 |
| Home | SOAW Austin | Resources | Store/Donate | Vigil Pictures | Links |
***DRAFT NOTES***
September 17th – 19th SOA
Watch Council Meetings
8th Day Center,
Chicago, Illinois Decision Cover Sheet
Council will use consensus for decisions. Proposal: Subgroup to put together a document about what
mission and vision of council is. Time
frame to be determined after list is put together Mike, Kathy,
Christine, David, and Jon with a staff rep, David will convene.
Proposal: Subgroup to put together a document about what
mission and vision of council is. Time
frame to be determined after list is put together Mike, Kathy, Christine, David, and Jon with a staff rep, David will convene. Proposal was distributed. Was clarified to say, “One staff person from each office will serve as representatives . . .” Approved by consensus. Proposal that we keep “one regional representative per
region” – approved by consensus. Jon Hunt proposed that it’s the responsibility of a
region to let the Council know who its delegate is at any given time. –
Approved by consensus. Subgroup: Proposal that we approve the map as handed out, including the change of the name of the “Upper Midwest” region to the “Great Lakes,” and the change of the name of the “Lower Midwest” region to the “Midwest”; and, that we let Minnesota and western Wisconsin, Kentucky, Puerto Rico, and the Virgin Islands choose their own region if we reach activists there, or be adopted by a region if we cannot reach activists there, to be finalized at the next in-person Council meeting. Approved by consensus. Chose “SOA Watch
Council.” Approved by consensus. The council will meet two times a year in person in September and in conjunction with the strategy meeting, with conference calls as needed. Approved by consensus. The strategy meeting/council meeting will happen in DC. The September meeting location will happen in rotating cities. Approved by consensus. Regions cover their own rep’s expenses. Approved by consensus. We will consider a quorum to be more than half of the number of currently filled seats on the council (i.e., not vacant regional seats), with the understanding that an honest effort to extend an invitation to every council representative will be made. Approved by consensus. Let the regions decide the terms of their own representatives. Approved by consensus. This issue (open verses closed meetings) needs to go back to regions and will be tabled until our next meeting. Approved by consensus.
Consensus reached
on proposal from peacemakers on the new scenario. 1 stand aside Christine LeVallee. Proposal to sub group for this discussion to take place at lunch. Sub group will then touch base with the rest of the group following their meeting. Consensus Christine proposed that a sub-committee be formed to study
the PC and the role and make up of the PC.
A PC will form today to deal with the immediate need to hire a Leg.
Director. Consensus reached. John Stith will be point and convene the old
PC with the new members. Revisiting NV Guidelines See Draft dated September 19, 2004. Changes made to the previous draft are underlined on this draft. Dave M, rep for SOAW West, has stated that his concerns mentioned before have been address enough that he can live with this draft. Consensus Reached:
five stand-asides, jon Hunt, Ken Hayes, Dave M, Christine Levallee, Mike
P. Next Meeting will be a Conference call on November 3rd 2004 at 5pm EST. The call will be an hour and a half. Christy will set it up. Proposals must be to her by Monday, October 2nd, and the agenda committee will send out the agenda by email by Wednesday, October 4th. Mission and Vision of Council(notetaker Morgan) Role of Council Brainstorms: Reviewed SOAW mission statement; Council should insure the SOAW mission statement is met Facilitate communication *Focus on grassroots *Decision making body; represent decisions made *Governance/Board of Directors *Connect other regions *Provide vision Avoid hierarchy, strengthen grassroots Guidelines between staff decisions and council decisions; operations vs vision, personnel issues, does council make hiring decisions? WG relationships; determine needs—discuss later Networking between grassroots, staff, and other groups; transparency Collaborative administration vs governance CA: Working with the 12 council members as equals G: Spend energies on focus issues, 3-5 so as not to be spread out and be effective. (“Visioning” is how governance was historically used) Tension between representing decisions and making decisions; flow between grassroots and council. How much should delegates check-in with locals? How are decisions made: Accountability? Process? Representative vs Trustees: can’t make a decision with complete backing of local/regions, endless conversation, need faith in reps to make decisions. Reps need to be prepared and have a sense of region and mold to discussions of decisions. Maturity of regions; progressing at different rates After decision-making process responsibility Regions are working in consensus decision-making model No purpose without grassroots More resources than decision makers How do we understand consensus Consensus process: Discussion to proposals; then clarify proposal (change if needed); decision making, first ask for strong concerns and blocking concerns (would be unable to work with group if decision was made), if blocked the group doesn’t move forward; then test for consensus with visual signal, and back to discussion if needed, include everyone’s opinion and value them. Can stand aside to avoid stopping decision, or if don’t feel need to contribute to decision. If a few stand aside, need more discussion. Council will use
consensus for decisions. Relationship with Working Groups and November Coordinating: Working Groups: Year round and for vigil, one council and one staff on year round WG minimum. Everyone on group takes a share of work, no “boss” and equal voice. Proposals for major changes of movement go to appropriate body—council, strategy meeting. How do people join WG? Anyone can join a WG. How do WG’s stay accountable to grassroots? If WGs are accountable to council, then they’d be accountable to grassroots as council represents grassroots What is the role of council in empowering/disempowring WG? Relationship with November Coordinating Team: NCT convenes in spring and is spokescouncil of WG dealing with vigil. Opens lines of communication for WG. Council has participated w/ NCC as decision makers on the ground. WG changes in vigil go to NCT, if necessary go to council. In spring, council lays out broad strokes of vigil, then NCT works to implement vision into action. Emergency decision-making Relationship with Staff Staff is collective, how does it make decisions as a collective, relationship with AG/council All staff have equal voice Weekly staff meeting; sharing work, updates, making decisions, use consensus Relationship to AG/council, all staff members were part of AG—equal voice, staff brings major changes to council, social relationships Input from staff on council: overall hopes about the council will help the movement Council members may want to have increased communication with staff Relationship with personnel committee, made up of members of staff and council working together on hiring/HR admin
Proposal: Subgroup to put together a document about what
mission and vision of council is. Time
frame to be determined after list is put together Mike, Kathy, Christine, David, and Jon with a staff rep, David will convene. Follow-Up from 6/5 Conference Call(notetaker John Stith) (1) Staff Attendance at Council Meetings Proposal was distributed. Was clarified to say, “One staff person from each office will serve as representatives . . .” Approved by consensus. (2) Constituency Reps/Number of Council Members/Regional Balance Proposal was distributed along with new map as addition to the proposal. Questioned whether regions should or should be allowed to have rotating representatives. Concern that consistent communication as a Council will be impeded if rotating representatives don’t come to each meeting (one as representative, others as observers). Concerns because this may prove difficult. Several said alternates make more sense. Introduced issue of whether Council meetings are open or closed. Proposal that we keep “one regional representative per
region” – approved by consensus. Jon Hunt proposed that it’s the responsibility of a
region to let the Council know who its delegate is at any given time. –
Approved by consensus. Subgroup: Proposal that we approve the map as handed out, including the change of the name of the “Upper Midwest” region to the “Great Lakes,” and the change of the name of the “Lower Midwest” region to the “Midwest”; and, that we let Minnesota and western Wisconsin, Kentucky, Puerto Rico, and the Virgin Islands choose their own region if we reach activists there, or be adopted by a region if we cannot reach activists there, to be finalized at the next in-person Council meeting. Approved by consensus. Subgroup: Proposals on SOAW Council membership on “ex officio” members and “ad hoc” members distributed in preparation for next Council meeting. “Ex officio” in Latin means “from the office.” Ex officio and ad hoc members would be equal members of the Council and would participate in consensus building in the same way as regional and staff delegates. This proposal should be back to regions for discussion. (3) Name of the Council Chose “SOA Watch
Council.” Approved by consensus. Logistics of the council
(Christy taking notes) 1. How often the council will meet background: AG met four times a year in person proposal: The council will meet two times a year in person in September and in conjunction with the strategy meeting, with conference calls as needed. Approved by consensus. 2. Where the council will meet the next council meeting will happen in conjunction with the strategy meeting proposal: The strategy meeting/council meeting will happen in DC. The September meeting location will happen in rotating cities. Approved by consensus. Staff will check in with the Council about the date of the
strategy-council meeting. 3. With what money discussion: if reps can’t be supported by their own region, regions would look to other regions for financial help (not to the national office); regions need to think about making sure the best person can represent them, not just the person who can pay his or her own expenses; there was discussion around folks’ real expenses, that people who take proposal: Regions
cover their own rep’s expenses. Approved by consensus. 4. Do we set a quorum? Proposal: We will consider a quorum to be more than half of the number of currently filled seats on the council (i.e., not vacant regional seats), with the understanding that an honest effort to extend an invitation to every council representative will be made. Approved by consensus. **Note: “conference calls as needed” has not been defined 5. Lengths of terms proposal: Let the regions decide the terms of their own representatives. Approved by consensus. background: The AG members served for three-year terms. A term was not specifically stated at the strategy meeting for this body. Another proposal to send this to a sub-group and table a decision until the next in-person meeting. Kathy suggested that, if we decide on terms, to have staggered coming and going times. Joe commented that there’s no term proposal on the table right now and that we should leave it to regions for now. If there’s a problem we can change it in the future. jon commented that this would give him a chance to see what his region thought. Christine asked that everyone here make a commitment to being at the next meeting and expressed concerns about lack of consistency. We did a straw poll to address her concern and almost everyone raised their hand to show they’d be there. 6. Open or closed meetings discussion some folks suggested discussing for a few minutes and then taking this issue back to our regions Edith: suggested open meetings that anyone can attend, with
an RSVP option (to respect the folks organizing logistics), and perhaps setting
some ground rules about how those folks operate within the meeting (can they
ask questions or not?, etc) Christine: her region feels the meetings should be closed, as smaller groups make for easier decision-making Dave: we are representatives of a region, but the process of having folks whisper in their reps’ ears at the table and then the rep turning to the table and making this comment is silly; that when reps are at the table they’re present to the process and not hearing whispers in their ear John: checked in that the office did hear from a few folks who were interested in coming to this meeting; we told them as far as we knew it was open (or no guidelines had been set yet) but we didn’t out rightly encourage them to Christine also had someone in her region who wanted to attend but she didn’t know what to tell them Ken suggested videotaping the meetings and making it available for anyone who wants to see it background: the understanding is that the AG meetings were open but no one ever came who wasn’t an AG member Dave suggested making the minutes available to anyone who asked or posting them on the website Edith thinks folks should be able to come if they want, if they’ll rsvp, if they’ll agree to guidelines; has heard people say that there’s an elite group of organizers in SOA Watch and having open meetings will help foster a sense of transparency This issue needs to go back to regions and will be tabled until our next meeting. Approved by consensus. Sunday September 19,
2004 November Needs Needs from staff
and working groups Working groups: media, peacekeepers, stage program, medics,
legal, direct action, development, trainings, caucuses and space, tabling, translation,
puppets, legislative, power liaison, hospitality, logistics, anti-oppression,
outreach, POCs Needs for 2004 vigil Peacekeepers- new
criteria to be a peacekeeper: been the
vigil in the past, had NV training already, attend 4 hour training on Friday
November 19 at 12:30pm. Contact Kathy
Long for more information. (training
will be done by Laura Slattery and Leslie Shultz). Development: Money Collection needs 70 people per money
collection. Two money collections each
day. John Stith is point for this
need. Also, major donor mailing after
the vigil. Need volunteers to help
Monday or Tuesday. Tabling: 3-4 volunteers to help with tables. Managing the tables as well as breaking down
the tables on Sunday after the vigil.
John Stith is point. Medics: Corey Pine Shane is point. John Stith is contact in the office. Logistics: physical
tasks carpentry and other light assembly.
Stage set up on Friday afternoon 30-40 volunteers needed . Stage maintenance, clean up Monday and
Tuesday. John Stith point. Media: Christy is point. Need local groups to come to vigil with local media contacts.
Need volunteers in media office 24 hours a day through Wednesday after the
vigil. Need Spanish speakers. Legal: Audrey Stewart is contact astewart122@yahoo.com. Get involved sooner rather than later. Training for legal observers on Saturday AM. Hospitality: takes all kinds of folks. Light
carpentry and cooking. Contact Lana Jacobs. Translation: need ASL folks, simultaneous translation
English to Spanish, Christy is point. Puppets:
begins on Monday before the vigil.
Making puppets and caskets etc.
Contact Arnie or Christy.
Columbus
Outreach: Contact Eric and Christine. Peacekeepers Kathy Long went
through the proposal on the peacekeeper leadership and the suggestion for the
new scenario at the vigil. Changes: 1.
Rename peacekeepers-peacemakers.
2. New scenario explained. See
proposal for more information dated August 12, 2004. Question: How to “adopt” a memorial scene? Anyone can adopt a scene- contact Josh RC is
interested. Will tables be open
during Presentes? Yes Puppitistas will
follow Presentes as they have in years past.
Conversations are continuing between November Coordinating Committee and
puppitistas to work out details. Peacemakers will help this new scenario run smoothly
as they have in years past (crowd control).
Some discussion around the scenario. Issues and concerns discussed. Consensus reached
on proposal from peacemakers on the new scenario. 1 stand aside Christine LeVallee. Non-Violence Pledge Proposal from
Peacemakers dated August 12, 2004.
Kathy Long explained the proposal and gave a bit of history on the
changes. Discussed that these changes
have discussed by the movement for the last 5 years. Many different WGs have given input and support to the current
draft. The old language came out of the
peace pledge movement during the 80s.
it also has a connection to the civil rights movement. November
coordinating team has consensed on this draft.
Questions: Why include WHINSEC
in the pledge? Army uses this language. Old pledge used the new name of the school
as well. Why not acknowledge
specific people “within the nonviolent tradition” (ie Jesus, Gandhi)? In order to be respectful of all
religions and in being conscious of sexism and other types of oppression. Why remove running
and drugs and alcohol? Running will be addressed in NV
training Drugs and Alcohol use is addressed
in other language jon offered a two
word revisions to the document. He
noted that they were personal preferences not regional concerns. Christine mentioned
that she had not brought this to her region, but that she had a lot of personal
concerns about the pledge. She may
stand aside or block. Mike stated that his
region had not seen the new draft, but he will not block the process. John stated that the
NV guidelines should always be in a state of revision. Dave mentioned that
some of the groups in the region have asked him top block the new draft. New an atmosphere of discipline to
protect SOAW from provocateurs. Issues: We will not carry weapons has been removed. Swearing, running and drugs and alcohol has
been removed. Respect for local community is too ambiguous
in the new draft. Last paragraph takes SOAW away from it
primary mission. Without compromise
Dave’s region wants him to block. Need
to focus more on SOA/WHINSEC rather than globalization. Need to add “people and property” of the
local community. Discussion on
vandalism vs. property transformation.
Adding “people and property” could blur this line. Christine personally
has serious concerns about the pledge.
Folks in her region would as well have concerns. Need more time in the grassroots to discuss
these issues. Proposal to sub group for this discussion to take place at lunch. Sub group will then touch base with the rest of the group following their meeting . Consensus AG member participation in working groups What
if conference calls become too large?
Not usually a problem, many voices often need to be heard. Does
council member convene group? No, just
maintain communication Research: skills needed: reading Spanish language
material, keeping up on issues in L.America, current projects already in office
that need to be checked up on Legislative: lobby experience helpful but not necessary, good connections with leg. at
home, interest in lobby work, focus on planning for 2005 – how we organize a
large network of people. Translation: Spanish language materials in higher demand, small and large time frame Anti-oppression: many varied projects, some work around vigil Media: press releases, at vigil, background very helpful, Spanish also helpful Development: grant opportunities, organize collection at vigil, mix of experience good Morgan: research, leg, or media. mid-experience with each Edith: busy with local organizing, anti-opp if has time Ellen: currently on leg., conference call every month, 5pm Eastern Ken: development has Spanish speakers in Austin Christine: anti-opp, research, development, not much experience with any Art: leg. Mike: development, needs better sense of where people in region are Randy: on Leg. already Accessibility/Anti-Oppression Conference Call With Laurel Paget-Seekins Started
in Jan 2002 strategy meeting. Created
to make sure movement wasn’t recreating oppressions that already existed. Put out booklet, got feedback from different
groups, accessibility issues at vigil.
Open list serve, calls every month or two. Hosting speaker at vigil, Betita Martinez. Helping with Nov. coordinating
committee. Questions
for Laurel WhereBetita
is speaking on main stage, also on Sat night What
process is taken for seeking consensus? Ideas go on list serve, open calls, in
person meetings, who ever is involved comes to a consensus. Process now for
revising booklet. Try
to be as open as possible. Accountability
or approval from another body?
Participate in coordinating committee, talk with other working
groups. Work with Kristine in
office. Excited about the democratic
structure and getting feedback on proposals.
Always open to new members.
Everyone is coming from different directions, don’t claim to represent
the movement. Materials say that they
are coming from WG not SOAW. Josh: there is no process for approval
historically, the name of SOAW has been used without approval from national
office. Christine:
proposal: funds for materials take away
from SOAW movement as a whole. Don’t want to be on one side of abortion or gay
rights issues. There should be a
grassroots approval for these materials. Mike:
this is a proposal that would require broad discussion, save for future agenda John:
lets finish other issues, this is not good time for proposals Christine: people in her region are not comfortable
with some views Laurel: this is why more people should be involved
in WG and in decision making, why are so many not getting involved. Reflections
on anti-opp work Edith: question from Pittsburgh, Zapatista
statements are not appropriate for SOAW Cathy:
at strategy meeting couple years ago started working on anti-opp issues. Racism
and anti racism, was a painful issue for many people. African American women have been facilitating discussions on
oppression and how we deal with our white privilege. Ken:
agrees with Christine, that there should be oversight on what has SOAW name Dave: materials have SOAW address, shows that it
came from SOAW John: work with this WG has been great for the
staff Ellen:
unavoidable that people will make that connection, this materials show issues
for consideration not endorsing specific views Edith:
personally in support of this work Eric: underlying question of how more people can
get involved in the work of this WG.
Many people have concerns because they don’t know how to get involved in
the process. Don’t need ownership of
all WG, AAOWG has been great in working with POCs. People are reading the AAOWG materials and wondering how these
issues fit into the movement. Laurel: there is a problem with not being clear how
people can get involved, a big goal is to work on this for Nov. there will be a meeting Sat. night how
people can do this work locally. How do
these issues fit into the SOAW movement?
We are all trying to build a world where things like the SOA don’t
exist, but if we are only working on this one issue then we are not really
working for a better world. People can
send emails to list serve to get involved and to Kristine is the office. Christine: the proposal was not to be a system where
everything has to be approved. There
are elements to some materials that may not be inconsistent with SOAW opinions. There
is a need for people to work on proposal regarding what materials need approval
and how that process will look like.
This will help to establish a clear line of communication. Sub
group to work on proposal: Christine, David, Kristine. Personnel Committee Works
on hiring new staff accepting resumes, interviews, second interviews, etc. Also
helped the staff move from a traditional model to a more collective
structure. The
PC was also commissioned to help staff do staff evaluations and deal with other
personnel issues that the collective faced.
For the most part this did not happen, the PC just dealt with
hiring. Volunteers
are not handled by the PC unless the volunteer is going to be long term. Mike
P wants to be on the PC. Kathy Long was
nominated by Eric. John
Stith will be the staff representative to the PC. Joe
suggested that some of the tasks of the PC could be sub grouped (ie one sub
group of the PC deals with hiring and another deals with other HR issues such
as staff evaluations and grievances. Christine proposed that a sub-committee be formed to study
the PC and the role and make up of the PC.
A PC will form today to deal with the immediate need to hire a Leg.
Director. Consensus reached. John Stith will be point and convene the old PC with the new members. Randy
stated that it would be good to keep the staff and council members on the PC to
maintain wisdom. Revisiting NV Guidelines See Draft dated September 19, 2004. Changes made to the previous draft are underlined on this draft. Dave M, rep for SOAW West, has stated that his concerns mentioned before have been address enough that he can live with this draft. Consensus Reached:
five stand-asides, jon Hunt, Ken Hayes, Dave M, Christine Levallee, Mike
P. Next Meeting will be a Conference call on November 3rd 2004 at 5pm EST. The call will be an hour and a half. Christy will set it up. Proposals must be to her by Monday, October 2nd, and the agenda committee will send out the agenda by email by Wednesday, October 4th. |