Last November, Occupy Charlotte was approached by the (then-named) Coalition to Protest at the DNC. Along with its subtleties of language like "join" and "endorse," the Coalition gave us the opportunity to consider philosophical issues about working with other groups. After many conversations and some very long General Assemblies, we became a part of the Coalition.

Not long after reaching that consensus, we were approached by the NC Coalition Against Corporate Power, which was organizing the action at the Bank of America shareholders meeting here on May 9. I remember many of us laughed that night at how easily we reached consensus to participate in this action compared to the drawn-out, sometimes painful efforts we had been through with the Coalition to Protest at the DNC.

In the few months that followed I saw lots of commentary, conversations, deep thinking and theorizing happen throughout the larger Occupy Movement about the very circumstances we were living. The 99% Spring trainings, the 99% Power group, co-option, horizontal vs. vertical structures: every bit of it was in our faces. As national groups began to frame themselves using phrases like "the next phase of Occupy," we were trudging through the complexities of boots-on-the-ground organizing. I was deeply grateful for the brilliant Occupy writing and thinking I was able to find online about these topics, which helped me to navigate the path we were walking.

One of the biggest challenges for me was that place where local meets national organizations. There were times when I questioned whether or not that NC Coalition even existed other than in our own minds. Some shitty things happened; for example, an accidental reply-all email in which local reps for national organizations were asked to strategize ways to “lead” us to the messaging the national organizations wanted.

But great things happened, too, because of the role played by some highly skilled and experienced national organizers. They brought with them financial resources, capacity, connections and organizing know-how we didn't have. Whereas the BofA shareholder’s action was organized on a vastly smaller scale than the DNC will be, similarities abound. I know that there has long been a tension between local and national groups when it comes to organizing activism. I think it’s a constant topic, and my understanding is that any national group worth a damn understands the importance of respecting the locals. But adding Occupy with its horizontal structures into the mix seems to be bringing a whole new layer of complexity.

While national organizations may have learned to respect the locals within their own groups, there is room to grow when it comes to including members of Occupy. Watching the story unfold here, I think they might also be learning that there is a twist they did not anticipate when trying to use the messaging, memes, people and energy of Occupy. Mainstream media also has both local and national components. When national organizations attempt to frame actions as "Occupy," local media already know who the Occupiers are, so they come straight to us. When they see us at an action that's been “branded” Occupy, no matter what organizational messaging gymnastics are put before them, mainstream media stories go right up their own local and national hierarchical structures.

I admit this made me grin as I watched efforts to control messaging fall short of the mark. I’m human, I didn't make it through 71 days without getting annoyed by things I interpreted as condescending or manipulative. I saw the efforts continue as national organizations began publishing articles touting the BofA action as evidence that many Occupiers' expressed fears about working with national organizations had been misplaced. Articles that appeared on May 9, the day of the action, did not, as far as I know, grow out of any actual dialogue with Occupiers. Occupy Charlotte had an informal agreement not to discus our experiences until after the action was over; we had no intention of derailing or undermining the hard work that everyone was doing, or distracting from the critically important focus on Bank of America.

I know that in some Occupies there is still debate within some occupations over whether or not to work with other organizations. One of the most amusing bits of Occupy Charlotte history is that not long after laughing down a proposal to work with MoveOn, we concensed on working with a local Tea Party group when they approached us to stand with them on a specific issue we were also focusing on (our city council’s proposal to provide Chiquita with incentives to move their headquarters here). Make no mistake: Occupy Charlotte is aware, every single day, that the DNC is coming in September. So for us, the question is not really about whether to work with other groups, but how. The answer will not be the same for each circumstance; in some cases our goal might be to combine energy for a single event or issue, in other cases our hope might be one of building a genuine, longer term alliance.

My responses to the challenging behavior we experienced from national organizers engaging in the Bank of America protest were far outweighed by my delight at the outcomes and learning. The day itself was a fabulous, empowering example of what is possible, and in our city of Charlotte it was indeed extraordinary. The action was coordinated overall by a gifted organizer, Brigid Flaherty, who understood the tensions and did a stellar job of recognizing the complexities. The protest itself was facilitated by the always amazing Lisa Fithian, who managed to save the day and hold the crowd together many times.

A few days before the Bank of America action, we saw a diagram of all the organizations participating. That was very helpful in understanding that the NC coalition that we had agreed to become a part of was simply one spoke in a wheel that included many national groups. It was the first time that we had clarity on who was participating. In retrospect it might have eased so many of the small tensions on the ground here if we'd been aware of the structure much earlier in the planning.

Watching the process unfold, I had the sense that the conflicts were essentially simple ones, growing out of a difference in beliefs about who speaks for whom. Each time I saw Occupiers try and tease this out and name it, it seemed to be heard as corporate-style mud wrestling for control, or perhaps as ego-based wounded feelings.

I see this as the fundamental thorny conflict growing out of the place where horizontal meets vertical. So much of Occupy is built on a foundation of speaking for ourselves. From general assemblies to affinity groups and spokes-councils, from critiques of our corporatized pseudo-democracy to rejection of individuals as singular leaders, Occupiers are insisting on the right to speak for ourselves. I see that desire to speak for ourselves in our rejection of the idea of demands, in our refusal to offer the central message that the mainstream media continues to search for, and in our insistence on processes that allow individual voices to be heard.

I find speaking only for myself, and leaving space for others to do the same, to be a challenge to the conventional wisdom regarding social movements. I suspect that many see the values of movement-building and speaking for one's self as irreconcilable. Not so long ago the idea of speaking for people whose voices go unheard was an admirable concept, but today claiming to do so is often met with disapproval. While older established movements discuss scalability, I hear Occupiers discussing right size and how to allow space for voices to be heard.

I hope it is clear that my hope is to find ways to work together, to develop alliances when we can, to combine our energy in ways that empower us all and result in change. I look forward to hearing the reflections from people in national organizations who participated in the BofA action here in Charlotte.