GA 3/17/12 Minutes

Please post all general assembly meeting minutes here. Arrange them by Year, Month and Day (e.g., Minutes GA 10/20/2011).

GA 3/17/12 Minutes

Postby emeraldopalite » Sat Mar 17, 2012 2:00 pm

https://docs.google.com/document/d/1cnc ... WFtXQ/edit

GA Minutes, 3-16-2012

Facilitator & scribe: John F.
Minutes: Chester

Called to order at 6:01pm, 19 people (3 short of quorum).

Facilitator asks for timely, quick GA.

Committee Reports
Statement re: development on 13th & Olive
Quorum clarification
Unity statement
Discussion: Empowering the 99%
Announcements
Closing - evaluation

Medical Committee report:
Will be out 12-4 on Sunday, 3/18 @ 7th and Pearl, so come out! Will be soggy, so food, esp. warm food would be very appreciated, 2 new nurse volunteers, dental van may come in about 2 months, needs a lot of support. Planned Parenthood, Drums for Peace, Food Not Bombs, Strolling Knitter will all be there.

Comm Comm:
Really wants Open House to succeed. Ad in Eugene Weekly next week costs $231, $50-100 for handbills, will pass hat for collections. Rob Sydor & Larry Leverone are in charge of these costs, so donations could be given to them. Have approached finance comm.

Newsletter:

Visions:
Has been thinking about Empowering the 99% and what we’ll do when we leave current site. We are having a “reuniting” celebration to bring everyone back together. Want to have two weekend events, one for retrospection, the other for goal-setting. Will need help, will approach Outreach and Media committees to join in. Interfaith Occupy: 5 churches that seek to conceptualize situation where all are welcome and feel comfortable. Michael: (Should have scanner and dedicated computer geeks to scan people’s photographs.) Has witnessed a number of conversations about the pros and cons of meeting at church, think should be avoided.

The Homeless Task Force Solutions Group:
Smuj & David M (Chair of Downtown Neighborhood Association) have been meeting with people at the Dining Room and the DNA to have Community Conversations to share perspectives of people on both side. Want to establish wider connections. Catering party supported by Community Task Force, ultimately hope to invite police, DNA, homeless; seeking venue, suggestion to meet at David Minor theater. Will meet this week and discuss venue. Need place for all to talk, brings people down to same level, eating food together. Formal dining setting was a nice thing. Community Conversations, dev. by Smuj and Jean Stacey, could ultimately become regular event to bring together the homeless and the downtown merchants. New direction, very exciting. Announcement about next meeting will be made via Smuj. Aim to direct at merchants, who have most misconceptions about homelessness. Still gives rise to difficulties: hard to find homeless who want to sit with housies. Need location, professional facilitator. The vision is BIG. Five have been held so far.

Nonviolence working group:
Next GA at Park Blocks, request peacekeepers for that night. Peacekeepers training at Occupy V, Wednesday, 3/21 @ 5:30pm, fifty minute introduction to incorporate new people into community as peacekeepers.

Foreclosure group: Postponed foreclosure hearing tonight, has taken request against injunction (by bank attorneys) into advisement and will make ruling next week. Participated with MoveOn at an action at Wells Fargo. EW has foreclosure article.

Statement re: development on 13th & Olive:
Should not have gone to Comm Comm, Michael has had no chance for research. Development seems to be complex project, but in his opinion is bad for Eugene. After organizer’s meeting Wed., Michael had anticipated lots of ways to defeat proposal and that it was necessary. $16M subsidy by school dist. county, and city for gated community with 1000 parking parking spaces, no support for LTD. Company specializes in building high density student housing, separates students from community and makes huge profit. Contractor won’t build if no subsidy against property taxes for 10 years. Is this supportable? Get the school board board to vote yea or nay, hopes nay, because not affordable or sustainable. County and City social services have been telling people there’s not enough money for projects involving homelessness, etc. but want to spend $1.6M per year for ten years subsidizing student housing (expensive, not low-cost or low-income, out of reach for average student). City needs not to give away our tax dollars (wide approval shown by GA members). Doesn’t want to hear families told, “I’m sorry, we had services for your child last year but just can’t afford it now”. Overpriced housing, 359 apartments, expect about 1250-1300 inhabitants. Locked facility, not open to public, only residents or visitors. Decisions to allow and promote are happening now. Has to go before city council, has had a work session on Monday past (3/12), set deadline for comments as 3/6. Could network with teachers, unions, parents, AFSCME, raise questions in community. Contractor/company publicly admitted that they would make 3% on investments frin project (i.e. building the site). Out of state contractor. What about the workers who would be building it? Asks for GA Consensus to issue statement against the project. Wants to approach unions. Dave asks for consensus. We could go to school boards. Not enough information to make a decision? Want to remove alley from city jurisdiction, no vehicle traffic, will be preserved as bike path. Sam Rutledge has article arguing that lots of students downtown would be a good thing. Not a good or bad project, but decide against subsidy? PeaceHealth pays no taxes either. Subsidy is agreeing not to collect potential taxes that the City doesn’t necessarily collect anyway. Developer pitching project as student housing, but is open to anyone (they have no way to prevent non-students from renting). In relation to population, no one has proposed low income portion. Project is $100M building cost, proposed $16M tax subsidy. Michael envisions alternatives to the subsidy proposal. Summary: Yes, the project shows that the City’s priorities are out of whack. Not spending on students, spending on developers. Outcome: “Occupy Eugene General Assemblies opposes tax subsidies for the Capstone Project.” Unanimous on 6:51 pm Mar 16, bring back to next GA as continuation of consensus process.

Quorum clarification:
In order for proposal to pass without quorum: Interpretation 1) same proposal with same wording could be passed at second after minutes had been posted 48 hours long. Interpretation 2) language could change.

Many there clearly remember firmness that wording had to be same (Original proposal on crabgrass is specific that wording must be same. Minutes from 2/14 do not mention wording requirement.) Clearly go for substantial similarity. Could be shame not to improve between meetings. Can we craft a clear statement of quorum policy tonight? Need wider discussion of original proposal to reaffirm exact language of the proposal proposal. Policy vs. non-policy? Quorum number could be lowered. Exact language was never presented at 2-14-2012 GA, could be part of the problem in interpreting it.

Original proposal from crabgrass:
In order for a General Assembly of Occupy Eugene to reach consensus on a proposal, 40 (or 35 or 30, pick one) members of OE must be present unless the proposal was presented and discussed at a previous GA, has not been amended or altered since then, and was published in the minutes of the GA where it was presented.

Tonight’s starting version:
In order for a General Assembly of Occupy Eugene to reach consensus on a non-policy proposal, 22 members of OE must be present unless the proposal was presented and discussed at a previous GA, has not been amended or altered since then, and was published in the minutes of the GA where it was presented.

Issues: policy vs. non-policy, exact wording, quorum number, 48 hours requirement, quorum at second GA or not, definition of publishing minutes, minutes taker’s ability, beginning with clearly worded proposal, 2-14-2012 minutes are unclear, process holding up process? and why not be able to adapt wording?

No clear discussion on criteria for minutes taker’s ability, on process holding up process (members generally acknowledged importance of the proposal). Generally, we went from what we could reconstruct between the vague minutes on 2-14-2012, the original crabgrass proposal, and the memories of those who were at the 2-12-2012 GA.

Policy was clarified to mean anything except for meeting procedure. Meeting procedure (when to call to order, taking stacks, adjourning, etc.) is (mostly) at facilitator’s discretion. It is also in contrast to GA process policy, such as the consensus process, quorum, etc. which holds from one meeting to the next.

In the discussion whether or not to require exact wording, debate centered on exact vs. “substantially similar”. But since substance is relative, group decided that simplest route was to require identical language. If an amendment is desired, the under-quorum process starts over with the amended version of the proposal.

The 48 hours requirement because probably minimum amount of time necessary for most people to read/respond to minutes.

Version #2:
In order for a General Assembly (GA) of Occupy Eugene to approve a proposal, either 22 members of OE must be present or the unaltered proposal must have been consented to at a previous GA and if the minutes had been published in the forum at least 48 hours before the second meeting.


Version #3:
A General Assembly (GA) of Occupy Eugene (OE) may approve a policy [understood not to apply to meeting procedure, distinguish process from procedure] proposal, if 22 members of OE are present. Fewer than 22 members may approve a proposal if the proposal achieved consensus at a previous GA, is not amended . The minutes must have been published in the forum at least 48 hours before the second meeting.

Final proposal:
The General Assembly of Occupy Eugene may approve a proposal if quorum (currently 22 members) is present. Fewer than quorum may approve a proposal if it achieved consensus at a previous GA, the minutes of that GA were published in the forum at least 48 hours before the second meeting, and the proposal uses the original language. At a second GA that does not have quorum, the proposal can be amended, but the cycle must start over. If at a second FA that does have quorum, the proposal can totally be amended.

Acknowledged that since under quorum tonight, the amendments to this proposal must be passed to next GA to be approved in any (including altered) form by an above-quorum GA, or in it’s exact, original wording by a GA with less than quorum.

Adjourned at 8:46pm
User avatar
emeraldopalite
 
Posts: 68
Joined: Wed Nov 09, 2011 5:41 pm
Location: Eugene

Return to GA Meeting Minutes

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest

cron