Dear Sudoroom,
There is an issue of great importance to Omni Commons being discussed on the
public Consensus email list, and Sudoroom needs to convene and discuss our
position so that our delegate can represent us in this discussion.
Basically a relatively new member collective of Omni (CLP) is unilaterally
blocking TANC (Tenant And Neighborhood Councils) from joining Omni Commons.
https://baytanc.com/
They have given shifting reasons for their opposition but it's starting to
look like CLP is actually some sort of radical group that is trying to control
Omni. They literally say so on their website:
"Omni Commons Reorganization Program May 2022-Present (Oakland, CA)
Our organization was invited to be a part of the Omni Commons in May of 2022.
CLP has revitalized the work at the Omni, making efforts to engage the local
community and host events in the space. We are seeking to revitalize and
revolutionize the space as a base for building revolutionary power and
programs in the East Bay."
https://www.communityliberationprograms.org/our-programs
This needs to get figured out right away. TANC has the enthusiastic approval
of all collectives of Omni except for CLP and they were ready to move into the
building and start paying rent (something that CLP does not do at all) which
is something we really need if we have any hope of keeping the building.
Meeting notes from September 7th delegates meeting:
https://omnicommons.org/wiki/Event:2023/09/07_Delegates
Public archive of Omni Consensus mailing list for September:
https://omnicommons.org/pipermail/consensus/2023-September/date.html
We (sudoroom) really need to discuss this
-jake (sometimes delegate of sudoroom)
---------- Forwarded message ----------
Date: Sun, 10 Sep 2023 11:22:50 -0700
From: Z Silver Zahn <natashazahn27(a)gmail.com>
To: Sarah Lockhart <sarah.ee.el(a)gmail.com>
Cc: "consensus(a)lists.omnicommons.org" <consensus(a)lists.omnicommons.org>rg>,
communityliberationprograms <communityliberationprograms(a)proton.me>
Subject: Re: [omni-consensus] Follow-up 9/7 Delegates Meeting
Over the past few months, TANC has been diligently working through the
Omnis collective process to propose becoming a collective organization
within Omni. Unfortunately, CLP has launched a counterattack aimed at
blocking our proposal from moving forward.
I would like to highlight some concerning actions that CLP has taken, which
have raised alarms within the Omni community and appear to be driven more
by personal political agendas than the collective interest of Omni. CLP's
actions have stirred deep mistrust among the collectives, but I believe
this issue should be framed as CLP versus TANC, rather than Omni versus
TANC. The nature of the concerns raised by CLP should be shared with the
collectives during our meetings rather than springing them on us without
prior consensus.
During our recent meeting, CLP raised concerns about the composition of
TANC's membership, specifically that it is predominantly made up of DSA
members. DSA, a nationwide socialist organization, had previously disbanded
the Palestinian Youth Movement (PYM) from decision-making roles in one of
its chapters. It's essential to clarify that this viewpoint does not
necessarily reflect the beliefs of East Bay DSA, an organization that we
collaborate with and host at Omni. During the meeting, many articles and
pieces of information were presented hastily, making it challenging to
understand the full context. It was also mentioned that TANC originated
from DSA but diverged due to shifting political views, which led to its
independent organizing.
Members of TANC at the delegate meeting clarified that some of them were
not affiliated with DSA, and those who were represented a small portion of
TANC's overall membership. However, CLP continued to press for more
information about DSA, turning the discussion into an examination of DSA
rather than focusing on TANC as a collective. CLP's actions demonstrated a
lack of trust and an unwavering fixation on their assumptions. This
behavior can be seen as gaslighting and hindered our efforts to build a
productive relationship. It denied us the opportunity to truly connect and
collaborate. Such accusations, withholding valuable resources from a
mission-aligned collective, resembles an abusive weaponization of power.
CLP's motives remain unclear, but their tactics bear resemblance to
colonization—imposing a superior ideology on others.
It is worth noting that every other collective expressed support for TANC
joining Omni, and I personally have built trust and enthusiasm for this
prospect. However, CLP has remained private and closed off in the past
year, contributing to a sense of isolation.
In addition to gaslighting and a fixation on a superior ideology, CLP
weaponized the suffering and struggles of PYM as a defense mechanism. They
implied that PYM must grant their blessings to TANC if they were to change
their vote, without obtaining consent. Amirah, a Palestinian individual who
joined the delegate meeting for the first time to support the media lab
proposal, initially felt solidarity but became uncomfortable when her words
were used for political gain. She asked CLP to respect her country and
remove it from the conversation, a request that was ignored. CLP's actions
sought to undermine TANC and Omni as a collective. During this discussion,
another delegate, John, was facing an urgent situation, but CLP did not
pause their agenda to acknowledge his safety.
CLP's behavior has become hostile, harmful to the Palestinian struggle, and
exploitative of Omni's volunteer labor. In light of these developments, I
propose that we move forward with voting by consensus, with the exception
of one vote against. Furthermore, I suggest suspending CLP's voting power
until the end of 2023. During this time, I hope CLP can gain clarity
regarding collectivity, rebuild trust, and foster better relationships
within Omni Commons.
On Sun, Sep 10, 2023 at 9:21 AM Sarah Lockhart <sarah.ee.el(a)gmail.com>
wrote:
to follow up on Patrik's thoughts -- in re PYM
having had regular meetings
and events at Omni: both TANC and EBDSA have regular events and meetings at
Omni. TANC, currently, has more frequent use of Omni for events than
CLP does. These facts were what had led me to hope that, like the
stereotypical bumper sticker, CLP could "coexist" with TANC as a member
collective.
It appears that the problem isn't TANC or DSA using Omni's space and being
present at Omni on a regular basis, as I would have assumed CLP would have
expressed opposition to their events prior to this.
So it seems that CLP's concern is over TANC becoming a member collective
and participating in building governance? I am wondering what specific
things, if any, there are concerns about in that regard?
Sarah L
On Sun, Sep 10, 2023 at 3:33 AM Patrik D'haeseleer <patrikd(a)gmail.com>
wrote:
A quick correction first: you may have missed
this in the chat during the
delegates meeting, but some of the TANC representatives very explicitly
identified themselves as NOT being part of DSA. I believe it was also
mentioned that most of TANC's membership is not part of DSA.
I definitely did not get the impression that the TANC folks were
dismissing CLP's questions, or were being disingenuous in their answers. I
felt that CLP was being adversarial in how they questioned TANC from the
start, but that the TANC folks did their best to answer questions and
clarify the relationship between TANC and DSA, the national DSA's
banning to its Palestinian WG, and the East Bay DSA's opposition to that
ban.
I asked at the meeting whether there was a record of EBDSA speaking up in
favor of the Palestinian WG. Someone forwarded me the following doc
afterwards, which contains a resolution by the EBDSA to reaffirm their
"Commitment to the Liberation of Palestine and to Endorse the statement For
an Internationalist DSA":
https://www.eastbaydsa.org/general-membership-meeting-april-30-2022/ I
think that definitely satisfies my own concern that the East Bay branch of
the DSA at least should not be tarred with the same brush when it comes to
their position on Palestine.
CLP kept bringing up as justification of their veto against TANC that
they wanted to respect the Palestinian Youth Movement's boycott of DSA
(PYM has held regular meetings at Omni before), to the point that the only
Palestinian present at the meeting got frustrated and asked the
participants to leave Palestine out of this. Has anyone actually *asked*
PYM whether they have an opinion about TANC?
I really wish CLP had brought up this objection to TANC based on their
association with DSA sooner, because that could have avoided a lot of
wasted effort, confusion, and frustration. Omni has been in discussion with
TANC for two months, and we've already made some significant space
rearrangements to be able to accommodate them. If you were "alarmed by the
pressure to agree with the rest of the Omni collectives", perhaps that's
because none of the other collectives had heard a word about this
issue with DSA before, and CLP's veto of TANC seriously adds to Omni's
existential financial crisis.
Patrik
(not affiliated with TANC, and had to ask someone what DSA stands for...)
On Sat, Sep 9, 2023 at 5:08 PM communityliberationprograms <
communityliberationprograms(a)proton.me> wrote:
Good morning everyone,
On September 7th, we held a delegates meeting to discuss various topics,
including the decision to vote for TANC to join as a member collective. We
posed a question to TANC representatives about how many of their members
are in DSA, due to DSA's decision to bar their Palestinian Working Group
from national leadership. They deflected the question by claiming that TANC
is not a DSA project—despite the attending members admitting to being in
DSA themselves, TANC being originally founded by DSA members, as well as
having approved an official partnership with EBDSA in March 2021. It is
hard for us to seriously consider inviting an organization into power at
Omni when they are already dismissing a fellow member collective's
questions in their own candidacy meeting, and being disingenuous in how
they represent this information. We were alarmed by the pressure put on
us to agree with the rest of the Omni collectives while we have
legitimate concerns that need to be addressed in order for our membership
and community partners to feel safe bringing TANC into Omni's
decision-making processes. Stating that CLP based our vote on "guilt by
association" is an unfair analysis of the situation; CLP membership's
concern stems from our fundamental organizing principles and mission. The
reaction we received from TANC's membership when we asked for transparency
was unprofessional. We ask that other member collectives respect our
decision in this process.
In solidarity,
CLP
_______________________________________________
consensus mailing list
consensus(a)lists.omnicommons.org
https://omnicommons.org/lists/listinfo/consensus
_______________________________________________
consensus mailing list
consensus(a)lists.omnicommons.org
https://omnicommons.org/lists/listinfo/consensus
_______________________________________________
consensus mailing list
consensus(a)lists.omnicommons.org
https://omnicommons.org/lists/listinfo/consensus