3, 2, 1, content! Can I get a point of content? Stand up and stack for each group to address this.
3, 2, 1, content! Can I get a point of content? Stand up and stack for each group to address this.
3, 2, 1, content! Can I get a point of content? Stand up and stack for each group to address this.
3, 2, 1, content! Can I get a point of content? Stand up and stack for each group to address this.
3, 2, 1, content! Can I get a point of content? Stand up and stack for each group to address this.
6, 0, 8.
Our group came to consensus. I think that this should be worked out in GA.
Oh yeah, we should go out and look for the Sunday paper. That was our opinion.
And then we had community groups.
What we talked about was if we are going to occupy this person's front line, we should make clear where we stand on sober space, on vandalism, and on other issues.
And for the sake of transparency, let his neighbors know, let the media know, so that if someone steps out of line, throws a baseball through someone's window, that everybody knows that that's not the line with what was named.
Guys, we're going to take stacks right after this, so let's let the group finish and then we're going to take stack.
We can't have a conversation about each one, so write down your thoughts, make sure you get them all together so we can take stack afterwards.
My group talked about we all voted and reached consensus on adding the ordinances that Jam proposed. Those need to be added to the letter we felt.
Some of us were kind of indifferent, but a few of us felt that the language of the letter needed to be changed, and correct me if I'm wrong, needed to sound less hostile and focus on working with manager Joe.
So my group changed. I had pretty much consensus on a number of points. The first is that we do want to include the note about our attempts to do this the normal way, like trying to be like, hey, this is something we want to do as a free speech protest,
and we work this out, we went through all those channels, we want to list them, so everyone knows that we went through those channels because local media sucks.
We agreed that we should occupy, that it has to be, again, positive for the neighborhood. We have to have strict codes on noise in the camps, and only people who are willing to subscribe to a noise policy while they're there,
everything positive for the neighborhood in general, that we think the public might respond badly to ultimatum language. We think that we should just say, hey, we're doing this.
We tried to do it the other way, but we tried to do this the other way. We'd be glad to leave, and we firmly insist, firmly insist, was the language that was proposed, that these resolutions be overturned.
There was a number of things, really. We wanted a separation of Occupy Richmond from Free Press so that there's no confusion about we're accepting this invitation from an individual. We are not endorsing this paper.
Most people here haven't even read more than maybe two copies, and we have no control over it. We don't get to vote on it. We have nothing to do with it.
The last thing is that I can't find what my last thing looks like, so I'm going to do that.
Our group suggested that we do some research about Mr. Moon and the Free Press to make sure, as Alex said, we want to hitch our horse through this wagon quickly.
We have a lot of people in here. We could do that quickly. The other thing would be to potentially just downgrade the language a little bit and say, rather than making it come off as a dumb man, so I'm just letting you know that if we don't have somewhere else to go, we're going to be in your backyard.
Just a suggestion. It was a suggestion. It wasn't a consensus, it was a suggestion. What else?
It was an offer and a suggestion, perhaps that instead of saying, we will be in your backyard if you don't meet these demands. Excuse me, because I think we all know that Mayor Jones knows that this offer has been made through the Free Press. We can simply allude that there are other avenues available to us in which we could.
Occupy, which I think would also perhaps take away the concerns about extortion, and it makes it a little bit more gentle, a little bit less heavy-handed for saying, hey, meet these demands that we're making regarding the ordinances, or we have other avenues that have been made publicly available to us that we could occupy.
I was in that group also. One other thing was, due to the nature of the location and its difference from other locations, we need to upgrade game if we go there, because while it's good to be next to the Mayor, if he mess up, it's very easy for him to see.
The last thing that he forgot, I was in his group, was that we need to make it very clear that this is not about having the right to camp out in parks, that future demands and grievances will be addressed with our government, just so our government doesn't think that we just want to camp out and complain, that future things and future requests of our government and grievances will happen.
Okay, should we take stack, or does a member from media want to comment on whether all of this can be taken in, because it seems to be a lot of the same concerns in each group, which is nice, because that means we can get consensus really quickly.
Who's originally read the letter? Josh, would you? Bobby. It was like a group of six people. The same six who were invited. And media, if separate GA, it was consensus upon that media will, we're going to have some trust in media and not all editing needs to go through GA.
Okay, so I'd like to hear from a member of media and those that are going to write the letter on what they've heard from the group that really needs to be put in, and if all of this can be put in, that would be great, because I think we can do that, actually.
Can we get a Tim check? We have a point of process right here. I thought that there was a concern at sports times, so running this through media and everything, I mean, wouldn't that take a long time?
Who feels comfortable with media taking these demands in and doing this?
Would it maybe be appropriate if members from media meet with anyone who is very, very interested in helping construct this language, like right now, when we bust this out in a smaller group instead of hashing it up, smaller group of people who are very, very, very invested in the language of this information, anyone who wants to be a part of that and do that now?
Can we take an official vote that we agree we want to do it? Can we do that?
Okay, let's take an official vote, although we agree that we want this letter to sit down, but we agree that we want to camp based on the insisting of some of these.
What's your made out?
I have a concern about the ongoing brushing of certain decisions. While you might have the best intentions of getting people involved, they might not be available due to the short time constraints.
Who might not be involved?
People that want to be involved.
Another made out?
I want to be involved all the time. I work, I go to school, and I give as much time as I possibly can. We can't always be involved when we want to, number one.
Number two, we have been two or three steps behind since the beginning.
Because we don't trust our work groups.
Our work groups, working groups, because there are a number of people who are really invested in being here and making this work.
We need to be able to trust them, to do these things. Otherwise, we're going to constantly be two or three steps behind.
You're right.
That's right. It's a very good point, but we do need to be able to trust them. And that is something that we can also add a little bit of a problem.
Let's take a practice and trust right now and do exactly what was proposed. Have those people meet the ones that really want to hash this out,
maybe even the representatives from each group to make sure that that group has every single demand.
See if they can't hash out a letter really quickly, because I trust that they can hash it out really quickly.
So let's see. Guys, can we give you like 15 minutes? Is that okay? And then bring it back to GA?
Who wants a little more background info on Mr. Boone real quick?
Sure.
I have a nice little article in style weekly that I can read out real quick.
He was actually considered the 37th most powerful person in Virginia, according to Style Weekly.
Take that as you will.
It says here, a preceding old school newsman. Boone mostly issues the internet in favor of his bully pulpit, the Richmond Free Press weekly print edition.
Behind the scenes and in print editor, Boone remains someone who city politicians and U.S. Senate candidates, such as George Allen, would be wise not to cross.
Boone also has stepped up as criticism of Mayor Dwight Jones, number one, in the last year.
Most recently, the Free Press has been a key voice in the city jail debate, stepping in to scrutinize the minority record of a contractor selected to build it.
Now, he is also a well-renowned civil rights activist, works with the NAACP constantly.
If you want any other information, a champion civil rights activist, absolutely.
So, any other information, come see me.
Maybe the group can meet in the back so they can really think about it.
There's a lot of room back there.
Anybody that wants to go hash it out and make sure that the representative from each working group, the small groups that we just did,
go and make sure that those demands are, those concerns are met by the letter writing.
We're going to get 15 minutes.
In the meantime, is there anybody that has any informal proposals first and then formal proposals while they're doing that?
Because we have 15 minutes.
