Occupy Seattle’s Demands to Mayor McGinn As Of Oct. 11, 2011

1) To the Mayor

— First and foremost, we demand that Mayor McGinn meet with nominated representatives of Occupy Seattle in order to discuss our long term goals.

2) Practical Demands
— Four large tents for Medical, Kitchen, Supply and Info/Tactical
— Twenty four hour parking at City Hall (One space for supply purposes)
— Twenty four hour occupancy shelters for health and safety of protesters
— Twenty four hour access to first floor of City Hall for access to restrooms, meetings & etc.
— A written statement from Mayor McGinn regarding right to indefinite occupancy of City Hall site.

This list of demands has been so resolved and passed by the General Assembly of Occupy Seattle this Tuesday, October 11, 2011.

15 Responses to Occupy Seattle’s Demands to Mayor McGinn As Of Oct. 11, 2011

  • Ed says:

    are you asking the mayor to provide the tents? or just asking that he allow you to set them up?

  • JM says:

    I believe the team that put out this proposal did not do so in good faith. I was at the GA when this proposal was presented. I was told time and again that it wasn’t about leaving Westlake and that I should not raise my concerns regarding whether we should stay/leave Westlake. I was told that the vote was only about the “demands.” However, the CONTENT of the demands imply explicitly that we will LEAVE Westlake. This proposal was not presented in a clear manner. It was also rushed and we were constantly told that if we did not decide in the next 15/20 min, that we would all be arrested. We weren’t. But my point is, I feel like people who were pushing this porposal were trying to RUSH the vote, so we wouldnt have time to actually discuss the implications and content of this letter.

    • Heather Ayres says:

      JM, no one was told we would be arrested if we didn’t decide in 15/20 minutes. We started GA at 6:30pm and had until 8pm to send the Mayor our demands or risk a park clearing and arrests that night. If we sent in our demands, we had until the morning when we would have to leave the park because the Mayor would no longer allow us to remain there, or we risked arrest. The proposal presented was created that day in response to the Mayor’s demand to hear from us, and a group formed from those who were occupying during the day to solidify some demands, already knowing that a large group of us were ready to accept the Mayor’s offer of a place where we could utilize tents for health and safety and to support those not willing to risk arrest, but needing a way to participate overnight. In addition, that group went to each “working group” (of which I am a member of the Media working group) and received our unanimous buy-in before presenting to the General Assembly. Meaning each working group member in each group approved the proposal. It was made clear that the demands were to represent those ready to make a move to City Hall and to create two locations for the movement. And to recognize that those who did not leave Westlake risked arrest and that we would no longer have a food tent because the City would not allow it. We did not have the numbers at Westlake to argue our point any further with the City and we have a responsibility to those who need food and shelter. We understood that in NY, the initial drive of the occupation was to occupy Wall Street, but when that was unsuccessful, a park three blocks away was the alternative location. They made it work. There was an 80% approval from the GA for the proposal to the Mayor and hard copies of the language passed around in the Assembly before voting. There was a small group of strong dissenting views, but instead of choosing to voice their opinion as encouraged in the process (they were standing right behind me and simply refused to speak up), they waited it out and became part of an alternative proposal in opposition to the City Hall demands proposal. Many people who voted on the initial proposal left, not knowing that an alternative proposal was coming. Last night, I understand that many moved to City Hall holding true to the initial proposal presented. The reason no one that I spoke to wanted to present a proposal to choose to move the occupation to City Hall and call it officially out in that way was because we knew many wanted to remain at Westlake, and that even though they risked arrest and losing the food/medical tent, that they felt it was imperative to take that stand. So, remaining in solidarity, we sought to offer a second location for those who could not make that sacrifice. There were a few technical glitches in the Assembly process regarding facilitation and that is why we are reconvening today to ensure that we all recognize that we are united as “occupy seattle,” not “occupy westlake” or “occupy city hall.” (This is my position of what happened last night and I am not acting as a representative of Occupy Seattle.)

      • Heather Ayres says:

        One other point of process issue is that there may have been other blocks to the proposal of demands to the Mayor that were not heard, again leading to an alternative proposal being formed out of frustration with the process and wanting to prevent people from moving to City Hall. (This is democracy in action.) We are still gaining our skills at collective decision making through these tools, which are highly effective, but at times, under time constraints such as an emergency proposal, challenging.

  • Ed says:

    i think you should have submitted it as a “list of conditions”…the press, given their scant coverage of the actual point of the protests (which among others is to hold wall street accountable and oust corporate manipulation of govt), is construing this “list of demands” as the actual point of the protest.

  • JM says:

    Later on in the assembly, we discussed whether we should leave, or stay at Westlake and the majority of the GA voted to STAY at Westlake, and not move to City Hall. However, the MEDIA COMMITTEE REFUSED TO REFLECT THAT VOTE ON THE WEBSITE. Why? Why is the media committee now CENSORING THE DECISIONS OF THE GA?

    • kusuriya says:

      and when we the GA notes came out it was reflected. The statement was posted quickly to help meet the deadline. There is no censorship in the works, and no favoritism, Just trying to work together.

  • Ed says:

    @JM…according to the media westlake would be during the daytime only…dunno why you can’t be at both…do you need a permit or something?

  • Devin says:

    The previous post informed us that “The Mayor has asked us to give him our demands for staying at Westlake,” our DEMANDS for staying at WESTLAKE. While a few people reportedly went to stay at City Hall, somehow convinced that amounted to an occupation, the vast majority of us stayed at Westlake. Aside from the important issues at hand regarding which vote was the legitimate one, the people that stay out all night made their choice clear. Now those that can’t/don’t but attend the GA should still have a voice, but somehow we have to overcome the fact that if there are arrests, it seems those that are willing to risk arrest should have some greater say.

    • kusuriya says:

      how so? Should the support staff start treating you like the rest of the fat cats get treated because they can “purchase” extra votes? Can you pay my rent if I lose my job because you decided we all had to do something extra risky and you get arrested?
      Not everyone can risk it, and a lot of the ones that cant risk it are the support staff for the ones that can risk it. That’s just how it goes. but in the end also doing “suicide” arrests when a group is so small doesn’t help the group as a whole. Our movement is tiny in comparison to others and our resources would be better spent in outreach not legal battles and bailing people out of jail.
      just my 2 cents

      • Lake Desire (Ariel W) says:

        @kusuriya: in general a big principal of direct, participatory democracy is that those most affected by a decision get to make it, or get more say in that decision. That’s why we wouldn’t see EVERYONE voting on EVERYTHING issue in a society run by direct, participatory democracy. However, I agree that people who’d be doing support for those in jail should be part of the decision making process because I know how derailing it can be of other organizing when you have to drop everything to do jail support.

  • Anonymous says:

    This is what democracy looks like.

  • Dale says:

    Frankly, guys, while I’m with you all in spirit, your method is real turn off to would-be supporters. When I had first heard Occupy Seattle was happening in town, I went down to check it out. The area seemed threatening to me. furthermore, I cannot see how this kind of behavior is at all effective. It appears to be a group of mismanaged and angry people (mostly uneducated children) who have nothing better to do but complain. Tell ya what. Clean and dress up a bit, brush your teeth, speak coherently and with as much reason as conviction and I’ll join you. Keep doing what you’re doing and I’m more likely to side with the banks on this one.

  • bob dole says:

    1. No gods, No managers.
    2. Anger is a justifiable response to a fucked up world.
    3. I don’t wanna get dressed up.

  • sudopinion says:

    I think the suit really makes the reason.