 is a major mobilization.  Occupy Oakland has called for a shutdown of the West coast ports.  This would be Tuesday and Wednesday.  This would give us an opportunity to build momentum to building momentum for taking to the GA.  We need volunteers to find a location- university, church, union, video maker, outreach to other groups here.  Outreach o other occupy, outreach to press, media. Flyer for Dec. 1 rally, and various other events.  There is a Dec. 1 first rally called by CLC.  That’s another area.  We need to consens on dates by the end of the this discussion.

Walter: I think a lot of people I hear from outside of the movement supporting JFA, they support for a lot of different reasons.  People outside the movement understand how it strengthens our union and municipal sectors.  People in the movement that would support it want to be clear that it is one of many demands.  But if 90% of our effort is on this demand than it doesn’t make it look like it.  If we are planning a big to dialogue with the public about jobs for all, it would do us well to have another demand or two in there because it makes Jobs for all, it makes JFA, there is nothing wrong with JFA, but I think a lot of movement people want to be aware of that other currents of demands are available.

Greg: I think that’s interesting.  I think then I want 13-14, that will help other demands get movement, get ready of prime time.  That would motivate other groups to move forward.  I think we should set a timeline and take advantage of his time window.

Walter: I don’t think we should delay the process.  The platform should be used for a broader set.

Itzak: the advantage of one demand first is that we learn from it.  What follows can benefit from our experience.  If we have more, they’re not centralized.  The other subject that people… is corporate personhood.  Unfortunately, 3 of us met here are few days ago, it was about getting money out of politics, it is a good subject.  If there is another demand, it should be corporate personhood.  I do have reservation of the jobs for all demand.  I think it should be reviewed, to remove problematic things.  25 million governmental jobs will not hold water for technical issues.  We need o deal with prison industrial complex.  We also need to deal with undocumented immigrants, that they’re entitled to a government job will be problematic to explain to the 99%.

Jay: This is not about rehashing the demand but pushing it forward.

Outside announcement: We need to chairs back to other tables.

Guillermo:  I support JFA.  But why it hasn’t passed GA is b/c people are opposed to demands.  But there is a comprise.  There is a way to respect that opposition.  I’m going to suggest that it make it part of the NYCGA proposed demand.  If it came as a proposal instead of a demand, we’re just making a call for demand.  That’s just a friendly amendment.

Walter: what you’re saying is what I believe about demands in general.  But we should remember that demands have come out of other occupations.  Just because are closer to Wall St. We don’t get special privileges.  We aren’t the clearinghouse for other demands.

Finn: I don’t think we should compromise at all.  If people don’t like this demand, they don’t have to be in this movement.

Craig: Ideally we could produce 4, 8, 10 demands and present them all at one time but realistically it’s taking enough time to get this one demand off the ground, that could take months or years.  What you’re saying about what the perception will be that we’re demanding jobs.  We’ll deal with that as far as I’m concerned.  I disagree with you Guillermo, whether we call it a demand or a call for a demand, the same people will oppose for the same reasons.  There is no compromise that will make them happy.  Based on what I observed, in break out groups, I think the tide is turning.

Carol: I’ve been participation since day 1, it’s difficult to get everyone to agree, and I came up with an idea.  I came up with this “occupy congress”.  A table, anyone could come.  Anyone, we can right that demand for you, and send it to Congress.  Some demands, the reason I bring it up, so people have different demands that are clashing.  We allow a table.

Jay: This time is about advancing JFA demand.

Guillermo: I joined the group because I support demand.  I’m just saying keep an open mind. Some of those people haven’t changed their mind.  How we going to go passed the GA.

Jessica: I think it’s important for us to remember.  I agree with Walter.  The JFA is there  It is time for us to make sure that this demand, our first demand, there will be others.  There will be others we can put forward with JFA to make it look more cohesive, structured, and important.  JFA demand has lots of parts to.  There is a misperception that it is just out there.  There are demands within the JFA demand.  It’s just one little thing.  Several things within there that are very important that are part of the jobs for all demand in the first part.  People seem to be confused with.  That’s not the end of the process.  The tide is changing.  The movement has to have demands.

Jay: have to make decisions.  Eric says we have to change the date of the forum.  What is out there is to give a committee to choose a date (Dec. 13-14) to decide on this forum.  Is there agreement on this.  Is there agreement.  (Consensus reached).  There is encouragement to join.  There is a lot of work involved.  Outreach to other groups in occupy.  Flyering for Dec. 1 and 12 rally.  We have a lot of discussions, and we struggle around that.  It doesn’t end there.  There is a huge amount of work.  Eric is passing around a sign up list.

Walter: If another demand is issued, can it be also presented.

Eric: Even if we don’t have demands at that time, our representative at that time will talk about our active demands creation.  I want to say that premise of the open forum is the presentation will focus on JFA, the discussion is totally open.  If someone wants to put forward demands after this.

Xxx clarification question: what the other groups?  Are they involved in demands at all.

Eric: That can’t be answered Yes or No.  People’s organization for program, they have demands endorsed by 50 organizations.  They also have national jobs program.  The other working groups have not yet consensed on other demands.  Labor group is discussing other demands.

Jay: We’ll convey to other groups that there can be other demands.

Greg: Other subgroups articulate demands, depends on how far they are.

Jay: We’ve agreed on those dates and other demands go up on the forum.

Walter will be talking about procedures, new structures, and process on how new demands are introduced.

Walter: 4 meetings ago.  A subgroup formed and created an internal process.  2 meetings ago we ratified it.  The flow chart show it will be carried out.  It’s on our website.  There are two things.  We need it to be ratified and presented to the spokes council.  NYCGA is highest body.  Spokes council is working out its process.  With the emergency situation that is slowed down.  Right now we are positing that this is a legitimate working group in the movement, as a working group or logistic group.  Our charter says that it is the goal of the working group to get demands, bring here, goes through a process to have it endorsed by the NYCGA.  There need to be 3-5 demands members that articulate it.  They put it on the list serve, come to the meeting, and read it.  Next they collect. That demand is brought to other working groups.  People sign off on it.  It gains power on the demand when more people inside and outside the movement sing out.  Strategy when are we doing workshops, organizing, community, workshops.  After the, the Demand WG will put their stamp on it, which JFA has done.  Next stage is execution.  Brought to the GA.  You want as many collective stamps before going to GA.  Finally, implementation, thought of before hand but after NYCGA stamps it, implementation shops it out to the different groups to get systematic policy implementation sources.  It’s not up to demands to come up with all those details.  We are beholden to multiple overlapping groups in the community.  It would do us well to have 15 health care organization backing up a health care organizations.  I would also go to the relevant WG.  We will also have 5 independent observers to prevent factionalizing.

Jay: Who wants to comment.  10 more minutes.  This has relevance to those who want to bring up new items today.

Greg: I am reading this as we become a clearing house for what other groups want.  But other groups don’t have to run it by us.

Walter: If any other working group produces a demand, it would behoove to work with them.  But we’re not a policy generator.  We are phrasing demands so they are in their most barebones form.  We are lobbying group to get support for individual demands.  But our goal is to make sure there are demands in NYCGA.

Greg: It doesn’t influence other groups.

Eric: My understanding is that we adopted several meetings ago the procedure outlined.  Are you proposing a modification with the five observers?

Walter: Since the last week, we put all the modifications in writing and put it on our site.

Eric: Was it checked against the minutes.

Walter: Nothing radical was introduced.

Eric: I know we did adopt this procedure.  I think procedurally if you want o confirm it was what it was, it seems to me that we should have a notification on the list that this has been put up, and if people have objections, and there’s a difference between that and the minutes, we can straighten that out at the next meeting, but we can’t approve the working if we don’t have it.

Walter; I can’t put it on the NYCGA documents.  I want to know what the procedure is.  We can’t be on the Spokescouncil without a charter.

Eric: Right now I am an administrator.  I have to find out if that is a technical glitch.  I suggest you send it out the list as an attachment.  I recommend that you send it to the website.

Alvin: passed

Itzak: the charter, it is a lot of checks, a saw it on the website.  I have reservations about the language.  How long would the discussion, a bill passed in a legislation, 1st reading, 2dn reading.  I don’t have principled objections.  I want to discuss with other.  I am not going to argue that charter or the process.  But I don’t like the language.

Greg: I have a question- this idea of the 3-5 person threshold to raise a demand.  Was that adopted.

Jay: Let me just go through what I put on as Walter’s process.  3-5 seated members of the working group (been to one working group meeting).  You meet outside about the demand.  You post on the website the week before.  You articulate you write the exact working.  You allow a discussion online.  They you go to other groups, collection process, you get support from other groups.  Only then you bring it to Demands for passing.

Walter: you can try to pass it through our committee any time.  You just need the 3-5.

Jay: You can go immediately to the group and get support.  Or get rejected and get support.  Before you go to the GA, you need support from here.  When you go to the GA, there’s this other level.

Walter: implementation, what other group has decided on how to implement the demand.

John: I want to know difference between support and approval.  Together here you need 3 people to bring to this group.

Walter: 3-5 people will work on it.  Activists for the demand.  It’s support.  They will do activisms for the demand.

Itzak: I find 3-5 people problematic.  But I find something else problematic.  There’ s a 2nd amendment group.  3-5 people.  They say to other groups that ID themselves as members of Demands and go to other groups.  Is there a process that you can go around, but if you’re going to be identified as us.

John: clarifying question: was this not brought up and approved the procedure.  Then why should we be discussing it anymore?

Eric: Point of Information: We don’t need to readopt.  Walter was brining up procedure.

Jay: yes but most people aren’t clear about tit.

Greg: there was a suggestion that this be made available and the original was made available, and then we can have a discussion next time.

Walter: will post it.

Jay: five different demands have come up.  I don’t think any have gone through the hoops.

Alvin: I did meet with people.  I want to read it.  I met with 3-5 people.

Finn: Discussion.

Jay: we have impeachment, Glass steagall, have you met.

Jessica; This is still part of Jobs for All?  I want to propose that we put it back it in.

Jay: Before you come here, you need to meet and discuss.

Greg: If you’re going to , this 3-5 people, you can spend time and say here’s an idea, are there three people who want to join?

Jay: Do we want to do this?

Eric: I wanted to get on stack for announcements.

Jay: We got five demands.  Open stack and say if you want to join a subgroup.

Blue jacket: Is there not discussion of demands being made.

Jay: we could have clarifying questions.  We want to get first five on the

First: impeachment, 2nd: Glass Steagall, 3rd Getting money out of politics/campaign finance; 4th: 3rd policy; 4th: Media outlets.

You can read your demands.

Itzak: a third party is not a demand, it’s a propose.  Media is not a demand, a process.

Jay: I’m not going to vet.  Let’s let them first verbalize it.  Than you can give a clarifying question.

Alvin: This is a draft for impeachment of President Obama.  President Obama has engaged in high crimes and misdemeanors.  If annoyed to remain in office… this could be irreparable.  Nuclear war.  Declare war.  (reads his demand).  Discussed illegality of Libya.  Also violation of 5th Amendment.  Assassination of 3 American citizens.  W/o due process.  Drones.  Violation of 4th amendment: search and seizure.  Electronic communications.  I will put on site in 24 hours.

Jay: no clarifying questions.

Jessica: emergency resolution to restore Glass-Steagall.  Nancy Kaptor? Hr 1489 Return to prudent banking act.  Without this, any jobs bills, any jobs act, any future capital jobs situation to go forward, because Glass Steagall is what separate commercial banking from investment banking.  There needs to be an reorganization of banks that handle our every day needs.  Everything goes through commercial banking.  I’m not just talking about small business but everyone’s livelihood.  We have to organize bank, take out investment banking, and go back to commercial banks that meet the needs of the people.  (Read her emergency resolution).  We need this for our government to offer credit.

Greg: Clarifying question: I don’t see how Glass Steagall is adequate to the scale of the problem of the financial system.  We need debt relief, which would destroy the commercial banking system.  This is system that takes on the entire financial system.  WE need public control where necessary.  My feeling is that Glass Steagall by itself isn’t sufficient.

Jessica; Glass Steagall is the first step.  First things first.  It needs to be put back.

Jay: Jessica will post this on the webpage.  To get out on our list serve,, demands OWS.

Walter: I’ve been working on this demand for a week and a half with Lee Chavisa, etc.  So here we go.  We won’t put up the draft until we’re done.  Read demand (about ending all private contributions to political campaigns, to be replaced by public campaigns.  By state law or constitutional amendments.  Separate private money from politics.)  Gist is campaign finance reform.  Objective is that if people want to run for office they are beholden to a lot of money.

Eric: How do you, this proposal, does not address the Bloomberg type problems, Senators are multimillionaires.  This wouldn’t address this part of the problem.

Walter: That would be in the implementation problem.  We think this demand that almost everyone can get behind.

Lauren: seems to be confusing and ambiguity.  Lot of people instead of talking about demands and getting them done people are disagreeing politically.  We’re all going to disagree politically.  But to me what this group is putting all our political and particular differences aside.  Seems there are differences on our demands and personal.  Before a proposal even goes before Congress has to go through so many stages.  I think getting something out there, it takes so long, has to go through so many different process.  The focus should be on articulating what demands are.  The strategy is… some people are focusing on whether they agree with it rather than getting it out there.

Jay: We have a procedure to adopt demands.  75% that’s how we got JFA.

Blue jacket: I’m trying to understand your question.  You’re asking if people if we should go and find out, if these demands are just putting them out, without reference to without what people outside this group are interested in doing.

Lauren: I’m just saying that people who disagree with something politically, it should be more about getting things out there.  I feel that’s a little bit of a problem about what we demand as a group and what everyone is trying to say.

Peter: I don’t think we want swamp society all sorts of tiny demands.  That might undercut demands themselves.  We want to be careful and selective before we issue demands.

John: I’m just going to make statements based on what I observed in AZ, MI, WI, OH, had they had a third party, they would have gotten much farther.  Now they’re trying to do recall.  They’re so frustrated and outraged, they have enough people to do it.  As we speak they’re recalling Gov. Walker from Wisconsin.  Had they had a third party in place they wouldn’t have to do this.  In the end, everything we demand, gov’t won’t listen to anything except the ballot box.  That’s where we will be able to get these programs and really make them work.  There wasn’t one issue that actually had an effect until the start of the recall.  We have started a third party in Rockaway, Occupy Rockaway, a branch of Occupy queens.  We meet 1-2 o’clock Sunday.  We call it Occupy American Party.

Leah: Do you see value of a third party beyond the electoral politics.  I see the two parties as basically one.  You do need a third party.

Leah: I agree with you that we need a third party.  But my person opinion is that direct action is more effective, and I worry that a third party will sap our energy.  A third party can be a galvinizing space for direct action.  It can create galvanizing social and political space.

Craig: I have a demand I’ve been sitting on for a while.  But most of the meetings were consumed for JFA.  A demand I’d like to suggest, in 1980, at the start of the Reagan administration, the tax rate of the uppermost income bracket is 70%.  I propose to bring tax rates up to 1980.  This deflects criticism from the right.  You say “Ronald Reagan taxed the rich at 70%.  Are you calling him a socialist”.  Also offering tax breaks to upper class to open up factories to create jobs for their fellow countrymen.

Greg: I threw together a bunch of things.  A lot of this overlaps what’s already been raised.  I’d carry us back to October, when there was a demand on rights.  Repeal patriot, Taft Hartley, clearly away all laws that block rights of 99% to organize for their interests, and infringements on civil liberties.  Something out of point 1.  I think it would have broad support.  Civil liberties demands- repeal of civil liberties and human rights.  I think this would have enormous appeal.  I think the whole civil liberties community, people concerned with incarceration, anyone who wants to join in.  Working together.  Also ending military waste, ending wars, withdrawal from foreign bases, get rid of nuclear weapons.  I throw that out too.  Financial.  I feel there should be a broader financial.  That will be very difficult.  Far more needed.  Demands on relief, moratorium on debt.  You’ve got a mass basis for direct action.  Election and media reforms.  I’d like your (Walter) input.  I have feedback on that.  I also think it has to have constitutional language.  To do what you want to do you can’t do without constitutional change.  Finally, I’m going to people talk about health care, unemployment benefits, social security, social safety net demand. A comprehensive social security net.  Disability, family leave, have a proper social safety net.  Make the whole country more productive.  Perhaps we should link up.

John: Point of Information, that might pertain, at the Occupy Queens Friday night, a judge had just ordered all the money from Local 100 to be paid back to union with interest.

Jay: This was an international, not US body, the ILO arbitration board said it was a violation of international labor standards.  A UN agency.  Does not have standing in the courts of the U.S.

Eric: I just want to motivate.  We have to choose priorities.  What we consens on next.  I’d like to second Greg’s point on the need for rights.  Dec. 12, the call from Occupy Oakland is doubly important.  Dec. 12 has already been chosen for immigrant rights organization for a national strike to demand legal status.  Occupy Oakland to blockade ports that longshoreman can not pass, mass picketing by unions is illegal in the U.S.  It is incumbent that we have this demand for rights.
“End the Attack on our rights.”  (Reads demand).
Greg: I am inclined.

Eric: Anyone want to join our subcommittee.

Itzak: Who is the person coordinating corporate personhood.  There are group of three people, it’s corporate personhood and campaign finance.  Suggests that they should join groups.

xx- we organized 2-3 meetings ago, working on it, gone to some subgroups.  Want to put a corporate personhood.  Abolish the amendment where corporations are people and money is speech.  Want to get rid of that concept.  It has a broad base of support across political philosophy and parties.  We feel confide that we can push this through.  It already has support with a broad range.

Jay: Did you post it on the list serve?  It’s good to get on the list serve.

Stack is empty.
Jay: The only thing to do now is to decide on the next meeting.  We decided on maybe going once a week.

Eric: We won’t meet on Tuesday this week.  We left open as to whether to meet 2x a week or once.

Who is available Sunday.  We can decide then whether we’ll have a Tuesday meeting that week

Alvin: I think if we meet Sunday, if it’s a question, we should discuss now whether to not meet twice a week.  I don’t think it’s possible.  I think if it’s serious we need to meet twice a week.

Jay: Do we want a discussion about meeting schedule.

Xxx: it was a onetime cancellation because of the holiday, isn’t the assumption that they continue twice a week.

Walter: Clarification question, was it because the attendance was poor last Tuesday.

Eric: The discussion was that many people had many other working groups.

Peter: people could still meet in informal fashion.


Comments are closed.