Ninth Meeting of the Opposition Coordination Council

Let's begin the meeting.

of the Coordinating Council. I ask for

silence. The first thing we need to do today

is decide on the agenda

for today's

meeting. We have several items up for discussion

several

issues. I will now

read them all out.

The entire

agenda

for the day. If there are any other proposals, additions,

or objections to the proposed agenda

for the day, please

speak. Please, Bandari. Yes, I

would like to add an item to the agenda

that was proposed by Pivovarov, namely

holding the next meeting

of the Coordinating Council in July in

St. Petersburg. Well, I hope that this would be

a very good idea. Thank you.

Good. Are there any other proposals?

Please.

[music]

Colleagues, I propose removing item

6, because no investigation

was organized by the Coordinating Council.

The matter was heard and discussed last

time, and there is no need

to discuss it again now, in my view.

On the matter of the proposed vote,

I ask

to speak. I want to object, colleagues: this is not about

an investigation by the Coordinating Council,

but an investigation by our colleagues on the expert

council, the results of which we would like

to report. If the Coordinating

Council refuses to consider

the issue, let us say, of improper spending

of funds, then I think that will become

a problem for the Coordinating Council. Thank you, colleague.

Please.

Excuse me. First of all, I join

the proposal

of Sergei. I would use stronger terms. I

believe this is a provocation. And those who wish

to familiarize themselves with this provocation

can find it, they say, on

the internet. The council should not waste time on it.

I would also propose removing item five

because, as I recall, we have already

heard colleague Bandari on the new

strategy. If it is even newer now, then

it should be described as the newest, but

it seems to me that the success of the previous one shows that

overall there is not much point in this. And I

... no, no, don't interrupt.

So then,

I propose that we first vote on

the agenda as a basis, and then on individual

items. Who is in favor of adopting

the proposed agenda, with the addition concerning

holding a meeting in St. Petersburg,

as a basis? Please

vote. What do we have?

We need 21 votes to adopt a decision.

A procedural question. Excuse me.

The decision is adopted. The agenda has been accepted as

a basis. Now a proposal has been made

to remove item

six: the results of the investigation into the budget

of the May 6 rally. Who is in favor of removing this

item from the agenda? Please

vote.

Let's count the votes from

Skype.

17 is a majority. Procedural

question settled, the item is removed. Who is in favor of excluding

from the agenda item five: the new

strategy for the regional development

of protest activity? Please

vote. 14. Procedural question

settled, it is removed. We move on to consideration of

the approved agenda items.

Excuse me. Yes, as a whole, excluding

the fifth and sixth items, let us vote on

the agenda. Who is in favor of adopting the agenda

as a whole? Please

vote.

In any case, we received a majority of 17 votes

for this agenda. The agenda

is approved. Let us begin our work. Item

one on the meeting agenda: the election of the mayor

of the city of Moscow in September 2013 and

support for a single opposition candidate.

Vladimir Ashurkov, please.

The floor is yours.

[applause]

As is known, in September

there are

early elections scheduled for September

for the

mayor. It seems to me that the most natural

candidate from the opposition is

Alexei; he is the most authoritative figure.

Yesterday, the RS party decided

to nominate him in the election.

Today he submitted an application to the Moscow

election commission, and I

propose that the Coordinating Council support

him as the single candidate of the

opposition in the

September election. Thank you. Who would like to speak

on this issue?

A brief question.

Why didn't he come himself so that we could

support him? He is supposed to have a meeting with

municipal deputies.

Well, you have, so to speak, exhausted your question.

Colleagues, who else wants to speak on this

matter?

First. Dear

colleagues, the position of a number of members

of the Coalition Council was expressed in

our statement, which was

made public on June 11. I will now formulate

only the main points on

under the current circumstances, support for any

candidate, let alone a single unified candidate,

by the Coordinating Council would be a mistake.

It would be a serious mistake; it would be

a political mistake, it would be a legal

mistake, and it would be a moral mistake.

The Coordinating

Council was not created in order to

legitimize fraudulent operations

carried out by the current political

regime, including in the city of Moscow.

Any participation by an opposition candidate, especially one

supported

by a body elected by the opposition,

such as the Coordinating Council,

would amount to such

legitimization. Moreover, it would deal a blow

to

all those who advocate the creation of

an alternative

legitimacy. In this

sense, our Coordinating Council

possesses no less—and potentially

far greater—legitimacy in this

case. In this case, transferring authority, in other words

supporting any candidate

on our behalf, would mean that we were handing over our own

far more significant

already existing—and, I would say, even more so

potential legitimacy

to who knows whom and for who knows what. We

would be trying to play a shell game with swindlers.

And from my point of view, in doing so we would

thereby

discredit ourselves.

And in light also of the fact that

the proposed candidate is currently

absent from the meeting of the

Coordinating

Council, and that

this candidate’s platform is unknown to us,

has not even been presented, and his position is unknown, from

my point of view, to support this

proposal would be wrong, it would be

absurd. Therefore, there is a proposal. And there is

one final consideration: the opposition council is traditionally

a proto-

parliament. Here

represented and participating in the work are

representatives of various political

parties, groups, movements, and different viewpoints.

And we should not support

one of our own as the Coordinating Council.

Each of us, in a personal capacity—each of

us, or our groups, as

representatives of particular parties,

groups, or movements—can without any doubt

support one candidate or another.

But as a whole, as a proto-parliament,

as the Coordinating Council, we should not

do this. In an individual

capacity, however, we can do it, as can

organizations. No, thank you. Colleague, the first

to raise his hand is colleague Yashin first.

He goes first, then you.

All right. Well, you can hear me, yes?

Just for clarification, may I? I haven’t

seen this statement, and I doubt that

many others have either. Which members exactly

of the

council? Who exactly? I didn’t

sign it. If possible, please

be so kind as to

clarify.

And also former council member Sokovsky.

As I understand it, Kolen stated his readiness

to sign. Well, congratulations—you really love

to reason about things.

Mora

you love

[music]

head

speeches

decision

perhaps to mobilize our

supporters by moving the vote to

Democracy 2, because the issue is important,

a matter of principle, an absolutely

substantive question. I would like to know the opinion

of all members of the Coordinating Council so

that the decision is as

legitimate as possible. In addition, it seems to me

absolutely important to vote not only

on the Moscow mayoral election, but also

to raise the question of support in the

gubernatorial election in Moscow Oblast (the Moscow region)

for our colleague Gennady Gukov, who

is currently with us at the conference.

People ready for a tough, hard-fought campaign need

our support, and it would be absolutely

politically wrong to deny that

support. Thank you. Kolya, please. I

have this thing working.

And I did it once—well, never mind. A miracle happened.

So, I have two questions and one

proposal. First question: is it known

what Navalny himself thinks—does he need

our support in this situation?

Does it fit into his political

strategy for advancing his campaign, and would it not

turn out that we would, excuse me,

let’s put it this way, set him up in some way

by doing this ourselves?

By publicly showing support when, say, he may not

need it. It seems to me that this question would

be very good to clarify with

Navalny himself. Unfortunately, he is currently

absent, but I think that until the matter

of his campaign strategy and electoral

moves is clarified, it would be rather hasty,

to offer this kind of favor. Second,

again, Navalny is of course

an outstanding person, and many of us

view his work in the most

positive light.

However, at the present moment, as far as I

know, he has not presented his

program. It seems to me that supporting

a person simply because we happen to

know him well, know that he's a wonderful

guy, that he wouldn't give bad advice, but

without a proposed election campaign

to put it mildly, well, that's why

I joined in

during this time, it would have been possible to find out

Navalny's own position — that is, whether

he even needs this, and to give him the opportunity

to publish his campaign theses

which would make our support much

more meaningful, because then we

would be supporting not just a likable guy, but

a good, clear proposal that he

that is, we would be voting for a program, not for

a person. Thank you. Thanks. Next, I asked for

the floor

col

Dear colleagues, I am rather inclined

to support Alexei Navalny's candidacy,

but I am absolutely convinced that he

must be present in the hall. At this

moment, as I understand it, he is

in another wing of the hotel at another

event. Let's accommodate

Alexei and postpone this issue until

the moment when he appears in the

hall. I think that if he needs our

support, he will find a way to come

here and state his position. I

have no doubt that in that case

he will receive support. Supporting a person

who does not really need our

support seems to me

strange. Are you insisting on

putting the vote on this issue over until the moment when

he appears?

[music]

On the matter of the vote itself, at the

meeting, if anyone wishes

to put it to a roll-call vote, they can

do so without any problem. But this

issue is already under consideration, and it simply

must be put to a vote

Thank you

Colleagues, we have been having a discussion about

whether or not to participate in the so-called

elections for quite

a long time, more

we know

the specifics of

maintaining unlimited control over

money, property,

and power. We know all this very well. We

take part in the political process less

than those who think it should be boycotted, and

so on. I just want to remind

everyone present here that if it were not for

that special operation in Decemb

201

then that protest and the Coordinating Council would have

never existed. Therefore, we must

clearly understand that this special operation

mobilizes our

supporters. If we do not engage in mobilizing our

supporters, then what

are we worth? We are nobody, with no name at

all

This must be understood. First of all, by the way, I should tell you

this:

Kasparov, who wrote a letter saying

that all this is fraud and so on and so

forth,

actively took part in the elections in the city of

Sochi, where I was running for mayor, for exactly the

reason I have just

explained

Second,

in this matter, everything fully

works against these two people. They are our

comrades, they are our colleagues. Failure to support

these people means

betrayal

betrayal. One is under house arrest

and facing prison time, I don't know

how much exactly. Of course it's a farce, an outrage, and

all of this is simply paranoia. The other is also facing

prison time. And now we are going to make a decision

based on

supposedly universal human considerations, while

in fact it is an absolutely immoral decision

not to support them. I

categorically disagree with this. After

that, we might as well dissolve the Coordinating

Council — there is no need for it if we cannot

stand by our own comrades. Therefore, I

believe that we must support

Navalny's nomination, and we must support

the nomination of

Udaltsov. We have different political

views, but I believe that

supporting Sergei in this situation is

absolutely obvious to me. Yes, because

this is the position of

a normal person who understands

what future awaits Sergei and how he will, in essence,

be the one answering for all of us there, in

prison, for his human and civic

position. Thank you. Let's hear from

the representatives of the left, because

right now the conversation is mostly about

supporting Navalny, but in fact we

also have Udaltsov's candidacy

Sergei's

Please, the microphone

Give it here — you probably need to hold the button longer

press it — the light

press — it's working

In short, I actually represent... Today

I am speaking on Sergei's behalf. Everyone has seen the draft of the

appeal that our

proposal is that, since

we are

The idea of a boycott is very appealing, but

unfortunately it is probably not feasible

given the fact that many politicians,

including Sergei Mitrokhin and others,

are going to take part in the elections, and a full boycott

of course, we will not succeed

while respecting the decision of Alexei Navalny and

Sergei Udaltsov to nevertheless put forward their

candidacies for this post, we are essentially

asking you to support the very fact of their nomination

for this post, and later, of course,

after that

whether or not official registration in

this capacity will take place, after

the program is presented and, of course,

to support a single genuinely opposition

candidate for this post in the event

that no candidacy is

registered or is, for some

reason, withdrawn

then in

the further course of the election. We propose, of course,

to mobilize

supporters

of the opposition on this issue. In fact, the

draft resolution has been distributed to everyone

already

Thank you

Colleagues—yes, dear colleagues, the question of

the possibility or impossibility of supporting

candidates is something we have already discussed once. If

you remember, the Coordinating Council adopted

a statement on goals and objectives in which it plainly

states the following:

the Coordinating Council intends to do everything possible

to help ensure fair and

equitable competition among

opposition candidates, the consolidation of

their efforts, and the coordination of the work of their

campaign headquarters, always striving

to identify a single candidate from

the opposition forces and to further support

that candidate in elections. The Coordinating Council

seeks to use all means available to it

all forms and methods of campaigning and

organizational work to assist

unified opposition candidates in

various regional, local, and

municipal elections. Thank you, thank you.

Our colleague Gfa asked to speak, and I

I would like

to separate the motives and considerations that were

expressed from the substantive political ones.

As for what was said, support for unified

candidates was simply one of the

declared goals of the Coordinating Council.

I would note that several thousand, in

particular,

Muscovites signed up as members of precinct

election commissions with the right to cast decisive

votes, in order

to participate. For example, I personally intend on the 7th

of September to go and work at a precinct

election commission, and to replace such

a genuinely difficult and dirty job

with building castles in the air—well, that

seems to me somehow ridiculous and

undignified. Either we mean business or we don't.

Therefore, I think we should separate

in fact, I would separate the questions of

moral support and truly

political support for a unified candidate,

but overall I urge you to support this. Thank you.

Vladimir Kobza is on the line now. He asked

to speak. Let us

give him the floor

please

[music]

Hello? Yes, please. Hello, we are

listening

to you

Hello, are you there?

Go ahead

...

Can you hear me? Yes, yes, please.

Go ahead. The microphone

doesn't seem to be working.

Let him send a letter. Well, maybe then

indeed, in writing

would be better; this is seriously slowing down our work.

All right, then let us hear

our colleague. First of all, I wante—yes, colleagues, I

understand that the connection is quite poor,

so I will be extremely brief.

As for the motion regarding Navalny, I am

certainly in favor. First, there is the political

aspect. In my view, I agree

with MSM that boycotts never

work. We must use

every opportunity to mobilize our

supporters and promote our views,

including the so-called elections

held by the current regime. It is clear

that there is nothing democratic here; we need not

waste time arguing about that, but we

must use every opportunity

for mobilization—that is the first point. But second, in

my view, much more important here is that

personal aspect that colleagues spoke about:

when a person has five criminal cases against him,

when he may go to prison, I believe that any

decision other than open political

support for this person would be, in relation

to the Moscow mayoralty, and I also support

the motion regarding the governor of the Moscow Region, again

for the same reasons: we must

support our

comrades

...

Again, again—Davide, please. I wanted

first of all to join the colleagues who spoke earlier

regarding the fact that

we stated directly and clearly in our

political statement the importance of

elections as an instrument, one of the

instruments of struggle, for the sake of which

indeed, coordination was created and for which

the Coordinating Council was established. No one here,

as far as I

understand, is proposing to absolutize

elections and declare that they are excellent,

fair elections in which we have a chance

to win easily; rather, we should use this

the instrument is entirely

necessary; we have already decided to challenge this

right now this seems rather strange. On the other

hand, as for support, here

we need to distinguish between the political and moral

aspects. From a moral point of view, of course

we must support them, it seems to me

the nomination of both Alexei Navalny and Sergei

Udaltsov, who are under

pressure from the state; this is a moral duty

and, generally speaking, the responsibility

of the Coordinating Council. This is something

greater

than corporate responsibility toward one

another among its members. The Coordinating

Council was elected in order to

formulate a political position

in a situation where it is obvious from

the municipal filter (a requirement to collect signatures from municipal deputies) that the chances

of making it to the next round of these elections

are exceptionally small. In this political

politically motivated position on

the nomination of a candidate by all political

forces represented in the Coordinating

Council, we of course must state that in this

sense. It seems to me it would be reasonable for us

now to support both the movement itself and

Sergei Udaltsov and Alexei Navalny. And

through a vote on Democracy 2 (an online voting platform), determine

a truly single candidate with

the participation of all members of the Coordinating

Council. Thank you, thank you. A request to speak came from

a colleague.

Five points on the issues

that were discussed here. First of all,

regarding the document that we

adopted and in which we expressed

our support for the participation of our colleagues or

other representatives of the opposition

in the elections, we support our colleagues

comrades and representatives of the opposition in

honest, open, fair,

democratic elections. We have never

written in our documents, we have never

supported support for anyone whatsoever

participating in illegitimate, falsified

elections. Therefore, the special operation that is thus

being called that way. Second, there is a substantial

confusion about what

the Coordinating Council is, when

our colleague Nemtsov says that our

comrade—we are all colleagues on the

Coordinating Council—but we are

deputies or delegates of the

Coordinating

Council.

pla

supporters and party comrades in one or another

elections. It is perfectly clear that in this

case this is a completely different body; the Council

is not the organizing committee

of any political party, or even

of a single political movement. Here

people with different

political views are represented, therefore

is

their confrontation with state

power—allow me to disagree with this

such decisions, moreover, do not support them

or protect them, but increase the risks both for

one and for the other. I will not go into

this in detail. I think everyone understands

that precisely such decisions increase

the risks. From my point of view, their remaining

at liberty would be far

more beneficial not only to them and their loved ones,

their families, but also to us. Therefore, we should not

help them, help them, and help

the state and help the regime throw

them behind

bars. Fourth: do we want the checkered flag or to actually get moving? (a Russian idiom meaning results over appearances)

That is exactly the question here

our colleague Gelfand wants the checkered flag in order to

take part in illegitimate

elections, in a special operation, in order to

keep warm

for some reason not thinking about those people whom

such decisions put at risk, and not thinking about

what we represent and what we

want to create in our future. If you want

to support the regime, as you are doing

then support it. If you want to create

a different law-based society and

a democratic political system

you need to think about which path to that is

the shortest. You are leading away

from

Finally, there is a very important point about

which I have not yet spoken, but it is extremely important

to say: non-participation in falsified

elections does not mean non-participation in any

elections at all. Other representatives of the opposition

can participate, in my view,

in other elections—honest, open ones

... council at the federal level

Why can’t a similar

operation be carried out in Moscow, where there are far more

resources, where much greater support for the opposition

is possible, much greater—so

holding

elections, at least on September 8, to the Moscow

regional city council with the participation of

the aforementioned colleagues and other colleagues, would create

a completely different

level of political

... much of everything, it seems

Mosc...

that would be real legitimacy, not

manipulative legitimacy. Yes, please.

Colleague, I would like to answer the questions

of colleague Krylov. The first of them was about

how much Alexei needs the support of the

Council. I

know his opinion on this matter: he

certainly needs it, and it is in his interest

to secure the support of the maximum possible

number of opposition forces

and...

First of all, secondly, regarding

there really is no program at the moment yet

we do not have a detailed election platform

for Alexei Navalny; work on it

is underway, and we expect that it will be

published sometime within the next two weeks

Alexei has, in principle, already presented the main points

of this program yesterday at

the meeting, and today before the municipal

deputies in, apparently, Yabloko's hall

the position is that we cannot support

a candidate who does not appear before us

with some kind of statement. And I am in contact with Alexei

right now

he should appear before us there in

some time, I hope not

too long from now, and I propose postponing

the vote on this issue until that

moment

Thank you. Boris Nemtsov, then Bondarev, and then

after that, let us move toward making

a decision, at least an interim one, taking into account

the proposal that has been made

Please, look at how all this appears from the

outside: two of our

colleagues, our fellow opposition figures, Alexei

Navalny and Sergei

Udaltsov. Well, Gudkov too, yes, Gudkov as well. And

these people appealed to us. Yes, and as a result we

as a result

of some kind of historical

circumstances

and deliberations

well

please, no one will be watching us that closely

but if only such a statement is made: Navalny, Udaltsov, Gudkov appealed

to us, and the council did not support them

how will that look from the outside?

That is what I want to ask: how will it

look? That some kind of scoundrels slipped in

who know that these guys

will be jailed

and it will be an absolute disgrace; we will never again

come together, so I ask you once again

I understand that our colleague is absolutely right

Navalny should be here, and it would be good

if Udaltsov and Gudkov were here as well

it is clear that without discussion, including of

political programs, to make

such decisions—goodbye, no one will come here again

So, excuse me, there is a request for a brief remark

please, very brief. Ilarion, a brief remark

A brief remark: many of our colleagues turn to

us with various proposals

far from all of these proposals

are accepted. If our colleagues are mistaken, then we

must help them avoid making

wrong decisions and not support

false, false steps. And finally, if

a colleague uses the word “baseness” and

“scoundrels,” then “scoundrels”

I would like, for the record,

to say freely that according to all

sociological

surveys—which, as you know, were conducted

But the main thing that personally stops me, as a

person, from

voting for Navalny—I will not vote for him

—is that this is simply a person who

is now under political

repression, yes, but a person who talks a great deal

about political repression and so

on. Excuse me, he himself put a man in prison

under a political charge. Have we all forgotten

the story with Maxim

Martsinkevich (known as Tesak), how Navalny together with

Mr. Yashin, acting on Potkin’s tip,

had a man imprisoned under Article 282

of the Criminal Code

under that article

Tesak, and after

that

after all this, excuse me, I consider it simply

impossible; for a nationalist it would be

simply shameful to support such a

person. And as for the elections in

Moscow in general, then of course, if we consider

this from that point of view, then of course

it is clear: no one, absolutely no one, will

give up the strategic region of Moscow, that is

to say, we will be participating in

a falsification, and by our very

presence we will be legitimizing this criminal

government. I am categorically opposed. Thank you

Dear colleagues,

I

if the chair does not object, I

would allow myself to say just

a few words on the topic under discussion. I

beg your pardon, I would

like to—very well, please, please, there was

direct

polemic. I also have a few brief points, in

fact. Andrei Nikolaevich is performing

a fantastic trick: he says, they

asked for support, but in fact they

do not need it, and if we then

support them

therefore—very well. Excuse me, let me clarify

you said that you do not know whether

our support is needed. Let us speak one at a time

you said what I apparently

misunderstood. Yes, I withdraw that

statement, so to speak, although everyone still

understood. And second, you said that those

who take part in elections and take part

in monitoring the vote are building up their

political capital

And I think that is a somewhat hasty

statement, because very many

people who take part in monitoring

elections have no political capital and

do not need it; they are not engaged in

politics

Where, then, in the text of our statement

did this appear? In the text of these amendments, you and I wrote it

together

it clearly said that we are participating only

in honor of the wonderful crystal—

it was said that the council supports participation

in the elections, moreover

any

to continue, because it is clear that when the week—

ago

time about the program from

Kokov-style

elections

to object there is an excerpt from a statement which

Kolya read out; part of it has nothing whatsoever

to do with the upcoming elections because

if we discard the adjectives

as was said, honest and

competitive elections, the upcoming elections

quite obviously are not such elections

further, I already thought that

I heard something to which I cannot help but

respond; in particular, Boris Yefimovich

said that as a result of certain

political positions it might be

decided not to support, yes

Of course, that is a political position of mine

in particular, the political position

is that these elections

are neither honest, nor free, nor

competitive, and the participation of anyone at all

in them serves to legitimize

them, not

therefore we decided not to support them. Not them, I

stress, I will support not

a specific person; rather, I do not want

to support participation in these absolutely

illegitimate—colleagues, briefly, briefly

I ask you once again, briefly

a brief remark, so, colleague, the remark

was addressed to you; you are trying to

politicize the citizens of our country, the residents

of Moscow who are registering as

observers, who monitor and will

identify these violations; we

support this work. We have always

supported it and will continue to support it, both

individually and, if the Coordinating

Council makes such a decision, then we will

do it jointly, because this is

indeed political work. But this is

precisely the exposure of illegitimate

falsifications, not participation in these

falsifications. This work we will

support. As for the program

that we adopted, I once again draw

your attention: in our document we wrote

that we participate and will participate in

elections, not in special operations that

are called elections. That is a big difference

there is no need to write those adjectives

there—honest, fair, competitive

because that is understood

implicitly. We do not have such elections

now, nor are any planned, therefore

participating in special operations called

elections makes no

sense. Dear colleagues, af— No, I

still want to say an important thing, colleague

draws attention to the fact that there is no program

and that this is somehow good. Do you always

make such decisions, that you

vote for people whose program is

unknown to you? Dear colleagues, I ask you to give

me an opportunity to speak briefly

to speak. Host, to the representative

Nadya

I will relay the position and

ask that it be conveyed to the members

of the Coordinating

Council. Konstantinov asked that it be conveyed that

he and a number of other prisoners being held

in Matrosskaya Tishina (a Moscow detention center), with whom he had

spoken, consider it necessary to support

opposition representatives running

in

legitimacy

speculative, in the interests of strengthening

the current regime, and nevertheless, and nevertheless

this, by the way, is on the question of

the position of nationalists: not all

nationalists—I am not saying this on my own

behalf—not all nationalists believe that

supporting Alexei Navalny in the elections

is disgraceful. Many believe that it

must be done

now, on the substance of what we are discussing

today, dear friends, colleagues

comrades—or opponents, if you

prefer. I have listened to the entire discussion. I would

very much not like to put to

a vote right now a question that may not

only split, so to speak, our

Coordinating Council, but also seriously

harm our colleagues

who are running

now in the elections in

Mosc—

if Alexei's representatives tell us

Navalny that he will arrive shortly

and will be able to set out his position

his program, his views, and answer

some questions, it seems to me

advisable to postpone the vote on

this question until Alexei Navalny appears in the hall

—that is my proposal

yes, let's vote, please

please. Dear speaker, it seems to me

that you are exceeding the bounds

of your authority. You cannot do that

the question, as I already said, has been considered; it

must be put to a vote

of course. It will be put to

a vote today. I am not proposing to remove it; I

am proposing to suspend

the discussion, to interrupt the discussion briefly

for a short time. On procedure, please clarify

so that there are no doubts whatsoever

or insinuations on this matter. I am apparently

addressing the executive secretary: can we

postpone the vote on this

question until Democracy-2? Please clarify

Our secretary does not have the authority,

so I am addressing you.

I am addressing you, dear colleagues. Let us

conduct ourselves with restraint if possible. I

still ask that we listen

to the executive secretary, because this is not

an imperative, it is a clarification.

Please, in what capacity? For the record,

just for the record. Well, I will simply quote

the rules of procedure: discussion of an issue

is allotted 30 minutes. If during that time

someone moves to put the matter to a vote,

it

is voted on after

that.

After the discussion, then. Since Alexei Navalny has appeared in the hall,

I am withdrawing my

proposal and suggesting

that we continue our discussion for at

least another half hour. It seems to me

that this is necessary on such a

serious issue. No objections?

No, Alexei, the agenda item under discussion

is the election of the Mayor of Moscow in

September 2013 and support for a single

opposition candidate. A rather

heated discussion has unfolded here, so to speak,

so I would ask you

to speak and set out your position. Colleagues,

thank you very much. I would like to apologize that

I am late; it is very much connected with this

event with municipal deputies.

As you understand, they are the key people

when it comes to passing the municipal

filter and taking part in the election

campaign. As much as I could, I followed

the course of your discussion, and I think I

roughly understand what was being said here,

because, generally speaking, this discussion

is already almost two years old. We discussed exactly the same thing

before the elections to the

State Duma (the lower house of Russia's parliament): there was a position

of boycott, there was a position of 'come to the elections,'

there was no candidate then, and there was also

the position 'vote for anyone against United

Russia,' but in the end it all comes down to

whether this is an honest choice.

...

Even despite the fact that these elections are

disgusting, dishonest, fraudulent. And

the very procedure for getting through the filter is

practically impossible, and there are so

many obstacles. If we

look strategically at how we are conducting

our political struggle, for the purposes of

that political struggle, we must

participate. Moscow is the key city for us.

In Moscow, our supporters are present in huge

numbers. We believe—I believe, I think,

indeed I am even certain—that we have every

reason to believe that the majority

of the residents of the city of Moscow, on the whole,

are our supporters. That is,

internet penetration is high. We work with

these people. Here we gather

rallies of tens of thousands of people. In these

circumstances, to refuse to take part in

the election campaign would simply be

to hand a gift to Sergei Semyonovich Sobyanin

and the United Russia party and Vladimir Putin,

simply.

Interest in the elections drops enormously,

drops colossally, and he wins in

the first round, goes on television and says:

'Muscovites chose me; for Muscovites I am'

'like a father, and the United Russia party'

'has regained the support of Muscovites. You can see it yourselves:'

'I received'

'6%.' We are all in a terrible, humiliating

position. Right now there are registration processes underway

for the People's Alliance party, and on

December 5, I still hope, there will be

registration of the National

Democratic Party. We are doing all this

in order to participate in elections.

If we now refuse to take part in the mayoral

elections, then we will not be able to, and we will very

seriously undermine our chances in

the elections to the city duma. For example,

the National Democratic Party, I am

sure, can perform very well

because it operates in a unique

political niche in that sense. If we do not go now, we

undermine our future chances. In fact, we are now

depriving ourselves of the opportunity to truly

fight them, to say everything that we

consider necessary, the opportunity to put forward a

constructive

program, about which we are

constantly told we supposedly have none. No, of course

I understand all the concerns voiced by my

colleagues, Andrei among them, that this—

proposing a constructive program,

talking about little details at a moment when people are sitting in jail—

all of that is absolutely correct. But from

the point of view of the strategy of our actions, from

the point of view of today's political

tactics, I believe we need to try

to participate in these elections. I am fully aware,

and I will conclude, that Sobyanin, Putin, and all

the others will do everything possible

to ensure that, for example, I do not take part in them. Well,

then we will make the attempt. Then we

will say: here is the candidate, this

candidate supports this, here is the program, it is going

to receive broad support in this city.

Well, that shows their position,

and it shows our position. We must

fight, we must press forward. I believe that

here we must act absolutely aggressively and

offensively, because this is precisely the

main city where we have every

opportunity to act from an offensive

position. I appeal to the coordinating

council with the following request: in this discussion,

to make a decision on the main thing,

because right now we need to participate in the elections,

in these elections, here in Moscow and the Moscow region.

I am asking for support for myself as well.

Thank you, I apologize. I wanted

to ask some questions, please.

Yes, Alexei has already answered one question.

The first question that

was asked was whether he needs our support.

He said that he does need our support. That part

is clear. The second question is somewhat

related to what Alexei began talking about,

namely, his platform. The thing is that both

for Alexei and for us, it would actually be strange

to support a candidate who has not

voiced at least the main points of a program. But I

am sure Alexei has them. I think that

of course a detailed program, as

our colleague rightly noted here,

its presentation is, in a certain sense,

a matter for the future, simply because

it is impossible to create it quickly. But some

say, roughly speaking, five

or ten points, I think,

could be outlined. Thank you very much. I was not asked this

question at the meeting where I was nominated;

I was asked this question at the meeting

of municipal deputies. I am ready to briefly

outline the framework of my program.

The program is about decentralization and

demonopolization. It is about what I will

be talking about during my election

campaign: the fact that our city’s budget

is almost 2–3 trillion rubles. Our city’s budget is

many times larger than

that of Paris. I will talk about the fact

that with the money Moscow already has,

even now, compared with New York and

Shanghai,

it surpasses them in terms of available funds. Already now

we can afford any reforms we want and achieve

a very high quality of life.

Clearly.

More is spent per person here than on any

other resident of Russia. Although, for example, in

Kirov Oblast (a region in Russia),

medicine overall is certainly no worse than

in Moscow, while in Moscow several times more is spent

per person. Here I will

naturally speak about the decentralization

of power, because it is impossible to govern a city of this

size—or a country—from

a single center.

These powers must be transferred to

the municipal level, to the level

where people actually live, where they resolve their

everyday issues, where they go to school,

where lawns are maintained for them, and so on. This

part of the program fully echoes

what the municipal deputies

have just been talking about. You also speak

naturally about transport, because our

city is not developing

according to any coherent plan. We basically

do not have a real master plan. We have

a situation where we read in the newspapers with surprise

that one day it is decided there will be

a “New Moscow,” and federal institutions will be moved there,

and the next day someone appears and says

from the Presidential Administration

that the parliamentary center should be placed, please,

right here—well, 10 by 10, let’s

move it around. This shows that there is no real

development program, no calculations at all,

nothing. We live in the 20th century, while cities

should be developing on the basis of science,

mathematics, and urban studies, but in

Moscow there are administrators sitting around who want

green fences and huge construction projects so they can

take a lot of money from those projects. I will also speak, of course, about

migration

policy, because the largest

employer of undocumented migrants

in Moscow is the Moscow mayor’s office, which

does all this because it exploits these migrants

and will keep bringing more of them here.

Migrants. The janitor in my courtyard

gets 1,000 rubles, even though his

legal salary should be around

40,000 rubles.

They will keep bringing in undocumented migrants

because these are people without rights, from whom

you can easily skim off 10,000 or 15,000 just like that.

And I will say that it is

necessary

to disqualify those companies

that work on city contracts

and receive city money if

undocumented migrants are found working for them. These are

the main points. I am ready to

go into them in considerable detail, but I

think that, in essence, I have answered the question.

Let me repeat the question that I

asked. Right now you yourself are under

persecution.

Indeed, you say that we have

political repression in this country, so I

have a question for you. Forgive me,

please: they jailed Maksim Mankevich for 3

years, this person was subjected

to abuse, this person lost his eyesight.

Well, according to those very

debates, perhaps... As a

nationalist, I cannot understand this question. Yes,

and in order to receive the support

of nationalists—I do not know whether you need it or not—

I have a question.

I want

[music]

to give... I am ready to make up for

somehow... and state the second question.

Here it is.

from which it is completely clear

it follows—this is from his blog—that

a large share of the funds collected into Romanova’s wallet

simply disappeared, well, vanished to an unknown place.

I do not know—can you respond to this

in any way? Where did this

money go, and why is Romanova not

present today? You know, this question should be on

the agenda. Why has no one bothered to raise it?

neither at the previous meeting nor at this one

provide any kind of report, even an approximate one

about where this money went, and we all

have probably all read or seen perfectly well

the video showing that all these scenes, which supposedly

had 4 million rubles spent on them there, in fact

actually cost a pittance at most; the mailings are well known

And that is also perfectly well known. Where did they put

the money? If you can answer that question, then

please, go ahead. Thank you. Of course I can

answer all the questions concerning

nationalists. Nikolai, to be honest, I do not

consider you, let alone Kivi, any kind of

nationalist. The colleagues sitting here, however,

they are nationalists; I am turning to them for

support, you know.

As for his behavior, I would think

he is simply receiving some kind of funds

for provocations. As for all these

thus allowing all the nationalists

whom he even has the nerve to include himself among

— he is just an ordinary hooligan, and

he was charged with hooliganism. You

are behaving like a hooligan in exactly the same way, as usual, gu...

...stop. People who

call themselves nationalists and then

go to work for these new... and

generally moonlight for the Kremlin — all the rest

is simply the purest

riffraff, petty lackeys who

simply service this regime

which all genuine

nationalists ought to hate. And I am sorry, Nikolai, that you have

joined these people. As for

Romanova, I can say that Romanova

is doing tremendous work. I do not know what

Shaku did there, sent some kind of

investigation — I doubt he is capable of

conducting any investigation at all. I

think Romanova will come here and we can

ask her. I am sure Romanova has

something to say in response. I know that Romanova is doing what

she has done at risk to herself and to

those people who were involved, and this is not

simple work — collecting these funds is

not simple work, moving these funds is

not simple work. This work is connected with the fact that, excuse me,

you are persecuted; you can be prosecuted

for it. Here, if you pass

10,000 rubles to someone, tomorrow they will come running to you and

open a fraud case. Therefore I

believe that Romanova should be thanked for her work

and for those questions that they

...Arisova, I am sure she will answer them.

Thank you. So,

Politically, Stasya, and you think that if

...questions are asked in turn. You have already

asked yours; now it is the turn of

our esteemed

Thank you, Alexei. I have several

comments on some of your points and questions.

...

... and

The Coordinating Council is participating in those

elections — in Navalny’s special operation — no,

it is not participating and cannot participate. Let us

then

draw a distinction: you as a candidate, as an individual; you as the

party that you

represent — you are participating, we are not. Next,

you

say that we are refusing this

operation. You are not refusing; you

are participating. We are not participating in this. This is

a matter of principle: we cannot

take part there, and we should not take part.

Next, you speak about

how Sobyanin will come out and say, 'Look, I have the support of

6% of Muscovites.'

And if you participate and

are even

registered — God willing, nothing

happens and so on — where is your

guarantee that on September 9 the same Sobyanin

will not appear on the same screens and say the

same thing you just said: 'I have the support of

60% of Muscovites'? What mechanisms or methods do you have

to ensure that this

does not

happen?

Further, just now, literally, you

came from the forum of municipal deputies

although at the traditional time for holding

meetings of the Coordinating Council, throughout the entire

period they have always begun at 12 o’clock.

Today our meeting of the

Coordinating Council was moved to

3 p.m. This happened at your

request, at the request of your party. Could you

explain to the members of the Coordinating

Council why you did it this way,

why you did it through the executive

secretary, why you could not address

all members of the Coordinating Council directly,

why this could not have been explained to us, and

perhaps we would have accommodated you and found

possible options both for the meeting of the

Coordinating Council and so as not to put

your colleagues — and, incidentally, not even

voters, but those very colleagues, or as

our colleague Nemtsov likes to say, comrades —

in such an awkward position, some of

whom only learned last night that

the meeting had been rescheduled, and they have

other plans, train schedules, and

flight schedules, and people are tied

to these things. These are some basic rules

of conduct in collective bodies, including

democratic ones.

Further, what do you think on another, on the

following matter: you were at the

forum of municipal deputies. This is

an important thing for your current

campaign today. But two weeks

ago, participation in the forum of

municipal deputies probably would not have been

so important for you until the moment when

Sobyanin resigned and announced

this special operation, and probably if this

had not happened, there would have been no forum of municipal deputies

there probably would have been no meeting either

and then the meeting of the coordinating council would have taken place on time

on time, and then the question arises further:

what are your priorities, including with regard to

working with various organizations? Which of them

do you see as long-term, medium-term,

or short-term? How do you structure this hierarchy if

something happens? To what extent are you

prepared to change this hierarchy, these

[music]

proposals and members of other organizations? When

something changes, will they also learn about it in this way

at the last

moment? These are, by the way, basic things

necessary for work in any elected

bodies, including in the post of mayor and in

a position in the Moscow City Duma

if you intend to take part in this.

Next: what do you think about other

elections—honest elections, not a special operation?

Why don't you and your colleagues, including

the colleagues who organized

the elections to the Coordination Council

of the Russian opposition,

organize elections to the Moscow

Coordination Council, organize them and

take part in them as well?

In that case, the likelihood that these elections

would be honest, competitive,

fair, and open would be no lower, and there is

a high probability that a great many

worthy people could be elected

to the coordinating council, and they really would be

elected—no one would appoint them. There would be no

municipal filter, and you would create

a genuine body possessing real

legitimacy in our city, and you could

through your work truly

oppose the illegitimate authorities. Why

not do that? Thank you. So I still have

one more point—these were

comments. Wait a second, a key

meeting is underway, and a key issue is being discussed

of central importance.

We never had anything like that. Why?

And there is also this question. Further, you

spoke about that strategy—or rather, about

several strategies that were used,

including in the elections, the so-called

State Duma elections in December

At that time there were different strategies.

For example, the colleague sitting opposite you, Nemtsov,

proposed not participating in the elections, while you

proposed taking part in the elections and

voting for one of the parties—for A Just Russia

(A Just Russia). Are you satisfied with the result that

came out of that, when A Just Russia

received a larger number of votes and

after that voted for these laws just

like the United Russia party and the others,

with the exception, perhaps, of one or two

or a few deputies? Overall, are you

satisfied with the result that you

achieved? Yes, please.

I tried to write everything down, and I will try

to answer all these questions together.

The first and the last ones—about participation in elections

and whether I am satisfied with the results of past

elections and with my strategy—I can say

that I am pleased that the party

A Just Russia turned out to include every

second

... Okay, I already

knew that.

Still,

there are not

that many, unfortunately, brave people or

honest people in these political

parties. But I am not the political parties; my

task, as I saw it, was to

create political problems for this

government, to unite a large number of people against this

government. And when

I was asked what mechanisms and

methods I had,

the strategy of voting for anyone against

United

Russia was implemented less successfully than

I would have liked, but in any case in Moscow

this strategy led to Sobyanin

being forced to massively falsify

the election results in favor of United Russia in Moscow, which was

documented on a large scale by observers, and that

led to people coming out en masse into

the streets,

to the protest movement, to the formation of all that

we are observing—not only, of course, as a result of this strategy,

but it was

one of the important key factors, I believe.

Recalling our debates, in which

I, Boris (Boris Nemtsov), and Kasparov took part at the forum last autumn,

where we generally discussed all these issues,

I believed that

what Zhdanov was saying was absolutely correct, and my

strategy

was

exactly the same: to mobilize people so that they

would come and vote for me, if I were

running—or not for me, if I were not,

but in any case to come to the elections and vote

against United Russia, document

violations, and create problems for this government

if it once again falsifies

the elections. This is the most important issue.

As for tactics,

I appealed to the executive secretary

with a request to postpone the meeting

because I understood that we would have

the People's Alliance and the forum

of municipal deputies, and there would simply be a quorum

assembled. I apologize if

this caused a problem for someone

related to tickets and so on; I simply

assumed that, well, the degree of

delegation of authority and the zone of

responsibility for resolving issues were with us.

they arranged it in such a way as to move it

the meeting by two hours; perhaps the person responsible

the secretary can decide. And for that there is no need

to hold a vote on Democracy 2

or something like that. If I offer my

apologies to those whom this caused

inconvenience. As for priorities,

well, the priorities of interaction with

organizations: right now I would go to the forum, although

a month ago I would not have gone, a month ago I

would not have gone. But if, for example, there is now

a forum in the Moscow Region, I will also

go to it, although a week ago I would not have

Because right now we are engaged in work where we need

the help of rectors there, with Yakunin's filing, I

am interacting with those organizations with

which it is necessary to interact right now

in order to effectively engage in

political struggle, and my priorities

are political struggle against the regime

that has now seized power in the country. I

interact with those organizations

which, as I believe, will help me and all of us

crush this political regime; with

municipal deputies, with the assembly of ro, with

the assembly of single mothers, I don't

know who else. If tomorrow the situation

changes in such a way that it will be necessary

to interact with some other

public organization, I will interact with it

as well. And unfortunately

colleagues, it is quite likely that I too

will be late to the CCS or may not come at all

if I need to go to a forum

of activists if they are going to play a significant

and important political role. It seems to me that this is

normal, and I do not expect all of you

to treat the CCS as some kind of

sacred thing, a sacred cow

while all other matters... I am sure that if

our colleagues from political parties

have a party congress, then of course they will go

to the party congress and will have the right at that

moment to miss the CCS. That is right. That is

exactly how it should be done. After all, we in the CCS

work this way. I have my foundation. I have

my colleagues. There is the People's Alliance party

and there are other organizations with which

I interact, and I will continue

to interact. This is the Moscow CCS. And right now, with

all due respect, that was more... These are my

my... my time at the forum of municipal

deputies was spent more effectively than

the time I am now spending answering why

the meeting started later. So I will

act this way. And as for the CCS elections and

the Moscow CCS, why don't we

ignore the elections and instead create

a Moscow CCS? That is also a question of effectiveness

Well, how will the Moscow CCS help us?

It can and should be done. I simply do not think

time... every person has 24 hours in

a day. Do I need to spend my time

in order to build a Moscow CCS? It seems to

me no. Maybe I am mistaken. But based

on what I know how to do and what I do

constantly, I would rather do some

other things. It is simply a matter of such

priorities, which each person decides for

himself. I expect from all of you, from all of us,

that each person should determine for himself

his priorities. That is normal. Thank you. So,

Dear colleagues, the situation is as follows:

under the rules, we have either exhausted the time for discussing

this item completely, and even

gone over it, even taking into account the additional thirty

minutes. Therefore, if the members of the CCS

consider it necessary to continue this

discussion, then we need to

vote on it. What are the views on

this?

Should we continue this

discussion? Then those in favor of

continuing this discussion, please

vote.

... people.

A minority. Unfortunately, we

must end this discussion

The only thing I want

to say to those who disagree with this

point of view is that before

the vote on these issues, we will still

be able, so to speak, to explain our voting motives

... Thank you for your

answers... the meeting time

was... Dear

Dear colleagues, a point of order

the rules provide for the possibility

out of turn and outside the general order of

discussion, to make a point on conduct or procedure

please. Therefore, let us move on

to the substantive part of our work

we need to make a decision. We have

... before, before the question is

put to a vote, I have already

said that there will be an opportunity to speak on voting motives

one person each. Yes, but we

have not yet put the question to a vote. I

draw your attention to the fact that under

the first item

of proposals, all documents contain a draft

resolution on the election of the Mayor of Moscow. I think

everyone is familiar with this draft resolution. It is

about the Coordination Council of the Opposition

supporting the nomination of

as a candidate in the Moscow mayoral election

Alexei

Nava

during the discussion. There was a proposal

to postpone consideration of this issue until

Democracy 2; that proposal was also

submitted. Perhaps there are some other

proposals, so to speak, regarding

voting preferences. You said that it

comes last. We are not working

in... I ask that the discussion on

procedure stop. Does anyone have a point of order?

Please... remind me what I had.

I propose

I had proposed supporting the nomination

of Navalny for mayor. But once again

I want to emphasize that I believe it is absolutely

essential to hold this vote

on Democracy-2 to find out the opinion of all

members of the Coordinating Council who

are present and those who are not present

since this is a genuinely important issue

absolutely fundamental and substantive

Dear colleague, I would like to point out to you

only one thing: if the question of

the election of the mayor of Moscow is on the agenda

then the question of the election of the governor

of Moscow Region is not on the agenda

I would be glad

to put your proposal to a vote

in that form, but to do so

I cannot

Please. Dear colleagues, including

dear colleague Yashin, here is the issue

that was raised about referring to

the rules of procedure. I do not have another copy of the rules with me

but I clearly remember that there is an article where

the procedure is described that

must be followed when making a decision. And

it is precisely in that article that it is clearly stated

that after discussion, remarks, and so on

the matter is put to a vote, therefore

this issue has been put to a vote, it

will be put to a vote; right now we are

talking about in what form

it should be, excuse me

one moment, one moment, the rules of procedure

of the Coordinating Council provide for

different types of voting, for example

an indicative vote, a soft

vote, a hard vote

the rules do not require us to

immediately put this issue to

a hard, definitive vote

Please, on procedure. On procedure, and

I want to say that the rules are being incorrectly

interpreted in this case, because

of course, a draft decision, in particular

one of the submitted draft decisions,

may be a decision to conclude the voting

and adopt a substantive decision on

Democracy-2; that is an entirely conceivable decision

That is exactly what I said, but I simply

want to draw your attention to the fact that we can

now put to a vote and adopt a decision on

the issue of the mayoral election, but we cannot

right now adopt any decision on

the election of the governor of Moscow Region

because it is not on the agenda. Therefore I propose

to formulate my procedural motion once again now

please

colleagues, I

propose that we take into account the following point: that

we discussed in sufficient detail

Navalny’s candidacy as the single

candidate from the

opposition

but we have not

discussed why I am not prepared to support him for the post of mayor of Moscow

therefore I ask

that we consider

the question

of supporting the position exclusively

with regard to candidate Navalny; if there are several such questions

several already...

[music]

then on that basis we will hold the final

vote

Thank you, please

Alexei, colleagues, thank you very much

On procedure: first of all, I want once again

to apologize for the fact that the meeting, because of my

fault, had to be postponed. That is the first point

Second, it is important for us

to obtain a decision that truly represents

the political opinion of the Coordinating Council; in

this vote, it seems to me, all should take part

I think all members of the Coordinating

Council should indeed participate

There is indeed a complication connected with the fact that our colleague Sergei

Udaltsov, who has also put himself forward, cannot

take part in the meeting; he has

legal difficulties, even connected with

the nomination itself, not just with registration

therefore I proposed

supporting the idea of moving the meeting to

Democracy-2, and until then giving me

the opportunity to get in touch with Sergei. Although

communication with him is complicated, I think

perhaps tomorrow

or the day after tomorrow, this issue will

be resolved naturally. It seems to me

that this would be the right thing to do and would reflect

more broadly our

political will, and would not leave

some ill-wishers, perhaps,

the opportunity to say that we

have split, that two candidates are running, or that we are not

backing anyone. This is, after all, an extremely important

political moment. Therefore that is my

proposal. Thank you, thank you. On

please, a brief

remark on procedure: I support the proposals voiced

here, especially also in connection with

the fact that we have some problems with

a quorum. It seems to me that Democracy-2 is an

ideal solution. Thank you

please

On procedure, very briefly

Article 39, the main stage of considering

an issue at an in-person meeting, paragraph five

when adopting a draft decision as the basis

we must put the draft decision

to a vote. And after that

if it passes, then it

if it does not pass, other draft decisions are proposed

There is a draft decision to put

the issue of supporting candidates for the post

of mayor to Democracy-2; that is a draft

decision. Please, Badak, very

briefly, very briefly on the rules of procedure, if

The item has been placed on the agenda; it must

be put to a vote, so the issue

has been introduced. And it will be

voted on as a separate item. A separate issue

is voted on separately, separately

put forward now, voted on

please. Since I introduced the issue

of supporting Navalny, I am simply

withdrawing it and asking for a vote on

democracy. You cannot withdraw it, withdraw

you cannot.

Listen, let us calmly and seriously

stop getting distracted and begin

voting. We have three

proposals, strictly in the order received.

Formally, we have three proposals.

The first proposal received, in

written form, which we have here,

concerns the Moscow mayoral election, here.

This is about

the council supporting the nomination of

Alexei Navalny and Sergei Udaltsov.

That is the first proposal. We have a second

proposal on the same first

item: to postpone

consideration

of the issue. That is also a decision on the first

item; there is no contradiction here.

This is entirely logical. And the third

proposal—just a moment, let me fin—well,

no, please let me finish. And the third

proposal is to adopt a decision supporting

by the Coordinating Council the candidacy of

Alexei Navalny without Sergei Udaltsov.

Three proposals.

Three, three proposals. I propose holding

a soft indicative

vote in order to determine

the ranking, so to speak, of these three proposals

and then put to a vote

the firm option that receives

the greatest number of votes. Logical,

proper, and

democratic.

Please, there is one draft decision, and it

must be put to a vote in

accordance with

the clause: the question must be put

of adopting this decision as the basis.

The one and only one you were talking about—

that can be introduced in the form of amendments and

voted on separately.

[inaudible]

A decision may be in written

form, or it may be oral, therefore we

have three draft decisions—three, not one

draft decision, but three draft decisions.

The rules of procedure do not require us

to immediately put a firm

vote on a draft decision; the rules

provide for the option of a soft

indicative vote. I

propose it. Who is in favor of

using such a procedure?

On procedure—I'm asking, let us move to

the point. We only have one draft in written form,

I repeat.

Excuse me, do not make

a fool of me. I once worked in the

Supreme Soviet (the former parliament of the USSR/Russia), colleagues; I know how this

is done. There is no need to stage

this clown show here. We have in

the rules of procedure—we have in the rules the right

to put a decision to a vote either in

written or oral form; there are no such

limitations. Nikolai, that has nothing to do with

the issue. Of course there are different options. I propose

to vote: who is in favor of the procedure I proposed

for deciding the first agenda item?

Please vote. Count them,

please.

Well,

a technical point: the decision has been adopted, this

does not contradict the rules. I conducted

an indicative vote so that you

could see that my position

is supported by the majority. Thank you. Now

we are conducting, we are conducting a soft

[inaudible]

vote on the draft decisions for the first item.

The first draft decision exists in

written form. Here it is,

recorded in the draft resolution on

the first item, on the Moscow mayoral election and

the single opposition candidate. This is

the first draft decision.

First: who is in favor of supporting the draft

decision

on Sergei Udaltsov? Who is in favor of this draft

decision, please vote.

I am counting.

Six people.

Noted. So what do we have in this

very

Skype—Kasparov is in favor.

[inaudible]

So, the second draft decision: who is in favor

of postponing the question of the final

decision on nominating a single candidate

from the opposition

in the election for mayor of Moscow until

Democracy-2 (apparently the next meeting/platform). Who is in favor of this decision, please

vote.

I am counting.

That is,

so, 19

people. For the third question, for

the third, on the third

item, the third proposal: who is in favor

of supporting in the Moscow mayoral election, from

the opposition, the candidacy of Alexei Navalny

alone? Who is in favor of this

proposal, please

vote. Seven

people.

Already

[inaudible]

for the proposal to postpone consideration of the issue.

...for the proposal to support...

the single candidacy of Alexei

Navalny.

So, of course,

the proposal to move

the vote to Democracy-2 (apparently the second item on the agenda)

of the Coordinating Council, please, first...

Point of order. Excuse me, not on procedure, but on

substance.

And I think it is important to emphasize that

the fact that the third question did not receive a majority

does not mean that the Coordinating Council

is refusing to support Alexei. Excu-

-se me, that is of course for us to decide. And here

there are many cameras, so I am saying this for the cameras:

if someone says this evening that the Coordi-

nating Council of Russia has said—well, of course they will say it—

well, if you gather more... oh, I scared them.

Procedure then, please, on procedure.

Dear Speaker, dear colleagues,

what we just had was an indicative vote. This

means that it has no

legal or any other

significance whatsoever. Now these same

questions must be put to

an actual vote. Lis-

Enough.

Dear colleagues, I ask you to stop

the bickering, please. We are all

adults here, and we have known each other for a long time.

Everything is clear to everyone. I repeat:

before the start of this issue, I

before the start of the soft indicative

vote, I put—one moment—I

put to a vote the question of who

supports the proposed voting procedure,

under which first there is

a soft indicative vote on all

three options, and then

the vote

is held on the single option that

received the largest number of votes.

Now, one moment.

One moment, if now, if

the authors of the proposals we voted on

insist that their proposal

be put to a formal vote, then in that

case you are right, in that case we

must put them to a vote.

Therefore I ask the authors of the first

resolution, in writing: do you

insist on putting it to a formal

vote or not? No? Then the question is withdrawn.

The third proposal, submitted by

our respected colleague Tor—do you insist?

On this, we are left with only one

proposal.

To a vote, in strict accordance with

the rules. Who

is ready?

Please, and in what wording will it

be put to Democracy-2?

Let us clarify. The amendment that

I proposed reads as follows: who

is in favor of

supporting in the Moscow mayoral election

for opposition candidates Alexei

Navalny and Sergei Udaltsov. That is my

proposal. If there are, so to speak,

clarifications, I am ready to accept them, please.

Why? There are two alternative proposals.

The one that you formulated, and the one

that colleague R. formulated—they

must be voted on as two alternatives.

Of course.

Point of order, then. Please, on procedure.

Respected Speaker, just a few minutes

ago you yourself said that there were three draft

decisions, and you chose to put them

to an indicative vote. Now,

guided by common sense and logic,

you are obliged to put these same three draft decisions

to a vote if they have not been withdrawn. I agree, I agree—those

that were withdrawn are not subject to a vote. But

those that remain must be

voted on; that means they must be

put to a vote. Of course, that is exactly what we are about to do

now, separately, as colleague

Yashin proposed. Dear friends, listen, what are

you—please listen.

Carefully. We voted on the question, and we

are now going to put to a formal

vote the submission—once again—

the wording on

submitting to Democracy-2 the proposal on

support in the Moscow mayoral election

for opposition candidates Alexei

Navalny and Sergei Udaltsov. This

proposal will now be

put to a formal

vote. It has been withdrawn by the authors; the author

withdrew this proposal.

proposal.

On Democracy-2, the candidacies of Navalny and... who

proposed it? Please

vote. Wait.

15 and above, raise your hands

please. 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13

14, 15, 16, 17. We counted three times: 17

people in the hall.

So, 17 people in the hall, and

via Skype, what about

the voting there?

Plus...

So.

PD.

Where?

voted for what? For—for what?

Voted... 21 votes. The decision

is adopted. That is all, the first question for

today

is closed. Thank you, we move on to the next

items on the agenda.

of the day.

According to the rules, on the question of Democracy-2

a sufficient number of people is enough; this is not even

a procedural

question. We decided it, we decided it with this first...

The question is closed.

Closed.

On the elections to the Coordination Council

of the opposition, second convocation

Speaker: Dear

colleagues, the term of office that was

set by the rules under which the Coordination

Council serves is one year, and it

[music]

is expiring.

Those rules under which we

were elected, on the one hand, and on the other hand

the need to preserve continuity

to preserve

the procedure for electing, in a democratic

way, the opposition’s coordinating body

is exceptionally important now.

This is the last moment when we can finally move

to concrete

steps to organize the next

elections.

From the standpoint of the electoral system, a number

of proposals were circulated on the mailing list.

What is now being submitted for your consideration, based on proposals from various sides,

is a very

simple draft resolution—not to start discussing things all over again

as we did previously, but nevertheless

to set out a certain course of action. This

course of action

envisions a declaration of the need

to approve a new composition of the Central

Election Committee and to adopt

documents regulating its powers at

the next meeting of the CC. That is, this is our

commitment, and a commitment to carry out

the preparatory steps for this by

the next time: by June 25, to elect, by

a vote on Demokratiya-2, from among the

candidates nominated by CC members,

the chair of the Central Election

Commission, and then to entrust

this person, once elected

chair of the CEC, together with

the electronic voting commission, by July

to organize a poll of registered

voters on Demokratiya-2 about

their preferred voting system for the

CC elections. The proposals that have been submitted

regarding different systems and forms

of voting—everyone will have the opportunity

to send them to him after such a

person has been elected. And finally, taking into account

the results of this poll, to make a decision on

the format of the voting at the next

meeting of the Coordination Council.

Essentially, I have practically read out what has been submitted.

The resolution is very simple and purely

technical, generally speaking. But if we

do not adopt it now, then in effect we can safely

say that we most likely

simply will not be able, within the deadline established

by the limits of our mandate,

to organize elections for the next composition

of the Coordination Council. No

specific circumstances characterizing

the electoral system or the composition of the Central

Election Commission are predetermined by this

decision. This decision merely launches

the organizational procedure

for this.

Chair: Are there any questions?

Questions for the speaker first, then

proposals. Please. I just want

to clarify: is this a mistake, or is it really by

June 25 to elect the chair? June 2?

Of course, because by

the next meeting of the Coordination

Council he must already present a proposal on

the electoral system.

No more questions.

The floor.

Well,

a vote of registered

voters, yes, and taking into account the results of this

vote, a decision is made at

the next CC meeting. So this

vote is

advisory. Under our rules,

any votes other than votes of

members of the Coordination Council are

advisory. We do not predetermine, and cannot

predetermine now, what decision the

Coordination Council at the next

meeting will make. This resolution proposes

only to ascertain the opinion of registered

voters. We do not know how many of them will take

part in this vote. That is all—I remember that.

Next question, then: who has

the right to send to the newly elected

chair of the CEC proposals on the format

of the future elections—for example, multi-member

or single-member? Is it CC members and registered

voters as well? Nothing is written here about that, but

at the very least, obviously they can. And if some

proposal on the form of organizing the elections

does not receive the support of a single CC member

who would agree to submit it

to the elected chair in his own name, I

doubt that these are very valuable

proposals, first of all. And secondly, that

they would be capable of gaining the support of members of the

Coordination Council at the meeting in

July. No, this is precisely not about proposals from the

side of Coordination Council members; that part is clear.

The question is whether we

will now receive a flood of proposals from

our voters who may not

necessarily...

I am saying once again that, at a minimum,

the right to submit proposals belongs to members of the

Coordination

Council, without any doubt. As for who else may submit them,

probably anyone can, and all proposals must likely be considered

at

the...

A proposal from a voter, if not submitted through a CC member,

if it finds not a single CC member willing to

submit it, then there is little point in considering such a proposal.

There is probably no such proposal, because

the final decision will be made by the Supreme Court.

Even so, if not a single person

is found who supports such a

proposal, then all the more so he will not support

it.

Thank you. First of all, I would like to thank my colleague for

drawing attention, not for the first time, to

this very important problem. Indeed,

time is running out, and there is a danger of disrupting

the actual election

campaign. But in the proposals that

Sergei is putting forward, there are several problems.

So, the first is the formation of

the Central Election

Commission, the election of

the commission. Second,

the determination of the rules under which

the second convocation of the Coordinating Council will be elected.

These are related but different issues. In the proposals that

have now been

made, the main focus in developing

proposals and choosing the composition itself

has been pushed outside the Coordinating

Council, which, from my point of view,

is wrong. We have all gone through this process,

and we all have our own

ideas, our own point of view, which

should be taken into account. It seems to me it would be

useful, having heard Sergei’s remarks

and discussed them, to adopt the following

decision: for the two groups jointly,

the working groups that are dealing with this

here. We have the electronic democracy group.

We have the program group.

So, they should jointly carry out

work on refining

those election rules, including

the questions that have been raised about the size

of the second Coordinating Council, about electoral

lists, about groups, about individual candidates, and so

on, on all these issues.

Proposals from our voters

who have been verified should be sent precisely to

this group, and members of the

Coordinating Council, above all the members of these

two working groups, as well as all other

members of the Coordinating Council who are

interested, should take part in this work.

And by the next meeting of the Coordinating

Council in July,

they should come forward with proposals here at the meeting

of the

Council, with a revised version of the regulations

on the elections, so that at the next

meeting we can adopt

a decision on those election regulations under which

the election of the next composition

of the Coordinating Council will be held.

Thank you. But I do not understand why

the program group should participate

in determining the details of electronic

voting. I thought its

function was a little

different. I will answer right away: the program group

is responsible for developing what is essentially

called the legal framework,

the legislative framework of the Coordinating Council, and

then, potentially, for broader

areas, for wider

fields. Strictly speaking, the preparation of

election legislation, first of all for

our own elections, falls within

the direct sphere of activity

of the program group, just as it

also falls within the sphere of activity of the

electronic democracy group. Moreover, I want

to emphasize once again that not only

the program group, not only the members

of the program group, not only the members

of the electronic democracy group, but any

members of the Coordinating Council not only

can participate, but their participation in

this joint work is welcomed, because this is

one of our most important joint

projects, regardless of our affiliations.

Excuse me, I also have a question.

About this

document, the discussion has already begun.

I would like to ask you to clarify something.

I do not fully understand. As I read it carefully,

it seems to follow that the Coordinating

Council elects

the chair of this election committee

and

leaves it to this chair’s discretion, because

look at what happens: this

chair formulates draft

documents, and this same

chair organizes the survey of

registered voters, and this same

chair will summarize the results of this

process. So it turns out

that

we are, blindly, without seeing or

knowing what proposals this person

will come forward with, handing over to him, so to

speak, the fate of the future

Coordinating Council. Do you not think

that this is risky?

Let me comment. Look, in fact,

the logic of this proposal is, on

the one hand, that given that,

unfortunately, at least the last two

last

meetings did not support

the proposal to begin work without haste, and so

now we are already forced to begin this work in haste.

This is the last opportunity to

start it. In this sense, there is no room for

any kind of arbitrariness on the part of a person

elected by a majority of the members of the Coordinating Council

as chair of the Central Election Commission, because he

merely processes the proposals received,

organizes the study of opinions, and

submits

proposals for consideration at the next

meeting of the Coordinating Council, based on the proposals received.

colleague x's proposals, questions, ji

Chuchu

These are proposals, namely to instruct the new

chair of the Central Election Commission, together with the commission

on electronic voting and

interested members

of the Coordinating Council to organize

that is, as stated in the text, a survey

of registered voters, and then

after the existing text of the clause

and the development

of proposals, draft proposals for

consideration by the Coordinating

Co

to be honest, I don't really have

any opinion on this issue; could we

simply put this to a separate vote as an amendment

vote on it separately? No, wait, this was

a proposal that was made; by the way, in terms of timing

No, earlier. And strictly speaking, the program

group, the program group, is precisely the one that

is responsible for the content of the document

the electronic group on electronic

democracy in this case has a different

specific focus, somewhat. Therefore, in this

case, if anything is

additionally appropriate, I suppose it is the group

on electronic democracy. And

as for amendments, let's decide. We are opening discussion on

this issue. Does anyone wish to speak?

Or is everything clear here?

No, no, I'm waiting. Who wants to speak on

this issue? I don't see any raised hands.

I have a question, please. Are there any candidates? I

don't know, maybe Davidi has some

No, I don't have any right now. Although I

think they will be found. But this is a question we

will have to decide

remotely; at the moment no one is ready

to resolve it within five minutes, that's unrealistic

therefore it is proposed that we resolve it on the 25th

of June; we must choose a candidate. So let's

start nominating people

candidates immediately. I support that

It's a risky proposal before the 25th, and somehow

that's all

Please, well, you know

This really is a very serious issue

and moreover

electing a person to such a key post

is indeed absolutely right

colleagues Konstantinov and Nemtsov. So, we

do not currently have candidates, and in some kind of

remote format, without giving the

candidate the opportunity to speak here before the members

of the Coalition Council and

present us with their positions. But

that would be completely wrong. It seems to me

that it would be right if, over the course of

the next month, we conducted

a candidate nomination procedure

invited the candidates to a meeting

of the council in July

in person, during the July meeting

for us to elect the head of the Central Election Commission, and possibly

the entire composition of the Central Election Commission at the same time

having considered the issues that relate to

the regulations as well. I would like

to propose now, since colleague Davi

has introduced five substantive points, that we at least

exchange views on

the points that were put forward for

discussion

on this matter. This is a question about

changing the size of the Coordinating

Council, about the use of party and other

electoral lists, about, that is,

the representation of protest groups, about

regional representation, and about screening

candidates according to various criteria. I

believe this is a very important issue; it is very

good that these matters have been raised. Nevertheless, I would

propose at least a brief discussion

on this issue so that

we can exchange views and have

a clearer understanding, first of all, whether all

the questions are exhausted, and whether there may be

some opinions on each of the issues presented

here

questions. I am categorically against opening

a substantive discussion, because this

issue is absolutely vast. I can foresee

how it will end: half of our respected

colleagues will leave, and we will not be able to adopt

any decision. A specifically, purely

technical, instrumental decision

has been introduced. All considerations regarding how

things should be

reflected in the new electoral rules

but if we now get drawn into this discussion

then yes, this is simply a technological

decision

and as for

an observation, I want to say that

in my opinion, as

the chair of the election

commission should not be introducing us to his

views. That is exactly why I thought

that there was no need to involve the program

group in

this. His separate views on

reality are not relevant

to it

I think it is very dangerous

to try now

to mix technical and very important

questions of organizing the vote with

questions that are, well, excuse me,

ideological. Please, who was next?

Who wanted to speak now, colleague

Goto. Dear

colleagues, actually in October

our

terms expire. The best thing the

Coordinating Council has done during its time, the best thing it

could do, is to create a stable

institution into which a new composition

of people will come. Feel your responsibility

before Russia, before its citizens, before

our voters. We are responsible

to them for ensuring that this institution

is preserved and continues to function. For

that, it is necessary to hold an election. I believe

that there is still time left

to carry out the necessary

procedures. It is very good that people have come forward

who have put forward a proposal

in general, there are no perfect proposals

you can always find proposals that are

significantly better, even better, and even

much, much better, and so on endlessly. But

in reality, this is the only proposal we have

proposal: to open

a discussion so that in a month we can produce a

better draft, while in a month

someone will say that this is not quite a good

proposal and that we can improve it even further

our best proposals lead to sheer

infinity. Let us make some kind of

decision. I propose that we vote on

the proposed

draft as a basis and then

amend it if there are proposals

so that not only

the commission

some kind of sub-

... In any case, the proposal must be adopted

because if we do not

adopt it, we will not stay within the time

schedule; if we miss the schedule, we

deprive the Coordinating Council as an institution

please understand, this is not a matter of anyone's personal career

for those present here; it is a responsibility

before the whole country. I ask

your pardon, I sincerely apologize, but I

am forced to ask my colleague just one more

question. As I read this, is there not

a logical contradiction here: the first point is

to approve the composition of the new Central

Election Committee, while the third point is

to entrust the new chair of the CEC with

cooperation with the commission on

electronic voting. Then what exactly will

the Central Election Committee be doing

and why are we removing the Central

Election Committee from the procedures

being discussed here, and what then are we

electing it

for? We are electing the Central

Election Committee, and the chair in particular,

first and foremost for

organizing the election process itself

whereas here we are talking about actions for

preparing the election statute, the rules by

which elections are organized in principle

of course, it would be conceivable to set

the task of electing the entire CEC by June 25, but

because that is a more complicated task than

electing one person, and that is precisely

a certain compromise between remote elections and

it is proposed that the full composition of the CEC be elected

at the next

meeting

while assigning the chair

together with the Electronic Democracy Group

and interested members. But, as

our colleague quite rightly said,

if we adopt this proposal as a basis

shifting the vote back and forth on

members of the Central Election Committee

the rest, onto Democracy-2 or to an in-person

meeting, can quite well be made in the form of

amendments

to this proposal

and at the next meeting; today we should adopt

such a decision as will allow us at the

next meeting to approve the composition of the CEC

and the rules under which

the elections will be conducted, and launch their

process

For my part, I propose electing

the chair now; that is not what is being

discussed

dear colleagues

we are discussing

are there any others

please. I am grateful to colleague DSU for

the proposal; it is certainly overdue

the issue is urgent, and indeed, thank you very much

and in view of the importance of the matter, I

would propose splitting point two into two parts

because here, in effect, two important

elements are being mixed together

I propose that in point two, after the words

"candidates," we put a period; that is,

point two would read: "For this purpose, on the 25th

of June, by means of remote voting,

a new chair of the CEC from among

the candidates proposed by members of the CC (Coordinating Council)." Period.

Then point three, with amendments to it:

to instruct the chair, together with

the working group on, well, electronic

democracy or the program statements,

to prepare drafts of the relevant

documents. First, this needs to be split

in my view, so that there is

clarity and precision. And second, one cannot

entrust this; in my opinion, one cannot entrust

a newly elected chair, whom

we are electing in such haste, with preparing

drafts of the relevant documents; let him

at least prepare them in cooperation with the working

group. I wanted to propose

that we nevertheless put it to a vote, if there are no

fundamental proposals connected with

rejecting the document itself in substance or

replacing it with another document, to

put to a vote the question of adopting it as a basis

and then discuss the specific

points. The problem is that I, for example,

in its present form, would vote

against this document. But if there were

even a small amendment introduced, of the kind

our colleague is talking about, then I would

support this document. We are talking about

voting to adopt it as a basis now, so that

then make amendments

amendments and not vote for it when

we approve it as a whole, if you

are not satisfied, then as a result

of the amendments. But how are we supposed to introduce amendments

if it has not yet been adopted as a basis?

Please, this document in its current form

cannot be adopted.

That is simply unacceptable.

As for the chair, if it is again someone like

a person like Volshebnikov, then of course it will be hard to vote for that

choice.

You see,

that is why.

And third, I would propose that

it be made mandatory to include in

the Central Election Commission one

representative from each curia,

so that the curiae keep their finger on the pulse, so that we can be

sure that we will not be deceived again. Thank you.

All right, there are no more people wishing to speak.

Please, colleague, I will repeat

my

proposal, an alternative proposal,

an alternative way of resolving this issue.

First:

the program group, together with the group

on electronic

voting, should compile

proposals for amending and clarifying

the election documents and present

a corresponding report at the next

meeting of the Coordinating Council in July.

Second, announce or nominate

candidates

for the positions of chair of the CEC and members

of the CEC, so that at the July meeting

of the Coordinating Council

after hearing the candidates, we elect the CEC and

approve it, and stop at these two points

because

depending on what decisions are

taken at the next meeting

of the Coordinating Council regarding the personnel

composition of the Central Election Committee and

regarding the proposals that will be

formulated by the two working groups with

the participation of any other members

of the Coordinating Council and with input from

any proposals from experts, from

voters, and so on, it will become clear what

the next decisions are and within what time frame we

must adopt them. In other words, two decisions:

on preparing additions and amendments to

the election regulations, and second, the nomination

of candidates for chair of the CEC and members of the CEC.

All these decisions should be considered and

approved at the next meeting in

July. So, dear colleagues, just as

with the first issue, we have

alternative options

for a decision. The first option is the one

that was prepared in writing for

today's meeting by colleague Davydis.

The second option is what has just been

proposed orally

by a colleague. The rules do not prohibit us

from considering, as I repeat once again,

oral proposals; there are no

contradictions here. Therefore I propose

to repeat the previous procedure and hold

a preferential vote on the proposal

by Davydis, and a preferential vote

on the proposal

by Ionov.

Any objections to the proposed

procedure? No? If there are two options, then I do not

really understand the function of preferential

voting: simply either one or

the other.

We could limit ourselves to that option.

We could, but in that case, so to speak, we

might fail to pass either one or the other.

Do you understand why I am proposing a soft

vote or not? I think there is

a certain logic to it.

Colleague, would you agree?

[music]

Or perhaps that way we can find a reasonable option.

Right.

There are no objections to the proposed procedure, and we are now

going to vote quickly without wasting time. Yes, there are no

fundamental objections. So, dear

colleagues, on the second item on the agenda,

the first proposal, in written form,

as set out and prepared by colleague

Davydis. Who is in favor of this proposal? We are voting

softly, by preferential vote. Who is in favor of this proposal?

Please

vote.

Who is in favor of colleague

Ionov's proposal, which is to

have the project group, together with

the electronic voting group, prepare

a proposal to amend the regulations on

elections, nominate candidates for the election

of CEC members and the chair of the CEC, and at the

next meeting of the Coordinating

Council resolve this issue in person? Who is in favor

of this proposal? Soft preferential

voting. So, dear colleagues,

the largest number of votes was received by

colleague Davydis's proposal. So now for

the vote: now a normal, firm,

unambiguous vote to adopt as a basis. To adopt as

a basis

we put forward the resolution in written form

that we have on the second item

of the agenda. I will not read it out. Who

is in favor of adopting this resolution as a basis?

Please

[music]

vote.

It does not

pass. How many votes are missing?

There are not enough votes. This is not a procedural

decision, this is not a procedural decision, that is exactly what I

am telling you, I am saying, this is not even...

is taking place

exactly the same, well

so, the decision has not been made

it is postponed until the next meeting

of the coordinating

council, or under Democracy-2, upon

the initiative of any, so to speak, five members

of the CS. Right, next

item, point three, on the campaign for

the release of Alexei Gaskarov, speaker

Budkis

please

Dear colleagues, very briefly

I will say

June 17–23

there will be a campaign, days of joint

actions in support of Alexei. The campaign

is being organized by an initiative group that

includes his comrades, incl-

his

his girlfriend. As part of this campaign, in a number of

European cities there will be

actions in support of Alexei. There will also

be actions prepared in Moscow and in Russian

cities. And despite the fact that I do not have

a written draft resolution, I propose

that the coalition council, first, adopt

a principled decision to support this

week of action; second

there is a fairly substantial proposal

on the campaign

on the draft statement

which I will not read out in full; I

can send it to the mailing list, and every member

in particular

who

who are well-known, who have popular

accounts

could

three

points. Literally just now I was told about

Alexei's lawyer. You know that there will be

a hearing on his

arrest; he asked for a document from the coordinating

council confirming the active

participation of Alexei in the CS

activist

in

the protest camp

movement

From June 2... Let me repeat the clear proposal once again

to support, plea-

the campaign

and secondly, to adopt

part

to take part in the advertising project

in support of all this

the instructions and everything for this project

I will send to the coordinating council mailing list, and

every participant can

[music]

join in. Then probably this is a question for

the secretary: if, if this could

be done, for example, today, then that would be

excellent. Understood. I will comment on the last point

a bit later. Are there any questions or

proposals? Please, a question

Listen, on the 18th I’ll be in

Moscow again, so, when will you have

the action? Will there be something on the 18th

in support of Gaskarov? On the 18th there definitely

will be something, but not in Moscow; and in Moscow

well, actually, yes, actually there is

a website called inf where all

the events that are planned or have already

been held in support of Alexei are listed; there are

detailed reports on that site. And could you

perhaps send some information that

Gaskarov supported [it] clearly, because of course

I will support Gaskarov, I am ready to come to the action

well, they definitely have nothing yet

we’ll talk later. I propose

to support our colleague

regarding the certificate, I think this idea is

very sound on the defense side, but

that makes the value and correctness of this

certificate all the more important, so I would suggest that you

assign it to the human rights working group

the working group; I myself will prepare my own

draft, possibly even today, or tomorrow at the latest

we will do this jointly with colleagues