Blizzard in DC
From: "Andrew Phelps" <starfish@northcoast.com>
To: <s-acc@yahoogroups.com>
Subject: [s-acc] NSR coalition relationship
Date: Sat 02/26/11 03:06 PM
Hi
The PsySR Opcom has approved our NSR project (version 19) - which includes the idea of coalition - with a few "edits."
Mostly the edits reflect their uncertainties but one is of concern because it appears to challenge the human rights voicing framework of the Social Accountability Work Group.
Where we had
We will work in a limited exploratory coalition with the Social Accountability Work Group. Activists shall be members of PsySR and meet the social accountability standard of the Work Group. Details regarding meeting those two standards are to be part of the initial "safety" discussions in STAGE 1 of the project, and may be reviewed by the organizations for wisdom and salience.
the phrase "meet the social accountability standard of the Work Group" has been deleted and replaced by "all participants will be expected to meet agreed upon accountability standards."
On the face of things, this sounds like a dictate for how "social accountability" works. But the NSR project is not a way of defining or "treating" the Social Accountability Work Group. So I'm looking at our adding a "signing statement" to the deal. We are a human rights advocacy group not a professional organization: Our way of being needs to be engaged for what it is.
Some ideation for the "signing statement" will be provided in the following post
HERE. It is essential that we feel safe to engage in the coalition relationship - again, our feelings are important and should be respected; our lived experience will have its voice.Best
Andrew
One and one is two
Two and two is four
Four and four is .. too many
[SHORT TERM MEMORY DOES ONLY 5-7 ITEMS]