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

Mon Feb 27 22:11:30 PST 2017

✌

On Mon, Feb 27, 2017 at 3:52 PM, Benjamin <organizer at voicesrally.org> wrote:

> Hello All,
>
> I'm just going to speak of my own limited experience with the possibility
> that it might be of value to someone here.
>
> The few times I've participated in this alliance, I've witnessed a bit of
> power struggle, identity politics and pontificating the superiority one's
> own moral stance.  It doesn't feel right to me...it doesn't feel like the
> *radical* response I want for the shit happening in the world today.
> Again, just speaking for myself.
>
> Maybe the most radical/revolutionary thing each of us can do, is the thing
> that it seems most of us are not doing (I suppose that could be a
> definition of *radical* jejejeje).  That is  ~speaking from a place of
> vulnerability (vs rightness)~~listening from a place openness (vs
> judgement).  In my own relationships, this sort of orientation creates the
> highest level of accountability with those that participate.  Conversely,
> when most of my speech is dedicated to "you" (you did this, you said that),
> I have abdicated the responsibility of sharing and investigating my own
> actions/experience/thoughts/feelings.
>
> A group that I think has really earned the title of *radical* is The
> Radical Faeries.  They have a wonderfully simple practice called heart
> circle, that I personally would love to adapt to this group.
> https://www.albionfaeries.org.uk/heart-circles/
>
> feel free to call me if anyone would like to discuss.
>
> sincerely,
> Benjamin
> they/them/their
> 619-792-0925 <(619)%20792-0925>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> On Mon, Feb 27, 2017 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
>>
>>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20170227/1bd4203f/attachment-0001.html>