11/19 Visions and Goals meeting
Timothy: stack taker
Meeting began at 12:10
Began with a moment of silence
Opened up discussion on agenda items. Proposed items included Frank’s visions documents, what to do after presenting vision document at GA, and discussion over meeting times.
Temperature check on these items. Decided to discuss in that order. Reached consensus on the three items.
Frank’s doc: 30 minutes
GA: 5 minutes
Schedule changes: 5 minutes
Brief discussion over Frank’s document and different revisions, break out groups, and GA activity.
Consensus to spend time on the following: Reading Frank’s document, preamble, and a method of editing the document.
Zocera read Frank’s document.
Zocera, Michael read their proposed preambles.
Frank read updated document.
Opened stack to discuss the document. Consensus on 20 minutes.
Daryl: issues about consensus
Zocera: agreed. Sugged “inverted pyramid”
Michael C.(?) concerns about education.
Jim: Human needs and human life.
Adam: concerns about education
Andy: future goals
Bill: what about if the GA doesn’t approve
Georgy: expressed concern that group was discussing Frank’s “edited” document, not the Wednesday version, which the group had somewhat consensed on. Frank’s new document violates porcess.
Michael M: prefered Zocera’s document. Need to include discussion of jobs.
Patrick: emphasized that there would later be goals
Natasha: pointed out three ppl video-taping.
Frank: emphasized the importance of getting document out the world in light of the raid.
Tim: expressed concerns with “civic obligation”
Zocera: there wasn’t consensus about Frank’s document, but there were blocks. Frank’s Wed. Doc was meant to serve as a foundation
Patrick: pointed out this version was the shortest, most succinct.
(orange shirt?): change from “our vision” to “we will create”.
Frank: need to separate goals from vision.
Raul: Thought the document was a skeleton that we’d add muscle and organs to. Need mention of criminal justice issues
Blackcoat: Instead of civic responsibility, change to ‘contribution to society’
Michael (from Maine?): better to say nothing than say it badly
Frank: nothing helps nothing. Let’s take to GA.
Group consensed to work with Wednesday edition
Michael: need to get something out soon.
Zocera: Impropriate that the document today incorporates the feedback form last night, and Wednesday, and online contributions
Group agrees to extend meeting by one more hour.
Frank: reads original document. Suggests we take to GA tonight.
Patrick: two possibilities: break out groups or friendly amendments
Tim: The document had been consensed upon on Wednesday.
Frank: On Wed we consensed that we’d take it to the GA
Zocera: disagreed. We may have to withdraw it. Thought the Wednesday version was meant to serve as a placeholder, given GA’s 24 hour rule.
Patrick: several options.
- stack for friendly amendments
- break out groups to consens on edits
- continuing the discussion on wednesday
- accept Wednesday’s document and incorporate preambles.
Jim asked what groups are supposed to do
Darryl asked who is taking notes now. Felt group is obligated to put forth something.
Michael: friendly amendment: go over points w/edits in groups.
Jim suggests break out in groups each group works on one part
- friendly amendments on the proposal: 11
- break out groups : 7
- discuss wednesday business: 0
- accept wednesday’s language and move towards preamble- 7
Patrick: opened stack for friendly amendments 1 minute.
Tim: Point by point?
Temp check: consensus on point by point.
Zocera: Richard had recommended last night reordering the points.
Patrick: can do this in the beginning.
Some confusion about the numbering
Richard: 1,2,6,3,4,5,7,8,9, (governing is together)
Natasha reads the full proposals in each changed order.
Temp on Georgi’s proposal: consensus.
Group consensus to push meeting back another hour: consensus.
Patrick: now point by point.
Noah: change to action “We will to create”
Patric: let’s open up stack
Brain: We are a
Raoul: we want a “just society”
bill: change to “we envision”
Eric: “we will acheive”
Frank: “Our vision is that we shall be”
Georgi: “We envision a better world.”
Zumumba: seconds “we envision.
Michael: should not drop the “where”
Zocera: can be any of these words.
Frank: we envision creating
Brian: Simple is better
Michael: need to move forward. I like envision.
Zumumba: “true democracy.”
Zocera: “truly free, democratic and just society,”
Michael: Can we combine amendments?
Patrick: Here are options:
- We envisions a truly free, democratic and just society
- We envision a free, democratic and just society
- We envision a better world, free democratic and just society
- We envision a better world that is truly free, democratic, and just
- We envision creating a truly free democratic and just society
- We envision a truly free, democratic, and just society and world.
Michale M: wants to change vote from two to three (so close).
Others want to transfer 3 vote to 2.
Revote: on 2 and 5 (now remained 1 and 2)
Up or down vote
Zocera blocks on ethical groups. “truly moves us forward.”
Frank defines a blck.
MM: would accept “Truly”
Bob: need to include truly
Shanoor: ppl on the far right would say we have a truly free democracy
Gerogi: 2 options: 1) we envision a free, democratic and just society
- we envision a truly free…
Zumumba: when we say envision we say it doesn’t exist.
Brain: Simplicity is how we proceed
Natasha: thinks truly is redundant
Frank: w/o creating, how does truly speak?
Rasahd: Truly is not necessary
Catherine: seems like a block shouldn’t be used for an opinion.
Green jacket: suggests brevity
MM: suggested a vote to get this done.
Bill: Envision and creating are active.
Ben: Can we vote word for word?
Bob: made joke about continental congress
Rashad: can we throw in these words?
Frank: Can we vote up or down?
Zumumba: we still have goals.
Patrick: vote on one:
- creating: 11 for, 25 against,
- truly: 17 for, 17 against.
Michael: this would pass over Zocera’s block. Let’s just add truly
Natash: It’s even, let’s table the concern.
Zocera: we should defer to the proposer (Frank()
Michael: Right process, consensus on what we reordered. Amendment fails with a tie vote
Raoul: It’s just preliminary
Natasha: doesn’t have consensus.
Other concerns included too wordy, not that important.
Georgi: we voted on including truly. Down votes aren’t blcks.
Temp check: move to vote or open stack.
Zocera; should move to modified consensus
Consensus on voting.
Patric: We envision a truly free and democratic society
40 present, 5 down votes.
Georgi: We did not vote against the block. We voted for her block.
Much confusion ensued.
3 blocks on “truly.”
Zocera: We need 90% either way.
Patrick: Opens stack
Timothy: 2 or more blocks overthrow consensus
Zocera withdraws block.
Frank: We had a consensus, majority w/ no blocks. Then we had 3 blocks.
Natasha: We never had 90%.
Patrick: We’re in a sticky wicket. Can we vote? Temp check?
Zocera: it’s frank’s prerogative to accept ore reject a friendly amendments to the document.
Frank: it’s a breach of process to throw out 2 blocks
Natasha: why don’t we vote again.
Frank reads, “We envision a free democratic and just society.”
42 present, 6 down votes.
Group takes a minute out.
Frank: I think we ignored consensus twice- a significant breach of process
Patrick: I don’t really understand all about the process.
Raoul: I’ll back Zocera’s Point of Process
Natasha looks at GA documents. If a blocker removes a block, no more votes.
Frank: Zocera took back her block and it hit consensus.
Zocera: This group is out process. When I remove my block, it goes back to the original. When we amend a document, the proposer accepts or rejects.
Brian: There were 5 votes, not 3.
Frank: We need to figure out something to be presented tonight.
Tim: maybe vote for now changes
Isiah: We should go with truly.
Frank: We are not free. People die.
Bob: We have to keep this in perspective.
Zumumba: Truly is not the point. I prose we have a sign up list. I see people we’ve never seen before putting up blocks. How do we know it isn’t the police coming here and throwing up blocks.
Tigger: 99% turns into the 1%. We’re losing momentum. Need to take responsibility like grown ups.
Gerogi: We are Visions and goals and we are editing a document.
Patrick: We consider allowing Frank to send reordered document as a draft or table?
Micahel: We have been dicking around not getting the job done.
Michael H: We’re non-violent, which is why the cops don’t join.
Hunter: proposes a new “General Assembly” based political party.
Frank: today at 12 a protest against police brutality.
Confusion and chaos.
Patrick: please stay with process
Zocera: Need to go to the proposal.
Raoul: Need to follow process.
Isiah: Can you define freedom?
Tigger: Need to get things done. Food and shelter.
Zumumba: Need to move forward.
Patric: this was a partial derailment.
- Table documents
- consens that we take reordered points with language as stands, as draft.
- Take reordered points to GA for consensus
Raoul: Yes or no
fouth option: continue editing, letting Frank decide.
Frank says he wants truly.
There is consensus.
Frank wants to change #6 from infringement to violation, and take out “preliminary.” Asks for temp check.
Zocera: out of process. You have the righ tas the proposer.
Patrick: Vibe check on the two proposals.
Positive for “violation” but not preliminary.
Patrick: our options.
- Take modified, reordered document as draft to GA
- Take modified, reordered document to GA for consensus.
- Frank takes amendments to document (?)
- Continue amendment process long as possible, and take to GA for consensus.
Second round: 14 and 5 (now 1 and 2)
1: GA as draft (as is)
2: keep making amendments, GA for consensus
1: 8 (up votes)
2: 14 (down)
Group consens to continue amendment and bring to GA for consensus
(5:10, another minutes taker took over)