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

Tue Mar 7 15:57:13 PST 2017

we can meet next Saturday for the 10am peace circle on the 18th or the 25th
peace circle at 10am

On Mar 7, 2017 1:30 PM, "Erin Bodhi" <erinbodhi15 at gmail.com> wrote:

hello,

thank you alicia for checking on me. thank you justin for checking on me a
few weeks ago. i mentioned being an empath which affects much of my
existence. I am moving forward with caution and drawing boundaries for
myself as to maintain peace of mind and mental stability, literally. i
chose not to reply as to not further conversation and await us uniting
again about an issue larger than me, very much so nationally. I want to
address my shortcomings and dismissive approach. CRSD is something i was
invited into. i knowingly burned myself out and was never in the condition
to be more than the student. with that said, i plan on graduating life with
a Ph.d as best i can to move on to the next in peace and positive energy.
it is time for restoration.

On Feb 28, 2017 9:04 AM, "Bo Elder" <belder76 at gmail.com> wrote:

> Hi all,
>
> I'm happy to participate in whatever is useful for the people of CRSD.
> I'm glad we're talking about an in-person meeting that is separate from the
> upcoming Delegates Council Meeting.  Let me know when and where my presence
> is desired and I'll do my best to be there!
>
> Bo
>
> On Tue, Feb 28, 2017 at 7:52 AM, Anne Barron <anne at prcsd.org> wrote:
>
>> Hi, all
>>
>> The PRC is hosting a series of peace circles over the next 4 Saturdays,
>> 10am-noon, if you are interested in experiencing one.
>>
>> They are pretty much similar to the description Ben just sent out about
>> the Radical Faeries; each Saturday is hosted by a different facilitator
>> with different styles.  We hope to continue these Circles based on
>> community interest.
>>
>> best
>> Anne
>>
>> 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
>>>
>>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> 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/20170307/6a89255c/attachment-0001.html>