The General Assembly "Entity"

[Walkabout]

Cy MaddoxJune 26, 2012 5:06 PM
Another problem I found back at the end of 2011 is the tendency to treat the GA as a single authoritative entity and NOT as designed (a fluid body of multiple equal entities).

It makes sense for a single authoritative entity to do things like write an entire document or plan an entire action step-by-step. It does NOT make sense for a group of equal entities, whose membership fluctuates even during the decision making process, to handle such tasks.

So again as in the Twitter thread that brought me here, I must stress that IMHO, delegation is not a dirty word... it is something it would be to our benefit to embrace.

[Walkabout]

KC HoyeJune 26, 2012 5:13 PM
This is going to be a long battle against the "leadership role" I don't think it's a fear of delegating, I think it's a fear of authority. No one wants to appear as the "dictator" so they do not take responsibility for delegating. Leadership isn't a bad thing, but folks are afraid of stepping up out of fear of being vilified by peers.

[Walkabout]

Cy MaddoxJune 26, 2012 5:39 PM
Me, I have the fear of being in charge. I don't like the idea of a dozen arrests on my head and my head alone, people coming at me with pitchforks out when an action goes Charlie Foxtrot. But that's me....

Now, *bottomlining* a group of tasks with a small team, so we all have to be accountable to each other as well as to the movement as a whole, I'm totally down with that.

[Walkabout]

KC HoyeJune 26, 2012 5:43 PM
I completely agree, and for those that have multiple arrests, the current model doesn't lend itself for gaining any support or spearheading and idea.

If you have an idea you can't garner support from GA out of fear of being "too visible". The policy model allows you to act in affinity within your "cell" in accordance with a specific action.

[Walkabout]

Cy MaddoxJune 26, 2012 5:55 PM
not for nothing, something of this nature can also be handled as simply as the old fashioned suggestion box method (Anonymous emails or typewritten/printed suggestions in a physical box).

If an idea is good, it's good, if it is bad, it's bad. There is a rather pressing need IMHO to get personality differences out of the decision making process as much as possible. The GA can give a general up or down on such suggestions without identities needing to be revealed to the world or the GA's collective judgement of the idea being clouded by the appearance or personality of the person making it.

[Walkabout]

KC HoyeJune 26, 2012 5:56 PM
We have a model similar to that but there's no oversight. If you want to submit an idea it's very easy for someone to take the idea out of queue for any given reason. I've had it happen to me.

[Walkabout]

KC HoyeJune 26, 2012 7:34 PM
What is a possible solution for this? Annonymous suggestion is often eschewed due to filibustering?

What can we do to have oversight into this process?

[Walkabout]

not_meJune 26, 2012 9:50 PM
Agreed here too, especially with Kaymee's initial response. What I'd say is that while I'm hard pressed to come up with much outside of a directly tactical op off-hand, sometimes decisions have to be made and it's either incredibly hard/long/et cetera or implausible to do so via group consensus.

That said, power corrupts, and I know I wouldn't want all of the mistakes hanging on me either.

I think to some degree this sort of thing works it self out within the strategy wing formalization, but if it was found we really actually needed this, I would say it be done in a rotating manner so no one is actually ever the dictator.

In the tactical side of things, I'd totally leave how that's handled up to the cells themselves, which again removes the dictator aspect from the strategy wing.

That all said, I'm not entirely convinced any type of individual leader is really requisite outside of at "op go time" for the tactical units, but I could be wrong too.

[Walkabout]

KC HoyeJune 26, 2012 9:54 PM
Agreed. And the open model for the previous two branches allows for folks *in* the cells to ring in as they please when it comes to policy.

[Walkabout]

not_meJune 28, 2012 9:51 AM
And the open model for the previous two branches allows for folks *in* the cells to ring in as they please when it comes to policy.

exactly

[kaymee]

In a team approach to problem solving, rotating who does what is not only encouraged it is required as part of community and investment building - as well as knowledge sharing. I am a fan. Problem is that some are not naturally gifted at certain things or don't have experience, so group performance can suffer. Where the one 'learning' is prickly or the one coaching is insensitive, this can get volatile. Perhaps the first order of business for teams is a review together of some coaching materials, with recommendations about how to interact cooperatively when learning a new skill/team position. Have heard good things about CT Lawrence Butler, and love his partner Wren Tuatha. Maybe they would like to contribute to the project? Thinking about a download subscription instead of a formal training as that would be cheaper. See www.facebook.com/events/201307409989944/?ref=nf They've been to Occupys in Chico, Atlanta and Staten Island from what I can see in a Google search. Not on fakebook much any more so don't keep up with Wren either. Although Butler's focus recently has been on building consensus, he has experience in conflict resolution and teaming. Just a thought - am not married to it.

[Walkabout]

I think, again this is a question for each individual occupy to sort out. The question of the General Assembly as an "entity" is deciding "what" the general assembly does for occupy.

Such as decide the policy of that particular occupy, what over arching issues that "camp" wants to tackle, and how they fit into the national/ global movement.

We can't fight the educational battles for each camp, we can set an example for organization and share resources in hopes that folks will chime in and discover what's best for them. That keeps it "level" so to speak in that *we* the five of us, have no right thinking for ever camp.

[kaymee]

The question of the General Assembly as an "entity" is deciding "what" the general assembly does for occupy.

I completely DISAGREE! If the GA could do that well, we would not be having this discussion.

[notme]

Personally, I feel like we are passed that to some degree, that okay, the GA is going to do whatever the GA is going to do and there's really no reform so to speak, just let them decide policy even if they call it something else.

So IMHFO, the question is more 'what GAs are we going to watch for policy coming out of?', I would argue that NYC, despite its utter failure in many ways wins out overall simply do to size/population of the city; Boston wins for overall intelligibility and organization and DC wins for "this is where the road has to end", but thats just me.

[Walkabout]

Jun 28, 2012 21:57:46 GMT -5 kaymee said:

The question of the General Assembly as an "entity" is deciding "what" the general assembly does for occupy.

I completely DISAGREE! If the GA could do that well, we would not be having this discussion.

This was taken out of context. Think about it, the given specific examples above are for each individual camp. I was merely attempting to redirect the conversation back from the execution of the General Assembly to what it does.

In principle you could say a community wanted to protect it's common land, protect freedom of speech, two simple rights based ideas. Both are fraught with emotional reactions that are tied to multiple pieces of legislation.

If the GA is charged with facilitating the process of upholding those rights, I feel it can be an effective tool.

A parallel example would be if a frack mining company wanted to come to a town and start mining, the town has a "right" to clean air and water. They can pass rights based ordinances to protect their land and water. Apply the same model to GA.

A statement of purpose could be:

"The General Assembly is a common platform where any person regardless of sex, race, affiliation or orientation may stand in common with their fellows to present a solution to a problem common to the community. Our common interest is inherent resting in free speech, freedom of information, and the right to a standard of living"

The next step would be for each assembly to define those rights and common interests for themselves. This forum and even opening the discussion is a great way to get the juices flowing and to get people thinking again, it's not going to be a road map, it's not feasible. The battles that are being fought are to large and the issues systemic. We have to encourage people to sort out these definitions as a community, what works for us may not work for them.


As a movement we absolutely CANNOT take the reigns of authority over how General Assemblies define themselves. I firmly believe that we are doing the right thing in holding an open forum to hash out the principles of General Assembly, Occupation, Saving Pink Bunnies.

However I am very uncomfortable with handing people a template, that's what AdBusters attempted to do with Occupy Wall Street and look where that got us. Hand a few radicals a copy of CT Butler's Guide to Consensus and have them watch a couple of Lisa Fithian videos and they think they can change the world. It was a start, but catharsis doesn't raise a barn and we've got a country to rebuild.