[Sdalliance] Agenda for our Sunday (2.26.17) Meeting & Self Defense Mtg at noon

Mon Feb 27 10:15:20 PST 2017

Can someone please provide the notes from the meeting ASAP?

On Mon, Feb 27, 017 at 10:05 AM, Bo Elder <belder76 at gmail.com> wrote:

> Hi all,
>
> I'm on the Next Meeting Committee, and I think it will be uncontroversial
> (in fact, I may be restating points made by others at yesterday's meeting)
> to say that the Next Meeting Committee should put at least the following 2
> issues, which have generated controversy, on the agenda for discussion at
> the first Delegates Council Meeting:
>
> 1) internal communications (i.e. not public statements, but for example
> communication at meetings and over the listserv)
> 2) chartering and leadership of committees (including powers of chairs)
>
> I think these are important areas to address regardless of any of the
> individuals involved.  If anyone want to do anything beyond this to address
> controversies that have arisen I'm happy to try to help as best I can,
> though of course I can't promise I'll agree with anyone's particular
> perspective on any controversy.  It would probably be most productive to
> contact me offlist if anyone wishes to.
>
> I'm very much looking forward to our first Delegates Council Meeting.
> Many, many people have poured themselves into CRSD over the past several
> months, and I believe the upcoming Delegates Council Meeting is an
> important evolution of our work that should make us proud.
>
> Bo
>
> On Mon, Feb 27, 2017 at 9:38 AM, Anne Barron <anne at prcsd.org> wrote:
>
>> Dear Ryan,
>>
>> I am suggesting a restorative circle to continue the discussion about the
>> discord around the Self-Defense Committee, to restore balance after taking
>> everyone's perspective and respecting their right to speak out, to come to
>> a group consensus around the purpose/role/participants within this
>> committee.
>>
>> Yessie or Mickey, as chairs, can you pls post our Safe Space guide that
>> we read aloud at each meeting, so we can really make sure we are addressing
>> each other with respect.
>>
>> the tone of Ryan's email I felt was disrespectful, and ignored my own
>> experience.  The chair didn't talk about the situation or address me at all
>> during or after the meeting...this is disrespectful from my perspective.
>>
>> Ryan's email seems to suggest he felt disrespected from my email calling
>> for a meeting?
>> so I propose a restorative justice session to deal with our group
>> disagreement.
>>
>> For those of you who missed yesterday's meeting:  I learned that
>>
>>    - the Self-Defense committee is now a closed committee (no
>>    explanation that I heard),
>>    - that I was secretly booted off the very committee I called for at
>>    our second Collective Mass meeting (without contact),
>>    - that we don't know who is on the committee
>>    - that there are no guides for chairing a committee,
>>    - that the group didn't discuss the problems of closed
>>    committee/powerful chair system
>>    - that the Self-Defense committee has created a plan for El
>>    Cajon/Santee without input from those people most at risk in those
>>    communities (fyi- that includes women, for those of you not aware of the
>>    police sexual assualts in our communities & harrassment especially of young
>>    women)
>>    - that our mission now is to strive to prioritize the needs and
>>    issues of marginalized people within and without our collectivo,
>>
>> So from my perspective and my experience at the meetings I was able to
>> attend and the emails, Where did we ever say "chairs are omnipotent"?
>>
>> Communications temporarily banned one person for reasons of disrespect.
>> Why was I banned from the Self-Defense Committee, and only told at
>> yesterday's meeting?
>> ....although I requested & emailed members of the committee at least 2x
>> for a meeting, and asked for meetings, that I attended one meeting, that
>> another woman expressed that she also had emailed the chair several times
>> without a response.
>> so for me, this speaks to Chair's unilateral decision-making.
>> Why did the other members of the Self-Defense Committee went with this
>> decision without at least consulting those of us excluded?
>> so trust is out the door already.
>>
>> I also felt that the chairing of the meeting was heavily weighed in favor
>> of "keep to the agenda", "moving forward", "we need to get to work"
>> (quotes). I abstained on several votes because again the procedural rules
>> were unclear, and seemed arbitrarily enforced.  We are all learning for
>> sure.
>> I want to add some questions to the meeting committee & will share those
>> with you all too. Can we also clearly tell people what the rules are at the
>> beginning?  And a supportive process for disagreement to resolve
>> differences, or at least deal with them?  One that supports emotional
>> well-being as well as group solidarity?
>>
>> I was also surprised at how long it took us to agree that of course
>> people who are not delegates but are part of the CRSD are welcome to
>> delegate meetings...open meetings for me are an essential part of
>> power-sharing.
>> I completely support closed sessions when needed, but only when needed.
>>
>> I completely support our points of unity and now want practice in spirit
>> what we wrote.
>> Will decisions be inclusive, processes open, differences explained and
>> how we hold meetings incorporate various practices that include
>> time/space/ways for airing differences.
>>
>> One of the parts of this Colectivo I really loved was the long
>> meetings/social hour so we can get to know one another. I spoke glowingly
>> of it at another meeting on Saturday.
>>
>> Let's keep that spirit alive, by working through differences using proven
>> circles of support/reflection/empathy to resolve this conflict.
>>
>> Anne
>>
>> Peace Resource Center is hosting restorative peace circles for the March
>> saturdays 10am-noon, for those of us who need breathing spaces.
>>
>> It also has numerous resources on restorative practices, and
>> incorporating inclusive common ground guides for multi-ethnic, gender,
>> generational, differential abled, gatherings,
>>
>>
>>
>> On Sun, Feb 26, 2017 at 10:25 AM, Mickey Smith <mickey.h.smith at gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> First off, that's a mischaracterization of the proposals being discussed
>>> at the meeting and of the summary of past business that was given. Second,
>>> everyone attending the meeting was to avoid discussing details on email
>>> because of the highly surveiled nature of email in general, as well as
>>> Google's enthusiastic support for the PRISM program going into a strong
>>> upsurge in reactionary violence. I strongly recommend people who intend on
>>> carrying out security work avoid talking so cavalierly about planned or
>>> unplanned activities, but that aside, ill ask you to refrain from speaking
>>> on matters you simply weren't present for.
>>>
>>> Ryan
>>>
>>> On Feb 26, 2017 9:59 AM, "Anne Barron" <anne at prcsd.org> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Dear intersectional friends,
>>>>
>>>> i see them pretty much inter-related, and that we need to think about
>>>> strategically matching fundraising, different types of community
>>>> self-defense (which I see in a much broader scope).
>>>>
>>>> I also want to check in with the larger Collective to see what/how we
>>>> as a group define community self-defense.  there was a lot of discussion at
>>>> the last Defense Committee about what the Collective meant by self-defense.
>>>>
>>>> I remember us talking about several layers of mutual self-defense.
>>>>
>>>> Our Teach-in discussion yesterday at the Peace Resource Center
>>>> reinforces this idea for me- that the system forces us to depend on it.  We
>>>> need to return to a village reality, where the village is the community
>>>> self-defense.
>>>>
>>>> so I will be there at noon, for anyone who wants to flesh out CRSD
>>>> community self-defense.  I just am seeing a bigger picture than stand-off
>>>> with local law enforcements during rallies/marches.
>>>>
>>>> best
>>>> Anne
>>>>
>>>> On Sat, Feb 25, 2017 at 11:20 PM, Bo Elder <belder76 at gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> I'll be there at 12noon tomorrow!
>>>>>
>>>>> I'm glad the fundraising was a success, and I think we should keep
>>>>> doing that sort of thing, but I agree with Ryan that that should be the
>>>>> purview of a fundraising committee.
>>>>>
>>>>> On Sat, Feb 25, 2017 at 10:23 PM, Ryan Stray <ryanstraysd at gmail.com>
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> I see a lot of these proposals as being outside the scope of the
>>>>>> Defense Committee. While it's true that things like housing, bond, food,
>>>>>> etc are things that the Defense Committee could work on, there is already a
>>>>>> housing committee (or at least one proposed), a legal committee, and other
>>>>>> orgs involved in Defense and CR as a whole have overlapping projects along
>>>>>> these same lines as well. I'm opposed to mission creep in one committee at
>>>>>> the expense of others.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Ryan
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On Feb 25, 2017 8:42 PM, "Anne Barron" <anne at prcsd.org> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Dear comrades interested in self-defense & Rapid Response.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Let's meet at noon tomorrow before the CRSD general meeting to
>>>>>>> talk/review where we are...I am so in awe of Bo's use of GoFundMe to
>>>>>>> generate the needed funds to pay off the remaining bails from November 9th
>>>>>>> (and many thanks to those of you who contributed).
>>>>>>> So I would also like to add fundraising to our committee work.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> see ya!
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Anne
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On Thu, Feb 23, 2017 at 2:50 PM, justin hewgill <jhewgill at gmail.com>
>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> All,
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> The next meeting committee adjusted the agenda based on folks feed
>>>>>>>> back.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Here is the new agenda: https://docs.google.co
>>>>>>>> m/document/d/1cBSgbuXjO8YGUM8wHR8JMTUhag7GLewykLHVMqJxhjY/ed
>>>>>>>> it?usp=sharing
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> We will NOT be meeting this evening, given that we already got this
>>>>>>>> together.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Remember we are meeting at *1pm, this Sunday*.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Justin
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>>> CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: The information used in this e-mail is
>>>>>>>> confidential, may be legally privileged, and is only intended for the use
>>>>>>>> of the party named above.  If the reader of this is not the intended
>>>>>>>> recipient, you are advised that any dissemination, distribution, or copying
>>>>>>>> of this e-mail is strictly prohibited.  If you have received this e-mail in
>>>>>>>> error, please immediately notify me by telephone at 909 636-6861
>>>>>>>> <(909)%20636-6861> and destroy this e-mail.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>>>>> Sdalliance mailing list
>>>>>>>> Sdalliance at lists.resist.ca
>>>>>>>> http://lists.resist.ca/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/sdalliance
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>>>> Sdalliance mailing list
>>>>>>> Sdalliance at lists.resist.ca
>>>>>>> http://lists.resist.ca/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/sdalliance
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>>> Sdalliance mailing list
>>>>>> Sdalliance at lists.resist.ca
>>>>>> http://lists.resist.ca/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/sdalliance
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> Sdalliance mailing list
>>>> Sdalliance at lists.resist.ca
>>>> http://lists.resist.ca/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/sdalliance
>>>>
>>>>
>>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Sdalliance mailing list
> Sdalliance at lists.resist.ca
> http://lists.resist.ca/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/sdalliance
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.resist.ca/pipermail/sdalliance/attachments/20170227/5b0c916c/attachment-0001.html>