Discussion: Quorum Action Against Daniel Lee

[Official Occupy Tulsa]

This is an open forum discussion regarding the action to be taken against Daniel Lee to be voted on at the next General Assembly meeting. Anyone may lead off the discussion.

--C. J. Williams

[Official Occupy Tulsa]

At the GA meeting, I proposed that Dan never be allowed to be an Admin for Occupy Tulsa ever again. I think this is important because if he does manage to repent, and he by some miracle operates with distinction for any period of time so as to regain confidence in some, or by some miracle the group cycles out members until the quorum doesn't recognize who he is, it could be that he once again is given trust of a website. As unthinkable as it is, it is possible. But the fact that he has done it once shows a strong possibility to do it again. So if for no other reason than the possibility of it happening, we need to make sure that his name is on record as never having access to a OT website ever again.

Regarding the part of the proposal where I said to remove him from having any voice within the GA for 3 years, should he by some miracle repent, I'm not going to push forth with that. It was a knee-jerk reaction. My initial desire was that he would never have anything to do with the OT GA. To support the 3 year ban, when Frank stated it held no weight, I stated that it was a symbolic move as well as a protective move. But then it was later suggested that instead of a 3 year ban, that we simply disenfranchise Daniel Lee and not allow him to utilize the resources of OT and not be allowed to speak in behalf of the occupation unless he requests to be reinstated in which a vote would be taken and might be reintegrated into the group with limited accountability based upon previous actions to be discussed at that time.

The discussion was derailed quite a bit by discussion about the web page, which was not really the concern at that time, and impatience over the issue along with concerns about actions taken outside of previously agreed-upon punishments which lead to the discussion being tabled.

Regarding that last issue, I don't think there really was an agreed upon action, because no one saw it coming. But, of course, I still have yet to read the complete legislation of the GA as I don't know where to find it.

In that, as I understand it, there was an issue regarding a person who was threatening and dangerous, and one regarding a person performing actions without the consensus of the GA, but no concerns about someone making off with all of the GA's resources and property. And to say that this is comparable with either of the previous actions isn't fair, because it's a different level of infraction entirely and we need to address it separately. Yeah, there weren't rules regarding it previously (I don't think), but that doesn't mean we can't take action regarding it.

If we can't stand up for ourselves, how can we stand up for society? We're here because we have the balls to stand up. So stand up. We're not going to tolerate the corporations doing this sort of thing to us, so why the hell are we going to tolerate it from a small group of bandits?

I think Dan's being part of the declaration of independence from the General Assembly should require that in order for him to return, he must openly denounce the declaration of independence and reaffirm his belief and trust in a democratic body by the people and for the people, namely the General Assembly. This should also go for the others named in that declaration of independence.

--C. J. Williams

[fireangel]

This is from a conversation I was having with another member earlier today and was encouraged to share it here. This doesn't address every point you've made CJ, but it speaks to the spirit of what I believe a GA embodies:

"If he (Dan Lee) shows up at the next GA, let him come. Make it clear that he is given no access to any of our electronic presence (no admin privileges on FB or the website or what have you) or OT bank accounts or, really, anything that's official, period. If he can swallow his pride enough to just be a regular, contributing member and not have to be in charge of anything, I say let him. It's not that he doesn't have energy and conviction for the Occupy movement in general, it's just that he's too power-hungry. He can't handle being in a position of power because his ego is too great. Like anyone, he's got a flaw and it's name is Ego - if he can overcome it by being strong enough to still be a part of the GA process (which he's denounced, so I doubt, but you never know) but not be "in charge," then hey... he's grown a little. Think of it like the Grinch and how that story turned out.

What can I say, I believe in consequences AND I believe in change. But, the change part is up to him. We don't have to let him have control to let him into a General Assembly. I mean, hey, I'm not an admin, either... and I'm ok with that. Could he stand being just a "regular member?" I doubt it, but that's his challenge, and not our problem. I mean, the GA is open anyway... I doubt we'd make him leave without hearing him out, whether I'd mentioned it or not. And, I don't see him swallowing his pride enough to do that, anyway.

If we end up singing Kumbaya, I will take full responsibility."

(that last was in reference to inviting Mr. Lee to a GA for milk & cookies and we could have peace talks and sing Kumbaya... many of you have probably seen that comment... it was intended as an attempt at a sort of optimistic sarcasm)

Love to you all. I'm SO glad to see a forum back in business.

[Official Occupy Tulsa]

Yeah, that's a good point. I also don't want him turning the GA into a boxing ring. Kumbayaaaa----I don't know about that yet.

--C. J. Williams

[dougfishback]

The GA could vote to assign a "disavowed" status to an individual, and maintain a list of such characters. Rights, privileges, and prohibitions associated with "disavowed" status could be enumerated. There might also be a process for removing the "disavowed" status with time -- though honestly, I'm not sure that's necessary or wise. All of this should be documented in a set of "bylaws" or, if you don't like that term, a set of "policies and procedures." It should all be driven objectively by policies, evidence, and consensus vote, not by the heat of the moment.

[joshgraston]

I believe that any decision that is made should have a "review period" so that the issue can be re-assessed at a later time. Such as, similar to dougfishback said, if someone is "disavowed" that they can have the matter reviewed every 30/60/90 days or whatever. The fact is that instances such as these should be rare going forward, but it is always good to have not only a plan but a backup plan too!

[Official Occupy Tulsa]

I don't think reviewing is an effective use of the GA's time. If the person seeks to return, the GA can review it at that time.

--C. J. Williams

[dougfishback]

In principle, it is appealing to have a process for lifting "disavowed" status, but in practice, it would be difficult to know when someone had seen "the error of his/her ways," so to speak. It's probably safe to assume that a "disavowed" individual would not have had much subsequent involvement with the GA, so how would everyone know that the previous abuses would not be repeated? It's a "fool me twice" situation. I'm not saying it couldn't be done, but it would be tricky.

Also, since disavowal is, by definition, at odds with principles of inclusivity, it would be proper to invoke it only in extreme cases, when an individual's behavior could be considered grievous enough to justify permanent disavowal. In other words, disavowal would not be a temporary disciplinary measure, but a fundamental declaration of an individual's relation to the OT GA.

There may need to be other provisions made for addressing lesser missteps on a more temporary basis -- like a "sideline" period during which the individual could take a breather and come back fresh.

This all sounds unappealingly authoritarian at some level, but I think it's clear that a system where anyone does anything they want in the name of OT doesn't serve the movement very well.

But again, all of this really needs to be set down in a very clear manner as part of a complete set of policies and practices. If the GA has to reinvent everything on a case-by-case basis, it is both administratively inefficient and almost certainly inconsistent and unfair to those involved.

Just some thoughts to consider...

[joshgraston]

Dec 18, 2011 11:39:11 GMT -6 dougfishback said:

In principle, it is appealing to have a process for lifting "disavowed" status, but in practice, it would be difficult to know when someone had seen "the error of his/her ways," so to speak. It's probably safe to assume that a "disavowed" individual would not have had much subsequent involvement with the GA, so how would everyone know that the previous abuses would not be repeated? It's a "fool me twice" situation. I'm not saying it couldn't be done, but it would be tricky.

Also, since disavowal is, by definition, at odds with principles of inclusivity, it would be proper to invoke it only in extreme cases, when an individual's behavior could be considered grievous enough to justify permanent disavowal. In other words, disavowal would not be a temporary disciplinary measure, but a fundamental declaration of an individual's relation to the OT GA.

There may need to be other provisions made for addressing lesser missteps on a more temporary basis -- like a "sideline" period during which the individual could take a breather and come back fresh.

This all sounds unappealingly authoritarian at some level, but I think it's clear that a system where anyone does anything they want in the name of OT doesn't serve the movement very well.

But again, all of this really needs to be set down in a very clear manner as part of a complete set of policies and practices. If the GA has to reinvent everything on a case-by-case basis, it is both administratively inefficient and almost certainly inconsistent and unfair to those involved.

Just some thoughts to consider...

I completely agree with your thought process, mine is just one that is oriented around never seeming as if we are attempting to "exclude". One of the biggest complaints that I have seen cast against the previous Organizers was that they would ban and block and censure without merit and without hesitation.

I just want to make sure that we, as Occupy Tulsa, have methodologies in place to ensure that any action that is taken is done in a precious and efficient manner.

In addition, I feel that ANY decision that is made should have a clause or method of remedy later on. This is a new method of thought for me, actually largely based on the recent NDAA decisions in the media/politics.

Whether the decision is based on a set number of months or years, or whether it is simply a removal of power, those decisions reside with the GA.

As I was not present for a lot of the drama, nor have my posts ever been censored or removed, I have no personal opinion in what punishment/retribution should be handed down.

Here are my thoughts that I do feel secure in sharing:
- Ownership/Fiscal Responsibility of Occupy Tulsa funds should be reallocated to a GA-approved source.

- The ability to speak/make executive decisions as an Official Organizer of Occupy Tulsa be revoked for a yet to be determined amount of time.

- Before the ability to have a voice in the GA is returned all aggressive actions against the General Assembly cease (the Revolutionary Group, Press Releases, ETC).

This movement has gotten too far off of track, sadly due to falling out among the ranks and interpersonal drama.

I just want to see us fighting the 1%, the economic inequality, the political injustices, the REAL fight.

Thanks for reading!
Josh Graston

[Official Occupy Tulsa]

From what I can see, all the interpersonal drama seems to be stemming from this small group, of which Daniel Lee is currently the spokesperson. As spokesperson, he is the one tossing up lies and causing much turmoil and his group hasn't once attempted to speak out against his words and actions, which is a form of "silent consent".

But for now, he is the one under discussion and we need to form policy for dealing with him and anyone who does what he's been doing. As distasteful as it is, it is necessary.

That said, there are many other things to discuss and I've posted those threads. You can post there if you don't think you should be spending your time on this issue, leaving those of us who think it important, and who have actual evidence and are witness to Daniel Lee's guilt, can discuss the matter.

I created this forum so that we can discuss such things here instead of taking up the GA meeting time.

So with this flow valve in place, there really is no excuse for not discussing it and no excuse for telling others not to. Each person can choose whether to discuss it or not for themselves and have a means to do so in their own due time.

This is an open forum discussion regarding the action to be taken against Daniel Lee to be voted on at the next General Assembly meeting. Anyone may lead off the discussion.

--C. J. Williams

[fragro]

I am going to block anything that involves removing someone from the GA.

We removed Stephanie's admin privilege, because that is a privilege that can be revoked. No one is born with admin privileges, despite the flowery attempt by the "revolutionaries" to conflate those privileges as some right.

However I believe that voting is a right. Daniel Lee flipped out and violated the Facebook rules, but that's not an issue any more thanks to anonymous. Sure he will continue to rant and rave.

But the more we waste our time thinking, considering, or discussing these people the more they win. They are attention whores that want to be at the center of everything. Our greatest weapon is to ignore them completely and never speak of them again. This hurts them the most because they feed off of conflict that they create. Daniel doesn't care if we "throw him out" of the GA.

If he comes back, ignore him. Put him on stack. Treat him like a random person, go offer to explain the consensus process to him. Anything but focusing more of anyone's time satisfying their desire to be the center of attention.

The greatest weapon against trolls is to ignore them.

[Official Occupy Tulsa]

We can't ignore them and permit them to speak. They could simply keep coming to the GA meetings simply to disrupt the meetings. Or they could continue to keep coming to this site and disrupting the harmony.

You can't have it both ways. If they are cut off from avenues to speak, then they can't disrupt the harmony. Once we make the decision, we won't have to consider them any further.

Again, this process may be distasteful, but it is necessary if we want to regain peace within the group, otherwise Daniel will continue to disrupt our harmony.

Do you really think that someone who doesn't respect democracy is going to stand by and be put on stack?

You're applying an altruism that is not an altruism. The greatest weapon against trolls is to take their voice away. Ignoring them is just one small expression of that that is not possible at a public meeting, where voices, not text, are being forced within our hearing. What are we supposed to do while he's at a meeting? Cover our ears while he rants during the whole meeting and disrupts every talking point? Talk over him, maybe? Clearly that is not practical.

We need to exercise forethought, not just addressing what he has done, but addressing what he might do based upon his behavior up to this point. We can't afford to put it past him. If we do, then we're just going to end up re-addressing the issue and he then has created further disruption. He wants us to give up. If we "just ignore him", then HE wins, not us, because there is no way to disrupt a voice. It's our weapon as activists, and being an activist, he's well versed in his own ability to use the voice. If he wants to stand away at 50 paces in order to perform his protest, THEN we can ignore him and carry on. But if he is inside the group, whether online or at the assembly, there might be nothing but disruption. Let's just not give him the chance.

Prisoners in prison lose their right to vote or do anything to disrupt the political process, but all that is being asked here is to simply take away his voice from the group. He spoke against democracy. He spoke against the majority. We are not corporations or corporate-controlled politicians. We are people who have as much right to be heard as anyone else, But when a person tries to take away the voice of the majority through disruptive action and contempt for no other reason that being outvoted, the majority needs to take away the voice of that person rather than let that person continue to disrupt the process.

--C. J. Williams

[Sandra]

I see Frank's point and agree. Daniel does not recognize the GA, and I don't believe Stephanie does either. I don't expect them to return to meetings, and if they do, I'd propose treating them like anyone else (ie expect them to follow meeting process, take turns speaking, be respectful of others).

That said, the process or policy of choosing admins would hopefully involve some type of group consensus that would exclude either of them from being admins in the future, should they choose to be a part of the group.

A mediation process would help all around, since this has been a recurring issue (Stephanie, Daniel, Rion and Roberto). If there were a mediation group, or facilitation & mediation group, that could listen to all sides and make a recommendation to GA if needed, it would aid a full discussion with a smaller group, and avoid taking up as much time at GA, while providing GA members with more information to make a decision.

[Official Occupy Tulsa]

Good point on the mediation process. The Good Neighbor Policy in the proposal to adopt OWS procedures and official positions refers to a community relations representative to respond to community concerns and complains.

--C. J. Williams

[dougfishback]

I think their declaration of "no confidence" in the GA is enough to establish the break, acting from their side alone. From what I've observed on live stream, I also think the current consensus process could probably deal with their presence at a GA. The piece that I wonder about is something that makes it clear to the rest of the world that these people no longer speak for and act on behalf of the GA. I don't see it as dealing out punishment as much as it is a way of clarifying an individual's role within the movement.

Maybe, then, it's not a matter of maintaining a "Disavowed" list, but a matter of maintaining lists of "Appointed Spokespeople," "Official Actions," etc. Keep it positive, but make it very visible. Have something that you can point to and say, "No, that person was not officially speaking on behalf of Occupy Tulsa, as you can see from our list." As with the Facebook admin privileges, those roles could then be revoked while leaving an individual's basic rights intact.

Having said all this, I still think it's a matter of time, though, before someone either shows up and decides to block everything, or does some kind of extreme action in the name of OT that will have to be dealt with.