Minutes Sunday Nov. 27

Posted by & filed under .


Meeting starts at 6:10


Peter volunteers to be facilitator


Leah takes stack


What is on the agenda?

Announcements and report backs on outreach.


Greg: rights and social safety net subgroups have had a meeting. Interest on getting a report back on the status of the subgroups.


Leah: There’s a rally this Wednesday at 4PM. We got an endorsement for the Jobs for All proposal. In terms of activism, he’s probably the most important economist. Richard Wolf has endorsed our proposal. He also has a show on BAI, economic updates.


Eric: (black hat): The reinstatement of Glass Steagall has been endorsed by American Federation of Teachers. Endorsement of HB 1859 (?) should be taken as a first step as broadening the Glass Steagall demand. Hopefully to create larger coalitions.


Eric (L): report back- one of our members Lily Gomez circulated a post from Michael Moore’s blog. He participated in the V&G’s group. He says the next step is to put forth demands. In terms of the process of arriving at demands. He’s a prominent participant. I think it’s a good thing.


X: is getting endorsements part of the?


Xx: Some big stuff going on with liaison with unions. Huge union demonstration for this Thursday. They’ve asked for substantial OWS support.


Eric(L) Starts from, Herald Square to Union Square. December first. That’s a major demonstration.


Greg: There was talk last week about demands group having public events.
Eric(L): What progress has been made since our last meeting? Basically the situation is that we’ve agreed with the LOC to cosponsor a public forum to be webcast/broadcast on BAI, 12/13 or 12/14. We’re searching for a place. I think we should raise this later in the meeting. Let’s put it on the agenda but later.


Eric (black hat) : proposal of two other demands- larger umbrella of economic demands, specific points,


Josh: Question- involvement of demands and spokes council- I didn’t see anyone from this group in the spokes council.


Alvin: I think last couple meeting, Walter set up what the process should be, and steps should be taken, for the working group here to decide whether a demand should move forward to GA. I believe that Glass Steagall has met those standards, including the idea of additional support. Trade unionists, national AFL-CIO, ten other state AFL-CIOs, I think all the requirements have been met. We should move to vote on that demand tonight.


Peter: Are you saying that we should move forward to a demand for glass Steagall or a specific demand? House Bill 1489


Susan: Maybe some time for new demands.



  1. Outreach
  2. two new demands: rights
  3. economic security
  4. Spokes council
  5. Glass Steagall
  6. Other demands
  7. Jobs for All


Demands first, than outreach, and spokes council.


Greg: Some back and forth, but the rights demands subgroup has 5 members. We’re circulating through email. What we have so far. Reads, “we demand…” (Workers and human rights). This is kind of the big version. The only thing that wasn’t concurred with was having support for repressive regimes included. I lean that way. There is an overlap with JFA, but I think this is the right side of this. My inclination is that this is pretty darn close. It would be able to put it before the Labor Outreach groups by our event in December. I think economic security is also very good to have available by our public forum.


–Who are you making demands on?


Greg: the first sentence is about repealing laws. I was confused by ending discrimination.


Susan: I had something of the same question. We have demands. Where are we sending the demands. Is it to the media, the NY Times?

Leah: We want to be bring it to the General Assembly.

Greg: To have the endorsement of OWS, it needs to go the GA. But in the meantime we are reaching out to other groups and getting support. There are about 5 groups supporting this already. We are organizing the get a coalition. In the process, there were break out groups in the GA, lot of discussion of process, back and forth. This has gotten support from other groups in OWS.

Susan: To me it has too much going on. Is this about limiting repealing laws limiting the right to organize, etc. Or is it about Guantanamo.

Greg: It’s about Human Rights of people in the 99%.

Josh: I’m also new. I’ve been thinking a lot having read this. I’m on the email list. My concern is that there is a lot going on. And also JFA. From a fresh perspective. These are very dense. If they are going to be taken to the general assembly and be adopted. I feel they should be shorter bullet points that are easily digested. Ultimately. I agree with everything here. I get a little overwhelmed after reading it. It’s a hard one to incorporate. My main concern , if they’re going to framed as rights with a whole bunch of things under them. I think ideally we work with something more quick easy and phrasing that people from all walks of 99% can understand. The question about if the structures are, moving forward.


Pete: We can have a specific conversation of how we present demands.


Alvin: What point in the process are you in?
Greg: Not yet, we can. We are just showing the initial version that was presented this time. This stage, we haven’t talked about it. It would be good to include in the forum coming up. There’s more to be done. We’re all reaching out however we can.


Itzak: Again we are falling into Christmas tree syndrome. To be effective we have to be clear and non-confusing. We make a list and then we are for human rights. Start with workers rights. Let’s have a workers’ rights demands. We are in favor of the other things. What does Taft-Hartley have to do with Gitmo. What do we mean by demands. There is a controversy about whether OWS wants demands. How do we present? What are our criteria of the subgroup. Make is short, clear, and generally popular.


Peter: can we extend so 4 people on stack can talk.


Gwenda: I think that what I wanted to raise has already been raised. The first point, this is what the 99% is all about. The first one- repeal all laws… against working right. The other things break into other areas. Folding them all into one, too hard to read. Immigration should be another area.


Laura: I like this very much. I agree with some of the other comments, it being a mishmash. We could have some kind of proceeding statement of what we see tying these things together, and we could follow with bullet points. I see a link between immigrants, workers, and Guantanamo. I see it being an issue of the 99% lacking power that we have. We should have a statement about why we see it flowing for the same issue. I quite like the issue of bullet points.


Eric L: There is a trade off here btw we want to avoid a laundry list. Looks like we’re just collecting demands rather than what our solutions are. I also think we have to say that. I am agreeing with Laura. My version of this: “Defend the rights of all. And attack on one is an attack on all.” We’re defending the rights of someone rotting in Gitmo to someone who has their freedoms but can’t go out on strikes. All those things are meant to attack our rights to split us up. I think the general approach is right. Like JFA, it needs a slogan title.


Steven: My concern about this demand. A lot is about economic- trade union rights. It’s clear how Wall St. Is abusing these rights. It’s not clear how Wall st. Does the stuff related to immigrant and gitmo rights. I’m confused with how Gitmo fits into Wall St. The logical connection is not clear to me as Taft Hartley.


Greg: I think it’s interesting. This is why I didn’t use HR, it includes rights to housing. This is more like civil liberties, rights to assembly, associate, that’s meant to be a civil liberties kind of thing. But that can be viewed too narrowly. The right to organize, strike is a civil liberties issue. It’s that we have the right to get together on the job and elsewhere to make this thing happen. The economic rights covers the rest. That’s all human rights. I am ambivalent of what to call this. Eric’s suggestion about this heading makes a certain amount of sense from this standpoint. Not having negative interference from the government. That’s the aspect. Some preface is clearly in order. Maybe we need work. We have the long elaborate preface to the JFA. It goes into great lengths. Why it’s good to have demands in general.


Peter: We’ll have a discussion about the disclaimer.


Greg: If people have the patience, we could have an ad hoc get together after the meeting.


Peter: can we discuss social security.


Greg: I’ll preface by saying there is still a lot of give and take. The unifying thee is economic security. Other than jobs what else do we think should be guaranteed. (reads) we demand…These are all economic security.

Peter: we have an announcement.

I’m Cal from DA. The Occupation from Philly is supposed to be evicted today. Police are supposed to evict at 11 PM. We’re looking for any possible donations for fuel and tools there. Anything you can donate.


Peter: there is a second demand on economic security?


Eric (D): Passes out moratorium information. I feel it falls under sub category of economic security. Specificity being important. The first one is the demand on foreclosure and family farm farms and primary residences. The moratorium, we have a historical precedent. Existed during the Great Depression. The specific demand falls under larger heading of economic security. If you look at the actual text, there are multiple points that fall under that heading. Four points. Reads his demand (temporary freeze…)

second one is student debt amnesty and a new national defense education act. Each demand wants specific and concrete demands falling under the larger umbrella. I would like to create specific language.


Susan: Can submit to NYCGA and Yahoo groups.


Peter: We can consider them together or a separately.


Greg: I am fine with the conversation now.


Peter: WE’re talking about broader economic security. Clarifying question. Fine to talk about that to refer to this in relation to over all question.


Eric D: I didn’t want to present separately.


Nelly: In your moratorium on foreclosure there is one sector you left out- multiple dwellings that you find in inner cities. Multiple dwellings here are often rent stabilized. Peter Cooper Stuyvesant town, acquired by the landlord. It happened also in Harlem, new frontier of the landlords. The appraisal was in excess of the real value of the property. Now we are stuck with foreclosure in multiple dwellings in Harlem. This is a foreclosure process facilitated by predatory equity here in this city and other cities in the North East and across the country. If i could move ahead but also other issues before this. That is the, to include political prisoners in the category of rights. To free all political prisoners here in the united states. I’m talking about Black political prisoners.


Greg: I am included to think a whole thing that was financial including debt relief. My inclination is that we look at the social security as in issue going forward. Perhaps looking at tenants. 1/3 of the country is tenants. That is a great area for direct and community action. My inclination is to bring it Direct Action around foreclosures and evictions. To see that we get together a group on debt relief and that end. What we expect of them.


Itzak: unfortunately this was supposed to be question that. This proposal same old same old Christmas tree problem. There is a problem that contributed to this crisis. The collapse of the housing market. It’s creating suffering across the land. This needs to be addressed. It’s a basic element. Elements A and B. C and D you are throwing things that relate to it. Stop foreclosures of farms homes etc. And number two good. Multiple housing is valid. What we talking about here? Ownership society, suburbanization. We have to change the paradigm of homes. Not just talk about stopping foreclosure. Let’s turn multiple housing into coops. Let’s just preseverr.


Peter: extend for 5 minutes? Those who haven’t spoken yet to speak up.

Robert: One thing that strikes me about demands is there should be priority. Transforming the society is a goal, but first you have to save what you have. You have to save the banking system. Save homeowners. Preserve rights under attack. When we put them out, I would like urge people to prioritize what needs to be saved to have a foundation, to ameliorate and to transform the society to a better, something else. First you have to tell the public that we want to save their homes, their mortgages, their wages, and pensions.


Josh: What’s missing a lot here. I understand, a lot of what’s going on , some of it is over my head. We’re not talking about 99% of the country. There are some academic discussions here that are flying over people’s heads. Some of these terms Some of the demands. Adopting a progressive tax plan. A lot of people don’t know what that means. I think we be focusing on things that will instantly appeal to the mass numbers of people. I want to stress the importance of honing in to things that relate to Occupy Wall St. Clearly. I just thing it’s important if we’re the demands group, we come up with demands that are clear that we won’t lose people with. The connection to OWS is not clear to me.
Alvin: In response, I would say that since we’re in a crisis, one thing about a crisis is that you can learn a lot real fast because you have to. I get a sense of a lack of urgency and lack of facing the reality that we’re in deep shit. We have a bank system that is going to collapse. Nation wide and world wide. Yes there’s pressure concerns, but we’d better catch up and move forward.


Xxxx: My main concern is that everything, the idea of the demand, we’re asking people a lot to participate in this group. I don’t feel the feel that hearing demands should ask so much. Rights is abstract. The idea of economic security is really abstract. And to follow with a laundry list has the ability to exhaust people. The idea of what we want. What is most important, if we are trying to articulate everything that is making OWS important, we should be giving something automatically resonates with people’s life. Not ask them think about how immigration ties up to labor law. We all have a world view we agree on.


Nelly: I want to respond to a couple issues. Number one, I don’t think we live in public housing understand as they do that city group is now the owner of the public housing stock. I don’t think people are confused about that. That public housing at the northern tip of the Columbia University campus. I know people in Harlem in Harlem are not confused that the president of Columbia is a chair of the Federal Reserve bank. If we’re talking about working class communities of color the level of understanding of this situation far outweighs what I’ve heard tonight. To suggest that people are connected from finance capital that makes their lives more miserable. That’s the case. The level of sophisticated in these communities exceeds anything here. We should move forward with certain assumptions about these communities that we want to reach out to. Secondly, there is a basic understanding absent any discussion from President Obama, and these policies are coming from his administration. To avoid this discussion to avoid alienating the Democratic Party who serve interests of the 1% is a paradigm shift in the course of our discussion. I agree with someone who said that a lot of this language is couched in abstract terminology that says absolutely nothing. It doesn’t resonate with people’s everyday lives. We have to be careful with the language that we use.


Eric D: Two things happening. We have a broad overview of demands. General demands. Two of more specific demands. Specifically that this needs to be relevant to the movement. Points A and B couldn’t be more relevant to more people. I think it alienates few people. Very reasonable, easily understood. The idea that people won’t get it is a mistake. People will get it as long it is relevant to their lives. We want general demands as concepts. And then specific demands. These are only two. The point is that we want to make it specific and to the point. Stay general for the concepts, stay specific for individual demands.


Greg: I am inclined to sort out these issues of finance and debt. That should be developed as a separate point. I would take out reference to student debt relief.


Peter: we have a subgroup on debt.


Greg: I am suggesting that that become distinct. A separate working group, working on demands on this


point of information on debt- there is a student debt campaign, it was pretty creative, start a pledge that when a million parties sign it, all pledges with stop paying. Andrew Ross, Facebook. It was a creative thing OWS came up with.


Greg: Sounds like, suggest that you sign up creating a group for debt issues. I don’t think you’ll have difficult getting your critical mass.


Josh: What I said was what you proposed are not specific or understandable, but I just wanted to be more specific.


Peter: If we were going to have a vote, than I would have kept it tighter. We are now going to move to talking about a vote on Glass Steagall, specifically on 1489. Alvin was that proposal from you.


Alvin: I introduced it last week.

I passed it around again. People were writing it down. It’s on summary form on the Internet. Restoration of Glass Steagall. Every so called demand, human rights, everything being talked about here is nice and good and nothing is going to happen if the banking system remains as it is. It may make you feel good. Nothing will be resolved. Wall St. Is not taking anything seriously. Glass Steagall will be taken seriously. Wall St. Hated Roosevelt for this We should accept hate of Wall St. Glass Steagall is the first step. Not a magic bullet. The whole we’re in is deep. It will take decades. FCIC. A good government report. 600 pages, available on the internet. Highlights and breakdowns how we ended up here. It just accelerated at an extremely rapid pace. This is a 40 year process, since the 1970s. The final blow was the removal of Glass Steagall in 1999. That’ when all hell broke lose. None of the proposals will do anything like the Demand of Glass Steagall. The president of the US said he would veto Glass Steagall if it passed. I’ve met with, called, emailed and met with several congressman. That works. That’s useful. This is a matter that if we don’t present tonight, we should take to the General Assembly.


Peter: Quick clarifying- not a fresh demand but asking GA to support existing Congressional document.

Alvin: It could be.

Peter: Then we don’t have a clear draft.

Alvin: If not Tuesday than Sunday could have something up. That letter of endorsement from AFT, it would look something like that.

Itzak: Endorsement yes. That’s separate from that originates here vs. Something that is already out there. We do not have to debate how we word it.

Xxx: this is about procedure, did you present a written version. Then we discuss it here, and then it goes for GA to break out groups? It’s fuzzy to me.

Peter: It depends on what we are trying to accomplish. If we want OWS to support something that already exists. I suppose we proceed in the same way as in the past, we propose it the GA.

Xxxx: JFA there was discussions.

—-point of information- the JFA is large complicated proposal. Usually complicated proposals need break out groups. One line demand you can just take to General Assembly.

Rick: Great idea, but since Obama is gonna veto and we won’t get 60 votes to overturn, so we won’t be able to do anything until we get money out of politics. So the first thing to do first is to get money out of politics to the GA, strategically, has broad support, so one we get people in who will support it.

Eric D: two things: take a demand to General Assembly. But second we can go out to the general community, I can speak with other groups. Two different things that we’re talking about. One how to bring to GA to get OWS behind it. Or taking it beyond OWS to other organization. They need to be done simultaneously.

Eric L.: I think Glass Steagall should be discussed with other financial reform demand. If you say let’s wipe out student and private debts, the current banking system will be wiped out, regardless of whether or not it is divided into commercial and investment banking. My preference is that we nationalize, and then investment banking exist.

Alvin: G-S allows for bankruptcy reorganization. When you separate it, then it let’s Wall St. And City of London die.


Point of information: Obama said he veto G-S.? I was unaware of that.

Itzak: a principal different between me and Erik, do we want complex systematic change. But i’m a participant in a movement. We are trying to push things. We are not here to legislate. We want get demands into the public. You make it complicated, the will get it.

Finn: I wanted to say that now there are 50 cosponsors of Glass Steagall, I know, I’ve heard that there is a lot of arm twisting and blackmailing, so on, done, to keep people from not cosponsoring. But i think if a vote would happen, there would be move support than the cosponsors that we have today. We have been talking about impeaching obama. When that law gets passed, obama may not be there to veto. Something you said before having endorse the reinstatement of G-S, as opposed to demanding. That’s passive. We can be aggressive on this.

Susan (not scribe) I agree with simple, keep as simple as possible. DO we need education for ourselves on Glass Steagall. There are things here I don’t even know. I didn’t know how many Senators are cosponsoring. Do we all know what we’re talking about? I probably don’t. I’m throwing it out there.

Alvin: HR 1489. I just want to reiterate. Keep it simple. Get it out there. Make it really strong. Three sentences why.

Robert: I don’t think that we should let congresspeople who have endorsed this, many who are sincere, and others, and it’s quite widespread, they say, I’m for G-S. They’re not doing anything about it. They’re not organizing colleagues, unions, and constituents. Do we know about G-S? We do because it was the law from 1933-1999. Everyone knows about it because they remember when Bank of America was just a bank. I think also because Glass Steagall removes the FDIC and government protection for non commercial banking, it frees up the government to issue credit. The point of G-S not being an enough is true. It would have been enough in 1999. You have to sort of couple that with immediate issuing of credit for 4-5 million public works jobs. Something that will put viability into the economy.

Peter: JFA.

Eric L: The JFA forum. This is our coming out party. Those who are new, we initiated the idea of a public forum on JFA demand. Should OWS endorse JFA? We already have a promise it will be broadcast by WBAI and webcast. We want to open up the discussion to a nation wide or world wide audience. As of tonight it is cosponsored by our group, the LOC, and our neighbors OWS en espanol. We’re going to push this forward. We urgently need a place for this to physically happen. IF we could get a place in the next three days, we could have a flyer to publicize this at the mass march Dec. 1. We need a skilled video guy to make a professional, a prominent website and other publicity. This would be the last step to bring it to hte General Assembly the following weekend, the 17. I also think in terms of publicity. It was raised that MM is making his own list of demands. I think it would be good inform him of what’s going on. If Michael Moore’s blog publicized the forum. That’s my report. I want to open up to the place, flyers. I know that Leah has been working on the possibilities of the New School.


Leah: I think we will get room, we have a process at the New School. I put the online form on Wednesday. I’ll try to put pressure on them.


Eric: If we have a good likelihood, we could put a blank.


Xxx: what capacity would it be?


Leah; 130? It was likely to get this space.


Rick: I opposed to having this conference discussion/radio broadcast. I think we need GA endorsement. People will immediately assume it’s GA approved. We should have a conversation about strategy.


EricL: direct clarification. The forum was decided on at a meeting that you did not attend. So it is not a discussion to decide on the forum. It was decided on. In terms of publicizing. Our debates here within the Occupy Movement are very open, very public, everything goes on a website. It is just about making it more effectively public. People decided to make it public since the beginning. The title is very clear, it’s part of a debate, not the conclusion to the debate.


Rick: can we bring up other demands?


EricL: the speakers on the panel would be representative of groups within OWS that have endorsed JFA, but people from the floor could speak as long its on the topic.


Rick: Can we have people against speaking on the podium. Can we have a discussion on changing this.


EricD: I conducted in late October, I conducted teach-ins in 58 walker str. I could possibly get that space. If the New School space doesn’t work, then it’s also a possibility.


Peter: If you have a specific person or place in mind, we should talk when its over.


EricL: Talk with Leah.


Nelly: I know that here after the fact what’s been voted on. I wish to make this statement and see clarity. The issue of de-industrialization and rebuilding infrastructure. I sat in on a number of session on after capitalism, 15-20 years, Harlem fightback. A program we have been fighting for many years. With respect to this, there needs to be some contextualization It’s not a new proposal. Number two, a substantial proposal on de-industrialization came out of Harlem Fight Back and it’s recorded. So we need to know about this. Because the background information is important. What i am talking about in terms of the forum is the relevancy of the forum and who participates and who is the speaker.


Eric L: to clarify. If it was not clear, i want to clarify that the way it is set up now, is that any group that endorses this demand is invited to provide a speaker. And that as the panel grows, we will re-divide the time. The speaker list is not closed. It’s open to any group to endorses groups for all.


Jay: On that point- Spanish speaking working group has endorsed the forum and supported that we go to GA afterwards.


EricL: That raises another issue- the subcommittee will have to address, anyway on the webpage to provide a running translation? Subtitles or something like that.

Josh: Time at the end, I’ll go.


Itzak: I’d like to address what Nelly’s said. I am also frustrated, but I have to adhere to the system. When I showed up, JFA was set in stone. OWS has 80+ subgroups. We can approach any 80+ subgroups, they are the primary stakeholders of this thing. If you are a member of the subgroup, and you can endorse and we will let you speak. It is working groups in OWS. I did not set it up . Functions within system.


Greg: it strikes me Dec. 1 thing, we haven’t progressed far enough on these demands. We have in place to add to the leaflet. There was talk in the next meeting that we will include other demands in the forum. If Dec. 1 is the deadline, I’d be willing to get together on Tuesday will the rights/security subgroup. Back and forth on the demands subgroups. My inclination is to get things done Tuesday night.


EricL: what we agreed so far with Labor, since it’s a multi group effort. We agreed to a forum on JFA which they have already endorsed. I think it’s appropriate that if by Dec. 14 if we have other demands, it’s approrpiate to mention that fact. The topic for now is JFA>


Greg: That’s not what was mentioned before.


EricL: If we wanted to do that, we’d need to get back to other groups.


Greg: It’s open ended. We don’t know …


Susan: Based on minutes, what EricL has stated has been the case.


Leah: I agree.


EricL: it’s only 2 weeks in the future. It would be nice to have a flyer, not the best way to publicize, good to start out there if we could. We’re going to use electronic methods if we can as well. If by the 13th we have other demands officially endorsed.


Josh: If it our plan to ask GA to ask put it on the site? Can we ask the GA to publicized? Since it’s a debate.


EricL: There are two separate website. NYCGA which is run by the organization we are all a part of. We can place our documents on our part and the events. This would go on the events par. The webpage Occupywallstreet is run by an affinity group, which responds to its own rules. We’ll send it them, but I don’t think they’ll post it. We can post it as an event.


Rick: I’m with restore democracy subgroup. We have 3-4 people in our meetings. List serve of 20+. we’re trying to get GA to end citizen’s united, and pass amendment that Corporations are not people. 1) It’s going to get money out of politics, allow campaign finance reform. That will allow election of people who endorse and pass the legislation we’ve been talking about it. It has huge widespread support across the country. We’d like to do something the GA can pass and get immediate widespread public support. We’re hoping to get the endorsement of this group. I’ll pass out information. Our meeting is Wednesday 6-8.


Alvin: there are new people here, first timers, second timers, take a minute at the end, there was another demand introduced a couple times, from the minutes before. I want to run through that before the end.


Itzak: Subgroup- they are a campaign finance group. We are focusing on corporate personhood and we will working with other group, we’re not focusing on campaign finance reform.


Xxx: the statistics for support?


Rick: ABC poll, around when Citizens United, the supreme court ruling, national polls on what people thought about the decision. There is a shortened url. You can click on the op-ed piece on this idea.
Jay: Rick, my question about getting money about of politics, how do you address the major loop. It doesn’t address taking money out of top 1%. Bloomberg doesn’t need donations. You don’t address a huge structural problem.


Rick: most people don’t fund their own campaign. I have a few articles here. Courts having been using, credit agencies have been claiming to be considered by first amendment so people can’t challenge their credit rating.


Itzak: Answering Jay, we’re working on corporate personhood which is not a panacea, the other group of 16 is working on campaign finance. This may require a constitutional amendment to overturn buckley case. Corporate personhood relates not only to campaigns but legal rights.


EricD: I wanted to speak to jobs for all question. Can I speak on the forum?

I wanted to say if the event we’re thinking to put together for the 13th, that’s three or four of these meetings from now. By next Sunday we want to have a vote on passing some demands? If we’re going to be talking about anything beyond JFA, we’d like to have demands.


Jay: Point of Clarification, we have been doing outreach with other working groups and we’ve explained that it’s about JFA. We don’t want to throw a bunch of issues into the hopper. In the midst of this forum. It’s going to be very open. People can bring up other demands and it will be a full freewheeling discussion. We already agreed upon that.


EricD: Then if it’s an open conversation, we don’t need to pass.


Rick: But I’ve been involved in “open” meetings put on the government but they’ve not bee open.


EricL: But the subgroup needs to talk closer about the timing. We’ll know how many endorsing groups we have. We’ll have at max a 1/2 hour from the podium and then we’ll open it up. We haven’t decided it in the subgroup. We take three comments before there is a response from the podium. There is going to be a complete discussion with the subgroup.

I suggested a note to Michael Moore.


Alvin: Two meetings ago, it’s up on the site, I expect the list to grow, I put it on Yahoo, three counts of impeachment on the president. Libya, violating the constitution, second killing three American citizens without due process, expansion of Bush Cheney illegal wiretapping. Early stages. I plan to bring more counts by next Tuesday.



We meet 7 on Tuesday here.

Anyone wanting to get on the mailing list- yahoogroups “demandsOWS.” You can follow their directions.

Join our website by going to NYCGA.net, click on groups, demands.




Comments are closed.