Nov 1 meeting minutes

Posted by & filed under .

Minutes for meeting, 11/1, taken by Susan

Start: 7:15

Lauren agrees to be stack taker

Walter explains the hand signals, stack, and processes.  Raise their hand to participate in discussion/stack, direct response (6 shooter movement), Point of information, clarification question, point of process.  Please don’t abuse these terms.  We use three quarters modified consensus in the demands working group.  If you have a moral/ethical objection, you can block- are taken very seriously.  All of the signals are available on OWS site.


Walter: would anyone accept Eric or Peter, not trained, to be the facilitators?  2 people, generally a man and a woman?

Ilana and Eric volunteer to serve as facilitators.


We started with names.

Walter, Carlo, Daniel, Julia, Peter, Adam, Marie, Artol, Stephanie, Anthony, Alvin, Leah, Shawn, Steven, Susan, Itzak, Jessica, Rick, John, Gaba, Lauren, Alan, Jake, Tucker, Joe, Jeef, Ben, Eric, Ilana, John, Harry.


Eric: Proposed agenda of 3 items

1)Walter/sub-group’s charter,

2)report back from G.A. On Sunday

3)creating delegation to spokes council

Harry proposes: next demand project

Ben: I’ve been following the discussion online and could discuss how online merges with the physical group.  The online discussion has gotten contentious.  Could we talk about online tools for consensus?

Jessica: asked for more copies of the proposed Charter.  Are we going to discuss what came up on the GA on Sunday?

Ilana: that should be a separate point

Eric: That could be part of next steps?

Harry: Report back?

Eric: shall we be here until 9?

New agenda items.

Eric: 30 minutes on Charter, which will be submitted to spokes council tomorrow, then 30 minutes on report back/discussion on GA, and 5 minutes on spokes council delegation, then next steps.

Ilana: propose we discuss online when we’re done with the other agenda items.

Lauren: temp check on the agenda (consensus)

Walter: I’ve been working w/16 people in the Demands’ Group on this.  All the phrasing is subject to debate and change.  This is a response to a critique coming from outside (in the movement) about how demands and grievances come about.  If we are going to successful at making demands in NYGA, we need to have a mandate, that people stand behind the things this group has issues.  We want everyone to participate in the drafting.

Three parts.  Will take 5 minutes to get through it.  We’ll start with internal organizational framework.  This language is meant to be our charter, as we need one under the new spokes-council process.

[Walter reads the charter].  Our objective is frame demands … to get broader support…. with that right there, we can probably trim down to 2 paragraphs.  We wanted to make a kind of cadence.  Before I get responses, here’s what matters, how to respond.

Adam: I would like to repeat the last paragraph.

Walter: In ghettos, barrios, factories, farms… we wish to tell the people what the movement stands for.

Xxxx-  I am here to win.  I got some more suggestions for demands.

Itzak: the d work- demands, that’s a very controversial word.  But there are synonyms, grievances, goals, objectives, desires, purposes, aims objectives.  We should make it clear that we are not about demands, but we are above purpose.  And that may disarm some of the opposition.

Walter: point of process- we don’t mind this phrasing be made at all.    Let’s just talk about nuts and bolt.  Obviously that is contentious but no one here is finds that contentious.

Xxx- we are not all here because we believe in demands.  I am here because this is the group that proposes changes.  I want all the positive things that you’ve mention.

Eric: Point of process, that’s not the discussion we’re having right now.

Xxx: I agree that people can come together, ppl who want demands and want other things.  It’s just semantics.

Xxxx we won’t get anything passed tonight.  We need to look at this and discuss this.

Jake: clarifying question, it’s 95% great, but how can we do this online and create consensus

Walter: the group will allow 3-5 people to use Google docs for future demands. Anyone who wants to participate in issuing/writing this preamble, can use Google docs.

John: wait on thoughts.

Bill: I noticed appealing to every subset of the group- I’ve been living here three weeks. To really come together to build demands, it doesn’t need to appeal to everyone, not to be so weak to abide by anarchy and socialism.

Alana: we have a proposal to table this discussion online.

Harry: I’d like to propose that we read the rest of the proposal, and then take a temperature check on tabling it or allowing the discussion to go forward.

Xxx: we agree to table it and move on and then what does this mean- it’s raised again at the next meeting?

Walter: We are tabling the rhetorical phrasing and moving right to the substantive stuff that needs to be in the Charter about making decisions.  Anyone interested in the framing, see other afterwards.

Lauren: since we don’t have hard copies, it would beneficial for people to look at it.

Sxxx point of information: how many people have worked on it?

Walter: 16 people.

Alana: continue discussing substantive parts and wait to discuss rhetoric online. Temp check.

Walter: 2 major articles

1.Scope: coordinate process by which demands come in, table in a public forum, with other WG to conduct outreach, collective data on other possible demands

2.produce information on demands proposals to be brought to NYCGA and spokes councils

3.outsource implementation to qualified groups… to another WG, this group finds the best radical labor think tank to do this organizing.  We are not responsible for implementation. W e help find people best prepared.

4.We formulate multiple ways to formulate demands.  There are multiple forums and ways for demands to be issues

5.internal debates about how demands have been issued, we will discuss the history of demands across time (research).

Eric (older): two points of clarification.  Sentences number 2- produce and provide information for demands, doesn’t seem to be, grammatically, produce demands and provide information pertinent to the demands.  Second, the written spokescouncil that was adopted means that policy issues are purely the purview of the GA.  Spokes-council is basically money.

Jake: when this proposal was presented at the meeting last week, there was discussion about ways to promote support for different demands.  I think should be fundament.

Walter: we should make the first sentence on data more specific.

Jake: data is one thing, but gauging support is another.

Xxx can you explain a little more what happens after we outsource to a group of experts, what happens to that proposal?  Does it go straight to the GA/  spokescouncil?
Walter: let’s take another example- let’s say getting $ out of politics is approved, then the WG and Think tank goes sends to outside organizations?

Jake: should we go to the outsourced bodies first, and then present them?

Walter: I haven’t been to a think tank meeting.  Ideally, demands group makes the demand, shops them around, and then the whole document of policy goes to the group for approval (unclear)

Eric: there’s some question as to whether implementation is part of demands.  I see demands as part of way to get people together, but I have concerns about policy implementation, and then taking it back to the GA>  I think we can refer people to policy and think tank groups, but we shouldn’t add that to the process.

Jake: if running with the ex of campaign finance reform, we get 10 different ideas, then there would be no point in forwarding those 100s of pages of reading to the GA.  I thought the implementation subgroup should look at what comes back and we should figure out what works.

Jay: I want to speak to article 1 point 3, I would not be in agreement with us outsourcing our implementation details to some other group as to how we wind the demand.  We should have that discussion. We should have that discussion with the GA.  That’s the highest decision making body in our organization.  Not bureaucratization.

Walter: this was put in responding to the GA about who comes up with the details about how comes up with the details.  We and the framers don’t want to endorse the bureaucratization.  This just says that this subgroup within the demands is identifying bodies within the larger movement who has been this for a while.

Harry: I think we are close to 30 minutes.

Alana; we have 3 more minutes.

Harry: I recommend that we vote or after we have a chance to discuss what’s here

Carlo: passes

tucker: when we get stuff back from think tanks, do we retain the option to cancel out what’s redundant.

Lauren: it goes back to the subgroup.

Itzak: outsource may be an unfortunate word.  We can word it differently. Allies, partners

Daniel: once we decide on specific demands we may get 10 different implementations.  We could just say this is our demand and here’s how it could be carried out, and we could put those five online.

Eric (younger) we could extend discussion, we could table it , but it needs to be extended to spokes council.

Alana: there’s another article that has not been read yet.  I propose that we extend discussion of this for 10 minutes so we can hear the next article and identify steps to incorporate concerns.  Temp check.

Article 2: how we do our work as a group.  Ideally the DW group operates within 3/4 consensus.  Subgroups will work on 9/10 consensus.  Demands working group will meet 2x a week, 2 hours, we’d like to make this friendly to families.  DWG is divided into subgroups.  There are currently 12000 Gas, and they are autonomy.  NYCGA has a spoke council, which represents 30-70 working groups and caucus.  We could breakdown our labor into 5 subgroups.  Most important is collection-open source, outreach, goals and visions, 99% declaration.  We need to be familiar with these documents.  Collections’ job is to find out what other occupations have issued, what other working groups have come up with.  Demand articulation is the idea of a public works and service project, 3-5 people on each issue- bat around using Google Docs what that collective phrasing is to make a demand more palatable.  3-5 is people who you work with on functionality.  Implementation is if the GA accepts a demand, to who it goes out with the larger group.  Execution, 200 on the list, 60 in the meeting- listens to a demand, then it is brought to the GA.  Orientation- lets people know about the broader frameworks of demands v. Not demands.  Imperative of any subgroup that anyone enrolled in the demands working group try to participation in a specific functionality.  Demands resolve in the field, involved in subgroups.  Yahoo list that we’ve been using becomes a way to get to know about minutes, outreach, marches, and documents being posted. Does not become everyone’s forum to present demand, but only agreed upon demands.  Bottom line with the structure- if I’m an anarchist, which I am not and I’m working with Republican- our individual politics don’t become relevant in the structure, because each element in the group follows the movement, simplifies the language, and works in outreach, coordinating around the city, general- specialized, used functionality.  No one can claim we are a clique, we can say we have a mandate.

Alana: we have 4 minutes.


if your proposal- function of this group is to listen to the rest of the movement and try to synthesize some consensus that is presumed to be existence.  My understanding is that there is no consensus that we can find.  I think this group needs to propose itself some idea of what the demands should be.  I think just by listening there is no consensus that can be heard.

Alana: I think that what you identified is what the think tank is thinking to do.  They are trying to collect demands, from around the city.

Xx: clarifying question, I’m interested in starting another GA, why should I be here instead of the outreach committee?

Walter: all of us work on donated time, if you think you should start a new GA, that’s your thing.

Itzak: much of these are intentions, but they are not bylaws.  How do they get amended.  I think things are going to be more organic and things will adjust as we go.  As intentions they work, but not by laws.

Alana: OK to close stack

Rick: thank Walter, I support this 100%, I suggest we approve it provisionally, and approve the other stuff provisionally, and that Walter make changes next week, and then we finalize it.  I say provisionally if we need it for the Spokescoucnil.

Eric: we are not invited to participate in the spokescouncil.  There proposal is for operation groups such as food.  Movement groups, such as Demands, are not invited to participate.  DWG is not ever an operations group.

Walter: not correct.  I think that people who are giving lots of their time consider themselves in other WG, the proposal as I understand that if you are WG as recognized by the GA, you are a working group.

Xx: this seems like a basically important point

Jake: very briefly, I think it’s great, I disagree with some of the earliest think, the important thing we need to do is consider and get broader support.

Xxx is this a group that makes proposals or just collects?

Xxxx: can we approve this provisionally?

Harry: earlier I put forth a proposal that we table it and vote on it next week.

Walter: I’ll put it on yahoo groups and NYCGA and if anyone wants to participate in the writing, I’ll give you Google docs access, next week we’ll bring it back from ratification.  In the meantime, if this working group doesn’t decide not take something to the Spokescouncil.  -council, that means we will be nothing. Don’t use yahoo group to bicker.  In the mean time if anyone has alternative proposals.

Alana: tem check.  Any blocks.

Eric: we’re not being asked to agree to anything, we don’t have details over what he will do.  He announced what he will do.

Walter: I’m asking people to participate.

Eric: Tabling this for a week, voting next week, and allowing others to participate in the process.

Walter: I don’t wish to present this to the spokes council, I think that getting admitted to the spokes council requires us to present something.  If we say we’re transparent and democratic.

Xxx is there some way to find out if we even have a shot at being at the spokescouncil.

Eric (younger): let’s keep discussion about the spokes-council to a later discussion.

Alana: we are 10 minutes over time.  I’d like to move to again vote on it.  Temperature check?   Proposal again?

Eric (Y): proposal as it stands is to wait next week to vote on this and to participate in this and this alternatives.

Carlo: there is a question about the spokes council, but don’t we need to present by tomorrow.

Eric: We’ll talk about who’s going to the spokes council later, and we can talk about this now.

Alana: temp check.  Not seeing any blocks or nos, consensus.

Next we will talk about spokes council meeting for tomorrow.

Eric: someone have anything to say

Lauren: what I understand is tomorrow is the first day

Carlo: do we have to present something to the spokes council.  Tomorrow?

Xxx we need an answer to the question, if we’re going to the SC tomorrow, do we need something to show them something tomorrow.

Xxx does it get presented as a provisional council.

Walter: I don’t think they expect charter from everyone on the first meeting.

Rich: why is on the agenda?  I nominate Walter.

Walter: I’d like to nominate Eric

Eric: nominates other Eric.

Jay: before need to talk about a delegation, we should talk about our strategy.

Alana: that wasn’t on the agenda.

Eric: That could be a discussion during the report back on Sunday.

Rich: I don’t think it matters.

Walter: from what I understand, if we wish to be a WG in the Movement of OWS, it would very much behoove us to show up with people tomorrow.  If we wish to be a movement group, that is more peripheral.  We don’t need this document.

Alana: with that clarification, how do we feel about choosing a delegation.

Rich: I made a proposal that we move this until after the next discussion.  Can vote that we flip the agenda items.

Eric(y): can someone report back from Sunday.

Eric: alright, I have a brief Report back, and a couple proposals about what to do next.  I think we got as far as I expected to.  Two notable things.  1) there was a temperature check on continuing the discussion early on.  The vote for continuing the discussion was about 90%.  A hard core of 30 people didn’t want to discuss this at all. 2) all the points of disagreement had to do with either we should not have demands or the legitimacy of the groups.  None were attacks on the specific demand.  It was 100% or 99%.

Rich: we’re not taking proposals, we’re taking report backs

Eric: Part of this report back will be a discussion on what to do next.

Alana: first reports, then proposals.  Anyone else like to add

Jay: Another issue- this deals with the conservative undemocratic process.  There was no way for people to speak in favor of the proposal.  They had no opportunity to express their support/opinions.  That was very problematic.  They were turned off by that.  That is not the message we want to share with the 99%.

Alana: If I make a suggestion- how far did we get with a proposal.

Jake: the GA went through clarifying question about 17, they were sued to register support or disagreement.  Some said it was too specific, too general, some were about the state.

Walter: it could have gone a lot worse.  We didn’t even get to the crux to what was the biggest issue- who wrote it and what process and how.  But I think it generated more debate within OWS NYCGA on whether there should be demands.  There are hard lines on both sides.  The biggest things – should this be a working group, should there be demands, and the best thing about this was that it was a public discussion about demands.  I think we should be care about taking that same demand back.

Xxx: I agree that the debate we good.  A lot of people were speaking in favor and again.  But what bothered me was that the debate was over process and a small minority talked about the legitimacy of the group.  It’s dangerous.  That’s the quickest way to create barriers to entry.  Then it’s not a horizontal group.  Those who use those tactics should use less “legitimizing” question, just argue politically.  Enter the political terrain, not process/legitimacy.

Eric (y): so I agree that some of these clarifying questions reflected disagreement with the demand, but the vast majority were either supportive or basically procedural.  It was clear from that meeting that resistance to us as the group that proposed the demands was oriented towards procedural questions that I hope we can answer in some way.  When the discussion came to the point as whether people would have opportunity to express concerns, those who had clarifying questions that were not comfortable with us voted against the discussion. Disturbing that those who don’t like the demand talk about the group.

Xxx: we have a limited amount of time.

Itzak: follow up anyone with realistic- with the consensus method that what we proposed will not pass, but the debate and discussion is necessary.  What will we get from the discussion to contribute to advancing what we want.

Alvin; I was there.  There was a certain amount of sophistry, engaging on procedure, rather than content.  If we’re going to debate, we should debate the content.  They procedure concerns undermine the movement.  This  is a war on Wall St, the proposal takes aim at those who do us harm.

Alana: suggestion to move to a conversation as to what we will do next with the proposal.

Derrick: my question- where do we go from here: I feel that we should have teach-ins as to why we have these demands, why they are necessary, why OWS will shrivel up if they don’t get other communities involved if we don’t have demands, maybe for the next week or so, and then the question needs to be posed again.  It is unfinished.  It’s still ongoing  We didn’t get to concerns.  In the meantime, we should do teach-ins, continue where we left off, and not deal with the process.

Rick, last week I presented a proposal, it what we can do to move forward.  We come up with a strategy that will immediate get OWS a positive impression from the rest of the country, it will give us a victory, it will help

Jay: point of process, we’ve not been defeated, we’re thinking about next steps.

Alana: Is this is a new demand or on the demand brought to the GA.

Rick: new demand on a constitutional amendment on getting money out of politics.  I’m talking about where we moved from here.

Point of process-

Alana: you’re moving the conversation to an entirely new position.

Rick: the JFA is not a good idea.  It will not have broad support.  We should put it on the back burner.  We should work on something else first.  I will pass it around.  There is a web address.  I think we should think strategically.

Eric: as far as I could see we had majority support, we agreed to table it. We couldn’t get to concerns, friendly amendments, and blocks, in one more suggestions.  What I suggest that we go to tomorrow’s facilitation group and ask for this to be on both Saturday and Sunday.

Second of all I have talked to many individuals at Zucottis whose initial response is no demands.  I feel from my conversations that most people who oppose demands , their minds can be changed.  Three: we set up a literature subgroup to write up answers to the “no demands” folks.  I think we can have a flyer that can go out to the entire movement that we can trust these people to come up with the education people on the role of demands.  Additionally, another proposal, is that we when we talk about concerns, people are allowed to bring up the concerns about what we do if this is not passed.  Two we need to vote on is getting on the GA.  I do support the previous proposal about teach-in.

John: it should be acknowledged publically in the meeting that what the fellow was saying was not true.  The demand had support.  None of the people who got up, even though some were trying to obstruct by using the process, they didn’t have the guts to object to the demands.  The crowd grew.  It was enthusiastic.  I think that the demands, we have to stick to it, maybe we can simplify a bit.  Not to throw them away.  This should be a point of reference to proceed.  And I agree with Eric that there should be a literature operation to educate as well as teach-ins.  To strengthen this process.  I think it’s important to recognize that (rick) was not right.

Walter: 16 people here from this group came to the meeting to block this demand.  No one is trying to say that JFA is a stupid demand.  What was the process.  Just two meetings.  If we keep ramming this through, we’re missing the point of the process.

Steven: no it was three meetings.  There was consensus at the three meetings, there was a lot of work that went into this demand.

Jessica; I understand where Eric is coming from.  Like Steven said there was a lot of work that went into the demands.  It is true that most of the blocks, this aura that came through, was sophistry to block the demands.  They made it look like it was process.  But when it boils down, it was really that they didn’t want the demand to go through.  One of the things that proved it was what Eric was talking about.  Even when our person said that she went through the process to make our group official, they still tried to attack the group.  It was an attack on the demand by making it look like process.

Rosario: first time at this meeting.  It’s important that I offer this suggestion I’m happy to see difference of opinion.  You need to take a step back.  The first thing in terms of moving forward is backtracking, there needs to be PR work, if the general consensus here is that you are doing your own thing without support of 99%, then you will be questioned.  Until you address this concern you cannot move forward with anyone else.

Xxx: direct response: where does this sentiment come from?  Everyone who was there noticed a lot of agreement o what we were saying.  Even if consensus was not achieved, it’s false to say we were talking to ourselves.

Rosario: the question of where it’s coming from is not important as that it’s there.  You’re missing the opportunity to address it.  Provide education whatever ways this group comes from.  The sentiment is not that you’re your own rogue group.

Alana: we have 13 minutes to 9:00.  I’d like us to recognize the conversation that is happening and think about how we should move forward.

Jake: I think that most people agree that JFA is a great proposal that people support, the point where it was read out there was majority support, but the objectives were numerous and serious.  I don’t think that a demand that deals with going to the white house.  We should take the serious political objectives seriously.  I think we should not take this back to the GA.

Luke: I see a small group a collective that don’t want to change.  We are 99%, we shouldn’t be 11 people speaking for the whole movement, not just a small group that is from socialist background.

Xxx I find the capacity to think about things objectively horrifying.  There’s no reason to marginalize it.

Rosario: I don’t think that it’s meant to marginalize, but instead of 25 people, but 2,5000 people.  Everyone needs an opportunity to explore it further.

Xxx: to clarify, there are concerns about process.  But to voice my concern.  The incapacity to think about think divorced from where they came from is a problem.

Xxx: I don’t think we can have a political discussion.  How can we even know that lots of people don’t agree if we haven’t taken concerns yet .  All these points of process and clarification questions blocked political debate.

Xxx: having demands seems like the first part of the meeting seems contrary to the first part of the meeting.  If the first part of meeting was about synthesizing demands that, aspirations from 1200 Gas around the world, than we are getting ahead of ourselves.

Walter: this is not about creating demands that 12000 Gas will agree with, but NYCGA.

Carlo: this is about proposals.  I disagree that it was a defeat, but agree that what we need to do is reach out.  The GA can be forum for reaching out.  Let’s propose, discuss, let’s avoid having the GA make a discussion right about .  Also think tying to Itsak.  The word demand has become controversial unnecessarily.  I’m not one of the 11 socialists. In the interest of promoting this demand, which is why I joined, we should take it to the GA, not have a vote, not call it a demand, call a proposal.

Leah: I’ve been for this demand since day 1.  I personally resent that I am automatically accused of being part of a clique, a socialist, I don’t know why any group is maligned.  I don’t know why it’s o.k. to malign socialists.  I believe in bringing this to the GA for discussion.  I think a small a small fanatical group can misrepresent themselves as the majority.

John: question about the block- you don’t think we should have teach ins,

Walter: none of us had any say.  Doesn’t mean we don’t support a gov’t jobs proposal.  If we keep on taking this demand, we’ll become the jobs for all groups.  I propose we don’t bring any demands to the GA until we figure out our process.

Eric (y) as to various claims of a clique, I would encourage anyone to talk to us individually on a personal basis instead of brining them up on the public basis.  As to GA, my sense is that the majority of the people there were prepared to support the demand, and I think they were enthusiastic as well.  I think we owe it to those people to continue this conversation on the demand.  That was the basis of the tabling.  That said, I have no problem with working on other demands.  The only reason we are so hung up on the JFA demand is because we’ve worked on it for 12 hours.  We haven’t finished presenting it.  NO problem with moving forward on other things.

Alana: extend 1/2 hour to 9:30.  Temp check?

Xxx: if the demands group isn’t going to find a way to synthesize the demands of other GA, there is no way to be a part of the demands groups.

Alana: point of process- vote to extend meeting for a half hour.  Positive temperature

rick: 20 minutes.

Alana: 20 minutes extension.

Jay: the train has left the station.  We want this to go back to the GA, I agree with Eric’s proposal.  People that are so confident that it’s going to be killed, let’s have a democratic debate.  Why are you so afraid.  Let’s get to a vote, I second Eric’s proposal that we go to the GA to get on the agenda for Saturday and Sunday and we form a committee that responses to that proposal.

Xxxx: fear that people will bring their friends and co-opt this, and I think we should allow for amendments.

Jay: we can’t grow this movement?  I thought we wanted to grow this movement.

John: what he said was an arbitrary assumption or was it assertations  I want to clarify what I said before. T His is sophistry.  To clarify what I said before, to use it as a point of reference, not to throw it away, how do we have a meeting that meaningful?  I don’t agree with everything on the JFA’s statement.  That’s consensus- you generally agree.  You have to move forward.  There has been no specific objections to any of this yet.  This arbitrariness is what happened the other night.

Alana: we have 13 minutes

closing stack.

Xxx: two quick things- 1) response to Luke-let’s try to avoid baiting. Let’s not use their language.  I won’t do that.  What I’m saying is that to move this forward, I dispute the characterize that Zuccotti is the 99%, we have to uptown, go to Brooklyn, not Williamsburg, proposals, demands, let’s not just take temperature of here, a college education crowd, but what the majority of NYC things.  When ppl are dying of lack of health care, but I hate to be so boring.  When people are jobless and losing their homes, that’s the 99%.  How do we do that?  We pay attention to what the majority wants in NYC.

Peter: this has gotten confusing.  Our demand did not fail, it is tabled.  Can anyone give a compelling reason why we should not continue the existing process.

Rick: why would it be disastrous- I apologize for calling it a failure.  Why would it be disastrous- we never looked at strategy, sure we all want jobs.  That’s why I’m putting forth my proposals.  We need to talk about strategy.  Let’s bring in other people.

Point of process: Eric: we need to get through stack.

John: Important direct response: he said that jobs, we have a big deficit, demands include things that would address this directly.

Alana: Let’s take a breath.  We have a lot of things to say.  We want to respect one another.  Please limit direct responses.

Eric: Eric had a good point, we need to respond to the problem of direct responded

Evan: one of the beautiful things about this movement, is the plethora of different viewpoints and reasons people are here.  I think trying to narrow things at this point is not productive.  It is not going to be effective.  Its’ going to take some time.  As to your point about wanting to make it grow, you want to be careful if you add new groups, you can have the effect of making the group smaller. I think there is concern that we will lose our opportunities.  The movement is growing.  This conversation is productive, but the way it was pushed the GA was not responsive.

Robert: how is a demand for jobs narrowing.  Everyone in the 99% needs jobs.

Evan: for me, and not everyone, working is not jobs.

Itzak: it’s not just a jobs demand, it will fail it will be ridiculed, but we started this, and we must finish it, it is such a sloppy demand.

Ben: I’ve been following this discussion online. I’m hearing about demands, one of the concerns I have, it would be a small body trying to amalgamate opinions of 1000s, millions, I found here with the proposals that was encouraging.  NYC is 8 million.  We can’t fit that many people on zucotti park.  We need to bring people in NYC into the movement.  I think outreach and asking what they think and input, would be a powerful thing.  I think JFA can go into this process and thus be strengthened.  There’s not been on the list serve a civil process to undergo a revisions process.  It’s been seen as difficult.

Carlo: taking to GA can just be a way to have a discussion.  A way to grow as a movement.  We should discuss it there.

Rosario: point of clarification- proposals should be clarified.

Xxx:it’s been suggested that moving forward with the GA with an up down vote will hurt us.  If we don’t move forward we lose our legitimacy.  There is not time to waste.  There are other things to be done.  Don’t be afraid of ideas.  The best part of Sunday was that people were excited.  If you want to legitimize this movement, move it forward.

John: I just wanted to put this forward as an example, on October 12, occupy Dublin camped out in front of the Irish Central Bank.  Day before yesterday, they elected a new president, and he attacked the take down, he said that because the Glass Steagall that there are bailouts.  Occupy Ireland made a demand IMF and ECB stay out of the affairs.  This shows the efficacy of a demand.  Which is relatively universal.  What was done before was not perfect but was good.

Lauren: should we vote on proposals and ending the meeting.

Point of Information: xxx_ this woman, can’t verify, wants to give a brief report back on safety, the accusation of rape at Zuccoti, and drug problems, temp check.

Alana: Here are proposals:

1)get on agenda for Saturday and Sunday, and facilitation tomorrow’s

2)education/lit operations

3)teach ins

other proposals about amending demands

Eric (y) send people to spokes-council.

Alana; that’s something we need to vote on.  We need to decide what to delegate.

Can we take a vote on getting through these items and ending this meeting.

Vote on first proposal- get on agenda for Saturday/Sunday FGA.  Two blocks.

Walter: going right back and doing what we did will delegitimize jobs for all.  We want to bring it up within a framework that has a broader base of support while producing demands.

Eric: if I can respond: when I made the proposal for the agenda tonight, I said there should be three topics, your structure proposal, discussion of what to do next, and intro of new demands.  There is no contradictions between our groups continuing to discuss consensus on future demands, which I think is highly desirable and our continuing the discussion on the GA.  We are in the middle of the discussion.  We continue that discussion on the GA.  While here we discuss new demands.  If you want me to clarify that vote that I made that bringing this to the GA is completely compatible with bringing new demands.  Will you remove your block.  My friendly amendment would be I would support going to the GA as a framework going to the GA to let them know how there is a framework, and let them know that JFA is our first.

Rick: it’s about the strategy.  Is this the best strategy.  It would be horrible if this passed.

Eric: Yeah, basically, at the moment from the meeting, we don’t have any evidence that the majority of the GA or the overwhelming number of GA members do not like this demand.  We need to let democracy work.  We need a sense of the body.  We need that sense to be eventually taken.  The body of the GA needs to be dealt with.

Xxx what do you mean by strategy.

Eric (y) Do we move to 75% consensus.

Alana: go over hand signals:

xxx Is there a chance for further critique or editing.

Eric(o) we had an extensive modification process earlier.   We’re voting to continue the discussion.

Alana: in the interest, we should have separate

36 present

21 agreed

opposed: 9


By the methods we’ve had, this is 75%.

passed by modified consensus.


2 more agenda points.

Next proposals: teach-ins,

xxxx talk about getting seats together, adding, go around to teach why these demands are so important to us, there are other demands that are coming.  We can clarify some of these problems.  We could even have a survey to see what people think.  We could maybe tabulate what people feel about this.  And what they want to add to it.  We need to have a teach-in.

Alana: Is this separate from the literature proposal.

Eric: yes it’s the same proposal.  We set up a committee to inform others about this proposal.  A factsheet, an FAQ, produce a document explaining this demand.

Jake: CC: I wondered if the teach in would include getting people’s input on other demands.

Eric: it’s up to the drafting committee as to how to draft the question.

Eric(y) all those consensing on having people get together on the teach-in.

20 in favor.

1 against.

We move forward on this basis.

Alana: can we identify people on creating this committee.  People interested in joining the committee speak to Eric.

This is all we had for proposals on the proposals.

Next, we will identify names for the spokes-council.  When is it?

Eric(o) p-o-c Spokes-council is not involved with GA, just finances.

Walter: SP is all working groups that have functionality in the movement.

Alana: stack has broken down.  I’d like to maintain the process.

Jessica: CQ: I remember us having names nominated so we should have a few names already, on a list. Walter, Eric, Eric,

Jay: Cecily wants to attend facilitation and spokes.

Rick: I move that we send those three.

Temp check (positive)

Eric volunteers to liaison with Cecily about facilitation.

Alana: Our next meeting time.  Is there a usual meeting time.

Eric (y) Sunday at 6, Tuesday at 7.

Eric: can we move the meeting forward at 5 on Sunday, temp check (positive).

Eric(y): should just meet on Tuesday.

Eric (o) Let’s meet at 5:30 on Sunday.

Jay: p o I: why not meeting Saturday, so we can caucus.

Eric (y): three options: meet Saturday 5:30, meet Sunday 5:30, meet Tuesday.

Xx: what’s the, why are we debating Saturday or Sunday?  When is our item being brought up?

Jay: I brought up Saturday, because we are going Saturday and Sunday to the GA.

Sat 5, Sunday: 11, Tuesday: 2.

meet here at 6:30 on Saturday if you want to caucus or be part of the proposal group on Saturday.


Announcement people have left

Rick: let’s talk strategy, please wait.

Eric (o): some people expressed interest in Luxembourg’s mass strike pamphlet.

Xxxx-  internet working group- apologized for misunderstanding, and having the group deleted from the OWS webpage. we have meeting 5 pm here Sunday, 6 pm Tuesday.  If you want to know how we operate, procedures, transparency.


Comments are closed.