Forum

#OB Facilitation Working Group 2/21/12 3:00 -5:00 PM Laborers’ Hall

Present: Ronna L., Shane R., Debbie C., David F., Terry, Dean T., Johnny G., Barb S. (notes by Ronna)
Agenda approval: Added item (#1 below) and then approved

1. Share ideas of what works/doesn’t work for you in the General Assembly
WORKS
• Structure
• Progressive Stack
• Members attend
• Points of Process
• People can say what they are feeling when we go around DOESN’T WORK
• People not feeling free to speak
• Facilitators internalizing in real time
• Not clear about how the direct statement, point of process and question hand symbols are prioritized
• Floor teams are not large enough –not enough people
• Disruption/irresolvable conflict
• Facilitator decides/interprets GA comments (#5 on points of process)
• People are thinking these rules apply to everyone but me

2. Managing Disruption in the GA
Much of the meeting time was spent discussing this issue. It is a priority that we find a way to deal with this issue. Agreement was that facilitators are not paying attention to #5 in the Points of Process (POP) and work instead to interpret/restate an occupier’s thoughts which might be adding to the disruption. The following suggestions were made to help facilitators end disruption by finding a way to move the process forward.
• Give the disruption back to the GA to manage by asking questions such as:
o Did I cut this person off?
o “IS it the will of the GA to - - - - - (give more time for this issue, allow this departure from agenda, etc.”
o What are the wishes of the GA – and set up stack
All of the above would need to have a “temperature check” to get the will of the GA
• Remind occupiers of the points of process and other social contracts made such as safer spaces agreement.
• Remind occupies of the hand signals – the only way the facilitator can know what is happening.
• To resolve an issue the GA decides if POP needs action
• Employ more temperature checks to get the will of the assembly
• Facilitators never interrupt – allow person speaking to finish thought. Sets model for not interrupting speakers.
• Establish timing of issues to be covered and speakers on stack and have a timekeeper that works (see above comment about interrupting).
• When an incident occurs GA can decide which issue is important for discussion and what the priority is (which might generate a new agenda item)
• Take a break – smoke break, 5 minute pause for peace. This might be done after a huddle of the floor team and then asking the GA permission. “we’ve gone off track and would like to have 5 minutes to gather ourselves back together.”
• Take 5 for peace and then come back with temperature check and bring issue back
• Avoid leading questions when taking temperature check. Ask one closed question (answer by yes/no) at time when taking temperature check.
• Reassure assembly that mistakes can be made and it will be OK.
• Bottom line is that facilitator needs to NOT allow disruptions.
We agreed that the above could work for minor disruptions which involve rational people who may have some awareness of their disruptive behavior. Another problem occurs when the occupier is not rational and the disruption continues to escalate. The following comments were made to address this issue:
• Adjourn the GA
• Take a break – same as above
• Break the Assembly into small groups to discuss the issue for a specific amount, return to GA with spokesperson from each group present solution, ideas, etc.
• Note that when there are many POP hand signals – something is wrong. Floor team can be watching for this sign and alert the process mover when it happens. Or the floor team can huddle to figure out what to do.
• GO into council if it appropriate for the time and size of group.
• Create an ISSUE BIN when a conflict issue needs to have more time for thought and research and will be brought up at a future GA.
How can any process be enforced? Was the next question we tackled. The following comments were made:
• The facilitator can only enforce the will of the group and it can’t be a momentary will.
• Our sense is that the GA does not want to kick people out.
• We can agree to disagree (this may not include the irrational person).
• The concept of ostracism was brought forward and a connection was made to the idea that Jeremy brought to this group last week from Boston GA where a person is surrounded by other members, no talking or interacting occurs and it stays this way until the person quiets. Not acknowledging the irrational behavior.
• Bearing in mind it is the behavior we need to work with and not the person.
• This subject could be brought to the GA, discussed and a proposal for handling the situation can be brought forward by the GA.
• Since we are all dissenters we cannot regulate dissent in the GA.
• It would be difficult to attempt to regulate humanity but rather must be handled in the moment. “Invite it in and deal with it.”
• A question to consider is “what if the disruption is intentional versus non-intentional. They would be handled differently.
• The floor team can remind the GA of the ground rules. We have the POP and Safer spaces agreement which serve as a social contract with certain standards.
The WG agreed that this is a messy process and as much as possible can be worked out in the Working group rather than the GA..
This topic was somewhat disordered with members over talking, interrupting without finishing thoughts and tangential topics. This was found to be stressful for members of this WG. All present agreed to adhere to the POP and “practice what we preach”. It was a good awakening for the members present.

3. Use of “Council” for getting group cohesion As we unpacked the previous Friday GA and use of Council the following comments were made:
• It was useful – everyone was heard
• It was not useful for getting things done.
• It doesn’t replace a decision making GA.
• We could do Council occasionally. Advertise a non-voting GA as a Council opportunity.

4. Using an agenda. The main question for this agenda item is do we need a template approved by the GA. Following comments were made:
• We already have a template we’ve been using.
• This template can be put up and the GA then changes it or approves it. The floor team can ask for a change to be approved by the GA (such as the Council idea on 2/17 GA)
• This WG will be responsible for setting agendas on the Tuesday meeting, then draft the agenda to bring to the meeting.
• Ask to establish an agenda site on the Web both in the forum and Wiki. All proposals to be brought to this site. Reminding folks of the pre-proposal requirement.
• When agendas are large there is a rushed feeling to get it done. Floor teams and Occupiers need to know that an agenda item left will be carried forward to next GA.
• Not everyone will like the agenda
• Working group reports can be done via the web site rather than at meetings or time the reports to a shorter time.
• Floor team should be ready to adjust agenda during the meeting if it is the will of the GA.
• The structure needs to be kept simple enough that members do not feel over burdened by it.
• We need to ask how much structure is comfortable for our #OB.
• A couple of ideas for the agenda were Pre-proposals, proposals, and Open session.
• Another was scheduled stuff and unscheduled stuff.
• Neither of the two above takes into account the reports/announcements segment now in place.
• Basically we need to look for balance.
We got off topic at this time when the idea of Spokescouncil was brought forward. This is where each working group has an appointed member who acts as the “spoke” and attends the Spokes council which is another working group. This representative rotates in the WG. The question “isn’t this what the coordinating group’s purpose was (is)?’ was asked. Response was that the Coordinating WG has a lot of “baggage”. This is seen in the larger GAs in the country but there is push back as they are too bureaucratic, especially where the Spokes councils make decisions. This would add more structure to our GA. It must be considered for the future as some kind of coordinating group will be helpful to the overall goals of #OB being achieved.

5. Floor Team Who are these people? How many do we need? We did not have time to finish this topic though the following comments were made:
• There can be 2 separate teams – one to move the process and one to manage the feelings of the group. Both of these groups would communicate with each other.
• Debbie mentions that it was helpful to have a “second” person to communicate to him/her what was happening and bring suggestions.
• The following roles were identified: Process mover (aka Moderator, facilitator); Note taker; Stacker: time keeper; Process mover backup; door keeper/greeter; peace keeper (aka Vibes checker)
A suggestion was made to create a large poster display of the POP, ground rules and hand signals. David volunteered a large cork board for this. Have to figure out how it gets to each GA.
The following item was not discussed:
6. Running an Assembly.
• Floor team huddle
• Ask the group if there are any proposals and have them talk to the floor team Put the agenda on the board
• Ask for approval of agenda
• Have stack be people getting in line to speak or
• Council process with speaking totem
• Small groups arranged in topics of interest

NEXT MEETING: Tuesday February 28 at 3:00 – 5:00 at Laborer’s Hall 1700 N. State first floor
MEETING ADJOURNED Meeting adjourned at 5:30