Minutes, OWS Demands Working Group committee, 10/27/2011
Andrew and Alma are chosen by consensus as facilitators
Leah agrees to take stack
Alma: we are going go over the different agenda items. If you have a proposed item, please state it, and we can go over what order to cover them.
Alma: goes over hand gestures (p. o. Information),clarification, point of process (if someone is speaking out of turn- not meant to be an aggressive message, jazz hands up, middle down- agreement/neutral/disagreement), block
Modified consensus is 75% of the group. Temp on the hand gestures.
Right now anyone who has an agenda point, raise hand for agenda points.
Please be sure to state how much time you’d like. Will facilitate how we arrange the meeting for the night.
Amendments are one agenda item.
Eric: very important that we have time , approximately 15-20 minutes, to decide on delegation form this group to go to the GA on Sunday to introduce our demand. That group will be authorized to accept friendly amendments. I would suggest the time around 8.
Andy: we have a proposed agenda item on the proposed framework for new demands. We would just like to introduce our framework and have it be on the agenda for tues. Just want 5 minutes in beginning today. No voting.
Alma: how do you feel that amendments should be the last point.
Charles: it was suggested that we might do the delegation 1/2 way through the discussion of the amendments. We might get tired and it might be apparent during the discussion.
Eric: I did have another proposal. 10 minutes for discussion of outreach. We are trying to advertise our teach in on Sunday/Saturday.
Alma: right now on the agenda- delegation, outright, framework for new demands, and discussing amendments.
Woods: did we have an order.
Alma: proposals or ideas on what to discuss first.
Jake: are we separating amendments to the demand and the question of the preamble?
Woods: I was was going to present preamble during the framework.
Jake: there are other preambles floating around.
Eric: I would suggest that preamble be treated as an amendment. We do have to have a procedure for the amendment.
Alma: i propose first framework, then amendments, delegation, back to amendment, and then outreach.
Eric: i feel that since we have several preambles that they be discussed together with the amendment.
Alma: how does everyone feel about (what was discussed above). Temp check. (agreed).
First on the agenda is 5 minute on preamble.
Andy: several of us have come up with a process for how this group would come up with demands in the future. Worked with many people over 20. proposed framework for the demands working group. (read the document). We would like to be the group that facilitates the conservation. (read article II). We’ve been working on this for a couple weeks, we should all work together.
John: you said groups like this should not meet for 2 hours?
Andy: this has no bearing on tonight. It’s a future agenda item we hope to get to Tuesday. Most us think that over 2 hours, things break down. It’s just an information point. It is on the Demands NYCGA.net. We also have to other announcements.
Woods: i’ve been working on a preamble. We have an idea that we need a disclaimer or a framework for the demands that doesn’t put the movement in jeopardy. It says we can make additional demands and doesn’t set success for the movement.
Walter: we’re getting this from a variety of different sources. This framework will give individual WG the ability to propose demands, a union,… i’m not an IT person, but we’ve been talking with Open Source that s the demands come in, we can use the most streamlined and efficient way to know who posting them and backing them. We don’t in any way mean to be belligerent online. We’d like to work in good faith with everyone that’s hear.
Alma: temp on closing this and moving on.
Temperature check on allowing announcements.
Rick: i’m starting a new WG called restore democracy working group, it’s the lead story at ecohearth.com. We are trying to implement something that will use all the, everything we’ve don here, at OWS, and make a change in society.. constitutional amendment that money is not speech and corporations are not people. This will let us remove campaign.. that have been set up by courts.. [also for] election. I was not being verbose. (discussion over a hand gesture). The point is that we can work on this as primary thing, and it has the support of a broad spectrum of people Right to left. Please check it out.
Andrew: any more report backs, announcements.
ALma: preambles and amendments- opening up stack.
Eric: point of process- we expect to have a fair number. Once they’ve been listen, we have show of hands to show interest in discussing each one, and discuss them in order of votes. Otherwise, the facilitators have to make arbitrary decision.
Alma: we take stack to hear amendments, table discussion, and then go through the amendments listend, and then go to discussion.
Walter: if I could propose a process, would it be easier to start line by line and then go as people go as we go down the amendments.
Woods: would it’s a preamble.
Jake: POI- some are more substantive, maybe do them first, then line by line.
Xxx- we should go with eric’s proposal
Andrew: how shall we gather changes together.
Eric: people will state them, but not argue for them.
Alma: temp check on (eric’s proposal).
Andrew: if you get on stack it’s because you have an amendment, not discussion.
Xxxxx- where is the document
alma: this is going to be messy either way. Let’s just be friendly and keep in mind that independent work.. we’ve ll been very busy, to really discuss the points between each other… we’ll go through the stack… do the best we can.
Xxx- we really should go through it line by line.
Xxxxxx- obviously a preamble begins, i know that some are different- it allows us to debate 13 separate points.
Charles: it would be worthwhile to read them all at once. Then it will be apparent to see what needs work.
Alma: we’ll do another temperature check. It’s going by stack, one by one, but if we have to clarify, we can go line by line
Andrew: please remember when you’r e on stack- it’s just to prose you amendment.
Woods: two amendments?
Adnrew: just say both amendments.
Andrew: everyone wants to propose an amendment stand up so Leah can find you already.
harry: i have some extra copies here. This one would be a preamble, it would just read- whereas the need for a dignified livelihood is required for all, therefore making … (a job) and obvious human right. This would go at the end – furthermore 99% of the contractors awarded for the supplies … will be award … to small businesses only through the federal gov’t's Small Business administration
Jake: JFA: we demand a massive democratically controlled to create 25 mil jobs at good union wages. It will be financed by.. corporate profit wealth, financial transaction, and corporate profits (and military/mercenaries). The new jobs will…. there’s a preamble- starts will the Frederick Douglass quote. Many of us seek a dramatic transformation of our society and economy, so the 99% can control their workplaces local communities, job creation and the global economy environment… meant as an initial transitional demand.
Charles: the demand in the middle is the same as previous demand. The difference is the preamble and the post amble. The 99% does not need to issue demands. Here in liberty square we have affected a dramatic transformation of our society… we will not rest until the entire world is occupied, that is , run by tis people. There are many next steps in this occupation, not all of which we can foresee. Wall St. Must be made to put people before profit. Corrupt politicians must be removed form office, and corporate money taken out of politics altogether. The 1 percent must be made accountable to the 99%… jobs for all will not only end the mass unemployment blights our country. It will also re-balance the economy, so that prosperity can be supported by wages rather than by unsustainable borrowing. It will reduce the amount of money corrupting of political system, and since it taxes private and corporate wealth for the public good. It will begin to undo the racial and class inequality that thrives on mass employment, mass incarceration, and police brutality and it will show what a different kind of mobilization might look like- a mobilizations of…
Diane: mine is just the original but I wanted to include this sentence. We demand the massive public works and public service program… paid for by the reinstatement of the Glass-stegall act, which would … save?.. trillions of dollars of bailouts.
John: take out the word “massive”, add benefits to wages (we demand benefits and wages). Instead of saying “taxing the rich”saying taking the rich by reversing bush tax cuts, taxing all capital gains as income, and creating a corporate alternative tax of 20%, expanding public higher education, expand health care for all, why not Medicare for all, free public transit, i don’t understand why a farmer in Kansas should pay for a NYC subway. Rebuild infrastructure- add school, environment- with an FDR style CCC paid for by polluters, i should we should replace this with we should make these jobs available to anyone who lives in America. We will work for a 21cenure for America, where corporations will have no power through lobbying and bribery.
Woods: I had a much longer preamble which i passed out last week. 3 sentences. We retain the right to make multiple and continuous demands as there are numerous … we reject.. this connection to one political party… already successful. Change jobs to all to wages for all, or change to universal living wage.
Rick: I’d like to prose that this group propose that OWS propose as it’s primary first step that corporations are not peopl eand money is not speech, ad that no gorups be presented to the GA until all other wc rpeort to the GA.
Peter: i have more general amendment. Whichever we adopt. We should try to name the general crime of the 1% we are declaring our independent from the 1%.
Eric: two short one. Add “democratically controlled” after massive (public works and public service program) and to try to resolve the debate over words that it read “good union wags” rather than prevailing wages.
Walter: my amendment- slice off 99% does not need to issue demands. We would stop at Jobs for All: we insert woods’ preamble, table JFA, and use our delegation to the GA. we remove it for now, and just the preamble going forward. JFA would not be put forward to the GA.
Alma: temp on closing stack on these amendment.
I propose we go over original proposal, each amendments, stack of 15, discussion, temperature check.
These discussions are over this original document, but still maintaining the original document.
Lee: it’s not just your proposed amendments that should lead to a substantial change. 3-4 . i propose we
vote on those first.
Eric i think to be a democratic as possible, to hear proposals that will be most likely to get support, we should have a brief temp check on each of these proposals and those with the most support get discussed first, and i propose we limit discussion for 2 people each, otherwise we will only discuss a few amendments.
Xxxx: it now seems it would be useful to do preambles first, and do it quickly. For the demand itself, i think there was some small quibbles on wording. On the list, there was a larger amendment that did get significant support, that gets rid of the bullet points, but other wise keeps it the same (Jake’s)
Walter: clarification- I’m talking a staggered release of preamble and then demand.
Alma: proposal that we do preamble and then demand. There’s been a lot of debate about getting rid of the document or keeping the document. I think we should discuss both ways to amend and get rid of this document. What order.
Xxx- decide to keep or chuck
rich: doesn’t make sense to go through the amendments to scrap the proposal
Andy: we don’t have that many amendments. I suggest we go from largest in scope to the more nuanced. I’m not proposing anything. If we allow those who want to change things to speak, and then we could have a temperature check.
Walter: we should do the preambles first b/c they introduce the amendment.
Alma: there was a positive response to Andy’s proposal. I propose that “big” proposals – 3-5 minutes.
Xxx- under this understanding, I assume we’re talking about the radical revisions.
Alma: we will be discussing all the amendments. We will be going from more extreme to those that sync more.
Andy: 3-5 minutes to speak, and then a temp check on whether we want to discuss. Is everyone is OK? Temperature check.
Xxx- can i recommend 3-5.
alma- 3-5 is fair.
Woods: step up , step back.
Alma: I’ve always been told to be confident, but don’t overshadow.
Andrew: I’m keeping time, 3, 4, 5, minutes
Rick: I’m proposing that we support a constitutional amendment that corps are not people and money is not speech and we don’t put forward any proposals until we work will all WG, has L-R support, and is doable, something we can achieve. It will enable the other proposal. We will be able to remove money from politics. Next we do instant run off reform- 3rd parties will have votes, elections are on holidays. Instead of saying “Please give us a piece of the pie,” we go into the back door of the bakery and bake our pie. I have stats that show that people are against people’s united and… what i want to say is that if we can come out of this as the first step in OWS, and we cay we’d come together, and have this initiative, we’re not demanding, we’re not begging… then we put together a platform. I don’t care if the govt becomes socialist. We don’t nitpick. A public works program, that’s going to cost money…. we’re gonna lose person after person after person. 60% strongly oppose people’s united. 70% support limits to corporate in politics. Many including conservatives, liberal, and moderate. Even 56% of the tea party. Let’s pick an issue that we can get a broad support across the country. … OWS… they went out and did it. Then we build up the stuff we want to change Please consider this. Please delay going there. Prevent the news media from [confusing] this. Let’s have our first initiative be something that gets broad support. Let’s do something new, something positive, and be proactive.
Alma: temperature check on this. Seems negative.
Everyone in favor of discussion, raise your hand. (Andrew). 23 out of 44.
xxx point of information, if we were to vote down discussing it now, could we bring it back?
Andrew- at another meeting.
Alma: everyone in favor of tabling.
20 did not want to discuss. There were 44 total. W e don’t have 75% majority to discuss this.
Rick: passing around a sheet. It’s sad when people don’t want to discuss things
Jake: i conducted outreach at my workplace. A radical publishing house. We just wanted to focus this demands on the job. Reduce the feeling of it being a wish list, which I would support and many would support, but don’t count as one demand. We tried to focus it down on a jobs demand, and focus it… to be democratically controlled. We avoided language of the government and the state. We wanted good union wages, … some on funding, instead of talking about bringing troops home, focus on mercenaries, instead of a wish list, this jobs program would move us towards radically expanding access to health care, education, housing, and on the discussion of line, i think Frederick Douglas quote should be included. For the rest of the preamble… I’m feeling good.
Point of information: I thought we were discussing truly radical proposals, but maybe we should go to Walter’s.
Andy: i think this is somewhat radical, as it is taking out many demands.
Alma: do we want to discuss this? 20 to discuss, 7 to not discuss at all,
recount. At any time: 28 for, 5 against, which opens up to discussion.
how many vote to table until we hear Walter’s?
Woods: since we that representative democracy does not address this. People in this country are living in the level of survival Many people work all day and have several children, and more tired. It gives them less equity in their life. I propose wages for all, and expanding aid to the public sector, so we can still keep most of the bullet points on expanding public sector, but a universal wage, regardless of incarceration, documentation. Set at living wage [editor's note: something like a universal minimum income]
Andrew: now we vote as to whether we vote for Wood’s.
33 for, 5 against.
Walter: what I’m proposing on …. sheet. Drop the first line, it says we do not need to issue demands. Rest is very articulate. I am not proposing that we scrap the proposals that follow. The rest of my proposal is to insert Wood’s preamble, and to move the JFA to the next time we address the GA, and the logic to this is to introduce the preamble to such.. expanding the means that others can get invovled. That way the hard work that has gone into jobs for all can be used by a greater moment of the movement. …
Andrew: let’s get a vote.
Lori; question: it seems that some of the seamtnic and grammatical changes, some of them bear a lot more discussions. A lot fo people have details to add to this, about the actual impelmentation of these things.
Alma: we did vote on these points and we’re doing the radical proposals first.
Lori: but I think … tabling this is better. It seems reading this demand, some people had some really specific expansion on the general language.
Andrew: we will get to this.
Lori: but you’re talking about a Saturday, maybe it needs to be less general:
Alma: we’ve discussed this in earlier meetings. Just to stay on track to be organized we can discuss the document as it is.
Cecily: we, last meeting, we deicded no matter what, we hoped to amend this doucment fruther, we had alloted and moved this meeting to Thursday, but no matter what, in the interest of urgency and time, this would go to the GA. At that point it could get busted up… etc.
Andy: no one is discussing no presenting something on Sunday. Right now we are going from larger to smaller points. NO one is saying we are not going to present.
Lori: wanted to table to big suggestions
xxxx: I don’t know if this is being … (seems like it’s the same… trailed off).
Andrew: we should take a temp check on Walter’s amendment.
Alma: we counted 21 for. Counted 20 against. This means we won’t discuss Walter’s amendment.
For the radical amendments, we have for discussion Jake and Woods.
Temperature check for Jake and Wood’s discussion.
Andrew: 5 person max stack for Jake’s amendments.
Michael clarification: part is the rewrite the jobs demand without bullet points and part is to put in the preamble. Jake says that he likes others.
Andy: we’re voting if we’re using this as our base.
Michael : this is about whether to have this be the base.
Andy: i am in favor of discussing this more, i agree this is the core of the original bill. It narrows it in such a way that we can focus on it. To focus on the outreach after we pass it in GA. We’d have to do a lot of work on each issue (war transport) where as this is the jobs, but it gives us something to focus on.
Eric: I’m strongly opposed to the way this is written for one reason. Jake has taken out the phrase with direct government employment and that makes a huge political difference Obama’s program is like this- it is giving money to private contractors to do the work and they take 90% as profit. We need to promote direct government employment like the WPA. If we adopt this wording, we accede to giving govt money to private actors.
Jake: can we table it as an amendment.
Cecily: could it be done in friendly amendment
Diane: with those two changes, government funding and Glass Stegal, added to this. You can’t control where the money goes.
Jake: how would you put in Glass Stegal in this?
Diane: paid for by Glass Stegal.
Jake: accepts it as a friendly amendment.
Chris: i wanted to bring up percentages. Bill, the idea of putting the creation of money of money to congress, hr 2990. it’s great.
Andrew: is this being put forward as an amendment for Jake’s proposal
Chris: yes, you could add as amendments
Jake: not a friendly amendment
Walter: i support it because it gets to one issue as it stands. If we lump them all together, they’ll be lost. Woods: point of process: if you vote on this demand, can we vote on this as a package. We decide if we woods, jake’s and the original.
Jake: but yours could be to either proposal.
Adnrew: we’re moving now to discuss woods. We are ok with 5 people on stack. Temp check. If you want to be on stack to discuss woods’ proposal.
Woods: repeats the proposal: my proposal is because jobs do not address many issues of poverty to “wages for all” and “expanding the public sector.” It wouldn’t be the title, it would be a living wage, or a universal wage. Jobs don’t address the elderly, if you fall below the poverty line, etc.
Susan: why not add this to the existing set up of demands.
Woods: it is already too big, and it’s not just just a jobs program, but a living wage.
Lauren: i understand where you’re coming from, by my concern about this is that by the media, it will be construed as people in the tent city want a hand out, and that’s my concern.
Woods: that’s possible.
Ben: My point is largely made. I think it should be understood as income not just wages. If it’s adopted, we want to talk about income.
Rizwan: I think this is the most concrete and strongest proposal for the evening. People should have security of income, many people and those living below the poverty, they will have security for their lives, and issues. If you adopt this proposal, people will have security for so many issues. I’m in favor of this proposal.
Jake: we should call it basic or universal income. I don’t know if I support it being part of the proposal. One way to change it is “jobs and income for all”, and in addition to union wages, also include universal income.
Cecily: clarification- how would this read? What would the new… i’m just trying to get an understanding. Can you read what the document would say?
Woods: universal income for all and expanding public sector support. We demand a universal income paid for by taxing the rich and corporations,… (following existing demand…)
xxx I’m just wondering if we could still include jobs and universal income.
Woods: as it see it now, jobs are still included in the text.
Cecily: would this be the same demand, or is it completely different?
Woods: I’m proposing this as a radical change.
Alma: we have two different radical changes. Should we have a vote on keeping original document
Point of process
eric we did agree on the existing version- we need to see if we have consensus to replace existing version
woods: i accept that we vote separately.
Xxx- when we will discuss additional amendments.
jessica- in order to vote on Jake’s proposal, there are suggestions on what eric was saying on the wording. TWA like projects.
Cecily: we will take a vote to see if either reaches full consensus or modified consensus. If none get consensus, then we go back to Eric’s. If either gets consensus, we have a new base (or two).
Andrew: everyone who wants to adopt jake’s as the demand, raise your hand- 11 for, and 11 against.
Point of information: can we hear them again.
Alma: if you abstain from voting, you are essentially voting for Jake’s proposal.
Against Jake’s proposal: 17 against. Total count: 43.
Jake: I have a question: can we vote on it with direct government funding.
We’re going to vote on Woods.
Andrew: everyone in favor of Wood’s proposal, raise your hand. 14 for, 18 against.
Alma: neither have received.
Can we vote for Jake’s proposal’s with inclusion of the language “direct government jobs.”
Andrew: raise your hand if you now support. We have 31. Who is against. 10 against. Out of 49 people. We accept jake’s with modified consensus. (clapping).
Andrew: eveyrone with proposals to amend, now put them on stack (big preamble), we’ll do up and down vote.
AL ma: or we choose the group going to the GA. Temperature check.
Andrew: seems like people want to figure out the delegation for the GA first, and then we figure out the smaller amendments.
Alma: we’ll move on for the time being to designate a small group for GA on Sunday. Rigvht now are there any volunteers 7- midnight. If you want to be a part of the group, volunteers, please stand up.
(Leah double checked on the lsit). Ceciliy, Eric, Walter, Harry, Michael, Jake, Jessica, Diane, Gabriel, Rizwan.
Everyone else try to attend GA on Sunday.
Temp on going to amendments.
Cecily: Point of Clarification- two things. One: grammatical stuff, two: preamble. I propose first the preamble, and then words.
Xxx I would further propose to that, that we have friendly amendments to preambles. Try to keep debate short. Which preamble would we ant to use.
Point of information: is Jake’s preamble not a part?
Jake: we do have a preamble but we can change it.
Alma: can we focus on the preamble first, and if we have time move to grammar.
Andrew let’s have a stack limit of 5 on preambles. Anyone want to block that?
Cecily: is woods going to read hers out loud.
Andrew: everyone with a preamble will get on stack
Charles: the 99% does not need to issue demands…more will follow this is our first… (go to demands). JFA will not only … our voices will be heard.
Gabriel: asked for Charles’ name
harry: my preamble is much shorter. My concern really is to push through the idea that a right to a living wage/ job is a human rights. I would like somewhere to place the notion that this is about a human right.
Woods: edited my down a lot. 3 sentences. We retain the right to make multiple or contiguous demands of ourselves, our society and our government, as there are numerous problems to our people’s movements, we refuse (to be a part of a political), and that demands are evidence of our success (paraphrased).
Alma: temp check on each preambles. Let’s see if the group wishes to exclude three.
Xxx are we not going to vote for Jake’s/
Andrew; everyone in favor of Charles’ preamble, raise your hand.
14 in favor. Everyone against: 21.
Charles: friendly amendments in the discussion.
25 in favor; 13 against.
Andrew: we didn’t reach modified consensus, so we’re going to move on.
We’re going to vote next on Harry’s preamble. 19. everyone against discussing harry’s proposal. 11 against (doesn’t make modified).
Everyone in favor’s of Woods, 35 for, no votes against.
Woods: we retain the right to make multiple and or continuous demands of our gov’t, ourselves and our society as there are numerous sand varied demands to be made by our people’s movement. We reject [affiliated with any political parties.] Demands are one integral part of an already successful movement.
Alma: temp check to limit to 5 people.
Cecily: i thik you could add that to existing language (jake’s) after Frederick Douglass quote.
Jake: i would put it in after ourselves.
Harry: i feel like we have notion in here because people’s rights are being denied. We have to have full employment so this will begin to address some of the violations of human rights that go in this world. Some people are opposed to the concept of HR. But like all philosophical concepts are contingent, because the concept has been abused. So has the concept of liberty, freedom, and equality. All of these things have been abused and should continue to be abused everyday. Let us not shy away from the philosophical need to nail our demands in this right. I would have a place where I’d put it. At the very beginning. Rather than saying whereas, i would say therefore, we demand.
Point of process,
Charles: this is not about Wood’s amendment
john: in addition to the words any political party, also “any other organization,” we should not be considered a subsidiary of anybody. I’ll be brief. I don’t want us to be considered a subsidiary of the union movement. We do want to be separate.
Alma: would you accept some kind of wording “any other organization”.
Woods; doesn’t accept
jake: I think we should accept your wording and put it after ourselves
Woods: i was hoping this could be a preamble for all demands. It could come after some quotes. I would prefer it being first or after the quotes.
Eric: point of clarification; are we presenting as our preamble?
Woods: i’m fine with for Sunday, this is our preamble that we present before the demand.
Andy: your preamble could go first, then my statement, which would be we demand.
alma: point of process about progressive stack. Harry your worded preamble has been turned down.
Jessica: i know you said that Harry’s statement has been turned down, what i see in Harry’s statement, but instead our constitution sees it. As our constitution seems life, liberty, and pursuit of happy, and everyone has within that constitutional principles. That’s what Harry’s getting at, not human rights that have been abused.
Alma: we need to keep that in mind
Artl: I like Wood’s preamble. As a general introduction to our set of demands, it does several things. It appeals generally to the prevailing language in the G.A. It shows that it’s a fairly open language. It’s about resistance, not begging, this is a resistance movement, especially after Oakland. I feel Oakland has raised the stakes. It’s not just about the welfare state coming back to the US, that’s just one step.
Peter: to call back what I said before, i think it’s important that we include some language that includes our antagonism to the 1%, that we are taking it back from them. The larceny of the 1%, or we demand our independence from the 1$.
woods: when i originally wrote the the preamble, the first line was the from the preamble. I would be fine as … people are seeming less.
Michael: I thought that in Charles’s proposal, there is one sentence that fits your needs. The 1% must be held accountable to the 99%.
peter: i just want to clarify- within the movement and people outside, i don’t think that it ca hurt to take this antagonist, oppositional stance.
Alma: temperature check on adding an antagonist sentence.
(discussion about if we’ve voted, and whether or not it’s a friendly amendment).
Woods: it’s a friendly amendment on Jake’s existing text. 37 for. Zero opposed.
Andrew: same structure as last time. Anyone with an amendment to the text as it stands, get on stack with Leah. People ok with 8 on stack. (temp check).
Alma: 2 minutes
Eric Lener): friendly amendment: new taxes on wealth and income of the richest 1%, we should specify whose wealth we are intending to tax. Second: adding to the list after healthcare, housing, insert words mass transit, after clean energy, add words rebuild infrastructure,
xxx: we may need to tax more than top 1%
Jake: I accept them as friendly, but we should vote on 1%. read
Eric: the only part unfriendly was 1%. How about “of the rich.” (temp check was positive).
Xxx: we have to vote on every change of this document. Some things will get unanimous process. It seems like there are a lot of uncontroversial.
Jake: we’re voting on friendly amendments.
Agreed friendly amendment: new taxes on the wealth and income of the rich, add public transit.
Harry: I would like to add to your demands/our demands the idea that we have the suppliers of that will be used, be limited, at least a huge percentage to small business. As defined the Small Business Administration. I’m trying to bring in the 99%, a good portion, and i want the corporations not to be supplying the supplies to the state. I’d rather see small business. (read his amendment).
Jake: not a friendly amendment. Anyone support it.
John: i don’t’ know if i should do this. I am pissed. I have devoted 20-30 hours. I am now crammed into 2 minutes. I don’t know if its my impatience or my exceptions that are wrong. Where we say “taxing the rich,” i think we should include $250,000 income tax, corporate alternative minimum taxes, (something else about capital?) i think clarity is… we did pick 25 million jobs to put in our documents. Point number 2: we demand that we will work for a 21st century for … getting money out of Washington.
Jake: friendly amendments?
–Doesn’t have a consensus.
nick: i would removed affordable, that suggests it’s not a universal right. quibbling about how much people should people should pay. I would say “make universal”. No, take universal off.
Eric (younger): i think we should place “ending US wars” instead of “bringing American troops home”
Temp check: positive
peter: do you have interest about adding horizontal cleavage at the end of the document. Anything about declaring our independence from the 1%.
Jake: I would like it in the preamble. I can’t see how to bring it onto the demand.
Doesn’t take it as a friendly amendment.
Temp check negative
Ben: I was thinking there was a different demand. pass
Cecily: we have 2-3 days. It’s on all of us as individuals.
Jay: I got an email form Lily Gomez we have an invitation to speak at the Black Trade Union march on Saturday.
Andrew: we discuss outreach now, or we break now.
Eric: we should choose a rep?
Andrew: how about Lily Gomez? And she can pick an alternative.
Eric: March at noon from city hall. PSC is going to be union square to Zucotti. BTU and TWU is 2 pm.
Our events red statue, Saturday.
Cecily: anyone who can make the meeting tomorrow meet at 3:45 just outside 60 wall st.
“Power concedes nothing without a demand. It never did and it never will.–Frederick Douglass
We retain the right to make multiple and/or continuous demands of ourselves, our society, and our government, as there are numerous and varied problems to be addressed by our peoples’ movement. We reject the insinuation of connecting these demands to an endorsement of any one political party. Demands are only one integral part of an already successful movement.
Many of us wish to effect a dramatic transformation of our society and economy, in order that the 99% can control their workplaces, local communities, job creation, and the global economy and environment. This is offered to that GA as an initial, transitional demand, in the hope that others will follow, and to help us build alliances with workers, the homeless, the unemployed and the undocumented. We expect that as the movement grows we will make new demands on our society, our government, and ourselves Our movement is just beginning. The demands we make and will make are just one of the ways we will take collective control over our common world and common future.
We demand a massive, democratically controlled public works and public service program, with direct government employment, to create 25 million new jobs at good union wages. This is to be paid for by new taxes on the wealth and income of the rich, financial transactions, reinstatement of the Glass-Steagall Act, and corporate profits – as well as by ending all U.S. wars, disbanding mercenaries, ending aid to authoritarian regimes, and closing military bases. The new jobs will aim to radically expand access to education, healthcare, housing, mass transit, and clean energy – and are to be open to all, regardless of immigration status or criminal record.