Report from 2003 Midwest Regional Meeting

We reached out to all states in the Midwest. IL, MI, OH, and WI were represented. IA, MN, MO, and IN were unable to make the meeting. It is hoped that all states will be represented at the next meeting in Spring 2004. (See suggested March dates below)

The purpose of the Midwest Regional Meeting was to discuss a new, more democratic decision making model for the SOAW movement. The group reviewed the history of decision making within the movement and then review six proposal that were up for discussion. After hours of difficult but productive process the following decision making model was consensed on. We recognize that this model is not perfect and that some voices will still not be heard some of the time.

The below mentioned model was decided upon with a priority towards these brainstormed values:
Fluidity, simplicity, transparency, communication, non-racist, diverse skills, anti oppressive, acceptance of cultural differences, inclusive, passionate and involved people on the spokes, reaching out to others, room for partnership, consensus building, ability to actually make decisions.

Decision Making Model:
The spokes council would be made up of two (2) regional representative from the 6 pre-determined regions of the country, thus 12 members (the six regions are NW, W, SW, Midwest, NE, SE). We realize the determination for what makes up a region may change so this is just a suggestion based on current regional groupings. Regions, through regular meetings, will elect their own representatives to be on the spokes council for terms of 2 or 3 years. This difference in terms allows for the spokes council to have some crossover between members and will increase fluidity and knowledge of past decisions and process. For example, One regional member would serve 2 years and the other 3 years. When the spokes council comes together for the first time the elected members will have to look at their composition and decide what is missing (i.e. people of color, women religious, labor, students, queer, etc).

Some constituencies will be represented through regional reps, that is, some folks can wear two hats (a nun from the Midwest as a regional rep could also represent women religious on the spokes council. We understand that a Dominican sister can not speak for all Dominicans let alone all women religious). We are encouraging that if someone takes a place on the spokes council as a woman religious, she would take some responsibility to network with other women religious.

We talked and agreed to encourage working groups/ caucuses, especially in areas not always represented well. This would grow the pool of potential future people for the spokes council and be a good opportunity to work on more diversity. For example: a student caucus in GA where a diversity of students could meet to address issues of representation, etc. They could then choose regional reps who could communicate with other students in their regions. They could add a student link to the SOAW website for better communication. Out of these regional reps, the students could choose a rep for the spokes council who would either be a student from a particular region and/or an at large chair student rep. This could happen for other working groups/caucuses in need of more representation (see below).

We acknowledge that there will be constituencies not represented through regional representatives. The spokes council would also have between 3 and 5 open chairs that are reserved for members not represented through regional representatives. These at large reps must be members of working groups (WG) or caucuses. For example, if persons of color were not represented as a regional rep on the spokes council, then if persons of color were on working groups addressing these issues, she/he could be an at large member through the working group seat. Consensus.

The staff collective would have one seat on the spokes council. This should not be rotating, but rather the same staff person should serve a term as part of job duties. This increases fluidity. Consensus

We agreed that the spokes council meetings should be open to folks vouched for by members of the spokes council. Options for a closed session was a concern from many in attendance. Folks understood the reasons that may require a closed session at the spokes council meeting. No consensus was reached on closed session.

We discussed the need for an alternate for each seat (from each region and/or working group/caucus). In case of emergency for a regular spokes council member, the alternate could attend a meeting. Consensus.

Brainstormed concerns with proposal:
* Incorporate values laid out above
* 3-5 at large does not necessarily deal with diversity in an immediate way
* local groups need to choose reps to the extent possible
* # of people on spokes council- What is too big?
* how to deal with small local groups having a voice
* need for facilitation at all levels
* public reports needed after strategy meeting/spokes council meetings/regional meetings via website and newsletter.

Brain stormed constituencies to be represented though regional reps and at large seats: labor, students, women/men religious, internationals, people of color, queer, military/military families, disabled, low income/working class, humanitarian aid groups, solidarity groups, POCs, veterans, survivors, media, globalization movement.

Possible next Midwest meeting dates: March 13th, March 20th, or March 27th. The meeting will be held in Chicago due to its central location in the region.

Follow up for next meeting: agenda, date, movement building, regional legislative campaign, direct action strategy, sharing resources, set up list serve, review spokes council model and decisions from SM.

How to function as a Region: (Brainstorm)
How to Communicate: e-mail, Midwest spokes council, list serve, gathering after Feb SM, State Caucuses in GA, buddy system for those not on e-mail, conference calls when necessary, news letter, yearly Midwest meeting, yearly state meetings, cross state student mentoring, outreach with in state for those not represented, outreach within region for those states not represented.

IL to contact IA, MO
WI to contact MN
Kathleen to contact IN

Midwest Reps at February Strategy Meeting: John MacNaughton (Adrian MI), Martin Royer (Chicago student), Megan Kennedy (Chicago), Anita Sanchez (Columbus OH).

Folks working on next meeting: Diane Heinke, Barb Shiffer, Sr. Annice McClure, John Ewers, Joe Ferrara (or someone else from Chicago).

Report prepared by Joe Ferrara. Question or concerns, e-mail Joe at This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it