BLC Report to ExCom--FullText

DPCA BYLAWS COMMITTEE FINAL REPORT Cover Letter – Sept 2010

Submitted to DPCA Executive Committee September 16, 2010

Unknown macro: {stickynotes}

Committee Report for Comments

To: DPCA From: Bylaws Committee

REPORT

Peter C. Alegi, Chair; John Eastwood, Meredith Le Goff, Michael Meneer, Kevin Prager, Anthony Sistilli , Christine Marques, ex officio.

Dear fellow Democrats:

The Bylaws Committee was appointed in December 2009 and submitted its recommended revisions (under the new name of Charter) on September 6, 2010. The draft, approved unanimously, is attached. We review below the main changes to the existing bylaws.

Our principal task has been to examine our system of representation (voting), which had developed into a matter of sharp discussion (however, there were no limitations placed upon our scope of work). This issue has come to the fore because of the success of Democrats Abroad in the past few years, to a point where growth has outpaced the supplemental voting mechanisms instituted in 1994.

In our eight months of activity we have held 22 meetings by conference call, a meeting in Florence, and several telephone reports to the ExCom and the Regions. The level of participation in the Committee has been substantial. Many suggestions were received in writing and many more made during the course of three Regional Hearings. Every comment has been considered and a number of suggestions have been incorporated in the attached document.

Representation (Voting):

Democrats Abroad operates within the Democratic National Committee with the rights and obligations of a State Party, the basis for the DNC's granting us voting membership on the DNC and voting delegates in the Presidential Conventions. The rules of the DNC require our voting to be ?proportional and fair?. The DNC's expectation is that the degree of fairness in large measure is determined by the degree of proportionality. Before and after the Florence meeting some DA members either refused to accept the concept or applied innovative interpretations.

Even after a clarifying letter from Patrice Taylor, Director of Party Affairs and Delegate Selection, who addressed the meeting and afterwards spoke with members informally, some Committee members continued to express doubts about the applicability of the rule of proportionality; these discussions took a significant amount of time, but after multiple contacts with the Chief of the DNC's Credentials Desk, the matter has been resolved. No Democrat Abroad should doubt at this point that our organization is subject to proportionality and that the current bylaw provisions are so far out of line as to constitute a threat to our continued recognition by the DNC, either upon their own initiative or upon a challenge which could be made by any member of Democrats Abroad.

The following are examples of the current disparities in proportionality:

Number of members per DPCA vote - 138 in the smallest eight CCs, 3318 in Canada. This gives the smallest eight CCs 393% of true proportionality and Canada only 16%.
CCs representing 18% of the DA membership can cast more than half the DPCA votes.

Ten years ago the chasm between those figures was a small fraction of what it is today.

Proportionality would normally mean one person one vote ( indeed ,we received several suggestions to that effect). The Bylaws Committee believes that, although individual States can adjust by use of certain factors, we are limited in practical terms from any great departure from a one-person-one-vote solution.

Various types of dual voting systems were suggested by persons both within and without the Committee that in some respects seemed closer to proportionality, some containing features that might be attractive to certain segments of DA and help in amending the bylaws. We consulted Ms. Taylor again, emphasizing that the admittedly non-proportional second vote aspects (?Senatorial?) were designed to meet the requests from smaller CCs for ?protection? from the voting weight of the larger CCs. Our suggestions were rejected. A subcommittee was then named to try to merge the differing plans --which by then included many points of agreement—into a plan which we could present as a principled compromise. After several weeks of work, the subcommittee presented their written proposals to the full Committee, which approved the document.

The system now proposed moves significantly towards true proportionality but retains a built-in advantage for the smaller CCs. For example, the eight smallest will still have greater representation—286% of true proportionality—while Canada will still have less—78%, a shortfall of 22%. With the proposed system, the eight smallest CCs would have, on the average, 110 members per vote, and Canada 491.

Therefore, we now present a system of representation and voting which we believe offers much of the ?protection? some of the smaller CCs may be seeking, but without a second vote. This proposal has been submitted to and approved by the DNC. Here is how it works:

1. 200 votes are provided for (four times the number of CCs) plus the 14 officers and DNC member votes;
2. 75% of the 200 votes (150) are allocated to the CCs , based on the percentage each CC has of the total DA membership (rounded to the nearest whole number);
3. The remaining 50 votes are allocated equally among the CCs (one each).

Under this system, pure proportionality is reduced (a) by allocating only 75% of the votes by membership and (b) by the non-proportionate allocation of the remaining 50 votes. This departure from true proportionality can be justified as an element of fairness in the unique circumstances of Democrats Abroad (in our request for an indication of approval it was necessary to overcome the DNC's preference for a figure of 80/85% of true proportionality).

Thus this system does not reach the democratic ideal of one member/one vote but moves in that direction. In our examination of the issue we noted that our Democratic State committees have never been held to the rule of strictest proportionality which the federal courts, instead, have required in State apportionment of both houses of a State's legislature. We view the proposed revisions as being acceptable, but not comfortably so.

We are pleased to report that we have developed, moreover, an important ?protective? provision in favor of the smaller CCs. Our draft Charter requires that for passage any vote must not only attain a simple majority (50.+%) but must include votes from one-third of the CCs casting votes. Since this is not a dual vote but rather a qualification of the votes cast, we have received indications that this method would be acceptable to the DNC.

In our collective judgment, this method brings Democrats Abroad as close to achieving all major goals of the various groups one can distinguish without overstepping either our internal lines or those of the DNC.

A final note on this matter. By way of addressing this concern, it should be noted that whatever the reasons members of the Committee may have individually espoused with respect to any plans, all of the other externally and internally submitted plans would fail when examined under the DNC's proportionality standards. We are grateful for the submissions and, as stated above, we have used a great deal of the content on a piecemeal basis.

Other issues in the proposed Charter also reflect written suggestions by DA members and still others expressed during the three Hearings. Moreover, some provisions contained in the original June draft have been deleted in response to concerns expressed during the Regional Hearings.

Delegates

Some time ago John McQueen circulated a detailed proposal which was discussed briefly at Florence as well as by members elsewhere. After careful consideration the Committee adopted a number of the elements of his proposal, including the institution of Delegates by CCs. This innovation is perceived by the Committee to be a means of broadening the participation at DPCA meetings and to provide an elected person to act when the limitation on votes carried by an individual - the Voting Cap (see below) - necessitates having more voters present than just the Chair and Vice Chair. The concept had few objectors but two issues arose. First, whether election of a Delegate(s) should be mandatory for all CCs and, second, whether a Delegate should be entitled to grant a proxy. We provide, in Section 3.6(f),that election of a Delegate is mandatory only when required by the application of the voting cap. In other cases, a CC should be free to follow the line which its own inner politics might suggest; there is no reason to interfere. We also provide that a Delegate shall not grant proxies since the main function is to constitute another person ?at the table?. If a Delegate cannot attend, the Chair /Vice Chair will select a person who can best represent the CC. Delegate elections are to take place at the time of election of the Chair and Vice Chair.

Voting Cap

The June draft did not provide any limit on the number of votes one DPCA member or proxyholder could cast. During the Hearing process it became evident that many members object to attending a meeting at which their neighbors at the table can cast many times the number of votes that they can. It became clear to us that, despite the views of a number of members of the Committee, there was a duty to respond to the felt needs expressed by so many, especially since no apparent harm should result from adopting a voting cap. Section 3.6 (b) therefore prohibits a voter from casting a number of votes (rounded to the nearest whole number) in excess of 3% of the total DPCA votes. The number was chosen after consideration of the practical effects of different numbers.

Electronic Voting

This is an issue of particular importance to smaller countries which can be expected to have fewer members available to attend meetings and which are often further away from major air travel hubs. A clearer definition has been given. In Section 3.5, dealing with participation other than voting, the communication must be capable of being heard by all present.

As to voting, under Section 3.7 (b) any ?personally verifiable method which can be reduced to written form? is acceptable, or alternatively a ?voice communication received by a DPCA officer?. The exceptions relating to quorum and Charter amendments have been retained, the former because of a general unwillingness to move to solely electronic meetings, and the latter to avoid needlessly stirring up issues where no protests have been received.

Proxies

The Committee began with a very strict approach to permissible proxies, hoping to simplify the conduct of meetings, but the view strongly expressed at the Hearings was in favor of broad ability to proxy, considered to be a special need of smaller committees. We therefore have removed our proposals and essentially returned to the existing rules, inserting some timing provisions. We point out, however, that to minimize the difficulties demonstrated in the past because of the frequency and complexity of proxying, the Chair should make arrangements, including at least computer programming and appointment of a pro tem Assistant Secretary to be prepared in advance on proxy rules and to administer the process.

Diversity

It is agreed by all that it is in the interest of Democrats Abroad to have diversity of views and geographic diversity. One element in achieving these goals is assuring that a few large countries cannot dominate officership positions. While the existing bylaws point in that direction, the Committee seeks to reduce further the possibility of such dominance. Therefore, we have proposed in Section 4.1 that (1) no more than one officer may be from any one CC, and (2) that the offices of International Treasurer, International Secretary and International Counsel must be held by members from at least two different Regions.

Chapters

This was a difficult topic. Only 14 of our CCs have chapters, and most are small and tranquil. The existing provisions make it very clear that chapters are not to be considered as separate entities of DA (they must be given permission to exist by their CC under Section 5.6), and this view was accepted by most. However, strong arguments were made in certain countries, pressing for more independence, especially citing the fact that they had more members in a given chapter than were in a full CC elsewhere.

One of our members conducted a full survey of existing chapters from which it emerged that extensive use of chapters is a relatively recent development which has not yet produced clear indications of a single path to follow. In order not to interfere with those CCs who have no problems with the chapters ?permitted?, and because of the impracticality of considering this year both the representation issue and a major change by creating another level for legal purposes, we limited our modifications essentially to financial matters. We believe the leadership should monitor developments in the chapters over the next several years to see whether major changes should be further considered. Additionally, a proposal for a minimal number to constitute a chapter was withdrawn after the Hearings.

Admission of CCs

There was an unwritten rule respected until a few years ago that required applicant committees to have one or more members attend DA meetings, become known, and report on activities and intentions before an application could be considered. During our leap forward in recent years, this practice has been neglected. Following suggestions received, Section 5.3 has been amended to assure a degree of personal knowledge of and by our organization. While this could slow down our formal growth (but a ?next hearing? could be a taking of votes under Section 3.8 once all conditions are met), it is essential to our overall strength and reputation that each CC be fully integrated and reliable.

At the suggestion of almost every commentator, we withdrew suggestions that the minimum number of members for admission be raised.

Your Bylaws Committee has worked at great length to identify issues and to seek a means to bring all Democrats together, especially since it is absolutely certain that we are now under the informed scrutiny of the DNC. In order to achieve the compromise represented by the new draft Charter, every Committee member has abandoned some sincerely held viewpoints and has agreed to others that are not liked.

Given the absolute necessity of amending the bylaws so as to obtain an appropriate degree of proportionality, a number of administrative or technical amendments were foregone in the process because of the need to avoid non- essential issues which might attract negative votes.

We recommend prompt adoption of this Charter. With this struggle behind us, we can concentrate on our main purpose, electing Democrats.

Respectfully submitted,
The Bylaws Committee