Two weeks ago, the general assembly of Occupy Philadelphia discussed at length the city's request to schedule weekly meetings to discuss concerns. After almost a week of deliberation, the General Assembly (GA) approved a response delivered to the city by the Legal Working Group which included the following:
"At this time, the GA has decided not to go ahead with weekly meetings with the city, but this is no way affects the city or Occupy's ability to communicate with one another generally. In the future, Occupy Philly may request a meeting with the city to discuss specific matters. We hope at that time, you will be open to a meeting with members of Occupy Philly"
The provision that the occupiers may decide to schedule an individual meeting with the city was acted upon last night as a member brought the following proposal to the general assmebly:
Occupy Philadelphia Legal Working Group will immediately attempt to schedule one face to face meeting with representatives of the city for the purpose of receiving city’s concerns and permit clarification.
This proposal was brought amid mounting tension between the city and Occupy Philadelphia. Philadelphia Mayor Michael Nutter held a press conference on Sunday, November 13th in which he appeared to reference the group's recent decision not to meet:
"Many of the people that we talked to in the beginning of this event and activity are now gone," The mayor said, "They are no longer on the site. They are no longer on the scene. And Occupy Philly has refused to engage in active, regular discussions with us. This change in behavior is no accident. It is a direct result of the fact that this movement has changed and the people have changed."
(I cannot corroborate Nutter's assertion that the composition of Occupy Philadelphia has changed-- I see the same participants that have been involved from day 1)
A full transcript of Mayor Nutter's statement can be seen here: http://cityofphiladelphia.wordpress.com
Two friendly amendments to the proposal were brought to the group for a vote. A vote to accept one or both of these amendments would not constitute a vote on the proposal but merely a re-framing of the proposal before a vote on final version of the proposal could occur.
The first friendly amendment was that the word "weekly" be added into the proposal after the word "one" and the words "for greater communication" be added at the end of the proposal. After clarifying questions were asked of the member bringing the amendment were answered, a straw poll was taken which showed a clear super majority opposed to this amendment to the proposal.
The second friendly amendment was that any information received at this meeting be brought back to the general assembly before action was taken. This amendment passed with a clear majority and the proposal itself, with this amendment also passed with a clear majority.
Three times during the discussion of this proposal, attendees of the general assembly voiced concerns about the inevitable conflict with the city.
"The police are going to beat your asses. They're going to beat you up. What is your plan?" One person said. Another member voiced the fear that the police were going to raid the camp later that night.
The meeting facilitator replied that while such concerns were valid, they were not related to the proposal being discussed and she reminded the group stay focused on the topic.