Spokescouncil Guidelines (working document)

See link to google doc here

#M17 (Action?) Spokescouncil Guidelines

Goals: To bring Working Groups together in a full consensus-based environment to prepare and coordinate massive actions for #M17, with the goal of experimenting with and introducing the idea of the spokes format to Occupy Boston. We will strive to uphold the values of transparency, horizontal democracy, and direct action in this endeavour.

Nature of the Spokescouncil:

The spokescouncil is a formal meeting space for Occupy Boston working groups, caucuses, (and affinity groups?) (“spokes”) to gather and exchange ideas, coordinate actions, and make joint decisions. It does not represent or speak for Occupy Boston any more or less than any individual spoke.

1. The SC is a self-selecting body. Any new spokes can be invited to participate with the full consent of the existing spokescouncil.
2. The SC does not have a budget independent of either its working groups or the GA.
3. The SC has the potential to be a space for WGs to collaborate on proposals to offer to the General Assembly.

Structure:

1. Attendees must be part of a working group (WG) or caucus. Spokes can consist of any one or more Occupy Boston working groups, caucuses, or affinity groups.

    C: non-WGs or caucuses should be allowed to attended

    (Intent is that it should be an open mtg; separate between attendees & participants)

        A: should really include affinity groups
            AA: …should it?
        A: define as “spokes,” must be “A, B, or C”
        C: don’t preempt w/ punitive rules…assume ppl will act in good faith
        A: disclose affiliation?
        A: should be non-exclusionary, no “exemptions committee”
        A: should be ONLY affinity groups?

A: needs to somehow include only groups who want to work towards #M17…amend to include a “spirit of” and not a long list of credentials

1. 1. Each WG/caucus spoke will select a spokesperson (Spoke) for the current council.

2. 2. An individual cannot be a Spoke spokesperson (for any spoke) more than once every three SC meetings.

A: clarify, cannot be a spokesperson for any spoke

3. 3. Spokespeople must represent voices of WG/caucus their spoke and not Spoke’s their personal views. (A spokesperson is responsible for communicating the diversity of views in their spoke.)

C: what if an individual has a concern in opposition to their group / spokesperson?

4. 4. WG/caucus Spokes can recall Spoke their spokesperson and a choose new Spoke one at any moment they decide that Spoke their spokesperson is not representing WG/caucus their views.

2. Decisions will be made with full consensus.

    C: what if we won’t be able to get things done, given limited time frame?

    A: include language about “types of decision we make”

    A: compare to UN security council; maybe groups can abstain and you need X%

    A: clarify that this is about Groups making decisions among themselves…so individuals necessarily don’t have the same say as groups

3. Proposals/concerns/ideas to come before the Spokescouncil will be announced at previous week’s Spokescouncil and posted on the SC Wiki page, to allow WG/caucus spokes to prepare for discussion or decision-making.

4. Time-sensitive proposals may be considered without prior notice with the consent of the Spokescouncil.

    C: this seems like an easy work-around the prior notice…

5. Qualifying Working Groups/Caucuses spokes:

1. 1. must have at least 5 members

2. 2. must have weekly publicized meetings with recorded minutes posted on the WG’s wiki

3. 3. cannot fall below 3 attendees at recorded meeting for more than 3 weeks in a row

C: how do we verify attendance/membership?

A full consensus process will be used. All attending will commit to the following principles:

4. 4. unity of purpose - to plan and coordinate actions for March 17

5. 5. trust
      1. does not equal approval or friendship
      2. assume the best motivations/intentions; then inquire

6. 6. respect
      1. for emotional as well as logical concerns
      2. criticize acts not persons
      3. objections/criticisms of acts are not attacks, they are concerns

7. 7. cooperation
      1. bring an attitude of helpfulness & support
      2. not competitive, not about winning but building a solution together
      3. adversarial attitudes focus attention on weaknesses rather than strength

8. 8. non-coercion
      1. disagreement is healthy and necessary to motivate change
      2. conflict is desireable when it can be resolved cooperatively with respect, nonviolence, and creativity.
      3. it is coercive to use power to dominate or control the process
      4. maximum power to persuade should be the revealing of your present truth

9. 9. self-empowerment
      1. delegation of decision-making authority is failure to accept responsibility
      2. anyone can express concerns, seek creative solutions
      3. everyone is responsible for every decision

10. 10. conflict resolution
        1. conflict = disagreement, not battle
        2. strengths & weaknesses of attitudes, assumptions, plans are highlighted by disagreement
        3. use conflict to push self & group to self-assess, do not focus on other individuals
        4. there is no ‘right’, only best for now for this group
        5. avoid blaming - that attacks dignity, elicits guilt, defensiveness, alienation
        6. people will hide truth to avoid blame & group loses ability to resolve conflicts

11. 11. commitment to the group
        1. upon joining one accepts personal responsibility for respect, good will, honesty
        2. recognize group’s needs have priority over individual desires
        3. share responsibility for finding solutions to everyone’s concerns

12. 12. active participation
        1. create atmosphere in which every contribution is considered valuable and where disagreement can be expressed in a supportive environment
        2. avoid belittling, eye-rolling, sighing and other means of diminishing
        3. do not be attached to personal opinions or ideas

13. 13. equal access to power
        1. consciously attempt to creatively share power, skills, information
        2. avoid hierarchy
        3. if at any point during the process any individual feels oppressed or offended by the language used by another individual, they may opt to say "ouch." At this point, the process will stop, and the individual will explain what it was that was hurtful and why. Another small pause will be observed, and the process will continue.

14. 14. patience
        1. consensus cannot be rushed
        2. difficult situations must be allowed time
        3. patience is more advantageous than urgency

Agenda:

1. call for facilitation team - facilitator, stack monitor, notetaker, livestreamer
2. Facilitator gives welcome, goes over principles, structure of meeting; state any agenda items which have rolled forward from previous council
3. call for spokes and spokespeople
4. call for new agenda items
5. prioritize & set time allotted for each agenda item
6. move through agenda
7. call for close of meeting
   1. call for agenda items for next council
   2. ask spokes for feedback regarding agenda/process/facilitation/structure

Possible flowchart for consensus:

Facilitator Explains Process

• facilitator provides non-directive leadership

• • the ability to separate out which parts of the discussion the groups is having is a defining characteristic of full consensus
  • the facilitator may move the group between levels as sees fit (back to level one if discussion suggestion identifying more values, for instance)
  • when testing for consensus, facilitator asks, “have all concerns been addressed well enough that you can live with this?”

• Proposal or Issue is Presented
  • Clarifying Questions are Asked

• Level 1 - Identify Values
  • open sharing of ideas & values (avoid suggestions for resolution)
  • test for consensus

• Level 2 - Identify Concerns
  • list any concerns (avoid suggestions for resolution)
  • gather related concerns

• Level 3 - Resolve Concerns
  • resolve related concerns
    1. state concern from list & ask for suggested amendments to address
    2. if any suggestions seem to have a lot of support, take temp check to see if Spokes are ready to work on exact language to adopt
    3. if yes, ask if there are concerns with the suggested language & ask for suggested improvement;
    4. repeat step iii there is consensus on language and amendment can be adopted
    5. if consent cannot be reached on language, put amendment on list to get back to
    6. repeat i-iv until all Spokes have attempted to address all concerns
  • test for consensus
  • restate unresolved concerns
  • questions to clarify concerns
  • discussion focused on resolving one concern at a time
  • test for consensus

Closing option:
- send to committee
- test for stand aside*
- test for block**

* stand aside - agree to disagree, to be willing to let a proposal be adopted despite unresolved concerns
** unresolved legitimate concerns remain