Notes toward a Letter, October 2010

Owned by Will Bakker -LU, RVC
Last updated: 25-Oct-2010Version comment

Description

To start composing a letter to DPCA members regarding the proposed changes to the bylaws -- beginning with a simple list of issues regarding the entire process. A collection of the bits in one place, for pruning and refining.

Points of contention

Contents of Bylaws Committee's (Second) Proposal

  • Distribution of votes (Section 3.6)
    • Status of smaller country committees and emerging country committees
    • Votes held by individual DPCA members
      • Limit of votes
      • Plus holding two proxies, 3.7h
    • Delegate rules
      • section (g) undoes any requirement for the distribution of voting power, by allowing Ch/VCh to choose proxy-holders among the whole DPCA
      • Delegates shall not be considered members (3.6f): no right to participate in meeting, or to make motions?
      • gender balance requirement (f) increases the burden to country committees.
      • Are country committees allowed to elect officers as Treasurer-and-Delegate? (standard practice for unions, other NGOs)
  • Disqualification of members and country committees (2.4, 3.5b)
    • shift from 1-of-3 to 2-of-3 remains in place
    • does electronic attendance count?
  • Scheduling next meeting (3.1, 3.2)
  • Proxy rules (new 3.7, old 3.9)
    • Why retain limit to those who have attended? Newly elected country chairs cannot hold proxies?
  • DPCA vote without meeting (new 3.8-3.9)
    • Does "no quorum requirement" mean that ExCom alone can take a vote?
    • Bar bylaws amendments from action by Unanimous Consent?
  • Change from "Bylaws" to "Charter": significance?
  • DPCA limiting legitimate activities of country organizations (Article 1, 2b4)
    • "Neither Democrats Abroad nor any of its constituent units may participate in any manner in the political activities (understood in the broadest sense) of any country other than the United States of America." Given record of ExCom condemnation of local activities, what is the significance of this?
    • 2b4 change to "US" -- intended to bar DA organization from working with non-US local organizations? (For example, DA-Lux worked with local newcomer-integration organization.)
  • Responsibility of Parliamentarian (4.10): okay to leave unspecified?
  • Conservative admission of new country committees (5.3)
    • one of new officers have attended a meeting (electronically?) and "shall be known to at least one DPCA officer"
  • New requirement for elections (5.4b): Before March 31 of odd-numbered years (why not leave to local bylaws?)
  • Country membership numbers determined by ExCom (5.4d) -- why not the whole?
  • Chapter-Country dispute (5.7): needs requirement for report of judgment to DPCA whole?
  • Suspension of Country Committee (5.8)
    • Lowered standard for suspension, from unanimous to two-thirds vote by ExCom: why, in light of ill effects?
    • No requirement to report to the DPCA whole (!!!)
    • New reason to suspend (5.8d) due to falling membership numbers: Why?
  • Selection of elected Delegates (7.2b)
    • "Majority vote" -- weighted according to membership, or vote by individuals?
  • Filling Vacancies (7.3)
    • How can we have confirmation of ExCom replacements AND nominations from the floor?
  • Financial responsibilities of countries (9.1)
    • Elimination of hardship provision: Why discourage emerging countries?
  • Amendments to Bylaws
    • Change of wording allows amendments to be passed in person, even if there has been no discussion. This would have allowed a vote-taking at the Florence meeting on a just-revealed amendment proposal!
  • Transition section
    • Why not write so that we can vote on bylaws in person at next meeting?
      • For example: "Country Committees opting or required to elect delegates under Section 3.6(f) may appoint delegates for such purpose prior to the general election of officers required under Section 5.4(b) (i.e., prior to March 31, 2011). Such delegates shall be deemed elected for the full 2011-2013 term." OR: "Chair and Vice-Chair may serve as delegates, for the purposes of 3.6(f) and in suspension of the rule in 3.6(e), for the purpose of the general election of officers required under Section 5.4(b) and all business at the DPCA annual meeting prior to March 31, 2011."

Urgency of Bylaws Issue

  • Substance and Origin of DNC's threat to decertify Democrats Abroad
    • Slow reveal of substance
    • No record of origin of threat
  • No formal report on consequences of status-quo
  • ExCom communicated specific requirements but only vague threats
  • No mediation by DNC representatives -- representatives only at sponsorship of those in favor of changes, and those representatives were ambivalent
  • ExCom advised against "calling attention to ourselves" by allowing any direct questions from DPCA members. A few months later, ExCom brought scrutiny from DNC deliberately and without the intent of asking for mediation.
  • No response to counter-examples: Texas, California, other state-level Democratic Party organizations
  •  

Timeline

Process up to Florence
  • Bylaws Committee refused offers of help from interested parties
  • No solicitation of plans; no statement of intent or purpose
Annual Meeting in Florence
  • Bylaws Committee claimed to have seen no proposals
  • BC report and Q&A did not address the requirements of the DNC or the urgency of changes
Bylaws Committee itself
Town Meetings for First Proposal
  • Bylaws Committee presented reasons for non-voting changes for the first time, and in an informal context (e.g. "we want to know the people we admit to DPCA")
  • Recommendations amounted to radical change beyond DNC issues, especially in admission of new persons and new country committees
Process up to Publication of Second Proposal
Request for Unanimous Consent
  • Time for deliberation was also the most important week for voter registration
  • Substance of consent is vague
    • Will Robert's Rules be followed as in a typical meeting?
    • Will amendments be allowed? Will alternatives to the BC proposal be considered?
    • No plan for conducting electronic meeting, despite numerous proposals
Process after Request for Unanimous Consent
  • Unclear legal reasoning behind rejection of (1) original request to hold electronic meeting; (2) possibility of a second, improved request; (3) substantive teleconference proposals.
  • Implications of Article 10 for electronic voting for those unable to attend -- only physically present members may vote?
  • Cost-benefit analysis of London meeting three months before Seoul meeting.
The following macros are not currently supported in the footer:
  • style