About 70 people stood in the nearly freezing rain for four hours last night to make a potentially historic decision. Occupy Boston appointed three people and our lawyers to represent us in court-ordered mediation with the City of Boston (CoB), the Boston Police Department (BPD) and the board of the Rose Kennedy Greenway (RKG).
Why historic? We've gone to the courts preemptively to argue that government officials are legally barred from disrupting our encampment based on the restrictions placed on them in the First Amendment of the United States Constitution. We are arguing that the encampment itself is an expression of the grievances against our governing institutions and an act of peaceable assembly. We hope that winning our case will set a precedent for the Occupy Movement around the country.
The group decisions which led to the case being filed and then the agreement to allow people to represent us in the ensuing pre-hearing mediation attempt were challenging and full of rich dialogue and heated passions. They were also full of the ongoing complicated dynamics amongst individuals and affinity groups within our occupation. I'll share my experience of last night's process with you here.
I struggled with the decision to attend last night's General Assembly (GA). I put my health at risk every time I expose myself to the elements of weather, the sensory overload of city life and the intensity of a large crowd of people. I was tired before even setting out. It was raining and very cold. I have a child at home to attend to......
The struggle wasn't really about any of that, though. It was about facing the dynamics of the group. There is a growing tension between "residents" and "non-residents". With 20/20 hindsight, I can say that this is the result of poor planning up front. I'll say more about that in another diary more focused on the internecine struggles. Right now, it's reaching what may be a climactic level of intensity, which has become a disincentive.
I procrastinated.
I knew, though, that a very important proposal was being considered. That weighed upon me. I wouldn't feel good about not having participated. So, I wrapped myself up and slogged down there, a little bit late.
The crowd was smaller than usual due to the weather. There were about 70 people huddled together. The proposal had, apparently, already been presented and the consensus processing begun. It was early in the process, so I hadn't missed much. We were still asking "clarifying questions". That's phase 1.
I was immediately confused when the facilitators described 'clarifying questions' as "questions whose answers will help you clarify your vote on this proposal." First, consensus is not about voting on a proposal. It is about working together to build the best proposal. That is, you keep working on it until you all feel that you have something you can live with. When we think of voting we frame things as "accept" or "reject", rather than "improve".
Secondly, 'clarifying questions' are supposed to be questions which help clarify what the proposal is or means. "When the court ordered mediation, were there any specific instructions to define mediation?" Or, "when you say, "8 o'clock", do mean a.m. or p.m.?"
Opening this section up to "anything which helps you decide how to vote" means every body frames anything they want to consider as a 'clarifying question'. Indeed, these clarifying questions went on for an hour and a half. So much fodder came up that people actually thought they were ready to skip all the other steps and proceed to a vote.
Meanwhile, the facilitators had apparently decided to be less formal and let people speak out of process. This resulted in one man forcefully commandeering the GA at least twice to go into an angry tirade. Another man, whom I fairly certain was intoxicated, was allowed to ramble on about his personal story - which included some disturbing references to a wife he may have abandoned in NY - for what seemed like 20 minutes. And he was allowed to speak again, later.
In another diary, I'll post about my email to the Facilitation Working Group on my perspective on the way the GA proceeded.
Despite all these imperfections and seeming derailment, at times, we actually did end up building a solution that gained GA consent. Here's how it was announced on OccupyBoston.org:
The GA agreed to choose three of its dedicated members, Jennie Seidewand, Kristopher Eric Martin (known as Eric), Michael Alex Ingram (known as Alex) to mediate with the City, BPD, and RKG. These Occupiers reassured the GA that they will not make any binding decisions within the mediation without going to the GA first. NLG Lawyer Ben Wish told GA that either he or Howard Cooper will also be at the mediation, and will be able to find out more about the specific people representing each side at the table. Legal Working Group’s Proposal, read in its second-round, amended form by Eric Martin, included the stipulation that the OB mediators will be bound by consensus process in all decisions at the mediation. More details to come, on this historic moment for the Occupy Movement.
Please note that, counter to the meme that there are no leaders allowed in this movement, we have temporarily empowered three people to represent us. This is not a leaderless movement, it is a leader-full movement. Everyone is expected to lead in some way or another. What a movement grounded in collective thinking and consensus decision-making doesn't allow is the accumulation of power. Whenever someone is given a position of potential power it is always with the caveat that they are consistently subject to immediate recall if they are not representing the best interests of the group. And no one is ever given a permanent title or seen as more significant because he has a title.
In this decision, representatives can sit in the closed-door mediation on our behalf, but no agreement can be signed without consensus of a General Assembly.
Many of us argued that a closed-door meeting went against our principle of transparency - one of the strongest and most universally held principles amongst the people of this movement. We felt strongly that no one should be saying or offering things that they wouldn't do publicly. Our lawyer advised us that we would never get agreement for a public mediation session. He also believes that people are more willing to negotiate behind closed doors. It was sad for me that we have a lawyer who is stuck in enabling that mindset. I still don't believe that we should have agreed to a closed-door meeting. It violates our principles. I don't believe it will derail the movement or anything, so it wasn't enough for me to block the decision over, but it doesn't sit well with me.
The compromise was to require a written transcript be provided to the General Assembly before we would go through consensus on the proposed settlement.
So, there we have it. We have submitted to the court order to make an effort at a mediated settlement.
The idea of working through the court system was huge, in and of itself, for Occupy Boston. Many of us, myself included, know that the court system is as corrupted as the rest of our government. With Supreme Court Justices going to gala events held by organizations who have cases coming before them, you can smell the corruption. It burns. We are suspect of the integrity of the court when we see the original judge on the OWS case get pulled so that Bloomberg can have a judge more likely to rule in his favor. I've personally seen the court commit tragic errors because they are more likely to be influenced by a person of privilege than someone who is not. (Watch a family court case where a man walks in in his business suit and the mother who is raising a toddler on her own without any resources looks less "presentable". The judge believes every word he says and doesn't even want to hear from the mother. I wish I had only seen this once.) So, I don't believe our court system has a lot of integrity. I'm sure there are pockets, but to put my full faith and trust in it? No.
So, some feel we've set a trap for ourselves. Did we legitimize a corrupt system by turning to it? Will we look hypocritical if we defy the court in the end?
The truth is, we were going to end up in court one way or another. The RKG Board - distinctive from the staff, because the Board has a lot of 1%'ers on it. The staff are lovely and are happy to work with us - had already written a request to the BPD to have us evicted. Arrests were going to happen and property would be confiscated and we would be in court. This way, we're pro-active.
And we seem to have gotten a judge who will work with us. Right now, apparently, she sees us in better standing than the City. We were immediately open to mediation. The City balked. The City refused to negotiate anything. Right now she sees us favorably. So, we're trying to do what we can to stay in her favor.
The judge also stated that she does see tents as possibly being a mechanism of speech. What she did indicate was that the camp itself had to represent a message. We need to be able to show that people see the camp as a message. This input from her has intensified a discussion amongst ourselves about whether the camp represents our values and is a good representation of our movement to people who are checking us out. More bluntly: does have a high proportion of addicted, mentally ill or willfully non-participating residents in the camp serve us or harm us? More on that, later. This is simply to note that the judge seems to be asking the same question. And we have to be able to answer it by December 1 at the latest. That's our hearing date if mediation fails, which most expect it will given the stances of the BPD and CoB.
I'll be sure to let you all know how it works out!
5:20 PM PT: Correction: the opening line says we stood in the rain last night. In fact, I started to write this on Friday and couldn't get it posted due to computer troubles and then being out in the real world. The General Assembly where we held this consensus was on Thursday evening.