Constructing the Platform Free Speech: The Facilitator within Occupy Wall Street

Constructing the Platform for Free Speech: The Facilitator within Occupy Wall Street

Jack Moreau Occidental College Anderson Fellowship Janary 2012

Introduction Occupy Wall St. (OWS) built a social movement upon a foundation of idealistic direct democracy and inclusivity. This movement quickly gathered massive support on both a national and international scope and the world watched as its participation rose from mid-September onward. OWS sets itself apart from other social movements by its stress on an all-inclusive process of direct democracy.1 However, this process would not would not be possible without a specific position within the consensus process, the facilitator. My research focuses on the practices of the facilitator and their role in creating a safe and inclusive free-speech environment.

The facilitator’s role is to build and maintain an optimal environment in which individuals are able to discuss problems and create resolutions as a group. He/she does so by leading a group through the consensus process. Every meeting has at least two co-facilitators and the role rotates so that no individual becomes a dominating force. The facilitator must always remain neutral as to not influence the groups decision. His/her sole purpose is to create the space for others to function within. I was able to investigate the different facilitation methods and analyze which are the most effective in creating the optimal environment for direct democracy.

There are three categories of group meetings within OWS in which the consensus process occurs: Working Groups (WG), General Assembly (GA), and Spokes Council (SC) (see Appendix A for descriptions). By attending any of the meetings it is quickly apparent that good facilitation is visibly important at all times.

The actions of the facilitator have a huge influence on the group and he/she is directly responsible for the effectiveness of the meetings. Good facilitation leads to focused groups, empowered participants, and productive decision making while bad facilitation creates quite the opposite. It is not easy to facilitate these groups and often even the most experienced facilitators cannot prevent disruptions to the process.

However, through my research I discovered that certain methods can benefit every facilitator in the consensus process.

My research consisted of attending various WGs, GAs, and SCs wherein I was able to observe different facilitation techniques and the subsequent effects on the assemblies. During my research I noticed three essential roles of the facilitator: maintaining focus on the proposal, mediating disruptions, and securing a safe space.

Widespread participation, diverse participation, respectful dialogue, topic focus and a general sense of well being are all characteristics of effective facilitation. Failure to properly facilitate can be defined as little participation, non-diverse participation, disrespectful dialogue, frequent changes in topic, marginalization, and a general sense of anxiety, frustration, and fear. For the remainder of the paper, I will discuss how an

1

These methods are described in detail in C.T. Lawrence Butler’s book On Conflict and Consensus available at http://www.consensus.net/ocac2.html as well as the “General Assembly Guide” available at http://www.nycga.net/resources/general-assembly-guide/.

effective facilitator manages his/her three different tasks in order to build the optimal free-speech environment.

Maintaining focus on the proposal The facilitator must focus the group on the current proposal while avoiding redundancy. A productive group maintains focus on one topic before moving to another, however, loosely related concerns are often raised. It is common for groups to move off topic or become stalled on a single issue.

The best prevention for off-topic-discussion is the creation of an agenda at the beginning of the meeting. In order to create an agenda, the facilitator should ask the group for suggested agenda items. While gathering points for the agenda, the facilitator should be looking for category overlap and opportunities to group agenda points. When ordering the agenda he/she must look at whether some points on the agenda are dependent on the outcomes of others and placing them in an appropriate order. Having a very clear agenda will help everybody stay on task later in the conversation; I was in several groups this January without a clear agenda and the topic of discussion was continually changing because we had not clearly decided on one.

The facilitator should include the whole group in the agenda building process because by collectively building an agenda all individuals in the group are comforted in the fact that their concerns will be addressed within the meeting.

Agendas are most often stalled as a result of redundancy. Proposals will raise concerns and most people will share those concerns. Consequently, you often get people restating the same concerns. The concerns stage can last indefinitely and the facilitator must continue to move the process forward. In this scenario the facilitator must identify the common themes in the concerns. When a common theme is identified the facilitator should vocally acknowledge the redundancy and suggest that this concern be addressed during the amendments stage.

In my experience most concerns are stated within the first several speakers and the concerns stage therefore does not need much time. One tactic for pushing the process forward is to set time limits for each section. This gives the group a little more of a push to the next stage, however, if the group is not ready to move on they can always request to add time to that stage. Another tactic to moving the process forward is by only opening the stack for short periods of time. To do this the facilitator announces that the stack is open and people will ask to be placed on it, after a few minutes the facilitator should announce that stack is closing and ask if there are any last takers. Both of these methods require the process to move forward while also giving sufficient time for people to voice opinions.

If the group remains hung up on a single issue for an extensive period of time without resolution the facilitator should either request to table to item or a break-out

group. If the topic is tabled, then it will be be put to rest and brought up again at the following meeting. This is common when the item exceeds the time limits and there are many items on the agenda. It is also common in complex topics that take several weeks to resolve well. A break-out group is an additional meeting that results when an agenda either needs more time to be discussed or does not require the entire group at the meeting. Particularly when the same concerns are being voiced and no resolutions are being made, the break-out group is a useful tool. The break-out group can create a proposal that can be brought back with a well thought out solution to the problem. Both tactics are successful in moving the group forward so that they may address all agenda items.

It is essential for the facilitator to be thoughtful of the number of agenda items and the time remaining in the meeting. Generally, agendas are long and the facilitator will need to use all of these tactics to address each of them. Additionally, if the group becomes unfocused or it becomes stalled the people in the group will always become frustrated and disempowered. Every meeting is unique and the facilitator must decide each time the most appropriate way to approach the agenda.

Mediating disruptions Disruptions are the most common cause to loss in participation, marginalization, disrespectful dialogue, and disempowerment. Every facilitator must expect and be prepared for a disruption at every meeting. These distractions are usually related to breaks in process, disruptive yelling, violence, or food/necessities supply arrival. I have split my analysis into two broad categories of disruptions; one is a distracting/dangerous situation occurring outside of the meeting and the other is a disruptive individual within the meeting. The two types of disruptions require different mediation techniques.

When a distracting situation arises to the side of the meeting, (often violence, yelling, or the arrival of free food) the facilitator must maintain the attention of the crowd as well as possible. The facilitator must act very quickly and should assess whether the situation requires deescalation. It is very common for the focus of the entire group to shift over to the situation and make it worse. Once people leave to inspect the spectacle, they usually do not return. Therefore, if the situation is dangerous, the facilitator must quickly call for the trained deescalation group.

Directly after deescalation is notified, or if it is not necessary, the facilitator must immediately return to the proposal process. If the facilitator waits too long to see what is happening, the rest of the group will drift away quickly. By continuing the process, the facilitator is demonstrating that the assembly is more important than anything else occurring.

The second type of disruption occurs within the group when a participant breaks process. When a person speaks out of turn or speaks about an unrelated item

it is called a point of process. This is often an expressive individual who does not want to wait their turn and feel very strongly opposed to the current situation. A disruption is most likely to occur from two situations: when one person has a personal problem with the person speaking or if he/she does is not capable of waiting their turn to speak. These disruptions often lead to group frustration and an often an entire process breakdown.

It is critical for the facilitator to identify possible disruptors from the beginning of the meeting and actively prevent them from disrupting. The most effective way to mediate a disruptor is by addressing them privately. Meetings should have two facilitators at all times, this allows one to continue moving the process while the other pulls the disruptor aside to discuss the problem at hand. Usually the disruptor is disrupting because they do not feel that their voice is being heard. Once the facilitator speaks directly about the issue, an assurance often quiets down the disruptor. The facilitator must be extremely proactive in avoiding disruptions or else they will escalate past the point of mediation; prevention is the best method of mediating disruptions.

In a worst case scenario, where the facilitator cannot control the disruptions, he/she should dispatch the deescalation team. A disruptor should be considered out of control when the people speaking can no longer be effectively heard as a result of the disruption. The deescalation team is another working group, specially focused on removing problem individuals. There are many different strategies to deescalation, but since they are outside of the facilitation jurisdiction I did not analyze their effectiveness. The facilitator should partner close with the deescalation team and always know their location so that they may be dispatched immediately upon request.

By mediating disruptions the facilitator can create stronger community solidarity by preventing frustrating and empowering the participants. Some disruptions must be handled by the deescalation team because the disruptors are dangerous. However, many disruptions can be avoided through prevention, the facilitator must be very keen to every individual present. If prevention is not possible the next best method of mediation is to separate the disruptor from the group and discuss their problem personally. Mediating disruptions is an essential skill for facilitator because they are very common and can halt the entire meeting if not confronted successfully.

Securing a safe space A safe space is not only free from physical danger, but also emotional danger.

Especially in gatherings as large as OWS, there are many people from many different backgrounds who do not agree ideologically. Arguments are commonplace and OWS is often a dangerous place both emotionally and physically. The facilitator must constantly be working to create and maintain an environment in which all parties

present are able to comfortably voice their opinions and in which those voices will be heard by the entire group. The facilitator must be in complete control of the meeting in order to maintain a safe environment. The safety of a space is very closely linked to the ability of the facilitator.

From the very moment the facilitator enters the room, he/she must be conscious of the way he/she is perceived. For those who do not know them personally, a gut feeling is all they have to go on; the group must trust the facilitator to lead them through the meeting. All people are emotionally sensitive and I believe that this sensitivity increases when in group discussion, the facilitator must therefore be extra conscious of his/her outward expressions. The facilitator must embody the qualities that he/she wishes the group to have.

It is important for the facilitator to be confident when he/she comes into the room. Their confidence will create trust in the group members. The trust is essential for the group because this opens up the space to honest dialogue. The honest dialogue must be the core of the group discussion. This is most easily observed when the facilitator arrives anxious and frustrated. The negative emotions create discomfort within the group and self conscious voices do not open their opinions to the group.

Without trust the conversation is not inclusive and the group dialogue is worthless.

The facilitator must also be soft and kind. Though confidence is essential, a confident voice does not mean arrogant, but rather sure of of one’s own decisions. To be soft and kind is to be inviting to a diverse group of people and speak with the utmost respect. The soft and kind facilitator moves slowly and is patiently, he/she does not reflect haste onto the crowd. With this kind of facilitator, every voice is respected and thus every voice is heard.

Next, the facilitator must be thoughtful. For when the facilitator is thoughtful, he creates a group that is reflective as well. Very controversial topics always surface during discussion and cause group tension. The facilitator should try to guide people to deeply considering their opinions before they jump out and say them. The best technique I saw to induce reflection was at a WG after many sensitive issues were raised; the facilitator asked for a moment of silent reflection from the group. Thereby we all stopped rocketing the conversation forward and seriously considered how we felt about the situation. This helped to slow down the pace of a sensitive topic and help us all decide where we stood on the matter. The conversation then continued very peacefully and calmly.

A space will become least safe during a meeting disruption. Violence is common among OWS and it creates extremely uncomfortable environments. Most people do not know how to act when there is violence in their area and the conversation is ended. After a violent disruption the facilitator has to secure the safety of the space, both physically and emotionally, before continuing. Deescalation must be dispatched, the agenda must be paused immediately, and the issue confronted. The following sequence of events effectively creates a safe space: supply all the information about the situation, move into break-out groups, share ideas with

whole group, have a reflection period, and then a final discussion of resolutions.

With this method everybody can make informed decisions as well as use other group members for support. During times of hysteria, decisions are not well made, giving ample time to confer with other group members helps to give people support and build strong resolutions. Only once the matter has been dealt with can the agenda effectively resume.

Securing a safe space is the most important role of the facilitator. Within a safe space honest dialogue creates progressive ideals and community solidarity. If a facilitator cannot create a safe space voices are marginalized, thus only worsening the problems OWS seeks to change. OWS is strongest with safe spaces because it allows the maximum number of marginalized voices to be heard. The facilitator must make it his/her main priority for all voices to have a say in how OWS moves forward.

Conclusion Facilitation is a critical component to any direct democracy. Their job is to create the platform of free speech for all others to speak through. The GA is the backbone of the OWS movement and excellent facilitation skills make excellent GAs. The group members I worked with were extremely committed and selfless to dedicate so much time and resources to building a space for all others to use.

My analysis outlines the role of the facilitator and how the facilitator can utilize those roles most effectively. I came to the conclusion that maintaining focus, mediating disruptions, and securing a safe space were the roles of the facilitator. The delegation of these responsibilities keeps OWS moving smoothly.

It became very clear to me quickly how different facilitators effected the groups.

My analysis offers the best techniques that I observed during my research period.

Facilitators should be able to use this as a guide to build upon. Facilitation style always has very personal characteristics and individual development of these techniques is critical to effectiveness.

Often under credited, facilitators are cornerstone in OWS. Facilitation allows all others to participate effectively. Deep analysis of facilitation methods and a strong comprehension of group dynamics lead to optimal facilitation, which in turn lead to optimal direct democracy. Facilitators are the individuals within OWS that make it possible for marginalized voices to have a say in the movement. For a movement so focused on direct democracy, those who work to construct that platform of idealism are the facilitators.

APPENDIX A Working Group A collection of individuals wherein specific responsibilities in OWS have been delegated to. i.e. media, kitchen, housing, facilitation, finance. Decisions are made through the consensus process. Meetings are held in a public space at least once an week and posted on www.nycga.net.

General Assembly One of two major decision making bodies of OWS is the General Assembly (GA). The GA is a public meeting in which decisions for the directions, goals, and actions of OWS are consented upon by all attending members using the described consensus process. The GA is open to anyone and everybody and is a place to participate and have a real visible impact on the OWS movement. GA makes it easy for anyone to be involved with OWS and not only encourages, but empowers those present. The goal of the GA is to provide the space for individuals to lead each other. The GA is a tool for individuals to build power in their community and make collective decisions on how to move forward with OWS.

Spokes Council The second major decision making body of OWS is the Spokes Council (SC). The SC still functions as a direct democracy format, but instead gives the space to WG’s. The decisions at an SC are restricted to structural and logistical workings of OWS. At the SC, each WG sits together and chooses one person to be their spoke for that evening.

The spoke’s job in the SC is to gather the opinions of their working group and speak on behalf of the working group; each spoke is the only one from their WG allowed to address the SC that evening. Similar to GA, the SC moves through the consensus process of proposals and amendments so that the WGs can reach consensus.