Discussion: Quorum Action Against Daniel Lee

[Official Occupy Tulsa]

Dec 19, 2011 17:06:16 GMT -6 dougfishback said:

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.

Put from a positive action standpoint, I can see the merits of not disavowing.

But what of matters where the news stations are used to dealing with a particular person, such as with Stephanie Lewis? They may continue to deal with her not realizing that she no longer speaks for OT.

--C. J. Williams

[dougfishback]

I think then that OT has to do what any organization has to do -- spend some time making the rounds with the media, introducing the spokespeople, dropping off some background literature and a contact list, giving the appropriate URLs, suggesting some story angles they might like to cover, etc. It's a more proactive approach to media outreach instead of "do something and hope they cover it." That's pretty much SOP for groups that depend on media exposure. Cookies help, too.

EDIT: And I think it's probably fair to be up front about the fact that there has been a split, but that the GA and its spokespeople remain the best local representation of the movement.

[catfromok]

I think Daniel & Stephanie should both be blocked until they return the money they are holding to the GA.
-Cathy

[Official Occupy Tulsa]

Daniel, Stephanie, and her son, seeing as they are all 3 on the account. I concur, the money remains a sticking point, but alas is a different issue to charges against Dan.

--C. J. Williams

[shannon]

I think this has already been said, but disavowal at this point is a little silly. Its like firing someone after they've put in their notice. Daniel is doing his own thing and there really isn't anything we can do about it. I like Josh's comments on the need for us to focus on getting the money out of politics and holding business accountable to the people who support them.

[Official Occupy Tulsa]

I had a radical thought for the sake of peace. The OWS operates by means of separate quorums that lend their voice to the whole. (I'm not quite sure how they reconcile differences between groups, but we can look into that.) If that group wants to return half the money, they could operate as an official second GA under Occupy Tulsa to operate independently within a shared goal of GA to be interpreted by their group as they see fit. The only requirement being that they follow the GA quorum standard established by OWS.

If they can abide by that, then we can put all this behind us. If not, then we have to continue to do such things as inform the media that they do not speak for Occupy Tulsa.

As for Daniel's actions, we need to have his actions on record, so that the GA can make informed decisions regarding him in the future and table any sanctions except to uphold that he is not allowed to ever operate as admin for this GA group.

--C. J. Williams

[jetan]

In spirit, I agree with fireangel. But as a practical matter, I agree with Cathy. If no funds are restored it is difficult to accept them as acting in good faith. But thus far I have seen no interest from the parties is participating in the GA.

[Slydipthong]

Except for their OWN GA which they are apparently having the last Tuesday of this month at a midtown coffeehouse.

Dec 21, 2011 8:56:04 GMT -6 jetan said:

... If no funds are restored it is difficult to accept them as acting in good faith. But thus far I have seen no interest from the parties is participating in the GA.

[senuff]

Getting a little complicated here i think. CJ'S proposal for separate quorums/groups and half of the money back in good faith sounds pretty good. Dan and Stephanie are broadcasting everywhere for Occupy Tulsa, I think Dan's running the Twitter webpage, he started a Google +1 account OT, he started an Official OT page on Facebook. Tulsa World accepted Stephanie as a official spokesperson for OT in their 19th Dec article on OT taking a break. I see no way to stop them or anyone from speaking out for OT. We can warn everyone that they are not sanctioned by the GA on the GA websites.
They are also gathering their forces with meetings and recruiting and planning different events under the name of OT. Most of their posting and events go hand-in-hand with the GA's thinking. If the GA's will not try to diminish their groups, and they will not try to diminish or belittle the GA's forces, things might work out for the best. Some how the GA's will have to recognize them, and there will be other splinter groups in the future, as OT'ers, but with slightly different ideals and functions as the GA's. Getting along with splinter groups can work, if they screw up, let the public know. Also let the public know that the GA's are a separate entity.
sam christian

[scottm]

i'm concerned that this is becoming more about being the Anti-Stephanie/Anti-Daniel Occupy Tulsa Movement. Stephanie took our stuff... Daniel is a mean webmaster.... come on already. If our common interest is punishing these people, then we're already doomed from the start.

[ascent]

I think we've moved past that, Scott. I, and one or two others, were the only ones truly hell bent on Dan's punishment. For me it was because of previous experience with individuals making off with everything a group I was in possessed, but I've changed my thinking on the matter, as long as the Stephanites can agree to splitting the difference.

But just be aware that as long as the official matter is discussed on this one page, we don't have to worry about it disrupting anything. People are posting in this discussion because they want to, not because anyone is forcing them to. There are many other topics in this forum that need attention, only so long as people want to give them that attention. We can't force people to do what they don't want to do, or to keep them from talking about what they want to talk about. They want to talk about what to do with Dan, then let them.

The fact is, we have a matter here needing to be resolved and it's not going to go away by not talking about it and it is not disrupting anything.

--C. J. Williams

[dougfishback]

Forget about negotiating anything with Danphanie and company; they've moved on and are running their own show now. Any time spent trying to deal with them is time diverted from the key task of ramping up new communications and action plans. You don't stop Danphanie from speaking; the only solution now is for this camp to get organized, get in front of the public, and do it better than they're doing it. Get a website up. Authorize a Facebook page. Appoint media liaisons. Write up a background brief and circulate it. Schedule some actions and publicize them. And make sure that each and every communication is tagged with "Approved by the Occupy Tulsa General Assembly, mm/dd/yy."

The PR battle needs to be approved internally, but it is fought and won out there, and so far this group is still huddling on the sidelines.

Pursue the money issues, if you must, as a parallel issue. Don't wait to "split the difference" with them, because they've already tucked the difference under their arm and run about 60 yards down field.

[rionwolf]

Honestly we cannot nor should not try infringe on stephanie or daniel from exercising their rights/ we cant do anything about them forming a seperate group/ but WE CAN prevent them from being allowed to use the Occupy Banner because their actions contradict what this movement stands for!!!! And in that case if they did use OUR banner we could charge them for fraud! which is Criminal!

[ascent]

Fraud implies deceit. We can only prove that they made off with GA's things and hopefully its money. But if they're willing to split the difference, I think we should take it.

[dgibson]

I believe that the people who donated to OT WERE deceived. If it can be proved in court or not, does anyone here believe otherwise? And that is completely counter to what this movement is all about.

I just re-read the recent article in the Tulsa World in which Stephanie claimed to speak for OT. She referred to the Facebook page, "Official Occupy Tulsa (original OT)". When I had first read that article, I mis-read it as a link to the "Official Occupy Tulsa" page.

We don't even know how much money it is. When Occupy Tulsa stood up in the park night after night, OT got national attention. There could be thousands of dollars in that account. We need someone who donated money via PayPal--because there would be traceable record-- to come forward and demand an accounting.

Cj, I understand your wanting to make peace. But making a deal with them would send a message--not just to them but to everyone else--that, in the end, we're in agreement with what they did. That's what a deal is--an agreement.

Demand the money back or let it go. Have a workgroup look at it so it doesn't take up the GA's time. But people were donating to Occupy Tulsa.

postscript--I watched GA's in which an accounting was promised. Assurances made to the GA that the money was in good hands. Libel suits threatened when they were questioned.