View topic - Responses to Conflict and Violations of Trust
Responses to Conflict and Violations of Trust
4 posts
• Page 1 of 1
Responses to Conflict and Violations of Trust
by myanswer » Fri Dec 02, 2011 5:32 pm
Proposal: Responses to Conflict and Violations of Trust
Postby _Rebecca » Thu Dec 01, 2011 5:42 pm
As a movement of the 99%, our goal is to build the most inclusive possible movement that resonates with the needs and interests of all members. In building such a movement, we value diverse input, and as such we recognize that is natural for conflict to arise. In many cases, conflict may be a productive aspect of challenging race, class, and gender hierarchies within our movement and learning how to work together as equals. We also recognize that conflict can detract from the success of our movement, however, and that in some cases it is useful for members in conflict to have support from outside parties. This proposal is concerned with the specific ways in which the Conflict Resolution Committee will work with committees and individuals, as well as the ways in which Occupy Chicago as a whole will promote a culture of non-violence and constructive engagement of conflicts. It is also concerned with those rare events in which an individual has violated the trust of the movement in a manner serious enough that temporary removal from the movement may be the only option.
As we consider this proposal, we emphasize that we are here because our government is failing to provide the necessary services to address the needs of our community, and that this is reflected in many of the problematic behaviors we see at headquarters, in committee meetings, or at other Occupy Chicago assemblies. However, we recognize that in order for members of our movement to feel safe, we must agree upon a response to individuals who routinely violent or threatening behaviors while at headquarters or other Occupy Chicago assemblies or events. We do not believe that punishment is a just or effective approach, or that we as Occupy Chicago have the right to punish anyone. Seeing the failure and the enormous costs of retributive justice in our society, we hope to promote restorative justice as an alternative. Therefore, we suggest a set of procedures that asks individuals who have committed serious violations of trusts--which in this proposal are defined as violent acts that directly harm or have the potential to harm a person or people--to be accountable to the community for their actions and supports them in being a responsible member of the movement.
There are three types of conflict interventions that will take place depending on the type and severity of conflict. In the first, the conflict resolution committee will act as a resource to all individuals or groups of individuals in disputes. In the second, where a dispute involves the restriction of an individual’s participation--for example, through demotion from a committee--the conflict resolution committee strongly encourages the individuals and the committee involved to try to come to an agreement through use of a peace council that will be facilitated by conflict resolution. The third type of intervention, which pertains to incidents involving violence or the threat of violence, may involve the General Assembly and may result in an individual being asked to leave the movement temporarily.
1) Intervention in Disputes and Proactive Conflict Engagement
The conflict resolution committee cannot require that Occupy Chicago members participate in a mediation or peace council, but we urge Occupy Chicago to use us a a resource when situations become unmanageable. Any member of Occupy Chicago may approach the conflict resolution committee for assistance in handling a conflict with another member or group. The committee will maintain a conflict resolution helpline where members can receive support and suggestions for how to engage the conflict. Where necessary, the conflict resolution committee will engage with all sides of the conflict in order to try to reach an agreement through a mediation. In such cases, members of conflict resolution committee will remain neutral and will keep the details of the conflict confidential. The conflict resolution committee will also offer trainings and teach-ins on such subjects as non-violent communication, deescalation, and restorative justice in order to encourage more people to acquire skills to engage conflict constructively.
2) Intervention in Disputes Involving Restriction of Participation or Access to Resources
When a conflict involves an individual being asked to temporarily stop participating in a certain Occupy Chicago activity or stop using an Occupy Chicago resource, this is a potentially more serious situation. In rare cases when a committee believes it must ask an individual to temporarily leave a committee, which will heretofore be referred to as demotion, we recommend that this be done by a 9/10ths vote. Committees are free to take this action when they have exhausted all other options of resolving conflict with an individual, but they are encouraged to either videotape the voting process or invite members of conflict resolution to observe it. After this action takes place, the individual in question will be demoted from the committee for 2 weeks, but the conflict resolution will continue to engage with them and with the committee involved and will attempt to set up a peace council. The aim of a peace council is to give everyone concerned the opportunity to explain their perspective and to facilitate communication toward an agreement on how the individual concerned can be accountable to the committee for their actions and participate constructively. Peace councils will be comprised of 2 facilitators from conflict resolution committee, the individual concerned, members of the committee concerned, and other impacted parties that are agreed upon. If the individual does not want to participate in a peace council or does not abide by the committee’s decision, or if a committee does not agree to participate in a peace council, the issue may be referred to a vote at the GA.
3) Procedure for Intervention in Serious Violations of Trust
When a serious violation of trust involving acts of violence or the brandishing of a weapon have been committed, the response will involve the safety and security committee and the conflict resolution committee and will be transparent to the broader movement. In extreme cases where an act of serious violence has been witnessed, it will be possible to suspend having a peace council and bring the matter before the GA. Instances of self-defense will be considered on a case-to-case basis.
In general, when alleged violations of trust occur at headquarters, GAs, committee meetings, or other Occupy Chicago assemblies, we will offer the survivor support, and the survivor will never be discouraged from contacting the police if they wish to do so. Security will take statements from witnesses and those involved and forward these statements to the conflict resolution committee.
After consulting these statements, conflict resolution committee will find a safe space to meet with the individual in question and determine if they are willing to be accountable to the community for their actions through participation in a peace council. Conflict resolution will have 48 hours during which to review statements and meet with the individual involved to determine their willingness to engage.
If the individual agrees, a peace council consisting of the individual in question, 2 facilitators from conflict resolution, volunteer members from 2 Occupy Chicago committees, witnesses to the event, and agreed-upon supporters will be convened. A survivor of an incident will be invited and supported if they wish to be part of a peace council, but will never be compelled to be involved.
The peace council will give all involved parties a chance to speak and explain their perspective and how they have been impacted by the situation in question. The aim of the peace council is to facilitate an agreement on how to incorporate the individual(s) into the community and the movement. This may include a request for their respect of the established rules at headquarters, connecting them to a particular committee or task, as well as, where applicable, providing information about where to find shelter, food, mental health support, substance abuse counseling, etc. In order to be accountable to the broader community, the conflict resolution committee will post the basic details of the incident, with identifying details removed, and will encourage the parties to post the final agreement that is reached.
If the individual involved does not agree to participation in a peace council, and the incident involved violence or the real threat of violence, then the matter must be brought before the General Assembly for review. The General Assembly may vote by 9/10ths majority on whether to ask the individual to temporarily leave the movement. The vote may be tabled. Wherever possible, the conflict resolution committee will attempt to refer this person to supportive resources and continue to engage with them, but the individual cannot be reinstated without a vote from the GA.
We are putting forward this proposal to solicit feedback from members of Occupy Chicago, but regardless of the outcome of the proposal, we will make available the support and resources we have outlined to any individuals or committees who request it.
_Rebecca
Posts: 4
Joined: Sat Oct 29, 2011 9:33 am
Postby _Rebecca » Thu Dec 01, 2011 5:42 pm
As a movement of the 99%, our goal is to build the most inclusive possible movement that resonates with the needs and interests of all members. In building such a movement, we value diverse input, and as such we recognize that is natural for conflict to arise. In many cases, conflict may be a productive aspect of challenging race, class, and gender hierarchies within our movement and learning how to work together as equals. We also recognize that conflict can detract from the success of our movement, however, and that in some cases it is useful for members in conflict to have support from outside parties. This proposal is concerned with the specific ways in which the Conflict Resolution Committee will work with committees and individuals, as well as the ways in which Occupy Chicago as a whole will promote a culture of non-violence and constructive engagement of conflicts. It is also concerned with those rare events in which an individual has violated the trust of the movement in a manner serious enough that temporary removal from the movement may be the only option.
As we consider this proposal, we emphasize that we are here because our government is failing to provide the necessary services to address the needs of our community, and that this is reflected in many of the problematic behaviors we see at headquarters, in committee meetings, or at other Occupy Chicago assemblies. However, we recognize that in order for members of our movement to feel safe, we must agree upon a response to individuals who routinely violent or threatening behaviors while at headquarters or other Occupy Chicago assemblies or events. We do not believe that punishment is a just or effective approach, or that we as Occupy Chicago have the right to punish anyone. Seeing the failure and the enormous costs of retributive justice in our society, we hope to promote restorative justice as an alternative. Therefore, we suggest a set of procedures that asks individuals who have committed serious violations of trusts--which in this proposal are defined as violent acts that directly harm or have the potential to harm a person or people--to be accountable to the community for their actions and supports them in being a responsible member of the movement.
There are three types of conflict interventions that will take place depending on the type and severity of conflict. In the first, the conflict resolution committee will act as a resource to all individuals or groups of individuals in disputes. In the second, where a dispute involves the restriction of an individual’s participation--for example, through demotion from a committee--the conflict resolution committee strongly encourages the individuals and the committee involved to try to come to an agreement through use of a peace council that will be facilitated by conflict resolution. The third type of intervention, which pertains to incidents involving violence or the threat of violence, may involve the General Assembly and may result in an individual being asked to leave the movement temporarily.
1) Intervention in Disputes and Proactive Conflict Engagement
The conflict resolution committee cannot require that Occupy Chicago members participate in a mediation or peace council, but we urge Occupy Chicago to use us a a resource when situations become unmanageable. Any member of Occupy Chicago may approach the conflict resolution committee for assistance in handling a conflict with another member or group. The committee will maintain a conflict resolution helpline where members can receive support and suggestions for how to engage the conflict. Where necessary, the conflict resolution committee will engage with all sides of the conflict in order to try to reach an agreement through a mediation. In such cases, members of conflict resolution committee will remain neutral and will keep the details of the conflict confidential. The conflict resolution committee will also offer trainings and teach-ins on such subjects as non-violent communication, deescalation, and restorative justice in order to encourage more people to acquire skills to engage conflict constructively.
2) Intervention in Disputes Involving Restriction of Participation or Access to Resources
When a conflict involves an individual being asked to temporarily stop participating in a certain Occupy Chicago activity or stop using an Occupy Chicago resource, this is a potentially more serious situation. In rare cases when a committee believes it must ask an individual to temporarily leave a committee, which will heretofore be referred to as demotion, we recommend that this be done by a 9/10ths vote. Committees are free to take this action when they have exhausted all other options of resolving conflict with an individual, but they are encouraged to either videotape the voting process or invite members of conflict resolution to observe it. After this action takes place, the individual in question will be demoted from the committee for 2 weeks, but the conflict resolution will continue to engage with them and with the committee involved and will attempt to set up a peace council. The aim of a peace council is to give everyone concerned the opportunity to explain their perspective and to facilitate communication toward an agreement on how the individual concerned can be accountable to the committee for their actions and participate constructively. Peace councils will be comprised of 2 facilitators from conflict resolution committee, the individual concerned, members of the committee concerned, and other impacted parties that are agreed upon. If the individual does not want to participate in a peace council or does not abide by the committee’s decision, or if a committee does not agree to participate in a peace council, the issue may be referred to a vote at the GA.
3) Procedure for Intervention in Serious Violations of Trust
When a serious violation of trust involving acts of violence or the brandishing of a weapon have been committed, the response will involve the safety and security committee and the conflict resolution committee and will be transparent to the broader movement. In extreme cases where an act of serious violence has been witnessed, it will be possible to suspend having a peace council and bring the matter before the GA. Instances of self-defense will be considered on a case-to-case basis.
In general, when alleged violations of trust occur at headquarters, GAs, committee meetings, or other Occupy Chicago assemblies, we will offer the survivor support, and the survivor will never be discouraged from contacting the police if they wish to do so. Security will take statements from witnesses and those involved and forward these statements to the conflict resolution committee.
After consulting these statements, conflict resolution committee will find a safe space to meet with the individual in question and determine if they are willing to be accountable to the community for their actions through participation in a peace council. Conflict resolution will have 48 hours during which to review statements and meet with the individual involved to determine their willingness to engage.
If the individual agrees, a peace council consisting of the individual in question, 2 facilitators from conflict resolution, volunteer members from 2 Occupy Chicago committees, witnesses to the event, and agreed-upon supporters will be convened. A survivor of an incident will be invited and supported if they wish to be part of a peace council, but will never be compelled to be involved.
The peace council will give all involved parties a chance to speak and explain their perspective and how they have been impacted by the situation in question. The aim of the peace council is to facilitate an agreement on how to incorporate the individual(s) into the community and the movement. This may include a request for their respect of the established rules at headquarters, connecting them to a particular committee or task, as well as, where applicable, providing information about where to find shelter, food, mental health support, substance abuse counseling, etc. In order to be accountable to the broader community, the conflict resolution committee will post the basic details of the incident, with identifying details removed, and will encourage the parties to post the final agreement that is reached.
If the individual involved does not agree to participation in a peace council, and the incident involved violence or the real threat of violence, then the matter must be brought before the General Assembly for review. The General Assembly may vote by 9/10ths majority on whether to ask the individual to temporarily leave the movement. The vote may be tabled. Wherever possible, the conflict resolution committee will attempt to refer this person to supportive resources and continue to engage with them, but the individual cannot be reinstated without a vote from the GA.
We are putting forward this proposal to solicit feedback from members of Occupy Chicago, but regardless of the outcome of the proposal, we will make available the support and resources we have outlined to any individuals or committees who request it.
_Rebecca
Posts: 4
Joined: Sat Oct 29, 2011 9:33 am
- myanswer
- Posts: 150
- Joined: Sat Oct 29, 2011 2:33 am
- Location: Aurora, IL currently Rogers Park Chicago
Re: Responses to Conflict and Violations of Trust
by ciwp » Mon Dec 05, 2011 3:25 am
I agree with this proposal in general but I would like to add a few ideas for your consideration.
All Occupiers, (except in extreme situations) before bringing governmental entities into disputes that occur at Occupy Chicago meetings and events MUST be required to pursue redress of grievances through Conflict Resolutions first. We should avoid bringing police and courts into investigations of our internal disputes unless very serious crimes have been committed (murder, rape, assault and battery, theft, etc.) and verified (if possible) by witnesses via an emergency Conflict Resolutions investigation. Statements must be taken from all parties engaged in the dispute (especially accuser(s) AND accused) to determine whether the situation merits actual criminal prosecution by the "authorities". If Conflict Res decides that there is no basis for bringing the police into the matter then the accuser must not do so and must proceed with an internal investigation. If they decide to go to the police in blatant disregard for the decision by Conflict Res anyway, they will face a possible expulsion proceeding that could result in their being declared by the GA to be "persona non grata" in Occupy Chicago.
We also need to follow basic due process procedures, i.e.: except in extreme cases of serious crimes, no sanction should be imposed upon any member of Occupy Chicago until that person has had a fair chance to defend themselves before a hearing conducted by Conflict Resolutions and the recommendation of CR for any sanctions against the accused member is approved by the GA. A fair hearing would include the chance to personally question the accuser(s) and the right of the accused to call witnesses in his/her own defense.
Secondly, it should be made MANDATORY that both accuser and accused appear at any hearing called by Conflict Resolution. If either the accuser or accused refuse to participate in the hearing called by the Conflict Resolutions committee, then the refusing party should be subject to a reprimand and a default judgement entered on behalf of the party that participates in the due process procedures of the Conflict Resolutions committee. EXAMPLE: Party #1 accuses party #2 of an assault upon party #1. The accused (Party #2) agrees to participate in the hearing called by Conflict Resolution, but the accuser (Party #1) refuses to participate. In this case, Conflict Resolution MUST decide that by not pursuing their claim, the accusation leveled by Party #1 against Party #2 has no merit and the case is dropped due to lack of prosecution by the accuser. Party #2 would then be free to bring charges via Conflict Res against Party #1 for making a false accusation (libel) and could demand that Party #1 be made to answer the charge. Depending on the outcome of this hearing, Conflict Res would recommend (or not) a reprimand against Party #1 for making an accusation and then refusing to follow through by adhering to the agreed upon procedures for resolving conflicts between Occupy Chicago members.
If Conflict Resolution hearings are not made mandatory for all parties to a conflict, then we will open up the possibility of people making false charges against their fellow Occupiers and then letting the accusations hang over the head(s) of the accused indefinitely and/or we will allow guilty parties to continue on as members in good standing even though they refuse to allow Conflict Res to do their job. In this case the party or parties refusing to participate in the internal hearings conducted by Conflict Resolutions may face a possible expulsion proceeding that could result in their being declared by the GA to be "persona non grata" in Occupy Chicago.
Mark D.
All Occupiers, (except in extreme situations) before bringing governmental entities into disputes that occur at Occupy Chicago meetings and events MUST be required to pursue redress of grievances through Conflict Resolutions first. We should avoid bringing police and courts into investigations of our internal disputes unless very serious crimes have been committed (murder, rape, assault and battery, theft, etc.) and verified (if possible) by witnesses via an emergency Conflict Resolutions investigation. Statements must be taken from all parties engaged in the dispute (especially accuser(s) AND accused) to determine whether the situation merits actual criminal prosecution by the "authorities". If Conflict Res decides that there is no basis for bringing the police into the matter then the accuser must not do so and must proceed with an internal investigation. If they decide to go to the police in blatant disregard for the decision by Conflict Res anyway, they will face a possible expulsion proceeding that could result in their being declared by the GA to be "persona non grata" in Occupy Chicago.
We also need to follow basic due process procedures, i.e.: except in extreme cases of serious crimes, no sanction should be imposed upon any member of Occupy Chicago until that person has had a fair chance to defend themselves before a hearing conducted by Conflict Resolutions and the recommendation of CR for any sanctions against the accused member is approved by the GA. A fair hearing would include the chance to personally question the accuser(s) and the right of the accused to call witnesses in his/her own defense.
Secondly, it should be made MANDATORY that both accuser and accused appear at any hearing called by Conflict Resolution. If either the accuser or accused refuse to participate in the hearing called by the Conflict Resolutions committee, then the refusing party should be subject to a reprimand and a default judgement entered on behalf of the party that participates in the due process procedures of the Conflict Resolutions committee. EXAMPLE: Party #1 accuses party #2 of an assault upon party #1. The accused (Party #2) agrees to participate in the hearing called by Conflict Resolution, but the accuser (Party #1) refuses to participate. In this case, Conflict Resolution MUST decide that by not pursuing their claim, the accusation leveled by Party #1 against Party #2 has no merit and the case is dropped due to lack of prosecution by the accuser. Party #2 would then be free to bring charges via Conflict Res against Party #1 for making a false accusation (libel) and could demand that Party #1 be made to answer the charge. Depending on the outcome of this hearing, Conflict Res would recommend (or not) a reprimand against Party #1 for making an accusation and then refusing to follow through by adhering to the agreed upon procedures for resolving conflicts between Occupy Chicago members.
If Conflict Resolution hearings are not made mandatory for all parties to a conflict, then we will open up the possibility of people making false charges against their fellow Occupiers and then letting the accusations hang over the head(s) of the accused indefinitely and/or we will allow guilty parties to continue on as members in good standing even though they refuse to allow Conflict Res to do their job. In this case the party or parties refusing to participate in the internal hearings conducted by Conflict Resolutions may face a possible expulsion proceeding that could result in their being declared by the GA to be "persona non grata" in Occupy Chicago.
Mark D.
- ciwp
- Posts: 29
- Joined: Fri Nov 25, 2011 5:13 pm
- Location: Chicago
Re: Responses to Conflict and Violations of Trust
by myanswer » Mon Dec 05, 2011 12:24 pm
I strongly disagree.
We have no authority or desire to use violent intervention in serious cases. I strongly believe that when the victim feels necessary an immediate call to 911 (the established civil authorities) is warranted. The perpetrator of the act is the only one who should fear this and rightly so.
We call on the military when our country is threatened. We call the police when our person or property is threatened. We call on GOD when the perpetrator is the military or the police!
We have no authority or desire to use violent intervention in serious cases. I strongly believe that when the victim feels necessary an immediate call to 911 (the established civil authorities) is warranted. The perpetrator of the act is the only one who should fear this and rightly so.
We call on the military when our country is threatened. We call the police when our person or property is threatened. We call on GOD when the perpetrator is the military or the police!
- myanswer
- Posts: 150
- Joined: Sat Oct 29, 2011 2:33 am
- Location: Aurora, IL currently Rogers Park Chicago
Re: Responses to Conflict and Violations of Trust
by myanswer » Mon Dec 05, 2011 12:48 pm
Secondly, it should be made MANDATORY that both accuser and accused appear at any hearing called by Conflict Resolution. If either the accuser or accused refuse to participate in the hearing called by the Conflict Resolutions committee, then the refusing party should be subject to a reprimand and a default judgement entered on behalf of the party that participates in the due process procedures of the Conflict Resolutions committee. EXAMPLE: Party #1 accuses party #2 of an assault upon party #1. The accused (Party #2) agrees to participate in the hearing called by Conflict Resolution, but the accuser (Party #1) refuses to participate. In this case, Conflict Resolution MUST decide that by not pursuing their claim, the accusation leveled by Party #1 against Party #2 has no merit and the case is dropped due to lack of prosecution by the accuser. Party #2 would then be free to bring charges via Conflict Res against Party #1 for making a false accusation (libel) and could demand that Party #1 be made to answer the charge. Depending on the outcome of this hearing, Conflict Res would recommend (or not) a reprimand against Party #1 for making an accusation and then refusing to follow through by adhering to the agreed upon procedures for resolving conflicts between Occupy Chicago members.
As a victim of a prior assault this offers no safety, concern or process for the victim who has been assaulted and who is now physically unable to be in the presence of the person who committed the assault as a result of the assault a place of safety to be heard away from the presence of the person who committed the assault.
- myanswer
- Posts: 150
- Joined: Sat Oct 29, 2011 2:33 am
- Location: Aurora, IL currently Rogers Park Chicago
4 posts
• Page 1 of 1
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest
