|
Post by frankleespeaking on Jun 18, 2012 13:57:53 GMT -5
Michael previously stated that he was "quitting" and would only serve in an "advisory capacity."
However, he still seems to be the sole point of contact for the entire delegate list, is executing communications with the delegates, and still appears to be actively working with the vendor providing the voting system for the Congress.
Clearly, these actions constitute much more than an "advisory capacity."
So I ask, what is Michael's official role?
|
|
|
Post by davidindc on Jun 18, 2012 17:04:42 GMT -5
Mike is one of three incorporators of the 99% Declaration Working Group, Inc., a non-profit 501(c)(4) Super-Pac incorporated under the laws of New York state. He weilds the proxy of the other two incorporators.
He's convened a series of Steering Committees, each of which, in turn, have abandoned him when they realized that he had no intention of making good on his numers threats to quit or offers to step back. In eachcase, once his tantrum had run its course, he returned to running the show, alienating anyone with the temerity to suggest alternatives to his vision.
THe various Steering Committees have only the authority Mike permits. He's effectively the owner, since he's reneged on all offers to add others to the corporation's board of directors.
The latest iteration of the steering committee is divided between a majority, his acolytes, and a minority, who are trying to curb the worst of his excesses. They have a helluva job and are doing it with great integrity and little success.
I was among them until he slammed the phone down on a steering committee teleconference and followed up with his 57th "I quit" tantrum email.
I knew nothing would change and he'd finally exhausted his reservoir of goodwill with me. He had a good idea, along with the kids from Bard college he offered to represent pro bono when they were being arrested during an early Ocuupy Wall Street action on the Brooklyn Bridge.
It's been downhill from there. It's telling that not one of these originators of the plan is with him, nor wants anything to do with him.
If you want to see an explosion, mention his name at an Occupy Wall Street meeting in New York City, at an Occupy Philly or Philedelphia Reasonable Solutions meeting in Philly, or on wikipedia, where he's banned from editing for, among other things Conflict of Interest-editing to the 99% Declaration page and making legal threats against the Wikipedia Foundation.
Google his name. You'll find I'm only hitting the highlights.
|
|
|
Post by vconsults on Jun 18, 2012 17:42:59 GMT -5
Just wondering:
IF (emphasis on “if”) each of the 787 elected and invited delegates met at a Pub Grub and enjoyed some 'wings' and few rounds of liquid libation together in the spirit of the 99% whom we are tasked to represent, which one of the three 'Choices' listed below would the majority delegates select?
A) Proceed on course towards the July 2-4 CC2.0 within the current state of conflict and disorganized chaos, and deal with intended or unintended consequences.
B) Proceed with a 'Walk Out', thus effectively shutting down the current 99D organization and canceling the July 2-4 CC2.0.
C) Resolve Issues/Conflict with the Steering Committee and the Board utilizing any of the 'Mutual Gain' options listed below:
1) Negotiation 2) Mediation 3) Arbitration 4) Dispute Resolution Techniques 5) Pledge to Resolve 6) Partnering Agreement 7) Issue Escalation Techniques 8) Consensus
|
|
|
Post by indecankelly on Jun 18, 2012 19:09:14 GMT -5
Just because a movement starts one way, it doesn't mean it has to end up that way.
|
|
|
Post by frankleespeaking on Jun 18, 2012 22:58:38 GMT -5
Thanks David for the insight, and thanks to V for your thought; I like your style.
My family would be happy if this happened, because I could spend the rest of the time at our beach house in slower Delaware, but I'm really concerned about fixing our country. In fact Chief Concerns, who is chiefly concerned with raising a baby and buying a house at the moment, has appointed me Chief Concerner of Country Fixings.
I would however still like to hear from Michael or the Steering Committee on this matter though. Thanks!
|
|
|
Post by Matt Forbes on Jun 19, 2012 19:29:43 GMT -5
I wasn't aware there were faster parts of Delaware.
|
|
dawnh1
Junior Member
Posts: 69
|
Post by dawnh1 on Jun 20, 2012 0:50:19 GMT -5
Vconsults, I'd go with C myself. I think if people could sit down together things could be worked out. I'm sincerely hoping that will happen in Philadelphia. MP says he is an advisor and he is taking a more hands off role than I have ever seen him take. For instance, he really wanted to have a tech person come to the CC with the voting machines. He even offered to pay for the biggest part of it himself. The steering committee voted to not do that and to have any money go towards wifi. So far he is going along with the vote of the SC.
|
|
mhuttman
Full Member
People First
Posts: 124
|
Post by mhuttman on Jun 21, 2012 10:12:47 GMT -5
FYI, this was Occupy Philly's complaint about the 99D, with Michael Pollock's response in [ALL CAPS]
Keep in mind that this was posted around January, so many of the circumstances have changed since then.
****************************
Representatives from the 99% Declaration group were hoping to have a discussion which would lead to an endorsement from Occupy Philly for plans to hold a National General Assembly in Philadelphia on July 4th of 2012. Instead, in an unusual display of collective assertiveness, the GA voted to unaffiliate themselves with the group and any of its future events.
[WHAT WAS THE TALLY OF THE VOTE AND WHY WERE OUR REPRESENTATIVES REPORTEDLY BLOCKED ANSWERING ANY QUESTIONS?]
On Tuesday’s General Assembly, representatives from the group, the 99% Declaration presented plans to organize a National General Assembly in Philadelphia and hold an online election of 890 delegates from all over the US who would vote on a list of grievances the current government would be asked to redress. During the questions and concerns part of the conversation, OP members presented information detailing the backgrounds and comments of three board members of the organization. In addition to these concerns, OP General Assembly attendees raised issues surrounding the selection of delegates and the current efforts to plan the national gathering. OP quickly weighed the evidence, and as a result of the overwhelming concerns raised by the group, the GA voted “We do not support the 99% Declaration, its group, its website, its National GA and anything else associated with it.”
Who exactly is the 99Percent Declaration? The 99% Declaration is a national working group led by NY criminal defense attorney, Michael Pollok. The story on their website says that Mr. Pollok was contacted for legal representation after the arrests of 700 OWS protesters on the Brooklyn Bridge in NYC. Of the protesters, 20 or so are students from a small liberal arts college in upstate NY where Pollok resides. After meeting with them, he agreed to represent them pro bono.
He then began drafting a list of grievances developed during conversations with them. The document he subsequently posted online is now known as the 99% Declaration. The website further states he later distributed about 400 copies of the declaration to Occupy Wall Street in Zuccotti Park. While there he gathered some people to form a working group at OWS.
[THEY FAIL TO MENTION THAT WE ANNOUCED THE FORMATION OF THE WORKING GROUP TO THE NYGA SEE VIDEO OF THE ANNOUNCEMENT:http://youtu.be/Le5YI_QPPKk
However, organizers from there have not acknowledged the group’s legitimacy, as noted in heated discussions posted on the NYC GA website. [FALSE: WE FOLLOWED MORE THAN ALL REQUIRED PROCESS TO BECOME AN #OWS WORKING GROUP]
Two days after his visit to Zuccotti Park, the story was picked up by the Huffington Post and the Global Grind after locating the draft document online. Immediately, the story drew national attention. The news reached Philly immediately, as OP was contacted by reporters for comments on the matter. It seemed mysterious that an event like this was being coordinated without first consulting any of the key organizers at Occupy Philly. Similarly, the large scale media attention given to a presumed OWS group amid reports of a National General Assembly in Philly raised a lot of concerns from key organizers at OWS, especially from those working in the Demands Working Group. A dispute ensued about the group’s authority to use the OWS name for a proposal that had not been passed in their GA. Shortly after, the 99% Declaration was deemed by OWS, not an official working group. This caused their leader, Pollok, to make the following statement,
“OWS is a failure and there is no backup plan. it is antidemocratic and censors people outside of the narrow agenda of the small elite oligarchy that runs it; I have been down there and I saw them in action; they are a star chamber made up of anarchists and other antidemocratic movements who want everything and nothing. it cannot succeed; it has consumed it’s own oxygen and now the flame is out what a waste. we will press on with the nationwide election of delegates to a National General Assembly”
“this is an anti-democratic movement and we withdraw our support.”
Despite their tumultuous relationship with OWS, the group continued to develop its plans and formed its own nonprofit, The 99% Declaration Working Group, Ltd. The board members include founder Michael Pollok, a former white collar crimes criminal defense attorney who ran for Congress in 2009;
Nancy Marcus Newman, whose father Steve Newman was involved in a bribery scandal with Vince Fumo; [THIS IS DISGUSTING. HOW DARE YOU IMPUNE NANCY'S CHARACTER BASED UPON SOMETHING HER DEAD FATHER MAY OR MAY NOT HAVE DONE. YOU HAVE LOST ALL CREDIBILITY WITH THIS SICKENING "SINS OF THE FATHER" ATTACK]
Adeline Malone, a former VP at Goldman Sachs [20 YEARS AGO. SHE WAS ALSO AN ATTORNEY FOR THE IRS WHO SPECIALIZED IN NOT FOR PROFIT ORGANIZATION AND SHE DID ALL OF OUR LEGAL WORK PRO BONO]
Kevin Archambault [WORKS WITH NON PROFITS AND THE MENTALLY HANDICAPPED].
The comments made by Mr. Pollok, coupled with the background of the board members were enough to set off red flags in the beginning of the GA discussion. [THIS IS REALLY AMUSING COMING FROM SOMEONE WHO SIGNS THE ARTICLE ANONYMOUSLY]
The 99% Declaration claims they have over 10,000 fans on FB [FALSE, WE HAVE 5000 ON ONE PAGE AND ABOUT 900 ON ANOTHER; THE ORIGINAL WEBPAGE ON GOOGLE SITES HAS MORE THAN 260,000 HITS]
who vote on various things, help plan the event, and are coordinating the election of candidates. Though when asked, the representatives at the OP GA could not articulate how their FB voting works nor could they identify the people on the delegate selection committee. [WHY NOT JUST VISIT THE FB PAGE OR CALL ME BEFORE WRITING THIS PHONY UNSIGNED ARTICLE?]
They communicate through 3 different Facebook pages and 2 websites (one of which has curiously been taken offline). Its not clear if these fans are affiliated with Occupy Movements or if they are random people who are not connected to any communities. Nevertheless, its important other Occupy sites be informed that both OWS and OP have officially unaffiliated themselves from this group and its activities. [EVERYONE IN THE 99% IS "AFFILIATED" WITH THE OCCUPY MOVEMENT IF THEY CHOSE TO SO AFFILIATE, THIS IS A BASIC PREMISE THE WRITER DOES NOT SEEM TO GRASP AND COMMON AMONG A SMALL FACTION OF PARANOID OLIGARCHS WHO RUN SOME OF THE LOCAL GA'S]
You want to elect people, HOW? Aside from the group’s questionable history, the 99% Declaration also had serious problems with the plan they presented, especially the methods proposed for delegate selection. The 99% Declaration is proposing 890 [WRONG] delegates (2 from each of the 485 Congressional Districts and Puerto Rico, DC, and the US territories) be elected via an on-line voting system to come together in Philadelphia on July 4, 2012 to vote on a list of grievances to be addressed by our current government. The first issue is that this is not representative or direct democracy. [WRONG; I SUGGEST TAKING POLISCI 101 AT YOUR LOCAL COMMUNITY COLLEGE] It reenacts the current failed system of representation. [WRONG, YOU OBVIOUSLY HAVE NOT READ OR UNDERSTOOD THE DOCUMENT WHICH DOES NOT SURPRISE ME GIVEN THE BIAS IN THIS "ARTICLE"]
99% Declaration representatives were asked, “When so many protesters feel the structure of our democratic system is broken, why would we endorse a plan to work within that system?” After all, if there is a revolution in this town, then why would anyone bring forth a proposal to operate within the same corrupt framework of government to represent our movement? Its contrary to OP’s vision of creating a new system.
Secondly, the proposed use of Congressional Districts as a measure of representative allocations was not well received. Many informed occupiers were knowledgeable of the criticism against Congressional Districting methods. [THIS IS BEING DONE FOR LEGAL REASONS PLEASE READ THE HISTORY AND CASE LAW ON THE USE OF THE PETITION OF GRIEVANCES] They are often used for the packing and splitting of concentrations of voters to weaken or strengthen influence to gain partisan advantage, resulting in tactics known as gerrymandering. Members of Congress essentially get to draw lines around their own districts and choose what populations they want to vote for them. This ensures that incumbents keep their positions and makes it difficult for newcomers to get elected. These practices have sparked a current movement to reform the border lines for each districts by changing legislation to mandate the district lines be drawn by an independent commission. [GERRYMANDERING IS ONE OF THE SUGGESTED GRIEVANCES AND SOLUTIONS IN THE 99% DECLARATION WHICH YOU HAVE SO INEPTLY MALIGNED DUE TO LACK OF UNDERSTANDING AND COMPREHENSION]
One man and one woman should be elected as delegates from each district, says the proposal. This is problematic because it eliminates the possibility of a trans-gendered person running for office without having to identify as a man or a woman.[WRONG-MORE IGNORANCE; PEOPLE WHO IDENTIFY AS MALE OR FEMALE OR BOTH, REGARDLESS OF BIOLOGY, MAY RUN FOR EITHER SEAT] This type of gender designation further marginalizes this group. If one were a regular participant at OP, you would know there is a pretty active trans population who have been very vocal about the daily discrimination they encounter by gender designations. They face discrimination from organizations like SEPTA who use gender designations in their transpasses, fare cards used for public transit.
Perhaps the most alarming part of their plan for a national delegation is the requirement that each delegate submit their social security number and undergo a criminal background check. [THIS HAS NOT BEEN DECIDED; IF YOU ARE ELECTED TO SERVE AS DELEGATE A CRIMINAL BACKGROUND CHECK WILL BE RUN FOR INSURANCE PURPOSES AND DELEGATE SAFETY TO EXCLUDE PEOPLE HOW HAVE BEEN CONVICTED OF A VIOLENT FELONY OFFENSE WITHIN THE PAST TEN YEARS; IT DOES NOT APPLY TO PEOPLE WHO ARE MERELY CONVICTED OF A CRIME-VIOLENT FELONIES ONLY] The rationale is so that the 99% Declaration can verify identities and eliminate infiltrators who might attempt to be elected as delegates. [FALSE AND DEFAMATORY-WHICH IS WHY THIS ARTICLE IS PROBABLY UNSIGNED] The OP legal collective quickly informed them collecting social security numbers in this way is illegal [UNDER THE SOCIAL SECURITY LAW WE CANNOT REQUIRE IT BUT WE CAN REQUIRE A BACKGROUND CHECK FOR THE AFOREMENTIONED REASONS]. Very illegal. [WRONG] When asked where the numbers would go and who would collect them, they were unable to answer. This is pretty scary considering this idea was cooked up by a team of “lawyers.” Understanding the growing prevalence of identity theft and surveillance, the idea of giving SS# to unknown individuals and undergoing criminal background checks is downright crazy.
Delegate requirements also say that only US citizens registered to vote can be delegates. This means that immigrants and those who don’t have the documents needed to be registered voters are excluded. [CORRECT THAT IS WHAT WE VOTED ON EARLY ON] Finally, persons convicted of violent offenses within 10 years are also not eligible to become delegates, which would disproportionately affect people of color in urban areas. [LEGAL REASONS EXPLAINED ABOVE] When these concerns were raised, the representatives seemed callous in their responses. There was a disinterest to commit to changing the proposal and little empathy for our feelings of being misinformed. In sum, their attitude and ignorance to discriminatory practices alienated more than it unified.
Backed by Reasonable Solutions and Mayor Nutter Perhaps the final nail in the coffin for the 99% Declaration was the fact that they met with Mayor Nutter’s staff, including the deputy director, Richard Negrin on the day of Occupy Philly’s eviction. [THIS IS FALSE, WHEN WE MET WITH THE MAYOR'S STAFF THE EVENT HAD ALREADY HAPPENED] According to their representative, they met with city officials to inform them of this National GA, get their backing, and give them the heads up for anticipated increased security due to thousands of visitors. In a post on an on-line forum, the 99% Declaration also mentioned following up with the Mayor’s office to see if they would participate in a joint press release about the event. The fact that they met with the Mayor was exacerbated by the fact that the meeting occurred on eviction day, [FALSE] the same day over fifty of our friends were arrested by the same “security" force that would be on hand during their event on July. [WE ASKED FOR A PERMIT TO WALK FROM THE VENUE TO INDEPENDENCE HALL TO SIGN THE PETITION. THE POLICE WILL PROVIDE TRAFFIC CONTROL AND SECURITY AS IN ANY MARCH]
A common argument made by Occupy Philly members is that the City of Philadelphia went overboard with the large police presence they assigned to watch them peacefully protest. Occupy movements across the country are all drawing attention to the militarization of US police forceswho are almost always sent in large numbers to intimidate and suppress protesters. Approaching the Mayor to discuss security for this event is totally inappropriate because it will ultimately result in increased arrests for protesters via a large police presence.
A representative from Occupy Philly would have briefed the 99% Declaration representatives on divisive nature of our relationship with the city, if they had been invited to the meeting. Unfortunately, they were not. [ONLY OUR NOT FOR PROFIT BOARD MEMBERS ATTENDED THE MEETING NEITHER OP NOR RS WERE INVITED AND YOU FAIL TO MENTION THAT I CAME AND SPOKE TO THE COCO MEETING THAT NIGHT] The group was not only meeting with the city, but also with the ousted group, Reasonable Solutions. This is the same splinter group from OP who publicly denounced the GA process and the decision to stay at Dilworth Plaza. If the 99% Declaration wishes to duplicate a General Assembly by calling for a national gathering, then why would they align themselves with a group that has denounced this same process? Because they have that in common. Michael Pollok also denounced OWS. [MY SENSE OF THE PEOPLE AT RS IS THAT THEY ARE SEEKING REAL IMPORTANT CHANGE WHILE THE PEOPLE AT OP WHO I SAW AT THE COCO MEETING WASTED AT LEAST THREE HOURS SQUABBLING OVER PETTY ISSUES THAT HAVE NO BEARING OR ON THE 99% MOVEMENT]
Affiliation is not a good idea Judging by their actions, either the 99% Declaration is completely out of the loop with what’s going on at Occupy Philly, or this is a deliberate attempt to co-opt our movement and use it for their own political agenda. Its hard to take seriously a group who uses an icon of George Washington on an American flag, since his image represents the old imperialist colonial principles this country was founded on. [WE DISAGREE AND BELIEVE IN AN EVOLVING AND LIVING CONSTITUTION]
The dirt is piled high against this group. For that reason, OP cannot put themselves at risk for associating with them. They seek to organize a National General Assembly, but do not respect the decision making process of local GAs which empower them all to decide when and how they organize a national gathering for their movement. Its difficult to get support for a proposal when their attitude is that they will proceed with their plans no matter what OP decides. [WE ARE NOTHING EXCEPT A FACILITATION GROUP THAT WILL PROVIDE AN OPEN AND TRANSPARENT ELECTION OF DELEGATES AND A VENUE-WHAT THE ELECTED DELEGATES DO WITH THIS OPPORTUNITY IS UP TO THEM]
Their proposed plan has a lot of flaws, which could be improved if they were open to feedback. Its clear they are not open to making changes that would end discriminatory election of delegates, create a new system for collective governance, or end their friendly relationship with the city and police. Even if they did, it would still be hard to endorse a group whose leader has publicly denounced OP’s allies at OWS. [AGAIN, YOU FAIL TO MENTION THAT I DROVE FOUR HOURS TO PHILLY TO MEET WITH THEIR COCO AND SPOKE FOR ABOUT 20 MINUTES AND TRIED TO ANSWER QUESTIONS BUT WAS NOT GIVEN ANY TIME TO DO SO]
Preceding the vote of no support, the GA discussed values they shared in the movement. Occupiers expressed values of equality, inclusiveness, and transparency. Its no wonder they voted not to support a group who proposes processes that exclude and discriminate. The power that they hold as a general assembly is their ability to weigh evidence, think critically, and assert collective decision making. The 99% Declaration was perhaps not prepared for such an intelligent, [INTELLIGENCE AND CRITICAL THINKING IS NOT SOMETHING OP HAS TO WORRY ABOUT]
|
|
|
Post by davidindc on Jun 23, 2012 21:36:12 GMT -5
"WE ARE NOTHING EXCEPT A FACILITATION GROUP THAT WILL PROVIDE AN OPEN AND TRANSPARENT ELECTION OF DELEGATES AND A VENUE-WHAT THE ELECTED DELEGATES DO WITH THIS OPPORTUNITY IS UP TO THEM" <-- This is probably one of the things that's changed since January, dontchya think?
|
|
mhuttman
Full Member
People First
Posts: 124
|
Post by mhuttman on Jun 25, 2012 8:49:25 GMT -5
I don't think so. We can vote down anything proposed by the SC on day one and replace the agenda, voting, etc. with our own. If the SC tries to override us then we can just move ourselves into a nearby coffee shop and finish things without them, since it looks like there may be 50 of us on-site, tops.
|
|
|
Post by Matt Forbes on Jun 25, 2012 21:21:21 GMT -5
If, by "nearby coffee shop", you mean "somewhere in SW Virginia, perhaps Roanoke, as I hear it's lovely this time of year and there's this awesome guy who lives down that way... seriously, he's so cool, he could be a Mouseketeer or something", then, I'm all for just going ahead with the move.
Just sayin'.
|
|