Last week I Dairied about a commercial I'd seen during Keith Olbermann's program which talked about something called the 99% Declaration.
Concerned that this was some type of trolling, I did some checking and it seem to be affiliated with the Occupy Philly movement. Since then I received some tweets indicating that this was not the case. Today it appears this has been confirmed as the Philly General Assembly this week Voted Down and Disassociated Themselves from the 99% Declaration.
On Tuesday’s General Assembly, representatives from the group, the 99% Declaration presented plans to organize a National General Assembly in Philadelphia and hold an online election of 890 delegates from all over the US who would vote on a list of grievances the current government would be asked to redress. During the questions and concerns part of the conversation, OP members presented information detailing the backgrounds and comments of three board members of the organization. In addition to these concerns, OP General Assembly attendees raised issues surrounding the selection of delegates and the current efforts to plan the national gathering. OP quickly weighed the evidence, and as a result of the overwhelming concerns raised by the group, the GA voted “We do not support the 99% Declaration, its group, its website, its National GA and anything else associated with it.”
Well, I have to say that's a bit disconcerting that my initial concern was a least partially correct. But it isn't that those who put together the Declaration were "misrepresenting" themselves - only that they had been working Independent of CP. Now, apparently they will remain that way.
More details from the OP on who the authors of the 99% Declaration are.
Who exactly is the 99Percent Declaration?
The 99% Declaration is a national working group led by NY criminal defense attorney, Michael Pollok. The story on their website says that Mr. Pollok was contacted for legal representation after the arrests of 700 OWS protesters on the Brooklyn Bridge in NYC. Of the protesters, 20 or so are students from a small liberal arts college in upstate NY where Pollok resides. After meeting with them, he agreed to represent them pro bono. He then began drafting a list of grievances developed during conversations with them. The document he subsequently posted online is now known as the 99% Declaration. The website further states he later distributed about 400 copies of the declaration to Occupy Wall Street in Zuccotti Park. While there he gathered some people to form a working group at OWS. However, organizers from there have not acknowledged the group’s legitimacy, as noted in heated discussions posted on the NYC GA website.
Two days after his visit to Zuccotti Park, the story was picked up by the Huffington Post and the Global Grind after locating the draft document online. Immediately, the story drew national attention. The news reached Philly immediately, as OP was contacted by reporters for comments on the matter. It seemed mysterious that an event like this was being coordinated without first consulting any of the key organizers at Occupy Philly. Similarly, the large scale media attention given to a presumed OWS group amid reports of a National General Assembly in Philly raised a lot of concerns from key organizers at OWS, especially from those working in the Demands Working Group. A dispute ensued about the group’s authority to use the OWS name for a proposal that had not been passed in their GA. Shortly after, the 99% Declaration was deemed by OWS, not an official working group.
Now I think there were many good ideas in the Declaration, if not all of them like the Term Limits Idea, and that they were certainly worthy of discussion. But what I see here reminds me quite a bit of how Occupy LA flatly rejected the offers of Living Space and Farm land from the City. This was also seen again as Ten Members of OWS attempt to meet with Progressives in the House, but were roundly shutdown.
On Twitter Tuesday, some Occupy organizers scorned the idea that those ten people could represent Occupy Wall Street. "Which #OWS group is meeting with lawmakers? your article gives impression it is an official delegation. it is not," tweeted Dicey Troop, who regularly tweets minutes from Occupy's general assemblies, in a message directed at Roll Call reporter Jessica Brady. "This maneuver is against consensus," he wrote later.
Indeed, Occupy never agreed to send the delegation in its General Assembly nor its Spokes Council, the two consensus-building units of the group, whose minutes are available online. "Anyone can say that they're working with Occupy Wall Street, but from what I understand OWS is against endorsing political candidates," Occupy spokesman Patrick Bruner said. The group's not endorsing legislation, either, though unofficial lists of "suggestions" have advocated for a return of the Glass-Segal Act and an end to corporate personhood, among others.
On the one hand I can see why from the perspective of integrity and purity, on the other hand I'm concerned that if OWS doesn't begin interacting directly with the reigns of power - (ie. City and State Officials and the Election Process) their impact, focus and effectiveness may be seriously compromised.
This clearly shows the downside of Consensus Rule, but there's is also an upside - what finally emerges, even if the process is slow and cumbersome, has a greater chance for broad support than what may have been crafted by a sub-splinter group in the first place. At some point they do need to articulate a clear vision IMO, or do they not?
Time will tell how this all works out.
Vyan
