Coalitions and Existing Organizations

Incorporating Ongoing Independent Entities

This is a follow-on to Building Communities; if you haven't already, please see its Complete Intro. A list of related reading has also been added to the top, there.

Cause for Coalitions

Thinking about bringing this structure into existence has brought me to consideration of existing organizations. I see that there are a couple of kinds; some are national, and some are in-state. For either, I see those which appear to fall under the umbrella of responding to public injustices, which would be within the definition of this organization.

I have added a defined "member coalition", which can operate independently, and pick up the benefits of this organization. Today, people who have a particular cause can be marginalized, by the use of particular types of character attacks. In this case, any of their business amendments or activities would be sanctioned by this legislature, giving them a second, and more universal backing.

To keep this discussion clear, when I refer to "the assembly"; in the case of a community, it is the whole membership standing in a room. Otherwise, and generally herein, it is an elected, representative body which administers business before a larger overall membership. The business areas are of the (legislative) assembly, and herein there are provisions for plugging in member coalitions.

Previously, my heart has gone out to those minorities who feel strongly about responding to injustice, but in areas so particular, that the general membership does not match its enthusiasm in its area. What I find that actually comes out of facilitating such groups is the creation of a balancing, member-based rise in action, now combined with the administered rise in action. The assembly may be more administrative, but with a coalition, more leadership may arise through its political action.

Common Cause?

I think there are political causes which can go a couple of different ways. If I picked an issue like abortion, then as we know, this will come upon a moral divide, and this is not guessed to be something which can achieve 2/3 support in anyone's direction. To take a position on this has a problem with being a justice issue in this organization. We can't handle these kinds of divides.

Conversely, we could be talking about existing political organizations within our definition, which are either busy with local, state, or national politics. For example, Represent.us, which wants to clean up corporate lobbying, seems like it could make a great coalition.

The Arrangement Between the Assembly and the Coalition

In order to secure an existing organization as a coalition, I felt it would be necessary for this structure to promise that the coalition could independently carry out its business amendments and activities as it so chooses. The promise to the contrary is that there is an elected assembly in place which has power over coalitions, but which must publicly vote to exercise it. That voting record is a way to keep tabs on the elected body.

The power being given has to be compensated for. Using this instrument, people could walk in off the street, take membership, create a coalition, and go into self-managed action. These people could be opposed to this organization, and they might want to act like trolls, or make it look bad. This is why there are checks, and the assembly retains its power.

The approach herein uses a gauntlet, or a narrow path that must be walked through before a coalition candidate can become a coalition. It is required to amend good business in this period. Once it is established, however; the power of the assembly remains, with 7/12 support, over all business areas and coalitions. If 7/12 of the assembly wants to dump a coalition, then they may publicly do so. This is in compensation for the power of coalitions being given to the general membership. The assembly may also define its area administrations such that they can propose changes to how coalitions in their areas exist or are plugged in, in a range of possibilities.

I think that the concessions of an independent organization becoming a coalition would be to participate in the implementation of this system as much as is needed, and in the wording, a coalition linked with an area administration need “to include fair notice and to not conflict” with one another. A coalition still leads on business amendments and activities in its self-defined (and accepted) area. The power of the assembly over coalitions is to be used to stop problem coalitions. In fact, this rule is also there, in writing, to intimidate ne'er-do-wells into not attempting to tarnish themselves in the first place.

[6/25 Addition: In this writing, there are concerns regarding those who might try to be most abusive, but this is not what is expected in all good business. There is member coalition leadership, and business area leadership, and they plug in together (as we'll see). Leaders are people who have earned some trust. They are part of a common cause organization, and they each meet the requirements of receiving full legislative support on their business proposals, and I more expect propositions of legitimate activities, and some accord. ]

Normalizing Coalitions

I thought about what it would be like to be in an organization with a general membership, and various areas of injustice being worked, and then along came thoughts of member-coalitions, with their particular causes, side-by-side. Now we all know we're members of the same overall organization, but some are in coalitions, and others do not need to be.

I do not want the coalition to be a tool of how people define themselves in a way that is special, and possibly divisive. The business areas themselves can include mandatory "area coalitions", and so there will be multiple sources of coalitions. Members may sign up for these. From all of the thought, a person can only be a member of one coalition at a time, because while they may be so readily created, we don't need a blizzard of coalitions.

There is the general business of this place. There is a place for member-area rankings, for members to rank their favorite business areas. As you'll see, it is also expected that when a member-coalition can be regarded as part of the general business and support of an area, then the assembly can fully dissolve it into the area itself. Coalitions which remain do so by definitively occupying their own spaces, and area coalitions remain for when coalition business has become general area business.

In the end, I imagine for the general membership that being in a coalition may be a way for a person to distinguish themself, and perhaps this symbolizes a more directed enthusiam, but there is open territory for not being in a coalition, and I would plan for some general membership that chooses this route as a way to see business in general. Rather than having maintainance of an existing cause serve as a way to be "special", coalitions become a way for any members to elect to be more dedicated to a particular cause, or not. There is also no longer coalitions only outside of general business; now they are on both sides. We can always remember that we all walk in the same general landscape for business, and so I think this can be colorful and fun.

[7/29 Addition: It occurs to me that the references for “member" and “area" coalitions can just be removed, and all can be recognized the same as “coalitions". All administration is linked together, and everybody amends through the same legislature. I do not think that exactly how they began will be a concern. ]

Fitting Coalitions In

In the depiction above, coalition A holds positions all the way to the top, or "primary" business area administration, coalition B has positions as high as nonprimary area administration, and coalitions C and D are linked to business area administration, but otherwise they are best regarded as most independent of it. Coalition C categorizes under business area C, but coalition D categorizes under nobody's business area, and since a link to business administration is promised, in this example it is linked to the administration of area 3. A link is a minimum promise for a coalition, and with it, a coalition can be coordinated with area administration.

Revamping for the New Addition

I am going to revisit a few things to make way for coalitions. This will include revisiting the definition, member, community and district rules, and a significant revamping of the rules of business areas.

Revisiting the Definition

The definition used can claim any government wrong, and respond. At the end of Part 2, there is an addendum for amending accomplices, or parties to government wrongs, which means also being able to respond to them. Note: blockquoted text is bylaws.

[Public Business] Definition: We define ourselves collectively as a voluntary, democratic organization, wherein; upon our government and its accomplices, we will monitor for and respond to collectively perceived injustices, and we may note and respond to their ill effects.

As a third area, what if the definition were open enough to simply say "public injustice", without saying who? This time, I'm wondering about what existing organizations there could be. Here's an attempt at a universal picture of possible definitions:

The question here is whether or not one prefers a completely open definition, such as "all public injustices". It is currently constrained to government injustices (and accomplices). Can there be another public wrong outside of this? I think it would have to be either vigilantism, or stepping into the area of the government's business, and even then, it would be possible to claim the government was wrong by not being up to its task, and citing the need to respond to that. I think this definition is a way of saying that it reasonably can cover all public injustices, and as said before, I think that when we have good government, then it can help us, and maybe we could help them help us, too.

Revisiting Member Rules

I have an improvement to the wording from the Intro on membership rules. Where it says:

A member is held to stand in support of our organization [, and in acceptance of our due process, and in accordance with our rules - including our rules of behavior …]

I find it to be improved as follows:

A member is held to stand unopposed to our organization [and in accordance with our rules...]

This way, a person doesn't have to try to hold people to "providing support" in any particular way to be in keeping.

The membership of any officer may be publicly confirmed, and for general members, any membership may be confirmed, either with the member's agreement, or in necessary response to public authorites, or for operational purposes.

In my thoughts on procedures, I have not had a reason for posting a roll of all members. For operational purposes, there is a measure here I would like to see repeatedly used, which would be to show a member roll to a third party, and let them pick a few names, and to verify each of those. Then, they can sign a paper that says that they did perform this confirmation, and the entire member roll, which could include hundreds of people, could have been given some validation. I might do this when communities want to meet and merge, or for a district to enter a district network.

I know that people have to come to recognize what it means to say that this is a publicly-natured organization. I think it can carry a different meaning to say who you are by name, than to remain anonymous. For public trust purposes, we have to publicly confirm any of our elected people.

Revisiting Business Areas

I will repost a general picture of the business process here. Details are in Part 2.

Statements and measures are business amendments that are voted on by the assembly.

Statements: At top, this includes "claims" of injustices, with "parties to", along with "alerts" and "losses", as problems caused. Claims require 2/3 support, and problems and responses require 7/12.

Measures: This includes all of the responses. Measures can be amended before being carried out. In part 2, there are discretionary measures, which can be led by area administration, as "any lawful political recourse" (in response to statements upheld). It is also true that business activities need to be coordinated, which we'll see.

When thinking about coalitions, I have also thought about existing local- and state-level groups, and it does seem that if they fit under the general umbrella, then they can be coalitions.

Revisiting Communities

Existing groups could exist locally, state-wide, across district boundaries, or nationally. Since the bylaws include saying a community can merge with another, I suppose they could equally say, for everyone's edification, that a community can divide. A small state-wide community-of-its-own-kind may have 30 members, for example, and if its membership grows, then it can divide into smaller communities at that point. With these considerations, the following can be added to the community writing:

A community may divide itself into separate communities.

I want to make note of a local voluntary coalition I know. I would say it is active within its state, and it has multiple areas or issues of its own. I would think of this as a jurisdictional, multi-area type of coalition. I think what can be done here is to link each of the coalition's issues to its respective area administration.

Introducing Coalitions

In exchange for the power of general members to create a coalition, which can propose and conduct business amendments and activities in its own area, there is an initial period where good business must be conducted, and there is a legislative power over all business areas and activities to follow.

First, you have to be a member of this organization in order to be a member of a coalition, and the coalition has to fulfill candidate requirements.

A member-coalition may be proposed by its representatives, seconded, and then voted upon by this assembly for recognition as a coalition candidate, for its verifiable provision of; its membership, a public definition which falls within ours, representation in its stated hierarchy, any reasonably-formed rules on coalition membership, and either a new claim proposal or a request to reference existing claims as in its area, and with 7/12 support, it may be accepted as a coalition candidate.

In this, there are requirements for a coalition to state its own definition, hierarchy, and rules of membership. I expect the rules could be as simple as signing a coalition credo (or oath), but I want to leave room for cases such as requirements by background, jurisdiction, or identity, and this to some extent drifts into the command structure, which is also in the writing, and this can have more specific rules on how to fill particular positions.

"Representation in its stated hierarchy" means that to match the writing, the top people may be held to actually being representative of the general membership. I think it should also be said that a group can have its own leaders, or committees, that have been given defined trustworthiness, or reputation, for example, such that there is no requirement to match the structures used herein, for example; to conduct deliberative assemblies, or to build legislatures. I think there are a known variety of ways to structure an organization.

A coalition candidate is held to operate in accordance with coalition rules, as superceded by coalition candidate rules.

I think this includes saying, for example, that if a coalition can get kicked out, then a candidate can get kicked out during candidacy.

A coalition stands unopposed to this organization, and operates in accordance with its rules.

The above refers to the coalition as an entity. Otherwise, the recognized definition and rules were stated when becoming a candidate, and so there is operating in accordance with them, as a part of operating in accordance with the assembly. Since coalition business can be independent of general business, general member rules apply to general business, and coalition rules apply to coalition business.

Second, doing good business, a candidate has to complete its period of candidacy.

Within 30 days of recognition as a coalition candidate, in its area and in this assembly, a candidate must pass two business amendment proposals, and after its first 2 proposals, it may continue, each day, as a candidate so long as at least 50% of all of its proposals have passed, and upon completion of the 30-day period, it will be dissolved as a candidate and recognized as a (member) coalition.

Here are some candidate restrictions:

A coalition candidate may propose as much as one business amendment in a 3-day period.

For measures, a coalition candidate may only carry out those which it has amended.

The first rule is to stop a flood of proposals from a candidate. The second blocks discretionary measures during this period. The only measures available will be the ones that the candidate gets amended.

Upon recognition of a new coalition, its definition will be incorporated into business areas, and it will be given, at the least, an administrative link to business area administration, for each to include fair notice and to not conflict on all business amendments and activities, and it may be given as much as a minority, primary position in business area administration.

The promise to a new coalition is that it will be linked into business administration. For anything more than minority primary administration, I think a coalition has gotten to be the size of an area, and stands to be dissolved into one.

A coalition may propose amendments and carry out measures in its defined business area.

And there is the coalition's independent amendments and activities.

Third, so that we don't endlessly manufacture coalitions:

Each of our members may be a member of only one coalition at a time.

and

Fourth, there should be a minimum number of people to have a coalition, and this is where I might surprise you. How many should it be? I think one. If there is a community with 50 people in it, and there is 1 person who wants to state and respond on the matter of common justice that is important to them, then I think, by basic parliamentary procedure, they should be able to voice their motion, and to not be required for more than one other person to second it. If it is in a district, then I would surmise a second to be a ward representative, and the district assembly needs to be able to receive the candidate. As an added district requirement (from the Intro):

[A district shall include:] A parliamentary implementation for receiving and facilitating member-coalitions.

After this, we'll say we're in a community, or district, and there are 1,000 members. At this point, I don't think one person should be enough to be a coalition. How about 7?

A member-coalition may be recognized in our jurisdiction while its membership meets our default minimum support requirement.

Our default minimum support requirement, in members and in relation to our total membership, is; 1% (1 in 100) of our members numbering from 1 to 400, rounded up, for as much as 4; plus 0.5% (1 in 200) of our members numbering from 401 to 1,000, rounded up, for as much as plus 3 or a total of 7; plus 0.2% (1 in 500) of our members numbering from 1,001 up, rounded up, for plus 8 or a total of 15 as an example at 5,000, or plus 9 at 5,001, etc..

It seems that candidates for seconds will be members who either do not wish to be in a coalition, or who are in another coalition.

The default minimum formula attempts to handle having very different membership sizes, and having a threshold for minimum support for something - in this case, a member coalition, but this could also be available for required endorsements for candidates for offices, or perhaps there are those would not want the same formula for both. As above: For 500 members, you need 5 people (1%), for 2,000, you need 9 (0.45%), for 5,000, you need 15 (0.3%), and for 20,000, you need 50 (0.25%), or to muster 1 in 400.

Could this be a gazillion coalitions? I don't think so. The maximum number of coalitions that is possible varies with total members. With 1,000 members in a district, the coalition minimum is 7, which provides for a mathematical maximum of 142 coalitions, but from that 1,000-member resource we have to subtract all of the members of area coalitions, the members of member-coalitions beyond minimum size, and decidedly general or non-coalition members, and I'm going to guess that this will include 97% of the membership, and then divide the rest by 7, and really, it won't be how many of us all; it will be how many genuinely undesirable coalition creators there are.

I think a good protection against "too many" little coalitions comes from another direction; this is for when they are operating for the wrong reason, because if they aren't worth having around, then they can be dissolved into their associated business areas. People can also take membership with them, which is beyond being a closed coalition with total self-control. Altogether, I think it will be too much of a problem to be a genuinely undesirable little coalition. If people are seen to be a problem with their coalitions, I imagine they could be blacklisted from membership in any coalitions.

The Structure of Power

The highest level of power in the organization comes with 2/3 of the assembly, and with whatever added support is needed for the given jurisdiction, it can amend any bylaws. 2/3 of the assembly by itself is enough to amend assembly rules, such as how the assembly votes, or forms a committee.

The next-highest level of power comes with 7/12 assembly support. This is enough to define or redefine any business areas or primary administrative positions, including to move or dissolve any member-coalitions. Here are the (revised since part 2) opening area bylaws:

With 7/12 support, this assembly may amend its business areas, their primary administrative positions, and member coalitions. These amended business areas may include more extensive area-specific parliamentary elements, such as offices, committees, and funds. This assembly may fill its amended area positions from across the general membership. Each amended area will provide for at least one area coalition. Each business area and coalition will have its own inclusive business area definition. A coalition may be dissolved into a business area (and its coalition(s)), when it will at least be equally represented.

It is being left open for leading positions in business areas to be filled from the general membership, and this makes way for people who have led, who are not in the assembly. They may, as an example, have been leaders in member-coalitions, and in any case, they may be trustworthy.

In Part 2, areas were amended with 2/3 support, but this had to drop a notch to 7/12 because I think there is now a place for a more contentious and less insular voting environment with the definitions and placements of member-coalitions. I can imagine some arguing for dropping to a majority threshold, but this is a common cause organization, and I do not guess that our affairs will need to be that contentious.

With 2/3 of its own support, the primary administration of a business area may amend its nonprimary administrative hierarchy and offices, and with 7/12 support of this assembly, its member-coalitions may also be amended.

Primary area administration is given control over its supportive administration, but if there is to be a change to a member-coalition assigned to the area, then it requires 7/12 support in the assembly.

Additions to Areas

To satisfy the needs of business area rankings (from part 2):

Business areas will be created for coalitions which do not fall inside of existing ones [, and one area's administration may administer multiple areas].

When creating a business area for a categorically unmatched coalition, it can then line up with an area to satisfy the needs of member-area rankings, where members vote on their favorite areas. Coalitions which fall within existing business areas will not be voted on separately. To this I say that area administration is above coalition leadership, so let area administration manage their area, and let the ranking (or report card) come back to them. Also in the above, one area's administration can administer multiple areas, so that empty areas created to match outside coalitions can be easily assigned to existing administrations.

Member participation in business activities is expected to be in accordance with related business area administration.

Area administration is responsible for the organization of its statements and measures.

An area's administration is being said to be responsible for its business organization. I think a collection of amendments can be organized and even written in various ways, and so it is said that it is their responsibility, and not of the other voters in the assembly. If they feel that the area's administration is struggling, perhaps they can respond to that as a group.

An Areas Committee

The national assembly has 436 seats, and this can be quite large to be well-organized in managing all business. In districts, there can be city, state, and national business-related areas. A high power could be given to an Areas Committee. Before the assembly, it could produce the results of its inquiries into area administrations, reports on how areas are doing, and recommendations for how they could be reorganized. The assembly can drum up related proposals that use what this committee produces.

Relations

A recognized coalition can be seen by all members as something which has been generally accepted. I think our representatives will be speaking about what they want to do. I like the idea of elected people being able to speak on behalf of their own offices. I think it could also be added that our elected representatives can invite coalition representatives to have a chance to speak when we have speaking times. I wouldn't want this to be a bother to the membership, and so I would leave this to the discretion of the people that have been elected, where that exists (like a district), or to the membership, if it a community.

[District or national:] A member of our assembly may invite a recognized member-coalition representative to speak in a formal speaking session of our assembly.

Summary

At this point, I have rendered an attempt to pave a way for a nice and fair coexistence with coalitions of various types and sizes. A gap that this can fill is when members want to conduct good business in an area that is not being prioritized by the rest of the community.

With some shared overhead, existing organizations for public justice are given the power to maintain independent operations. Member coalitions also present another channel for finding leaders. It also seems to me that an assembly can add people to business administration in other capacities, such as for relevant area experts who are not in the elected body.

If attempting to commence an operation such as this, I think if one existing organization did it, then it would start out with everyone in the same particular cause, but if multiple existing organizations want to form a kind of joint startup, then this could expand the starting membership.

I think that contributions to the commencement of this type of structure can also be reported to alternative news, which in turn can contribute to national recruiting.

In the event that I was leading a national organization and looking at this, I might feel like I want to start this at the district level instead of starting with communities, and there are reasons why I would recommend against doing this. Communities are within driving distance, and it is easier for a small number at the start to organize. People will meet locally, within driving distance, and develop their community until they have enough people to talk about redrawing district borders, or forming a district with wards and a legislature.

I look forward to existing groups or organizations looking to participate in the adoption of a universal, democratic approach, . Conversely, one can go to this fellow at the link - a painter, who is crying as he talks for three minutes, saying, "Let's stand up. Let's go. … Let's eat. I'm tired. Let's help each other. I don't care what political affiliation you are. I don't care what color you are... Let's struggle together. Let's be a team..." Worker Pleads for Class Solidarity… (video)

Let's be a team. Cheers.

6/27 Add: The coalition is most recent, and I must confess it defines a large dynamic area for consideration. Perhaps it is too complex to consider at the start, but there are other ways to consider starting up without the use of coalitions. A group of existing entites could form a coalition of their own, and notify their respective members of the launch. Members of these existing organizations are the ones who first join, and with enough of them, they can start small local communities, and with a national register of communities (online), this development can be reported to a variety of alternative news outlets. In place of member-coalitions, perhaps there could be a way for members to, for example, petition for claims they would like voted upon (which if passed would force the associated business areas).