|
Post by peneloperose on Feb 9, 2012 2:05:45 GMT -5
Hello, Board Member here ;;-)) These are valid concerns and I will address what I can here. Yes, Bylaws have been adopted. Although they have been written by the Board, we are posting and asking for comments and input from the Facilitation Team. When they have been finalized there, they will be voted on again, and then as soon as possible they will be posted to the website. This should be right after the next meeting. The hiccups mentioned have delayed much, but we are working with all due diligence to get things organized properly. As Mike said, we are volunteers, with jobs and lives, but we stay up late, and get up early to continue our efforts to make this all work. Facilitation meetings take 2-3 hours already, with about 20 people in attendance, including board members. I cannot imagine how long they would take with 100 or more. Days, and not much would be accomplished. As you can see, I do come to the forum, and *listen*, as i do on the website chat and the FB pages. So when i comment on an issue or discussion, i have the words of those who post in these places. As i said on another post, we need more people to work as volunteers along with us. And more will be needed. If you have questions, i will answer to the best of my ability. It may take a few days, as i also am on the PR committee, and have a job. If i cannot answer i will tell you why. Meanwhile, lend a hand if you can. We can sure use all the hands we can get. ;;-))
|
|
|
Post by sandymiracle on Feb 9, 2012 3:36:01 GMT -5
Who authorized the board and facilitation committe to write laws to govern the group without consensus, finalize them, vote on them, and then present them to us? Did we elect ANY of you as our representatives? Let's see, the board and FC expects the owner to write laws, censor public protest and regress of grievances, and ban users who have a problem with those things from facebook, so that they cannot get their protest heard by the general public in open forum
Whom does THAT sound like?
Power corrupts.
|
|
|
Post by amadeus on Feb 9, 2012 10:31:39 GMT -5
Well, it is becoming more apparent on a daily basis that sandymiracle is not a contributing member to the group. If he was, he/she would already know how many people have requested just what is taking place. Apparently, sandy does not realize that democracy is just two wolves and a sheep arguing over what to have for dinner. Sandy, can you say "ba-a-a-a-h"?
|
|
|
Post by sandymiracle on Feb 9, 2012 11:21:39 GMT -5
Please link to the MANY requests by non board members/admins to abandon democracy in favor of an unelected board/committee deciding bylaws and enforcing censorship.
Trying to paint me as a person with no knowledge of the situation is not going to help your case with NO evidence to prove me wrong, when I have provided extensive evidence of my point.
This thread alone, the one you're replying to, is an attempt by a non-board member to find out WHY the voices of the group you have solicited funding and work from are not being heard.
Please. Explain when people asked to abandon democracy.
|
|
|
Post by hendrimike on Feb 9, 2012 11:30:10 GMT -5
and enforcing censorship? lol. yes, that's what we all are doing. we sit around all day and email back and forth about how we have dreamed of the day that has finally come where we can volunteer for an organization just so that we can censor people.
|
|
|
Post by nanettejw on Feb 9, 2012 11:44:46 GMT -5
@ sandymiracle - all volunteers that stepped up - I'm certain if you wanted to serve on the Facilitation Committee or be a Board Member they'd love to have you join them. I mean this sincerely and have no hidden agenda nor am I attempting to slight you - I genuinely believe you'd be a great addition to the team - whether a board member, facilitation member or a chair person for one of the working groups - your the type of person this effort needs to pull forward. I believe any of the board members would welcome the opportunity to answer your questions and encourage you to get more involved.... Penelope Rose - is a board member and I believe she has posted her contact information on here.... as have other board members... By joining one of these volunteer groups your questions could be bettered answered and your considerations for improvement could be implemented....
|
|
|
Post by amadeus on Feb 9, 2012 12:30:14 GMT -5
Well, since I am the one that started the thread, I should be able to determine if my questions have been answered, and you have in no way contributed to the answer. It is apparent to me that you do not wish for success of the group, nor its mission, by continually blocking everything that is said and done.
Why don't you apply your GA principles to your own behaviors? If you are willing to block something, and are not listened to, it's time to either pull out or get on board. What's your choice?
|
|
|
Post by amadeus on Feb 9, 2012 12:41:28 GMT -5
Here's the evidence. We are struggling with a corporate identity that is regulated by NY state. The board members are held accountable by NY state. There are laws to follow, there are punishments for those that do not follow those laws. What part of those rules allow us to have a non-elected board in place? I guess we are supposed to run the organization like Occupy, eh? Whenever a window is broken, or a flag is burned, nobody takes responsibility for the action. That's great if it works for Occupy, but try telling that to NY state when the time comes.
From what I read of your posts, you have it in for Michael Pollack who is no longer here. Now that Michael is gone, you are nitpicking something entirely new.
I asked you once which committees you have donated your time and efforts to, and got no response. If you think you can do better than any one of us, volunteer. Until then, I see you as an entity with nothing to lose, and therefore nothing to contribute.
|
|
|
Post by sandymiracle on Feb 9, 2012 15:23:14 GMT -5
Actually you're wrong there amadeus. We're operating under the laws of New York. Sure. Because the founders chose to incoroprate in New York. The laws of New York, which I have quoted, clearly allow for an elected board. Which we don't have. No, I don't expect for us to run this corporation like Occupy. As our founder denounced Occupy, so do you now. Although we continue to court Occupy members, and solicit their funds, and claim to be in support of them. As for a window getting broken, a flag getting burned (legal, as long as it's your flag) Why are we doing those things? That's irrelevant unless you're just saying you want someone to blame. The Occupy Movement legally takes donations, without an unelected, self appointed board of directors.
Again, you have provided NO evidence that this was what the majority of MEMBERS of the 99% Declaration have asked for.
As for having it in for Michael Pollok, I don't PERSONALLY. I DO think that his name CONTINUING to be so prominent within the group is creating a negative impact on the group. I am supported by members who agree, and are asking the same questions on this and other threads within this very board, and across the web.
As for committees on which I serve, again, I HAVE given my time and energy to the 99% Declaration. I am not sharing that information with YOU because I KNOW that the moment that I tell you who my actual persona is, That persona will be personally attacked and my contributions to the group slandered, because NOW you don't like what I have to say. Without addressing it.
Nanette, Thank you for your opinion. I would love to be on the PR committee under this persona, as that is where the bulk of my expertise lies. But I don't believe I'm welcome, because I've made my ideas, reasoning and dangers to the group for ignoring the problems known to the group, and am accused, by giving the members of the group information and advice to allow them to move forward, of "nitpicking" and "slander" and "attacks."
-POINT: Michael Pollok is NOT respected within ANY revolutionary movement but his own. Which has also kicked him out. ("he resigned..." right... taking your passwords, slandering your members and OWS, your major donor base, too.)
So why not do as I ORIGINALLY SUGGESTED and publicly cut ties with him? The promised statement from the "new board" never even came, although I was told if I would just stop being so impatient, it was being drafted.
Members prominent within 99%Declaration still participate in Michael's "National General Assembly" page. This gives the impression that he was merely shifted to work behind the scenes.
POINT: The 99 Declaration's constantly changing admin continually censors and bans people. Yet one of the main cries of members is against censorship. Right up until they get the power to do it. Danie is going through that right now, from Dan. The infighting among members makes you all look terrible. The solution I offered was to STOP banning and censoring ideas that the leaders don't like. Let people argue it out, and let the only rule be that you MUST be able to back up what you say with docs and evidence, or you will be ridiculed into oblivion, like the REST of the free internet. Anonymous is TAKING DOWN SITES for this behavior. I warned 99%Declaration not to draw their eye. I was banned, and my Facebook account attacked and DELETED ENTIRELY to shut me up. Hmm.
POINT: The 99%Declaration claims to have no interested in forming a political party on numerous posts and forums. Point 6 on your website EXPRESSLY STATES that forming a political party is a likely goal, since we all know the powers that be are unlikely to adopt our resolutions. I suggested that this be reconciled before it becomes embarrassing.
The contributions to LOGIC and PRACTICALITY and KEEPING THE 99% Declaration from looking like FOOLS should be enough for you to quit accusing me of not contributing.
I've GIVEN you PRACTICAL, LOGICAL solutions to the problems you are facing WITHOUT requesting credit. Business and image consultants charge up to $500 PER HOUR for the damage control advice I'm giving you, gratis. I know. Trust me.
I am giving them to you under this persona because I have no desire to have my actual user information blocked and banned, because I WANT to keep participating in the group. If I didn't care, I'd just walk away, because as others have said, you are headed for an iceberg, and without some re-steering and quick, this is a pipe dream of epic lulz proportion.
I have not given up, although with 1K members, you have 40-50 who even bothered to make board accounts here. I am trying to show you WHY that is the case. WHY people are not engaged in the 99%Declaration as a viable solution.
What is the good of silent followers who are NOT in participation? That is what we have in our nation NOW.
And yet, instead of ACTUALLY LOOKING AT WHAT I AM SAYING, EVIDENCE AND ALL, you accuse me of writing for HOURS and researching for HOURS to try to get through to you, of being simply here to, what? create drama?
Wrong. I'm here to STOP you from allowing your own drama to take center stage as banned member after banned member goes off to where they will be listened to around the web and laughs you out of existence or decries you for a bunch of scam artists.
Again, allow member's WORDS to stand on their own merits. Allow them to fall on their own truth and documented evidence.
Michael Pollok IS a white collar criminal defense attorney representing himself STILL as a prominent figure in our group. This has ALREADY led MANY to be distrustful of us.
We do not choose to expunge him by issuing a statement of no-confidence in his leadership. We therefore, by logic, ACCEPT THAT.
If the only answer you have is, "if you don't like it, go away..." Well... Expect to fail when the media releases stories with headlines like
"OWS Splinter group founder is Child Porn Lawyer" (he is.)
"New Delegation Group's founder Defends 1%ers" (he brags about it.)
"Michael Pollok, White Collar Criminal Defense Attorney, Behind the Scenes of Supposed Group For Money out of Politics" (He still runs the FB page, and has not been denounced.)
"OWS Faction Disintegrates into Bickering" (we are.)
"Anti-Censorship Government Reform Group Censors it's own Members" (we do.)
"OWS Faction LIES." (we do.)
"Government Transparency Group has Shady Beginnings, Unclear Practices" (We do.)
I could give to shakes of a sandy miracle about Michael Effing Pollok. He's a worm. The ideas for the 99% Declaration aren't even HIS. He got them from a group of arrested protesters at an Occupy Meeting, and he ran with it because he saw a chance at leapfrogging the OWS movement fervor into political ambition.
He didn't expect his members to be smart enough to figure that out and boot him.
But instead of booting him ALL THE WAY, we've allowed him to remain accepted by the group. I GUARANTEE you he will be back, and heads will be on the chopping block when he comes.
The media, your silent members, as well as the anons watching and OWS members watching, are waiting to see if the 99%Declaration gets it's ducks in a row and actually stops being hypocritical, fizzles due to infighting, or somehow manages to gather enough steam to be worth crushing before they take any real power in this nation.
And THAT is the truth.
Stop attacking the messenger and start actually confronting the message head on.
|
|
|
Post by nanettejw on Feb 9, 2012 15:59:17 GMT -5
sandymiracle - I for one find your messages very informative - early on my gut told me that something smelled fishy - many people challenged the 'forming a political party is a likely goal" early on and were rebuked.
As for the PR nightmare you mention I can clearly see that happening as well. Given that commercials have been running on the Keith Olberman show - all it would take is for Current TV to get wind of MP's criminal representation and I can see those headlines being broadcasted - Not that Current has a true following of the masses - but it is likely that these are the very headlines that main stream media is looking for to denounce the entire Occupy effort - to which I believe has some really great efforts in the works - I'll be on a conference call to night regarding one of them.
As for why the new board hasn't made a public statement I don't know - I too expected something by now - but then working by consensus may be trying to get all the "i's" dotted and the "t's" - crossed... but I hope they say something soon.
I had no idea the MP was still leveraging the 99%D as if he were still involved - I didn't even know there was National General Assembly FB page.
I can tell you I was one of the people banned/removed from the FB pages and website - while I can still not access the web site - the 2 FB pages that I know of are letting people back in... the Ninety Nine Percent Declaration FB page was taken down and I do believe that it was because enough people complained to FB about it being a company named The 99% Working Group, Ltd being represented as a person which is against FB's policy. As well as, I filed a complaint because he used a photo of me to which I have an email specifically requesting him NOT to use my photos, he agreed and then turned around and used it. Being able to provide this information to FB - my photo was taken down within hours and I received a personal message from FB that they were looking into other complaints regarding that page and would have the situation resolved within 24 hours - a few hours later the page was gone....
Beyond that you do bring up good points - by the way did you get my message regarding the post where you thought I was suggesting you 'move on' - explaining my "wow" was a legitimate "wow" to all the time and effort you have put into your research? I'm sorry I wasn't clearer and you took it as if I were telling you to move on.. I was not - I was offering that there are other efforts out there that are working well to bring about change - as I mentioned, I'll be on a conference call tonight with Occupy about forming a Constitutional Convention - 38 states are on board to call a con-con which is the only way for people to effectively circumvent congress to make constitutional amendments - it is a lengthy process and I am just learning and getting myself up to speed... but, at least there are alternative efforts to keep moving forward should the 99%D fall down.... for me, I'm not giving up and will continue to support and explore all possibilities to bring change to our country - and I was merely sharing with you -
I do think your level of comprehension and keen insight is exactly what the 99%D needs - I can't speak for any of the working groups as I do not participate on any of them - I stepped up to be the Chair of PR/Communications in mid-December and resigned on the 30th of December because of receiving over 207 emails within that short period of time about how 'new' people just had to go along with what was already in the works and there wasn't time to redo everything - all that over a suggestion to develop a logo... it was the email that suggested I take my skills and find a 'place' where they would be better used that had me step back. I have tried to stay positive and support where I'm able but as a result I think I too am often looked upon as "trouble' LOL - I often feel the eyes role "OH here she comes again..." LOL
Anyway, I appreciate your comments - you make some very valid points. I hope whomever is doing whatever to move the 99%D forward takes the time to read them... Kindly /Nanette
|
|
rap
New Member
Posts: 25
|
Post by rap on Feb 9, 2012 21:46:43 GMT -5
I think you guys almost have yourselves convinced. And now you can get consensus on everything you do. Will it be 100%? That seems to be your mantra....all the people must rule.... Oh, and nobody suggested a "supreme" ruler. I personally don't believe in a supreme anything. But consensus, as a way of getting anything done, especially in a short period of time, is doomed to failure.
|
|
|
Post by forbesmb on Feb 9, 2012 21:58:20 GMT -5
I don't believe in direct democracy, either. It's problematic and puts too much power in the hands of a simple majority.
I actually like our republic. I believe it has merit, but that the laws have grown out of control and are now giving the greatest power to the fewest individuals... and most of them don't seem to believe in any sort of equality.
Let's face it, there is not a perfect form of government, not on any scale, large or small. We do the best with what we have to work with. The best that can be accomplished is to make the largest majority of people happy most of the time.
You don't like the loss of MP and have a certain dislike of the Board. I have posted having issues with closed door writings of the bylaws without member input. That's two perspectives and opinions out of many. At some point, we're all going to have to come to some sort of compromise and try our best to be happy with it.
|
|
|
Post by sandymiracle on Feb 9, 2012 22:41:37 GMT -5
Consensus is never required. Consensus isn't democracy. Democracy means the voices of many singing in unison drown out a few off key individuals. The song is never perfect, but it is beautiful enough. When you have many factions, all most either respect each other's space and operate indepenently, sharing when they must. Ideally they will rationally share ideas until enough agree to make a community. Those who disagree and are ignored will eventually decide that they have nothing more to offer and leave. Even I will, eventually, if I believe that the 99% Declaration is doomed to fail. Those who dissent logically and with reasoned, measured arguments become first beautiful, clear solos, and the draw other voices, until the song subtly changes and becomes something new. If the 99% Declaration no longer wants to hear the individual voices of its members, the board needs to simply SAY that. But don't be surprised if its members take all their hard work and support and go away. Some will stay. Lead the silent masses. Those of us who believe we should have a TRUE share in the leadership of our nation have no real interest in people who blindly follow when they strongly disagree.
|
|
|
Post by forbesmb on Feb 10, 2012 8:08:10 GMT -5
Sandy, you and I are going to have to agree to disagree on the nature of democracy.
In a near perfect situation, you would have only "a few off key individuals." The realism, however, is that a simple majority, we'll call it 51% for the sake of the argument, can dictate how the other 49% will have to live. "Mob rule" could, perhaps, be a more appropriate term. Society can be capricious and subject to whimsy, creating inconsistencies within the chosen laws and problematic shifts as the people sway back and forth on controversial topics.
If we're going to bring it down a few levels to compare it to the Board, I would not be against a democratic body of the people *and* the Board working in tandem, as well as maintaining a balance against each other. Direct democracy has greater stability on a smaller level, though it still requires additional elements and outside rules to keep it from getting too out of hand.
I believe in this "voice of the people"; however, I feel that there should be something to temper their chaotic nature and prevent a constant flip-flop within the rules and laws.
|
|
|
Post by nanettejw on Feb 10, 2012 8:28:50 GMT -5
To further answer some of the questions asked here - please see the posting of "Public Statement on Transition" I'm sure many of you will want to make some constructive comments there.
|
|