|
Post by christucker72 on Jun 13, 2012 19:11:18 GMT -5
My main reason for creating the Patriotic 99% Caucus, is that the mysterious, Orwellian erasure of forum past posts & forum/email functionality on the official www.the99percentdeclaration.org website, coupled with the intransparency of the Steering Committee, has made it extremely difficult for elected delegates to the Continental Congress 2.0 to deliberate, get questions answered, and self-organize in preparation for the CC2, its aftermath, as was originally intended by the founder- who has commuinicated his plan to extricate himself from any responsibilities after the CC2- as outlined in the following quote from the 99Percent Declaration website: "Similar to the first two Continental Congresses of 1774-1776, the elected Delegates alone, in consultation with their constituents will be responsible for the content of the final petition ratified in Philadelphia. Moreover, subject to the election rules and requirements for Delegates, the Delegates to CONTINENTAL CONGRESS 2.0 shall implement their own procedures, agenda, code of conduct, internal elections and/or appointments of committee members and officers to efficiently and expeditiously accomplish the People's mandate to present a PETITION FOR A REDRESS OF GRIEVANCES to all three branches of the government of the United States of America before the 2012 general election in November." Having an identifiable caucus provides a "place to go" for delegates & will hopefully facilitate the process of building areas of consensus on issues (e.g. content of 99% Declaration) that can be attached to a group identity. This provides organizational continuity, while members come & go. Creating this caucus serves utilitarian purpose of enabling like-minded reformers to identify themselves to each other, and the larger CC2 membership, which may have been unable to locate this ad hoc replacement forum, before the actual CC2. Membership is open to anyone willing to engage in respectful deliberation about the CC2/99D process/content, and supports any of the core values, goals, norms, which the caucus members will come to agree upon via deliberative processes oriented towards consensus-building, conscious that respectful disagreement is inevitable and acceptable. This original members of this caucus emerged out of the deliberations in the official forum and happened to exchange real email addresses before the official website forum & email history & functionality was erased & disabled. Although I do not believe I have right to speak for this caucus, I will tentatively suggest that all its members genuinely want the 99D/CC2 to achieve its full potential, and feel many of the past, current obstacles to this goal are at least in part rooted in the excessive intransparency, "top-down" controls (of website, communications, rules), and leadership's inadequate response to legitimate "bottom-up" input from delegates, exacerbated by the disabling of many of the official website's features. Naturally, members of this caucus may disagree on priorities, solutions, and other things, but hopefully will come to certain areas of consensus, which will make the Patriotic 99% Caucus, a group identity that has some meaning, legitimacy, and utility. There is no leader, and if members feel they must take any official positions as group, I suggest it be done by majority vote, if near consensus is not achieved.
|
|
|
Post by Matt Forbes on Jun 13, 2012 21:15:40 GMT -5
Well done, Chris.
Something like this will be a necessity, especially given a difficulty you've pointed out: getting the CC2 membership to these forums prior to the conference. I believe we'll have even more work ahead of us after the delegation meets and that a malleable group of similarly-goaled individuals is one of the best options for us.
|
|
|
Post by christucker72 on Jun 13, 2012 22:04:19 GMT -5
Here's an email I sent to those involved in a private email chat, out of which this caucus idea emerged (partly due to convenience of email, 100's of emails are still where much of deliberation is going on): Please post something on the Patriotic 99% Caucus thread: 99declaration.proboards.com/index.cgi?action=display&board=general&thread=49&page=1In order for our group to develop a collective identity that has continuity beyond atomized, emphemeral email interactions, we need some online input, support, ideas about core principles/positions, so there's a record of our organizational existence. and so others see it's not just some random guy w/o any real group. We'll have much more influence vis-a-vis any anti-democratic elements amongst delegates & unelected leadership, if we can credibly speak of ourselves as a P99C group, and having members affirm & interact online about this, provides a credible basis/record of some organizational coherence & existence. If we were having (most) of these interactions on that thread, we'd be able to point to our organizational memory, membership, illustrate how much thought, deliberation was behind this emerging group ID, sorta like those sacred online Federalist Papers, which Big Brother erased recently on the official 99D website, after selectively censoring specific delegates, like myself, who politely proposed that the Steering Group's recorded meetings & minutes, be published on site, in spirit of transparency. I certainly was not ashamed for delegates or public to hear the way I conducted myself, or the questions/suggestions that I expressed. The more we interact there, the more power/influence/credibility our caucus will have as something "real" in minds of others. Also, it will allow newcomers to get insight into our thinking, personalities, style of discourse, etc. This is how most of us befriended each other on old forum. I also suggest it is perfectly acceptable for us to discuss most "sensitive" topics in the open, such as our frustrations w/ closed Steering Committe, b/c this creates record & source of pressure, because its transparent, and also illustrates to critics of 99D's closed, hierarchical decision-making (e.g. Occupy GA's, sympathizers of the nonviolent movement) that many delegates agreed and were trying to reform our own organization to address these unnecessary "birthing pangs." When we reach out to external organizations, we can say check us out, in all our glorious imperfection. Otherwise, we'll remain a group of atomized individuals w/ no continuity of collective meaning beyond the temporary chats, and members on this email list. Participants, observers can see what kinds of concerns, questions, problems, values, we were dealing with, assess individual/group reputation (e.g. intelligence, respect, democratic values, etc.). Presumably, the 99D "leadership" that resorted to appalling anti-democratic tactics, erased the official 99D website history & disabled the forum, email functionality, did so for reasons authoritarian regimes always do, and we have to rebuild the reputations, credibility, which were erased, and now only exists in this private email list. Let's try to switch to new forum, and let transparency act in service of our values, such as commitment to truth, respectful deliberation, genuinely democratic ideals. If other delegates see a "real" group interacting online, they'll know who & what we are at CC2, and afterwards, even if membership & positions change. Also, if worse-case scenario happens & CC2/99D crumbles before/during/after CC2, we'll have an organizational basis to build something new. -Christopher M. Tucker
|
|
|
Post by maureenmower on Jun 13, 2012 22:23:41 GMT -5
I agree with that completely, Chris... and there's another benefit as well:
We can keep up with everyone's comments in one place!! I seem to spend all my time going from email to Facebook to forum and back again because by the time I get all caught up, there's a whole new set of emails to read.
So I will definitely appreciate the continuity of having all the discussions in one place. Of course, that's just my personal perk.
The far more important perk is that we will not be committing the same offense that we complain about with the SC and Board - that of having private communications that the other delegates are not able to access. If we want to insist that the SC and Board be open with us, then we should be open with each other too.
|
|
|
Post by christucker72 on Jun 13, 2012 22:30:13 GMT -5
I just noted that my formerly "disappeared" emails (to/from) on official www.the99Declaration.org site are now somewhat accessible (but not normal way of link from my profile management page), as are the candidate profiles. I don't know if emailing works again, but it's a bit hard to trust the website managers will not repeat the recent action of erasing/making unavailable emails & profiles. The previous forum links to this forum, so all that organizational memory and deliberation material, which was leading to some areas/pockets of consensus, and allowing delegates to develop a reputation over time with their posts & responses, is unfortunately still unavailable, without explanation.
|
|
|
Post by christucker72 on Jun 13, 2012 23:49:35 GMT -5
Given the 100's of emails sent amongst this group in past 1-2 weeks during the Orwellian blackout, I think we should try to synthesize any important points of consensus, and decide if we want it/them to be "official" positions of this caucus. Since this P99 caucus idea won't work if the same people don't participate here, we could make our 1st temporary position that Mike G., Jon, Dave & Steve are obliged to do house chores for Maureen & Matt, unless they object in this forum (that should motivate them...kidding).
My impression from the 100's of emails was the following ideas came close to a consensus if not unanimity:
1) We must try to mend fences & seek support from other nonviolent, reform-minded groups from across the spectrum like (Occupy-affiliated groups) on progressive side & independent/conservative groups mentioned by Jon, so long as there are some points of agreement. For example, if not full mutual endorsement, we could support joint-statements from groups who support certain Grievances in the final 99% Declaration. If we're serious about getting results & representing a broad-based section & broad-based reform coalition, then we must improve on status quo, which I think is that we've no endorsements whatsoever.
2) Future Steering Committe & any leadership positions should be elected either at CC2 or online.
3) Given found Michael Pollok's communication that he always intended to extricate himself from responsibilities after the July 4th final vote on the 99D, and he's still only member of the 99D corporate board of directors, involved w/ the actual delegates, we need a solution to deal with the legal issues of being a non-profit corporation registered in NY (e.g. I suggested on this forum, making all delegates members of the board, but as a non-lawyer, I've no idea if this democratization is possible or desirable). Bottom line is that we want this organization to be as fully democratic as feasible,without unelected leaders or people in position of control, power. This would also illustrate our genuine commitment to the values we publicly advocate.
4) We could try to have this caucus endorse specific top 10 Grievances, or a package of 10.
Those are just my impressions of some possible areas of consensus for this caucus, based upon the 100's of emails from an ad-hoc informal group of delegates. Please correct, confirm, or add to this first stab at the idea.
|
|
STEVE CICKAY PA DISTRICT 8
Guest
|
Post by STEVE CICKAY PA DISTRICT 8 on Jun 14, 2012 10:49:15 GMT -5
This is a very important forum. It will enable us to harness the power and creativity of our over 700 delegates. I would hope that the SC understand that we are at a crossroads here. We can limp along waiting for late direction from a tiny minority after a very demotivating voter turnout for a movement that is unknown to the American people because of a strange inability to court the mainstream media.
Or we can harness the power of our over 700 to captivate the attention of diverse like-minded organizations as well as the American people through some inspiring and inclusive leadership.
I hope the SC therefore sends a message to our entire team directing them here and also makes the possibility of universal communication to us all a reality. Share our delegate email list to all who want it so we can all feel equal and together in this enterprise and make the original vision of this Congress a forceful and effective reality, not just a collection of tourists, whispering pointlessly in a small corner of the universe.
And if you are a delegate, get involved. Post your ideas. Let us know you are coming. Get involved. This is your historic chance to make a difference.
|
|
|
Post by christucker72 on Jun 15, 2012 2:54:50 GMT -5
Maybe we should trash this idea/concept of a P99C, even though many supported it, and I continue to get 100's of emails from those who're talking about these issues, who said they supported it. I understand, as I personally check this much less frequently than my own emails that announce themselves w/ a sound. I suppos we'll see if this group identity/caucus is genuine, becomes useful, or just a bunch of communicative/emotional/frustrated steam that's been conveniently dispersed or captured in a metaphorical ballon that will float away and pop, protecting US officials & establishment media, from having to actually deal w/ pressure to reform or anything reallly beyond what the millionaires & billionaires tell them to deal with.
|
|
|
Post by Matt Forbes on Jun 15, 2012 6:45:51 GMT -5
I think we should keep the idea of the P99C. I believe it's just going to take a little time to get everyone out of the email list and into the forums, now that they are available.
I've been trying to limit my response to the plethora of new emails, but I'll admit it's difficult to keep my responses entirely to one place.
We do need all of the ideas and conversations there to start filtering into the forum so that all can be involved. There are some great ideas beginning to develop in both venues... if we can get them all into one, with all of the currently active delegates taking part, we can likely develop something much more lasting than a single conference.
|
|
|
Post by Frank Lee Speaking on Jun 15, 2012 11:52:32 GMT -5
The idea is there no matter what you call it.
One of the first things I said about the 99% though was that it isn't good enough. We're all in this together.
Or, this is a 100% problem and we need a 100% solution.
And Oscar Wilde called patriotism a virtue of the vicious. (To which, not that any of us here are, but I find this description fits those who feel they have some sort of monopoly on patriotism...how dare you claim I love my country any less just because I have different ideas on how to make it better. And I want this word back, just like I want the rainbow back from the gays, but this might not be the best way to get it)
Anywho, the Concerned Citizens Coalition and the Movement to Restore Sanity have started a Common Sense Caucus, and encourages everyone interested in seeking common sense solutions to join.
|
|
|
Post by maureenmower on Jun 15, 2012 20:31:48 GMT -5
Frank -
I have never minded SHARING rainbows with, as you put it, "the gays". When a rainstorm passes, that rainbow is there for everyone - male and female, gay and straight, old and young, etc. No one can take the rainbow away from you, nor can you take it away from them.
|
|
|
Post by christucker72 on Jun 15, 2012 22:52:50 GMT -5
Begin forwarded message: Here's my proposed Grievance before the June 15th deadline according to the published & emailed rules, dictated by the Steering Committee & Michael Pollok.
From: Christopher Tucker <ctucker72 (AT) gmail (DOT) com> Date: June 15, 2012 10:43:29 PM CDT To: The99declaration@gmail.com Subject: Proposed grievance for 99% Declaration
In accord with the published, communicated rules, I'd like to submit the following Grievance to the list, from which elected delegates to the Contentinental Congress 2.0 will select a final list of Grievances for the 99% Declaration.
"Repeal those portions of the Patriot Act that limit civil rights and repeal of those sections of the 2012 National Defense Authorization Act that permit indefinite detention of US Citizens, and pass "Due Process Act," which emphatically rejects the current interpretation that US citizens' right to "due processes" can be protected by secret Executive branch procedures relying upon secret evidence, and explicitly state reaffirm our Founding Father's interpretation of the Constitution, by stipulating that no US citizen can be deprived of any life, liberty or property with a due process procedure, which allows the citizen to know charges against him/herself, and provides them a fair, indepdendent judicial process to defend their innocence."
Best, Christopher M. Tucker
|
|
|
Post by maureenmower on Jun 15, 2012 23:35:09 GMT -5
Sadly, Chris, you'll see in the update Dawn posted that the list of "100 grievances" was sent out earlier today.
Not only will yours not be on it, but I don't think ANY of the grievance suggestions submitted to the website were included. They just used MP's original "Suggested list" - which apparently was more than a suggestion.
|
|
|
Post by jondenn on Jun 16, 2012 8:06:56 GMT -5
So do we know what happened to the all the delegates' submitted grievances in their original form? That source material should be honored in a lovingly edited version for dialogue and deliberation with the least contentious items first. As we share victories together, and build community around common purpose, it will be a great incentive to stay in the room when the going starts to get rough, as more and more dissent will arise from the delegates on items that do not have vast supermajority support.
|
|
|
Post by maureenmower on Jun 18, 2012 3:57:43 GMT -5
Either the forum still exists on the database but has been blocked so that no one can actually see it, or it was permanently deleted.
If the first case is true, then it could be restored with a simple command or two by MP. If it was deleted, then even if the forum FEATURE was added back to the site later, it would be an empty forum - all our posts would be gone forever.
|
|