The Seventh Meeting of the Opposition Coordination Council

At the previous meeting, we discussed that on May 6

the main spring rally is planned.

The protest action tied to the events of May 6 is supposed to take place then.

At our last meeting, we decided that it

should be held specifically on that date, in that format.

We discussed a rally, but nevertheless I

believe there are different opinions on this

matter, and some discussion will probably come up

again, including at the Coordinating Council.

We are about to discuss it now, but we, as

a working body of the Coordinating

Council, are always guided by the decisions

that the Council adopts, so for now we are

beginning preparations for the rally. We

are ready to consider other formats, but

for the time being we remain within the framework

of the decision. Naturally, for the event

to be successful, it is necessary

to have participation.

Everyone is working actively on May 6.

The Resistance group, in fact, Resistance,

has written an entire

program for distributing materials. I

think that we will of course

support it. Naturally, all the work

is being done within the working group. On Monday

we are meeting for a session of the organizing committee.

Any activists interested

so to speak, in the successful holding

of the event are invited, so come and

let us, as a council, effectively

organize

the work together. Let's also—

No, a question now. Yes, I ask

your pardon. Let's take questions first, and

then

then the statement. A question—yes, a question.

Please take Konstantin's question first.

Representative Konstantinov: Dear

colleagues, I would like the speaker to give a more

detailed account of the composition of the working

group—who exactly is in it—because

I have doubts about the effectiveness

of this group's work. All right, I think that

doubts about the effectiveness of the work of

any working groups of the Coordinating

Council are more or less understandable.

As for the work itself,

I have already emphasized this, and I will repeat it:

it is important to us

that all work within our working

group be carried out

in an open format, so that

everyone who believes it necessary

to contribute their efforts to the common

cause can take part. I have already said that the May 6 Committee

also takes part in the meetings, as does the Group

of Resistance, and any member

of the Coordinating Council can come as well.

When will our next meeting be?

On Monday, so for us it is the most

important one. Therefore, everyone interested should come. I beg

your pardon, but you did not answer my question. I

asked a very simple, elementary question:

the composition of the working

group. If childish questions are being asked, then

please give a childish answer.

Please—

uh—

[music]

All right, I am telling you once again: if you

want to attend, you can do so.

The list of members of the working group

was formed at the time, and

it included everyone who themselves considered it

necessary to sign up for it. Of course

it exists. If you want to sign up,

then sign up. On the contrary, I urge all

members of the Coordinating Council to take part

in the work. I beg your pardon.

Let's not turn this into a polemic, if you please.

With your permission, we will stop here.

Questions—I will now... Colleagues, we have lists

of the working

groups posted. Anyone can join any group. I am a member of a working

group, but why am I not

being invited? Colleagues, I beg your pardon, let us

still speak only after

the floor has been given.

I have a question, but just to say—

there will also be

a request

to announce once again the time of the working group meeting.

And the question is: what is the situation with

finances, with the scheme, and so on?

I will answer the first part, then.

The meeting will take place on Monday at 19:00.

The tentative location is Parnas

on Pyatnitskaya Street, but that is not certain; that is, we will

of course inform everyone about it through the mailing list.

inform everyone.

Excuse me, but a question nonetheless: can you now simply

name at least someone who is in this

commission? You do know who is there

participating, after all.

Of course, that is a strange question, as if you did not

know what composition of the working bodies

the Coordinating Council selected. I can

name the people whom I

regularly see at meetings of our

working group.

Representative of Razvozzhayev (a Russian opposition figure), Elena Yevgenia

Rikova; that is, Boris Nemtsov; and

Sergei

Parkhomenko, Sergei

Davidis. And, broadly speaking, that is the main

core. Other people—Navalny

has come; others come when

they consider it appropriate. All right, Amanovich, thank you for the floor.

I am part of this group, this working group on

holding

events, but for some reason no one

invites me when we hold meetings.

There is a mailing list. If you want me

to add you to it, I will. You are already

on it—just keep an eye on the

information. Monday—I have just now

announced it, and I think that

has greater significance

than if I were in

the mailing list... thank you, question answered, recei...

I have a question: will an application ultimately be submitted

for holding a march, and along what

route? Again, probably for the third

time, I’ll say: we always act within the framework

of the Coordination Council’s decisions. It was

decided to hold a rally on the sixth

of the month; the location was also

determined — Bolotnaya Square (in Moscow); the time was also

set, from 7 p.m. to 10 p.m. So if no other

decision is made now, then on

Monday an application will be submitted for

holding a rally on Bolotnaya Square. This

is in the hands of the Council; it is not in

my power, so please

decide that accordingly.

Thank you. Yes, I also just have

a small technical remark. Twice I

asked that when there is a meeting of this

group — I’m part of it, yes — and

twice I asked that someone simply

bring a laptop along; someone always

has one. It’s just that via Skype, of course, I can’t

keep traveling there from St. Petersburg, but

I’m ready to participate and wanted to, but somehow I wasn’t

answered. Hi — how can one explain

why, if a person wants to participate via Skype in

the group’s work, and that opportunity

can be provided... Friends, look, so

of course, if one of the members of the working

group brings a laptop and ensures

the possibility for other colleagues to participate remotely,

that would be great. But we

don’t have a secretary, we don’t have, well,

any formal distribution of responsibilities,

so we can simply take your

words under advisement, and of course I hope

someone will agree and provide you with that. I beg

your pardon, I can’t say specifically... On Monday you

will have a meeting. I want to participate

remotely. Then if you want, send

a laptop to the person who can

provide that opportunity

for you.

behav...

I’ve already asked the question and got the answer. Group, question...

Well, discussion can be good.

Thank you. I’ll try to take part in the session.

Let Artemov speak, then Navalny, then...

But you’re already moving to discussion. No, we are asking

the issue.

So, dear

colleagues, as I recall, at the previous

meeting the march was not ruled out, that is,

we voted

for

the issue.

So,

what, after all, is the basis on which

the working group refused to consider

the issue of the possibility of holding

a march? Because at the previous

meeting the question was not formulated that way.

It was said there that the rally would definitely take place,

but whether or not there would be a march

was to be discussed by the working group, and

the working group is refusing that discussion,

citing a nonexistent

decision from the previous meeting. Why is that

happening? I beg your pardon,

who else...

if anyone else makes noise, I’ll ask that they be removed.

Well, yes.

Apparently there are limitations... With this kind of

sound quality,

...

Indeed, we are receiving information

that there is an alternative proposal for

holding

it on that date. Let’s

...

...

I ask you to...

...

because otherwise it creates a strange

format. Yes, you do something over there,

good for you, and then you come here and we sort of

scold you here for whatever it is

you apparently didn’t do there. It seems to me

that more instructions need to be given out.

There’s an excellent campaign going on now for the prisoners of

May 6 (the Bolotnaya case detainees): “One Day, One Name.” There, there was

a clear instruction: here, I’m sending you

an email with the video clips and everything else,

and you post it. Okay — that’s what we

did, we followed that instruction. Right now

there are fundamentally important things — preparation

and we have a decisive two weeks. Can we be given

some instructions from the central

leadership — what each member

of the Coordination Council should do, taking into account their capabilities? Dina as well,

whether someone is a famous person or not, whether they have

popular blogs or not popular

blogs, whether they have organizations or no organizations,

and so on.

Thank you, thank you for the question. Of course,

the role of members of the Coordination

Council in information outreach and

drawing attention to the upcoming May 6

event

... The working group has identified several areas in

which work will be carried out; one

of them is

information outreach. This area has been taken on

for coordination by Sergei Parkhomenko and Boris Nemtsov.

Therefore, on Monday, probably within the framework

of discussing this area, we

will formulate some important actions

that we will communicate to all members

of the Coordination Council. So of course

what Alexei asked about will, of course, be carried out

as an obligation...

...

...

Both were discussed...

... Thank you. We will vote, but when

There will be a discussion now; for the moment, questions.

Yes, now—please forgive me—so, any more...

questions about the report

are there any?

I see.

Specifically, on the financial side,

say, money and so on, the expenses for

are there any safe options, or right now...

to collect...

And the financial issue is always the most

pressing one for us. Unfortunately, even

the expenses that were incurred for the previous

events, including the one on April 6,

have not yet... Right now, we really need

a campaign, and again, in this participation

of the members of the coordinating council, it is strictly

essential that the campaign be aimed at

attracting some donations

voluntary contributions for holding this

main event on May 6, therefore

our budget is currently zero. If you

wish.

Thank you. Any more questions about

the report? Where, where...

Next.

Go ahead.

So, regarding how the financing is happening

of the action,

excuse me, I’ve already been called on

no, well...

this is usually...

than we used to before...

we know this; it would be better for all of us if

Let’s then...

I will... all right, thank you. I don’t see any

questions. You had

a proposal—a short technical question.

Yes... Konstantin, please...

A representative of the group, regarding participation via

Skype.

Thank you. The proposal is actually

to submit

a notification

for a demonstration as well

not just for a march—we will try

to push it through.

You know, Sergei and I were actually discussing this yesterday,

this issue, and in principle I

support it. No harm in trying; we can

state in the notification that preceding the

rally there will be a march, but personally I

think the likelihood is low. On a working day,

they are unlikely to approve a march; that simply needs

to be understood. But of course we can do that.

All right. Now, excuse me, I wanted

just to gather those who want to speak

—no? Well, now, just one

moment.

Ready now.

Sorry, I’m trying to write people down in the

order in which hands were raised.

All right. Dear colleagues, I was at the

initial action on the 6th...

of May—sorry, on May 5, at the recent rally

which took place in Novopushkinsky Square

in support of Alexei Navalny

and was organized by human rights

organizations. I

watched what was happening and came to the conclusion

that the format of a rally on May 6 is completely

insufficient.

People are clearly tired of rallies, especially on the same

human rights themes, it is obvious

they are tired, and it seems to me this will not

be a worthy culmination of that

campaign that the Coordinating Council

has been conducting. But at the same time,

at the same time there are well-founded

concerns that an application for a march on May 6, due

to the fact that it is a working day, will be

rejected. In this connection, I want to put before the

Coordinating

Council the proposal to submit an application on Monday

for May 5, for a Freedom March on May 5 at

3 p.m., a Freedom March

and

the Opposition Council—there is such a

structure, many have already heard various things about it. If

necessary, we can invite

the people present here to give a more

detailed account of this action. When

discussing this issue, one should take into account the

fact that an application for the march

on the 5th will be submitted on Monday. I

would recommend supporting this application

by the Coordinating Council. Thank you.

Next.

I have written down

Gennady.

Thank you. Dear colleagues, well, I

would like

to say that a great deal depends on what kind of action May 6

will be, including for many

of those sitting at this table. Therefore today

we need to set a very clear course toward

preparing this rally properly.

Possibly a march as well—I see nothing wrong if

we submit an application, say, for gathering at 4 p.m., at 5 p.m.

the movement begins...

Just because they may refuse us something

Second, we really need to start now

raising money, and this must be a rally with

a достойным presentation, including

the stage. I mean there should be screens,

there should be speakers, there should be means

so that people can understand what is happening

at the rally; then they will not leave.

Because when, in the back, the sound is poor and

they can’t hear and can’t really see, people simply start

to leave. That is the first point. Therefore now

we urgently need, through the networks—our networks

are still ours, after all—to announce now

to all our supporters that on May 6 we

have something planned. We cannot now begin

campaigning, but in accordance with the law we can speak about

a planned event, about

a proposed one, about the fact that we are submitting

an application, about what we are counting on.

We definitely need to use the internet right now, and

reach out to our supporters so that they

flood the internet with messages about

the upcoming event. We already need to, well,

it seems to me that we need the means

to discuss a group of volunteers who could, say,

at metro stations, where people gather, in

public

places, shops—we can discuss in the working

group handing out invitations. That, I

think, means printing about 500, if not

more, at a minimum, of course.

If ready, we could have a group of volunteers who

could start working on this right now. A very

important next point

concerns our actions on advertising.

Officially—whether we are refused or not,

that is simply a question, but I think that if it is not

refused, then we absolutely must do it:

place advertising for the upcoming

planned event, perhaps even

immediately after submitting the application, on the TV channel

Dozhd (an independent Russian TV channel), if we can arrange it.

Such advertising—it is clear that there are

news hooks to discuss, but direct

advertising, I believe,

in Moscow

for money, advertising

about it.

Advertising—let's put the question, dear colleagues.

Until it is approved, we cannot earlier

advertise it in advance except as

a news item. Therefore the TV channel

Dozhd, perhaps a number of other

radio stations and some internet

channels, television outlets, should carry

official advertising. Plus, surely right now

we need to—well, I don't know, I'm not feeling very well—

place the appropriate advertising and

ask our specialists on how exactly

to make it advertising, not just a mention,

just

a passing contact, but specifically as advertising so that

people

see that such an event

is being planned, that an application is being submitted, and so

on. And as soon as it is approved,

we have the right to completely official

advertising. We need to prepare in advance

some advertising spots, banners—I don't know

what it is called—but right now this

definitely needs to be done at the

work—in the working group, in the working group

we need, we need to discuss slogans

that are understandable.

For the masses, of course, we have a very important cause—

defending our political prisoners

and those being persecuted—but as practice shows, this

is not the most relevant slogan according to sociology.

Therefore, we must use those slogans that

are truly understandable to the masses. This

is very important. The working group will need to

discuss this now.

By Monday, we need to

distribute the workload, including

on a voluntary basis among the members

of the Coordinating Council, so that everyone can

participate to the extent of their abilities and possibilities

in preparing this

event. Excuse me if

we fail to organize properly

the event, although the potential for popular

mass participation in

Moscow is enormous. Thank you. Next speaker.

Dear colleagues, in connection with those

doubts about how

advisable a march is in addition to the rally on May 6,

yes, arguments were made there that

the time is late, and it will be difficult to have first

a march and then

a rally. Try considering a creative

option: first the rally, then a march from

the rally, since people will be leaving anyway

and heading toward the metro. Frame it as

a march.

I beg your pardon.

to hold out, or perhaps it will go

to the State Duma (the lower house of Russia's parliament), or to the Kremlin, as a rally

will go.

We'll see. That has been done before successfully.

Thank you.

First of all, I would like to express some surprise

that our esteemed colleague Gudkov speaks this way

as if the big protest rallies in Moscow had official advertising budgets.

They happened without any official budgets at all, yes.

We did not run advertising—that is, well,

the organizers did not run any advertising. And

besides, it would make sense if we actually had

a real budget. We do not, yes.

God willing, there will be enough money for the stage, and therefore

in this situation, to spend more on something else

in Moscow, as if we were Gazprombank—I do not think

that is right. Therefore, dear friends, let us

proceed from reality, after all, yes.

Let us first collect

money for a decent stage with a screen, I

completely agree, yes, with a screen and

speakers. Then all the rest. That is the first point.

Second, let us consider

the option that this is a landmark event.

Let us support both the march and May 5,

because that one will definitely be approved, because

it is a day off, yes, and I think that two

days in a row would be perfectly normal, because

on a weekday, just a rally later on the 6th

no one will approve, obviously.

And it will not gather as many people as

on the fifth, as it were, the march.

Understood. All right, now excuse me.

Next speaker, Goltsov.

Yes, colleagues, first of all I would like

to propose to the opposition's expert council

that those who have been promoting this idea now

should regard this application, at best,

as a backup option. Under no circumstances should it

become

the main one. Each option, yes, has its own costs

and drawbacks.

won't come either, so I think we need to

cast aside our doubts and focus on

the action we are preparing and, without

any doubt, absolutely without hesitation, submit at least

an application for a march. We must do this

for the sake of those of our

supporters whom we have not yet lost

through our own

indecision. And this is an act of enormous

symbolic significance. A year ago

a turning point occurred in Russian

history. That turning point is connected with

the march of free people from Kaluzhskaya

Square to Bolotnaya Square. If we symbolically

renounce our fidelity to that march, our fidelity to

that beginning of this peaceful

anti-criminal revolution, as people here usually

say,

we will lose the last remnants of our authority

and forfeit any moral right

to represent the protest movement in Russia.

Thank you. I

want to note that at the previous meeting we chose the format of the action

and even adopted a decision, recorded in

the minutes. I'll read it: the main protest action is a rally

on Bolotnaya Square

under the title "For Freedom".

There is also

an application for a march at six, gathering participants from

6 to 7 p.m. along the very same route

from Kaluzhskaya Square to Bolotnaya Square

accordingly. But as for the arguments, I just

wanted to repeat once again: there have been two

rallies there. It was more dynamic

than the first one, in defense of Alexei

Navalny. Still, rallies do not attract

as many people as marches do, and

the people who will be filing the application should not

impose self-limitations on themselves. That is,

there is a right to hold a march, regardless of whether it is on a

weekday or a weekend. This is, well, obviously

standard European practice in all

countries. There is no need to agree in advance to

those conditions.

A few more words.

Colleagues, I absolutely agree that

it is very important, fundamentally important, to hold

a protest action on May 6 because of the events

of last year, and it seemed to me that at the meeting

a more compromise decision

was reached. I won't even repeat

the arguments—practically everything that has been

said. It is also obvious to me that

an authorized action will objectively gather

more people than an unauthorized one.

There were also examples showing that if we are to go ahead, then

we should go ahead only as a last resort, if the

authorities completely lose their minds and push it

outside the city center, and so on.

And on May 5, frankly, I learned that

some kind of alternative action is being prepared. I

think that, procedurally, it might make

sense to ask Nata

who is present here to give some

brief explanatory remarks, just for the record, so that we

understand whether this is really some kind of

allied action and we simply

have not sorted it out, or whether it is some kind of sabotage.

We simply need to clarify this before making

any decision. And

I ask you to note, moreover, that when

making this decision, that we have already

adopted a decision that on May 6 we

will hold a rally on Bolotnaya Square,

so it is correct to frame the question accordingly.

Colleagues,

I very much liked the speech by

Gennady Gudkov. I think we all now

need to focus on proper

preparation, and I have specific

proposals. Many of us already have fairly

well-developed

internet resources. It seems to me that each of us

should

on our own

groups

as well—it seems to me each of us should do this.

As for the budget,

I used to be in business, I am a former businessman, and honestly

I tell you: we need to demand advertising from Echo of Moscow (a Russian radio station)

without fail. A great many people

who support us listen to that

radio station, although I personally have a complicated

attitude toward it. If they refuse,

that should be made public and

not hidden from the public, and that

will draw additional attention to

our event. I support

Gaskarov's proposal to hold a march.

Although last time, uh, we rejected

this idea. It really is more dynamic and

indeed, it seems to me this will be

a good opportunity once again

to concentrate our efforts on

preparation, because, you understand, the more

grand the action is, the better we will

prepare it. And as for all kinds of

refusals, there is one simple

rule: the more strongly they

resist us, the louder

the action becomes, the more vivid it is. I am in no

way calling for any unlawful

actions, but nevertheless all of this

must be made public and

discussed together by everyone. And in conclusion, I would

still focus right now precisely

on what Alexei Navalny said:

specific instructions. Let's think

about what each of us can do for

the preparation.

Thank you. I apologize, I will give everyone one turn

first, and then those who want to speak

again. Dear colleagues, well, it seems to me

that this is how it should be. I listened carefully to

the different opinions. It seems to me that we should

end the discussion with the understanding that on

Monday a notice will be submitted to the mayor's office

for a rally and the march preceding it.

Let's vote specifically on this.

As a notification—that is, as the draft decision.

To submit the notification on Monday for the

rally.

the sixth. Yes, my apologies.

Alexei Nava. I was asked to pronounce surnames more clearly.

Thank you very much.

Yevgenia Chirikova said almost everything I

wanted to say. There are a few things

I disagree with, both with her and with

Gennady Gudkov. Friends, there is no

magic button. There is no such thing as

putting an ad on Echo of Moscow (a Russian radio station) and having

a million people come to us. With 99% probability, that will not

happen. There will be no advertising on Echo of Moscow because

that is their position; they have said many times

that they will not take money for

paid advertising for this.

We will ask again, but they will not provide any

paid advertising, and there will be nothing to reproach them for—

that is simply their position. So,

the success or failure of this march depends

entirely on how effective our

actions are, and there is no headquarters somewhere

that will work miracles for us, and so on.

I am simply calling on each of us

to make a small personal plan

for preparing for the march, to work with our

supporters, with our groups, and try

to do this to the fullest, using

all our media resources, and so on.

Alexei Gorov and I were discussing how

we simply need to get together, the two of us,

and organize a campaign to put up some

large

posters. We'll do it. I'm wrapping up, so

each person should determine for themselves

a personal action plan and carry

it out. There can be nothing else, really.

There is nothing else. So I

urge us—perhaps today—to adopt

some kind of formal resolution stating

that we call on all supporters to

start, from Monday, taking part in the

campaign for this rally. But

each of us must personally make

a plan and report, including to

our supporters and voters, on

what he personally did to ensure that people

come on the sixth to the

Thank you. Dear colleagues, to implement

any plan—and indeed to build any

kind of

plan—we need to decide on the format.

Will this be a

We need to decide, yes. These two

points will determine both the strategy of

campaigning and the strategy of

holding the event. Everything else

is secondary. As I understand it, two

basic

options are now being considered:

yes, two—the sixth or the fifth.

I believe

that informally, today,

this question has come up: whether the event is

a rally or a march,

and whether it should take place on the fifth or the sixth.

My personal proposal is to hold a march

and to hold it on the evening of the fifth.

The fifth, let me remind you, is a day off,

and this event will draw an order of magnitude more

people than the sixth. The sixth is a weekday,

a Monday. If we hold a

march along Yakimanka to Bolotnaya Square,

it will 100% not be approved. It is a working

day.

So I

propose this. I ask that the question be put to

a vote regarding the

format and the date.

I thank him for his concern for Orthodox

people and for Orthodox participation in the protest.

But as one of the few

Orthodox people here, I can speak with some authority

and say that, in fact,

starting from the night of the fourth to the fifth,

everything is already permitted. That is, for us,

the fifth is, on the contrary, a festive

day. There are no canonical or traditional

prohibitions on taking part on Easter day

or during the holiday in any kind of public action.

There are none at all. So any concern that Orthodox

people might be afraid that because of this

Orthodox believers will not come to this event—well, that

simply reflects a lack of knowledge of Orthodox

traditions. I also support

our colleague's proposal because

indeed, all our experience—well,

let's not be foolish—all our experience

shows that the recent rally

in support of Navalny collected, what, about 1,000

people? We might gather 2,000 or 3,000

people on a weekday. That's obvious.

But the fifth is a day off; there will be

no legal grounds to refuse permission for a

march. We can calmly hold it in the evening,

hold a march, hold a rally—it will be

far more massive, much more—I believe

it will have a much greater impact. Thank you.

As for the critics later—

Volcha Dikova.

Representative

of Razvozzhayev. This sounds like a kind of blackmail, and I am not discussing it.

There are two dates, the fifth and the sixth, but a decision has been made:

May 6. And it seems to me that the comparison

with the rally in support of Navalny is somewhat

out of place, because before that there was

a rally in support of political prisoners on April 6.

It took place on a Saturday; it was

a day off, and it gathered exactly the same number

of people as the rally in support of Alexei on a working

day. So to speak of an order-of-magnitude difference, I

think, is probably still incorrect.

A working day may be inconvenient for some people,

but we are holding the event in the evening,

we are holding it until 10 p.m., and people

will be able to come a bit later. Let's...

just not to dilute the issue, not to water it down

Thank you.

Why? I think it should be held on the fifth.

of the month, because—well, the point here is that

representatives of the religious community also support

this, and it should

be held as a rally on the sixth.

Definitely, definitely.

Sunday. Thank you.

As a representative of the Orthodox faith,

I propose celebrating Easter on the fifth

and then, on the sixth, still hold

our event.

Thank you. You're not alone here.

Here.

Thank you. I don't see anyone else wishing

to speak.

So,

these were the proposals I was able to write down.

First, it was pointed out that the decision has,

in principle, already been made, and therefore any

vote would be a vote on

changing an already existing

decision. That is, the decision that

has been made is the decision on

the rally on May 6.

So there was

a proposal, to some extent

a technical one, as I

understand it, to submit an application for the sixth for a

rally.

There was also a proposal to hear

a report about

the action planned by the Opposition Expert Council, and

there was a proposal to hear a representative

of the Expert

Council, and then vote on this specifically

because this too is

a change to the originally adopted

decision: to change the date and change

the format. So I think let's

then—I would suggest first hearing

the report about the May action after all,

because otherwise we won't be able to make

a decision in its absence.

Ah yes, I'll put that forward now. And after that

we can accordingly make decisions on

changes, if such decisions are

proposed. So, who is in favor of

giving

the floor

to Polozov to

inform the council

about the action? Who is in favor?

Apparently there were some who did not vote, but

overall, it seems the decision has been made. I don't

need to—I can recount. All right, all right.

The decision is adopted. Please—may I make a brief remark?

Regarding conduct—yes, when you take the floor,

I have a request for you: unlike your

previous speech before the Coordinating Council,

please observe the time limits and keep your

remarks within the bounds of the question you were

asked to address. Yes, and I apologize.

We haven't actually set a time limit, by the way.

Since

this is just a report—2

minutes? Let's make it at least three.

All right. What

proposals are there?

Any?

Proposals?

Good. Thank you very much. Hello. I want

to say the following: the action that was planned

by the Expert Council for May 5 is by no

means a spoiler action—that is something I want to emphasize.

Because

[music]

we are acting in line with what was initially

set by the Coordinating Council. That is precisely why we believe

that the Coordinating Council

should, as a coordinating body,

coordinate actions by different

civic

activists. Before planning any action

in the form of a march, we naturally

put this proposal to a vote among the

protest community, and

clearly, we

heard people say: all right, let's do it—people are saying

let's hold a march after all. We don't really

want to just attend a rally, although

we understand that a rally is needed; but we want

to express our position through a march.

So I would be very pleased if, say, the Coordinating

Council were ultimately to decide to hold a march

on the sixth before the rally. In principle, that is exactly what

we are

seeking. The issue here is to

listen to the arguments: people want

a march; they said so online. Here

we have the person who

actually organized that vote—Elena

Vasilyevna—regarding the fifth, of course.

Because it's a day off, and people

want to come out for a march on their day off

because very often people

find it inconvenient to do this after work, even on a

sort of nominally free, nominally working

day. If the Coordinating Council does decide

to submit an application for a march

before the rally on that day, that

well,

we can discuss it, but

...

I—I beg your pardon, just to clarify: if the Coordinating

Council sticks with the decision that

it has already

adopted?

Let's

discuss it in the end. May I ask a question?

When you say "we," could you name at least

five people included in this "we"? Who exactly is

this "we"? Yes, in fact, practically five

people. Right here, practically speaking: Mikhail

Shakov, Pavel Shelkov, Stanislav Shatov, Elena

Vasilyeva. And will you be holding the march

on your own, then? That's it.

There was some kind of irony or sarcasm in that.

We are appealing to the coordinating council with a reque-

to support this initiative. Once again,

I am explaining, because without the coordinating council's decision

Obviously.

it is clear what will happen, and people want to come on the sixth.

If you do not believe what is being expressed by the

voice

of the people, then unfortunately I cannot help you with that.

I ask you both to...

please, in the hall, do not

applaud.

[music]

With regard to participation in the vote, exactly how...

Smurova

The question is: what is the answer?

More than ... people spoke in favor of it.

Holding it.

May... participation in the vote — how many of them

How were the questions formulated, and how

were the answers distributed?

It seems suffi-

information. I apologize. Still, thank you.

Thank you very much. I will repeat my question because

I am not sure I understood: if

the coordinating council settles on

its original decision

about a rally on May 6, in exactly that

wording, then

what, then, what actions will there be

from your initiative group?

I do not know. I cannot answer for everyone because

we have not discussed it. All right, thank you.

Excuse me, I just did not

immediately understand. Just one question: the march —

for what, or against what? Maybe I simply did not

hear it properly. In fact, we are saying that on the eve of

the May 6 rally, we are organizing

a march on May 5. Those who cannot come to the

rally can come to the march on May 5. Those who

find it difficult — we are simply spreading people out by

time, those who can come then

and then. And the march is called the March

of Freedom. Please.

Excuse me, you asked

to stop. A brief

remark, a question. My apologies: on May 6

last year there was exactly the same

situation — a group of citizens also

organized an alternative large

demonstration.

Let us just not dwell on this dis- I

have a proposal. A proposal? Yes, I

have a proposal for our respected

civic activists. We absolutely should

involve them, of course, and that is very good.

So let us do this: perhaps you could submit

an application for a march on May 6, and after the

march you will come to the rally. That would be

very

good. All right, colleagues. Well, answer — yes, we

in fact were seeking for there to be a march on May 6

before the

rally. It was impossible to submit for the May rally

an application, and

our... I apologize if

there is no need to continue this

discussion.

As an informational statement, I think we

have received the answers.

Representative Sakhnin, are you insisting on

saying something? No? In that case,

there is a proposal to move to

a vote on the march or the rally. Then

perhaps this question will simply

drop away on its own. All right, thank you. I also seem to have

asked for the question to be put to a vote.

Now, now, now, I will put it, yes.

And so,

Poryk, yes. First of all, I would still like

to draw attention once again to the fact that

the march on May 5 will still be held, and this is

good informational support.

That is how it is done, yes — rallies, protest pickets,

yes, they attract public attention.

A march on a day off will of course attract

public attention to the fact that

there will also be something on Monday. I see absolutely no

contradiction whatsoever, and let us say

I believe that many people will not be able to come on

Monday — people work in

Moscow. Thank you. I apologize. Let us

not repeat the arguments, because unless there is something

substantially new,

It seems to me that it is sufficiently obvious to everyone

that holding two events means

that one of them is auxiliary. I ask the

civic activists to take this into account. If you

hold a second

event today,

I believe you

are taking

second place. Based on this, it is extremely important to hold

a vote.

On the fifth or the sixth — I ask that these questions be put

to a vote. They will be put to a vote; I

listed them in order, yes. So,

the first proposal

in order was to submit — I will formulate it this way:

that I submit notice of holding on May 6

a march and, following it,

a rally. So, who is in favor of this proposal?

Please vote.

I am sorry — to submit notice

of holding on May 6 a march and

a rally. But I am putting to a vote not what

you asked for, but what was proposed

earlier.

So, who is in favor of this proposal?

Please

vote. Agreed? Can we count it?

Thank you. 9, 10, 11, 12, 15, 16... and plus...

So, further on we can clarify whether this is

a technical issue or

not. And also 20.

Yes. Let us call those who are still available by phone.

Still

once again on the line by...

And three more, yes—17. And 3, that is.

20 voted. And three more votes were added.

Everything has been adopted. Thank you, he wrote that he...

Thank you, colleagues. The decision

has been adopted. Now the sixth—yes, the sixth.

will begin to submit. I definitely said it twice.

I formulated what was proposed.

colleagues.

So, is there a need to vote?

other

proposals. Am I right in understanding that

we have exhausted the discussion, and the decision on

the first item

on the agenda—yes, well, I would ask forgiveness there...

Well, yes, yes, well. This probably

does not need to be put to a vote; it can simply be entered into

the minutes and entrusted to the working group

to work out, well, the members of the ...

council. I ask—it's just that this proposal

is obvious. I propose not to vote on

the procedure for submitting... Are there any objections to

this? Thank you, then we move on to the second

item. Yes, excuse me, one last question

on this topic. The question is whether this is a march for

freedom—freedom not against anyone, only for

always. I understand that representatives of others will be

given the floor, let's say.

article I

say sta

Could we... let's not discuss this now.

Discuss it. Excuse me, colleagues, I ask

your pardon. I ask that people not speak

from their seats. I was simply at that discussion

and I can say that this is about “For Freedom

for Russia.” This concerns free elections as well. It

also concerns freedom for prisoners; it

also concerns freedom from political

repression, unlawful repression, and so on and so

forth. It will be a broad slogan, not freedom only for

prisoners. Of course, this is also implied, and this

broad slogan is exactly what we need in order to reach a broad

audience. Broadly. Thank you. As for the list

of speakers, who will

determine it?

Well, once again: the question you are asking

now—to whom? I am asking everyone, because not everyone can

answer. This will be very... There is

a proposal to determine the procedure

for forming

the list. There is such a proposal, because as far as I remember

that by years...

we handed this over entirely to the working group.

to form

SSO

So who will determine it now?

A proposal that could be

put to a vote.

A provision to determine the list of speakers today.

All right.

Well, traditionally, do we have one

politician speaking, generally? What categories

of speakers are there—lawyers, for example, lawyers

of prisoners, relatives? For each of these

groups, should we define some quotas? Well,

for example, among politicians there are left-wing

right-wing, liberals, and everyone else;

lawyers and relatives—in what

number, in what proportion? That is,

we should work through these branching points, and only then

can we leave the working group a list of names

for detailed discussion.

Well, our working group is not closed.

Any member of the KS (Coordination Council) who wishes to take

part may do so and express

their considerations. To discuss this kind of thing

now—the technical aspects, the slightest details

of how

it will proceed, what quotas for speakers there will be, and so

on—at a plenary session, when time

of which

is already extremely limited, while everyone is still holding on,

seems completely absurd to some.

How exactly would the situation change at all?

The working group consists of experienced people who

have organized many rallies; anyone can

join them. Let us not discuss this

here. Thank you. So, Yashin

(Ilya Yashin), Konstantinov, and Navalny. I ask

your pardon, but I will close the discussion at this point.

I have a question, probably... how old is he?

Apparently, I agree with entrusting this to the working group.

The only thing that concerns me, however,

is a concern.

Open, open.

As for the list, let us agree at least

that at least only those with the right to vote should be

members of the Coordination Council, to determine

the voting procedure within the working group.

As a member of the group, I have only participated several times in

the meetings, but I am sure that is how it will be.

Moreover, I believe that this list

should—perhaps must—be discussed via

the KS mailing list, that is,

so that there is no

backroom dealing. Dear colleagues, I support

the proposal.

A great many people are involved in the process,

civil activists, each of whom

defends their own political position.

It is possible to end up with an unbalanced

list. Therefore, building on what

was

said, I would propose adopting now

a decision on approving

the final

list via the Coordination Council mailing list.

The final list is approved on

Democracy-2. That is my proposal.

Thank you. I would like to draw your attention to the fact that

we created our working group precisely

so that it would deal with

such matters. And everyone who wants to join—it is

open to them. That is first. Second, it seems to me that the question

of speakers is not a question of some kind of quotas

or distribution, but a question

of the rally’s script. Everyone knows that Ilya

Konstantinov spoke at the last rally

better than anyone else, and

I’m against any quotas; it needs to be organized properly.

As for speakers, even if there are quotas, I...

will be against that, because the speakers...

speaking well or badly—this is not very good.

Unfortunately, that is the reality. Therefore I

believe

that the working group

if we start distributing quotas, we’ll have 30

speeches, and people will again say

what kind of rally you’ve organized where

it’s impossible to stay. That must not be done.

The worst thing is to approve

some kind of lists when it’s still unclear

whether there will be musicians or not.

There will be... I’m sorry, I already said

that this would be my last intervention.

Navalny’s (Alexei Navalny’s), if

if my name was mentioned, I probably have the right...

No.

Well then.

Thank you. There were two proposals. The first:

to discuss and establish quotas for

the working group to draft a list

of speakers, determine what that means, and

after that approve this

list by a vote on Democracy-2. And I

want to note that we may find ourselves in

a situation where, by a vote on

Democracy-2, no decision is made. And

what to do in such a situation actually

has not been provided for. I’m sorry,

that was just a side remark. Who is in favor of the first

proposal?

the list of speakers now...

I ask...

to vote.

I see. Who is against?

Four against. Who abstained?

One. So, well, there are also other

ways to express your opinion. The decision has not

been adopted—less than

half. Now, who is in favor of

the final list of speakers

prepared by the working group being approved

by a vote on Democracy-2?

Who supports this proposal? What will happen...

If...

Since I was the initiator, I acknowledge

your

point. Answering the question of what we will

do if the decision is not adopted—

this question cannot be put to

a vote. I simply didn’t think it through.

The working group, as a technical body, cannot make

political decisions, and the list

of speakers, and the rally scenario in general,

is political, not merely technical. I’m

sorry, I did not give you the floor. I ask

that procedure be observed. So, colleagues,

the proposal has been made.

It has been said repeatedly by vote

that today members of the Coordination

Council may take part; therefore it is clearly not

a purely technical body, apparently.

It is not, if...

If not—well then, if there are no other objections

besides

Barik’s, I propose moving on to the second

question. The objection is that such a decision is not

provided for in the rules or anywhere else,

that the working group has the right to make such

decisions. No decision at all has been adopted...

Put it to a vote: who is in favor of

referring this to the working group?

We created a working group

for the preparation

of the event. We created a working group

for preparing the event; determining the list

of speakers is part of that preparation.

of the event, I under...

Then I am forced to join the opinion

of colleague Bondarev and ask that

the question of the working group’s powers be put to

a vote, because this is a sign

of extreme authoritarianism to hand over

political decisions to technical bodies.

Please formulate

the wording in which this

should be voted on. Does Alexei think it is possible

to leave to the working group, with its not fully

clear composition, the determination of all

questions concerning the rally scenario,

the list of speakers, and so on? In that

wording I cannot put it, because

in this matter the working group

cannot make decisions on the list of speakers

and

the scenario—it cannot.

All right, then later.

Well, colleagues, right now we

are dividing... first of all, there is no plan...

Maybe there...

will be... why...

Let’s say the time frame...

will be as follows: the working group

will prepare an approximate

number that we can realistically manage, and

based on that, then propose

to the Coordination Council that it approve this

procedure. That would be

the right way. Or simply conduct

a telephone vote.

There is no apparatus for Democracy-2...

then for the Coordination Council to give the floor, um...

before... before...

before the application is approved, to bring this

matter up for discussion now is an unproductive debate.

In short.

No, colleagues, we created the working group

so that it would deal with everything. The working

group on organizing mass

events deals with mass

events. One aspect of mass events is...

Personally, I have not the slightest desire

to discuss who goes after whom, on what size

stage, and so on. We simply need to draw

the working group’s attention to the fact that when it

makes this decision, when it...

will vote on what was voted on there

The members of the Coalition Council are part of

the Coordination Council, from among the CC members. So, Kukov

Tsarkov, who else, I’m there too, excellent. So,

you are voting on behalf of a CC member. I, as

vote that way, and vote that way, that’s

all. Why complicate the matter?

What?

Thank you. I still believe that on this

issue there has been

a serious presumption; this will lead to even

more disputes. How can you

deny a CC member the right to put a question to

a vote? According to the rules of procedure,

if someone requests that a question be put to

a vote, you have no right

to refuse. All right, excuse me.

Please formulate it once

again. Can the working group

approve the list of speakers and the rally scenario

in the final version? All right, TL

— not that, just yes or no: does the Working

Group have the authority to approve the list

of speakers? Does the CC entrust the working

group with that? Kost, why—I didn’t understand what the question is.

Why can’t it be worded that way?

I simply ask the working group to state on this

matter yes or no. If it does not

decide, then we will vote on the list

ourselves.

Right. Good, good, then I ask

your pardon, I am putting this question to

a vote. Colleagues, you can put to

a vote only one wording of the question.

Are we granting the working group the right

to approve the list of speakers? Because

we have already entrusted them with doing everything now.

Everything. Personally, I want to receive from them a ready-made

rally and instructions on what I need to do.

Yes, all right. So I agree here. Nava

So, let me remind you once again, the Working Group

was created to prepare the rally; determining

the list of speakers is part

of preparing the rally. Therefore I am putting to

a vote the question: does it insist, does it decide

— as Kornin said — does it decide? So

I did not give him the floor. I object on technical grounds, according to

the rules of procedure: in the order received, the question

must be put to a vote, not outside the proposal

Sakhnin’s wording: does the Coordination

Council entrust the working group with determining the number

— that question has already been

voted on and decided when the Working

Group was tasked with preparing the rally.

Now Sakhnin has put the question to

a vote; you must put it to a vote. The

working group prepares draft decisions, and everyone votes

on them.

No, you, you, just imagine

it turns out like this: for example, only

the nationalist faction comes to the working

group, and at the rally there speak

Bandera supporters (a reference to Ukrainian nationalist followers of Stepan Bandera), that wing, so to speak, and then there will also

be a whole series of others.

We cannot make political decisions there.

Excuse me, we

have repeated all

the arguments. So once again, colleagues, I ask

your pardon. I am putting the questions in the following

order. At the previous meeting, a decision was made

that the event would be prepared by

the Working Group.

A proposal was made to change

this

decision, namely that we

deprive the working group of the right

to determine the procedure.

You are violating the rules of procedure, you

are violating the order of proceedings, you are not familiar

with the procedural rules. Questions are placed

on the agenda in the order they are received.

The Coordination Council has never received and never

granted the working group the right to single-handedly

determine the list of speakers. Sakhnin

was first — excuse me, Sakhnin first, then O...

conduct — not others, conduct, conduct

please, please.

Order, please. Representative Konstantin.

Dear colleagues, for all the caricature-like nature

of the situation that has developed, I draw your

attention to one interesting

circumstance. The Working Group, as far as I know,

actually, as far as I know, for the

preparation of the rally

meets in an open format,

and not only members of the C... take part there;

representatives of the May 6 Committee (a civic group connected to the Bolotnaya Square protest cases of May 6, 2012) also participate there,

human rights

organizations, the liberal public, and

so I would like the decision on

the most important event, the May 6 rally,

to be made by a working group composed of members

of the CC, in the absence of outsiders.

Are we giving the working group such an instruction?

Then it seems to me that this question is closed.

The list of members must be

This is the very decision that was

adopted by us at the previous meeting of the co...

The Working Gro...

Pri...

Simply put, this is the very decision that was

adopted at the previous meeting.

The Coordination Council formed

a working group to prepare

the event. The Working Group has the right

to involve

anyone it wants in this, of course without the right

to vote, if that needs

to be confirmed, we can vote for that.

Yes, exactly right. First,

are we deciding that the working group consists of CC members

or are we depriving the working group

formed from our own

members of the right to determine the list

of speakers? Runi, lis—what?

It’s impossible. Listen, the meeting

is impossible when there is dialogue like this. Come on, raise

your hand and wait. I am raising my hand and waiting until I am given the floor.

the floor

the question that

is being narrowed down, for example, this is Usov's question and

Ren to us

meeting. At the previous meeting, when

the working group of the Coordinating Council was formed

excuse me, the working group that was formed

from members of the Coordinating Council was given the right to determine the list

of speakers. Who is in favor of this?

proposal: let's send this group packing

this turns out to be incorrect and improper

sabotage by the chair. We gave the group

what are you doing? And we never

gave the group such a right. I

do not suffer from sclerosis (memory loss)

I do not suffer from it, as far as I understand

for whom... this is completely improper and

an unacceptable tone was used at the

meeting of the Coordinating Council. Second,

unfortunately, indeed, we

do not have a clear record, but certainly

each specialized group or committee

works in accordance with the regulations

that exist, and in those regulations it may

perhaps not be spelled out to the end, but this

implies the preparation of all decisions

including the list of speakers

and here it is simple: either we trust our

comrades who are in this

group, or let's abolish all groups

and have all 45 people make decisions collectively

on every issue, including

procedural ones. Or we

must raise the question of revising the decision

of the Coordinating Council on the creation

of the working group and granting it the appropriate

powers. In any case, the decision

hardly requires creating some kind of

organizational bureau and then, in a working

discussion, debating issues that are sharp and complex

right now we can only discuss

the question either of revising the decision to create

the group, or of stripping it of certain powers. These

questions have already been raised. We are absolutely

doing the wrong thing right now. Once again,

I am saying that the rally has not been approved

by the authorities, so everything we are arguing about

with each other is pointless for now

friends, I propose ending this

because it is in fact completely

pointless right now, because the working

group exists, it has been formed, it

is working, and I do not understand why, for example,

the April 6 action or the One Day, One Name action

did not provoke such discussions. Why did we

not put it to a vote, for example, who

among the political figures or which of the

artists would speak on behalf of which prisoner

— and there was no such commotion and no

such desire or enthusiasm

from anyone to

carry this out. I want to thank Pyotr

for taking on the lion's share, really,

of these actions, and let's stop

because it really resembles a

farce. We are dividing up the skin of a bear we have not yet killed

— we have not even filed the notification yet

we still have not

resolved the issue of campaigning and fundraising

and yet we are already dividing up who will speak when

and who

with

SBO descendants

and there was

a proposal by these three to end

the discussion. I will then put it to a

vote, and after that those who asked to speak

next. Dear colleagues, we are talking

about providing the floor

to people from each

that's all. Excuse me, colleagues

I confirm that at the meeting of the working

group, perhaps at the

next one

there will be a vote

on granting the floor

for speeches by members of the Coordinating Council

it is clear that there will not be a situation

when

members of the working group of the Coordinating

Council, of course, will be voted on by members

of the working group. So I confirm this

if it depends on me

of course

question: do I understand correctly that the working

group is ready

to consult via the mailing list, based on the results

of the decision on the composition

of the speakers? We can even put the list

of speakers to a general vote

if there is such a need

it can be done. Why

not? Thank you. There was a proposal to end

there was a proposal to end the discussion on

this issue. Who

is in favor? It seems to me there is a clear majority. I ask

for forgiveness from those who

of the council... we already had

So, do I understand correctly? I propose

giving 5 minutes

to present one's point of view on

how the work should be organized

of the executive secretary and his or her

interaction with members of the

Coordinating

Council, and after that, if there are no other

candidates, we have two candidates

and we can immediately

vote. Are there any other

proposals for the position of

executive

secretary? Thank you. No? Then the floor is yours

Thank you very much. I want to say that

we really do have much more

important things to do than electing an executive

secretary, in my opinion. Nevertheless,

I would not be here if I did not want

to do everything in my power for

to help the Coordinating Council

and I believe that the executive secretary

can do this; we have common goals, and both

enemies, and we must, of course, work in

the same direction, and the very

idea, as I understand and remember, was

a wonderful idea: to create the most honest

determined, courageous, and active force

in the opposition in our country, and you

for executive secretary. I believe that

this is quite a good reason to shake up

public opinion from the outside and in some way

adjust your work, because I

base myself exclusively on people’s opinions and on

what they actually say and express

as their views. I believe that the executive

secretary, in any case, should

take an interest in public opinion,

convey it to the members of the Coordinating

Council and, accordingly, make some

proposals on this matter based on input from

people

as it comes in, because I absolutely

liked the situation that has now

developed—that is, we gather people’s opinions

about whether they want a march or not,

a march, and accordingly we put this

on the agenda, and the Coordinating Council votes.

I am quite satisfied with this option.

It is clear that no one should organize

a march the day before; if it is held

on May 6, then everything

is fine. So the same thing

the executive secretary could

do in setting up work to receive ideas from

voters of the Coordinating Council.

Because if, for example, the Coordinating

Council, as some believe, is experiencing

a shortage of ideas, it can make use of

other people’s ideas. Clearly, our contest

for, say, plans to restore

constitutional legality, which we

will still discuss, and other

proposals in general—of course, they need to be

filtered. It goes without saying that in this

whole heap of grain it is very hard to find that

pearl that could later

be put forward for discussion by the

Coordinating Council. I believe that the

executive secretary could very well take on

this work, including registration, and possibly

also

invite those who put forward some

interesting ideas to meetings of the Coordinating

Council as guests who could

present these ideas, and then

accordingly, the members of the Coordinating Council

would vote.

Naturally. The point is that

people can fight and win only when they

um

naturally, if they see a common strategy and

tactics. In this case, one of the main

complaints—one of the main complaints about the

Council from voters—is the absence of a clear

strategy and tactics.

And naturally, if people see

a willingness for dialogue, see new ideas,

then they will both work and contribute money.

And accordingly, if they see

confirmation that it is being spent on common

goals, then accordingly they will give even

more, and there will be fewer problems raising money for

let us say, the executive secretary. I

believe they should conduct outreach ethically in

social networks, because the protest community

very much wants to know what

the Coordinating Council is doing between

meetings. As far as I have heard, work

is being done, but nevertheless people do not have

the opportunity to learn about it; they need to be

informed. Well, informed

in protest groups there, on Facebook and in

other networks. Like a press secretary,

the secretary should work with the mass

media. It seems to me that this

is not happening actively enough. The website, well,

should definitely be supplemented with at least a forum and

filled with up-to-date

information. As for, in general,

organizing people—yes, as for

organizing people,

there was a proposal to create a Forum of

Free Russia, and I believe this needs to be

developed. The saying goes that whoever prepares for the last

war loses it, and so

it is necessary to acknowledge that the possibility

of victory on that front has been missed, and

a period is beginning of daily, painstaking,

thoughtful, systematic work with people, and

we can teach people how to fight for

their rights, how not to let others steal

budget money, how to defend their

money in housing and utility services from management companies.

It is essential to prepare and identify

people for local elections, and we already

have positive examples in this regard.

And I believe the Coordinating Council should

promote positive examples in every possible way,

talk about them, and should also

talk about the actions that

civil activists are organizing, because

well, one action in the spring, one

action in the summer, one in the winter, and so on—this

is all well and good if it is large-scale, but

nevertheless, I believe it would be possible

for the executive secretary to collect

various proposals from civil

activists and, accordingly, take the most

interesting of them and space them out over time.

For example, today several actions are

scheduled for the same time; I believe this should not

happen. And all of this, I believe, can

help the Coordinating Council take its proper

place in our modern history. Thank you, colleagues. I

apologize. This was my oversight; we did not immediately

decide whether we ask questions immediately

right afterward.

speeches, or should we hear two speeches first

probably yes. All right then, if there are no

objections

then

Marat Rasimovich

Excuse me. Good afternoon, dear colleagues.

but in fact I did not

prepare a special speech, so

I will simply give my reaction to what

Natalia said.

Well, first of all, my understanding of the role

of the executive secretary is that

he is, after all, not

a delegate of the voters, but a person

appointed by us

by the council

and from this, generally speaking, follows the scope of his

functions and

duties. In general, I agree with much of what

Natalia

said, though with some small reservations regarding the role

of

the sphere of receiving ideas: that really

does fall within the duties of the executive

secretary, but we are talking about ideas concerning

organization

rather than the substance of its activities

when it comes to substantive work, after all,

that is handled by the members of the Coordinating Council; they must

be in contact with the voters on this

issue. I also agree that there needs to be

active work in

social media. Indeed, if voters

do not know something or cannot find something out

on the website, then it really makes sense

to consider increasing the amount of

that. But otherwise, in principle, I would

focus on what

the Coordinating Council should do, and what

the executive secretary should do. And in

conclusion, I would like to propose the following.

Since we are all talking about the need

to embrace and consolidate, I

would like to propose to Natalia that, regardless

of the outcome of the vote,

the other candidate should also take

part in the work of the secretariat. For my part,

I am ready, if

the candidacy is supported

Oh, thank you.

And

questions?

And now, who among those wishing to ask questions to the candidates would like to speak?

All right, now

one

moment, I seem to have made a mess of the list.

Butkov, Bondarev, Yashin, anyone else?

All right. Dear colleagues, you all look so

good. I have a

proposal: to set this aside and choose two

assistants. Forgive me, but let us

take the questions first, and then move on to proposals.

Of course, I accept that for now

there is no staff, but usually when a candidate is proposed,

some kind of

objective...

biography, please.

Excuse me, yes. I beg your

pardon, the question is very simple. Perhaps

the candidates could, at least in a few words,

say something about their background and work so that

we can understand. We are seeing many of you for the first

time, or have seen you only a very small number of

times. So perhaps, in a few words, you could tell us

about yourselves, so that we can at least somewhat understand

your personal, creative, and professional

background.

All right then, let us proceed.

Thank you. I am, generally speaking, a professional

auditor by training, and I generally try to work on things

that my profession allows me to

deal with. Let me remind you

—if anyone heard my speech in April—that we

analyzed all the information that

had been published on the Kirovles case and expressed

our expert opinion on the

matter.

I wanted, as it were, to help find bugs and problems

because long ago, in 2006, I was then

told that the entry price for that

position was somewhere around $200,000.

After that, I understood everything and decided that

I needed to do other

things. So this had to be done in

some other form. As for my

public activity: when I

left my job in commercial auditing, we

started, together with colleagues, a public oversight organization

where we teach people and distribute

instructions on how to monitor

government bodies and the budget funds that

they spend—district administrations, prefectures,

municipalities, and so on—and we also teach

people how to check management companies

in the housing and utilities sector. As for how events

developed further,

we looked for like-minded people

with one group, then another group, and then

naturally we began to be elected to the Coordinating

Council and, accordingly, to put forward our

proposals: that the opposition should, first

and foremost, show that it knows how to

work and can work, and teach others to do the same. That, to me,

is the most important thing that can be

expected from the opposition by people and by the protest

community—and beyond the protest community as well. That is what we

based ourselves on.

Thank you.

As for brief information about myself, I

sent it with the help of Alexei Anatolyevich. Well,

I will briefly repeat: by education I am a specialist in

international relations; I graduated from

and worked in state and

international companies, heading

legal departments. Since the beginning

of this year, together with my partners,

I have been engaged in private legal practice

within a commercial framework.

companies, and like Nata, I also am

a member of the December 5 Party

the corresponding executive secretary of

the council, thank you. I ask

forgiveness.

A question: when you mentioned that the CS (Coordinating Council)

hires a secretary, do you mean that the hall

What do you mean, appoints, hires? There is no money at all.

I do not

expect that. Thank you, the question has been asked and answered, I

then, well, I will note it down, I

will note it down.

because

that in

the work as executive

secretary, both as political work and as

technical work. Let me clarify: do you

see this position as, Irina, and

still intend to focus deliberately on

resolving organizational issues? No, I

understand that the secretary’s responsibility is

a purely technical position, and they must

arrange meetings there, in

particular. Before this meeting, for example,

I decided to analyze some

options. At the Sakharov Center, for example, they offer

to do it free of charge, that is, there is no need to pay money

at all.

I believe this should be used.

For example, or some other technical

things. I believe this is not political

The only question is in what form this can exist

only

as the search and filtering of proposals and

putting them to a vote, because in

our rules, the functions of the executive

secretary include such functions as

submitting items to a vote

applications.

All right, colleagues, thank you. Preparation

for a meeting is a collective effort.

Several people are always involved.

Nekrasov, the previous secretary, for this

simply used his own staff. So,

who are those people—your team, or the core

of your team? Does it exist now? Who will

help you prepare the meetings? Thank you.

Yes, of course there is, and members of the expert

council have already discussed this; they will

gladly help with everything, and

for example, there was a proposal to

set up the website’s work; there is someone who already knows

how to do it. We have already done this on

the expert council forum; we can do

this with some variations, naturally, on the website

of the Coordination Council; there are also opportunities for

creating a platform for the Free Russia forum.

I do not have staff, but

I do have volunteers—members of the December 5 Party

who took part in preparing

this meeting. They are all here, the team

more or less.

Yes, I had a question: you spoke about

a team of like-minded people who are with you

and are also ready to help and participate.

It would be interesting—could you say a few words

about this team of like-minded people? Are they

also from Israel, or

No, this is a ques—this is a question for which of

the speakers? As far as I know, from

the companies, none of them has worked there; these are all

activists of the December 5 Party, and I ask

everyone

Understood.

Then I ask my colleagues to stand up as well.

I want to say that the expert council is not

one of those

who are in the Coordinating Council, but nevertheless

it very much wants to work, express its

proposals, and so on, and we understand

that we have all kinds of experts. We have

a two-month trial period, that is, we

accept everyone who wants to join if they can

be useful to the protest

movement.

Thank you. Any more

questions? Are there any statements

maybe

by a public figure

whom we know and recommend

for

as secretary, with his staff, who

can provide, and understanding that we have the resources

to ensure

professional organizational support

as

an organizer, we proposed his

candidacy as one recommended beyond

any doubt.

a candidate from Kirov Oblast (a region in Russia)

has joined. Excuse me, I did not

catch the name.

All right, we are ready to vote. Are there

any more comments before the vote?

Yes, dear colleagues, I propose that we first hold

a rating vote

once again here among those present

to hold a rating vote, and then

after that, so to speak, conduct the vote

the rating one, to see when it is possible

to vote for both, and then

vote for the one who has

more support. Exactly so. Any objections? There are

objections. Excuse me, we have already held

an indicative vote, and with a much

more representative group there was

a vote held on the basis of democratic

No, I ask you—this was a vote

that was purely technical, on who would

prepare today’s meeting. This

was not a rating vote, and this

was discussed in detail.

Colleagues, I ask

your pardon. Thank you very much.

So, are there any more

motions, proposals?

Yes, dear collea-

proposal.

I liked the suggestion that we shouldn't lose any of the candidates.

We wouldn't want to lose anyone.

We should have more and more supporters.

So my proposal is this:

we take someone from among us and have someone...

and propose supporting them as

say, a deputy responsible secretary, if

people agree to work. We don't have such a position,

such a post, but it seems they already

agreed that each of them would, but

we don't want to lose good people, right? No.

Exactly right, but it seems both of them already

agreed that they are ready to work

as part of the team, regardless of who

people vote for, if I understood correctly

what was said.

Well,

the rules don't provide for such a position

here. Why can't we

create one?

...vote...

[music]

This is a very important and responsible position.

I have

a proposal: perhaps, after all, not only

as you

with prepared five-minute speeches; perhaps

take turns, and then assign a task. Right now we

can agree that, say, after one

meeting is

prepared, the second one will be as well.

Thank you, I'm noting down the proposal.

Navalny: Yes, colleagues, first of all, of course,

it's wonderful that we have an alternative

and both candidates are so strong. I, I would

still actually propose

supporting the idea of ranked voting.

But if it isn't supported, still

we should proceed from the assumption that the decision may

not pass on the first try, when we

hold another vote.

Because it's a tense situation...

All right, so we had two procedural

proposals.

And

Yes, there is also a procedural proposal.

Look, when a position is being filled

in some company, yes,

a probation period is set.

Let's adopt, say, a compromise

solution. I'm proposing this simply as a politician, yes:

that is, one meeting is prepared by Chernova,

the other is prepared by, well, Mr. ...

proposal.

Anatolyev, a brief remark related to that:

This meeting was in fact prepared

by Marat, we all know that. All right, then

I am putting the procedural

proposals that were submitted to a vote. There was

a proposal, I think,

colleagues, to make amendments to

the rules and have two

responsible

secretaries. So, who is in favor of this proposal?

Please vote.

Thank you. Who is against?

One...

did not support it.

There was a proposal to suggest that

the meeting already

be prepared by Marat...

and accordingly propose that Natalia

Yuryevna prepare the next

meeting, and make a decision on the

responsible secretary at the

next meeting, as I understand it.

If that's the case, then who is in favor of this proposal?

Please vote. I think it's a good compromise.

That's my view. Let's proceed this way. One moment now.

No need to justify it anymore, we're already voting.

I

see, I see six.

Who

is against? So, two again.

Three. Everyone else abstained again.

So this decision was not adopted. There was

a proposal

to hold a ranked vote. If

anyone objects to this

...?

There. Thank you. Now I need to—sorry,

a technical point: I am noting how many

of us there are technically, how many there are right now, so

right now we have 22 people in the hall, if I

haven't lost count.

...for each arriving person...

phone... Ah, all right, ranked voting:

you may vote for both candidates.

And accordingly, voting against is not

provided for. So, who is in favor of electing

as responsible—who is in favor of electing

Natalya Yurev... as responsible secretary

Chernyshova? Please vote. Who

is in favor? All right, I see

six... ask...

please don't

vote—just write yes or no. No,

because that is provided for in

ranked voting.

Yes, all right, colleagues, my apologies. Well,

in general, six may

be

what we got.

All right, in the ranked vote, participation is open

to those who have already voted. And

who is in favor of electing as

secretary of the public council Barata

Divi Daeva? Please vote.

Please.

Easier in the hall.

Fifteen, I think, plus three more, judging by what I

saw.

And, ah,

...

four.

Twenty-two. All right then.

We need to propose... Right now 22 voted, 1...

What do you mean via Skype? Twenty-one? Can you count? 17 + 4.

21, I apologize, I miscounted—18. So I...

was mistaken. Thank you.

Ah.

Yes, wait. I have a proposal—let's...

...make changes to the regulations on adoption...

...in this situation. That was a preliminary vote.

And now we can—so, we...

have one candidate left on whom...

we can actually vote.

So, I put it to a vote.

Yes, well, unfortunately I got mixed up,

with the number.

And there were four on Skype and 17 or 18 in

the room. I apologize.

That was a preliminary vote, and now

we can

vote.

So, Imre...

So, who...

As for the usual procedure under the regulations...

A standard vote: who is in favor of

electing as executive secretary

Marat Ravi as secretary of the Coordinating Council?

Please vote.

...United Russia won.

15, 17, 18, I...

Let's count once again.

Let's count it like this.

No.

Thank you. On Skype, three, so...

four, so 19 plus 4 is 23, so for the

record, who is

against?

One. Who abstained?

Oh, I apologize, that is...

So, in favor...

one against, abstained—and who on Skype

voted? Show the person.

Yes, I apologize.

Colleagues, I would like to return

to the proposal not to

lose anyone.

My proposal is

to form a small...

[music]

It needs to be phrased better.

I agree with that formulation.

proposal. Good. I apologize. I

think everyone agrees with this

proposal. Or we can do it this way:

since they have already expressed

their willingness to work together, then essentially

nothing stands in the way of that. And if there is

a need to make the corresponding

changes to the regulations, they should be

prepared for the next

meeting and simply adopted by vote.

That's all. Thank you. So this issue is also

closed. Thank you.

Many thanks.

Well, my life is definitely getting easier from

this moment on. So I have

a request to quickly resolve

the budget issue right away

and then the third issue, and after that

declare a recess. According to—yes, yes.

There is a proposal first to...

Excuse me, when we adopted

the agenda, this item was... and now, regarding

the current situation, to put the question...

the question. All right. So, excuse me, can we

change it now?

The order...

Do you want to discuss this right now?

All right then. There is a proposal to discuss the issue

of amending the regulations right

now. Who is in favor of that

proposal? So, colleagues, I apologize.

I mean the regulations.

...2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14...

That is more... I have a proposal

to consider it immediately after this.

You made the proposal. Good.

Who is in favor of considering immediately after this

the issue of

...

amendment...

to this.

The proper representative...

This proposal has long been

understood by everyone with enormous difficulty; literally bit by bit

we gathered people in order to resolve the most important

issue. This is not the first meeting where,

because of the inability to assemble a quorum under

the format of the currently effective regulations,

the most important issues end up not being

put to a vote. The proposal is to change the rule

in the regulations according to which, for the adoption of

a decision by the Coordinating Council, there is a requirement for

a majority of the total membership

of the Coalition Council, that is, at the present

time 22 votes, and to introduce a rule according to which

for the adoption of a decision by the Council

a majority of those constituting the quorum is sufficient.

Of the quorum, since...

The quorum—well, 16 people, 16 votes. Yes, 16.

votes. All right, thank you. Tyasha...

Colleagues, you know that we are considering this

for the fourth time. I have consistently

spoken categorically against making

changes.

Nevertheless, since we have considered it

for the fourth time, it is obvious that considering it

a fifth and sixth time means there are some objective

reasons. Perhaps we should move toward

some kind of mutual compromise and adopt

a decision that we can adopt

decisions

based on whichever comes first: either we reach 21

votes, which is what we need now, or

we can get 23; in any case that would be

a somewhat balanced solution

which, let's say,

would not give some group the possibility to dictate

a decision and twist each other's

arms. Otherwise, we are effectively approaching

the same point where someone will simply continue

to vote against, and we will no longer be able to do anything more.

If it comes down to a single decision, that will be extremely unfortunate.

Given how the situation is developing, we’ll end up in a dead end.

Probably two-thirds of those present.

You’re good at math, I see.

So, right now, how much was two-thirds?

At the meeting, two-thirds.

Nineteen, nineteen. I think that’s perfectly reasonable.

It’s a compromise; we haven’t lowered the bar too much. And I, I...

I definitely will not support that proposal.

The one under which half would be enough, because, for example...

to adopt this by five votes is unacceptable.

I think—just a moment.

So, under our rules of procedure,

a meeting is considered valid if

22 people are present. So, two-thirds of

22 is 15. That means that at the

next meeting, in exactly the same way,

the exact opposite decision could be adopted.

A decision by the minimum number, yes.

So I support Navalny’s proposal.

And I urge everyone to vote before

we get bogged down in procedural issues.

Smart people think one step ahead. I ask

everyone to support the proposal. Let’s...

Consensus. I...

Like Navalny, throughout

four meetings I have spoken against this

decision until now, because it seems to me that, unlike

Navalny, because it seems to me that

the situation has not changed at all.

I am simply ready to repeat all the arguments

that were voiced at the previous

meeting when we discussed this

issue. The proposed rule creates

a situation in which the formation

of a situational majority is possible. The danger

lies in the fact that a situational

majority at one meeting may

contradict the situational majority at

another meeting. We will end up getting, time

after time, opposite, contradictory

decisions. In effect, this would

mean the paralysis of the work

of the Coordinating Council. Therefore, it seems to me

that

I support Davidis.

Dear colleagues, it seems to me that

the fears about the formation of a situational

majority are completely unfounded.

If an issue is important to someone, then there is

an opportunity to mobilize support through communication.

We are talking about people.

Because the basic majority still remains

all

the same.

Attendance fluctuates: some came, then others came.

On the one hand, from a principled point of view,

judging by everything...

All right. Today we have

an unexpected situation, although only slightly so.

It exceeds it only a little.

But there is every reason to expect that, in

particular by summer, when people will be away, we

will find ourselves facing a choice between fidelity

to the rules and preserving the Coordinating Council

as such. We should not drive ourselves

into such a dead end, it seems to me, and it would be reasonable

to amend the rules as a compromise.

If we do that, the idea will survive.

We will preserve it going forward. But if we do not change

the rules, there is a very high chance that we will simply

bury this idea, because starting from a clean

slate later and assembling a Coordinating Council

will be much

harder. Well, first of all, I would like to say

that the rules are not some kind of dogma for action.

Yes, and, say, to talk about the fact that

there is some kind of constitutional majority there...

Listen, in the Coordinating Council we have a lot of people who

say outright: we haven’t been coming, we’re not going to come,

we’re not going to vote. Yes, specifically,

some say: we won’t attend, we’d rather

write on Twitter. And unfortunately, there are many such people

as we can see, who do not

attend. So by definition, I believe

that if a person does not come to meetings, then after all

what decisions are made is

essentially irrelevant to them. Therefore I generally

also think that

in a public organization, it should simply be the majority.

Twenty-two people came to the room,

we vote, the majority votes in favor,

that’s it, we move on. And those who didn’t come—well, guys,

in the end, that’s not our problem. If I

come there, let’s say, spending

money, and regional members managed to come too,

what is stopping Muscovites from at least showing up? I

apologize. Thank you.

First of all, I want to support

the reasonable proposal put forward by

Navalny, and secondly I want to say that we

now have to steer a course between

Scylla and Charybdis: there is the very real problem of a situational

majority, and an even more frightening threat—

the paralysis, the complete paralysis, of the Coordinating Council

because of absence, sabotage, or some

other reason that

allows even a small number

of participants not to vote. At the present moment, we

can already see that by what seems to be

the third meeting, we are constantly

running into the problem of quorum.

Some decisions are passing literally

by the skin of our teeth. If we do not adopt this

decision now, especially given that, unfortunately,

we all understand perfectly well

that any member at any moment may, under

the influence of unforeseen circumstances, fail to

be present. We all know there can be various

circumstances. We must ensure

that the body can function. I believe that Navalny’s proposal

is something we should all support

simply as responsible people thinking about

our

future. I understand the doubts

about this. Therefore, perhaps the solution really is

for everyone to take it upon themselves to remain

present at the meeting until the very end.

of the council, but in practice

for the time being

therefore, whatever it may be

I think that is quite

reasonable, because it simply removes

uh

I fully acknowledge that this is

a tactical decision, but practice simply

shows that with our current attendance

How should we respond to this and

well, if you like, grant additional rights

to the minority, while we understand very well

that there is no stable group of

19 people, for example, or 14, that

could dictate terms to everyone here

after all, fortunately, does not exist, so I will once again

repeat that I understand the decision

is tactical and may be unpleasant for many of us

but probably now we

are forced to go along with it

Thank you

Yes, yes, we came to this as a compromise

I think this is absolutely

an unacceptable decision at the present

moment, and it seems to me that Mr.

Navalny is simply trying to smooth over

the situation, and he should be given the opportunity

to put this decision to a vote, but

we all must understand that, of course,

there can be no additional

possibilities in this regard

that is a separate discussion for the next

it seems to me that precisely the possibility

of decisions passing by a narrow margin, as has been said here

already, is an opportunity

to negotiate and seek some kind of compromise

on key decisions. I would suggest instead

switching to a mechanism whereby on

some important decisions, including

the executive secretary would find

a way to contact people

like these and others who for some reason

cannot attend meetings, and ascertain

their position on voting on this or

that issue. That would, it seems to me,

be a more correct path and, once again,

one that forces us all to seek some kind of

compromise. Otherwise, this summer we really will

find ourselves in a situation where someone will be unable

to attend, someone will leave, someone will not

be there, and in September we will discover a huge

number of excellent decisions that

were made in a completely uncontrolled manner

Thank you

the voting question

if there are no objections, then I think we can

now. And I think we only have

one proposal left, because the colleagues

who proposed one half have withdrawn their

proposal, if

that is correct

the proposal. All right, then the following

proposal is to amend the procedural

rule regarding the adoption of decisions

by the council as follows

a decision by the council, sorry, I mean

a decision by the... just a moment... a decision

by the Coordinating

Council is adopted either by a majority of the full

listed

membership, or by two-thirds of those present. Well,

of course, and the procedural rule

on quorum means two-thirds, yes, with rounding always

upward, as usual

as always. Who is in favor of this proposal, please

vote. All right, and meanwhile I will count. May I

ask my assistant right now

to begin helping and

help count, because I have already started

to get confused

1

2 1 2 3 4 5 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16

uh

now, well, it seems I have counted; we need

to count those

who... I beg your pardon, Bondarik has again

counted a different number. I ask once again

to raise

your hands. Who is in favor, who is in favor, please once again

Who

is in favor? I beg your pardon, so the first

time I drew attention to it, it was the same

thing

19... all right... and three more in favor on Skype

Total: 19

so, we did not adopt this decision. For the

record, who

is against? All right, who

is against

So, you are against

voting

three, four... No, I just wanted to clarify

four. Who abstained?

Three abstained

May I? Dear colleagues, given

how many people voted just now, I personally

know several supporters of this

position who did not have the opportunity

to vote. I propose putting this

question to Democracy-2 and urge everyone

who voted just now to make sure

to vote there, and procedural rules cannot

be voted on in Democracy-2

this, this was a major discussion precisely in

connection with this, only

to vote as a

compromise, allow me

can we, or

we can. Please

forgive me, those very

votes

all right

so, colleagues, I ask

forgiveness

people, 21, 22, more than half, more than

half, that's all, yes

thank you, written acceptance

of votes, so the rules mean that if we

we will make the corresponding changes to

the regulations. Technical... uh, esteemed

Chair, please explain

one simple thing: how is it that changes to the regulations

can—oh, cannot be put to a democratic vote

but voting by phone

is allowed? Where in our rules is voting by

phone provided for? Nowhere. Our rules say we

vote either in person or in absentia; any other

form does not exist. There is no voting by phone.

A person who is following the broadcast and

sends in their

SMS

vote—that happened at the previous meeting

no one voted. No, the issue is

in principle, if we want to discuss

this issue, then in principle it needs to be

formulated. As for the phone... right now we

will vote on introducing an amendment

it is outdated... this issue has not been included in

the agenda. All right.

Thank you. Therefore, I propose that we now

resolve the budget issue, and after that

announce

a recess. Please.

Excuse me. All right.

So, I apologize. I propose that we

either resolve the budget issue now or

declare a recess right away

and quorum... No, I think it would be better to declare

a recess. Quorum—well, for the vote. All right.

All right then, a recess. For how long, colleagues?

How long should the recess be? Any proposals?

15 minutes. 15 minutes, all right, thank you. We

will reconvene at

3:25. And you can call by phone at

the moment when the vote takes place

[music]

Are there any questions or

statements? Then let us vote. Who is in favor of this

proposal? Please vote.

...without holding back.

Thank you.

The final proposal

one task with the help of

which coordination

of participation in regional

elections—the participation of the Coordinating Council

in coordinating assistance to the promotion of unified

candidates and

lists in

the regions... development, which is responsible for this

to study the question of the possible

advisability of nominating a single

opposition candidate or

candidates for collegial bodies in

the elections of September 8, 2013

at the regional level. This includes a number of

gubernatorial elections and elections to legislative

assemblies. There is a list here; I will not read it out

again, this is not an obligation to put forward

a single candidate, but rather to consider it

Questions and

statements.

The second proposal is to adopt a decision to

suggest that one of the working groups take up

its direct responsibilities

whether in the minutes, under miscellaneous, or simply

personally—whether those Council members who

are members of working groups can, at the working-group

level, address these issues. Why do we need to discuss this here

and propose something to them? Because

we could, of course, write

"instruct," but experience with proposing such

wording

has shown that some colleagues consider it

an affront to their dignity, since

it is unnecessary. Therefore, the wording "to propose" seems

not contradictory, while the very act of recording

the will of the CC (Coordinating Council) as a body as a whole, its intention to deal with this

issue, seems to me

important and even necessary, because privately

anyone can make arrangements

with anyone about anything; that does not

oblige anyone and does not mean at all

that this work

will be done

Then, in fact, additionally

I propose to put forward

I do not object. Since the discussion turned to

the mechanism, then apparently the mechanisms. Excuse

me, I misspoke. Yes, well, not

misspoke—that is the correct amendment:

mechanisms

and since the discussion has turned to mechanisms, then apparently

this should be done in the contact group

again, on the development of electronic

democracy, because this will apparently

be one of the main

mechanisms, yes.

Yes, all right.

So, well, actually, regarding the previous

votes, do we need to vote, or immediately on

I think it is obvious that the decision did not pass

then that is... Well then, I ask colleagues

to vote electronically, just, well, do not

forget

to do it.

All right. Item seven: adoption of a resolution

on Vladimir

Kuchko. We consider this issue every time

for a vote. I propose holding

a vote on removing this item

from the agenda. The agenda has already been voted on, well

nevertheless, the rules allow

a vote to remove it, and moreover require

that this be put to a vote after

such a proposal is made. All right, who is in favor

of removing this item? Please vote.

Please.

Vote on the agenda item, please.

Excuse me. No, I see at least five

It did not pass. Thank you. The Coordinating Council

of the Russian opposition, having considered

the meeting... I believe—listen, actually

I have in fact already read out this resolution on Colonel Kuchko

more than once, actually

I am not going to start accusing anyone of something again here

There’s also some trolling in there, or something like that.

The resolution on Democracy-2 is available for anyone to read.

In a nutshell, we are talking about

the release of a person convicted for

his way of thinking, who was obviously given a 13-year sentence.

As far as I understand, even a majority of the Coordination

Council agrees that he is a political prisoner.

He should be recognized as such, but thanks to

this whole chorus of ours, it still cannot be

put to a vote.

So personally, I can say that

if the resolution that all the democrats are now

considering is adopted, then I will at the very least

call on the nationalist faction to

abstain from any voting on

any issue at all. So I can move

straight to the question of the resolution. I beg your

pardon — the resolution was discussed at the

human rights working

group, and the group approved it by a majority vote.

Approved.

Approved. Well, I apologize, there are

other representatives of the working group here;

perhaps they

would like to speak. In fact, I did not take part

in the discussion of this resolution, but personally, in

a conversation with Mr.

Badamshin, I said that

I would not vote for this resolution if

Kiselyov and Khabarov appeared in it,

when it turns into some kind of political manifesto, rather than

when it is truly a statement

in support of the people involved in this case.

And this wish of mine

was accepted.

Mr. Badamshin did not give the floor

So far the question has not

been asked. Is there another question

or comment? Yes, I wanted to ask

the members of the working group:

does the working group have meeting minutes, and how

does the Coordination Council know that it can

rely only on the minutes

of the working group meeting in order to

understand its position on a given issue?

Are there minutes? Which of the working group members

can answer? As a member

of the human rights working group, I would like

to note that, as far as I know,

mandatory keeping of minutes

for working group meetings is not provided for by the rules.

Provided for.

So this in itself

— the very raising of this question by Mr.

— seems out of place. If we now demand

that minutes of all meetings of all

working groups be presented to us, then

the work of the Coordination Council can

simply be brought to an end. So I would ask everyone not

to descend into absurdity.

What took place in the working group

is being described differently, and in this situation, apparently,

one can

be guided

by

the principle

of consensus.

As for

the amendment, I share it, but nevertheless I believe

it was agreed to, so one can say that

the human rights group

circulated it among all participants for

possible amendments, that is, so that

the group did approve this resolution. As for

this argument by Kholmogorov,

who in principle could be dealing with

more useful matters — yes, let us suppose so.

She could have taken it on herself. Excuse me, Kholmogorov

is not a member of the Coordination Council.

And I am not speaking on my own issue. Yes, I

can note that in fact these are

completely different cases. Yes, the case of

Khabarov and Lina, and the case of Kvachkov and

Kiselyov, are different cases; they are not connected

in any way. If, unfortunately, people in Moscow cannot

find one of the lawyers

who wrote the text of the resolution — excuse me,

for me, being from St. Petersburg, it is naturally

even more difficult. And besides, I still believe

that we should be guided by the principle