NEW FEATURE: Revision History

Posted by & filed under Site News.

Now all posts on this site (minutes, proposals, site news, etc) will display their revision history at the bottom. You can see who changed what when and you can check out previous versions. Take a look at any past minutes post to check it out. Hello, transparency!

Special thanks to the Minutes Working Group for suggesting and pushing for this new feature. If you want to suggest new features too, please do so via our feedback form. If you want to check out what is on our ticket tracker over at occupy.net.

Happy revising!

Tweets for Tue, 21 Feb 2012

Posted by & filed under Assemblies, Livetweets.

Proposal to stop allowing financial proposals at the GA via marissa

We’re on clarifying questions. Dylan asks how an affinity group gets access to funds for actions.

Right now, affinity groups can’t get funding, Marissa says. Her point is that the GA should not deal with financial proposals.

RT @DiceyTroop: In Philly w/ the @OWSBus! Super happy to be here. Trying to get someone to handle @LibertySqGA tonight; but the stream i …

Lady is saying that Spokes doesn’t handle finance right now. If we can’t bring financial proposals to the table, how will we do metro cards?

Marissa also says that she doesnt think individuals should be allowed to bring financial proposals to the GA, because it is, in her opinion,

irresponsible.

The facilitator has asked if it’s okay for us to continue livestreaming #nycga

A woman says that we need these proposals in order to have full financial disclosure

The decision for livestreaming was positive, we will continue streaming #owsnyc #ows #nycga

A man is asking what an affinity group is

“You and your five friends want to do an action together. You have a common political affiliation.. or tactics.. something in common”

“affinity groups dont necessarily have funding. this has nothing to do with this proposal”

A few points of process.. some people offered to explain this to him in detail later

Another man says that this is supposed to be the highest decisionmaking body, and he is confused

Marissa says that Spokes has been dysfunctional, but she doesn’t think that GA should be handling finance #nycga

We’re moving on to concerns. #ows #nycga

“This is not a proposal to replace the GA. This is to take the monetary funds out of it.”

Nan- “Spoke council, first of all, you have to be a working group. So, basically, if you not in a working group…

Spoke council keep taking power, Spoke council is trying to destroy GA. Thats my concern.”

Marissa – “Yes, my proposal is trying to take power away from the GA and move monetary proposals to Spokes Council”

A man says “I dont think GA or Spokes are valid institutions to trust our money to right now”

“We need an accounting firm thats cool, but not Spokes or GA to handle our money”

“you will exclude 99 percent of us by doing this. we will become the very enemy we’re trying to defeat. spokes is unreliable.”

the reason we didnt have spokes monday night was because of presidents day – point of information from Nick

Next concern – Patrick. He says GA was one of the things which brought him to #ows in the first place. Constructive participation..

He thinks there should be some sort of screening process, like saying you would have to attend a few GAs before you’re allowed to make

decisions. He said that the first budget ever passed for #ows was done through the GA. He’s uncomfortable with this proposal.

“to say we’re taking power away from GA/giving it to Spokes is concerning.”

He would like to see Spokes demonstrating more transparency and inclusiveness

Dylan – “I dont think there’s a well thought out alternative.” He proposes a friendly amendment that the working group put forth a point

person to ask for the funding for whatever one time action. She declines the amendment.

Marissa is explaining how #ows accepts money. A guy is asking something.. I don’t understand. About how people give money?

Nick- some of the best proposals he’s heard dont come from working groups. But, he is asking if they can bring this one back in 30 days

Declined by Marissa.

Stack is closed. #nycga #ows

A man is saying.. he thinks the GA is the correct place for financial proposals

Marissa says that the GA is open to everyone. Spokes is for working groups, people within the movement

Lady says that Spokes excludes most of us. “This proposal makes Spokes into a Congressional body. It wont be whats best for the movement,

it will become what’s best for the Spokes Council members. It’s not about who can or will, it’s about the haves or the have nots.

I’m afraid that we’re duplicating things that already exist inside the government.”

Marissa says that Spokes IS NOT a Congressional body. We should be following the horizontal Spokes model.

The facilitator is asking for friendly amendments. #nycga #ows

Marissa says she doesnt think that GA is the right body to make financial decisions of any kind.

Nick says.. he thinks Spokes is having a hard time making financial decisions as it is. He asks if they can bring this before Spokes first

He asks if they can bring it to Spokes tomorrow first

She says that tomorrow’s Spokes agenda is full.

The facilitator asks if they can move toward the consensus process. #nycga #ows

Looks mixed. Lots of downtwinkles on the other side of the circle.

Nick stands aside. They move forward anyway

8 blocks.

Dylan believes that the GA is the best way to handle our resources.

A few people uptwinkled it. His amendment is that he would like a person to be able to spoke, asking for finances for one-time actions

She says it would create a big loophole and open the floodgates for a lot of nonsense.

“True democracy horizontal is not exhibited at Spokes council. We need poeple who can handle our decisions for us.” – One guy

She says “I’m an Anarchist. I hate leaders.”

Nan – “GA is 99 percent. GA is movement. Not Spoke council.”

Nan- “No No No No, They still take more power, that Spoke council. They still take power from GA”

“i actually wrote a proposal because i was concerned working groups were putting their best foot forward for the movement”

“wg’s get the work done but it seems to me there is process and group dynamic issues”

The previous proposal was to have a conversation about woking groups not being open/inclusive, based on her opinion that visions and goals

isn’t open/inclusive.

Next proposal, #nycga #ows Visions and Goals is bringing their living document back to the table.

It has been revised again, we are pulling apart for 5 minutes of breakout groups to discuss.

#nycga #ows ..We’re back from breakout groups.

This proposal has been brought to the GA, revised, and re-brought to the GA for a while now. We’ve moved on to concerns.

Jonathan wants it to say “unjust government coercive authority”

People are stretching.

It’s appppparently stretch time.

Slight process breakdown.

Alright! Bringing it back together for friendly amendments.

A man wants them to add a semicolon after “unjust power” .. He isnt sure about throwing a word like “unjust” around. He would feel

more comfortable with a word like “unchecked”

The friendly amendment is accepted.

Discuss Process & Content Issues facing Vision&Goal WG.

Posted by & filed under Assemblies, Past Proposals.

Proposal Form

Contact Person: Chithra
Working Groups
Contact email: <perceive3@yahoo.com>, @ethicaldemocracy
This is a proposal for General Assembly [GA]. Date 02/18/12

Proposal: Discuss Process & Content Issues facing Vision&Goal WG. Compare with Problems
of Transparency, Inclusiveness, that were encountered recently in GA, in Finance/Accounting.

My analysis is no OWS group can proceed fruitfully to deliver momentum and success for
our movement, unless we are inclusive, unless we actively support divergent viewpoints and
perspectives. Make it real.

I stopped attending the V&G WG, after 3 attendances. Many others have also stopped attending
these meetings, not only V& G, but some other WGs as well. This should be a matter of concern
to ALL of us who have been inspired to become part of the OWS global megawave.

1. Processes of inclusiveness are not developed, instead there is a growing tendency to
become exclusionary. Remember, that is the problem with the 1% we are fighting!
2. Content before the V&G WG, is summarily rejected/ excluded/ internally blocked,
producing tunnel vision rather than diverse vision(s). Despite claims of being “crowd
sourced” there was evidence at the last GA, that even friendly amendments were rejected
with weak explanations by the group.
3. The group dynamic of V&G WG is one of “circle the wagons”, become defensive,
become rejecting, become closed-minded, become manipulative, adopt a cookie-cutter
uniformity. One size does NOT fit all. Again, this is reminiscent of the groupiness that
developed at the intersection of Washington&Wall.

In my view the 4-month long problems facing the V&G group can be compared with the
transparency and inclusiveness problems facing Finance/Accounting, at which Janet Wilson was
pretty much shut down.
Q. Should we in any WG or GA shoot the messenger, instead of welcoming the messenger and
including the messenger and the message? Inconvenient truths help US move forward.

Possible Remedies:
1. Invite and do not impede, GA members who bring forward many diverse perspectives to
be actively represented in many versions of Vision. We need an Artists’ Vision & Goals
from so many creative arts and crafts persons, musicians, who have joined our movement
and come daily to 60 Wall and Equality Park on Liberty Plaza. We need an Anarchists’
Vision & Goals doc. If Women want to speak in their own voice, they can produce
their own doc. Environmentalists can develop their own vision. Nobody can be stopped
from having a vision that inspires themselves and some others who share that ideal. You
cannot dream for me!
2. Diverse content as enumerated in #1, needs diverse, open process. Open it up! Everyone
has a right to dream and imagine how they will move forward to secure success for the
99% as WE struggle to dismantle the 1%, so that WE can become the 100% in a new
world order based on FAIRNESS.

Proposal for the NYCGA requesting that they participate in a Nationwide GA on the 17th of every month, beginning on March 17th.

Posted by & filed under Assemblies, Past Proposals.

This is a proposal for the General Assembly.
My name is Lucid Wilcox 907-299-6644@SynchronizeOWSThis is a proposal for the NYCGA requesting that they participate in a Nationwide GA on the 17th of every month, beginning on March 17th. Nothing at all needs to be created for this. There will be no central website for #UnitedGA, the idea will simply be added to the website of participating GA’s. The only thing each occupy GA needs to do is agree to participate in the #UnitedGA on the 17th.

The NationWide GA is simply all General Assemblies in the country voting on the same issues at the same moment on the 17th of each month. THE ONLY CHANGE TO THE INDIVIDUAL GA’s IS THE TIME OF DAY THEY MEET ON THE 17th SO THEY CAN ALL HAPPEN AT THE SAME TIME AROUND THE COUNTRY. 3:00pm in California, 7:00pm in NYC etc. Livestreaming gives each GA extra accountability. The vote count from each GA is called into twitter@SynchronizeOWS, other participating twitter accounts and participating GA websites, and a national total is determined.

We would begin by voting on a simple issues in the first UnitedGA to get a feel for it. Such as: “should a national rally be held in Chicago in May.”

The issues discussed and voted on in UnitedGA will be of national or global importance. The initial issues for the first UnitedGA will be determined by an apparent popularity expressed from occupy websites, but the specific questions of the first UnitedGA are not the subject of this proposal. This proposal only asks NYCGA to agree to participate in the  NationWide GA that votes on the SAME ISSUES AT THE SAME MOMENT, every month on the 17th.
The specifics and details of the UnitedGA will be determined by everyone, after March 17th, i am simply concerned with initiating UnitedGA, and this proposal is simply asking for NYCGA to participate on March 17th.
The account @SynchronizeOWS was set up to handle communication for events such as NationWide GA and has full-time staff. #UnitedGA is the existing hashtag for it. UnitedGA@live.com is the email address.
Thank you all for your time and effort,
Lucid Wilcox

Proposal to establish a grievance council

Posted by & filed under Assemblies, Past Proposals.

Violence in the GA is Unacceptable

 

Lately, every other General Assembly seems to have an assault. This is an extremely disturbing development. If General Assemblies cannot be conducted without violence, Occupy Wall Street is over because most people will not want to come to a place where a few people are allowed to bully others. It doesn’t matter if those enacting acts of violence are of color, being a so called minority gives you no special rights. In fact, certain violent perpetrators have been perverting topics such as marginalization , racism, and homelessness and using them to hide behind violent and criminal acts. Just as one’s skin color gives one no special rights, living in a home or being homeless gives no one the right to commit acts of violence. One cannot justify bad behaviors by saying someone is homeless.

Those who commit acts of violence, particularly repeated acts of violence, quite clearly do not care about principles of solidarity. While we cannot bar them from parks, we can decide not to put them on stack on the GA, that they not be allowed to bring proposals to the GA, not to give them free metrocards, and not to allow them in spaces controlled by Occupy such as spoke council, for a period of two to 4 weeks or more, depending on the grievance process. This proposal will establish a formal grievance council, who will determine the road back.

While this is up to the victims of the assault, this group of proposers urges victims to file police reports and seek restraining orders, if need be. To those who speak about the crime of excluding anyone, by including violent people, you exclude others. People have left the movement because they feel unsafe and will continue to do so unless this matter is addressed. Most occupiers have been wonderfully kind to each other. We cannot allow a few people to destroy everything for everyone in this movement.

 

solidarity working group

OCCUPY WALL STREET COMMUNITY AGREEMENT

Posted by & filed under Assemblies, Past Proposals.

Working Group (if applicable) : _Safer Spaces_________
Contact Email:

This is a Proposal for:      Spokes Council 02.20.12

OCCUPY WALL STREET COMMUNITY AGREEMENT

Proposed to OWS Spokes Council by Safer Spaces Work Group revised as of 02.20.12;
to be made available in multiple languages

I. Statement of Intention on Entering the Space

I enter each OWS space with a commitment to:

    • mutual respect and support
    • anti-oppression
    • conflict resolution
    • nonviolence
    • direct democracy

I:

  1. support the empowerment of each person to challenge the histories and structures of oppression that marginalize some, and divide us all .  These may include racism, sexism, classism, heterosexism, transphobia, xenophobia, religious discrimination, ageism, and ableism, among others.
  2. commit to learning about different forms of oppression.
  3. understand individual freedoms are not above our collective safety, well-being, and ability to function cooperatively; individual freedom without responsibility to the community is not the OWS way.
  4. accept the decision of the community if I am not able to follow the agreements below.

II. AGREEMENTS

            A. Commitment to Accessibility, Consent and Anti-Oppression

We will:

  1. provide physical and language access to OWS spaces, and make resources equally available to all.
  2. not use physical or verbal violence or threats.
  3. get clear permission before touching other people or using their things.
  4. not use substances in our spaces that may attract the police and cause harm to our community.
  5. acknowledge that some people in our community are more vulnerable to police or hospital interaction*, and accept that calling the police or an ambulance is a decision to be made by the person most affected; this does not apply when someone is in critical condition or unable to give permission.
  6. respect each person’s expressed name and identities and their choice of whether to share that information. We will do our best not to make assumptions about identity–race, ethnicity, gender, sexuality, age, abilities, or class, among others–based on a person’s appearance.
  7. be aware of how prejudice and structures of oppression affect our speech and actions, including the ways power and privilege are related to race, gender, physical ability, immigration status, wealth, and/or sexuality, among other identities.
  8. show compassion and respect to our comrades, especially those who have experienced trauma, abuse, or oppression. We will not shout people down, dismiss oppression, or engage in other dominating or aggressive behavior.
  9. respect diverse styles of speaking, learning, and interacting that may not align with the dominant culture and make space for all to communicate.
  10. acknowledge that each person comes to our space with different experiences. So while we may not intend to hurt other people by our words or actions, this can still happen. We agree that it’s an act of solidarity to listen and not reply right away when a person or group of people say they feel oppressed by our words or actions.
  11. not tolerate police informants who intend to undermine OWS goals, and we will not accuse others of informing or otherwise working for law enforcement agencies to undermine OWS without concrete evidence.

* because of race, documentation status, immigration status, gender, economic situation, age, criminal justice  or medical history, and experience of police violence.

            B. Commitment to Conflict Resolution &  Accountability

We will:

  1. do our best to hold ourselves and each other accountable to these agreements.
  2. express concerns about violations based on how they affect us or others, without judgment of intent.
  3. participate in a conflict resolution process when asked to by the community, and develop transformative ways to address harm.
  4. be guided by decisions of the person harmed while providing all involved the chance to change the cycles of abuse and violence.
  5. agree that sometimes a situation is important enough to stop a meeting immediately to address concerns.
  6. make every effort to understand and be open as a community to change.
  7. put in place an OWS de-escalation process if anyone disrespects these agreements. We may choose to remove the person(s) from the meeting or other OWS space until the harm has been addressed.
  8. remove people who have committed sexual violence or abuse and let the survivor decide the conditions for their return. We understand that they may not be able to return.
  9. understand that people who have committed harm in or outside OWS that prevents the participation of others may need to leave until the harm has been addressed.
  10. work to coordinate with organizations chosen by our community to assist individuals who have committed abuse or violence, or those who want to overcome addiction.
  11. begin each meeting with a reminder of these agreements