Structure Of Facilitating Proposals

“The Skeleton”

This draft results from discussions held during the Facilitation Team meetings on 10/8, 10/9 and discussion during the decision making process meeting on 10/9.

On the Nature of the Structure

This structure is specifically oriented to the unique and complex nature of the General Assembly as a decision making body and is an evolving, living process. It seeks to build upon the successes, failures, insights and reflections experienced during the facilitation of the General Assemblies of Occupy Portland. It also draws on the combined and diverse facilitation experience of the Facilitation Team. It can and should change over time to improve and thus better serve the decision making process of the General Assembly.

On the Necessity of Participation

An active and engaged participation by the General Assembly is required for the success of this structure. We believe this level of participation is reflective and appropriate to the participatory and collective nature of Occupy Portland. Participation through hand signals is CRITICAL to informing both the General Assembly and the facilitators as to the level of support and opposition to objections, supporting statements, solutions and amendments as they relate to a proposal. Participants of the General Assembly cannot be passive listeners. They should be active in their listening and use the approving and disapproving hand signals to communicate both with each other and the facilitators the level of support or opposition to the statements of a given speaker. They should also engage in a practice of looking to note the levels of support and opposition among the General Assembly for any given statement. Active, engaged and experienced facilitators are not enough to hold a successful and effective meeting. It is only through collaboration of such a team of facilitators with an active and engaged audience that such success is possible. The General Assembly is at its core a communicative, collective and dynamic exchange between individual participants as well as between the facilitator and the combined body.

Steps Summary: (1) Proposal announcement, (2) 3-5 Clarifying questions, (3) Objections (10 minutes), (4) “Proposal evolution” and discussion (15 minutes), (5) “Temperature Check”, (6)“Seek consensus”

Steps Detail

1. Proposal announcement
a. Proposer remains and is present for clarifying questions

2. 3-5 Clarifying questions

3. Objections (10 minutes)
a. This is NOT discussion
b. During the period of objections the facilitator should at least once (probably at the end), though more than once may be necessary, state their synthesis of the objections raised. This synthesis should aim to capture and articulate the main objections of the GA. This allows the facilitator to check and receive feedback on their understanding of the objections. It also allows for the GA to understand and further process the core objections for the next step.
c. More time may be added as necessary

4. “Proposal evolution” and discussion (15 minutes)
a. NOTE/EXPLANATION – This is a different paradigm than “friendly amendments”. Once the proposal has entered this stage it no longer is “owned” by the group or individual that brought it forward. It is now worked on by the assembly, in the spirit of consensus, to achieve greater and greater levels of agreement. This refinement will also address concerns and should ideally produce an evolved proposal that improves upon the original and meets the needs of the GA through this dynamic, collective process.
b. This is also a place for individuals to express their support for the proposal and articulate new reasons why this proposal furthers the work of Occupy Portland
c. Objections in this step should ONLY address proposed amendments or solutions that DO NOT address the original objection raised.
d. Over the course of this discussion as amendments, solutions or options are raised that address the concerns of the assembly the facilitator should allow the proposal to evolve in their mind. This evolution should reflect the concerns and discussion about the proposal. It should be informed by the participation, through hand signals, of the assembly. This work should be assisted by a support facilitator, who is keeping notes and intentionally moving through these same steps mentally. These facilitators may and should caucus as necessary to compare their thoughts on this evolution.
e. Move to step (5) as necessary
f. More time may be added as necessary

5. “Temperature check”
a. State the evolved proposal
b. Ask if the evolved proposal still meets the needs of the proposal presenter – this is particularly important in this case of proposals originating from working groups.
i. If it does not depending on the proposal and the nature of the discussion it may be appropriate to table the discussion or continue the process if the proposal can be the basis of action for others and receives significant support from the GA.
c. Record the “temperature” for notes. Return to step (4) if necessary. There is a dynamic relationship between steps (4) and (5).
d. After the allotted time for step (4) has passed and there is not sufficient support to “seek consensus” the proposal should be sent back to the individual or working group that brought it forward. Space should be given for meetings or connections to be made as needed to facilitate this happening.

6. “Seek consensus”
a. State evolved proposal
b. Ask for remaining, unaddressed and previously unstated concerns
c. Note that abstentions will be recorded through non-participation
d. Ask for stand asides
i. A stand aside notes a significant remaining objection, that may prevent the participation of the individual, but which does not require them to block the proposal.
e. “Seek consensus” of the General Assembly
f. State level of consensus noting abstentions, stand asides and blocks
i. If it is 100% then the proposal has unanimous consent
ii. If it is between 100% and 90% the proposal has the approval of the General Assembly
iii. If it is less than 90% it does not have approval
1. OPTION A – This should be noted and space should be given for meetings or connections to be made to reword and resubmit the proposal
2. OPTION B – IF urgent the process can return to step (4)
iv. In the case of an approving consensus the proposer should state next steps and/or meetings as appropriate in order to move forward with action