|
Post by Matt Forbes on Jul 2, 2012 9:12:15 GMT -5
Everyone here has been registered.
We seem to have about 60 to 70 attending so far.
I'm on my phone at the moment, but there are a few of us with laptops and more of us will be bringing them after the lunch break.
We have not started as of yet. Registration took a good while and now we're waiting for the technology to be oriented correctly.
I'll be updating frequently once I have the laptop in here. Others will also be providing updates.
If any non-attending delegates want something discussed, I'll create a category for that or send my number for texting so that we can effectively have your voices heard.
|
|
|
Post by Matt Forbes on Jul 2, 2012 9:44:18 GMT -5
Still waiting. The electronic voting system isn't calibrated correctly, so we're having to go through keypad by keypad.
Almost halfway through the first day and we haven't yet voted on anything.
|
|
|
Post by Matt Forbes on Jul 2, 2012 10:27:00 GMT -5
Officially starting. Going through the agenda and process at the moment.
It's slow going. Actual voting and progress may not happen until after lunch.
The grievance list and agenda is primarily the original version, with a few modifications relating to the proposals we've made through the forums.
It's only minor changes. So, if you've read the original SC propsal, agenda, and grievance list, that's pretty much what we're working with.
|
|
|
Post by Matt Forbes on Jul 2, 2012 10:44:07 GMT -5
I was wrong.
Internal debate has slowed the process.
*now* we're getting to vote.
|
|
dawnh1
Junior Member
Posts: 69
|
Post by dawnh1 on Jul 2, 2012 11:03:13 GMT -5
Thanks for the posts. Eager to hear what agenda is being used. Who's in charge?
|
|
|
Post by Matt Forbes on Jul 2, 2012 11:18:01 GMT -5
Alex is in charge. There was no vote for the chair, agenda, etc. We simply voted on the grievance categories, almost all of which made it, except for Term Limits.
As Kelley Allen put it, we're kids in a candy store and just ate ourselves sick.
Anything with simple majority makes it to committees; however, it looks like we're going to be sitting on too many grievances.
|
|
dawnh1
Junior Member
Posts: 69
|
Post by dawnh1 on Jul 2, 2012 11:55:16 GMT -5
Wonder why there was no vote to accept the agenda, etc? Can't believe all the categories made it. Too many grievances will not work.
|
|
|
Post by Matt Forbes on Jul 2, 2012 13:05:56 GMT -5
Lunch from 1230 to 130. It's 2:00 and we're trying to decide whether to invite David Cobb to speak.
Mind you, after David asked some pertinent questions about whether the delegates can also bring up invitations or alter the plan or just SC members, the outcome is "just the SC". Delegates can only work on the grievances and content of the petition, not the actual agenda or additions to the format.
|
|
|
Post by Matt Forbes on Jul 2, 2012 13:06:30 GMT -5
As of yet, we have not started discussing the grievance categories.
We have four hours remaining today.
|
|
|
Post by Matt Forbes on Jul 2, 2012 13:22:39 GMT -5
Ok, this is a personal opinion:
The design of the conference appears to be set to provide a predetermined outcome based on a heavy imbalance in the ideological spectrum and a strong desire/push for us providing solutions to multiple problems, with those solutions being used as part of the future law suit against the government.
The law suit is still very much part of the plan and there doesn't seem to be a way to change that.
Unless we can push it another direction, it's going to be a rubber stamp on the majority of the grievances being included and the RoG being nothing more than a simply piece of paper with some words scribbled on it.
I apologize for negativity, but this is not a process that will produce anything useful. If it continues going this way, there will be no success from the 99% Declaration, with the exception that some of us have started communicating with one another.
|
|
|
Post by Mike Gentilucci on Jul 2, 2012 13:57:34 GMT -5
wow, so was this decided by a vote, or was this just decided by the Alex/the SC?
Is there anything in the Agenda about discussing organizational structure moving forward? We still need clarification from Michael Pollok on whether he is going to hand over control of the organization as he has stated, especially since he has made numerous statements like this previously that he did not end up honoring. I previously outlined 3 options, I think in an email somewhere:
1. MP decides he no longer wants to sit on the board, and the delegates elect people to whom he transfers power (my preference would be for 7 or 9 board members)
2. MP decides he still wants to sit on the board (we need to know about the other 2 board members as well). The delegates vote on if this is okay with them, and vote on how many board members to add. Personally, I won't be a part of any organization where MP has controlling interest, so there would need to be at least 7 board members if he and the other two decide to stay on.
3. If the delegates are not satisfied with the organizational structure, or are unable to make the desired changes, any number of them can decide to form their own entity.
This is the sort of thing that it would be really helpful to figure out before the Congress adjourns its meeting.
It's a shame how the process is unfolding Matt...sounds like we may need to go with option 3. No one can force an individual delegate to endorse the final document, and all of the people who have expressed educated opinions on the matter clearly think the legal strategy will not have the desired result, so the only thing that really matters is if the document can gain mass support...and if the document that results from this meeting does not gain mass support, then we need to continue to work to produce something that will.
|
|
|
Post by Matt Forbes on Jul 2, 2012 14:09:24 GMT -5
If I were a betting man, i'd wager that the final draft will have 15 to 20 grievances, with about 80 percent being divisive issues. I'm finding difficulty in maintaining my optimism.
At present, we are scattered into 18 loose committees for each of the categories. It's a lot of solution talk, but not a focus on problem talk.
Maybe someone else will post a different perspective.
|
|
dawnh1
Junior Member
Posts: 69
|
Post by dawnh1 on Jul 2, 2012 14:12:35 GMT -5
I think we need to go with your option 3. I personally would never be able to trust MP to not pull something if things didn't go his way. I am really disappointed that there was no vote on the agenda and giving the delegates an opportunity to elect their own chair. David Cobb speaking is Robert Manning's thing. Not that his speaking is a bad thing but the delegates should be able to have the say. Glad I'm not there. My stress level would be through the roof and I would probably been thrown out!
|
|
dawnh1
Junior Member
Posts: 69
|
Post by dawnh1 on Jul 2, 2012 14:14:14 GMT -5
You are supposed to have the PCC until 10pm. What do you mean you have 4 hours left?
|
|
|
Post by Matt Forbes on Jul 2, 2012 14:17:34 GMT -5
You are supposed to have the PCC until 10pm. What do you mean you ave 4 hours left? We can caucus and the like later, but 5 or 6 is the cut off for official business. We have the center the whole time, though.
|
|