- Mayor Sharon Quirk-Silva looks at Councilmembers McKinley and Jones disagreeing about Occupy resolution opposing Citizen’s United
The Occupy Movement in the City of Fullerton presented three resolutions for consideration by the Fullerton City Council at last night’s meeting. Two of them passed. If you want to know more, you’ll either have to either slog through or jump over my disclaimer.
[Disclaimer: I’m one of the chief Civic Liaisons for Occupy Orange County (Irvine & Fullerton Synod), in which capacity I’ve met with the Mayor, Interim Chief of Police, City Manager, and a couple of Council Members. I was involved in process of drafting the resolutions being considered by the Council, although I did not write them in their form as submitted to the City nor in their form as revised by the City Manager’s office — although I thought that that office did a very good job with them. I also spoke in favor of them at the meeting. I’m also running for State Senate as a Democrat and am helping with the Assembly campaign in the area. I also consider the Mayor and her husband to be political friends, whom I admire, but whose reciprocal support I never assume. I serve on the Democratic Party of Orange County E-Board with the Mayor’s husband. I’m probably forgetting even more things to disclaim. At any rate, I’m hopelessly conflicted — but I’m writing the factual portions of this story as objectively as I can, although the opinions expressed are obviously subjective.]
When Occupy Orange County goes to a new City, its primary purpose is to get people thinking about issues that are often glossed over in the media and are not in the forefront of voters’ consciousness, largely because too few politicians emphasize them. Part of this effort is to get City Councils to pass resolutions on issues relevant to the concerns of “the 99%.” Occupy Fullerton (as I’ll call it; the nomenclature of different groups in OC is sort of nebulous) had its chance last night to go before the City Council and push for three of its concerns. Two resolutions passed; one did not. Excited to know more? Read on.
(The text of the three resolutions are available at this link. If that link ever changes, please notify us and we’ll try to update it.)
“Move Your Money”
The first resolution is the most substantive. Currently — partly due to restrictions placed on municipal investments in the wake of Orange County’s notorious bankruptcy — Fullerton’s criteria for investment is solely determined by factors such as safety and liquidity. (Yes, at one time big banks were considered safer than smaller institutions. It was a simpler era.) The problem, as has been recognized by Occupy movements across the nation, is that big banks tend to shove all the money into a single pile and then invest it wherever they want; they have no more intrinsic loyalty to the local community as a site for savings and investment than does ExxonMobil (or Mitt Romney. Whoops, trying not to be partisan here, forget that I said that.)
Smaller institutions such as community banks and credit unions tend to reinvest in the community. They can’t do so entirely — that would lead to an unsound lack of geographic and sector diversification in their investment portfolios — but they do it more, in part because that close community relationship with those around them is part of what they’re selling. They “live here”; they don’t want to see the place messed up.
So what this resolution does, in effect, is to establish community reinvestment as an additional criterion for choosing where to deposit city funds. It won’t shift all deposits (nor should it), and it will apply only to institutions that can otherwise pass muster with the post-bankruptcy panel that reviews investments. But community banks and well-established credit unions — of which Fullerton has a few, barring the county employees one that might create conflicts of interest — should be approved without much difficulty. To its credit, Fullerton did try to do this before, years ago, with accounts in the Fullerton Community Bank — but that bank was since purchased by a larger institution, Opus Bank. Currently Fullerton has no money in institutions.
Four members of the Council supported this resolution. The dissenter was Pat McKinley, who let the audience know that Wells Fargo had been very good to him, and who from this observer’s perspective seemed to see this resolution as requiring total divestment from large banks as opposed to prudent diversification with community interests in mind. Other Councilmembers explained it to him, but to no avail. 4-1. Right there, Occupy Fullerton justified its existence; this was not likely to happen without our efforts.
Student Loan Scams
Like the kindest of heroin dealers, financial institutions love to pass out the first taste of easy credit to college students for free. These are the types of people who, after all, have life plans that lead them to care about things like their credit histories; one way or another, they’ll probably be good for the money. That means that if financial institutions lend money to newly independent and generally inexperienced 18-year-olds, they can bring returns of 12%, 18%, even 29%. That’s a lot more than you make in your savings accounts — am I right?
These legal scams are perpetrated by financial institutions and their free credit card offers on campuses all around the country. College students routinely ring up $5000 or so in outstanding credit — as one person testifying noted, cards are also sometimes mistakenly issued to house pets with human names — and then begin to settle into the joy of adult life in America, serving as animals to be milked for profit. And, yes, people’s lives get messed up.
This resolution asks the Mayor of Fullerton — currently Sharon Quirk-Silva — to be in touch with the resident colleges where these dark arts of marketing are practiced and work with them to get the word out to students about the problems of addiction and the questionable ethics of their “dealers.” This might involve regulations on marketing; it might involve counter-programming. The Mayor announced at the meeting that a series of “Town and Gown” (“gown” is academia; don’t ask) meetings are already underway and that this will be added to the agenda. Councilmember Jones spoke extensively in favor of this proposal, which passed unanimously. Again, it’s not like Occupy is the first group to raise concern about this — but we’ve helped make something happen.
Corporate Personhood
Because Dick Jones had started out by saying that he supported all three resolutions, the Occupy crowd in the audience felt pretty good about the Council voting to oppose the concept of corporate personhood that underlay the notorious Supreme Court decision of Citizens United. Not so fast.
More of my speech to the council regarded this resolution than the others, although I’m not taking the result personally. I told the Council that I have heard complaints from many politicians that they don’t like the huge role of money in politics either; they get elected to promote ideas, not to be courtesans to special interests. (Whatever else can be said about politics in Fullerton, the city does have a real clash of ideas in its politics. The Royce-Ackerman style “traditional Republicans” that make up the council majority clash with the Norby-Nelson style libertarian Republicanism represented by Bruce Whitaker on the Council and Tony Bushala and friends in the local blogosphere, and both clash with the moderate to liberal to leftist coalition that includes Sharon Quirk-Silva, 2010 Council candidate Doug Chaffey, and 2012 Green Party candidate Jane Rands. We should be happy if our political discourse can be about ideas rather than money, right?
Well, 40% right. Dick Jones supported the motion and Quirk-Silva seconded it. Then the other councilmembers spoke.
Pat McKinley just doesn’t seem that unhappy with the role of money in politics as it stands. Someone who wants to review the video may want to chime in with more of his reasoning, but I’m not feeling up to looking at it right now. If he wants more money in politics, he’ll have a chance to enjoy it soon when the onslaught of Bushala-dollas swamps him between now and June 5. The photo illustrating the story came just after McKinley spoke and before Jones rebutted his view. (I would love to know what Quirk-Silva was thinking right then.)
Bruce Whitaker then spoke. His was a vote that I and many of my young Paulista colleagues in the Occupy movement thought that we were going to get. (Yes, we are very much a broad coalition ourselves, with wild internal debates about Obama and third parties. Where we are unified, though, we are really unified.) As it came out later, though, Whitaker really hadn’t much been lobbied by any of us. Oops!
At least Whitaker gave an explanation for his vote: the notion that there should be no limits on donations, but that there should be immediate electronic disclosure of donations (by which I hope he also means independent expenditures), which he thought would allow voters to “consider the source” of campaign money spent. That is an alternative, but it’s a weak one — and, in any event, that system is not yet in place, and its would occur whether or not Citizens United remained in effect. But, anyway, that was sufficient for Whitaker to vote no.
Eyes next turned to Bankhead, who simply said words to the effect of “I oppose the resolution,” without elaboration. And so the motion was defeated, 2 votes to 3. I’m not sure how many cities have been given the chance to consider an anti-Citizens United movement since last fall and voted it down, but I think it’s unusual.
The aftermath
Occupy members walked out of the room somewhat dazed. For our motley coalition of Greens, Obama-supporters, Paulistas, and a few people who defy categorization, getting two resolutions passed is not chicken feed. But, boy — losing on Citizens United? Lots of people really hadn’t expected that.
To an extent, people agreed, this was partially our fault. The Paulistas really expected Whitaker’s vote. Jones was always the most likely (being the least “big money”-oriented) of the three conservatives to vote with us; and he’s also the only one who, if he wins his recall race, has the guarantee of another race coming up in November. But still — this, more then the others, is our issue, and it was a learning experience for Occupiers.
And — Occupiers are unhappy about it. That’s — what’s the opposite of hyperbole, hypobole? That.
I explained to them last night that, while I don’t know Fullerton’s rules specifically, under usual parliamentary procedure someone who was on the winning side of a vote can bring up for “reconsideration” at a later meeting. In this event, presuming that Occupy hangs on to the votes of Jones and Quirk-Silva, any one of the three naysayers — after being properly approached and lobbied by Occupy, which will happen — could bring up the resolution again and it would presumably pass. There are no guarantees, of course, but I’m cautiously optimistic.
In the meantime, though — well, we have ourselves an issue. If the Fullerton Council had intentionally wanted to ignite a municipal debate over Citizens United, they could hardly have done a better job of it.
I don’t think that it will be an ugly public debate — and as usual I’ll probably be tut-tutting from the sidelines. But a no vote on this issue, of all issues, is a big deal. Word was already gone out to other Occupations; what I hear now is that people will be coming to Occupy’s big event this Sunday in Hillcrest Park, the delightfully named “Occupalooza.” I’ve secured promises from our Occupiers that they will try to school visitors in our peaceful, civil-disobedience-avoiding ways. We have a blemishless track record so far with both Irvine and Fullerton (and even the time that we accidentally wandered into Tustin), and I’d like to retain it.
Presuming a peaceable weekend and an on-time departure, the problem for the three naysayers (more so for McKinley and Bankhead than for Whitaker) is that they have handed their opponents an issue and a motive. I don’t think that many people are up in arms to defend Citizens United, but — fair warning here – any Democrat (and maybe any libertarian, Bushala can weigh in on that) who doesn’t pick up this issue in the recall election just isn’t trying to win. This is a college town, after all. I don’t know who was advising McKinley and Bankhead before this vote, but this really would have been a moment where discretion was the better part of valor.
(My current conspiracy theory — maybe they thought that Whitaker was going to vote “yes,” giving them a free chance to vote “no” without stirring up the Occupiers in the run-up to the election. If so — and especially if Whitaker chooses the right moment, a month or two from now, to reconsider — this will have been one of the most clever political jujitsu moves that I’ve ever seen. The Occupiers seem to want to forgive Whitaker for his vote — if he repents. But they were real, real unhappy with McKinley and Bankhead. As I’ve told them, I’m staying out of this because I think that it conflicts with my own campaign (which isn’t against the Fullerton Council anyway, but against Royce-style politico Bob Huff.) I’m just reporting here what I saw last night. Any other Occupiers who are reading this, feel free to join our merry Commentariat.
Obviously, the Occupy resolutions were not the biggest news of the night — Michael Gennaco’s Report and the scheduling of the Fullerton Recall for Primary Day are each bigger parts of the continuing Kelly Thomas saga. But all of that was expected. What this is, though, is new. In a wild political year in Fullerton, the unexpected activation of an interest group with a sympathetic issue that will play well with college students — barring a successful motion to reconsider — may up being what mattered most about last night.
Fullerton politics — the fun just never stops!
By the way, the only thing I regret about publishing this timely story right now is that it pushes Vern’s story on the Fair Board down yet another slot — it’s been a busy day here at the Juice! Please do be sure to read it, Quimby’s story on Matt Cunningham and Orange, and all of our other fine products.
Gregg,
Here are a couple of reasons you broke many of the basic principles of the occupy movement…
1. Lack transparency: no audio recordings, video recordings, or minutes were kept during the meeting between Occupy OC and the City of Fullerton meeting on 2/14.
2. You mention this same meeting in which you are acting in the capacity of “chief civic liaison” for Occupy OC, but fail to mention it was only you and 1 other person (mike A.) who met with the Fullerton city manager on 2/14 to discuss the resolutions & the future of the encampment. You had an opportunity to announce this meeting at the general assembly the day before, or ask one of your contacts at the encampment to do so (because you “rarely attend GA” ), and did not do this either.
3. You just admitted to running for senate as a democrat, and Occupy does not affiliate itself with ANY political parties. Clearly you used your position as a civic liaison with Occupy OC to further your political career.
A 22 minute video of your announcement at the General Assembly regarding the meeting with the Fullerton City Manager and the future of Occupy OC can be viewed here under the transparency/city section (I am in the admin).
http://occupyfullerton.org/
Regarding the resolutions…
The first one, according to one city council member, has “nothing mandatory” and “nothing binding” in it. Furthermore, it doesn’t even specifically say the city of Fullerton will prioritize credit unions over corporate banks. Hardly a big victory, feels more to me like political hot air.
The second resolution’s exact wording is that the mayor will “contact the presidents of Fullerton’s five colleges and universities and request they consider policies” in regards to students being targets of predatory loans. Again, nothing mandatory or binding.
There is certainly no RULE that someone from OCCUPY can’t run for office, in whatever the hell party they want to. You can’t “clearly” show that Greg’s civic liaison work was meant to further his “political career,” you could more easily make the case that his decision to run for office is to advance the goals of the Occupy Movement – now THAT is true.
You are so much nicer than I am, Vern. This is a guy who when I got within a foot of him at GA started squealing that I was attacking him. I won’t be convinced that he is a (French phrase here) until he starts encouraging people to break windows. Then I may offer to serve as his defense counsel so long as he allows me to enter a plea of imbecility.
Jeff,
Would you have been happier if Greg had written his article in chalk on the sidewalk in front of the Bof A????
Jeff S.,
Are you the paranoid guy with an expansive sense of personal space who hung up a camera at the GA and said that people considered you a pest? Either way, welcome to the blog!
Re (1): Here’s an invitation: any time you want to get the GA to remove me from my position as civic liaison, you are welcome to try. All you would be doing is freeing up my time. As I told people in Occupy OC from the beginning, I don’t have the time to attend all GA’s, I don’t see the point in seeking the sort of transparency that impedes negotiation, and I don’t have the inclination to provoke yet another civil disobedience showdown with people who are tangential to the nationwide problems we have in the country.
If you want to do otherwise and go down the same path as San Diego, Long Beach, and others, that’s fine. But there’s no real reason to do so here. I think that the Occupy movement is strengthened by the diversity of tactics. We have something going here in OC that has required a lot of energy and effort and that cannot be readily duplicated; while we could just be like everyone else, that would permanently sacrifice the existence of this model. If you don’t like that, there are plenty of other cities where you can go.
Re (2): I tried to get the word out to people who have been involved as civic liasons, for almost a month and a half now, with the Fullerton city government. I announced in on the Facebook page that I have now used for months for such announcements. Only Mike could show up, but that was fine; we were just going over the final language of resolutions that he had drafted. Mike can attest that I challenged the city on several points, won concessions, and got reasonable explanations where language was changed.
There was no reason to announce the meeting at the GA because the people who have been civic liaisons already knew about it and the rest of the people were not invited. You, specifically, were not invited. I’ll be happy to explain why privately or publicly.
Re 3: (a) Regarding the personal insinuations, go to hell. I started thinking seriously about running for office after people started saying last November or so that Occupy needed to move in that direction. If I were primarily interested in an easy win rather than in furthering our message, I would not be running against the Senate Minority leader in a Republican district, you idiot, and I would probably follow other politicians in not getting too close to the rumpled masses in the Occupy movement.
(b) We — by which I mean principally me — have been putting together a slate of people who will run for various offices in Orange County under an Occupy banner. I expect that this will include Democrats, a Green or two, some people without party preference, and at least one Republican and perhaps more. I am doing this because I want to push the Occupy message in this county in a way that people in this county — which isn’t Los Angeles or Alameda or Riverside county — are most likely to listen to it and possibly come around on our issues.
Your problem is that you have no idea whatsoever, from what I can tell, about what political activism does and doesn’t work in Orange County, because you’re not from here and you seem to have neither the capacity nor the intention to learn. These issues were hashed out extensively in Irvine, in some of the most interesting political discussions I can remember. After being on the verge of civil disobedience, we looked around, figured out how we could best make our mark with our limited resources, and it worked. We’re a part of the county’s civic culture now, and it’s getting better every week. This isn’t the only way to do occupation, but it’s a valid way, and we’ve done it very well. If you don’t like it, find an occupation that you do like. Good luck and godspeed.
About the video: so?
About the resolutions: this resolution does not mandate that any particular deposit be made in any particular institution — but it establishes priorities that will inevitably lead to that result and that will be the basis for protest if that someone doesn’t happen. Right now, with their criteria, they’re supposed to pick B of A and Citibank and Chase and Well Fargo, etc., as proper sites for money. Now, with the change in investment criteria, they will be likely and motivated — this will be a popular measure — to make different choices and to keep more investment money in the community. No, it’s not a guarantee. It really doesn’t need to be. Go ahead and send it, without commentary, to other Occupations and see if it’s something that they wish they could achieve. Well, we did it — in Orange County.
On the second resolution, no there’s nothing binding there — but then again the city has no actual authority to exercise over our local colleges. What the City has is influence — and, now, the motivation and direction to use it. To you, this is apparently a small thing. Well, we’ll see how things play out. We will be aware of these efforts and will follow up on them; we’ll try to strengthen the Mayor in her “town and gown” negotiations with the city and to organize students themselves to demand better — or maybe to counter-demonstrate.
It seems to me that you think that you are wise in the ways of politics — yet you seem to understand very little about how things, even from a leftist perspective, get done. You seem to think that unless one has obtained a guarantee of a certain outcome, one has lost. This is so far from how social progress is actually made that I don’t want to put in the effort explaining it to you.
But hey, if you want to foment a revolution because that’s the only way that you can feel like a real activist, go for it. We’ll choose a city and you can have it to yourself. Create your own splinter group and show what a great job you can do. How about Mission Viejo? Nice big city! Would you like to try to create a revolution in Mission Viejo! Have fun storming the castle!
A luta continua. Oh, by the way: you don’t make the rules for Occupy.
And he’s one of those guys who will start out by purposely misspelling the person’s name they’re talking to. I know those type of passive-aggressive malcontents.
I resent that! (You know how often I misspell Michele Martinez’s name, but that really is an accident.)
Have you met our new commenter? I’ve only had the pleasure at last Wednesday’s GA. I get the sense that he’s frustrated with our success.
If he knew me he’d call me “Verne.”
Verne and Geeg. Hey, is anybody going to inform the public about F29 Occupy The Corporations action. Thanks Max.
Respectable intellectual debate usually involves disagreeing with ideas and criticizing specific actions. Name calling and personal insults are for immature individuals who can’t win an argument on merit, and so they attack the person instead of the things that are said or done. Gregg you did a lot of name calling in your response.
Since you brought other situations to light in your response, I will make some more facts known.
Fact: At the GA on 2/15 Gregg, you tried to bully me using your body language and got right up in my face in a temperamental response to my criticism of how the GA was being dominated by you. Fact: The facilitator, a 20 year old, 95 pound, Cal State Fullerton college student (who is absolutely gorgeous by the way) had to physically place herself between you and me, and verbally told YOU to calm down and step back.
You can imply I’m an agent provocateur and say I am trying to incite confrontation with the police and the city all you want(It gets done by elitist reformist trying to silence radical opinion at almost every occupation). But there is nothing to support those accusations, other than speculations and conjecture made about me by people who don’t like the fact that I have continually and repeatedly pushed for documentation, transparency, and inclusivity for every aspect of Occupy OC. In fact, the 3 encounters I have had with Fullerton PD are documented, and you can read about how friendly my relations were with them @ occupyfullerton.org.
I don’t know how many people at the encampment know that you are politician or that they are being used to further the goals of the democratic party (you sure as heck didn’t give that disclaimer at the GA on 2/15), but If the Occupy OC GA decides it wants to have a bunch of elitists politicians like yourself effectively running the show with the cities behind closed doors, than that is their democratic will, however much it breaks with the very heart of the occupy movement.
Again, you wanna bring to the GA some sorta new rules? That:
1. A member of Occupy can’t run for office?
2. A member of Occupy can’t also belong to a political party?
3. A member of Occupy can’t run for office as part of a political party?
Good luck on that. Not really. You gotta hard block here.
Jeff S., you have sacrificed the right to be treated with respect. But let’s turn to the merits.
(1) If you think that I tried to bully you, it is because you are abnormally cowardly. I did not come within a foot of you when you were setting up a camera on the post, or whatever you were doing. Laura did not come between us because she thought that you were in danger, but because she thought that you were not worth the distraction. She was worried about my smacking you verbally, not physically.
I’m not implying you’re an agent provocateur. I think that you either are one or that you are unwittingly and idiotically doing what an agent provocateur would do by trying to jam the gears of one of the few assemblages that is committed to tolerating you. Frankly, in what I am doing for Occupy does not leave time for messing with poseurs. The meetings were open to anyone on the Civic Liaison committee, which you are not and will not be on so long as I am on it — not because you are a radical (we have plenty of those) but because you are a self-indulgent crank. I won’t take the time to read about your encounters with the police, because I expect that you left out their rolling their eyes at you.
I encourage you inform the GA that I am running for office on (so far as I know) and unprecedented multi-partisan slate devoted to the principles of the Occupy movement — while you bear in mind that I announced my candidacy at the Occupy the Courts rally weeks ago, so it’s not a shock to anyone — and to ask the GA to remove my from the Civic Liaison position because of a conflict of interest. Go ahead and video it; that one I’ll be happy to march.
If you don’t like how we do things in OC, find another city. Or, like I said, we can put you in charge of Mission Viejo. Big city, lots of opportunity for you!
Are there bleachers at the GA’s? If someone is selling peanuts and popcorn, it sounds like it could be an entertaining night out.
LOL. Really you should swing by some time, I’ll show you around. It’s hardcore democracy, but this Jeff S seems like an atypical jerk.
Actually, TJ, at its best it’s amazing — the closest thing I’ve ever been involved in to being among the Founding Fathers, and I’m including Colonial Williamsburg. The issues that this motley crew (I use that term literally and positively) had to deal with were literally of constitutional stripe — issues of separation of power, of checks and balances, of legislative vs. administrative authority, of who guards the treasury and what it can be used on, of quorums and the problems of a body’s continuing legislative authority, and I could go on. We make mistakes and some of our internal squabbles are, in my opinion, wastes of energy, but even though the stakes can be small at times the dedication to democratic process is admirably real.
We also have to figure out how to deal with people who can’t see the forest for the trees, as you may perceive is at hand here.
“1. Lack transparency: no audio recordings, video recordings, or minutes were kept during the meeting between Occupy OC and the City of Fullerton meeting on 2/14.”
—–Defined: Transparency is operating in such a way that it is easy for others to see what actions are performed. For example, a cashier making change at a point of sale by segregating a customer’s large bills, counting up from the sale amount, and placing the change on the counter in such a way as to invite the customer to verify the amount of change demonstrates transparency.—-
as far as i remember, Greg was there, yes, i was not, should i have been? yeah, why didnt i go? because i had work… why didnt anyone else go? because they were not chosen by the OOC GA to attend BECAUSE they do not have the experience NOR did they want to BECAUSE they lacked the experience… so why did Greg go alone? because the GA placed its trust into him to only do what could further the movement as much as possible… so your comment about transparency is a bunch of bullocks… so stop bitching about transparency and learn what is really going on PLEASE for the love of god! i cant tell you how many emails from how many other occupations i have gotten about you! its SAD!
“2.You mention this same meeting in which you are acting in the capacity of “chief civic liaison” for Occupy OC, but fail to mention it was only you and 1 other person (mike A.) who met with the Fullerton city manager on 2/14 to discuss the resolutions & the future of the encampment. You had an opportunity to announce this meeting at the general assembly the day before, or ask one of your contacts at the encampment to do so (because you “rarely attend GA” ), and did not do this either.”
—- see answer one —-
“3.You just admitted to running for senate as a democrat, and Occupy does not affiliate itself with ANY political parties. Clearly you used your position as a civic liaison with Occupy OC to further your political career.”
if i remember clearly, he said HE was running, NOT that OOC has chosen him to run… and if i still remember clearly, HE is in support of occupy, where as occupy takes a non bias stance… and correct me if im wrong, in your comment, “affiliate” well, what about move on? what about move to amend?
what if im not mistaking, correct me if im wrong Greg, you did not plan to run for anything till recently? and seeing how well things are going and the way you would like to see things go, you chose to run to further the occupy movement? i mean, if i have a good sense in people, i think Greg’s a good guy to get this done (this last part is personal opinion and has no opinion from the OOC movement itself)
Thanks, Phil. As you know — and we’ve ended up on opposite sides of many arguments — I really try to keep as many people as possible within the fold, despite their disagreements and conflicts. But this guy really bugs me and I suppose that I should explain why.
You and I and Vern and many other people strategized from the beginning about how to make Occupy work in Orange County. We were both on the sidewalk the first night in Irvine trying to decide if we were going to move to civil disobedience right away or to give constructive engagement a chance. We both — as do most other long-timers — know OC and have informed positions about how we’re best able to engage the public here. We argued them out. We’ve worked hard and sometimes suffered to make that work.
Most of the people who have criticized us from Santa Ana, who have also worked hard to implement a more traditional Occupy model, still understand that we’re not saying that they’re doing something wrong, but that we need a variety of approaches because we don’t always know what will work. Ours isn’t perfect — but in many ways, some almost unique within the country — we’ve accomplished some things that no one else has, including now 3244 consecutive hours of occupation of public space as I write this.
A lot of people from places like LA would like to have something different — and as we’ve seen from San Diego you can do a lot with a “non-camping” model — but most of them recognize that the fact that they’re here with us, that we’ve kept the door open and the fire burning, suggests that we’re doing something worthwhile. Not necessarily “better,” but worthwhile.
Then this joker comes in with no respect for the thought and work that went into this and just pisses all over everything. If we can’t match his standards of transparency and democracy, despite all we’ve done in both areas, then we suck. And our accomplishments suck. And we suck as people.
People generally do that sort of thing — messing up a working system because its philosophy is not to expel them as most groups would — either because there’s something wrong with them or because they’re actually sent here to screw things up. (I can’t yet figure out which it is for our new colleague.) Some people just make lousy activists and drag down movements; I know that you have a few nominations of your own in that department. This is one of the rare times I’ve seen in the past 4+ months that someone is that bad.
The sad thing, of course, is that some local Occupty movements want (and perhaps even would benefit from) someone of his energy and perspective, but he won’t go find them. That makes me think that it’s not about the movement’s success for him, but about everyone doing things his way — or else.
Oh, yeah, you also made some comments that I had intended to reply to before I got all stirred up:
You didn’t have to be there for that last meeting, although you were welcome to be. All you had to do, if you weren’t going to show up, was to give me your perspective beforehand (as you did) and then to trust my judgment and my integrity, if you were so inclined, that I understood what we were about and that I would try to get as much of it accomplished as I judged possible. While I always stress, for liability reasons, that neither Occupy OC nor anyone within it is my client (unless we have a separate contract for something), I try to treat it as if it were, using my professional skills as an attorney to work for its best interests. I do this, for free, because I believe in the movement’s potential. To do it well, I need more flexibility than is available in a tightly monitored GA process, and sometimes I need not to have transparency so those with whom I negotiate are willing to talk freely. That is why people hire lawyers, to do this sort of thing. For this guy to come in and say “oh, your track record aside, you’re doing it wrong” just pisses me off.
As I’ve said elsewhere, while I had thought idly about running in the past, I didn’t think about it seriously until people started pointing out (I date it to last November) that the Occupy movement would have to start to influence public opinion through the electoral process. Because of my educational and career background, I understood that I was better suited to that than most; lack of money aside, I’m a credible candidate. So I decided to fulfill that need.
And I have further recruited other candidates who are either part of or sympathetic to the Occupy movement — including at least one Republican, one or (I hope) more Greens, and if things work out as I hope a number of people who don’t affiliate with a party — to run for various offices. We will share a similar message and theme, and we will reverberate these issues from one end of the county to the other. That’s what I think will forward the movement — and this assbite thinks that it’s sinister. Well, believe me, it’s a radical position for someone within the party, but I’m willing to do it. I’m not, however, going to take this guy’s ignorant insinuations without throwing them back at his face. I don’t need everyone in the movement constantly singing my praises, but I also don’t need this sort of diseased monkey hanging all over my back when I’m trying to build something.