[O29] "big chiefs" in O29

Sat Oct 8 11:49:16 PDT 2005

john,

all the people you listed: chris, nick g., etc., have been doing a wonderful job organizing for this protest and their input is always great, crucial, and important, and i hope they continue to speak up with their ideas. 

the "big chiefs" i am referring to are actually not the ones you mentioned at all.  i'm referring to the ones who come off as the most confident and talkative in the meetings, tend to interrupt others at the meetings, get aggravated and constantly try to interject into meetings that we have to "move on," and generally act like they are the supreme guiding forces of the protest and coalition effort who have been charged -- without any vote being taken -- with generally overseeing the tempo, character, and content of the whole process.  everyone in the group knows that these "big chiefs" are the ones who act in such a way as to project the sense that they are in charge and everyone else should just generally go along with what they think lest they be on the receiving end of a moralistic, personalistic, and obnoxious (anything but patient and political) lashing.  from coming up with agendas behind the scenes that get dumped on some unsuspecting chairperson at the last minute (which has
 begun to change, and which is great), to speaking out of turn and taking an aggressive posture towards any agenda points or ideas that have not been pre-discussed with these "big chiefs", which makes newer people feel less confident to speak up in meetings.  this is what i'm referring to.     

we have taken steps forward around these issues since i've begun attending these meetings consistently in September, but I think this process needs to keep proceeding towards further openess, active inclusion, and democracy, which will ony lead to stronger, bigger, more inviting, and more vibrant planning meetings, which will make people feel welcome and excited about building the hell out of this protest.  this is why democracy and inclusion is inextricably linked with the process of building mass protests and struggle.

we can have a huge protest on Oct. 29th.  i flyered and tabled on Tuesday, Thursday, and Friday of this past week for the protest and the response has been great.  we can make this protest even better and even bigger if we are able to continue our outward organizing, get more people in the coalition and beyond involved in this process, and also continue the current (and, hopefully, future) important--somtimes contentious--internal political discussions.

--keith

John Harris <john.r.harris at verizon.net> wrote:Hi Keith,
You have raised some concerns about democracy here that should be addressed. 
In particular you would like to see more "discussion concerning the political 
shape of the protest and movement". In June when ideas were being debated 
about the political shape of the movement when the Committee for a Fall Action 
had a discussion of the Fall Boston action you spoke volumes and no one cut you 
off. Once there was support in the broader antiwar movement for a fall action, the 
Committee for a Fall Action dissolved. The purpose of our existance was achieved. 
In July, you chose not to come to meetings of the October 29th Coalition or bring 
your ideas forward. In August there was extensive debate on demands and the 
"political shape of the protest and movement" and you expressed your views like 
everyone else. You were not cut off and neither were any of the people newer than 
you. In September the discussion focused more on "getting things done" and I feel 
this is only natural. You have been given ample opportunately to express your views 
on the list serv. You have certainly taken this opportunity more than I have. I guarentee 
that I won't complain later that I did not have the opportunity. You seem to agree that 
process should not trump politics or action. What we need now is Action and process 
should not be allowed to trump this. You will again have the opportunity to debate "political 
shape" in the form of a proposal for a demand. And the Coalition has the democratic right to 
take Action on whatever is decided. It is unfortunate that we get booted out of our meeting 
place at 8:00 sharp. But that is the arrangement we democratically decided to make. The 
Coalition decided in July to encourage organizations to put out postings and fliers. This has 
been done. You could have made a proposal to the contrary. But I think it is a little late now. 
Were we being undemocratic? 

In an earlier post you raised something very closely related to what you are raising below: 
"if anything, we should be seeking to get new people involved and coming back to the 
planning meetings to help us build for the protest.  that means that in addition to doing 
outreach, our meetings have to be open, inviting, accessible, and exude a desire to take 
the time to draw new people into the discussion, hear out their ideas and concerns, and 
take the time to give them full discussion, not trample all over them and indefinitely table 
their proposals because "the big chiefs have to get to work." in my experience, it is quite 
possible (and necessary) to combine the utmost in discussion and democracy with the 
utmost in organizing.  otherwise, at the end of the day, there is nobody but the "big chiefs" 
left standing alone in the room." 

In my view, I see you reinventing yourself as a newcomer and bursting on to the scene to 
challenge the "big chiefs". The task of geting "new people involved and coming back to the planning meetings to help us build for the protest" is what many of us are doing right now. 
The October 29th Coalition never bothered to elect a coordinator ("big chief"). Thank heaven 
Chris is coordinating Outreach and Karen was coordinating Permits and Jason is 
coordinating Media and Nick is coordinating the Web Site and maybe Brian on finances. 
I am not sure who is coordinating our other activities. To some the "big chief" line of 
argumentation in this context may seem offensive and could put Machiavelli to shame. 
But for me it has provided some comic relief which I have enjoyed. 

In Solidarity,
John

-----Original Message-----
From: O29-bounces at massglobalaction.org [mailto:O29-bounces at massglobalaction.org]On Behalf Of Keith Rosenthal
Sent: Saturday, October 08, 2005 11:37 AM
To: o29 at massglobalaction.org
Subject: [O29] Monday meeting, open to public, one protest/one flyer

Hey,

   A discussion on the demands issue definitely needs to be on the agenda.  It was a tie vote last week, there has been more time for discussion and compromise since, and because of the nature of the demand, the tie vote needs to be broken one way or the other because of the importance of the demand.  We could just allot 15-20 minutes for this discussion, take hands, for and against, and then vote.  A discussion on the different ideas people have for how to politically shape the protest is just as (if not more) important than a logisitical discussion about the order of the speakers or how we're going to get a sound system (which can be worked out in sub-committees).  
   Anyway, it would be healthy for our coalition to hear out in full the different political ideas people have about the protest, and not just talk about the various specific and mundane (though not unimportant) details.  I've personally been frustrated with the extent to which our meetings have been marked by the quick cutting off of discussion concerning the political shape of the protest and movement, in order to "get things done."  To me this is undemocratic, because then the political shaping of the protest, which is the most important part, ends up happening in individual discussions and conversations elsewhere.  I have heard it said that this is done in order to keep the coalition "unified," but I actually think it only keeps us divided from hearing out each others' ideas. 

   Finally, I'm actually not sure that we should have 20 different flyers for the protest, all created by different member groups, and all saying different demands on them.  If we were going to do that, then what's the point of even voting on demands?  We are voting on these demands because we, as a majority, feel that they are crucial demands to get out there into the public eye, and, by voting, or not voting, we feel that the whole group ought to be democratically accountable to carry out that decision, with one flyer, which we will all be using.

   Oh, and one last thing, if there is anyone out there in listserve land that has been following this debate, I strongly encourage you to feel more than welcome to attend the organizing meeting this coming Monday at 6pm at the Mass Global Action Office at 33 Harrison Street, 4th floor, in Chinatown (two blocks from the Chinatown T stop on the Orange Line).  Especially if you understand the importance of getting this demand against racism on the flyer and central to our movement, please come to the meeting Monday and let your voice be heard.  Thank you.

Solidarity,
Keith Rosenthal

DAVID KEIL <dmkeil at gmail.com> wrote:
This is to pass on ideas I've heard about procedure Monday (6pm, MGA).
Some reports we need to hear and discuss are: program; permits and
logistics; outreach (including leafleting, endorsements, and regional
outreach); and finances. We usually start with minutes from the
previous meeting, choice of note taker for current meeting, and choice
of facilitator for next meeting, plus intros. I've heard that some
committees need to meet, so if people agree, then between 7:00 and
7:30 we could break the general meeting up into committees.

The last item on the general agenda would be demands, to discuss and
vote on the following:
- Keith's motion (10/7) to add "Stop the Racist Attacks on the Black,
Latin@, Arab & Muslim Communities" to the list of central demands or
slogans;
- A possible motion by Amee (10/8) to add "Militarism reinforces
racism, sexism, & homophobia" to the central slogans;
- Possible other slogans, such as "Stop the Racist Rhetoric" (R.
Miller 10/8) or ones based on Gustavo's post (10/8).

It seems that most activists want most of the general meeting to be
about important details of preparing the action, but there seems to be
a consensus also to hear proposals on demands. Everyone wants an
atmosphere of respect, collaboration, and friendship, even if we cast
divided votes and sometimes feel angry with each other. One way
suggested to ensure this atmosphere in the demands discussion is to
hear very briefly how everyone feels; then after a brief silence, to
take motions, take brief discussion, and vote.

Informal discussion tonight at Assembling Peace in JP, and discussions
Sunday and Monday, will be an important way to prepare for the
too-short formal discussion Monday night.

David

_______________________________________________
O29 mailing list
O29 at massglobalaction.org
http://massglobalaction.org/mailman/listinfo/o29_massglobalaction.org

---------------------------------
Yahoo! Music Unlimited - Access over 1 million songs. Try it free._______________________________________________
O29 mailing list
O29 at massglobalaction.org
http://massglobalaction.org/mailman/listinfo/o29_massglobalaction.org

---------------------------------
 Yahoo! Music Unlimited - Access over 1 million songs. Try it free.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://massglobalaction.org/pipermail/o29_massglobalaction.org/attachments/20051008/1463c0f7/attachment.html>