Fourth Meeting of the Opposition Coordinating Council

A proposal to change this

procedure. Who is in favor of considering this

issue first? I ask that you

vote, please.

Please count: 28. Who is

against? Who abstained? Two.

The decision

is adopted.

Nure Nako, as I understand it, proposed

by Sergei Davydov to amend Article

I ask

Sergei. Dear colleagues, at present the draft

decision

is considered adopted if more than

half of the members of the CC vote in favor of it.

Well, we currently have 44 members of the CC, so in

that connection, the required number is 23 people

as the number needed for adopting

a decision. Unfortunately, well, the experience

of the penultimate

meeting quite naturally shows that we

adopted a certain ideal version

of decision-making in the rules of procedure, which

was supposed to be tested by experience. And so, the experience

of the last meeting

shows that when a certain number

or majority supports some position,

simply physically, because of

the absence of those people, we are no longer

able to adopt

a decision. After all, we represent here not so much

ourselves as those

voters

who elected

each of us and the body that we

together

represent. And I can see that people are simply

writing and expressing outrage solely at

the slowness with which the work

of the Coordinating Council is unfolding. There are probably many reasons

for this, and I hope we will gradually

resolve them. We will adopt a declaration that

sets out the goals, we will form a working group

in which there will definitely be work, but one of the

factors behind this slowdown is that we

have postponed quite a few issues

that were on the agenda

because it was impossible to adopt a decision

to today's meeting, and today there are even

more of them. And if we keep the same procedure

for adopting decisions, then one can say with

confidence that today we will

again have to carry over some of the issues to

the next time, and this will keep piling up,

and the expectations that people still

have regarding the Coordinating

Council will simply collapse;

they will stop paying attention.

For now, there still

remains, generally speaking, a quite

unprecedented requirement to adopt

decisions by a majority of the full listed membership,

regardless of

attendance.

The tradition of decision-making in

collegial bodies where people are represented

personally is to adopt decisions

when there is a quorum, by a majority

of those present or participating

in the vote. This is an entirely natural rule.

It is clear that the motives here were quite noble and

entirely justified when we

adopted this provision. We proceeded from

the need to achieve a certain

consensus, so that a tactical majority

could not form.

It is proposed to lower it. 30 seconds.

It is proposed to lower it not to a simple

majority with a quorum, by a majority of

those by which a decision may be adopted, but to

2/3 of the members of the Coordinating Council — 30

people. Well, I will now read the text itself.

That is all, and 10 seconds still remain.

A question, if I may, to Sergei and to Maxim.

Perhaps, as experts on the rules of procedure, you know: in our

rules, do all issues require 50%

of the full listed membership, while procedural

issues require a majority

of those present, whereas substantive

issues require a majority of the full membership, is that right?

Exactly.

Yes, sir.

[music]

The legitimacy of our decisions, after

this amendment, is essentially such that a decision may

be adopted

by votes. It is obvious that

any political decision, whatever it may be,

[music]

decision

a majority of pairs. I think that here we should not

go off into such

abstract horizons.

The proposal is to give members the opportunity

of the council who are participating in the meeting

to hold no more than one proxy each.

Our secretary, before the start of the meeting,

will announce who holds which proxy. Then I

think the work will proceed normally and

legitimacy

will be preserved. Mr. Chair, I would like

to invoke Article 38 of the rules of procedure and

ask you to put

it to a vote.

Why, no later than two meetings ago, on this

matter there were quite substantive

debates, and the Coordinating Council

voted on this issue and adopted

a decision. Furthermore, all decisions that were not

adopted by the Coordinating Council

because of this rule requiring those votes were not

not adopted because, well,

there was no quorum here or

something of that sort. At most of our

meetings, the quorum was very good — 35 to 40

people — but because we were unable to find

a compromise on these issues, and we should not

in such a situation return to

the discussion and say, "Now let's"

make decisions with fifteen people, or sixteen,

instead of twenty-three.

Because if 23 of us cannot find

a compromise, then in my view, returning to

discussion of such an issue after just one

meeting, after it has already been discussed

and adopted, is simply disrespectful to

the Coordinating Council, so I ask

you right now to put to

a vote the removal of this issue from

discussion, and the rules of procedure

provide for this and oblige you

to put it to an immediate vote.

No, it does not say here that a vote—I

can read it if you like—I have read clause

3, colleague.

I support the colleague's proposal. I want

to say that, from my point of view,

the disrespect lies in what is happening now; that is,

after all, people elected us so that

we would be

present here.

[music]

Fine, let this encourage attendance at the Coordinating Council. If some did not

come, then those who remained should make

the decision. I believe that is right, and I support

the proposal regarding proxies; that is

also normal practice.

Colleagues, the colleague's proposal,

colleague Nemtsov's proposal, colleague Davydis's proposal,

carry fairly serious risks, it seems to me.

The proposal by colleague Davydis contains

internal dangers, because in essence

what is being proposed is the introduction of the principle

of a constitutional majority.

This creates broad opportunities for manipulation and

indeed sharply reduces the legitimacy

of decisions taken, because a situational

majority may mean that today

one decision is adopted, and at the next

meeting of the Coordinating Council the quorum changes and

the exact opposite decision is adopted. How

to resolve this problem is completely

unclear. The one-half principle, the principle

of half plus one, on the contrary, encourages

the search for compromise, which, given

the specific nature of the formation of the Coordinating

Council, appears absolutely

necessary. People were elected who are completely

different and hold different views.

The principle

of—uh—

compromise is the right decision. As for

the claim that such a principle is unprecedented,

that simply sounds strange. The general

parliamentary principle is that voting

is decided by half of the full listed

membership of a collegial body.

Of course, the idea of giving our

body the character of an organ that makes prompt,

quick decisions is understandable. But this method

really does have significant flaws in

terms of legitimacy. I propose

that we really consider, perhaps even

right now, postponing the amendment. Perhaps

Sergei himself could even make a replacement

in a simplified form.

In any case, this may become destructive. Worldwide

practice—look at any parliament—shows that where

there is no, say, faction-based system and so on,

this is always the way the system works. We

will not come up with anything different either,

because the complexities of our lives

really do create

a complicated system, and unfortunately we too

will come to this problem and will have

to solve it somehow. But in fact, I now

wanted to support Boris Nemtsov

from the standpoint that the issue of

proxies removes the question

of legitimacy and makes it possible

to genuinely make prompt

and quick decisions. I think that if Boris

and Sergei can now, directly from the floor,

introduce this amendment and formulate it clearly, we

can support it and remove this disagreement.

Thank you. I beg your pardon, but we do not

allow amendments from the floor. If there

is a wish to do so,

public

organization—the standard charter of a public

organization, I have registered several of them—

the quorum is those present at

the meeting. It is

half of the total membership: 45 people.

That is,

those present, including the chair, and in our case

that is how decisions are made. This is the standard

charter of any public organization: 50%

plus one person present at the meeting out of

the members

of the organization, the meeting is legitimate, and the decision

is adopted by a majority. This is

the standard charter of a public

organization. Thank you very much. Colleagues, I would also

like to draw attention to the fact that we

discussed this issue in considerable detail

one meeting ago. That is first. Second,

it seems to me that it cannot serve as

serious argumentation

to say that our

colleagues attend meetings poorly. But if

they attend meetings poorly, they are

adults; we cannot force them. Their

voters will draw conclusions on that

matter. It was not for nothing that I asked my question and

clarified that on procedural issues we

can decide by a simple majority,

not a qualified majority

of those present, so this does not slow

the course of work. We simply should not adopt in this hall

serious decisions

or statements by a handful of people; that seems to me

not entirely right, and I would like

to draw attention to the fact that today we are creating

working groups. I am sure that most

issues will go through the working groups.

working groups, which, it seems to me, will greatly improve

the quality of the documents that

are submitted to the Coordinating Council and

make their adoption easier. In conclusion, I would like

to criticize Boris Nemtsov for his

proposal regarding proxies; I

do not like it at all. We are only there

running around pressing buttons, and here there will be

17 people sitting there waving proxy

forms around, so this is a very dangerous

thing. Thank you. Verkhovna Rada (Ukraine's parliament).

Dear colleagues, I am sure that

everyone has, of course, already formed an opinion

and it is hardly possible to change it. Nevertheless,

I will try. As for the argument that

this was discussed earlier, in my view

it is completely unconvincing.

The best proof of this is that the issue

has become pressing. If people do not attend, then of course

we cannot force them to. But we also should not

pursue such a goal. In my view, we simply should not.

Those who want to take part in the work

will attend. Colleague Davis's proposal, in

my view, is absolutely balanced in terms of

the need for a quorum of no fewer than

people. Thus, decision-making

will require at least one third. In my view,

that is entirely normal. I support my colleague.

Bandari: in homeowners' associations, decisions are indeed made

by half of the quorum.

Half may be present, and decisions

are made there.

Please, dear colleagues, I support

the amendment. Why? Because

it is well known, and I have encountered this more than once:

very often with

for various reasons

this simply

paralyzes things. Therefore, this proposal

is specifically aimed at ensuring that we

avoid such a fate, so that the Coordinating Council, over

time, does not turn into a

amorphous

structure. Those who want to work—

by adopting such an amendment, we will give them

the ability to make decisions on the most important issues. And

if we keep

dragging these issues out, then unfortunately the authority

will fall to a minimum. Therefore, I consider this

the right amendment. It must

definitely be adopted.

I oppose the amendment for two reasons.

First, it was circulated yesterday at

12:00, or—I do not remember—about a day before

the start of the meeting. And, in general, it seems to me

that I have a request to the secretariat:

to prepare issues, honestly, further

in advance. Also, a request to colleagues

to try, especially with important issues,

to send them to the secretariat in such a way that there is

an opportunity for the members of the Coordinating

Council to discuss them and make a decision,

or at least form some opinion,

because this thick stack of files

that arrived yesterday—well, all right, I

somehow managed to go through them at night—

but it seems to me that this issue

is simply not prepared in principle, because

there was no opportunity to really

think it through. And the second consideration is that, as

has already been said, I will repeat that

the 50% plus one rule encourages the development of

consensus decisions. If we cannot

reach them, then that is the situation. But

to force a decision in this situation

to be adopted by

one third of the votes, in my view, would be

wrong. I do not support the idea of

proxies. But it seems to me that we

have an excellent mechanism for voting

on specific issues by phone, by

any available means. If

serious issues

that are subject to a vote were submitted

in a timely manner, then instead of giving someone a proxy

one could communicate

one's position on these issues, and after that this opinion

could be taken into account along with

the others. Again, in situations where

there are working groups and issues are prepared

in a working group, only specific

points of disagreement, if they suddenly

arise, should be voted on—or the issue as a whole

when

there is disagreement. This problem

of functionality could to a significant extent

be resolved. Thank you. Does anyone else want

to make a concluding remark?

As I understand it, we are unlikely to reach agreement

on this issue. In that case, perhaps

a compromise option, as in the State Duma (the lower house of Russia's parliament): there are

constitutional laws, and there are laws

that are adopted there by

different majorities in the Duma—I mean the procedural

rules. Therefore, perhaps it makes sense for us

to divide issues into

political ones, such as programmatic statements,

support for particular candidates in

elections—here, probably, a majority

of the full listed membership would be needed. And there are

technical issues that can

be decided by a majority of those present.

[music]

Colleagues, of course, the consideration that

this amendment was introduced 12

hours in advance is grounds for

not considering it—this is, of course, not a serious

argument, because the amendment is short,

everyone has read it, including the respected

colleague Gelfand, who with his substantive

speech showed that he not only

familiarized himself with it, but also thoroughly argued his

position quite convincingly. Second, I liked

the point made by our colleague

Navalny regarding proxies. I

think this is a very dangerous path.

Indeed, we may well

end up copying the very worst

the negative traditions of the State Duma (the lower house of Russia’s parliament)

of the Duma. Now, as for the other

proposal, mine is precisely the same

proposal. I made it, I think, also two

meetings ago: to divide questions

into procedural and substantive ones. I was in fact asking

the secretaries

to make such a proposal so that we

could clearly understand how

we can vote on this or that issue. I think

that since there is no such proposal

first, and second, I think that in

practical terms it will be quite difficult for us

to determine what is

procedural and what is substantive

and at least for now, since we have no

relevant proposals, there is

a danger that we will never settle on

um, when

... it is very difficult, and so instead

I would like to draw your attention to this

look, today at our meeting

right now, at this moment, I have just

asked the secretariat

there are 30 members present

of the Coordinating Council, that is, there is a quorum

but this is exactly the absolute minimum

for a quorum under the current

rules of procedure. If the

rule we currently have under the

rules of procedure remains in force, we need 23 people to

adopt any decision, if I am not

mistaken. That is 75% — a super-

qualified majority. This

in effect means that we cannot

adopt any decision at all, well, except perhaps

for some very rare ones

That is, in effect all our work will be

blocked; we will not be able to adopt anything

We need to think both about ourselves — about what we cannot

do — and about those people who

look at us and say: wait a second

they cannot do anything. These complaints against

us are made regularly, and they will

only be intensified as a result of this

Therefore, here is my proposal

to support this proposal after all

that has been submitted. Ah, excuse me

time

Let’s have one final

word. Dear colleagues, it seems to me that in the course of

this discussion there has been a significant substitution of concepts

The consensus that we

really need, and which we should

strive for, is in no way threatened by this amendment

everyone who came forms that

quorum from which two-thirds is calculated — 16

the minimum number of us has come

of the council cannot and must not be placed in

dependence, be

held hostage by those respected members who

cannot or do not want to participate either in person or remotely

in the meeting. We have assumed

a certain responsibility

justification

a procedural norm of democratic practice

that would allow us to resolve the issues

before us

would appear in the eyes of our

voters as simply

sabotage. I ask you to support this

amendment. Thank you

A colleague has made a proposal to remove

I am putting to a vote the removal of this

item from the agenda under the rules of procedure

I put this decision to a vote. Who is in favor

of removing this

decision? Who is

against? Who abstained? The decision

did not pass. Accordingly, we are voting on

this amendment. I request a roll-call

vote; it seems to me that this

issue is important and will determine the future of the

Coordinating Council

We support it. Colleague, please tell me

please, for a roll-call vote

is a special vote required? Can it

be

requested by the CC? Well, I do not know how appropriate that is in this

matter

Sergei will simply write it down himself

there is a procedure for that. Well, let’s

do it by name. The person is not

Vive is absent

Aitova, Alburov

against; Artyomov, in favor

Ashurkov, against; Bondarik, in favor

Bykov; Vinokurov, against; Gazaryan

against; Gaskarov — Gaskarov just called

he is in favor. Perhaps the secretariat can clarify

he is on the way, he will arrive shortly. Such conduct

is not предусмотрено by procedure

He asked for his vote to be counted

he just called. There is no such provision

remote participation — against. Remote participation means

when people sit and listen to what is happening, not

when

when they call. What? Gennady — I abstained

Utkov

Dmitry Azaryan

in favor. Requests

to change it. That is why it should not be done by telephone

No, he is fine — he is sitting there listening

Dolgikh, in favor

Illarionov, in favor; Kara-

Murza; Karetnikova

in favor; Kasparov, in favor; Kats

against

Kashin, Konstantinov

in favor; Tor, in favor; Krylov

in favor

Lazareva; Mirzoyev, in favor

Navalny, Naganov against; Nemtsov

against

[music]

Nikolayev

Pochaev, excuse me, it sounded like he voted in favor

Actually, no, no, I marked it as

absent

Parkhomenko absent, Pivovarov against

Yankovsky in favor, Razvozzhayev

in favor, Romanova

against, Sopor against

Sobchak absent, Udaltsov in favor, Tsarkov

against, Chirikova

Gascarov has come up; the request is still to

count the vote

in favor, so Chirikov is absent

sha absent, Shen

absent, Yashin

against, against

Total: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14

15 16 17 18, in favor: 18. The decision was not adopted. And

could you announce how many were against and how many

were absent? On this vote, one can

against: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12

13 13

against, here: 1 2 3, we together 4 5 6 7 8 9

10 11 12 15 14 14 absent. Total

there was one absence, therefore 13

Dato, and we have—come on, come on, can we proceed in order

Yes, please

in connection with the vote that has just taken place, we have

a proposal from Davydov, a joint amendment

to vote on the issue of proxy authorization

Val, but it just seems to me

listen, I’ll explain; I understand the concern

of Sergei, that many of us

decisions

see below

simply, the main thing is that we accuse the authorities of not

being legitimate, while we ourselves want to follow

a flawed path. Yes, further, proxy authorization is

a practice that exists in

parliaments; it exists. It does not exist everywhere

but it does exist. Further, we will not have

a State Duma (the lower house of Russia’s parliament); I

wanted to say this specifically to Navalny

why? Because we are proposing to allow

no more than one proxy authorization

for one member to vote with, no more than

one proxy authorization

it seems to me that this is a normal

and entirely parliamentary practice

which will allow us not to paralyze

the work, but on the contrary make it more

productive. Further, we already have

proxy authorizations. Look, we have them already, yes

Konstantinov, a member of the Coordinating Council, is in prison

unfortunately, and we have Razvozzhayev there as well

we have people who are essentially voting

by proxy; they already exist

therefore this practice in the Coordinating Council

already exists; I ask you to support it

I beg your pardon. Let’s stick to the agenda

yes, let’s move on, we are not

making progress. The next amendment

under consideration: Sergei Udaltsov, Article

Yes, dear colleagues, until I have received

Nemtsov’s amendment, I cannot

cannot

discuss Article 24 of the rules. In my

view, when we adopted the rules, we

did not pay sufficient attention to this issue

perhaps we did not take into account the importance

of this issue, because as

practice has shown, already by this meeting we have

one of the members of the Coordinating Council, Aitova,

has resigned her powers of her own

request, and

such cases may occur

and in general, in general, we must understand that

the voters who cast ballots in the election

voted not only for these 45

people, but also for others who came

further down the list, and probably in such a

situation it would be extremely reasonable to

introduce a provision into the rules that in the event

of the departure of a member of the Coordinating

Council, as stated here, in the event of death

or, that is, for other reasons

Let us hope that we will all live

long lives, of course

then of course his or her mandate

is transferred to the next candidate by number of

votes received in the Coordinating Council election

to the candidate next in line on the corresponding

list, that is, on the list

of the civic slate or the list

of the corresponding so-called curia

this would be fair; it would allow the Coordinating

Council to work fully. Different situations may

arise; there may be some

political circumstances, demarches, well

God forbid, but anything is possible, and again we

may end up in a situation where the Coordinating

Council is simply paralyzed. So, in order

to safeguard against such situations, while at the

same time ensuring that voters feel

that this is being done in their interests, if they

voted for the forty-sixth candidate, for example

suppose the forty-fifth did not get in

then that candidate should come and work in the

Council, as the voters wanted. If we block this

that is essentially a violation of their

will. Therefore I propose adopting this amendment

it threatens us in no way

all the people who were on the lists

are known to us; they are all worthy people, and I

believe they have every right, in the event

of a vacancy opening up. This is indeed practiced

in parliaments as well; there is nothing

shameful or bad about it, so

let us consider this issue carefully

please

Colleagues, yes, in my view we cannot

support this amendment for the following reason

that what our colleague Udaltsov described, and

the parliamentary practice he referred to

may apply to the State Duma

it relates to factional, that is, not

non-factional representation; that is, people vote for

a party, say the Communist Party of the Russian Federation (KPRF); if one of their

representatives leaves, then the next KPRF member

enters the State Duma so as not to

disturb the balance chosen by the voters

forces, whereas with individual voting

such a practice is impossible, because

people voted, say, for Alexei, well,

Navalny, and tomorrow he might, for example,

decide to leave the Coordination Council

and instead of him, for some reason, this council would get

Mikhail Tsky, who in no way

represents those voters who

voted for Alexei Navalny under

individual voting. The transfer of a mandate

because someone has dropped out is impossible

because, well, the voters chose

these people so that they would reach

compromises among themselves, and absolutely not so that

they could pass their mandates on

to people who may have been elected

by completely different voters. Between those

who dropped out and those who are next in

line, there is no connection, unlike

party-list voting. And in bodies where

individual voting takes place

there is never any replacement. That is, if

a representative is elected to the State

Duma (the lower house of Russia’s parliament) from a single-member district, for example,

if he drops out, he is not replaced

by the next person people voted for in a

single-member or even multi-member district

that is possible only in party-list

voting. We did not have party-list voting,

so such an amendment cannot be adopted

it contradicts the very spirit

of the election. Colleague,

Bandari, I in fact support our colleague

Udaltsov and am grateful to our colleague Katz for

his, so to speak, wise proposal. Yes,

I propose this:

replace departed members of the CC with those who, in

their curia, come next on the list, that is,

a perfectly understandable idea, yes.

Well, if someone from the liberal, civic

group leaves, they are replaced from there; if someone from the civic

group—sorry, colleagues—from one of the party

electoral groups. Yes, we have three parties here plus

some kind of general civic bloc, so

they are replaced by the next people on the list. I see nothing

wrong with that.

There are many worthy people here, but I am against

adopting this amendment for reasons

similar to Katz’s, because

our CC was elected in single-member

districts, not by party lists, and we

know—and saw in the debates—that the people

who were elected were often

with respect to one another on simply

antagonistic political positions.

Therefore, the fact that Aitova got up and left the CC

does not mean that the person who replaces her

will represent the political position

of Aitova and her voters.

Single-member representatives cannot replace one

another in such an automatic manner. We

cannot adopt this amendment. Thank you. I

apologize for making use of the

chair’s rights. Of course, this is not

single-member voting; in political science it is called

ranked voting. Your arguments

apply to a completely different

category.

Voting, first of all,

Excuse me, first of all, it is not ranked

voting.

That is not the same thing. Second, the analogy

between curiae and parties does not really

work at all, because the curial principle and the

party principle within a single body are things

that are completely orthogonal. I would draw

your attention to the fact that this issue was, once again, already

discussed during the debate on the rules, and

a decision was made by vote then.

Well, and finally, I agree with those

arguments that were made here regarding

political positions; I will not

repeat them. But since there was an

absolutely pragmatic argument that said

that the people further down the list are completely

worthy, and why

not, since voters did vote for them,

why not have them replace those

who drop out—I would draw your attention to the fact that

starting practically from the first number on the general

civic list, there is a large crowd

of ... We know what happens when ...

Coordination

Council. Representative of Daniil Konstantinov.

Dear

colleagues, the current situation reminds me

of a well-known joke: do you want the checkers or to get there?

That is how it seems to me. Look

at what is happening time and again at

the meetings of the Coordination Council.

Quorum is becoming...

it is not hard to understand that in just three

meetings, the work of the Coordination Council

will be completely paralyzed if we

keep playing checkers, if we

continue playing at being an opposition

parliament. This is not a parliament; it is a

Coordination Council. We need to work.

Therefore I strongly urge you once again

to think about what kind of

impression all this empty talk

makes on our voters, and I ask you

to support Udaltsov’s amendment. Thank you.

Colleague,

Kasparov, it seems to me that the whole dispute there about

whether the elections to the Coor-

were analogous to single-member elections or

ranked voting is pointless, because

it was a rather unique procedure, and

of course one can argue with equal success

that the voting was only for

specific candidates; one can also argue

the opposite, pointing to the existence of curiae, but

it is quite obvious that voters

responded not only to specific

people, but also to the lists that were widely

circulating on the internet and in the few printed

publications that existed.

covered the elections, so for example

some

some groups, from the very

beginning, positioned themselves, well, as

a kind of party structure

speaking with a common platform, whereas

we are not a parliament, we understand that perfectly well

we understand it, and we really are

a coordinating council that must

demonstrate that it is capable of functioning

But why

should we refer to some kind of

parliamentary analogies? And in conditions where

when, generally speaking, the Coordinating Council

is under tremendous pressure, and

it is completely obvious that members leaving the

CC can happen for all sorts of

reasons, and overall we are working in extremely

unfavorable conditions, unlike the

State Duma (the lower house of Russia's parliament). So that is why it seems to me

that, of course, our colleague's amendment

by Udaltsov is very

timely. Fifteen minutes ago, colleague

Katz, and yet you continue

to insist that the question of replacing a member of the CC

is not procedural but

political. In my view, it is procedural

quite obviously

to everyone

the proposal failed precisely because of the rule requiring 23

votes. A majority voted for it, but those

votes were not there. It seems to me that this

question is one we can definitely vote on now

by a majority of those present, because

it is clearly procedural

Yes, colleague, this is an amendment to the rules of procedure

Colleagues, well, it is perfectly obvious that the left-wing

faction, with Ms. Aitova's departure,

has been left diminished. The rights of the voters have quite

obviously been violated, and I believe it is

simply our duty to give the left, the left

curia, the left faction, the right to increase its

numbers to p people, as it was in the

CC election regulations, and to adopt this

amendment. I urge you, please

adopt it

Mr... Dear colleagues, the clock shows

1:31, and we are here discussing

At this pace of work, we will

I have a proposal to

that

proposal

without a decision by the профильная commission, otherwise

we will have endless chatter and competitions in

eloquence that will continue

forever. I propose postponing these

amendments for now; the amendments should be passed on to

the working group being formed now, which can

also hold an additional vote in some

other format

that are on today's agenda

so I propose proceeding in this way

for now: not to discuss amendments that have not

passed through the relevant committee or commission

or working group. The only thing we have today

is a provision—or rather

amendments—that we discussed

collectively; these are amendments to the provision on

our political document. There are

recommendations from the editorial commission, and we

can express them. Otherwise we will drown

right now in contradictions. We first need

to agree on the ground rules beforehand, and only then bring things

to the plenary session. So I

propose this: parliament or not, any

conference, any meeting, begins with

defining the rules of procedure for that

meeting or conference. Whether we want it or not,

we must first come to an agreement

and only then bring it to the plenary session

I propose ending the discussion now

moving on to substantive issues, and instructing

the newly formed commissions

to review all these amendments by the

next meeting of the Coordinating

Council and put them to a vote. As I understand it,

this is a proposal to remove the question from a vote

No, no, to postpone it, postpone it, just

postpone it, not remove it but postpone it. All right

then who is in favor of ending

the discussion on this

issue? Please count. Who is in favor of

removing this—ending the discussion and postponing it

1 2 3 4

5... 15 people. Who, who

is against? 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12

1... 14 hands. Who abstained?

But I am in favor

of removing this question, ending

the discussion on

it. The discussion is closed. All right, let us

now vote on this question

ending the discussion is not the proposal

or not, because there were 14 hands, he says

I can see that. But how 14 hands? I did not

I do not see your hand either. Will you raise your hand

then? Well, they simply did not manage

to relay to me the information about how

they voted, how this particular

[music]

question was voted on. Yes, yes, the discussion

has been closed. We have ended the discussion on this question

and I am putting the question to a vote

on Udaltsov's amendment

who—colleagues, Vladimir, I have a

proposal simply to assign this, uh, discussion on

the amendments to the rules of procedure to

the working commission for further work and a decision

and to move the vote to the next

Coordinating

for that

that is what we voted on. The question remained that

to end it—I made the proposal. Today we will have

a Working

Commission formed, and today we can instruct

the working commissions to express their view

on the proposed amendments to the rules of procedure, and not only

to the rules of procedure, and by the next

to the Coordinating Council, or perhaps to...

earlier there, through the electronic mechanism

of voting, the commission's recommended position

the commission's amendment is being pressed through, that is,

you are proposing to postpone the discussion until

the next meeting? Yes, I propose postponing it. Otherwise

we won't have time to address the substantive issue

to consider it. I have a question for our colleague

Gudkov. Please tell me, into which

working group should this

issue fall? I think that under our rules, the commi-

But it has not been adopted here, we have not adopted

a decision to create it yet. No, it is

being discussed, but has not yet been adopted, and it is still not

clear whether it will be adopted or not. I would like

to draw your attention

to the working gro- Yes, I understand, but you see, the thing is

that even this very issue, for now, for now

the decision has not even been made yet, whether it will be

adopted or not adopted, we still do not

know that. And in any case, even if

this decision is adopted, there are some

issues that do not fall within the sphere

of responsibility of one or another working

group, or fall within the sphere

of responsibility of several working groups

an attempt to take any issue, or

some important issue, out of discussion

by the council and transfer it to a work-

is in fact fraught with certain

dangers, because we are, as it were, reducing

serious issues that we should

be discussing in full session to a lower

level. As has been shown, in particular, by

the work of the editorial group on

the program statement, this often does not

solve problems, but aggravates them. Therefore

some issues, especially issues of this kind

issues, issues relating to the composition

of the Coordinating Council itself, cannot

even be assigned to one or another

working group. They deserve

to be discussed in full session. I

would like to draw attention to the fact that in

this case, the situation is worsening

that we arrived at

as a result of the previous vote. We

end up with not just a super-

qualified majority

required to adopt any

decision, but a super-super-qualified one

because a reduction in the number of members

of the Coordinating Council, in the event that

Ms. Aidu leaves, or, God forbid,

someone else leaves for some reason

our ranks, and also, as we can see,

with only 14 members of the Coordinating Council at

the current meeting of the Coordinating

Council, really does lead to an effective

blocking of the adoption of any decisions

because whatever is adopted will be

called sabotage. Dear colleague

Yashin, this phrase has already been used repeatedly

with regard to certain members

of the Coordinating Council. I am sure that

after today's meeting it will be

heard even

more often. I beg your pardon. So, we are goi-

to stop the discussion

Then let us vote on this amendment

who is in favor of Dolgov's amendment, please

vote. Please count the votes

please take into account that he is on the line, but call him

please

asks to see above

17

regarding procedure, this is an amendment to the rules

and not some procedural matter. It in no way

is adopted by a majority of

those present; it is adopted by a majority

of the total

membership

of the body

[music]

adopted

decision. Who

is against? Colleague Der- I

see. Who abstained?

We move on to the next

amendment. Secretary

The discussion took place at the previous meeting

precisely on the issue of promptly adopting

certain decisions and statements on Democracy-2

for the purpose that, when it is necessary to adopt

some decision

it quickly, we prepared an amendment stating that

if this or that issue put to

a vote receives 23 votes on

Democracy-2, then that decision is considered

adopted from the moment it receives

those 23

votes

based on the consensus that

arose there

Who would like to speak on this

amendment? Colleague Romanova. Excuse me, I am not

speaking on the amendment. It seems to me that amendments to

the rules are extremely important, and in our colleague's proposal

Sobol to the Coordinating Council there are

things... More importantly, we ought to honor

the memory of our colleague who died in

the Netherlands. This is important. We have already been here

for an hour and a half. Let us honor his memory. Well,

let us honor it

...

Please sit down. So, who is ready to speak on the text of the amendment?

ready

to speak? If no one is ready, then I

propose putting the matter directly to

a vote. Who is in favor, please

vote. 1, 2, 3 votes if

Nara

to count the votes, can we announce it? Please

excuse me, so that we all understand what we are

voting for, I cannot vote

27

votes. The vote has taken place. I would like

to draw attention—may I? Yes, please. Thank you

A major issue: just a few

days ago, we adopted a statement regarding

our colleague, if I recall correctly, and

it turned out that for 24 hours they had no

access to the internet, but they are ready and

would like to support it. In this connection,

we had a problem obtaining

the necessary number of votes in

the event that the absentee

voting period is reduced to two days. Compared

with what we had before,

as previously formulated.

In short.

The proposal is adopted. I suggest we move on to

the next item.

Question. Sergey, I have a proposal.

[music]

to organize a mailing list when

an urgent

vote is underway. Well, some—well, as for that, I

think there were no issues at all.

The same as with ours, I believe. In general, I

apologize, but this reasonable question should

be moved to the working groups, when there will not

be

be a need to decide on the spot what to do and that's it. No,

the information should be sent via

SMS. On the subject of information, I want to tell you

the following: at the

event at Kamenny, my

phone number was intercepted by special means;

other people received other SMS messages too, not just me.

I know that our colleague Gelfand had

the same

story. This is a common situation. This issue

needs to be worked through technically, not

adopted right away.

Just half a minute, if I may, sorry.

Please. I just want to take advantage of the fact that we

have just adopted these amendments, especially

those on electronic voting. I would like

once again to urge members of the Coordinating Council to use

the absentee voting mechanism. We

spent an hour and a half on amendments to the

rules of procedure; we could all have voted on them remotely

for or against and not torment

ourselves and everyone else now, and so on. When we

needed, in connection with the recent

tragedy in the Netherlands, to adopt a statement,

we adopted it in half a day, and everything was

perfectly fine. Let's make

the broadest possible use of it, because we have

a tendency where nobody wants to put democracy

into practice, and everyone insists on

discussing everything in person. Nothing good will

come of it. Thank you, noted.

So, item

4.

Members of the Council, in the event of absence from

meetings, may transfer a proxy for

voting to one of the members. A member may

vote with no more than one

proxy. Information about the

granting of the proxy shall be provided to the responsible

secretary.

Colleague,

I do not support this amendment for the reason that,

once again, we had personal

voting for the Coordinating Council, and

proxy voting was not

provided for before the elections.

Therefore, how strange

it would be if some members of the Coordinating Council were to have

two votes instead of one. Especially since this

would almost certainly very quickly turn into

a situation where more than

one

proxy would be possible. In my view, not coming to the

Coordinating Council is

an expression of the position of one of the members

of the Coordinating Council. What

our colleagues are doing here, for example

by introducing ten amendments to the

rules of procedure after those rules were

adopted two meetings ago, is simply

disrespectful. That is not how things are done. That is not

done even in bodies that

are not allies at all. And so

when something like this happens, when

there is disrespect toward the body and

an hour and a half is spent discussing

amendments to the rules of procedure, indeed

many people, including perhaps myself at some

point, may decide: all right,

I'm tired of coming to this body and

taking part in these meaningless discussions. And that is

an expression of a position. And if because of that it

falls apart, then later we will

form another, more

effective body, into which perhaps

the very people who are now

submitting these endless amendments and

endless resolutions will not enter. Therefore, in my

view, this provision

on proxy voting here

disrupts the natural course of the process. It

must not be adopted, colleague.

I want to draw attention to the fact that we

really do have

the principle of transferring one's vote under

the current rules of procedure, and this

principle applies when the reason

is a valid one. From my point

of view, if a person is sitting in prison on

fabricated charges, then that is

a valid reason. But if

a person overslept, for example, or

had some important business there—those are not valid

reasons. He must bear responsibility

before his voters. We are here

authorized not by someone else, but by the voters

who voted for us in

truly large and serious elections.

Therefore, if a person does not attend

a meeting of the Coordinating Council, he may explain it however he likes,

but it is an expression, perhaps

of a position, perhaps not an expression

of a position, but it is a demonstration of one's attitude toward

to the people who voted for him

I really would not want the CC

to turn into the State Duma (the lower house of Russia’s parliament), which

everyone snickers at, and where

a few people run around and vote for

everyone else using other people’s cards. You were elected

to the Coordinating Council, so please be kind enough to bear

responsibility for that and find the time

to take part in its

work. That is why I am against the amendment. Colleagues,

I also, in this case, am in solidarity with colleague Kam

that this is a sign of respect for the Coordinating

Council, because after all, a person is here

not just to tick some

boxes, or raise and lower

their hand on command. They listen to the arguments of different

sides, they analyze them, they form their own

opinion, and

having shared it with others and discussed it, yes, they

make a considered decision.

That is the only normal way.

After all, if a person

is, say, ill, or if

life circumstances have somehow

turned out that way, then please — that is,

anyone can, without leaving

home, take full part in

our meeting and make

balanced and proper decisions. As for

these, as our colleague says,

endless amendments to the rules of procedure — we are not

adopting the Constitution of the Russian Federation

here, some sacred cow that

people discuss for years and God knows how

they finally adopt. This is like perestroika (the Soviet-era restructuring reforms), Mr.

— this is an unexplored path, yes.

We adopted these rules of procedure, and then

it became clear that some large

part of the CC members, as I see it,

are simply sabotaging it. So naturally we

have the right to make amendments

as we go, if these amendments

are justified.

[music]

Katya.

[music]

Imagine if someone is ill.

What conclusion do we draw from what we see now? We have

30 people here out of 45. Shall I, I don’t

know, add the votes of

those absent? Otherwise we will not

work, we will not make decisions. Great,

an excellent option. I think that despite

the fact that the proxy option is of course worse

than the one I proposed, it is nevertheless

a stopgap solution to the problem

we are facing. Therefore I propose

such a decision in order to preserve

our ability to function.

First of all, I would like to draw attention

to the fact that all this talk that the departure

of members of the Coordinating Council leads to

the need for some kind of super-supermajority

is arithmetically inaccurate, because in the

rules of procedure we specifically inserted a provision that

a decision is adopted not by two-thirds

of those present, but by half of the total

listed membership. If someone leaves, then the total

membership simply decreases accordingly.

Second, I would like to draw

attention to the fact that the situation with

members leaving is actually a strong argument against

transferring proxies,

because it is easy to imagine

a situation in which a person leaves permanently

while leaving their proxy permanently

to someone else. I am not sure we want that. The same

colleague who wrote the letter

saying that she cannot actively

participate

— is that forever?

Forever? And I do not understand whether we want

to create the possibility for such a practice.

And finally, third, I would point out that

our body really was created for

one year, and a noticeable part of that term has already passed.

We are working as we are working; at this point

nothing can be done about it. In the next

electoral cycle, voters will see who

worked how.

And these horror stories that in three meetings’ time

we will have nobody left

[music]

Constant tweaking of the rules at every

moment — here I agree with

colleague Kam, this is, in my view, a little

not very serious.

Dear colleagues, I would like

to draw attention to the possible

theoretical consequences of adopting

such a decision. If this

passes, then in principle one cannot exclude

a situation in which, in this

hall, there are 15 people physically

present, each of whom

has even just one proxy for

one other member, not even two, as

Mr. Gats was talking about. And then

formally the meeting would have to be opened

and there would have to be voting, and so on, with

15 people. And the second thing I would draw

attention to is this: we are now at the fourth meeting

of the Coordinating Council, and we have,

for example, our colleague Ghazaryan, who God

knows where is, and yet

despite the fact that, well, in the

conditions he is in, he

finds a way to get through with his

Skype connection and take part in votes

when he considers it necessary for his

vote to be counted, as we have just now

witnessed. But 14 or 15 other respected

members of the Coordinating Council, while being

in the city of Moscow, or even in other more

favorable conditions, having neither

the ability nor perhaps the desire to participate

either via Skype or in any other way, and

thus...

is demonstrating a desire to work on the

Coordination Council, so it seems to me

that this proposal is very

dangerous, and it should not be

supported.

Kokov: Yes, thank you. Dear colleagues, one can

talk as much as one likes about the responsibility of the Coordination

Council, but in reality we are dealing with

a fairly serious, relatively

serious problem. This is no longer the first

[music]

meeting where, from my electoral cluster,

someone may not be present. If we do not understand that this is

an organization coordinating the opposition

movement in Russia, then for me

the proposal

is this: in practice, we need to make

a decision—either indeed what

Nemtsov proposed, what Nemtsov suggested,

because there is simply no other option, since we

have no mechanism for excluding

anyone from the Council

once elected. Therefore, I propose adopting

the proposal.

Ponomaryov: But in general, we must not create

the impression

that with the general civic

list there should not be preliminary

preparation of working versions of these

issues, rather than bringing all our

disagreements out into the open now, so that we end up with

headlines saying that the Coordination Council

is falling apart, that they cannot agree

even on procedural issues—what kind of people are these?

Therefore, it seems to me that today we need to

quickly adopt, as temporary

measures, even for tactical minor

disagreements. This is completely inappropriate.

So let us adopt, as a temporary

option, Nemtsov’s amendment, or else

return to the previous amendment. But we

must refine this and bring

benefit to the country. And that is absolutely

our main task.

Thank you. Colleagues, let us wrap up

the discussion. I am against proxy voting in

principle. Colleague Yashin is right: elections

will put everything in its proper place; the voters

will judge. For example, I come from Kirov

every time and spend money on

travel and accommodation. Muscovites, I think, all the more so

could all

be present. I put the question to

a vote. All of us are concerned about the very

low effectiveness of the Coordination

Council’s work.

All our voters and

supporters—and even those who do not support us—have already noticed this. Such an

amendment did not pass. My amendment

makes it possible to sharply increase the effectiveness

of the Coordination Council’s work. Next, we

already have proxies; we have already

agreed on that. It turned out that there are

people lying in hospital who have no Skype access,

and at the same time they

still want to participate. People are forced to leave

somewhere—things happen. They left,

for a valid reason. Yes, we can give

these people the opportunity to express

their position, or not. Next, this is not some kind of

State Duma (the lower house of Russia’s parliament)—there is no need to

confuse matters. In the State Duma, one

person can vote for an entire faction;

we see that regularly. Here, there is one

proxy that is issued for

one specific meeting only; there will be no

lifetime proxies—just one

proxy for one meeting. Therefore,

I would like

to support

the amendment. Please vote. So, who is in favor of

the amendment proposed by Boris Nemtsov, Article

4?

16? 10? I see hands. Who is

[music]

against? Who abstained?

The amendment did not

pass.

All right, let us move on to the working groups. If I am not

mistaken, we had a proposal regarding

changing the agenda order, yes. Well,

Lyubov Sobol sent us a text that she

asked to have heard closer to the beginning

of the meeting. Perhaps we should do that, and

then proceed according to

the agenda. This is an extremely important matter, and I would not

want it to be pushed all the way to the end.

I beg your pardon, but everything here is

quite

important. In fact, the most important thing is

who votes, how they vote,

and how decisions are made. As we go along,

we can put it to a vote

to add this issue for

consideration right now rather than at the end

of the meeting. We adopted the agenda, adopted it in general

terms—and what happens next?

There will be a vote on the items that individual members of the

Council wanted to introduce for discussion.

Moreover, the procedural amendments were

moved forward for exactly the same

request from members of the Coordination Council.

All right, let us vote on the procedure.

A proposal has been made that the next item

be to discuss the proposal

of colleague Sobol. Who is in favor of

proceeding to this

discussion? Who is against?

Please.

An appeal from the Coordination Council to

the participants in the march and rally of May 6. At

present, the stage of

preliminary investigation in the May 6 case has ended,

one of the most

recent

high-profile political cases.

Why read it? I just want to read it out

because people are watching our live broadcast.

voters, people with opposition views

including participants in the events

of May 6. Therefore, I think this statement

is very brief, and in

terms of timing, in about one and a half to two

months the case materials will be submitted to the court.

The lawyers for the young political prisoners

are reaching out through the Coordination Council

of the opposition, asking people to contact them and

testify in court, everyone who took part

in the authorized march

and rally on May 6.

Right.

Dozens of people. Under Russian

law, the court must question

a witness. And if a witness

reports a crime, for example

a crime committed by the police, then it must

take appropriate measures. Every

violation of the law by the court, for the purpose of its

further appeal, including in

international bodies. Courts do not pay

attention to lawyers' eloquent speeches, but

they are obliged to pay attention to testimony.

[music]

In many ways, they became involved by chance; it so

happened that it was they who ended up in the sights

of photo and video cameras, and that is why they

were tracked down and identified by officers

from Center "E" (Russia's anti-extremism police unit), and therefore all of us

who were with them on Bolotnaya Square bear

a certain responsibility toward them.

If you are ready to help and become a witness

in court, truthfully

tell your story. The project's email is

@gmail.com, or call 8-916

516

A similar statement is also

posted on the website of the project

RosUznik. I ask you to spread

this information as widely as possible to draw attention

to it. Sobol, let's still...

These "young political prisoners" include a middle-aged man in prison,

Krivov, a Candidate of Sciences (roughly equivalent to a PhD). What "young guys" are you talking about?

political pris...

...

Behavior, behavior... I have a question: what exactly are we voting for?

There is no actual decision.

Let's have the appeal from the Coordination

Council framed as an appeal to the participants

in the May action.

In addition to the first stylistic

amendment, the second is to remove "get in touch".

Second, "lawyers' eloquent speeches" — in my

view, that should be removed because it carries

a somewhat negative connotation.

Let's say "the lawyers' statements"

instead, because "eloquent"

sounds as if we are mocking them.

I entrust that to Sobol and Emi.

The amendment — to take these amendments into account. Who is in favor

of this proposal, who is in favor of this appeal,

please vote.

The composition of the working groups... page one, and

page two of the materials. So,

Gennady Gudkov's proposal, please.

Gennady, I actually don't see it... the second

page? Ah, yes. Well then. Dear colleagues,

we need to expand cooperation with

political parties, public

organizations, and so on. I propose

creating such a commission, and if my colleagues

entrust me with it, I am ready to head it and

take part in this process,

because it is important. Thank you.

Excuse me, if I'm not mistaken, we do not

have a mechanism provided for creating a working

group or commission; we have participation in these

commissions. So, who is in favor of

Gennady Gudkov's proposal on

creating a working group for cooperation with

national, religious, and public

organizations?

25 in favor.

Adopted. Next, Filipp Dzyadko's proposal.

He is absent, so we will

consider it in absentia. To change the name of the working

group on information policy,

agitation, and propaganda to a working group on

information policy, agitation, and

education.

Are we voting or discussing?

Briefly: we discussed this topic at the previous

meeting. The proposal is to remove the words

"agitation," "propaganda," as well as "education,"

leaving simply "on information policy."

A vote is acceptable.

No, the point is that we

discussed this at the previous meeting. I assumed

that the colleagues who spoke then with this

proposal would formally submit it, and it seems to me we have already

discussed why, if not a majority,

there was no one who supported

keeping in the name of this working

group the words "agitation" and "propaganda." I do not

remember a single corresponding

statement to that effect.

A group on information policy would be a good...

The rules of procedure, the rules exist. That means

Filipp Dzyadko's proposal has been submitted.

Let's put it to a vote, and if

a proposal comes from our colleague

Larionov, then, well, as they come in

we will

vote on them. So, who is in favor of the proposal

by Filipp, please vote.

16, taking into account Gazaryan's vote. Who is

against? Who abstained?

Adopted? The decision is adopted? No, not adopted, no, no.

Not adopted. Next, Filipp's proposal

Dzyadko's proposal: to replace

the task title "development of

agitation and propaganda

materials for the Coordination Council" with

"development of campaign materials

for the Coordination Council."

Who is in favor of this amendment, please

vote. 14 — once again, it does not pass.

We are not moving on to personal appointments.

To the matter of approving the membership of the working

groups.

If memory serves, then generally, in such

cases, I think the question is whether we are prepared

to preserve what is currently in the text.

A colleague kept raising the point

that otherwise it would be complete absurdity

if in the end we reject the word

"propaganda" and may even reject the word

"agitation," yet here there would still remain

"campaign materials." Let me just remind you

that this provision has already been

adopted at the previous meeting, so

it should not be revisited here.

In my interpretation of the rules of procedure, when

discussing amendments, one must vote

between the existing version and

the amendment; whichever gets more votes is adopted.

I beg your pardon, we had already adopted

a specific text; it is in force, and to it

amendments are now being proposed. Those amendments

did not pass, so the text that remains in force is the one

that was adopted earlier.

Please put me down for the group on organizing

protest

actions. Let's proceed.

On the proposal regarding the working group.

So, to approve the membership of the working group on

drafting the program and development strategy

and related proposals of the Coordinating Council.

The following have signed up: Ashurkov, Goryan, Fand.

I apologize, I was unable to sign up electronically

because they seized

everything they could seize.

Please add me verbally.

Me, I assume.

I assume no one else wishes to. A question for the chair:

for clarity, those members who

for some reason have not yet had the chance—

The rule was as follows: each member

of the Coordinating Council has

the opportunity to participate, with the right

to a decisive vote, in the work of no fewer than

two working groups and no more than three

working groups; and with the right

to an advisory vote, participation is unlimited.

The register of Coordinating Council members' participation in working

groups, if I am not mistaken, is maintained by

the secretariat, so you inform the secretariat

where you want to work. In other words, this is

not a final list; it may

be changed.

This is not the distribution of fiefdoms for the entire

term. So, who

is in favor of this membership? Please—sorry, one second.

Are we voting on the first group, yes? Or on

all of them at once, or on the whole draft? On the first

working group on drafting the program

and strategy

for development—who is in favor of this membership? Please

vote. Or

as a whole, as a whole? Yes, vote. There is

a proposal to vote on the whole package, in which case

just a moment then, Vladimir. Well then,

include me in the membership of the working group then.

Which group, which one again? The one on

organizing protest actions.

Please, I think we should

vote on the working groups separately.

These are completely different issues, different

people, different members. Why mix them into

one long discussion and then one

vote? If someone objects to

the membership of one working group, then we may

end up failing the entire vote on all

working groups. Let's split the voting

into separate parts. There is a proposal—let us

first vote on the whole package. If that does not

work, then we will proceed

separately. For the membership of the working group on

regional development, the Coordinating Council member who wishes to join is

Alexander Nikolaev. After

a car accident, he is currently unable

to attend, but he asked to be added to the list

for the regional

group. Then please include me in

the group on, well, international

affairs.

The heading says "decision on

the formation," so I believe it should

be voted on as a single

decision.

Information policy, progra-

As for the membership of the budget working group,

our colleague Razvozzhayev is listed there. In what

way is he supposed to take part? Is he in prison,

forgive me, or is this some kind of trick?

That is, we vote for Razvozzhayev, and then

later, by proxy, someone else will work in the budget

committee?

If that is the case, then please clarify who exactly

will be working by proxy, because

it seems to me there is a certain element

of trickery here. I do not know who introduced this

proposal, but it leaves me

puzzled. Therefore, before voting

for this proposal, I would at least like

to receive some explanation. I

beg your pardon, as far as I remember,

off microphone—as far as I remember, our colleague

Razvozzhayev is represented by—well, that is,

the proposal is to include

Tretyakova in the membership of the working group. In

fact, in any case, for example,

as I understand it, Artyomov has his own

representative; Danil Konstantinov has

his own representative; there is constantly

such a representative for Razvozzhayev as well. But the issue

concerns precisely the people who were elected.

Colleague, I draw your

attention to the fact that the proposal did not pass in the rules of procedure

that a representative should be appointed

once

and for all, with no possibility

of changing representatives. Therefore, in reality, we

do not actually know who will be

working in the budget

committee. Well, I would like to clarify that we

know who will be working on the budget

committee: Tretyakov and a representative of

Razvozzhayev. He has not

responded. Friends, once again, he has

the opportunity at any moment

This is a discussion; however, the decision can be made

on forming the initial composition

of the working groups. Therefore, I propose

to stop the self-nomination procedure. For example, I

signed up for one group, and then

I will sign up for the other two as well, without

a vote. As I understand it, in accordance

with the fact that right now the initial decision

on the groups still leaves every member of the Coordinating Council the right

to join a group, so to strike someone out

we cannot do. I propose

that we vote and move on. The situation with

the budget group

showed that we were in fact approving

the composition of the groups by vote, and the regulations

on the working groups state that

the composition of the working groups is approved

by voting. That means this will require

an additional

vote. I want to draw your attention to the fact that

this decision does not specify the personal composition

of the group that was created for

cooperation with national

religious and public organizations

... Let's do it electronically.

Who else would like to take part in

this work? I am

signing up for it. Does anyone else want to? Let's

do it this way: Pochaev and Butkov Jr.

Yes, anyone else? Please sign me up

for the working group on organizing

protest actions, the working group on

international affairs, and the working group on

monitoring

elections. Not the national one. I do not

want the organization

... Does anyone wish to speak? No? Then we put it

to

a vote as a single list: the decision on

forming the initial composition

of the working groups. Please vote: who is

in favor?

Clearly. Let's do it formally: who is

against? Who abstained?

Two people are against. The decision

is adopted.

Well, this is actually major progress.

Please proceed.

Yes, there was a proposal. Let me remind you: the issue of

protest actions

was to be moved higher up on the agenda. There is

a request to hear this issue now

because it is important and substantive

so as not to postpone it until the very end.

Possible.

First, let us consider the issue of the report on

the budget, because in fact the money

... after the budget, after the budget. I propose

to discuss this issue. On this matter,

Mr. Tsarkov approached me

initially with a request, and after that

as co-rapporteur.

Udaltsov: Well then, I am the rapporteur, and the co-

rapporteur is Tsarkov, as recorded. Yes, because

I was the one who put this issue

on the agenda. I do not object. Yes, yes, yes—any objections?

Yes, so, regarding

the budget, a brief report on behalf of

the budget committee. In your materials you have

information on the payment of contributions

by members of the Coordinating Council; please check it

carefully, as there may be inaccuracies there. In

particular, if you make a cashless

transfer, we have no way, from the

bank statement, to verify who made

the transfer. And if you do it this way, please

be sure to send me an email so that we

can identify the money.

The overall balance for the three months of our work

is as follows: 460,000 rubles were collected

and spent on organizing

the December meeting, according to the receipts that

Dmitry Nekrasov provided—

82,000 rubles; assistance to political prisoners—this is

payment for Razvozzhayev's lawyers—200,000 rubles;

accordingly, the remaining balance now stands at

177,000 rubles, and I would also like to bring up for

the Coordinating Council's consideration

the following question.

At our meetings, we have several times

spoken about the fact that regional

candidates do not pay contributions, and they

raise the issue of

travel reimbursement

for attending Coordinating Council meetings. I have compiled a list

of regional candidates; correct me

if I am wrong: Bandari, Ghazaryan, Dolgikh,

Kara-

Murza. None of them has made contributions to the budget,

and I would like to put this question

to a vote: should we, as the

budget committee, consider the issue

of creating a mechanism to reimburse such

kind of

expenses for attending the Coordinating Council? It seems to me that

the principle should nevertheless be that

all members of the Coordinating Council are equal, and everyone should have

the same obligations or recommendations

regarding contributions; otherwise we will have to create

a cumbersome system that would take attendance into account,

that would take into account

different

routes. But if the members of the Coordinating Council vote in favor

of our creating such a mechanism, then we

will then work

on it.

Colleagues, I have three points. The first concerns

the point

on compensation

for regional members of the Coordinating Council.

This was raised at the very beginning.

It would be desirable to have a proposal.

for the budget committee to formulate it in

writing and circulate it among

the members of the Coordination Council so that we

could review whether the decision was consistent. There was

at that time a clearly formulated recommendation

to prepare a proposal on the scope

and methods

of compensation for regional members of the Coordination

Council from the regions accordingly. Let me

finish, and besides, that list

that you mentioned is clearly incomplete, so

it requires, requires additions, but this does not

require the work

of the entire Coordination Council

this is the work of the budget committee. That is

the first point. Second: at the previous

meeting I repeatedly appealed to

the members of the budget committee with a

proposal to prepare a draft budget

consisting of at least two parts:

revenue and expenditure. Once again I

strongly urge the members

of the budget committee to prepare a draft

budget for the Coordination Council for

the relevant period of time. This

is not that kind of budget draft.

We cannot make a decision every time

on this issue without understanding what

the main directions of development of the Coordination

Council and the financing of its activities are.

Therefore, there needs to be an appropriate

budget draft that will be discussed

and voted on on the website, finally.

The last point, correctly

understood, there seems to be some kind of

misunderstanding here. Colleague Sobchak stated

that she had financed, as a member of the

Coordination Council, assistance for persons

who were imprisoned. But here again, neither in this nor in

any other document is her assistance

reflected. It would probably be necessary to make

amendments. Colleague Banda: may I respond on

the three points briefly? The first point, regarding

the mechanism for compensation to the regions:

if the CC gives such an instruction to the budget

committee, then we will prepare it. That is why I am

putting this issue to a

vote. Second: our CC has approved

only two budget expenditure items for the CC:

organizing meetings and assistance

to political prisoners in those cases that the CC

considers priorities. Therefore I do not see

the point in creating some complicated budget with

many items, since so far

only two items have been approved, and the issue

of financing and fundraising is

fairly uncertain, as you

can see from the fundraising statistics in

the budget. And the third question was about Sobchak.

So far I have received no information about her contributions

in any form.

Yes, as a representative of the regions,

I can say that we have already discussed this. I

really do not see any point in returning once again

to this topic of

regional

members at all.

People come from Nizhny Novgorod and from

other regions, yes, so let us not

burden the budget committee

with unnecessary reporting. Nobody needs it, and we

should not rack our brains or create extra problems

out of nothing. Yes, we spend

more than 5,000 rubles a month on travel

to and from meetings, and all the other expenses

are connected with staying in Moscow, yes.

Therefore I consider this completely

normal, and the simple solution is: we do not pay contributions,

and we are not asking for any compensation either.

I do not need it.

Kolya Konstanti

representative of Daniil Konstantinov, I

wanted, regarding Sobchak's contributions,

to make a small

clarification. I

pay for the work of Daniil's lawyer

Konstantinov: 110,000 rubles per month. Can

this be counted as my

monthly

contribution to the Coordination Council budget?

He says that there are only expenditure items

approved by the Coordination

Council: a human rights item,

assistance to our

colleagues' lawyers, rubles.

[music]

for meetings of the Coordination Council. Nevertheless,

there are items that are extremely

important for the development of the Coordination Council.

For example, these are items concerning

the development of electronic democracy. We

did not vote for that.

I can say why. We have

45 members of the Coordination Council. Of them, 16 have not paid

a single kopeck. Right now they have

modestly

written it down here; we have a list

of people, and no one wants to read it out. But

I will, as a member of the budget committee:

the names of the CC members who have not given

a single kopeck to the Coordination Council, for various

reasons, naturally, with different

financial means, but that is a fact.

By the way, we voted that no less than

5,000 rubles per month

should be paid. Neither Razumov nor Bandari paid.

Bykov has a valid reason,

of course.

Dolgikh, Kashi

paid

[music]

Nikolaev, the person, not a single kopeck. So

if we want to work effectively,

it is obvious that

[music]

the contributions should perhaps be set higher; we can compensate

those who come to us from other

cities; this is entirely normal practice.

But let's pay our dues as well.

...for those outside Moscow to reimburse expenses.

Of course, but no exceptions or anything like that.

[music]

...for...

those who can't...

I briefly wanted to draw attention...

to our colleagues from the budget committee, who for some reason...

well, apparently...

At the meeting, Oleg Romanov paid for himself and for...

Gennady as well, and not knowing this, on the 27th...

of December he paid once again for both of us, so...

for some reason, we already have February in there as well.

It isn't listed here.

The person from the regions is not indicated in this list.

I also wanted to say that I am against reimbursing...

travel expenses, because it seems to me that if...

if I can't participate via Skype and then take both...

money for travel, that seems improper to me.

That was also my impression.

What comes through in your remarks is that there is a correlation...

between paying dues and being from the regions; to me...

that also seems wrong. Paying dues is...

a separate issue, and the fact that I or colleagues there...

have not yet paid—I would keep that separate.

I would separate that situation and not link place of residence with...

travel. Quite literally, our colleague just took the words...

right out of my mouth, and I wanted to say: from the report I heard...

there is a very clear...

message that people from the regions are not paying...

because they are not being reimbursed. That is not the case.

I consider that inappropriate, even to some...

extent offensive. I have repeatedly stated...

that I will pay dues regardless...

of the decision on reimbursement. At the moment...

I simply do not have the financial means...

to pay, but I will pay everything starting from November. And...

I was only asking to support the proposal...

of our colleague Bondarev to consider the issue of...

an exemption. Because if a decision is made on reimbursement...

then the Coordination Council's expenses...

will be greater than these 5,000. That is completely...

obvious. But once again, I say—and for some reason...

it seems to me that all colleagues from the regions...

will support the view that dues will be paid regardless...

of the decision taken. I would ask...

that this be taken into account.

Yes, colleagues, I wanted to clarify the situation.

Boris Nemtsov pointed out that I had not paid...

my dues. Let me explain the situation: I am a defendant...

in the case—well, essentially already...

the single case tied to Anatomy of a Protest and May 6 (the Bolotnaya case). I...

also have serious legal defense expenses.

Plus, there was a search of my home in the fall, and they seized...

all my cash. I simply—I will...

try to pay my dues.

sings

...about that.

[music]

learn

Cross me off the list of those who are not paying; I...

did in fact pay dues for the first month.

But after that I did not pay, and in the future I do not...

plan to.

It is absolutely impossible for me to touch this money.

Judging by this discussion that is now...

taking place here, the decisions that are being...

made here about spending it or not...

spending it, and the decisions that will not be made, are completely...

at odds with my understanding of...

how money should be handled. I myself...

spend fairly substantial sums, perhaps...

more than many here, on assistance...

to political prisoners and on organizing...

some independent structures, but here...

I do not plan to contribute anything.

...commercial... essentially here...

The rest are proposing that we not do this for now...

until a more or less...

normal attitude toward the budget is formed here. This is...

[music]

sabotage. I have...

Colleagues, we are now moving toward...

recommendations or some kind of decision on...

this item. I have a proposal...

to record two points in the decision.

First, to once again recommend...

to the budget committee...

to prepare in writing recommendations on...

compensation—the methods, types, and forms...

of compensation for members of the Coordination Council...

who travel to attend meetings...

of the Coordination Council from the regions...

from different regions, both within the country and from abroad.

There are some from abroad as well.

These are proposals that we could...

receive in writing before the next...

meeting of the Coordination Council...

discuss and, if appropriate...

adopt at the next meeting. And second...

to strongly urge that a draft...

budget be prepared. The draft budget may include...

other line items on which the Coordination Council...

has not yet made a decision, for example...

the development of electronic democracy mentioned by colleague Nemtsov.

There may also be...

other areas. The presence of line items in...

the budget does not automatically mean...

that funds are available or that they are budgeted and...

still less that they will be spent. But a budget in itself...

presupposes the existence of line items for...

various types...

of income and various types of expenditures.

Only if there is a corresponding...

draft budget can members of the Coordination Council...

discuss it and make...

a decision. And the corresponding draft...

budget must also be provided in writing...

and circulated some time before...

the next meeting of the Coordination...

Council so that we have time...

to work with it, think it over, and make...

a decision at the next meeting. So...

to summarize:

I have the following proposal, as...

generally in...

all normal budgetary organizations...

First, I propose that we take note of this.

to take note of the Budget Committee's report and approve those

figures they presented. Second,

to instruct the Budget Committee

to draft a budget proposal

for the Coordination Council for the upcoming period

and, in this work, take into account

our colleague's proposal and remarks.

Come to

this.

Adopted: instruct the Budget Committee

to prepare a decision on the procedure for

forming the revenue side of the budget of the

Coordination Council. I would also

put to a separate vote the question

of whether it is advisable to develop

mechanisms for compensating

members from other cities.

Put this question to

a vote. Sorry, not as a member of the

Budget Committee, but as a citizen I want

to say that Razvozzhayev's lawyer

was paid for without the CC, and will continue to be

paid for without the CC as well, yes, without the CC.

I thank the CC for 30,000; you personally contributed

30,000, as did Nemtsov, Anna Karetnikova,

I, Ashurkov, Garry Kasparov, and the others.

The money has also been paid. Thank you very much.

More brains.

He

I think this discussion has taken on an incorrect tone.

Attempts to put pressure on one another

are not the best way to conduct a discussion. We

all, one way or another, invest in

protest activity. Yes, respected

Konstantinov pays for a lawyer for his

son. I too, for more than a month now, have been forced

to retain a lawyer and pay

for it. It seems to me

that the proper ordering

of priorities is that members

of the Coordination Council should

not be claiming any common funds. Well,

that is, for example, if you were fined

30,000 for a protest action, as happened to us and

Navalny, then it probably would not be very appropriate for us

to turn to Romanova and

ask for money as compensation

from the general fund. Yes, we ourselves should

cover that; we ourselves cover

the work of our lawyers. When there is

an opportunity to pay contributions there, yes, or

to contribute some amounts for common needs, that is

normal, yes. That is good. That is wonderful.

But it seems to me that publicly

reproaching people like this is simply not very

appropriate. That's it, we're ending the discussion. Please

forgive me, we won't resolve anything this way. So, who

is in favor of taking note of the report

of the Budget Committee and

approving the figures in the report for income

and expenditures for the past period? Please

vote.

Who

is against? Who abstained?

The following decision is adopted: who is in favor of

instructing the Budget Committee

to prepare a draft budget

for the Coordination Council in terms of income

and expenditures for the upcoming period? Please

vote. Who

is in favor, please

count the votes.

Who

is against? Who abstained?

If I may, a comment. Dear colleagues,

we have created an organization,

the Coordination Council. The Coordination

Council cannot exist without a budget.

And regardless of what decision

we have, I don't know procedurally, perhaps, or

in some other way, but we cannot function without a budget. We

need a budget.

You understand the point: any

organization without a budget automatically

ceases to exist; it cannot

exist. We cannot make

decisions. And in this case, unfortunately,

one has to agree with Mr.

Katz, who is drawing attention

to the absence, in particular, of a

budget document that has been voted on by the Council.

In fact, a vote by the Council

against preparing a draft budget is

a vote to kill the Coordination

Council.

...

When the budget of any organization is being

formed, one must understand

which expenses the Council is prepared to assume. At

the moment, we have only two expense items: the organization

of the event itself

today, plus expenses for

each meeting. We can present our cost estimates, and

also draft estimates, but that is not a budget.

A budget is when we have categories

of financial expenditures,

sources of income, and so on and so forth.

Right now, we can only present

estimates; it is hard to call that a budget.

If you want to replace the word 'estimates'

with the word 'budget,' I am ready.

[music]

We will use the electronic democracy system

to calculate all this, and vote for

compensating travel expenses for our

colleagues from other cities; we will include that. But

until those votes take place, there is no

budget. I support colleague Nemtsov, who

insists that what

is being proposed as a budget should indeed

be prepared as a real budget. This is

the first point. All members of the Coordination Council,

each member of the Coordination Council, not

only has the right, but also has the corresponding

duty to make decisions about

the expenditure of those funds that

are collected, by spending categories, by

amounts of expenditure. For that, these questions

are submitted to the plenary session

of the Coordinating Council; these decisions cannot

be replaced by decisions of the working

group on the budget. Unfortunately, in this

case, this is not the first meeting

at which attempts by respected members

some members of the Budget Committee

to usurp

the right to decide on the spending

of the Coordinating Council's common funds

within a narrower circle. This is absolutely

unacceptable, and if the Coordinating Council

as an organization as a whole is aimed at

creating democratic institutions in

our country as a whole, then that democracy

must begin with the work of the

Coordinating Council itself, and above all

Like any representative body, in

the part concerning the collection and use

of funds, that is, the creation

of procedures for discussing and making decisions on

the budget. I am putting forward the question

of instructing the Coordinating Council's

Budget Committee to prepare a draft

budget, both expenditures and revenues, for

the upcoming period, for a roll-call vote

after all, the budget cannot

be formed

publicly. So, Adagamov is absent

Aitova was

Alburov is against

Artyomov abstained, Ashurkov

Bykov is absent

Vinokurov, Gazaryan

are being checked now

Gaskarov, Gelfand abstained

Gudkov abstained

Gudkov

Jr., Davis

is absent

Dolgikh

Illarionov, Kara-Murza is absent

Karetnikova now, Kasparov

Kashin is absent

Konstantinov, Tor in favor, Krylov

in favor, Lazareva is absent, Mirzoyev in favor

Navalny

Naganov, Nemtsov

in favor

Nikolayev is absent

Pochaev

BD Parkho is absent

Pivovarov

Piontkovsky

Razvozzhayev

Romanova

Sobol, Sobchak is absent, Udaltsov in favor

Tsarkov

Chirikova in favor

Da is absent

is absent, Yashin

abstained

abstained. So, we have

Ms. Karetnikova

in favor. So, can we find out about Urnov? Not yet

reported. 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15

16 17 18. 18 in favor, the decision is adopted

procedural

procedural... a procedural decision

decision

has been adopted. So, with the budget we

are finished. If I'm not mistaken, you also

asked to put forward the question

of whether it is advisable to create a mechanism

for compensation for

to instruct the Coordinating

Council's Budget Committee to develop

a proposal for compensation

for out-of-town members of the Coordinating

Council. Who is in favor of this

decision, please

vote by roll call

shall we do it by roll call? Well, why by roll call at all? Tell me

overall, by roll call or not?

Who is in favor of this decision?

Right, which decision?

To instruct them to develop

a mechanism, to instruct them. I repeat once again

to instruct the Budget Committee to develop

a mechanism for compensating the expenses

of out-of-town members of the Coordinating Council and

report at the next... and report at the

next meeting. Who is in favor of such a decision?

Adopted

decision, because to develop

a proposal for the next meeting

and report. Well, this decision has been adopted

procedural

question

business proposal

protest

Next, I propose discussing the issue

connected with mass

events

speaker

Please. Yes, dear colleagues, a little quieter

otherwise I have to shout

in my view, a protest

event is one of the

most... with these terrible laws, not only the law on

orphans; they are now planning to adopt there

a number of issues in the State Duma related to

elections. Yes, they are planning to introduce new filters

which is extremely dangerous. At the same time

a simply monstrous story is happening with

our comrades

... a tragedy; a person has undoubtedly been driven

to such a state, being hauled around Siberia

they are simply tormenting him, I don't know what

they want, perhaps also so that he

dies; the Bolotnaya Square prisoner is on hunger strike

already for the fifth or sixth day; this also threatens

the most terrible consequences

As for the last month, the January rally

was excellent, but it was not organized by the

Council. I would even say it was not actively

supported; individual members

took part and supported it, but that is not the position

...of the Coordinating Council. I believe this is extremely

wrong. We must not completely

withdraw

without offering any clear proposals from our side,

any kind of agenda, or proposals on

the further timetable of action. Therefore, I have

specific proposals today:

to discuss and try

to adopt, essentially, two proposals.

Proposal one: in connection with the extraordinary

situation involving our political prisoners and

those being persecuted—the situation with Dolmatov,

with Dolmatov, with Krivov, with Rozvozzhayev—as

we did in October, let me remind you,

we held single-person pickets on Lubyanka Square,

when all these new

criminal cases began. The situation now is no less

critical. I propose discussing the option of

holding a similar action this coming Saturday

with the demand to immediately release people,

put an end to this abuse,

and investigate who drove Dolmatov

to his death. That is, this could take the form either

of the same single-person pickets. To say now

that we won’t have time—or of mass appeals

with the strongest demands to the Presidential Administration.

So as not to expose people

to detention, we could form a huge line,

a huge line—30 seconds more, if I may—

a huge line there, and carry this out on

Saturday. We should adopt such a decision, appeal

to citizens, and take part ourselves. This is

extremely important. And

second: we can see now—at least I can see, tracking this—that

citizens have serious

initiatives to hold, in the spring, in March,

a new march. I would propose

that the Council discuss this issue now. I would

even suggest setting a specific date,

although there are differing views. I

propose discussing, for March 16,

the possibility of organizing a new march

against the executioners and scoundrels, and against these

terrible laws, and against repression. This is

very much in demand right now, and as

January 13 showed, the action could turn out to be a good,

mass event, even more successful than the action

in January. We should

together with

citizens be involved in preparing it.

That would be the right thing to do; it would fully

correspond to the expectations of the people who

voted for us.

I ask that the proposals for January 26 and for March 16

be discussed in detail.

[music]

The goal of the protest action, as it was called, should be

the release of the May 6 prisoners.

Indeed, Sergei Krivov is on a hunger strike;

his health, and perhaps even

his life, is in danger. Vladimir

Akimenkov is being held without receiving the necessary

medical

care. Such an action is needed. I

propose that the Council adopt a decision to hold

such an event.

And since we created a commission on

protest actions, yes, I propose entrusting

the organization of this event precisely to that commission.

A draft resolution on this

I have just asked to be distributed to everyone, but

as for a specific date, I probably think it would be

wrong to determine it today. It seems to me

that

this is exactly what the commission should

work out more carefully.

“March Against the Executioners” is a good name. It seems to me

that one distinctive feature of the upcoming

action, again continuing what we

did on January 13, could be to try

to show society these very executioners—

that is, the investigators who

falsify criminal cases,

[music]

those who keep people in custody without presenting any

evidence,

the OMON riot police officers who give false

testimony, and so on and so forth.

That is, all

those involved in the persecution of people, all

the criminals who are involved in

the persecution of Russian citizens in the May 6 case.

I still believe that the date should

be set right now, because as

the experience of the first March of Millions showed,

when we schedule an action, say, two

months in advance, and we have two months to prepare

this event, of course that is more advantageous.

Therefore, I insist that today

we set the date specifically as March 16. That will be

Maslenitsa (the traditional pre-Lenten Slavic festival), indeed, and

the nationalists have come up with a good idea here: that

it wouldn’t be bad to burn an effigy of a certain well-known person.

Yes, well, that is still up for discussion, of course.

In other words, it is not a bad date in itself.

People are in the mood to go out somewhere,

to do something, and combining that with a political

action is a good thing. I fully

support this and insist that it be held

on the 16th. But I would still like

to add that reducing all of this

specifically to the May 6 prisoners, from my point of

view, is wrong, because in our

prisons there are, by rough estimates,

around 22,500 political prisoners. Yes, among

them, for example, two are my

good friends: Maxim Klimenchenko,

who was arrested for taking part

in one of the first public protest actions;

the second is Polkovnikov, who on

a schizophrenia-related charge is imprisoned; he had already been

acquitted, as you know—Colonel

Khabarov. There are many such people, so

I would still insist that all

prisoners be included, not divided into May 6 and non–May 6 cases.

Clearly, that is the priority, yes, it is

a symbolic case. But nevertheless, I...

let us forget about our comrades, about

[music]

I want to voice a proposal that came

from Matrosskaya Tishina (a Moscow pre-trial detention center), from Daniil

Konstantinov. He asked that we draw

the attention of everyone present and all

our comrades to what happened,

this extraordinary incident, to the fact that

the death of Alexander Dalmatov goes beyond

the usual bounds of the authorities' repressive actions,

that this is a very

dangerous sign for society as a whole: blood has been spilled,

and also to draw attention to the fact

that Alexander's mother

Dalmatov asked—and this has already been reported in the press—

stated publicly

she asked the protest movement to take a position on

holding solidarity actions.

[music]

A memorial march or memorial rally in

memory of him and in support of the cause, the struggle

to which Alexander Dalmatov devoted his life,

Alexander Dalmatov, and I ask that this

proposal be put to a vote. Thank you.

you discussed

Thank you. I want to point out that we are

once again driving ourselves into the same trap that

we drove ourselves into at the first

meeting, with the December march, and

only thanks to the remarkable stupidity

of our authorities, who thought to

ban that march, it did not turn into

a farce. The experience of January 13 shows that

people take to the streets not when we

want them to, but when they themselves think they need to go out

into the street because something truly

out of the ordinary has happened. But

to plan a mass event now

and hope that in two months we can somehow

whip everything up by sheer shouting would, in my view, be naive.

In December, 88,000 people told us,

they told us: stand firm to the end and

let's, so to speak, go to Lubyanka (the square associated with the former KGB headquarters),

everyone will come. We remember

how many actually came. So to announce in advance

a major event

in the complete

absence of a trigger that would

really bring out large numbers of people—we

understand that there are many specific reasons,

and each one of them is very

serious, and everyone has their own list,

but there is no common cause that would bring

tens of thousands of city residents into the streets—not opposition activists,

whom you can always scrape together, but ordinary residents.

So trying to announce a mass

[music]

Colleagues, Sergei rightly noted that the January 13

march was very successful, and in it

a number of members of the Coordinating Council, with active

participation

of the

...

... and Lazarev. I, being present,

while Colonel absent, Lazarev, Shats—so

to say that we took no part in this at all

is a mistake. That is not true. But

its success was predetermined

by what outraged

people. It seems to me that if we

want to hold mass actions—and

without mass actions we will not change the political situation in the country—

then we need to draw this main lesson

from January 13: namely, to hold

events only when they

truly touch people's hearts and souls.

People's—well, I will definitely

[music]

take part in it myself, 100%, and I will

campaign for it in every possible way, but I have the feeling—

forgive me—that this will be

a small

march. Yes, civic activists will come,

the passionate will come, brave people will come,

those will come whose

relatives are in prison, or those who have had

their homes searched, or whose friends have left

the country, and so on. Well, we know

for example, we took part in a similar protest for

an important cause at the end of last year.

A very important event was organized

and approved by the council, specifically

to Matrosskaya

Tishina, Butyrka (a Moscow prison), to all political prisoners.

It would seem that many people should have

come. I would be lying if I said there were much more than

... if there were even just over a hundred, that would be good.

Therefore,

let us

the release of political prisoners should

remain our basic priority. Second, we have

an obvious date when we should

hold a truly many-thousand-strong

march. That date is May 6.

It is obvious, yes, that we should concentrate

on preparing for that mass march on May 6.

I think there is a very...

I have a proposal. We have just

formed a working group on protest

actions. Everyone who wanted to has signed up. Let us

work on this in our working group

with

the proposal to support

...

[music]

I want to add

that the Coordinating Council's action did not just go

badly—it was a complete failure. That is,

people were unable to agree on the march route

and in general the action was not coordinated with the mayor's office,

nor was any campaign carried out to

invite people to this action. It was, overall,

a complete

failure. I do not even know what else to

call it. Therefore, in my view,

planning such actions now, once again,

without first somehow getting our

work here properly organized...

better, but in my opinion things have only gotten worse since

the time when, at our second meeting, at which

we were planning this action, and on the other

hand, the actions and projects

organized by members of the Coordinating

Council, but outside the Coordinating Council

somehow, and the latest one, well, partially, where

members took part in the organization

somehow, and then the most recent march that took place

Or, for example, people's participation in precinct

election commissions, which some people are now

doing, some members of the co-

ordinating council, without the CC, is going

much more successfully, so I proposed

that the Coordinating Council should not now

adopt

Well then, at last we've lived to see it: a colleague

is proposing

that we surrender. I cannot support my colleague in

this proposal. Moreover, I strongly do not

agree with what I have just heard

from a group of colleagues who

declared: we're unsuccessful, we don't understand why,

but everything the CC does is, by definition,

unsuccessful. I think that with this kind of

attitude, we should simply

get up, go, and drown ourselves. But if we

are not going to do that, then let's at least

accept the following. First: right now we can very

clearly, on the contrary, see why

certain actions are successful. I will name this

reason; it is banal. Right now, the only successful

actions are those that are not for

some goal, but against hated people

for example.

If there had been a march in defense of children, it would have drawn

ten times fewer people, if, I don't know,

there had been portraits of children. But when there are portraits

of hated people, everyone pours out into the streets.

Therefore, by the way, I think that what was voiced here

was a very correct proposal:

not a march in support of political prisoners, but

a march against the executioners. If we come out not with

portraits of political prisoners, judges, investigators, prosecutors,

people will come for the pleasure of throwing

eggs at those very portraits and then

dumping them in the trash. Believe me, last time they came

for exactly that reason, and

by the way, it was genuinely

good and satisfying. So we simply need

to keep in mind that the march must be strictly

against—not for the prisoners, but specifically against

the executioners.

Put up their faces here and there.

I think that will be

successful. Colleague Navalny, thank you.

Very much. First of all, regarding

our colleague's speech, it seems to me that he spoke so

radically without fully understanding

the subject he is talking about, not knowing

the history of preparing these actions, the various

reasons why they were

authorized or unauthorized, and

so on and so forth. That is the first point. Second,

I will support colleague Nemtsov in that

quite recently—some 20 minutes ago—we

created a working group for

preparing actions, which everyone eagerly

signed up for, and this working group

must discuss possible formats,

possible dates, possible funding,

and assess, together with the budget committee,

the possibilities for that funding. That is,

this is substantial, serious work. But

everyone understands that in the spring we will

hold some kind of major event.

Possibly more than one. Possibly we

will hold some emergency event

on an urgent issue, like the last

event that was held there

by civic activists, with members of the CC

supporting it there outside any

planned schedules. Well, if we

have created a working group, then let us entrust this

working group with the initial

study of the issue, so that later

we can discuss something more substantively

than, well, just these sorts of things

which, it seems to me, are not very appropriate—

what Maxim has just done.

Thank you. And colleague