Mike,

I like your analysis, although I think you're over blowing it a bit.  The problems you point out come from the flexibility of the process and from the fact that people simply refuse to learn and engage.  I wish the same people weren't involved with facilitation.  But sadly, NOBODY has given a real shit about the process and NOBODY has showed up to take up roles except the people who know and care about horizontal process.  I fell in love with horizontal assemblies in Madrid.  I think Americans are having trouble because so few have participated in things like this in.  I hope they keep growing, but sadly, I think Europe and the Global South will drag us kicking and screaming into the 21st century.

And this comes from an inability to understand concepts like horiztonalism, and autonomy.  Too many people seeking group approval for things that don't need group approval.  Too many people confusing collective decision making for voting.  etc.

As for informal meetings....that's why there are no GA's on tuesdays, and thursday.

discussion topics....all you have to do is submit one and/or show up to a meeting to ask for the topic. 

And finally, you're right, this process doesn't allow for a diverse set of people to speak.  It's very mediterranean, it empowers the orator to speak. My mind can't wrap around how to fix that, frankly, i don't care too much because if you can't defend yourself in public, then learn to speak in public.  but that's not compassionate, and i cede that.  I hope you come up with a solution, but until then, all I hear is complaints, the same as from the start of things.

Moderator at the magisterial General Assembly of November 27 (the first night OLA got a direct  eviction threat from Mayor Villain and the LAPD storm troopers).

That night, following a stirring invocation by Ron Kovic, the people's business was concluded with great civility and dispatch, thanks to the efforts of co-moderators Jared and Elena. I can say almost unequivocally that, despite the presence of between 3-4,000 people on the south steps and plaza, almost everyone who wanted to be heard on the 3 proposals that passed by consensus was heard.

It was one of the most moving experiences of my life and I saw and experienced absolutely no attempt to prevent anyone from speaking. The stackers (Julie and a young man whose name I have forgotten) were too busy managing stack to enact any personal agendas or vendettas.

My point is not to engage in sentimental nostalgia but, rather, to say that if it could happen seamlessly on a night when thousands attended, there is no reason it cannot happen flawlessly on nights when far fewer attend.

I'm unclear why the Occupier in question felt compelled to enact his Hard Block. Under normal circumstances, a proposal cannot pass with a hard block unaddressed either through pro and con speeches or breakout groups. Did neither of these happen last night? Likewise, this business of Occupiers 'shouting down' speakers speaks to a failure of all assembled. Since when has it ever been acceptable for a mob to shout down someone in good standing simply because they find his or her comments objectionable? The person shouted down, though, must also take some responsibility for not sticking to his guns and waiting out the shouters.

Facilitation has not been hijacked, for God's sake. The FC constantly implores attendees to take part in Facilitation meetings. I have stacked and moderated FC meetings before and they at times become unruly precisely because everyone is allowed to speak. So I'm not exactly sure what your real gripe is (and maybe you are not either, as you say you are using the blog to work out your thoughts).

Charles Bryan

Member, Occupy Los Angeles General Assembly

Attendee, Facilitation Committee, November 27, 2011

We'll be allright

1.) The person who invoked this "hard block" was actually involved (i.e. initiated) an act of physical violence against another occupier (who then "left the movement") because said victim was taking his picture on the grounds of the South Lawn in mid-November. I personally intervened - along with many, many others - to desesculate the already physical violence (a few punches were thrown and then a scrum), and walked "Mr. Hard Block" over to the library to calm him down.

It's utterly absurd to suggest that this individual is in any way against violence... actual, physical, intimidating violence... if and when it serves his personal purposes.

I'm glad he's being made out to be a martyr for an utterly irrelevant issue as it is common knowledge that the OccupyLA GA never ratified the statement of Non-Violence that is being presented as such.

Hi, I'm not sure if this is the right place to put this comment, but I can't find Ruth's article in the forums right now, and the proposal itself doesn't seem to be up on losangelesga.net - perhaps it has been taken down pending more discussion? I'd love to contribute to the discussion on the listserve but can't find the link to join the listserve - I'd be very grateful if somebody would show me how.

In any case, I am concerned but also quite uninformed about the proposed changes to the nonviolence statement, which I happened to read at the December 21st GA. It was one of the first times I've ever spoken at GA, though I've attended on a very irregular basis since before October 1. If I understand correctly based on Ruth's article on this site, the reason for the changes - around the question of property destruction - is that we as a movement have already been accused of property destruction (i.e. the lawn, and wax dripping on the steps), and so it is moot to state that we are against something that we have already taken part in, and likely will take part in again.

I understand that the opposition to the changes was from those who felt they would open up the possibility of people engaging in uncontrolled, wanton, gratuitous destruction, and that the response was that we are all responsible individuals who can make reasonable decisions not to do such things, and don't need to be told what to do. Yet if this decision is being made by consensus, are we not agreeing what we (those of us participating in the movement) will do, rather than telling others what to do? As has been pointed out, people will always take part in autonomous action - and if that action is outside what has been agreed upon, that action will be theirs, rather than action representing the group. So it seems to me that the question is what we as a movement are agreeing will or will not be a part of our tactics.

I wonder if a distinction could be made between intentional and unintentional property destruction. I also wonder if it makes sense to allow City Hall to define "property destruction" for us. Could a distinction be made between "gratuitous" window-breaking and so forth, and grass that is killed in the course of an occupation, and could this distinction be stated, rather than implied? Perhaps this has already been done in the new versions of the statement, which I would love to see. (Also, I don't have much love for grass, but I was concerned about the erosion that probably took place on the hilly lawn, and its effects on the roots of the trees there - if any future occupation were to take place, I would be interested in seeing this mitigated. Goodness knows we need trees in LA.)

I absolutely agree with Ruth when she points out that this clause seems to mock the real pain of physical violence by implying that a blade of grass or a fence feels what a person does. I was a bit taken aback by it the first time I heard it at a GA. But when I heard the next sentence, explaining that the purpose is to include those who would be put off by (admittedly undefined) property destruction, it made sense to me. Our choices of tactics as a movement do affect how much support we receive, and therefore, how effective we can be.

So again we come to the question of semantics, but the semantics refer to real actions and tactics. Here, I would ask how previous nonviolent movements might be helpful in providing us with definitions. If the word "nonviolent" has become meaningless, then perhaps it would be helpful to return to its roots in the philosophies of Gandhi and King. I do not profess to be any kind of expert in the topic, but I attended Reverend James Lawson's nonviolence workshop on December 17th (and which he leads, free of cost, on a monthly basis). We are very lucky indeed to have a man who taught Dr. King here in our midst in LA. I'm sure he, and other veterans of these previous movements, would have insight into the question of how property destruction fits within nonviolence.

I do think there is a great deal of grey area within this subject: for example, breaking locks to foreclosed homes. This is intentional, and is damage, but it is limited, focused, and symbolic: the home, as a home, is not damaged, just the lock that prevents the former occupant from entering. Is there a way to explain that this kind of action might be taken, but not others?

To me this raises the question of discipline - not just self-discipline, but group discipline. I do not mean the word in the forceful way it is often used ("to discipline someone"), but rather in the sense of groundedness, thinking before acting, making choices, setting priorities, and sticking to them. This can be done both by individuals and by groups. This is a point that was made by Rev. Lawson, and that I have read before in descriptions of previous, successful nonviolent movements. This is, I think, a spiritual question. This is an area in which I, as a participant in the movement, would be interested in receiving more knowledge and training from our elders. I wonder if others might be as well?

Finally, on the question of carrying weapons, my - again, non-expert - understanding of the 2nd amendment is that its intention was to allow for the formation of organized militias, not the private carrying of weapons. Regardless, clearly neither one is nonviolent by any stretch of the imagination. I would choose not to participate in a movement that expressly allowed people to carry weapons of any kind, and I would be fine with the fact that agreeing not to engage in such behavior would exclude people who want to do so.

I realize my participation has been limited already, and so that will limit the power of these words, but I submit them humbly regardless.

in solidarity,

Claire