Just another 6th Density Network Sites site
Occupy Richmond General Assembly – Sunday, January 15 2012 Facilitation
- Moderator: Megan / Isaac
- Temp Check: Vanessa / Allan
- Review the hand signals
- Megan from Finance needs workgroups to submit budgets and liaisons to
work with finance by next Sunday (1/22/2012)
- Daniel from Intentional Community group hosting “Imagination Eats a
- delegate lists of imaginative ingredients
- make pizzas from these ingredients
- share thoughts on how to best use the space
- Santos from Education / Outreach
- Occupy the Dream: Tomorrow, 10 AM at Kanawha Plaza
- Meeting with Occupy the Hood 11 AM on Thursday, Jan 19
- Allan – legal fundraising
- $200 raised from prayer flag sales
- Bentley – Outreach/Education
- Human University forum Friday at City Council Chambers
- Writers for handouts and blog
- Kenny Yates from IWW has written a proposal for Jewell’s staff
- Meeting Tuesday at 6pm on forum operations
- Meeting Wednesday at 6pm for speakers
- Friday afternoon: decorating before the event
- Take down the corporations – February 29
- Media InTraining workshop
- Sat, Jan 21 at 3pm at Quaker House
- Please get involved if you’re interested
- course on protest first aid being offered
- Strengthen current bonds and build new ones
- Planning events to bring people together
- See Vanessa or Cristina
- Nicole from Arts and Crafts
- Informal meeting Friday at noon at Laura’s house
- Plan future events and activities
- This friday: tiny tents demonstration
- Contact Nicole for more info
- passing the hat for donations for legal fees
- Isaac from Facilitation
- meeting at the Classic at 3rd and Clay wednesday at 7pm
- seed bomb event in the planning
- Jonathan from Finance announces balance of $305
- Jonathan: occupier needs help with his house
- needs help with prayer flags
- Occupy the Courts, response to SCOTUS that day as well
- Human University that day as well
- Jordan: organizing a poetry zine, get in contact after
- Chris: NDAA protest Friday afternoon at the Federal Court House
- Chris D: Va General Assembly actions continuing, please go!
- Teddy: a pastor wants to make donations
- Moderation suggest Teddy and Megan from finance
- Josh: Occupy Congress going on Tuesday
- William: wants to put together a fundraising group, contact him
- Harry: tonight after GA, will be traveling to DC for Occupy Congress
- *Mark proposes ORVA endorse the Rally to Dismantle Ableism, Feb 18
2012 from 1pm-4pm at the Friends Meeting House*
- Rich proposes ORVA endorse the Richmond Peace Education Center
- Chris D. questions why we’d endorse an organization, especially one
that endorsed Obama in ‘08
- *Bobbi proposes ORVA endorse Occupy Congress*
- *Allan proposes we endorse the ordinance making Kanawha open to 24/7
- This is a first step, leaves the fundamental Constitutional
- Question: Is the endorsement contingent on the language not
changing? (more about the concept, but still doesn’t accept
- Comment: Are we legitimizing limitations on free speech by
- Can we amend the endorsement to stress our rejection of
limitations of free speech? (as long as it can be done in a
- Vote called, failed to reach consensus — however, consensus reached
- Chris proposes the ORVA drafts statements to be delivered to our VA
Senators criticizing their support of the NDAA
- Statement will demand an explanation and meetings with the
- Conducted in a similar manner to our meeting with the mayor.
- To maximize participation, those meeting with one senator would
- GA consensus must be reached on the statement’s wording. Temp
- Friendly amendments and comments
- Suggestion: Other language besides “belligerence” suggested
- Suggestion: Defense of language voiced
- Clarification: we’re proposing we begin the process? (Yes)
- Suggestion: form an affinity group to work on letters
- Suggestion incorporated by proposer
- Proposal *tabled* to be worked on outside GA
- Bobbi and Allan propose that:
- *ORVA affirm that the SCOTUS decision on Citizens United is wrong
and unconstitutional, being that corporations are not natural persons*
- Is it in fact unconstitutional? Wrong, yes — but
- Is this a priority? (If we want to get “Move to Amend” on
- the formation of a group to work on corporate personhood issues
- this does not require GA consensus, *tabled*
- Allan proposes alternate language for his past proposal
- Comment: This only limits us when we are unlimited in our speech
(agreed, but this proposal passing requires nothing from those who don’t
believe in this legislation. It lets those who want to work on it work on
- Moderator temp checks opening stack, fails
- Clarifying: is stack optional?
- Allan does not want this to take too much time
- Stack reopened by temp check
- Concern: we don’t have to decide on this tonight, we have time
- Concern: this legislation gives us nothing we don’t already
have. Originally the paper was about codifying the
we don’t need this now that we don’t have an occupation.
- Motion: table until Thursday, allowing time for discussion of
- Concern: this could be helpful to the homeless community,
although practically they do leave them along. But this might
from harassment / disturbance
- Friendly amendment: we can accommodate other concerns by
clarifying in the language that our endorsement does not assent to any
limitations of our free speech, and the best way to protect
to exercise them, not through the sanction of council
- Allan says the amendment already covers that, rejected
- Concern: you have to do something!
- Formal vote: consensus reached
- *Bentley proposes ORVA put out a national call to action and join the
list of occupied cities endorsing the May Day General Strike*
- *Block*: member addresses problems with unruly individuals hampering
- Stack on suggestions for handling it
- Comment: 3 strikes and you’re out
- Comment: One member has to go
- Comment: We need to be more intimately connected with the
process, lukewarm temp check
- Comment: Another member *blocks* on the issue of language around
- Facilitation summarizes: we need a way of dealing with episodes
- Comment: Our best tool for disorder is to be disciplined,
redirect back to facilitators
- Comment: A member was physically threatened, we need to deal
- Comment: It’s about when somebody violates process
- Comment: Other occupations have a 3-step process for dealing
with disruptive people, vote failed
1. Everybody takes 5-min break.
2. Disruptive individual asked to take 5-min break.
3. Disruptive individual asked to leave.
- Comment: Many people have been dishonest and aggressive besides
Chris. How can we help people when we’re playing dangerous games.
- Comment: The issue of violence has been glossed over
- Question: What happened to the security group? (Fell apart)
- Allan proposes to bottom line process improvements and table
- Comment: Violence has been ignored on all sides.
- Proposal from Graham: At any official ORVA event, if violence
occurs it is brought to the attention of the group and moved to a vote to
eject the responsible individuals from 3 GAs. Another vote after
would be taken to bring them back in.
- Comment: We should take time to work through this
- Comment: Violence should not be voted on
- Graham amends to proposal to formally ask Chris to leave for
- Facilitation synthesizes proposals
- Language for interim procedure on violence
1. Chris Dorsey is asked to leave tonight.
2. Future episodes of threats or violence will result in an
immediate vote to eject responsible individuals for the next 3 GAs.
3. Another vote can be taken after that time to bring persons
4. Allan will bottom line an affinity group to work on
- Question: This ejection of Chris Dorsey only applies to this
- Question: Should we make this precedent set the standing
rule? (Graham is comfortable with that.)
- Comment: Need a “3 strikes” clause for non-violent disruption
- Comment: We have had to deal with violence before, let’s
review policies to see what needs to be changed
- Comment: Do we call the cops when violence occurs?
- Friendly amendment: if someone is a victim of violence, it is
brought to the attention of the meeting. The suspect is
Then, and if that is confirmed, they are asked to leave.
- Suggestion: Have a special word that can alert the group to
- Suggestion: Apply these rules fairly.
- *Megan steps down as moderator, Isaac steps in and Harry
- Question: How do we determine the fact of violent incidence?
(Based on allegation at first to get ball rolling)
- Comment: It’s hard to change rules once we adopt them
- Call for a vote on Graham’s revised proposal: *Anybody who
threatens violence on our community tonight has to leave the GA.*
- Retroactive? (Applies to tonight and going forward)
- Graham makes second proposal: If threats of violence or violence
take place at an official ORVA event and are brought to the attention of
the GA, the person making the threat will be asked to leave that event
immediately. This expires February 15.
- Friendly amendment: Sunset provision and deadline for this
interim proposal (accepted)
- Will this proposal be retroactive? (No explicit power in that
- Is there going to be a process of defining what a threat is?
(When a person feels threatened)
- What is due process for this? (It doesn’t matter because it’s
- Are you saying that facilitation will have the right to
request removal after an allegation? (Yes)
- We need to be careful of this being abused.
- Legal def’n of thread is assault, which means possibility of
- How do we deal with belligerence when removing somebody?
(That would take too long to discuss)
- *Temp Check steps in* to ground the body
- *Chris Dorsey, who had been ejected by a past resolution, came
back and business stopped until he was prevailed upon to leave*
- Graham amends: If threats of violence or violence take place at
an official ORVA event and are brought to the attention of the GA,
Facilitation can call for an immediate vote to ask the person
threat to leave. This expires February 15.
- will the vote include normal process points like clarifying
questions, points of information, etc.
- a vote to remove somebody would not be an effective use of
- Graham amends: *If threats of violence or violence take place at
an official ORVA event and are brought to the attention of the GA,
Facilitation shall call for an immediate vote to ask the
threat to leave. This expires February 15.*
- What about alleged victims not feeling comfortable with this
- Call for a vote: consensus reached.
- *Jonathan proposes ORVA endorse Occupy the Dream.*
- Call for a vote: consensus reached.
- *ORVA allow itself to be placed on a national call list for Take
Down the Corporations on Feb 29*
- Clarifying question: What is “Take Down the Corporation”?
(Movement to dismantle corporate personhood and other issues
- Call for vote: consensus reached
- *ORVA endorses Occupy the Hood Valentine’s Day event*
- Comment: Occupy the Hood should not need ORVA resources for
this, they are independent
- Comment: It’s not necessary to endorse their events by consensus
because we both mutually endorse one another.
- Question: Is this a Hood or Richmond event? (Both.)
- Call for vote: consensus reached
- *Motion to adjourn, consensed*