January 8, 2016 — Structure Committee

Five members of the structure committee for the People's Campaign met at the main branch of the San Francisco Public Library on the afternoon of Friday, January 8, 2016. These are the notes Shannon Bolt created from the meeting.

In attendance:

Josh Wolf

Magick Altman

Esteban Pinilla

Justin Ryan

Shannon Bolt -- Scribe



Eric Brooks

Robin Goldman

Luci Strangegroth

Lori Milburn



-Have structure team meeting for 60 minutes immediately prior to member forums

-incorporate breaks into meetings



-we’re all learning this process because none of us have lived in a real democracy

- To discuss issues, start with open brainstorm discussion in larger forum, facilitator distills the major themes into a policy/decision/action, and the group aims for consensus

- Team should not be telling the larger group how to be or run meetings, especially since there is only one person of color currently in our working group

- “Blocks” can create problems and divisiveness/factions, the way to use them is often misunderstood

- 90% modified consensus when necessary

-Let’s not descend purely into electoral politics

- nonviolence as a founding principle

-limit lengths of stacks

-everyone should be empowered to facilitate for time length



-Founding Principle: Racial justice is a central motivator to our



-Structure: Vote 123 SF & Counter Police Commission and the other groups we decide to create will work together to form the larger People’s Campaign

(Josh’s notes on what I said) Address the issue of descending purely into electoral politics — this idea of the people’s campaign and vote 1-2-3 — vote 1-2-3 is the electoral strategy related activity — stuff that happens at the ballot — this happened a bit in the Facebook chat a bit — I do think that ranked-choice voting is a central progressive tool that should be central to our actions going forward — I think that we have not had an opportunity to — Americans are not used to living in Democracy; even our own attempts at democracy at the ballot, we don’t really know how to do it. Ranked choice voting is complicated; I think we should not understate that — it means a cultural change needs to happen — san francisco and california in particular has always been at the forefront of progressive tools such as the right of initiatives — we are one of two states among fifty — a lot of people who come to san francisco, especially from the east coast — it’s just like not living in a democracy at all — all the other states laugh at us because they think its a shit show — I think that’s kind of what happened with ranked-choice voting, it’s just kind’ve a shit-show right now. This is like a tiny little fraction of the kind of voter power that’s achievable through voter-based democracy — The police commissioners commit — we have the larger people’s campaign to create more frameworks for different types of work — the type of work that the counter-police commission does — their actions are informing each other —



-consensus is deeply flawed, but it’s the best option we’ve got

-on limiting stacks: if that many people would like to speak, better to break into groups to have smaller conversations

-what’s our legal apparatus for the organization?

-empower more people to use NationBuilder

-timekeeper’s main responsibility is for agenda timing though also needs to be empowered to wrap people up when they’re talking too long



-we need to structure meeting organization

-police brutality may be better addressed on a national or international level as a human rights issue

-create literature to educate about what human rights are, like a brochure

-police in other places are actually there to protect people instead of to criminalize them

-focus on education & empowerment re: human rights, methodology of our organization (transparency), democracy

-healing begins through the process of sharing our frustrations

-democracy can be built up through the movement of people’s justice

-meeting facilitation is important

-establish a Communications Team to disseminate information



Urgent decisions versus non-urgent decisions

How Call for Concensus:

  1. Call for any more concerns that need to be addressed

  2. When no more concerns raised, say to group, “All those seeking to affirm this proposal, please raise your hand.”


Still to Decide:

-What level of affirmation do we need to reach consensus? 75% 90% 100%?

-Con of resorting to modified consensus when 100% consensus impossible: members can

essentially filibuster to push for a modified consensus and lower the necessary affirmations

-Cons of 75% = Too close to simple majority

-Cons of 90% = Really close to 100%


Next Meeting Date:

Member Forum = Large Group Meeting

Team Meeting = Structure Team Meeting

-Location uncertain for 1/12, so decided to postpone for a week

-Build from momentum of MLK Day activities, but Monday not good because of conflicting events

-Next Member Forum scheduled for Tues 1/19 7pm (with optional 6:30pm group discussion), get consensus regarding move to Monday nights, location TBD

-Next Team Meetings scheduled for Mon 1/11 6pm, Tues 1/19 6pm


Structure Team Mtg 1.11.16  Agenda:

  1. Decision Making

  2. Who/How to Facilitate

  3. Draft Agenda for next Member Forum

Member Forum Agenda:

6:30pm meet to assemble “communication responsibilities” optional meeting

7pm general meeting

Be the first to comment

Please check your e-mail for a link to activate your account.