Proposal: Let's Get Rid of the SafetySecurity Committee

[ciwp]

I propose that the SafetySecurity [SS!??] Committee be dismantled and abolished due to the following reasons:

1) No union or socialist organization I know of has a permanent "Security" section.
They have a "sergeant at arms" who keeps order at union meetings and who can ask for assistance from the membership in cases of outrageously disruptive behavior in meetings, demonstrations, etc. And that's it.

2) I have never seen any organization organize "security" patrols at even the largest demonstrations (100,000 or more). They simply recruit "marshals" from the trusted members of their organizations or parties who get an armband and who are supposed to protect the marchers during that day's events. Once those events are over, their role as "marshal" ends.

3) Our so-called "security" people have been ( I hate to be so blunt but I have seen them in action with mine own eyes) one of the sorriest-looking bands of ragamuffins since the "Dead End Kids" or "Our Gang" (look it up on Google). We had a young woman on our "security" staff who was about 5'1", 100 lbs. and who regularly "patrolled" HQ hugging a Care Bear.

4) Our so-called "security" people have either been AWOL when shit happens or have been actually involved in semi-criminal or criminal behavior (the disappearance of the "Donations Box"; pocketing cash donations from the public; looking the other way while donated laptops "disappear"; a "security" member who it was found out was a convicted sex offender, etc.) Some of these people are still on "Security"!

5) Our so-called "security" people have taken it upon themselves to issue themselves ridiculously amateurish "Photo ID Badges" without even bothering to do background checks on those who are issued the badges

6) Our so-called "security" people are so friendly to the Chicago Police that our Keystone Kops-style "security" force is the most likely means of infiltration of Occupy Chicago by the Chicago Police and other governmental agencies

7) Our so-called "security" people claim that it is "not their job" to do things like secure cash donations from the public handed to us at HQ. If stuff like that's not your job then what, pray tell, IS??

Need I say more? We do not need a "security" force. No other group of our type has one. The one we have now is a sick joke, an embarrassment to the entire Occupy movement and a scandal in progress.

Mark Donaghey
Housing, Donations Committees
Committee for an Independent Workers Party

[mattjohnson]

I don't particularly agree that we should disband any sort of committee or working group. I think potential solutions to some of these problems is to recruit more people to be involved in safety/security who may be able to improve it or to not trust our donations to any single group.

I also think we should be careful about name-calling and accusations. For instance,

3) Our so-called "security" people have been ( I hate to be so blunt but I have seen them in action with mine own eyes) one of the sorriest-looking bands of ragamuffins since the "Dead End Kids" or "Our Gang" (look it up on Google). We had a young woman on our "security" staff who was about 5'1", 100 lbs. and who regularly "patrolled" HQ hugging a Care Bear.

I know you aren't trying to be mean by this, and it's not exactly name-calling. However, I'm not sure it's relevant that someone is a woman, small and enjoys a care bear. It seems like you are making a point in the larger sense that we don't really need a security force, but then you are taking this opportunity to say the one we have isn't tough enough. If I'm reading you wrong, please let me know. This line just seems like an unnecessary attack on certain individuals. It doesn't add to your proposal or reinforce your point.

Another example,

6) Our so-called "security" people are so friendly to the Chicago Police that our Keystone Kops-style "security" force is the most likely means of infiltration of Occupy Chicago by the Chicago Police and other governmental agencies

I think what you are saying is that the current nature of the way we handle safety & security leaves us open for infiltration. I don't personally worry so much about this, but I think the concern is valid. However, the way you have worded it sounds as if you are accusing some of the security folks of infiltrating. Please be more clear about when you are talking about structural problems instead of individuals. If you want to accuse individuals of infiltration instead, please come with some evidence, and I think conflict resolution might be a better place to bring it than the forums.

In any case, I think it's a good idea to open a discussion regarding anything that may be not contributing to us moving forward. Will you be able to do any outreach to the safety/security folks so that they can be present when you present this?

[Bearhair]

This rant is not worth commenting upon, and in order to try to keep the peace, I hope that others will also recognize it as an abusive but irrelevant post.

Please, don't engage him in argument.

Lora

[AndersonJP]

This rant is not worth commenting upon, and in order to try to keep the peace, I hope that others will also recognize it as an abusive but irrelevant post.

Please, don't engage him in argument.

Lora

I find your post to be offensive and a clear failure of democratic community. I hope your attitude toward this post is not related to recent events regarding the author. Whether or not you are concerned with the issues brought forward, they are legitimate concerns because they are concerns of a member of our community, and should not be dismissed out of hand.

[bucklaw]

Agreed. And let Security be up for grabs at Grace Place for beds as well they are to comfortable.

[Bearhair]

AndersonJP and bucklaw - My recommendation for others to ignore this post is based on Mark's constant and abusive attempts to disrupt committees and the General Assembly of Occupy Chicago. This "proposal" of his was nothing more than another attempt to aggressively distract the community. He never followed through with getting his "proposal" on the General Assembly agenda. As you can see, no one else in the community has thought it worthwhile to respond. I assure you, that is not due to any influence I have over any individual in the movement.
However, in order to satisfy your concern about Mark's assertions, I'll respond to his points from my perspective.

1) No union or socialist organization I know of has a permanent "Security" section.

Occupy Chicago is neither a union nor a socialist organization.

2) I have never seen any organization organize "security" patrols at even the largest demonstrations . . . Once those events are over, their role as "marshal" ends.

The Safety, Security, and Peacekeeping Committee was formed to protect Occupiers. I believe that most Occupations have a similar team to ensure the safety of those who are occupying an outdoor location.

3) Our so-called "security" people have been . . . one of the sorriest-looking bands of ragamuffins . . .

Every one in the movement does what they can to help. These individuals, some of whom are ex-military members, are very street-wise and have been very successful in de-escalating altercations between Occupy members and between Occupy members and those who would physically attack us. Is it your suggestion that we provide them with uniforms, so that they look better?

4) Our so-called "security" people have either been AWOL when shit happens

The volunteers on the committee are present at the corner of Jackson & LaSalle whenever they are able. They suffer from a lack of volunteers. Some members of the committee have been out there around the clock for two or three days in the cold.

or have been actually involved in semi-criminal or criminal behavior

Not a single one of these accusations are based on anything more than suspicion. People who claim to have "witnessed" this behavior did nothing to stop it, nor did they seek assistance from fellow Occupiers or the Police.

a "security" member who it was found out was a convicted sex offender . . . 5) . . . have taken it upon themselves to issue themselves ridiculously amateurish "Photo ID Badges" without even bothering to do background checks on those who are issued the badges

The ridicule of the ID badges is completely unnecessary and unproductive. The single time it was suggested, the General Assembly vociferously denounced the idea of anyone in Occupy Chicago being required to submit to a background check.

6) Our so-called "security" people are so friendly to the Chicago Police that our Keystone Kops-style "security" force is the most likely means of infiltration of Occupy Chicago by the Chicago Police and other governmental agencies

Almost too absurd to be worth a response. Does Mark truly believe that a Police "plant" would stand around chatting with them? Many of those on the committee remain at Jackson & LaSalle during the General Assembly, and many are not a member of any other committee. Their "infiltration" is hardly effective.
It's also quote ironic that Mark would accuse them when he himself has been accused by some to be a plant by virtual of his continuous attempts to distract the movement from its goals.

7) Our so-called "security" people claim that it is "not their job" to do things like secure cash donations from the public handed to us at HQ. If stuff like that's not your job then what, pray tell, IS??

A simple email to the committee would have answered this "question." Their focus is on maintaining the safety of Occupiers to the best of their ability. There are other committees that are responsible for material and financial donations.