OWS apparently has a huge amount of money sequestered in a bail fund. Meanwhile, we don't even have enough money for basic organizing expenses for S17 - like a proper sound system for the rally at Union Square at Noon. While I think we should maintain some bail money for people who are unexpectedly arrested and vitally need to be bailed out, I think when we devote ALL of our financial resources to this, we are letting the state win.

A few things to keep in mind:

-While Occupy has certainly experienced exceptions, the VAST majority of cases, nonviolent protesters are released on their own recognizance with no bail set.

• Most activist cases end with either charges dismissed or pleas to lower charges and community service (administrative fees, but no fines).

• In the early 60s civil rights activists realized that by being arrested all the time and having to pay bail, they were depleting the movement's scarce resources, while creating a financial incentive for arresting people. They realized that by refusing to pay bail and instead doing jail, they shifted to cost burden off of the movement and onto the state:

http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/social_issues/jan-june11/jail_03-07.html http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Friendship_Nine

This tactic went on to inspire many other activists for generations, passed from one movement to the next and people cross-pollinated between struggles.

I personally learned of this approach in the 90s in a period of resurgent militancy in the animal rights movement. As a generation of activists that were children in the early days of the animal rights movement reached their late teens and early adulthood, we felt the need to up the ante in a movement that had gone a little soft in its old age. Inspired by veterans of the older generation who still maintained a fire of nonviolent militancy, we learned of what came to be called the "No Compromise" approach - don't pay bail or fines and do jail time instead. We learned that this approach allowed us to organize solidarity campaigns around our imprisoned comrades - and to extend the story of their their arrest in the media, allowing us to get the word out even more about the issues we were protesting about in the first place. Eventually we took this even farther with tactics like refusing to give our names until we saw a judge and going on hunger and even thirst strikes until we saw a judge. Many of us also chose to represent ourselves, reducing our need for legal costs. This approach was actually often effective, as judges grand more leeway to people representing themselves generally.

AND WE GOT RESULTS.

When our comrades were jailed, we held protests at the jails. We did mass call-in campaigns to judges and wardens. We did actions at our initial protest targets in solidarity with our jailed friends. Pretty soon, even the people we were protesting wanted our friends out of jail, because keeping them in jail was generating free publicity for our cause. We saw jail sentences of weeks reduced to days. People who had bail set were instead released on their own recognizance after 2 or 3 days. You can read about my own experience with this tactic in the article "Animal Activists Conquer Police State at the bottom of page 11 of this newspaper (the articles on page 3 and 10 provide context) http://issuu.com/conflictgypsy/docs/nocompromise6?e=3660395/2710667

There are a few important things to remember with this approach:

1 People need training in how to use it.

2 You can't impose it on anyone. Using it is a CHOICE, especially for people who aren't planning to be arrested. People have different challenges and experiences and may have a greater or lesser ability to use this approach. Privilege is an issue that needs to be considered here. There are also psychological factors, health issues, family and work commitments. People also feel different levels of safety being incarcerated based on factors like race, gender (even moreso for transpeople), sexual orientation, ability, etc. People should not be shamed for choosing to not use this approach, though we should avoid situations where one or two people are left on the inside alone because their co-arrestees bail out. Thus...

3 People who ARE planning to be arrested should discuss in advance what they plan to do after arrest and ideally have a coordinated strategy.

4 This approach only works when people on the outside are taking action in solidarity.

5 No bail, do jail is not magic. It does not produce the results we want 100% of the time. It's a tactic, and no tactic works 100% of the time.

So here is a very rough proposal

• in the short term, we set up a process to approve as needed S17 expenses out of that fund. Perhaps we can impose a cap on how much can be drawn. Even $5000 would make an enormous difference for S17. Who currently controls that money?

• in the longer term, we free up 50% of the $30,000 for other expenses.

• we hold a "no bail, do jail" workshop with a veteran of this tactic. I suggest Cres Vellucci of the ACLU of Sacramento County and Occupy Sacramento. He was one of the people who first taught me about this tactic back in the 90s. We can get him to Skype in or do a conference call.

Even if people are not cool with freeing up money, I think a "no bail, do jail" workshop would be a good idea.