Member Statements on Proposals for March 20th Chapter Meeting
Event information here
If you would like to submit a statement, please use the form here
This page will be updated periodically between now and the time of the event on March 20th. Comments submitted after Thursday, March 18th may not be able to be added before the Saturday meeting, depending on volunteer availability.
COMMENTS ON THE RESOLUTION TO RATIFY CALIFORNIA DSA BYLAWS
What’s your name?
Hannah K
Who are you?
At-large member of Steering Committee
What is your statement or comment?
I’m writing to voice my support for ratifying the proposed California DSA bylaws. California comrades from chapters of all sizes worked cooperatively to draft and debate these bylaws – and a shared vision for the aims of a formal statewide organization – over the past 4 months. But formalizing an infrastructure to govern statewide organizing has been years in the making – we’ve worked statewide on our CA primary-winning DSA For Bernie campaign, the Yes On 15 campaign, and others. Ratifying the CA DSA bylaws is an essential step toward proportional representation and democratically-elected leadership who work to select and carry out priority campaigns, statewide communications, and labor strategy. It is through this kind of coordinated mass action that we cultivate a fighting working class, and I’m excited to be a part of it.
—
What’s your name?
Abdullah F
Who are you?
DSA-LA member, YDSA-Caltech organizer
What is your statement or comment?
I am writing in support of ratifying the CA DSA bylaws. I believe that it is critical for building lasting infrastructure, institutional memory, and strong relationships to labour across the state. This will dramatically enhance our ability to organize at the local level, by providing a state-specific layer of support to chapters in terms of training and collaboration. As a founding member of the Caltech YDSA chapter, I believe that building a network across California would also facilitate campus organizing by engaging fledgling organizers with seasoned organizers across the state. This is of particular importance to areas where the density of seasoned organizers is low. Additionally, I believe that the proportional representation of chapters will enable open, democratic decision-making while maintaining local chapter autonomy.
—
What’s your name?
Erin O
Who are you?
Electoral Politics Committee Co-Chair, LGBTQ+ Caucus
What is your statement or comment?
DSA chapters across California will be more effective in organizing around State Propositions if we are able to build a statewide structure. If DSA is going fight capitalism, being able to organize at a state level with the benefit of being able to pool resources will be a powerful way to prevent infringement on labor law and to fight for statewide rent control and single-payer healthcare. The public policy of the state is increasingly being decided by ballot measure and by harnessing our collective statewide power we will be able to put ourselves in the best possible position to fight against billionaire interests and for the socialist policies the state of California needs.”
COMMENTS ON THE RESOLUTION TO GIVE STREETWATCH CO-TREASURERS DIRECT ACCESS TO DSA-LA BANK ACCOUNT
What’s your name?
Violet C
Who are you?
Mutual Aid Administrator
What is your statement or comment?
I’m writing in favor of this proposal since Streetwatch is the largest and most successful mutual aid project in the chapter and it deserves to be financially secure, as do our comrades who have been awaiting reimbursement for far too long. It’s also unfair to ask one treasurer to handle all financial aspects of the chapter with our explosive growth, so adding more hands to make the work lighter just makes sense.
What’s your name?
Aaron W
Who are you?
Member since 2017
What is your statement or comment?
In Support. Street Watch has been one of this chapter’s longest-lasting and most successful projects. Allowing independent finances for Street Watch allows it to be agile and responsive in its logistics and action, and removes a bottleneck for both Street Watch and the Chapter’s financial needs.
—
What’s your name?
Erin O
Who are you?
Electoral Politics Committee Chair / LGBTQ+ Caucus / Amendment Author
What is your statement or comment?
I am against this resolution for the following reasons:
1. There is no proposed selection method for the co-treasurers, whether they are elected, appointed and who would be voting or appointing in either instance.
2. There is no proposed accounting process or reporting to the Treasurer or the Chapter.
3. Street Watch has a considerable amount of members that are not members of DSA-LA but there are no provisions in the resolution to address their eligibility for leadership positions within the subgroup, nor for a position that would allow direct access to DSA-LA bank accounts.
4. While there are funds that have been earmarked for Street Watch they are co-mingled with the membership dues and other DSA-LA fundraising which would necessitate that the Membership vote for anyone to have any access to them, regardless of how the funds were obtained or earmarked for.
5. Sub-groups having their own treasures would necessitate a bylaw change and is a substantial structural change that cannot be done piecemeal via resolution.
6. Street Watch is a working group of the Housing and Homelessness Committee and its leadership is not elected by the DSA-LA Membership.
7. Street Watch does not have bylaws available to the larger DSA-LA membership to make clear its processes or leadership structure thus making its accountability to its membership and the larger DSA-LA membership unclear. Nor has the Budget Team Structure Proposal been made available to DSA-LA members to review.
—
What’s your name?
Gabriel D
Who are you?
Long term SW, DSA member
What is your statement or comment?
Many SW members have negative views about DSA and its leadership. Not allowing SW autonomy only makes this worse.
—
What’s your name?
Olga L
Who are you?
Westside BC/SW Member
What is your statement or comment?
Street Watch needs its own treasurer. There have been times in my outreach efforts where I have seen working class SW volunteers have to front thousands of dollars while waiting for DSA to transfer the money that is in SW’s own account. SW has a much higher in/out flow of cash than the rest of DSA and fundraises its own money via actionnetwork. It will be much easier for us to provide tents and other supplies if we know volunteers can get reimbursed ASAP. SW also has its own budget team and reimbursement points of contact for every single local who are extremely diligent.
COMMENTS ON THE BYLAWS AMENDMENT ON CAUCUSES
What’s your name?
Peter P
Who are you?
I am one of the Coordinators for the Mutual Aid Committee and a member of three caucuses; Libertarian Socialist Caucus, LGBTQ+ Caucus, & Socialists For Black Lives & Black Leaders Caucus.
What is your statement or comment?
This Bylaws Amendment is crucial to fulfilling the goals of the Priority Resolution for 2021, A Socialist Commitment to Black Liberation and for repairing our relationship with Black Organizers. The Caucus Act puts identity caucuses on equal footing with any other recognized subgroup; in DSA people organize with each other based on the affinity in the work they want to do, affinity in the place they live, or on affinity of identity/political-tendency, qualities which DSA and DSA-LA as big tent organizations lack without these subdivisions. Even at the National Level only Geographic and Working Group organizing styles are formally recognized aside from one identity caucus, AfroSocialists, and each of these three subdivision organizing styles are lacking without the complement of the other two. If we pass this in DSA-LA, it can provide a model for National DSA to follow. This Bylaws Amendment is important to pass in light of the resignations of several Black Organizers from DSA-LA, in light of the instances of anti-blackness in North Texas, as noted by AfroSoc National in petition. Black People are leaving DSA because they’re being actively organized against. Asian/Pacific-Islanders and LGBTQ+ members will follow them out if the toxicity of the culture in our chapter and our organization persists. In order to prevent this and earnestly welcome organizers from historically oppressed identities back into DSA, we need to pass this. As a member of two political caucuses I know the paranoia and initial response to seeing this bylaws amendment as a threat, but I’ve spoken with the authors and I no longer feel paranoid, in fact I support The Caucus Act because I support AfroSoc. This Bylaws Amendment is not a way of shutting down political caucuses, and it is not the final say in how we will treat all caucuses going forward. Who should be afraid of announcing their political caucus affiliation? I am not ashamed to be in LSC or SFBLBL. I support the Caucus Act of 2021 because it is STEP ONE for repairing our chapters relationship with Black People! After we pass it lets take Step Two.
—
What’s your name?
Violet C
Who are you?
Mutual Aid Administrator
What is your statement or comment?
I’m writing in favor of this amendment, because we need to allow our members to organize effectively around political issues common to all our material conditions including those unique to our positionality, and dedicating resources to that end is necessary. I also think clarity around the role of tendency caucuses is sorely needed!
—
What’s your name?
Zack W.
Who are you?
Core Data Coordinator for the Neighborhood Organizing Apparatus, AdCom Member Data Team, AfroSoc caucus member, LGBTQ+ caucus member
What is your statement or comment?
“There are a variety of reasons why the roles for identity caucuses should be plainly articulated in the bylaws. To start, it’s often the case that the material concerns of those that exist among identity groups that are not particularly numerous in the chapter are routinely ignored altogether.
Speaking to a specific instance- Black members have, for example, raised concerns in private meetings about the possibility of police harassment or violent raids from fascists on meetings in portions of the city that they have historically had bad experiences in. It was immediately swept under the rug by members that are not amenable to their political praxis. Such concerns (being lynched, abducted, or otherwise murdered due to a combination of identity, prominence, and political orientation, being detained by racist cops that don’t believe that certain people “belong” in the South Bay beach cities, etc.: https://www.npr.org/2019/07/14/741618378/founder-of-african-american-history-museum-discovered-dead-in-car-trunk, https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2016/sep/08/ferguson-protest-leader-darren-seals-shot-dead-burning-car, https://www.chicagotribune.com/nation-world/ct-ferguson-activist-deaths-black-lives-matter-20190317-story.html, https://www.latimes.com/local/lanow/la-me-white-supremacists-california-20181025-story.html) are routinely mocked on platforms like Twitter by those that belittle such concerns or conflate them with parallel asks for spaces to unwind in or engage with each other culturally in a setting in which certain shorthands and expressions can be discussed more freely and without the risk of negatively consequential interpretation by those in the chapter that aren’t privy to the conversations being had. Such casual settings are necessary for building the solidarity that we make so much mention. Membership needs a means by which to deliberate and organize amongst themselves whilst calling attention to and working to change such dynamics within the chapter. The culture of an institution informs its output. When members say that a space is literally unsafe to organize in, their concerns should be worthy of examination.
Members of specific identity groups each have unique justice claims that need to be spoken to in order to successfully gain political buy-in. In order to plug a broader array of members into chapter work, it will be necessary for spots in which this kind of work can live to be created without being collapsed into demands that are perceived as universal, but that doesn’t actually speak to the unique realities of our individual members. To elaborate, “tenant struggle”, while definitely a site worthy of heavy engagement, doesn’t always fit for those that live with family or our unhoused comrades. “Workplace struggle” is also difficult to plug into for people with no option to unionize- or who don’t have the time to engage with a second institution/union in addition to the DSA. This second example also doesn’t speak to the ways in which our demographics lock us out of meaningful interactions with people that work freight team at a Home Depot in Southside, either. This also becomes alienating for those who don’t have coworkers. However, oppression discourse is often a means of engaging with many of these people who may or may not have class consciousness. Connecting their circumstances to a shared class struggle needs to be done where they are to pull them in, and thus we need to be competent at speaking to the issues that they already identify and don’t take for granted (class consciousness is heavily racialized for many Black people that are working-class in a conventional/contemporary sense). The premise of unique justice claims is also important when synthesizing a more thorough analysis of issues in our committees, organizing against injustices more deliberately, and also just finding more electoral success.
We also dropped the ball on responding to the uprisings, riots, and protests in 2020. A healthier body of organized Black membership (much of AfroSoc cited the lack of resources to carry through with organizing in SCI and being otherwise unable to formally petition for basic resources to realize the external organizing components of Black Liberation Resolution as contributing to their departure) may have made it easier for the DSA to take on a more prominent role in coalition with BLM. There also are not currently committees that can justify distributing a bulk of their workload to reparations or tackling issues of social reproduction under our current framework of politics. Anti-Oppression (in the context of identity) exists very firmly in the Socialist tradition, but we have few means of centering work around it outside of organizing in Prison Abolition, Immigration Justice, or if they are plainly articulated in a priority resolution (not accessible for creation by new members).
For these reasons, as well as the guidance provided to new members that enter the organization with identity-based misgivings of their first meetings- and the difference in accessibility in spaces external to the chapter, identity caucuses need the leeway of more organizing autonomy. For instance, an AfroSoc or Latin/e/x/o/a identity caucus would be much more likely to enter a Lennox Inglewood Tenant’s Union meeting and build positive relationships without just cause for apprehension than an aggregate of white members; LGBTQ+ caucus would be much more likely to be viewed favorably in queer spaces when trying to speak to the issues that uniquely affect those without ruffling feathers and damaging potential coalitions when discussing specific elements of the LGBTQIA+ community; etc.
It’s also necessary in a practical sense to incentivize people in identity caucuses to continue with recruitment events. They need the resources and compensation in order to actually go through with that.
For these reasons, I personally believe that a ‘yes’ vote on the Bylaws Amendment on Caucuses.
—
What’s your name?
Leone Hankey
Who are you?
I am one of the liaisons to People’s Budget LA and the liaison to End Police Association Coalition.I am a member of the Black Liberation Task Force, the Prison Abolition Committee and the Immigration Justice Committee
What is your statement or comment?
This bylaw amendment is urgently needed to increase democracy, equal access to resources, and social justice in our chapter. Many members may not know that the “”identity caucuses”” like the LGBT+ caucus and the AfroSocialist Caucus have NO access to resources from the chapter! Resources include funding for campaigns and projects of course, but even more vitally, they include being able to announce events through DSA-LA’s social media, website, and email so they can reach their constituencies to invite them to meetings and events. These caucuses create a space for communities that are marginalized by capitalism, and ironically, the chapter does not provide needed resources for them anymore than the capitalist society does!
The section stating that members of the political caucuses should state their affiliations when they run for DSA leadership or engage in internal DSA political actions will also make democracy in the chapter more meaningful and transparent. Currently, many members voting on candidates and proposals do not even know about the caucuses and what each one stands for. This amendment will take the mystery away. I am a proud member of the Socialists for Black Lives and Black Leaders Caucus, the Libertarian Socialist Caucus, and the Socialist Majority Caucus.
—
What’s your name?
Miguel C.
Who are you?
LGBTQ+ Caucus, SBLBL Caucus, Prison Abolition Committee, NSP Downtown Captain, Street Watch
What is your statement or comment?
I strongly support the Caucus Act bylaw amendment. Identity-based caucuses have proven to be highly effective in recruiting new DSA members from marginalized and targeted communities. We create a welcoming landing place for otherwise apprehensive people to join the org and get plugged into the Chapter’s work. As a longtime member of the LGBTQ+ Caucus I have seen multiple occasions where our meeting is the first DSA event someone has ever attended.
Beyond recruitment, our Caucus serves as a hub for folks working on multiple projects and in many different committees to share ideas and collaborate. We are a resource to other subgroups who want to make sure their work is inclusive and furthers Queer Liberation. We have hosted cultural events for the Chapter and would like to do more of that in the future.
Despite all of the positive contributions our Caucus has made over the years, we have struggled to obtain even modest resources. The passage of this act will recognize the crucial role we play. It will allow us to accomplish even more without depending on the personal discretion and good graces of whomever might be in Chapter leadership at the time. Under the current bylaws we often feel we have to repeatedly prove our value to the Chapter and then beg for the assistance we need. That’s not cool, so let’s fix it! Vote yes.
—
What’s your name?
Shakeela S
Who are you?
I am a black bisexual female. I am in BLTF, healthcare justice committee, housing committee. I am hoping to eventually attend a be part of the LGBTQ caucus, socialist feminist movement and more. I work as healthcare provider and is currently living in the south central/inglewood area.
What is your statement or comment?
I am a new member. I am not only a new member but I am black, I am woman, and I am bisexual. I came to this organization to make a difference and to join in solidarity with people who are like-minded in the struggle of fighting for equality, accessibility, liberation AND justice for ALL people whether it be against capitalism, racism, sexism, anti-LGBTQ+, ableism, and more. All of these systems are interlinked in oppressing the masses and it would be a big oversight, if not a mistake, to treat these things as a separate entity. To focus on fighting just capitalism or even including class or race reductionist within your curriculum to teach new members or speak for an organization like the DSA is similar to all lives matter-ing the fight for equality, freedom and justice for everyone. And as a result, leaving the marginalized groups behind in that fight. It is engaging in the very system that you are trying to critique. For instance, I am indeed impacted by capitalism. This is unavoidable. However, that does change the way people interact with me or how I am impacted as a women nor a black person. Just solving capitalism does not change nor stop sexual assaults from happening towards women and it doesn’t stop the over-policing nor violence towards black bodies. Often times, in this highly hierarchical, morally depraved, capitalistic society, the marginalized groups are affected first. They are in the forefront stuck in the role of playing the canary in the tunnel for all the privileged citizens that can turn a blind eye to their struggle. It is when the gas seeps into the lungs of people who are considered important by society that the alarm bells starts to ring. It is with this that you would hope that there is act of urgency when that bell tolls for a solution.
One of the solutions includes solidarity in the fight against the very system that imprisons us. We are weak as one but stronger together. It seems easy but the concept and the action is actually very complex. Solidarity and a sense of community all operate within the mechanism of mutual trust and understanding. It was not lost on me that in almost every meeting that I attended, I was either the only black person there or there were only a couple black present. I was curious about why there was such a sparcity in black people/black voices. That being said, these past few weeks have been very eye-opening in a negative way and it has come to my attention that a lot of these members who are in leadership or in some other committee has been exhibiting some very problematic anti-black reactionary behavior. Just with my conversations and interactions alone, it is apparent that a lot of these members do not know how to interact with black bodies without engaging or using oppressive tools or techniques to silence our voices or concerns. These oppressive tools or techniques include trying to discredit or undermine our concerns as not real or important, dismissing or for some, complete omission of any acknowledgement of those concerns all together, victim blaming, tone policing, devaluing my method of organizing and presenting visibility, red taping bureaucracy and platitudes to shield themselves from any accountability,public shaming and mockery on twitter about our concerns and so on. It is clear from these interactions that I have had with these voices/members so far that there is something inherently wrong with the culture, structure, and education of the organization at hand. Not only that, the concern was about the fact that 12 black members left the organization due to these behaviors. What I expected from these members, our comrades, was to be met with with a sense of self-reflection and urgency in addressing the matter of having comrades of the marginalized groups leaving DSA altogether. It was to my surprise that these concerns were instead greeted with comments plagued in emotions of defensiveness, indifference, and callousness AND how they rushed so quickly to NOT address the issue but to instead, undermine my concerns, devalue my methods of organizing and presenting visibility on the issue, tone policing my speech and etc that made it quickly and glaringly apparent why so many of our black members left. It was shocking, disappointing and traumatizing all at the same time. This does not foster trust. This does not foster understanding. Instead, it makes the idea of solidarity and community seem like a farce. It disillusioned me to the goals and the fight that the DSA claims they stood for. And it made me question, whether the solidarity was for a certain type of person and whether my existence as a person did not fit within that criteria.
I have been through this before. I am not a stranger to this behavior that is present in my day-to-day interactions. Even so, it doesn’t take away from the sting and the pain that comes with it. It has brought me to the understanding that these systems of oppression are so deeply ingrained in us that we can’t, as a people, help but bring these things with us, no matter where we go, even if it is to help fight the “good fight”. There are many ways to address these issues but because of the lack of response, empathy, and concern towards these issues. I, a new member, has taken it upon myself to come up with some solutions that may help which includes the following (this is just a draft):
1.Educational material oversight committee made up of members from marginalized in groups that participate in the drafting and final say of educational modules of new members. This would make the materials more inclusive and will prevent problematic figures for being used in educational materials that are dismissive of black, latinx, LGBTQ+, disabled community struggles and concerns.
2.Increase and ease of accessibility for new members to be involved in PolEd meetings
3.Increased representation of marginalized groups (black, latinx, women, LGBTQ, AND (NOT OR)disabled people) in leadership positions in groups like CPN, and PolED.
4.Increasing recruitment and retention of marginalized groups/members with CPN and PolEd
5.A caucus for ALL POC people
6.Funding for interpreters for our member (including ASL, spanish, and more) to include our international comrades and so we can also address and provide for support for those communities as well.
7.Trans-formative education for leaders and potential leadership (which including education on white supremacy, imperialism, confronting unconscious biases, active listening and etcetera) in the committee that they would have to pass in order for them to qualify for their leadership positions
8.Steering committee needs to be reorganized to a council that contains different sub groups, committee, branches, and caucuses such as LGBTQ, LatinX caucus, BLTF, Femnists etc.
9.Steering has to allocate a certain percentage of leadership positions for people of ALL marginalized group to participate and be in leadership positions
10.Active collaboration with marginalized group caucuses (black, latinx, women, LGBTQ, AND (NOT OR)disabled people) within PolEd, Steering, and CPN
11.Bottom-up organization of the committees
12.Resignation of leaders who participating consistently (x3) of problematic behavior that target marginalized groups
There needs to be a reorganization, restructuring and reeducation process of our organizational culture, leadership, and education. This will allow us to interact amongst eachother in a more healthy and holistic way that will maintain, include and hopefully, improve the relationship with the marginalized groups especially with leadership and members. If this is done effectively, not only will there be a boost in membership of people belonging to oppressed groups of marginalized community such as myself but it will also boost retention of those members. These members (of marginalized community) are essential voices. They help guide the organization in the right direction. It provides insight that can be overlooked especially if the person leading is not significantly impacted through inter-sectional roots of oppression so that we might even be able to be proactive in addressing their concerns in the future.
If our goal is solidarity, the way to the goal is being inclusive, addressing our biases, active listening, and embracing each member with love and understanding. It is with this, I am sure you know my stance on whether there should be a bylaw amendment. I vote without any hesitation a “YES” vote on the bylaws amendment on caucuses so we can start on the much needed work to address these issues. Much love to our comrades in the fight against our oppressors.
—
What’s your name?
Olga L
Who are you?
Westside Branch Coordinator, Climate Justice Coordinator, IATSE 871
What is your statement or comment?
We desperately need this amendment so that identity caucuses get equal treatment and resources as political caucuses. I did not join this organization because I picked up a book by Karl Marx. I joined this organization because the material conditions of my identity, which is something I’m born with, impacted the way I experience the world and the manner in which I relate to capital. Identity caucuses are pivotal in creating a multi-racial working-class movement.
—
What’s your name?
Lex F
Who are you?
MA Co-Coordinator, BLTF, SFBLBL, ComDef
What is your statement or comment?
Comrades in identity caucuses care about doing work within DSA-LA so much that they created space for themselves to do so, in coalition with communities DSA-LA might not otherwise reach.
I support the Bylaws Amendment on Caucuses because comrades in marginalized communities are asking us to, so as to better facilitate this work.
—
What’s your name?
Aaron W
Who are you?
Member since 2017, affiliated with the Jewish Solidarity Caucus
What is your statement or comment?
In Support:
American workers don’t have the luxury of only fighting for their liberation on one single, undifferentiated terrain. We are beset by differing forms of discrimination, criminalization, and marginalization. By focusing on uplifting and maintaining the “”identity-based”” caucuses, we have the opportunity to produce strong, socialist formations of comrades who share a particular struggle who can inform our broader fight. We also have the opportunity to coalesce various vital liberation struggles into a revolutionary movement. None of us are as wise as all of us.
—
What’s your name?
Erin O
Who are you?
Electoral Politics Committee Chair / LGBTQ+ Caucus / Amendment Author
What is your statement or comment?
“As an author of the Bylaw Amendment on Caucuses, I am in favor of it passing.
As DSA-LA grows, it is paramount for the Chapter to support spaces for marginalized organizers but also to create clarity around groups organizing within DSA-LA. Having openly operating caucuses can only make DSA-LA better place for individual members and a stronger organization for all to fight capitalism together.
The basis of this amendment stems from events that have unfolded over the last year and it is important that members have some larger context to understanding why this amendment is needed and how leaving the larger question of how caucuses incorporate into DSA-LA unanswered will not only continue problems we already have but hurt the Chapter the longer this issue remains a can being kicked down the road.
In the summer of 2020, I volunteered for and was appointed to the Bylaw Editing Commission. At the time the report was being created and the current DSA-LA bylaws were being written, I was of the mind that repealing the caucus ban in and of itself was all that was needed to allow the identity caucuses to be able to fully participate in the Chapter. However actions taken at the 2020 Convention at which the BEC Bylaws were passed, and the fallout in the months that followed made me realize that the identity caucuses were still in a precarious position. All the BEC had accomplished was clearing the Steering Committee to engage the identity caucuses without being in violation of the bylaws themselves and repealing the bylaws with no official remedy has unintentionally muddied the water by clearing the path for political caucuses to establish an official presence in the Chapter, something that no one was asking for.
The 2020 Bylaw Editing Commission bylaw amendments repealed Article V, Section 6 from the DSA-LA bylaws:
———————————————————————————————————————————————
SECTION 6. CAUCUSES
Caucuses will be established to organize independently around shared interests and identities. Caucuses are not considered Local Subgroups. Their activities can be far more varied than Committees and Working Groups, and may take on a number of different projects or functions in relation to Local, committee, and working group goals, including but not limited to promoting certain policies or actions, planning independent events, and challenging existing Local policies.
Caucuses are required to identify a point person for the rest of the Local, who will serve as the main contact for other Groups and the Steering Committee.
Caucuses are not eligible to receive Local resources, including funding or ongoing access to posting on Local public-facing communications channels. They also cannot propose a Local-wide endorsement as a group, and would instead need to partner with an Internal Resource Committee, Issue-based Committee, or Campaign-based Working Group or submit the proposal as individual members (as outlined in Article VI, Section 3).
———————————————————————————————————————————————
The rules around and the standing of caucuses were not replaced by anything in the BEC bylaws. The BEC issued a report with their recommended bylaws changes. It is important to note that technically, the membership was voting on the bylaws amendments themselves and not the recommendations made in the report that accompanied them. The report was largely informed by a series of interviews the BEC conducted with the 2020 members of Chapter leadership. This current bylaw amendment, The Caucus Act of 2021, looks to be the suggested follow up that the BEC recommended in its report:
———————————————————————————————————————————————
Caucuses
Responses to our leadership surveys revealed that most active members recognize that, currently, there is not a shared consensus or majority opinion on the place of caucus structurally. Many, though not all, survey responses indicated a belief that caucuses should not be forbidden from receiving chapter resources, but that they should instead be addressed on an individual basis.. Additionally, respondents in both the survey for chapter leaders and general membership expressed that there is an overall desire to improve and facilitate the functioning of the LGBTQ+ Caucus; Afrosocialists Caucus; and Asian and Pacific Islander Caucuses, though there was not a consensus on the proper way to do this. For this reason, the commission recommends removing all language governing caucuses. Instead, the commission recommends that the Chapter work with the each of the previously mentioned caucuses and similar caucuses, centered around historically marginalized groups, to pass resolutions at subsequent local meetings formalizing their relationship to the chapter, identifying their areas of work (e.g. recruitment, education, etc) they would like to provide the chapter, and a process for which they can request Chapter resources. The commission believes this will offer flexibility and space for each such caucus to set their unique organizing terms within the chapter.
———————————————————————————————————————————————
There was a proposed amendment to make an official designation at the Convention: “”On the Role of Caucuses””, which failed to pass. The comments I heard during the debate were mostly based around confusion about what caucuses were, what the differences between identity and political caucuses were, and concerns about accountability. The Caucus Act of 2021 solves this by clearly defining what constitutes either type of caucus, what they are or are not entitled to, and how each will make themselves identifiable to membership.
I have a larger FAQ available that explains these changes and where they come from: http://bit.ly/3tdObIw
Please vote in favor of amending the bylaws so that the identity caucuses can have an official relationship with the chapter that is not open to the interpretation of individual members of the Steering Committee as well as increase transparency for membership so they know which groups are organizing within the Chapter and what they are organizing for.
“
—