Occupy Chicago

by **lenny** » Thu Oct 13, 2011 2:35 am

Occupy Chicago General Assembly Constitution - PROPOSAL

The General Assembly of Occupy Chicago is a daily, communal meeting designed to communicate and address the announcements, issues, and developments of the Occupy Chicago movement. It is conducted as a modified-consensus decision making process – that means 9/10ths vote to pass a proposal. We operate on a basis of mutual respect and concern for the cares and opinions of all the individuals present. This is a slow process. Consensus decision making is a democratic method which demands, not only respect, but also the participation of all the individuals who are concerned with any aspect of the Occupation. It’s important to keep in mind that Occupy Chicago is not going anywhere! We have time to make sure everyone’s opinions be voiced or represented. Our commitment to the democratic process is paramount to operating as a united, effective movement.

The General Assembly does not solve problems, it presents them and discusses them. The committees are self-sufficient entities with the power to solve any of the problems which may come up. The best way to get actively involved beyond showing the support we thrive on is to join a committee. Everyone is adamantly invited to join as many committees as they feel comfortable being involved with! The idea is that every individual be empowered to make decisions, take action, and get involved as him or herself, for the good of the group. The Assembly is held in understood solidarity between all these committees.

General Assembly Rules:

-       All decisions are made on a modified-consensus-based decision making process. That is, 9/10ths majority for any proposal to pass.

-       Respect must be universal and unconditional! Everyone is expected to observe the decisions of the moderator and keep close at heart the interests of the group. Disrespect towards the speaker by anyone in the GA will not be tolerated. In that same fashion, disrespect by the speaker towards the moderator or the assembly will not be tolerated.

-       Each General Assembly will have a time-limit of 90 minutes.

-       The agenda will be set by the secretarial committee. Proposals will be presented in the order in which they are submitted, unless the secretarial committee feels that there is a certain urgency about a proposal, or that subsequent proposals will be contingent on the outcome of a proposal more recently submitted.

-       Side conversations, that is – either with the person next to you or anyone running the General Assembly, should take place before or after the Assembly.

-       There should be no sense of urgency. If a proposal has not been discussed in full, it can always be tabled for the next GA. Occupy Chicago will be around long enough to tackle any issue democratically.

-       Once the GA starts, the agenda is closed.

General Assembly Order of Events:

Moderator’s introduction. This includes what OC is; safety, how the GA works (rules and expectations), how to submit a proposal, “Last-time at the GA”, and an overview of the agenda.

Committee announcements. Role-call: go through each committee. Each committee must at least introduce themselves. Every committee should have a member present who is expected remain the entire time, and stay afterwards to answer questions about the committee and serve as a representative. Limit 3 minutes for each committee.

Voting on proposals which have already been discussed in full. Proposals will not be voted on the day they are proposed in order to leave adequate time for people to discuss the issues and not feel pressured into making decisions on issues which they do not feel fully informed. Because proposals will not be voted on the day they are proposed, all proposals will be available, in writing, to the people of OC during the day. The proposals will be read and briefly described by the moderator and the votes will be taken immediately.

New proposals, or proposals which have rolled over from the previous day, will be discussed. Proposals will be discussed for twenty five minutes, at the most. At the end of the allotted time, we will take a vote as to whether or not the proposal will be voted on the next day or, alternatively, the discussion will be continued.

Open forum (time permitting). This provides an opportunity for anyone in OC to share their opinion or announcement on any subject or topic they choose. Each speaker will have a strict time limit of 2 minutes.

by **Billy** » Thu Oct 13, 2011 4:59 am

I will be voting down on this. I think there needs to be more time for discussion. I do not think anything should be voted on if stack is cut off. I think voting should be limited to once per week and find a way to do the discussions during the week so that voting day is just voting with minimal discussion. If we have all week to go over something on the forums and have openly discussed it during weekly GAs using the temperature check process I do not see why we can't make this work.

My reasons for this are to get more working people involved in the process. I know many people that have jobs which are not involved in the process but are interested in doing so but can not and will not make it into the city every single day. I think this is holding us back.

I could see a need for a way to include some means to vote on emergency stuff. I however feel those emergency votes should be temporary and need to be reaffirmed during normal process procedures.

by **_Rebecca** » Thu Oct 13, 2011 8:23 am

Thanks to the people who put this together! I have a few thoughts. I discussed this issue briefly with the person proposing changes after GA last night and will try to make it back tonight.

-I would support more infrequent voting--I think that on really important tactical decisions like whether or not to endorse unions, much more time is needed to think through the issue. But I think that this proposal moves towards providing that by allowing us to vote on whether or not something will be voted on the next day. However, I don't think that the default should be that we WILL vote the next day unless enough people vote to table it (I'm not sure how proposals are currently tabled--sorry). I think there should be a vote on whether people feel ready to vote on a proposal, and that the proposal concerned should not proceed to voting until a majority (I would favor 90% for this, but willing to consider something less if people feel like this would hold up proposals for too long) feel that they have enough information. When votes like these (votes on whether or not to vote) are taken, I think it'd be great to also have a short discussion limited to what further information/ clarification people want so that we have a way to identify where disagreement or confusion lies and sharpen our debate the next day.

-I know that people feel that the GAs are running too long, so with this addition to the GAs I would favor far fewer proposals going before the GA. I think that proposals should be brought first to relevant committees for feedback. Committees don't necessarily have to approve proposals, so individuals could still make them before the GA without any kind of approval process, but it would be great to have committees give feedback on what issues of the proposals might already have been addressed.

-I favor adding some kind of reminder to the moderator's statement encouraging those who come from a position of privilege to "step back" during discussions and those who do not usually speak to "step up." I don't think we necessarily need to enforce this in any way, and it's certainly not intended to discourage any voices, but I think it's important to have an acknowledgement that in building our movement, we also want to transform the way we relate to each other and empower voices that might not usually feel comfortable speaking in public. Other Occupy movements use a progressive stack where non-white, non-male speakers are called first in stack (but everybody gets to speak eventually)--I don't think we have the numbers where we need to do this yet, but something to keep in mind.

by **skeptical** » Thu Oct 13, 2011 9:49 am

I apologize, in advance, for my snarky tone. Please, know that I support the movement 100%, and I write these things out of a genuine concern for #occupychi

My gripes:

Why do we need a constitution?
Why do we need a preamble?
More importantly, who are these "moderators"?
How are they chosen?
How are they vetted?
Why do they get so much power?

What happens if I chose to disobey your little "constitution" even when it is passed? I won't be tolerated? Am I kicked out of the 99%, and if so, does that mean I get to be ultra-rich and part of the 1%?

And 9/10ths? What genius came up with that? One of our faithful "moderators"? Way to ensure that nothing ever gets done.

I'm sorry, but establishing a tortugan bureaucracy led by a professional protester seems like a lot of mis-directed effort and wasted time.

How about, instead of non-white, non-males going first, we just use this great new invention, STANDING IN LINE.

And can we PLEASE do away with the inane human microphone? It just wastes time and makes everyone seem like children during story time.

What ever happened to "getting money out of politics"? Why get more complicated? You guys want to play pretend congress? Why do we need more "demands" than why this all started? So the anarchists, or the unions, or the Communists can push THEIR agenda? If you want to get money out of politics, then you are with us. We don't need to endorse anyone, and we don't need anyone else's endorsement. All are welcome, of course, but not to warp our goal into some pie-in-the-sky utopian dream agenda. Can't you see that they are just trying to co-opt us?

Protesting ain't all about feeling warm, fuzzy and solidarity-y, kids, it's about getting shit done, sitting around cheering for each other isn't going to do it. Sometimes your feelings are gonna get hurt. You might even have to take a REAL beating down the line.

I really hope SOMEONE agrees with me on this stuff.

You say we aren't going anywhere, but this is Chicago, and…

Winter is coming.

by **_Rebecca** » Thu Oct 13, 2011 2:17 pm

Okay, points appreciated, but the moderator rotates and is just a way to facilitate discussion between a large number of people, and we do currently stand in a line, but people get upset sometimes when the line is cut off, and we tend not to have many new voices speaking. I would definitely be interested in hearing what kind of format you'd prefer. How do we "get shit done," including getting money out of politics, as you say, without having a way to organize and debate among the large number of people who are attracted to the movement but have different ideas about what it means or should accomplish? These are the kind of questions that we are still engaging in a new movement, so alternative ideas as to what kind of focus we need are very much welcome.

by **mattjohnson** » Thu Oct 13, 2011 2:36 pm

It seems clear that if we are going to make decisions, we have to know the process by which we can make them. I don't think there is anything wrong with that.

If action is the goal, then the only way to get that done is to take the lead and organize people to become a part of the action. That will happen whether or not we have a constitution. An agreed upon process is still important for making decisions.

Regarding the human mic ("the people's mic"), I personally think it's great. When someone uses a microphone they are amplified, when we use the people to amplify the volume of your message is only as strong as the power of your message. If people are not feeling it, they will not say it enthusiastically, if at all. It is way more democratic than a microphone and amplifier. It also makes me feel a sense of unity. On a more practical note, repeating the phrases ensures you understand what is being said and nothing is being missed. We didn't have last night, like in so many other large meetings without the human mic, tons of people standing up and asking questions that had already been answered.

by **skeptical** » Fri Oct 14, 2011 2:58 pm

Well, I did post a bunch of alternatives, but it seems someone doesn't appreciate them, as it is no longer posted here.

AWESOME. Way to delete my post.

by **Billy** » Sat Oct 15, 2011 2:40 pm

If posts are getting deleted that is a huge problem. That even being brought into question has to be gotten to the bottom of. Censoring opinions is a huge huge huge issue that can not be tolerated. Someone needs to explain what happened there.

by **RedBeard** » Sat Oct 15, 2011 6:41 pm

skeptical said:

Well, I did post a bunch of alternatives, but it seems someone doesn't appreciate them, as it is no longer posted here.

AWESOME. Way to delete my post.

I have noticed that sometimes the posts, for one reason or another, never even make it up in the first place. Before we start accusing the forum moderator of deleting posts I have to ask: did you visually confirm that the post was up and then disappeared? if so then I agree, we may have a big problem.

by **arthurdent6** » Mon Oct 17, 2011 2:25 pm

I support a constitution, since we will not be able to make decisions as a group without a democratic process. We should all have the right to weigh in, but we have to define what that process will look like. We should respect each other by sticking to that process.

When the proposal for a constitution is discussed, I think clarifying these things is relevant:

- After time for a stack discussion expires, will the moderator motion to *extend* discussion (in which case 10% blocks and we move on) or to *end* discussion (in which case 10% blocks and we keep discussing)?

- After discussion on a proposal ends, will the moderator motion to *vote* (in which case 10% blocks and the issue is tabled until the next GA) or will the moderator motion to *table* (in which case 10% blocks and the issue must go to a vote right then)?

-After an announcement, are we automatically entitled to stack? Do we have to motion to *allow* stack (in which case 10% blocks and discussion on announcements has to happen later) or do we motion to *forego* stack (in which case 10% blocks and stack is allowed).

Once these things are clarified, I have thoughts on things like the maximum number of nights in a row we can discuss a given proposal before we must vote, the maximum number of times stack discussion can be extended on any one topic, and a waiting period for rewriting and reopening a discussion on a proposal that goes to a vote and is blocked.