Unanimity is agreement by all people in a given situation. When unanimous, everybody is of the same mind and acting together as one. Though unlike uniformity, it does not constitute absolute agreement. Many groups consider unanimous decisions a sign of agreement, solidarity, and unity. Unanimity may be assumed explicitly after a unanimous vote or implicitly by a lack of objections.

Practice varies as to whether a vote can be considered unanimous if some voter abstains. Robert’s Rules of Order allows unanimity even with abstentions, equating “unanimous consent” with “silent consent”, i.e. with no objections raised. In contrast, a United Nations Security Council resolution is not considered “unanimous” if a member abstains. In the European Union, the Treaty of Amsterdam introduced the concept of “constructive abstention”, where a member can abstain in a vote where unanimity is required without thereby blocking the success of the vote. This is intended to allow states to symbolically withhold support while not paralysing decision-making.

Dictatorships
The legitimacy supposedly established by unanimity has been used by dictatorial regimes in an attempt to gain support for their position. Participants in a legislature may be coerced or intimidated into supporting the position of a dictator, with the legislature becoming little more than a rubber stamp for a more powerful authority.

via http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unanimity

Interesting isn’t it? There have been two GA’s now where proposals were brought that many people had concerns with and therefore blocked, aka objected strongly. In our GA we can agree, stand aside and not have our vote counted, or we can block thereby stating if this proposal passes i will leave the movement.

Many have stated they feel very intimidated at these GA’s and though they are taking a stand to block a proposal it is a very difficult thing to do due to the reactions of the rest of the group.

This movement is supposed to be an open and welcome place for those who have not had a voice in our society to be heard, people from every walk of life, every culture, background, sex, and race. If people are not being heard because they feel intimidated, OccupyAtlanta is no different than the current society we live in today.

This is not a racism problem, this is not a cultural differences problem, this is not an age difference problem, this is a problem with people simply not being respectful of others thoughts, opinions, concerns, and points of information. We are not listening to each other, we do not trust each other, we are not being honest with each other, we are not being transparent, and we are not working together. We are fighting. It’s starting to look an awful lot like congress around here.

If this continues, either we will all give up and go home or a dictatorship will emerge. If you’re reading this from home and you believe you can help OccupyAtlanta come together, please show up, please go to meetings, please participate before it’s too late.

I have been rather disappointed in a lot of the “radicals” lately. This is not to say I am disappointed in them as a whole. I know many of the radicals in OA rather well and consider them friends; even if I don’t agree with them on a lot of things. I can talk with them about the direction of OA without being attacked on a personal level.

I have been attacked on a personal level several times in the last week. Certain people have publicly posted lies about me on Facebook, made veiled reference about me in GAs, (because they could not name me directly), tried to discredit the work others and myself have done, with sham proposals that were designed to create divisiveness in our movement. When I used Facebook to call them out on this, instead of the issues being discussed in a civil manner, I had 30+ comments of lies and character assassination posted about me. These were the core of the people that created the divisive “anti-snitch” and media proposals.

The attempt to reinstate 100% consensus, while supported by many out well meaning intentions, is in my personal opinion pointless. 90% consensus requires multiple people to block a proposal instead of being hung up on one person who just might not like the person presenting the proposal. However, it has the disadvantage that if there is a proposal that is dangerous to the movement, it can only be blocked with 10% blocks. This means that several people must realize the danger and vote as a block to stop stupid. This is not always possible, because the people that realized the danger of certain proposals are not always present.

I hereby suggest we keep our current 90% consensus model, but require that all (non-emergency) proposals are posted on the website for at least 50 hours before being brought up at the GA, and to have at least one reading of the proposal at prior GA without discussion, but as an announcement for the Process Committee. This will ensure that people can hear, read and think about proposals instead of being forced to make ad-hoc decisions at GAs without having had the chance to do so. Emergency proposals would be picked up by the GA on a 90% consensus basis immediately after the first reading, if they meet the following criteria: needed to save a life or property, emergency actions that could or will result in arrests of protestors, finance requests over $200 that have to be fulfilled within 24 hours to ensure the continuation of Occupy Atlanta infrastructure, this list not being exclusive but exemplary.