From the ad-hoc Facilitiation task force – created by agreement among those present at the Nov.16 meeting
1. Forming a General Assembly: We propose that the coordinating body for Occupy Amherst (OA) be called a General Assembly (GA) with the following purposes:
- To encourage enthusiasm and support for a diverse array of people wanting to contribute to the 99% Movement;
- To provide a place to cross-pollinate and share ideas; and
- To provide a clear process for how to introduce new ideas and get them acted upon.
2. Working Groups: We further propose that we allow for “Working Groups” to be formed — in order to maintain and develop OA itself, as well as to address the political and economic issues of importance to its participants. Working groups would meet on their own, but make proposals to the GA for any actions that require resources / support / or suggest affiliation with OA. Examples might be:
- Facilitation WG – to continue the work of the task force in proposing how OA can function democratically and effectively. Tasks could include developing agendas for meetings, proposed revisions to the process and structure of the group, training facilitators and developing shared leadership within the group. (This is an example of a WG that supports the OA itself.)
- Anti-foreclosures WG – to do solidarity work with groups in Springfield; research foreclosures in local area; develop ways to support foreclosed homeowners in local area, etc. (This is an example of a WG that is issue-oriented
- Campus Coordination WG - to facilitate and/or coordinate actions among Occupy groups on the various campuses in town.
The number and scope of WGs depends on the interest, energy and creativity of OA participants.
3. Decision-Making Process: We propose that OA use a “consensus-seeking process” for decision-making. A consensus decision would mean most people are in agreement; some may be “neutral”; nobody presents a substantive disagreement. If there is a substantive disagreement, the group will take time to discuss it. If agreement can’t be reached in the time set aside for that discussion, the proposal would then either be withdrawn or “go back to the drawing-board” — to the individual or group that proposed it, so that they can re-think it based on the discussion. If / when the proposal is re-introduced, the group could then pass it with a 90% majority. (There is a minority report from the ad-hoc Facilitation task force, proposing that the margin should be a 2/3 majority).
Ben,
I suggest that among the working groups, you include a “Writer’s Group”. We recently met with such a group with the Amherst for Elizabeth Warner Group. Our mission is to write and to try to get published “Letters-to-the Editor”, OpEds. etc It seems a good way to get our views out to people outside of our group.
Regards,
Dick Stein
I am strongly opposed to the idea of a 2/3 majority margin as proposed by the ad-hoc facilitation task force for decision making! That seems “forced” and too similar to what the 1% would do in this situation. 2/3rds is just that. It does NOT represent the 99%! It certainly is not at all in alignment with what OWS is doing in such situations. What is the hurry!!!! I hope Amherst will attempt to be more inclusive than that! This may be part of the reason I have not been inspired to join in the discussions, as that is similar to other groups I’ve encountered in town. Besides that is the fact that I’ve been busy attempting to counter the very small (1% or slightly more) vocal voice of those who would have all dogs on leash in Amherst at all times. Connections abound in Amherst where everything seems to need to be altered and “managed” to the point of extinction!
The proposal on consensus-seeking actually recommends a full consensus if possible. If a proposal goes back for modification and is then considered again by the General Assembly, it recommends a 90% consensus. These are pretty standard fare among Occupy groups. The 2/3 option is stated as a minority opinion among the Facilitation task force and is offered as a point of discussion for the GA.
WHATEVER HAPPENS TO OCCUPY WALL STREET, THIS SHOULD BE A PART OF THE REFORM:
This proposal corrects the reasons for past economic failures but is no more revolutionary than Social Security was in its day. And in America the Social Security System could be used as the “start-up” organization.
We know raising minimum wage doesn’t work. It just inflates everything.
Food stamps don’t get the job done.
We know that with all government programs there is immediate “scanning” for government hand-out opportunity.
This program, once initiated supports itself.
Basic food and minimum shelter should be every person’s right, for which he should help work to provide. Such an arrangement could be a simple adjunct to whatever other economic “reforms” develop. Basic needs must have an independent accounting system that does not intrude on other plans because no person through this computer system gets more or less than his basic needs, which is equitable for each individual.
Keeping track of this should be completely separate from all other accounting. Basic living should be guaranteed all people, but in no way become involved in games of the marketplace. The work assignment to qualify for basics should be in areas that are actually a part of providing these basics.
The cumulated workforce should prove adequate to supply these provisions without requiring any person to work an excessive amount of time. Today’s work force for these provisions is small compared to all other things that people work at.
Today some people may work very hard, long hours and still lack enough money to provide for their basic needs. Some have no opportunity to work at all. These evils would be eliminated.
Euros, Pounds, Dollars, etc. should not be involved in the basic provisions program. Computer unit counts of work and product are enough. Politics, Religion, Wall Street, all the sports arenas, can proceed undisturbed or change in whatever way the powers that evolve work out. All the hoopla can continue, or change–but with everyone’s basic needs provided. No hungry children.
One criticism of this proposal is that people would bicker over what comprises the basics, but wouldn’t it be better to argue over WHAT food should be, rather than IF it should?
By having a system that is controlled independent of all financial systems, and work assignments for everyone are in the areas where the materials are provided directly to the consumer from the production team and is a defined minimum amount – no more or less than a person needs – all computer planned and recorded – it can be programmed to avoid “get-rich” interference. No big ads to titillate the consumer or scandals to arouse the press.
While conditions tend to make us think the world is full of bad people, I am an octogenarian and in all my years, I have never met any person who was inherently evil. The cooperation of only nine people in ten for this Basic Needs proposal would be enough to make it succeed. I believe your project demonstrates the concerns of many, many good people.
Having all people fed and sheltered needs to be achieved. Today’s electronic facilities make that goal feasible.
Ethelyn Boddy
ethelynboddy@att.net