Report from the I Call Bravo Sierra Work Group
Monday, March 5th, 2012
Terra Organica
6 p.m. to 8 p.m.
Attendees: Shane R.; Herb G.; Barb S.; Karen W.; Dean T.; Jeremy T.; Futureman; Terry; David F.; Boris B.;
This hearing was a tough meeting, and it was arguably the most unorthodox #OB Work Group meeting held to date. Some participants struggled more than others, and I am particularly grateful for those who participated in the face of those internal struggles.
The hearing was documented by way of streaming video. There was spirited objection to this documentation. I can't remember the last time there was such objection to streaming the video of a meeting in #OB.
This was not a meeting to prepare a proposal to present to a GA. Instead, it was a fact finding and information gathering event to determine what range of action #OB might be willing to consider.
At the beginning of the hearing, I presented three increasingly severe responses to take, in the event that the preventative measures we have in place to cope with disruption were to fail. All three of these measures would require the GA to pass a proposal by consensus to take effect.
1 Censure. A written reprimand. A warning that, in the event that the disruption isn't resolved to the mutual satisfaction of the group and the named person, more severe action may be taken.
2 Suspension of Voting Rights. A temporary penalty preventing an #OB member from exercising voting rights at General Assemblies. This measure doesn't prevent a person from attending GAs, or even getting on stack and discussing proposals. A person whose voting rights have been suspending could still serve on a GA facilitation team (a member who serves as process mover at a GA is effectively voluntarily suspending his or her own voting rights for that GA). Nor does it prevent a person from fully participating in Work Groups. However, a person subject to this penalty would be prevented from blocking any proposals or otherwise using the power of consensus to interfere with the clear will of the group at a GA.
3 Severing Ties. This is the "namaste... away from me" penalty. A person subject to this penalty is considered to no longer be a member of Occupy Bellingham.
After presenting these options, I opened the hearing to the attendees.
I took copious notes, but I am reluctant to put words in the mouths of participants, so the statements that follow are generally not attributed. In the rare cases where it was appropriate, I did establish who said what. Words that appear in parentheses are my words.
There should be responses to conflict even if they happen outside of a GA.
An interest in not tolerate attacks within #OB. Including between GAs.
This is a free egalitarian movement.
Preference for dealing with specific issues as they arise rather than in generalities.
Interest in adjourning or taking a meeting into recess in the event of apparent disruption.
More vigorous use of existing process, (by way of Points of Process).
Interest in compelling a member to leave for a meeting or two.
Ask person to leave, drag person out of meeting if necessary.
Concerns about possibility of abuse of severe sanctions, even with consensus process.
Preference for settling matters with conversations, and attempts at relatively informal mediation to achieve resolution of conflicts.
This hearing feels like a trial.
Interest in paying a professional non-violent communication mediator to assist in cases of severe conflict.
People can decide there will be penalties for bad conduct without waiting for circumstances.
In terms of online conflicts such as on Facebook, the admins should be able to ban individuals, subject to review by other admins.
If resorting to voting rights suspension, it should be provisional (which I take to mean brief) particularly in the absence of evidence of conduct.
An aversion to kicking someone out of #OB for being an asshole.
Probation period might be an approach to disruption
The importance of using tools to allow GAs to function without disruption.
An interest in more educational events, conflict resolution skill building workshops, to develop a language to use for conflict resolution, non-violent communication training, consensus process training.
Nothing should be taken off the table, all options should be open to #OB.
Interest in something faster and more effective than using a Point of Process signal to respond to disruption. A 911 signal of some kind.
A punishment response is a concern and is based on an old paradigm. #OB should be looking for new paradigms
Herb G mentioned the possibility of a "three strikes" policy wherein if someone had to be censured informally three times during a single meeting, then that person's voting rights could be suspended. A person who has had their voting rights suspended three times could have ties severed from #OB. (There was a general sense of support for this concept, however there were some specific details that would need to be addressed before consensus would likely be achieved.)
Censure (written reprimand) seems silly; a better approach would be an attempt at mediation.
(A conversation about giving more authority to the Process Mover was spirited, but didn't seem to lead to consensus.)
Concerns about process being used to gang up on unpopular individuals.
A person accused of being disruptive should be given an opportunity to explain the apparently disruptive behavior.
If someone feels threatened, that by itself should be enough. There is no need to find consensus on whether an individual feels unsafe.
A reference to "Northwest Polite". A regional cultural bias towards over-politeness summed up as follows: Four drivers are at an intersection, each encourages the other to go first. After several rounds of that, everyone goes and they crash. (This is not an issue with the New Yorkers in Occupy Wall Street)
We do not have patience with people who are angry. It might be appropriate to take the time to hear out a person who appears to be disruptive on the grounds that person may just be coping with anger.
An interest in allowing for a wider range of passion than the current prevailing paradigm accommodates.
If you are going to participate in Occupy you may need to commit to learning new skills.
A call for a balanced approach to conflict resolution.
An interest in forgiving past transgressions and letting go.
A counter interest in not forgetting past transgressions. Or forgiving.
The Encampment had to evict 4 persons from the encampment, without a process in place, for the sake of the encampment's survival. (There is a precedent for severing ties to individuals when all else fails.)
Meeting was adjourned.
Summary/Conclusions
Profound ambivalence appears to run deep within #OB on this matter. This terminal ambivalence could pose a serious threat to #OB's survival as a movement.
There are two consequences for disruptive and hostile behavior within #OB.
#OB Members who are disruptive and hostile will suffer consequences for that conduct as individuals
#OB as a group will suffer consequences for its member's disruptive and hostile conduct.
There is no third alternative. Either we deal with this problem, or the problem will deal with us.
On the matter of the concept of a "three strikes" policy or process, #OB's manifest reluctance to call even one strike must be addressed first.
While we cope with this terminal ambivalence, and analysis paralysis, people are walking away from #OB in real time. While waiting for a more perfect response to this issue, we are losing good people that we need now.
Disruptive and hostile behavior do not constitute anything new, and have no place in any paradigm of any vintage.
I have it on good authority that the human brain reacts the same to physical threats and verbal threats. We can be conscious of the difference, but our brain chemistry doesn't care. When someone is raging at you, your brain tends to take blood away from your higher rational functioning areas and sends it to your reptilian brain region, for the sake of your own survival. This makes it more difficult for you to remain calm when someone is projecting hostility in your direction. It even impairs your ability to listen to the person projecting anger at you.
The conviction that "we all need to do a better job of getting along" is contradicted by the evidence before me. There are a handful of members who have given themselves permission to treat other members in a manner that is indefensible. This conduct is such that if a guest in your home acted this way... that guest would never see the inside of your home again.
If something happens that you wouldn't put up with in your own home, then you might want to stop putting up with it at #OB.
Because #OB is your second home.
Recommendations
One: Admit that Comfort Zones are already being violated.
I heard a lot of talk about comfort zones. "I'm not comfortable with..." and then a description of some unpleasant task.
It is difficult to choose which metaphor best describes this farcical attempt to preserve comfort. I'm going to go with the metaphor of arranging deck chairs on the Titanic.
We can't even preserve a zone of safety at a General Assembly as things stand now, so I am unclear how we are going to preserve a zone of comfort in the absence of safety.
This group's collective comfort zone has already been compromised. Until you enforce your zone of safety, there is no point talking about preserving a zone of comfort.
Also, I don't know of anyone who ever changed the world from within their own comfort zone.
Two: Enough with questioning people's motives already.
I have had my motives and intent called into question repeatedly for even attempting to have this conversation. You folks need to knock that shit entirely the fuck off.
I'm not referring only to questioning my motives. I'm referring to questioning anyone's motives. I'm not the only person who has had to put up with this bullshit. I'm just the person who is calling you on it.
This habit of questioning motives and intent? It needs to end. Yesterday.
The only thing you generate when you call someone's motives in to question is heat. You don't generate any light.
And speaking of your ability to accurately gauge someone's motives...
Three: Learn how to assess threats.
There was much talk about skill sets at the hearing. Listening skills. Mediation skills. There is a skill set that needs to be worked on that was not mentioned during the hearing: threat assessment.
Let me give you a quick rundown of your current threat assessment acumen...
Scenario A
David evicts you from your own bloody website.
#OB response? "Let's hold a GA for four hours to find out what is troubling him. Then lets form a Council circle and talk for another hour about re-evaluating our listening skills."
Scenario B
Shane makes a proposal and holds a work group meeting.
#OB response? "Adjourn the meeting! Send it to a work group! Not THAT Work Group! Danger! Danger Will Robinson!"
Seriously.
This group has the most abysmal threat assessment capacity I have seen in living memory. You can't see a threat three inches in front of your face. At this point, it is entirely possible that our real external enemies could cripple Occupy Bellingham by doing little more than tossing a shiny red rubber ball into traffic in front of the door of our next General Assembly. You are going to sniff out an infiltrator or an attempt to co-opt you? Color me skeptical.
Your Spidey-Sense needs a recalibration, urgently.
Four: Stop being doormats.
No, seriously, Occupy Bellingham. Stop being doormats.
For example, there was some pointed concern about the unorthodox nature of the hearing. I invite everyone who has a concern or objection to step right up and keep that shit to yourselves.
You see, if you aren't going to call David on his bullshit (and you aren't)... and you aren't going to call Kerryn on her bullshit (and you clearly aren't)... then you are not going to call me on my bullshit.
You are acting like doormats and you are going to be treated like doormats until you... well... stop acting like goddamn doormats.
I didn't make you doormats. David didn't make you doormats. Kerryn didn't make you doormats. You acted like doormats and rendered yourselves doormats.
At this point, I'm wondering if you would be willing to take action against a member who did anything less than to gut shoot someone during a General Assembly. And even then, you would probably only take action after mediation between the shooter and the gunshot victim didn't work. And if the gunshot victim were unwilling to participate in mediation (for some mysterious reason), I have grave doubts that you would take action against the shooter then because it has been five whole GAs where no one has shot anyone so everything obviously must be fine now.
There is a difference between empathy and enabling. I am not convinced that #OB is making the distinction or is currently prepared to contemplate the distinction.
Jesus Tap-dancing Christ, folks. You are going to have to enforce your own principles and standards of conduct at General Assemblies. No one else can do that for you. No one else should do that for you.
You doormats.
|
Author
Managing Disruption When All Else Fails (An "I Call Bravo Sierra" Work Group Hearing)
