Convention Notes

2021 DSA Convention Notes

Convention Schedule

Convention Home Page

Proposal Compendium

Order of Business (use this to format your voting block)

Examples: 2020 YDSA Convention Notes / 2019 DSA Convention Results

Template for tracking debate and decisions:

  • Resolution #(number): (Resolution Title)
    • Speaker (Delegate Name, DSA Chapter): (For or Against)
      • Bullet points of their arguments
    • Motion (type of motion) – (Name of Delegate making the motion, DSA Chapter)
      • Outcome of motion (# in favor, # opposed)
    • Outcome (Resolution/amendment passes or fails)

Opening Session & Committee Reports: Sunday 8/1 4-6 pm ET

Welcome – Speaker(s)

  • Welcome from Convention Chair & Moderator for Opening Session, Natalie Midiri
    • Reminder – Convention Hub contains all necessary docs, proposals, forms, etc.
    • Reminder – Sign in to Roll Call form each day
    • Reminder – submit requests for help through Support Form

National Director’s Report – Maria Svart, National Director

Chair Notes – Natalie Midiri

  • Refrain from submitting motions until the Convention Delegates have been seated
  • Log into Convention Slack

Chair’s Report – Jen McKinney

Financial Report – Kristian Hernandez

Chair Notes – Natalie Midiri

  • Reminder – Sign in to Roll Call
  • Body will be following proposed Standing Rules during the Credentials Committee report even though they have not been adopted yet.
  • Use the Convention Support Form for any questions or problems that you have with the tech, website, signing in, voting, etc. 

Credentials Committee Report – Chair Bryan LaVergne

  • Bryan – Our committee is tasked with the oversight of all of our elections and credentials, administration of the At-Large Delegate election, the NPC elections, along with the credentials challenge process.
  • Bryan – Voting methods were discussed at length by the committee- Borda v. STV:
  • The committee does recommend that the rules propose that the body start with Borda as the voting method. The rules have to say something about the voting method. My reasoning behind Borda is simply that there are a few things about STV that were a little bit concerning. I want to share that for example, ever since 2017, we ask a very specific question to all of our NPC candidates when they run. We did it in 2019 and we did it this time. We ask if they have ever organized or even related to organizing any sort of police union. The reasons why we ask that, many may know, there is sufficient reason to ask it. If we ask that question it makes you think “well what happens when somebody answers in a way that the body doesn’t agree with?” Well, in such a case, the idea is maybe you vote against them. Well, understanding that STV, it has a quota system wherein when they get a sufficient number of votes, that person gets voted in no matter what. I also want to address something that I talk about later. The Portland situation had an element of this where they had an individual who was running for election and they didn’t have a way to vote against. Which is one of the reasons that they pursued what they did. It’s a serious concern for our Convention. Do I believe that this is going to be a concern this year? I don’t personally believe that. But, STV has many strengths and people are reasonable to support STV. People are also reasonable to support Borda. No matter what you decide, I hope that the debate is principled and we move together forward. No matter what, I believe in an elected NPC that we can follow and support and help us get onto the next level. Those are my thoughts on that and I wish you the best in debating the subject.
  • Full text of the Credentials Committee Report – M14
    • Bryan – The committee has received two credentials challenges. Details about both of these challenges are found in the Credentials Committee Report. 
      • Pittsburgh challenge – it requests that with the current Temporary Roster of Delegates, to make Angela F. and Owen K. be Delegates and then turn Zach M. and Matthew H. into Alternates. (replacing 2 Delegates) This would return to their original submission of Delegation members. The challengers allege that the issue at hand is Angela F. and Owen K. are subject to a grievance that prevented them from running for certain positions, but subsequently an NPC decision interfered and without a proper hearing they allege it was stated that they cannot run for Delegate. They allege that there should have been a hearing on the matter and that it is not appropriate to have such a ruling from the NPC on a grievance. The committee believes that the NPC is the one that has authority to decide on grievance matters. We decided that the NPC is reaffirmed by the previous decision- they just reaffirmed it. We know that the Constitution and Bylaws do not prohibit such actions under Resolution #33. That is something that the challengers did allege. Additionally, the ruling that the NPC made under Resolution #33 is sufficient to not permit the members to be sat as Delegates. We use this sort of reasoning often. The committee can’t find it that we can effectively address the whole scope of all of this and that we know that the Convention is the highest decision making body so while we did not have a consensus decision, Austin Binns specifically voted to support the challenge, the committee itself is recommending that we deny the challengers request. 
      • Portland challenge – The challenge was brought to us by Jad Z.,Ted B., and Conrad C. requesting the unseating of the entire Delegation of 35 Delegates and 4 Alternates. To briefly describe what happened, on May 16th, there was a general body meeting wherein the assembly got together, they were going to initiate their election that evening for Delegates to the National Convention. At the start of that meeting there were motions to amend the agenda. One motion was to add an item to the agenda to get rid of Jad C. and Ted B. (the challengers) from the ballot of the election before the election starts. Then, a second motion to amend the agenda was made to get rid of Conrad C. What was going to be a ninety minute to two hour meeting turned into a four hour long meeting. It was bitter and there was a lot of conflict. Now, there were reasons on the side of the motivators of these motions to do this. It was regarding beliefs they had about these individuals. On the flip side, there was reason for those that felt they should delay it. The results at the end of the meeting was that there was a super majority on the question of removing these three individuals from the ballot. But, up until that, the question of “how do we do this” concerns were raised. Does STV allow us to vote against them? There’s not enough people running and if they get a certain number of votes, they win automatically. There were also issues raised about what else they were going to do. They didn’t have a clear recally process set in their Bylaws. We don’t have enough time. The chapter was concerned about postponing their election and whether or not they had to decide it right then and there. They decided, not by huge margins, that they were going to vote that evening. The subsequent vote was a decision on whether or not the chapter would get rid of the three individuals. They clearly decided “yes we do”. After that, there was quite a bit of conflict. One member of the Steering Committee of Portland DSA reached out on their own behalf to the NPC stating what happened. During the meeting, this Steering Committee member, Laura W., was chairing and both times ruled the motion to amend the agenda out of order. Saying that this infringes on the rights of members and that it violates Pre-Convention Rules 1A:7. Both times, the chair was overruled by the assembly. Then, there was an allegation that quorum was lost during the meeting. So, Laura follows up the next day telling the NPC that they are worried that their assembly violated the Pre-Convention Rule 1A:7 and that these three individuals have a right to be on the ballot. Additionally, Laura was also worried that there may not have been quorum in that initial meeting. The NPC responds by stating that if the facts presented are true, then they will have to consider correcting this. One suggestion was to run the election again. Or for the chapter leader to provide the NPC with more information. The chapter does have other options with which they can remedy the issue. Two responses were sent from the Portland chapter. One signed by eighteen members including many of the majority faction members of the Steering Committee. The second one on behalf of the majority faction of the Steering Committee itself. The eighteen member letter, authored by Connor S., states a lot of technical reasoning as to why they believe what they did was right. Basically a lot of rules arguments. Additionally, this letter stated that they believed the NPC cannot really interfere much in this, especially not an unelected body such as the Elections and Credentials Subcommittee. Then, the second letter attempted to address why members wanted to remove these three individuals. Their second letter really gave good cause for why the chapter did this. The NPC responds to the second message affirming that the chapter had good reasons for doing this, but with everything you told us, you still violated the rules and you still need to consider how to remedy that. This can include another election or it can include other processes. The NPC’s letter is dated May 28th and states that they don’t have to challenge the authority of the NPC. They can get what you want, they should just rather seek out assistance instead of saying that the NPC doesn’t have authority. NPC does still believe that they must hold another election or, as mentioned above, pursue another remedy. A follow up email in June was sent by an NPC member to check in. Nothing was heard since that date. On July 15th, the committee receives a challenge intending to unseat the entire Portland Delegation. Subsequently, we investigated. It was very difficult with lots of information to go through. I submitted over a 100 page report on this matter and there are many more records that I have not been able to add in there that I had to go through. The findings of the committee are as follows: 
        • The chapter did indeed lose quorum prior to the vote during that initial chapter meeting. 
        • The challengers were inappropriately removed from the ballot through a violation of the Pre-Convention Rule 1A:7. These rules are created, interpreted, etc by the NPC itself. They have the authority to make these judgements. 
        • It is my belief that they have threatened their membership of the chapter’s will. This is a serious mistake to make. 
        • We found that the NPC has the full authority to enforce the Constitution and the Bylaws, the Pre-Convention Rules, and any other rules of the organization unless otherwise expressly not permitted. 
          • The actions of the majority of the Steering Committee were against this authority often to justify their stance. 
        • We found that, while Portland’s general membership were reasonably divided upon the question of process, they voted in a supermajority to get rid of the Delegates. This was not sufficient to say that we should get rid of the whole chapter’s Delegation because it was clear that there were issues. There was a grievance committee process happening while the investigation by the committee was occurring, against the member Jad C. 
          • The grievance report from the chapter’s grievance committee was especially helpful with the committee’s investigation. The findings of this report were sufficient to justify the removal of Jad C. from the ballot. The assembly made a mistake that was ultimately corrected by the grievance committee. 
        • Ted B. and Conrad C. – the two remaining challengers have really remained unaddressed in my opinion. Ted B. was not allowed to speak at the general meeting of the chapter in order to defend himself. That, to me, is a gross violation of what the NPC has established as a membership right in the Pre-Convention process. I was told that Ted B. had the opportunity to speak like all members do. It was also said that Ted B. was not allowed to speak because a question was called. Ted B. tried to add time to the agenda to speak, but that was not allowed for whatever reason. Conrad C. is a different question. 
        • Conrad C. was allowed to speak, but still unaddressed. There was no subsequent process. 
        • Portland’s lack of addressing this issue is a huge mistake. It’s an erroneous election. The mistakes are understandable, but we believe in part they didn’t address it because of a factionalized leadership. There’s a lot of lack of trust in one another. That’s a huge problem. 
        • The chapter was never given an adequate opportunity to correct the matter because of the majority of the Steering Committee. Specifically because of the stonewalling in terms of settling the issue. The majority of the Steering Committee, they negligently risked their chapter’s entire Delegation and they threatened the organization’s conviction. 
        • Instead of pursuing the options that made it so that they could uphold the will and authority of their leadership, they made mistakes that made the Portland membership have to sign a petition to go against this challenge. The leadership of their own chapter refused to do the basic things that could have upheld the validity of their election and made this challenge a much easier process. They risked the entire Delegation and the committee agreed. 
      • Recommendation from the committee regarding both challenges: 
        • The Pittsburgh challenge request be denied. 
        • The Portland challenge request be denied. The chapter did not have enough opportunity to correct it and it was ultimately the Steering Committee’s fault. The committee recommends that the Convention affirms the administrative authority of the NPC over ensuring our Pre-Convention processes are successful. 
        • The committee recommends that the Convention censure the following individuals in their role as the Steering Committee of the Portland chapter. :  
          • Louis M. 
          • Taylor G. 
          • Wade H. 
          • Eric G. 
          • Amanda C. 
          • Jesse J. 
          • Kier A. 
          • Zee Z. 
        • The committee recommends that 6 of the listed individuals who are Delegates to now serve as Alternates as it states in the report. 
        • The committee recommends that the Convention accept as amended the temporary roster as the Delegates of the 2021 National Convention. 
        • The committee recommends that the Convention confirm us, the Elections and Credentials Committee, to serve through the entirety of the rest of Convention.
  • Clarifications from/for the Chair:
  • Natalie Midiri – Can Bryan confirm the # of Delegates & Alternates on temporary roster to establish quorum?
    • Bryan LaVergne – 1,234 total Delegates 
  • Natalie – Quorum threshold would then be 50% +1 of the Delegates which comes out to 618 Delegates. We have 1,061 Delegates logged into roll call. We have now met quorum.
  • Natalie Midiri
    • We will be following Standing Rules.
    • There shall be no more than one speaker for and one speaker against each credentials challenge.
    • No one Delegate may vote on their own credentials challenge.
  • Credentials Committee Recommendations – Pittsburgh credentials challenge – Shalyn P., Pittsburgh: Against
    • The chapter’s Delegates were not granted credentials based upon a previous grievance disciplinary action. The action that was issued only barred them from running for local leadership positions. It is Pittsburgh’s opinion that Delegates to the National Convention are not local leadership positions. Communication regarding the grievance process and the disciplinary action was untimely communicated. Chapter not able to replace challenged Delegates in time. The Delegates who were barred only from local leadership positions should have their credentials reinstated/upheld. 
  • Credentials Committee Recommendations – Portland credentials challenge – Vishal B., Portland: For
    • Portland Steering Committee members that the committee recommended censuring should be censured because they did not follow democratic processes & they knowingly risked seating the entire chapter’s Delegation. The Steering Committee members were hostile in handling this issue despite multiple opportunities to rectify the problem. 
    • M20 – Motion to Divide the Question – Lawrence L, East Bay – separate the committee’s recommendations on seating the Portland Delegation & censure the Steering Committee members. Make the committee’s recommendation two separate items we can vote upon.
      • Ballot M20 created. 
      • Voting time extended by chair.
      • Recess by chair to address technical difficulties.
  • Request for Information – What does censuring entail?
  • Bryan LaVergne – From the committee’s report: “This censure is intended to make clear that such behavior and negligence of responsibility cannot be permitted in our organization. Ample notice was given of this problem and assistance was available. While individual members may be more or less accountable than the others, the voting block as a whole repeatedly made the decisions and statements together. This is not a rejection of any strengths and contributions these individuals may possess as duly elected leaders of a chapter filled with dedicated organizers fighting for a better world.”
  • Results: (306 in favor, 691 opposed).
  • Outcome – Motion fails.
  • M21 – Motion to Divide the Question – Dhaval S., Houston – Committee recommendations regarding Pittsburgh & Portland should be voted on separately.
  • Results: (340 in favor, 599 opposed)
  • Outcome – Motion fails.
  • Credentials Committee Recommendations – Portland credentials challenge – Luisa M., Portland: Against
    • Support the recommendation to deny the challenge filed to unseat the Portland Delegation, but do not support censuring or targeting the individuals on the Steering Committee to try to hold people accountable for racism, transphobia, and abuses against women.
      Credentials Committee Recommendations – Pittsburgh credentials challenge – Gary W., Seattle: For 
    • Speaking in favor of the recommendation as the NPC and committee have correctly determined that a Delegate is a leadership position. Delegates do not attend this Convention on their own behalf. They are representing the members of their chapter. 
  • Credentials Committee Recommendations – Portland credentials challenge – Joerg P., Portland: Against 
    • The committee’s recommendations is to tolerate chauvinism & racism. At the same time they recommend undermining comrades that lead. Please do not support the hypocritical recommendation of the committee, instead seat all originally seated Delegates.
  • Motion – Call the Question – Socrates L., San Francisco
  • Chair Natalie did not count more than 30 objections.
  • Outcome – Motion passes. 
  • Request for Information: Jacey L., At-Large – What happens if you vote against the committee report?
  • If the motion fails we will not have Delegation and need to figure out an alternative way forward.
  • Request for Information – Nate S., Southern New Hampshire – Would voting for the committee report adopt the Convention voting method as Borda?
  • Keon Liberato – No, that is determined in Standing Rules.
  • Voting to approve the Credentials Committee Report 
  • Results: Motion 14  (846 in favor, 95 opposed).
  • Outcome: Credentials Committee recommendations are adopted.
    • Delegation is seated as the temporary roster is also adopted.

Convention Rules

Convention Standing Rules – introduced by Keon Liberato

  • Highlighted points from Standing Rules recited.
  • Natalie – Call for Order is out of order at this time – reviewed OOB
  • Motion to Amend, Sam H-L., San Francisco – Move to Amend the Convention rules to add the following item into the rules. In the event that items removed from the Consent Agenda are not heard in any allotted Consent Agenda time, the Platform and Resolutions Committee will propose an update to the Order of Business for the 20 non-Consent Agenda items to accurately reflect the results of the Pre-Convention poll while incorporating any other amendments to the agenda previously adopted. This updated order will be brought before the membership before further resolutions are considered and will require a simple majority to be adopted.: Made the motion and also spoke For.
  • Request for Information – The rule stated 10% can you clarify what the correct figure is?
    • Natalie – It has been updated to ⅓ of Delegates.
  • Request for Information – Michelle – Can the chair clearly state whether items are motions or main business?
    • Natalie – Yes.
  • Chair does not have speakers on Stack to speak against.
    • Chair pasted language for this amendment into the chat for Delegates to see.
  • Outcome – Motion 41 adopted by acclamation.
  • Motion to Amend Rule III D 5 – & III D 6 – Hijab K., Buffalo – Replace Borda with STV: For
    • Motion to Call the Question as stated is out of order until amendment is disposed.
  • Motion to Call the Question on the amendment – Jamal, Chicago
    • Chair moves to adopt by acclamation.
    • Outcome: Adopted by acclamation.
  • Point of Order – Renee P., East Bay – Call the Question has not been voted on. 
    • Natalie – There were very few objections, no vote required, rules not adopted yet.
  • Request for Information – Does your amendment strike the text regarding the completion of ballots?
    • Hijab – It does because it would not be relevant to STV.
  • Results: Motion 42 (693 in favor, 427 opposed).
  • Outcome – The amendment (Borda to be replaced by STV) is adopted.
  • Request for Information – What is the threshold for a Motion to Amend the rules to pass? 
    • Natalie – At this point, since we have not adopted the drafted rules that have a higher threshold for changing the rules, it currently just requires a simple majority vote.
  • Point of Order – Confusion regardings previous Points of Order and what objections threshold is needed for motions. 
  • Vote on Amended Standing Rules
    • Outcome – The amended Standing Rules adopted by acclamation.
  • Order of Business – Marianela D’Aprile
    • Consent Agenda explanation as it pertains to the Delegate Survey. Discuss placement of different sections on the agenda, i.e. when the Constitution and Bylaws changes, etc. will be discussed. Resolutions are placed on the agenda in descending order depending on desire to debate them based upon the Delegate Survey. Introduction of the DSA Platform portion and the NPC Recommendation section that are on the agenda. 
    • Point of order – Katherine, Capitol District – Amendment to standing orders was skipped.
      • Amendments we erroneously skipped, point well taken, will be taken up immediately – 
    • Motion to Amend Section 3 of Standing Rules – Define germane. – Ziv K., Lower Hudson Valley
      • The chair gives friendly consideration to this and recognizes the definition as “being relevant to a subject under consideration such as a main motion”.
    • Motion to Amend Section 3C II – Modified threshold to amend Consent Agenda should be reverted back to 10% from ⅓ – Hakan Y., NYC
    • Chair requests these two amendments be taken up simultaneously.
      • As there are less than 100 objections, the two amendments to the Standing Rules will be considered together.
      • More than 100 objections to the amendment. Motion will go to full vote.
    • Motion to Amend – Add a clause to define “germane” & adjust the Consent Agenda threshold.
      • Kay G., NYC: Against
        • The items on the Consent Agenda required a ⅔ supermajority of support. In Roberts’ rules, ⅔ support is enough support to immediately Call the Question which is how much support the Consent Agenda items already have. Yes, it is important to defend the rights of minority opinions in this body to debate, but it should be stuff that actually requires debate and where there is not already majority support. 
      • Natalia, NYC: For
        • There are a lot of items on the Consent Agenda that have a lot of debate surrounding them.The idea that there was a supermajority for anything on the Consent Agenda form, I would take issue with that. Only 650 people filled out that form and that is not a supermajority of Convention Delegates. 
      • Request for Information – Roxanne – How many people took the survey for the Consent Agenda?
        • Marianela – 650 Delegates
      • Sam H-L., San Francisco: Against
        • Doesn’t see the benefit of having small minority voice concerns over business that has a large amount of support taking up time from other business.
      • Andrew L, Los Angeles: For
        • Actually against – In favor of keeping the threshold at ⅓.
      • Elizabeth M, San Francisco: Against
        • If there is legitimately a lot of debate around certain issues or that the poll wasn’t representative of the body, that’s fine. You should have no trouble getting ⅓ to remove an item from the Consent Agenda. 
      • Roll call vote on Motion 29
        • Point of Order – Amendment to agenda is out of order.
          • Voting is actually on amendments to Standing Rules so Point of Order is out of order. 
      • Outcome of Motion 29 (264 in favor, 778 opposed)
      • Outcome – Amendments fail.
  • Motion to Amend – Abel, Metro DC – Alter the Order of Business. Move consideration of Constitutional amendment #8 to Saturday until after we approve or do not approve a platform. 
    • Outcome – Adopted by acclamation. Item will be moved on the agenda.
  • Motion to Reconsider – Fainan, NYC – Reconsider the chair’s choice to Motion to Call the Question. 
    • Chair rules this motion as out of order.
  • Motion to recess – Clearblue J., San Diego 
  • Outcome – Adopted by acclamation. 

*** 10 minute recess ***

  • Chair proposes to Limit Debate to one speaker for and one against plus limit speaking time to 30 seconds for the rest of this section.
    • Adopted by acclamation.
  • Amendment (Motion) 45 – Sam H-L, San Francisco – add 30 minutes for Consent Agenda to replace 30 minutes of NPC recommendations @ 8:30 Friday.
    • No one to speak against.
    • More than 100 objections (via hand raise feature on Zoom) so roll call vote initiated.
    • Point of Information – Andrew L., Los Angeles – Is this amendment adding 30 minutes to the end of the day or moving around 30 minutes?
      • Sam – Remove 30 minutes from the NPC recommendations and add 30 minutes to the Consent Agenda block.
    • Point of Information – Samuel, New York – Why was there no debate on the last question? 
      • Natalie – No Delegates got on stack to debate. If no one rises to speak or debate, this signals that there is support for the item and then we can move on to a vote. 
    • Outcome of Motion 45 (454 in favor, 394 opposed)
    • Outcome – Motion 45 passes.
  • Proposal by chair to Adjourn now and continue debate at next debate session on Thursday.
    • Outcome – Motion passes by acclamation – debate session is adjourned.

Thursday Debate Block: Thursday 8/5 5-10 pm ET

Priority and National Committee Reports

  • Democratic Socialist Labor Commission (Zack P., he/him)
    • New Steering Committee elected February 2020, new election in upcoming winter.
    • 2020 Labor conference was quickly shelved. 
    • Observation: Many chapters do not have Labor Commission.
    • Highlights – 
      • Majority of members in DSA are in white collar labor.
      • Nursing is underrepresented, or in non-union.
      • Entertainment industry is overly represented.
      • Workers in fossil fuel are under-represented.
    • Workplace training – Restaurant training, ROP POC, PRO Act.
    • Our campaign to pass PRO Act
    • If you work in industry, healthcare, entertainment, construction, join us!
    • Ask – Take your politics to work. Politics is about power. Join Comrade, drive a truck, swing a hammer. ROP and get help you need. Build democracy in your workplace. Democracy is power. 
  • Green New Deal Campaign Committee (Ashik S.)
    • Launched 2017 DSA Con, 60 chapters.
    • Challenge: Bridge gap between National and 200 chapters.
    • GND Summit (60 chapters involved)
      • Conclusion: Need to have multiphase campaigns.
      • National coordinator around federal demands (Campaign guideline).
      • Need to mobilize around elections. 
      • Within 100 days of election – we got 25 chapters to be involved.
      • Organized Mass Call – 100 person organizing team, need to work with communication team and work with NPC on training.
      • Timeline- March – May Day, Action around PRO-Act, 80 chapters organized.
      • DSA + CWA Phone back, 4/26 inspired by NYCDSA talking about extending labor rights. Over half of those involved were BIPOC members. 
      • Success – 2 out of 5 Senators were flipped. 
      • Working with unions in passing the PRO-Act.
      • PRO-Act is in the budget going towards Congress.
      • $57,000 cost for this work. With some fundraising, the net cost is 11k to DSA.
      • Launch in Public School.
      • Working to Build Working Class space in building ecological politics.
  • Medicare for All Committee (Frances)
    • Started August 2017 Convention and Renewed in 2019
    • 2019 Convention – Pressure Campaign for Medicare for All.
    • Phases: 
      • Supporting Bernie 2020 – Coordinating for Medicare for all campaign, 2020 Covid Campaign.
      • April 2020 Bernie dropped out of the race.
      • May 2020 Floyd death.
      • Late Fall 2020 New political change. With regional and communication team, built a 3 plank Platform of Struggle for passing Medicare for All:
        • 1. Killing POC – racial disparity in healthcare
        • 2. Build campaign for MC4A
        • 3. Essential Movement for Medicare for all 
    • MC4A active in roundtables.
    • 2 branches:
      • 1. Communication – kept presence on social media.
      • 2. Campaign Support – Event, media productions.
    • Media Campaign in Bernie campaign – show strength in Bernie campaign and show flaws on others’ politics.
    • Size: States vs Regional, Regional Organizer shared contexts. Did more regional calls in building relationships with chapters and across regions. 
    • New Strategy this year: Recruit new organizer, especially BIPOC
    • We worked with those who joined after the Bernie Campaign. Group has been on hiatus. But Infrastructure is there so we can revamp anytime. 
    • Racial vs Health Justice – Organizing Workshop in health conference
    • Challenges: 1. Force the vote (Look at document for more challenges)
    • Need: We need more people to get involved.
  • National Electoral Committee (Mike N.)
    • 25 electoral organizer, appointed by NPC
    • Local recommend to us, help NPC, middleman
    • Collect best practices training
    • Host DSA Office Network – talk about challenges, Campaign they are on, 69 candidate endorse, 32 won
    • Congressional level – Jamaal and Corey Bush 
    • NY – 5 Socialists elected, Philly 3 state level, 1 RI, 1 MO, Buffalo elected soclialist mayor. Portland slate of ballot initiative – ban on facial recognition, protection for tenants. Help raise money for legal defence. Portland – Universal PK. Florida – Won minimum wage $15 campaign. Chicago – City slate. Kentucky – Amazing race, didn’t win.
    • Recommendation for next 2 year: 1. Recruit homegrown candidates to run for office. Recruit to run as socialists. Be like Pinellas DSA – more diverse, more political education. One candidate national – Richie floyd is a good chance https://secure.actblue.com/donate/richietext1. 2.Jamal and Corey had big congressional backing. State leg, city council, board. Get candidates to run at the local level. 3. Black and Latino neighborhood. People saw BLM and socialism as differences. Find a way to connect. There is a great opportunity.
    • Recommend Resolution 8: Toward Mass Party. 
  • National Political Education Committee (Riley W-P)
    • Goal is to build Political Education and build revolutionary development on what the working class needs to build socialism.
    • Started in 2019 Convention, spent 2020 in Covid relief.
    • Having out of box training – no matter what experience of background.
    • Establishing a national curriculum, available for chapters.
    • Training and Facilitation of event design – Committee hosted training which 250 attended
    • Direct Education via panels, speaking.
    • Multi-event series – role of political party for 130.
    • Working new speakers bureau – need to develop public speaking talent
    • Cannot do it on our own, we aspire to bring in conferences.
    • Had a political education trial conference.
    • Education.dsa.organizer email us for information 


Facilitator: Kristian Hernandez – All these reports are filed as informational.


6:30pm – 7:00pm

Convention Order of Business (Marianela D’Aprile, Kristian)

Chair: Sandy B. (Chicago, IL, She/her)

Introduction:

  • Sandy: Quick moment of silence: Richard Trumpka, President of AFL-CIO and a champion of organized labor, passed away this morning. COVID took a lot from working class people.
  • Roll Call will be open 1 hour before Order of Business and you will need your unique Delegate key (New one you received yesterday).
  • Two ways to get adopted online 1. If we have unanimous consent (acclimation) or 2. Roll call vote.
    • We are going to ask for unanimous vote to save 5-10 minutes
    • Raise hand if you want roll call (how you object)
  • Try best to break at scheduled time. Finish item and take a break. Default: Finish voting, then take a break.
  • If you are having any problems, close the ballot and reopen in a new window, or new browser.
  • If you need help, fill out a Convention support form.

Order of Business 

  • All three from Sunday have passed. 
  • Constitution/Bylaw changes, if not discussed at Convention, will not be discussed at all.
  • Order of Business is a single business list. Critical in a limited amount of time. 
  • Point of Parliamentary Inquiry – Will the Elections and Credentials Committee be reporting the nominations for the NPC election? 
    • Marianela, Convention Co-Chair – On Saturday evening, before the NPC candidates introduce themselves, Bryan L. will be presenting the list of candidates. He is the co-chair of the Elections and Credentials Committee. 

   Complex Motions 

  • Motion to Vacate the NPC decision on NPC Candidate 
  • Chris W., Seattle – Motion from the Floor:
    • The Point of Order has three parts. First, the NPC does not have the authority to remove Kara B. or any candidate from the ballot. The Convention is credentialed and seated and the NPC’s authority as executive board between Conventions has expired per the Constitution and Bylaws. Moreover, the NPC statement from this afternoon fails to cite any part of DSA’s Constitution, Bylaws, or any other rule to justify their decision. Just as the NPC withdrew its late Constitutional and Bylaws amendments, they should withdraw their decision and statement for non-conformance with our rules.
    • Second, the unilateral action by the NPC violates Kara B’s right to reply under Resolution 33 (2017). While exceptional circumstances can demand exceptional action, the rights of our members are inalienable. The NPC states they wish to protect the integrity of R33 and promise a R33-compliant process but have started by violating the seven-day notice requirement in the resolution itself. Disciplinary action, such as a bar from office, cannot be taken until that period has elapsed, per R33.
    • Third, the NPC has a conflict of interest. The statement barring Kara B is signed by incumbent members of the NPC, who have a clear conflict of interest in barring candidates from the ballot. A more appropriate committee to consider this action would be the Elections and Credentials Committee. It is my understanding that the E&C Committee was simply CC’ed on the NPCs decision by fiat. This indicates that they were not consulted in this matter and is highly inappropriate for a Convention of Delegates.
    • For the reasons above, I move to vacate the decision of the NPC, and direct the Elections and Credentials Committee to restore Kara B to the NPC ballot. I request that this motion be heard before the Order of Business is voted on by the Delegates.
    • Sandy: Classic issue of procedure vs substance. It is absolutely correct that the Convention supersedes the NPC as long as we are seated. Due to confidentiality surrounding grievances, the NPC has more information than the body. I am going to rule against this Point of Order. The NPC made a ruling based upon the information that they had. 
      • Chris W. – Appeal the Decision of the Chair. 
      • Sandy: This is not debatable. This will require a simple majority. 
    • Vote on Ballot Motion 47 (Clarifications from the chair)
      • A Yes vote will be a vote to restore Kara H. to the List of NPC Candidates
      • A No vote will be a vote to accept the ruling of NPC.
    • Outcome – Motion Passed (726 in favor, 201 opposed)
    • Outcome: Results adopted, Appealing of the chair is sustained. Kara Hall has been put back on the NPC ballot.
  • Point of Order, Clearblue J., Seattle – Article XIII of the Constitution and Article XIV in the Bylaws lay out the processes for amending the Constitution and Bylaws, respectively. Those require one month’s notice to be provided to membership before the Convention. As this notice was not provided, these amendments are out of order.
    • Marianela – The NPC released two sets of recommendations, one for resolutions and the other for Constitution and Bylaws changes. The set of resolutions are in order. CB changes are indeed not in order. Tomorrow night, we would like the recommendations to be looked at. We still want you to be able to look at it and form thoughts beforehand. We will be putting forward a motion to refer the Constitution and Bylaws changes to the next NPC to see what they would like to do with them.
    • Chair rules that the motion is out of order – Does not break any Bylaws.
  • Motion to Amend, Nikhil P., Atlanta – Amend the agenda to add Resolution 19: Amnesty for All to the Sunday debate block, before Resolution 1.
    • Nikhil P., Atlanta – Motion to Amend 
      • Have Resolution 19 added to the Sunday debate block. It should be added before Resolution 1 and after Resolution 30. 
      • Sandy: Motion has been properly made and seconded. 
      • Alexander H., Metro Atlanta, Against
        • Author never reached out to the Immigrants’ Rights Working Group.
        • Nikhil P. is in my chapter and could have called me.
      • Motion to Call the Question – end debate and vote on adding Resolution 19 between Resolutions 30 and 1. 
    • Vote on Ballot Motion 39 – Vote to add Resolution 19 between Resolutions 30 and 1.
      • A Yes vote = You want this to be added to the Order of Business.
      • A No vote = You do not wish to add this item to Order of Business.
    • Outcome: Motion 39 (303 in favor, 727 opposed)
    • Outcome: Motion fails. Amendment not adopted.
  • Motion: Amend the agenda to put CB2 between NPC Recommendation and CB3
    • Dhaval S., Houston- Amend the Order of Business 
      • Amend to add CB2: National Referendum to the Friday debate block before CB3 
      • Sandy: No debate against. There is no rule debate against. No need to Call the Question. Move directly to a vote.
    • Vote on Ballot Motion 53: Vote on Motion 53
      • A Yes vote = We are adding CB2 between NPC Recommendations & CB3.
      • A No vote = We are rejecting adding CB2 to the Order of Business.
    • Outcome: Motion 53 (118 in favor, 569 opposed)
    • Outcome: Motion fails.
  • Motion to Call the Question (end debate on Order of Business)
    • Sandy: Requests Delegates to raise hands if they object to adopting the Order of Business as it currently stands. Asking for 100 objections. Did not meet the 100 objection threshold.  
    •  Outcome: Order of Business has been adopted.
  • Motion to Recess 
    • Nate K, Atlanta – Motion to Recess until voting issues are resolved.
    • Motion to Recess until 10 after the hour.
    • Outcome: Motion fails (over 100 hands raised to oppose).

Consent Agenda

  • Motion: Call the Question – End debate and vote on the Consent Agenda. 
    • Abel A., Metro DC – Call the Question.
    • Vote on Motion 59, Motion to Call the Question on approving the Consent Agenda.
      • A Yes vote = You want to stop debate and vote on Consent Agenda
      • A No vote = You want to continue debate on the Consent Agenda
      • A ⅔ vote is required.
    • Outcome: (518 in favor, 519 opposed)
    • Outcome: Motion to end debate has failed. Did not meet ⅔ threshold.
  • Division of a Question – Remove Resolution 32 from the Consent Agenda
    • Sumter A., Atlanta – Motion to Remove
    • Vote on Motion 34
      • A Yes vote = Remove Resolution 32 from Consent Agenda.
      • A No vote = We do not remove Resolution 32 from Consent Agenda.
      • A ⅓ vote is required to remove the resolution. It will be deliberated separately and not as a part of the Consent Agenda.
    • Outcome: Motion 34 (475 in favor, 554 opposed)
    • Outcome: Resolution 32 has been removed from Consent Agenda.
  • Motion: Other – Remove Resolution 14: Committing to International Socialists Solidarity from Consent Agenda
    • Nick F., East Bay – Motion to Remove
    • Vote on Motion 33 
      • A Yes vote = Remove Resolution14 from the Consent Agenda.
      • A No vote = Do not remove Resolution 14 from the Consent Agenda.
      • A ⅓ vote is required to remove the resolution. It will be deliberated separately and not as a part of the Consent Agenda.
    • Outcome: Motion 33 (393 in favor, 658 opposed)
    • Outcome: Resolution 14 has been removed from Consent Agenda.


7:00 – 8:30 pm 

Consent Agenda Chair: Sandy Barnard

  • Motion to Adopt Consent Agenda
    • Vote on Motion 32
      • A Yes vote = If you want the Consent Agenda to be adopted and all items on the Consent Agenda to be adopted at once.
      • A No vote = The resolutions will not be adopted.
    • Outcome:  Motion 32 (969 in favor, 63 opposed)
    • Outcome: Consent Agenda has been Adopted.
  • Appeal the Ruling of the Chair, Sarah B., Greater Baltimore – Appeal was misunderstood. The chair did not allow enough time to object to the call to question for voting on the Consent Agenda, which did not reach the quota of 100.
    • Sandy: This is stressful. I do want to keep us going. I apologize. But I do rule that the question was properly called.
  • Motion: Other, Nate S., Southern New Hampshire – Motion to Censure all NPC candidates who chose not to recuse themselves from the NPC ruling overruled by Convention ballot Motion 47.
    • Withdraw this for now considering how far behind schedule the body is. We will submit it some other time.
  • Motion to Amend, Steve C., Cleveland – I motion that any and all resolutions removed from the Consent Agenda be debated in the previously added 30 minute debate block in their numerical resolution order.
    • Sandy: We would take extra 30 minutes on Resolution 14 and Resolution 32. Correction: This was included when we started 30 minutes early today

Resolution #14: Committing to International Socialist Solidarity

  • Luca P., Winston-Salem: Against
    • Like the advocates for this resolution, I oppose US imperialism and support working class internationalism and work self-determination. 
    • I agree that we should oppose coercive sanctions and foreign intervention around the world.
    • The question to the Convention is this: should we support mass parties in government that suppress internal dissent and use state power at the expense of the working class? We have seen the arrest of left activists in Venezuela, for example.
    • Now is the moment for us to both reject authoritarianism and imperialism. 
  • Jack S., New Orlean: For
    • I have been lucky to learn during my schooling of the movements of Cuba, Nicaragua, Venezuela, etc. where folks overcame immense struggle and were able to build socialism in their time. We find ourselves on the cusp of forming relationships with these folks who have gone through these movements. What our Latin American neighbors have accomplished, we here in the USA have only just begun to imagine.  
    • We cannot forget that throughout our neighbors’ struggles through the US colonial domination of the world, our movement, the United States left, has repeatedly failed them. We have sabotaged their and our movement to build socialism. 
    • Louisiana Delegation is in unanimous agreement.
  • Ramy K., Seattle : Against
    • We have to take a firm and strong stance against US imperialism and against US interference in Latin America. There is a strong obligation on us as socialists to stand with the oppressed. 
    • The problem with Resolution 14 is that it states we should support the mass progressive and social democratic parties in Latin America. Some of these very same parties have gotten into power, put in place austerity measures, and worked against the working class people in Latin America. Ex. Dilma Rousseff, leader of the worker party in Brazil. 
  • Elizabeth M. (Author), DSA San Francisco: For
    • We’ve seen the outpouring of discussion, research, and interest in Venezuela since the DSA delegation trip. I am talking to chapter members about topics related to Latin America more than I ever have before. This is the kind of thing that building these relationships gives us. 
    • Are elections fair? Let’s send someone to find out. Let’s go to the forum and find out more. Where can we change people’s minds when we disagree? Let’s build the relationships and find out. We are scientific socialists and the scientific part means engaging with what we’re talking about. 
  • Waleeta C.: Against
    • This resolution is too prescriptive in making political commitment before DSA members have developed political maturity and have the opportunity to engage with internationalism in the ways that we have with electoral and labor work. 
    • This means developing clear and strategic international politics together. 
    • We don’t have enough of an understanding in our organization on how to approach building international coalition’s and what their strategic value is for us to start naming specific organizations we ought to join. 
    • This needs to wait until we have a far clearer picture and vision on internationalism. The chapter toolkit is a great first start and that is the part of the resolution that I do support.  
  • Tom W., West suburban, Illinois: For 
    • Disengagement from these mass movements and DSA political isolationism is a failed strategy. It doesn’t work. This strategy has been a disaster for DSA as we have isolated ourselves from organizations like Foro de São Paulo or its member organizations. It is a big tent organization spanning a cosmos of ideologies and DSA would not lose any of our autonomy by joining.
    • It is a huge tent, there are 124 organizations represented. Including PSUV and the Communist party in Venezuela which is incredibly vocally publicly against PSUV.  
    • Resolution 14 will expand our international solidarity by lightyears. It is a culmination of our most successful work. 
  • Results: (694 in favor, 369 opposed)
  • Outcome: Resolution 14 has been adopted.

Resolution #32: Strengthening YDSA

  • Kristen C., NYC: For
    • This resolution strengthens the DSA youth section in four ways:
      • Hiring more YDSA staff. We only have two staff for 150 chapters and organizing committees.
      • Through providing stipends for YDSA’s nine National Coordination Committee members.
      • Through setting up mentorship support for YDSAers
      • Giving YDSA’s national leadership decision making power over YDSA’s expenses. 
    • Diablo Valley College in East Bay is an example, we saw them translate this model into power. 
    • We need systematized, material investments into the most strategic parts of our organization.
  • Emma D., At-Large, : Against
    • Proponents of this resolution and I agree on strengthening YDSA, but this proposal is misguided.
    • The resolution has an absurd price tag. It would allocate an additional $401,444 to YDSA annually for staff and budget. This would bring YDSA’s funding to over $770k minimum, that’s 12% of DSA’s budget for 1% of DSA’s membership. 
    • This resolution would also silo YDSA from DSA. It would create an autonomous student activist organization rather than a youth wing of the organization guided by and accountable to the NPC.
  • Jake C., YDSA NYC: For
    • The opponents of this resolution claim that by passing these stipends, it would turn NCC members’ roles into 10 hour per week jobs and that we would expect less work of our student leaders to make the position accessible. This is a great argument for what we should expect from our leaders and how YDSA should operate, but it ignores the reality of how the largest youth socialist organization in the US actually operates. Running YDSA requires infrastructure and support for our chapters. 
    • With only 2 staff, YDSA’s national leaders have no choice, but to take on work beyond the scope of political leadership. 
    • NCC members are expected to make social media and communication plans, plan regular phone banks, and assist chapter chairs on top of being a full time student. 
  • Sumter A., Atlanta: Against
    • I am acutely aware of YDSA’s strengths and weaknesses as I am a member of NLC and as co-chair of this year’s YDSA Convention.
    • YDSA, if granted the disproportionate budget and power over staff described here, would retreat into siloing away from DSA and, as a result, the broader socialist movement. 
    • DSA also simply cannot afford Resolution 32.
  • Ajmal A.: For
    • With this resolution, we want to increase YDSA with serious material investment.
    • Financial situation is actually stronger than ever before. The income estimate for 2021 is $6.5 million and our assets as of June 2021 were $4 million. 
    • It was personally cumbersome to serve on the NCC as my parents, who had union jobs in the airport, didn’t have disposable income that would have made my life easier in school. I find myself in a tricky job situation between working nonstop in the winters and summers, ultimately finding that does not work. In turn, I ended up taking huge loans to help with rent and basics.  
  • Jacob, YDSA UVA: Against
    • I am against this resolution as it prioritizes throwing money around. I see this instead as a serious organizing problem
    • We are trying to build a long term socialist organization. This resolution attempts to alleviate a lack of delegation, lack of leadership development, and lack of participation in the organization by throwing money at the issue. 
    • I strongly support strengthening YDSA. There is a way to do it without passing this resolution. Reach out to your local YDSA and give them support. 
  • Results: Resolution 32 (441 in favor, 639 opposed)
  • Outcome: Resolution 32 fails.

***

Resolution #33: A Resolution to Better Compile Resolutions

Resolution #35: Spanish Translation & Bilingual Organizing

Resolution #37: Medicare for All Committee Convention Recommendations

Resolution #2: Formation of a National Committee for Reparations to Black People

Resolution #3: Empowering DSA’s Mass Abolition Work

Resolution #4: Mass Campaign for Voting Rights

Resolution #12: 2021 Ecosocialist Green New Deal Priority

Resolution #21: Prioritizing Tenant Organizing — Resolution by the Housing Justice Commission

Resolution #24: Towards Size Inclusivity

Resolution #28: Building Transformative Justice through a National Committee of Grievance Officers

Resolution #31: Making DSA a Multiracial and Anti-Racist Organization

Constitution/Bylaws Changes 

Chair: Natalie Midiri

Chair Notes:

  • Voting takes about 5 minutes: we will move on to other Orders of Business during this time and announce results of votes when they are fully tabulated.
  • We will be debating subsidiary amendments during this session. This means that we will have two speakers (one for and against) the main item of business and after this the body will move to debate any proposed amendments to the item. A vote will be taken on the amendment(s) and the body will move back to the main item (amended or not) for a vote on it. 

Constitutional/Bylaw Change #1: Strike Regional Requirements for National Conventions 

  • Honda W., NYC: For
    • There are three reasons to vote for CB 1:
      • It will save money (allow us to have multi year deals). We spent over budget at the last Convention.
      • It will save staff time and give staff additional bandwidth to address any unexpected issues. It allows us to plan ahead. 
      • Sets political priorities. We can support organized labor by holding Conventions at union venues. Can reallocate money
      • The National Director laid out a grim future. This can help save money.
      • Vote yes on CB1, vote no on the Amendments.
  • Joseph C., New Orleans: Against
    • Against CB1-A1 and CB1 in its current form. Would likely vote for CB1 if CB1-A1 was passed (along with Delegation).
    • We are not the capital of the US nor are we Congressional voting members. What I mean by that is we don’t convene every other week and thus we already have minimized travel. Organizations can continue to effectively plan for a better world by alternating locations. Want to think of comrades in Alaska and Hawaii for instance.
    • It is a socialistic imperative to avoid establishing power in certain chapters: embrace diversity.

*** Mote to debate on CB1-A***

Amendment #1 to Constitution/Bylaws Changes #1

  • Renee P, East Bay: For
    • It’s good to take out the requirement in our Constitution that rotates Conventions: if we were to repeat Conventions in particular areas, we can save money.
    • The main amendment substitutes one rigid requirement for another that limits the ability to decide where to hold a Convention.
    • We cannot know what the future holds and what Convention set up will make the most sense for us. Important for NPC to have flexibility
    • If pass this unamended, won’t be able to hold in other locations that could be homes to socialists (such as Buffalo)
  • Sandy B, Chicago: Against
    • Will vote for CB1 with or without amendment, urges to pass unamended
    • CB1 is about striking out outdated and unnecessary language, but it is also about adding new criteria that we do want to see. Such as:
      • Minimizing travel
      • Minimizing travel costs
      • Minimizing lodging costs in union hotels
    • Chicago would probably meet that criteria best, but there are other cities in the Midwest that are travel hubs. Although, most of their Convention hubs are not in right to work states or are in labor hostile states. The thing that would change that is passing the PRO Act.
    • Chicago wants and has the capacity to hold a Convention.
  • Samuel L., NYC: For
    • This unamended CB change is too prescriptive. Staff and leadership put a lot of time into planning events, and the Constitution shouldn’t tie hands unnecessarily. Don’t need to add new constraints.
    • The language about criteria listed in CB1 is vague and subjective. I don’t want the validity of an entire Convention to be challenged because of location. I hope you will vote for the amendment and then for the amended CB change. 
  • Staci O., Los Angeles: Against
    • Supports CB1 as it is written. This amendment weakens the purpose by removing some important guidelines.
    • Current requirement to rotate is ineffective and expensive: CB1 aims to simplify this and does so by removing that requirement while adding guidelines and flexibility. Chicago is just a recommendation, and the guidelines this amendment seeks to remove are important.
    • Want to minimize distance in average travel costs, how many Delegates have to travel, the housing costs (while continuing to patronize union sites).
  • Nate S., Southern New Hampshire: For
    • I want flexibility within the Constitution. Ultimately, the NPC should make the decision, this shouldn’t be forced by the Constitution.
    •  There are other mitigating factors that exist that should be considered that could be limited by having a set criteria- such as security. 
    • If we want these criteria we should vote for NPC candidates who follow it, but it should not be in the Constitution itself. 
  • Mitchy R., At-large: Against
    • Support of CB1, but not this subsidiary amendment. Flexibility currently offered by Constitution is important, but many At-Large and rural members can’t tap into chapter base for travel and housing. Don’t have ties to other Delegates that can help split costs. Has full faith in NPC to consider those factors, there are many Delegates at this virtual Convention that aren’t typically able to be at an in-person Convention.
    • It’s important to have language making the Convention as accessible as possible.
  • Request for Information: Does recommend mean that the NPC will have to follow this criteria laid out in the amendment if unforeseen conditions come up?
    • Honda W., NYC: No- it just means and says “best meet”. It does not require or mandate anything.
  • Chair asks if possible to pass through acclimation. 
    • If Delegates object to CB1-A1, they are asked to raise their hand.
    • The chair sees far more than 100 objections so the body will proceed to roll call vote for CB1-A1.
  • Recess by chair to address technical difficulties, adopted by acclimation.
  • Results: CB1: A1 (659 Yes, 392 No)
  • Outcome: Amendment is adopted.

***return to debate on the newly amended CB1***

  • Will B., Chicago: For
    • Opposed amendment, still proud to support CB1 as amended.
    • Believe that is vital in terms of cost and maximizing members’ ability to participate.
    • Many left organizations have long term contracts with hotels. This would let members know what to expect. Please vote yes on CB1.
  • Michal N., Los Angeles: Against
    • Any motion about this should incorporate some idea of a hybrid Convention. The expense involved in bringing, what could be in two years, roughly ~2000 Delegates to Convention seems exorbitant. What we are doing now is fairly alienating, but future DSA Conventions should consider a hybrid form, especially as the organization grows in size.
  • Point of Privilege: Mike H., Charlotte Metro
    • Wants clarification of committee’s Standing Rules regarding debate of resolutions. All Slack channels regarding debate of resolutions are closed, and no public channels for debate on Slack. Delegates can have online debate on Cadence. This seems hypocritical.
    • Chair: After consulting the Parliamentarian and pulling Standing Rules, there’s no provision in our Standing Rules about Slack. It’s a channel that’s set up to communicate about Convention, but rules of debate are for speaking on Zoom. Within staff and the Steering Committee’s discretion to choose what’s open or closed on conference Slack.
  • Call the Question – Lawrence D., Boston
    • Motion is seconded and is adopted by acclimation.
  • Chair asks if possible to pass by acclimation.
    • Chair sees a very low threshold well under 100 objections.
  • Outcome: Amendment adopted, as amended, by acclamation.

Constitutional/Bylaw Change #5: For a National Leadership Elected by and Accountable to DSA members

  • Haley P., NYC: For
    • Aims to increase transparency and accountability for our elected leadership. It allows DSA members to replace members of the NPC by election when there is a vacancy and it establishes the right of members to recall NPC members.
    • Currently NPC member vacancy is filled by appointment and not by a vote of the membership which results in vacancies filled by someone NPC members know.
    • The organization can do this through online voting.
    • Members, not just NPC, should have the right to recall NPC members. This has been a demand of workers and the socialist movement dating from the Paris commune.
    • Opponents say the 1% threshold of recalling a candidate is too low, but DSAis very big, so this still calls for a high number of members to hit this threshold. That number will only continue to grow as DSA grows. This also does not mean the campaign will succeed.
  • Motion to Divide the Question – Dhaval S., Houston (Motion 66)
    • Divide part 1 and 2 from part 3 and 4 of the resolution. If approved, it would create separate votes for the Constitution amendment and Bylaw amendment related to CB5.
      • The motion is properly seconded.
      • Chair notes far more than 100 objections to Dividing the Question.
    • Outcome: Motion 66, Division of the Question, fails. 
  • Request for Information, Andrew G., Memphis Mid-South
    • CB 5 and CB 3 both establish new methods for filling NPC vacancies, though CB 5 does other things. How would this conflict be resolved if both are adopted?
      • Chair: The second one that is adopted would supersede the others and is official on the matter.
  • Request for Information, Steven B., Centre County
    • To the authors of CB 5, how were the thresholds for recall votes determined?
    • Chair calls on authors to explain how the thresholds were determined:
      • Hailey P.: Active membership is 10% of all members, so 1% is actually 10% of active members. Even if a petition was considered for recall, members would have to still vote for the recall.
  • David D., NYC: Against
    • As a general principle, I am against proposals that ask members to devote more time to managing national leadership.
    • Does not want to extend Convention season beyond allotted months. This is impractical and expensive for DAS to hold the election to replace NPC members.
    • More elections means we need volunteers to keep up with more information, especially as the workload is already heavy.
    • The effort to get these recalls would be a tremendous amount of time and energy that could be spent elsewhere. Other ways to deal with NPC members who should be recalled through malfeasance or being absent. We have mechanisms to deal with this. 
  • Hakan Y., NYC: For
    • Convention season, especially when talking about controversies regarding the NPC, already exists between Conventions. People can always criticize the NPC.
    • This amendment does four things:
      • Institutes a recall process which is common in unions and left wing parties all over the world.
      • Creates a mechanism to fill NPC vacancies through elections which is more democratic than NPC handpicking their own successors.
      • Creates a mechanism to shelve dead working groups, which is a concern among many comrades.
      • It also creates a mechanism for transparency. 
    • This is important in case of allegations of abuse or serious misconduct.
  • Allison Z., Tidewater: Against
    • Being in Tidewater DSA, is sensitive to the needs of small chapters. Many comrades aren’t as connected to DSA National politics and are isolated from factional politics (especially what they’ve seen this week).
    • Recall is a good idea, but 1% is an absurdly low threshold that can be easily obtained by national caucuses and larger chapters, but not smaller chapters. Larger chapters and factions would also be highly activated by these elections, allowing them to get a greater percentage of quorum.
    • After the problems that the body has seen this week, this is the wrong way to proceed. This will incentivize the few most highly activated members to forego work in favor of politics: smaller chapters cannot afford this.
    • Language here is inappropriate and would severely hurt smaller chapters.
  • Phil G., Madison Area: For
    • Very sympathetic to small chapters feeling disconnected, but creating more democracy is the best way to connect membership with what’s happening at the National level. CB 5 will do that.
    • Threshold isn’t too low: it’s difficult to get people to sign onto Convention resolutions and amendments. Doesn’t think people would attempt to do this in a frivolous way.
    • The body can vote online relatively quickly and relatively cheaply.
    • As similar processes exist in many organizations and unions, DSA, a socialist organization should include it as well. Should have greater democratic control than what exists in capitalist elections where people only get to vote every two or four years and then wait until the next election to remove somebody from office.
  • Jeffrey B., New Orleans: Against
    • Communication between smaller chapters is very difficult. This does serve to squash out the ability of smaller chapters to have a voice.
    • After witnessing the chaos of the current NPC election, does not want to repeat that several times between Conventions.
  • Chair asks if there is support in the body to adopt this by acclimation.
    • There are over 100 objections so the body will move to roll call vote.
  • Parliamentary Inquiry, Cameron M., Winston-Salem
    • Is it in order to accept a CB amendment by acclamation considering the 2/3 majority required?
      • Chair: Yes. If objections over Zoom were within the 100 threshold, I would use discretion to proceed to roll call vote any way. But if less than 100 objections, then clearly within threshold for ⅔ majority.
  • Outcome: CB 5 (236 in Favor, 799 Opposed)
  • Outcome: Amendment fails.

Constitutional/Bylaw Change #4: Electing DSA’s National Director

  • Nick F., East Bay: For
    • We need to recognize that the Director already exerts enormous influence on the direction of the organization. It is not merely an administrative role. NPC members who want to get anything done have a strong incentive to go along with staff recommendations. Staff have direct control over a $6 million budget which makes it difficult for leaders to get information. It has gone so far as to force NPC members to sign NDAs. Staff use their unique power and knowledge they use over operations to control the NPC and this Convention.
    • NPC members are volunteers and simply don’t have time to push back in a different direction. 
    • The staff is known to influence NPC behind scenes, sometimes at the direction of the National Director. This can drag feet on priorities.
  • Grayson L., Orlando: Against
    • National Director is not and has not been the most powerful position in DSA. It is a staff position under the authority of the NPC both legally and functionally. NPC has full authority over almost all DSA matters, except for Convention. That includes the ability to hire and fire the National Director.
    • Invoking a new election on top of NPC election would be an undue burden on DSA.
    • This would also not democratize DSA in a functional sense. The National Director is not the final say on staffing decisions. This would only further factionalize DSA. We do not need a president. We need to build up structures, organization, and administrative capacity as an organization.
  • Philip L., Seattle: For
    • This proposal is fundamental for democratic reform in DSA. There’s no escaping that personalities and spokespeople in positions in DSA are political positions. The National Director is not an administrative or non-political position.
    • The National Director makes key decisions about staffing and priorities. They have a lot of information and that information is power. Let’s make the role accountable and transparent: we should know where the director stands on controversial decisions and debates within DSA.
    • Nothing wrong with it being a political role, but we need transparency and accountability. 
  • Ziv K., Lower Hudson Valley: Against
    • Now is not the time to subject the National Director to an election process. This would subject DSA to more infighting. This is a shared view by comrades at Lower Hudson Valley DSA.
    • DSA does not need a president.
    • The organization needs to be more about the individual members who make this work a reality. We need to build up DSA as an organization and can’t allow an election process with the potential for faction infighting get in the way of that.
  • Steven B., Centre County: For
    • Support electing the National Director and and it should represent the will of the members or the will of the Delegates.
    • Can sympathize with the view that the National Director role should be an administrative job, however this is a political position because they are the leader of the organization. This should reflect the will of the Delegates and members
    • One argument that has been posed is that we should have another election. Why not? Why shouldn’t we elect the National Director?
  • Megan R., Southwest Louisiana: Against
    • It’s offensive that folks are pushing the idea that staff is politicized. Beyond being socialists, we explicitly do not want staff members to be factional. We do not want one caucus to choose their charismatic leader and put them in the National Director position.
    • Does not want to do “this” (this being debating on a Friday night) every three months.
    • We do not need the pathway of caucus infighting that this will take us down. 
  • Chair asks if the body can pass by acclimation.
    • There are over 100 objections, proceed to roll call vote.
  • Outcome: (256 in favor, 811 opposed)
  • Outcome: Amendment fails. 

NPC Recommendations

  • Marianela D.: Introduction of the NPC Recommendations
    • NPC has been able to build consensus around the kinds of changes that we would like to see in our organization. Organization is vastly different from what it was even just a years ago, so that’s why we are putting up this set of recommendations for improvement.
    • The NPC did make an oversight in terms of how much notice to give the Convention. Instead of asking the Convention to adopt these, we are instead asking all of you to review and think about them and recommend them to the next NPC. The next NPC can provide recommendations at the 2023 Convention with proper notice.
  • Kristian H., NPC member: For
    • At the state level, reactionary state legislators are implementing laws to limit the power of workers to organize and win much needed resources. While we have wins at the municipal level, those wins can be taken away by the state itself. Have to fight back. 
    • Asking Delegates to support unanimous NPC recommendations to prioritize statewide organizations over the formulation of regional bodies. State level structures are fundamental to supporting statewide organizing to ensure the growth of OCs, chapters, and At-Large members. 
    • When we pass this recommendation, we can begin building state level organizations which can deepen chapter relationships and move them to state-wide action. This will support existing electoral work and public power fight.
  • Motion to Postpone Indefinitely: Nathaniel P., Chico – Refer the NPC recommendations which alter the Constitution or Bylaws to the next NPC for consideration.
    • This is intended for the recommendations, not the resolutions.
      • Chair rules the motion out of order because it is not germane to the item on the floor. The Delegate can bring this up again when the body gets to that section and it has Constitution and Bylaws amendments on the floor.
  • Ziv K., Lower Hudson Valley: Against
    • This would sideline local and regional chapters in favor of state wide organizations. This, whilst well intentioned, does not make any provision for coordination of the state, local, and regional organizations. 
  • Tal L., Los Angeles: For
    • Delegate has been working on founding a state organization in CA that would connect the chapters in the state. 
    • California is a one-party state and is dominated by a business-friendly Democratic Party that is uninterested in helping working people. When COVID hit, the governor issued an even weaker moratorium than Trump. It prioritized payments to landlords over well-behind and unhoused people.
    • DSA has struggled because of lack of organization. It took a while to form Prop 15 calls. Smaller chapters here are isolated. Need this resolution so other state organizations don’t go through the same difficulties as California has.
    • Worked hard to build Bylaws from scratch and worked on legal issues. Other chapters should go through the same process.
  • Xavier D., Green Country: Against
    • This privileges state organizations over regional ones. There is a place for expanding regional organizations in DSA, such as Western Great Plains.
    • Will likely still vote yes, but wants Delegates to think about expanding regional organizations and what these organizations are for.
  • Christian A., Suffolk County: For
    • During the past year, members in the state continued to organize against Andrew Cuomo and his allies. Our chapters must be coordinated and campaign effectively by working within one state body in which we can regularly collaborate on statements, campaign planning, and action planning. It will best use members’ capacity and not exhaust them.
    • Important to have a state-wide function for chapters to coordinate. Also need to coordinate mutual aid and state-wide efforts. 
  • Allan A., At-Large: Against
    • Primary concern is notification fatigue and difficulty in responding to local conditions and concerns.
    • Delegate organized a lot regionally in Central IL and drove between communities. One of the biggest sources of burnout is notification fatigue. A statewide body may be able to delegate as a higher priority over local needs.
    • This is premature and we need time to experiment in a less structured sense. This could cause a lot of social latency in organization, and cause inefficiencies that lead to disengagement.
  • Chair asks if can adopt by acclamation.
    • If the chair sees over 100 objections, the body will proceed to a roll call vote.
  • Outcome: Recommendation adopted by acclimation.
  • Makiko J., NPC member: For
    • Has worked very closely with staff, the GDC, and Personnel committee. Over the last two years staff has doubled and have nearly doubled the percentage of staff of color. DSA growth has been exponential over the last few years.
    • We are recommending that the incoming NPC take strategic steps to grow our staff and think of what that will look like over the next five years (spanning from June 2022 to June 2027). The next NPC should research structural possibilities from unions and different political parties abroad. Should take into account resolutions with staffing from past Conventions as well as the current political terrains on which we fight.
    • We recommend that there be a thorough fundraising plan alongside the staffing plan to maintain the strong living wages and benefits all our staff deserve and the financial health of the organization.
  • Hakan Y., New York City: Against
    • Objects to the way that NPC recommendations were done and doesn’t particularly want to voice opinion on them.
      • Chair says that comments need to be germane to items on the form. Keep remarks specific to NPC2-R2.
  • David D., New York City: For
    • Delegate has been on DSA staff twice. Once when they had two and a half people and once when there were 5-10 staffers. Knows the difference a large staff can make. Need more people to mobilize and work together in a collaborative way.
    • While working as the youth organizer, Delegate had to do everything that Michael and Anna (both of who are currently on staff) do. It’s great to have more staff to break tasks up.
  • Motion to Call the Question: Nikhil P., Atlanta
    • Call the Question. Will rescind motion if it doesn’t pass by acclimation.
    • Motion seconded
    • Chair asks participants to raise their hands if they object to Calling the Question. With 100 or more objections debate will continue.
      • Chair sees under 100 objections. Body will proceed to a vote.
    • Chair asks if the body can adopt the recommendation by acclimation.
  • Parliamentary Inquiry, Alex R., Boise – Can the chair call people who have spoken before in different debates. It seems unfair to give people more airtime.
    • Chair notes that the team is trying to ensure space for diversity of voices and not calling on the same people. But, if there are times when nobody else is on stack, the chair will call on speakers who have spoken multiple times before. They are prioritizing people on stack who have not spoken.
  • Outcome: Recommendation adopted by acclimation.
  • Standardization of Committees
  • Motion to Limit Debate, Stephen B., Centre County – Limit debate for any future NPC recommendation to one speaker for and one speaker against.
  • Chair asks participants to raise their hand to oppose motion- over 100 hands raised.
    • Chair asks Delegate if they want to move to a roll call vote or, if reached threshold for objections, would prefer to rescind motion?
    • Stephen B. rescinds their motion.
  • Request for Information, Erin C., High Peaks – Is there a cost estimate for these resolutions like there were for all others?
  • Chair calls on Dave P. to answer the question. 
    • Dave says not to his knowledge.
    • Heidi on DSA staff confirms this.
  • Request for Information, Nate S, Southern New Hampshire – If the time on this debate block runs out will the body consider the remaining NPC recommendations in the next block or will the remaining recommendations be tabled/referred to the next NPC?
  • Chair says the body will continue through Order of Business and treat it as a ranking rather than skipping any items. Unless someone makes a procedural motion otherwise the body will just continue through the Order of Business.
  • Kevin R., NPC member: Introduce this recommendation.
  • The NPC have had two big problems with our national committee system: 
    •  NPC members serve as liaisons to national committees, but there is no clear definition on what this means.
    • Difficult for committees to act as a unified body as they are isolated from each other and the NPC.
  • This resolution aims to fix these aforementioned problems in three ways: 
    • It defines the roles of liaisons so it is clear of the expectations of this role.
    • It creates another role of the NPC Committee Chair, who is expected to play more of an active role in committees.
    • It would require chairs of committees to meet quarterly to facilitate communication.
  • This would be implemented in a twelve month program in collaboration with committees.
  • Sepehr M., NYC: Against
  • The language in this recommendation doesn’t distinguish between committees and working groups.
  • The recommendation should distinguish between the role of chair, liaison, and co-chair. Co-chairing and chairing a committee from the NPC will basically put the committees to work at the full discretion of the NPC. Report backs will be completely based on the plans that the NPC has made.
  • NPC should do MOUs and Bylaws according to the needs of the committee.
  • Chair notes that multiple motions to adjust schedule. It is difficult to stop debate and litigate procedure. Will come back to this after finishing discussion of the item on the floor.
  • Samy A., Providence: For
  • Delegate served as a Steering Committee member for a national group. There’s a lot of inconsistency on what working groups and committees can expect from the NPC. Likes the idea of a chair or liaison from NPC working with national bodies throughout the year.
  • The lack of structure and clear process has led to working groups falling apart.
  • One vote is not a controlling interest and liaison can’t dictate what the committee does. Just intended to communicate progress to the NPC.
  • Speaker notes only speakers “for” on stack. Wants to keep debate fair and equitable. If there are no speakers against, want to move towards ending debate on this.
  • Chair asks if the body can attempt to pass this recommendation by acclimation.
  • Outcome: Recommendation adopted by acclimation

Saturday Debate Block: Saturday, August 7, 11am-2pm ET

Chair: Justin Charles

Chair notes:

  • Voting takes about 5 minutes: will move on to other orders of business and announce results of vote later
  • We have a lot to get through and are behind.
  • Motion to Limit Debate, Steve F., New York City  – Motion to Limit Debate to one speaker for and one against for the NPC recommendations and amendments. 
    • Motion seconded

Over 100 hands raised to object. Motion goes to a roll call vote.

  • Ballot M69
  • Results: Motion 69 (625 in favor, 267 opposed)
  • Outcome: Motion adopted. Speaker limit set to one for and one against. 
  • Chapter Affiliation Agreements
  • Megan Svoboda, NPC member: Introducing the recommendation. 
  • The NPC is recommending the institution of chapter agreements to ensure that DSA and our chapters are working in partnership and a shared vision. These agreements will do two main things:
    • They will establish a baseline for good governance. 
    • It establishes an umbrella tax exemption that would allow chapters to incorporate using the DSA tax ID number. It would make it easier for the national organization to begin due sharing with chapters.
  • Motion to Postpone Indefinitely, Nathaniel P., Chico – Refer the Chapter Affiliation Agreement recommendation to the 2021-2023 NPC.
  • Chair reminds the body that this motion is debatable. 
    • Point of Order – This motion is out of order. The vote on this failed yesterday.
  • Point not well taken as we are on a new day of business.
  • Point of Order, Blake I, – Carrying on the debate will displace duly submitted items from the agenda in violation of Convention rules.
  • Point not well taken. This is a resolution and not a CB change so it is in order for this body to consider it.
  • Request for Information, Aaron C. – Wasn’t the Chapter Agreement proposal a CB amendment? Did it get moved over to the resolution list even though it is a Bylaws change? 
  • Point not well taken. This is a resolution not a CB change.
  • Point of Order, Bryan L., Houston – Is it in order for the NPC to modify Resolution 33 from the 2017 Convention like how the Convention may use NPC R4 to modify Resolution 33?
  • Not everyone may have the information that the Delegate has. Chair requests the Delegate to submit this again with more detail provided. 
  • Alex R., Boise: For
    • Considering the lack of time we have, that decisions are ultimately not binding, and there are more important decisions to be made; calls on the body to vote yes to Postpone Indefinitely.
  • Renée P., East Bay: Against
  • This proposal is an essential part of legal structure that has been needed for a long time. Imperative to approve at this Convention. 
  • Point of Order, Vincent L., Rochester: Refer chair to text of chapter affiliation agreement which includes amendments and a portion regarding a CB change, unless the motivator explicitly ignores those parts.
  • Point well taken. The body can only vote on part one of the recommendation. Part two regarding the CB is not in order. 
  • Erin C., High Peaks: For 
  • These recommendations were dropped so close to Convention that we have not had ample time to consider them nor to bring them to our local chapters. All resolutions should be ruled out of order and tabled. 
  • Adam Ireno A., Binghamton: Against
    • A Motion to Postpone Indefinitely and not to Table/Refer to NPC. That means that this recommendation would not be heard at all. Rather than something like a Motion to Table, for example, this specific motion means we will not get to hear the chapter affiliation agreements at all.
  • Request for Information, Mina S., Middle Tennessee – What about chapters who have already been incorporated? Does the adoption of this affect the incorporation, etc?
    • Chair – You could go through a process to change your incorporation process and we would be supportive through it.
  • Request for Information, Bryan L., Houston – Following up: the motivator regarding the motion to delay said the NPC could enact changes without passing NPC-R4, yet NPC-R4 modifies a Convention’s resolution from 2017. Can the NPC do what the motivator said, amend R33( 2017) without this Convention adopting or referring?
  • Chair – No, the NPC can’t override actions adopted by the Convention. Only the Convention can take action on past actions of the Convention.
  • Point of Order , Sam H., San Francisco – I move for the chair to perform his duty to refuse to recognize dilatory motions – a repeated attempt to Call the Question or Postpone Indefinitely on previously considered items is dilatory and should not be recognized by the chair.
  • Phil G., Madison Area: For
    • Simple democratic grounds. People spent months getting resolutions together and the NPC proposals came in too late. Should not take precedence over resolutions and proposals of membership. This would remove the debate on these issues. None of these issues are so important that we need to push other issues.
  • Thomas H., Milwaukee: Against
  • Procedural motions are inhibiting our ability to discuss the substance of the NPC recommendations. Wish we had more time to deliberate, but debating the substance of the NPC recommendations would help.
  • Ballot M71
  • Results: Motion 71 (731 opposed, 237 in favor)
  • Outcome: Motion fails.

***move to debate for amendment NPC4-A1 to Chapter Affiliation Agreements***

  • Amendment to Chapter Affiliation Agreements 
  • NPC4-A1
  • Renée P., East Bay: Introducing amendment R4
  • Attorney working with grievances for DSA. If not currently separately incorporated, the chapter is covered by the national organization’s insurance. If you are independently incorporated, you no longer are under that insurance. National always provides legal support. With this amendment we are affirming something we’re already doing.
  • Motion to Limit Debate, Michaelangelo P., Mid-Hudson Valley – Limit debate to one for and one against for all motions during the remainder of debate for NPC recommendations. 
  • Motion is properly seconded.
  • Objections via hand raise on Zoom tapped out at 92 hands.
  • Outcome: Motion passed by acclamation.
  • Parliamentary Inquiry, Charlotte A., New York City – Do motions to “Move the Previous Question” supersede debate/for against the motion on the floor? During the M71 debate, the chair did not recognize these.
  • Chair – No, Moving the Previous Question does not supersede. 
  • Eric S., Richmond
  • Motion: Other – Call roll call (yeas and nays) for “Limiting 1 speaker for and 1 speaker against for all motions”.
  • Chair rules out of order.
  • Request for Information, Keith A., Dayton-Miami Valley – Would the chair please consult with the author of this amendment – since the amendment describes NPC’s need to consult legal counsel before implementation, would that counsel be able to modify the text of this amendment, or would they simply be able to veto the amendment we are now voting on? 
  • This would require a legal opinion.
  • Point of Privilege, Jeffrey B., New Orleans – I want to point out that the high density of procedural motions has put us very much behind schedule. It has been nearly an hour and a half and we have just voted on our first item of business. Please be respectful of this body’s time when making procedural motions going forward.

NPC4-A1 (Ballot to consider amendment to NPC4-R4)

  • Chair reminds Amendment would add language to clarify that DSA would continue to provide legal support to chapters.
  • Results:  (886 in favor, 72 opposed)
  • Outcome: Amendment adopted.

NPC4-R4 as amended.

  • Chair asks for a raise of hands to mark objections.
    • Did not reach the 100 threshold.
  • Outcome: NPC4-R4, as amended, is adopted.
  • Keon Liberato, NPC member: Introduce the recommendation
    • Working to take organization to the next level. We must have a healthy grievance process. The weaponization and circumvention of the system. Needs constant iteration to meet the needs of our growing organization. These updates include four proposals that are the product of many hours of discussion between the NPC, National Harassment and Grievance Officer, and our HGOs across the country. 
  • Tamer A., Chicago: Against
    • In the Consent Agenda, we passed something about the grievance process. Should be more considered and not just created by the NPC. The network of HGOs across the country should take this up as well. The NPC may possibly not be the best to take this on. 
  • Point of Privilege, Sam H., San Francisco – In order to respect the body’s ability to expedite business, I request that the chair:
    • Exercise his right to refuse dilatory motions to end debate on individual debate sections which are always going to take longer than debate.
    • Require any procedural motions to include the text “if not passed by acclamation, I request debate and a floor vote” in order to actually move forward.
    • Both are in order for the chair to request from the body.

***move to debate on the amendments to the Grievance Process Recommendation***

NPC5-A1

  • Nate K., Atlanta: For
    • Let chapters expel people. The NPC wants to rewrite the rules so expulsions are less than three years and suspensions less than one year. Expulsion as written here is just a suspension. This takes away autonomy from local chapters to make this decision. Chapters lack institutional memory and will have to rediscover abusive behavior if someone is readmitted.
  • Preston M., Austin: Against
    • After 3 years, the chapter can establish conditions for expelled members to rejoin and, if there are debates, it then gets referred to the NPC. The expelled member does not get automatically allowed back in the chapter after the time has lapsed. 
  • Chair asks for hand raises for objections. Over 100 objections. The body will proceed to a roll call vote. 
    • Ballot open for NPC5-A1.
  • Results: (544 in favor, 414 opposed.) 
  • Outcome: Amendment is adopted.

NPC5-A2

  • Miguel C., Los Angeles: For
    • Need to clarify and flesh out Resolution 33 regarding harassment and misconduct. Need more robust protocols for confidentiality. Understand why NPC and NGO made these recommendations, but language contained within is problematic and open to loose interpretation that could end up backfiring. 
  • Frances R., East Bay: Against
    • This amendment strikes a large portion of the NPC’s language that grievances must be treated with strict confidentiality. If you want an accountable body, please vote no.
  • Chair asks for hand raises for objections. Objections over 100.
  • Ballot for NPC5-A2
  • 5 minute recess to resolve technical issues tabulating.
  • Results: (432 in favor, 571 opposed)
  • Outcome: Amendment fails. 

***Return to NPC5***

  • Roll call vote. Ballot NPC5-R5 is open.
  • Results: (581 in favor, 395 opposed)
  • Outcome: Resolution, as amended, is adopted.
  • Motion to Refer, Jennifer B., San Francisco – Refer CB changes to the 2021–2023 NPC.
    • Chair asks for objections over Zoom.
    • Does not meet the 100 threshold. 
  • Outcome: Motion to Refer passes. The CB changes are referred to the 2021-2023 NPC.

Constitution/Bylaws Changes

Constitutional/Bylaw Change #3: Adding Candidate Membership to the NPC

CB3

  • Ryan Mosgrove, DC: For
    • Affects the process by which vacancies are filled. Adds four additional candidate membership seats. This protects integrity of the Convention; currently the method is that NPC nominates someone, which would cause other issues of facionalization. Would create a smoother process for new NPC members coming to the body when they fill a vacancy.
  • Ziv K., Lower Hudson Valley: For
    • This makes sense to have vacancies filled immediately by these candidate members. This enables 
  • Thomas H., Milwaukee, Against
    • This would undermine the ability of the Convention to give clear mandate regarding the NPC. If applied, it would mean that 3 lowest vote winners would be candidates for NPC. This would serve to undermine the mandate of the Convention. 
  • Motion to Call the Question, Sarah B., Greater Baltimore – Motion to call the question on C/B Change #3
  • Over 100 hands raised in objection. Debate will continue. 
  • Andrew G., Memphis-Midsouth: Against
    • If we are filling vacancies based on the losers of the election, this is still less democratic control than Delegates like us electing a group of NPC members we trust and trusting them to fill vacancies. 
  • Evan C., Metro Cincinnati & Northern Kentucky: For
    • In principle, special elections are better to replace NPC vacancies. CB3 gives the Convention the power to select who fills vacancies. Although it is slightly problematic this year due to only 20 candidates this year, hopefully in the future we will have more. It will more closely preserve the will of the Convention. As it currently stands, people who leave don’t get to vote.
  • Request for Information, Brandon J., Greater Lansing – Does CB3 treat the candidate members as a separate electoral office from the NPC or do “losers” to the NPC get to be candidate members?
  • Ryan M: It would be the top four runners-up in the NPC election. Depends on the voting method also.
  • Request for Information, Bingjiefu H., Charlotte Metro – If CB3 passes, would it apply to our current Convention & NPC election or will it take effect starting from the next Convention?
  • Ryan: My understanding is that this CB change doesn’t go into effect right away.
  • Nick C., Louisville: Against
    • The method for having candidate membership is flawed. Votes at the Convention for positions 17-20 are not necessarily reflective of who we would want to be on our bench. Consider this concept in the future by having a separate election for candidate members.
  • Chair asks for objections for acclamation for CB3: Over 100 hands raised in objection.
  • Ballot open for CB3.
  • Results: (387 in favor, 632 opposed)
  • Outcome: CB change not adopted. 

Constitutional/Bylaw Change #6: Establishing a National Organizing Committee

CB6

  • Renee P., East Bay: Motivating Author
  • We’ve seen that there are serious issues in our organization and it would be better if we had a space to talk about it. The NOC would create an intermediate body in between chapters and NPC and it would be at least 100 members elected regionally. Right now our NPC has multiple jobs. This would broaden our leadership layer and take things off the NPC’s plate. Provide constituent services in a way. Members would have a rep for their region that could tell them what’s happening on the national level. Similar to CLC in NYC. 
  • Michaela B., River Valley: Against
  • Being a chapter chair in a large, but rural region has given insight into the capacity we currently have. This will further distance us. We need more engagement and interaction with national leaders as well as chapter leaders. Further distancing our membership from our leadership isn’t going to expand the capacity and skills of our membership. Need more onboarding into national committees, trust our formation around growth and development to enact beyond 100k. Will go a long way in creating a more cohesive organization without undermining the Convention.

***move to debate amendments to CB 6***

Amendment #2 to Constitution/Bylaws Change #6
CB6-A2

  • Frances G., New Orleans: Motivating Author
    • Subsidiary amendment 2 for CB6. Critical need for connections between local and national. Go a long way to building a more effective organization but won’t succeed as currently written. If passed without amendments, we will double down on the same problems that plague us now. Amendment prevents the committee from having any formal decision making power until a supermajority. Not equipped to fight back at right wing assaults but we can get there. 
  • Luca P., Winston-Salem: Against
    • Would not overcome the basic problem of vesting authority in an indirectly elected body, less accountable to membership. In NYC rank and file members from each branch directly elect their CMC reps. Empowers the NOC to purge its own members for absences, etc. 
  • Samuel S., Los Angeles: For
    • NOC elected from electoral colleges looks too much like a senate. In a situation where we need a middle level of leadership because communication with 60 members is difficult. We’re nearly at 100k and we’re getting bigger.
    • Resolution #(number): (Resolution Title)
  • Chair asks for adoption by acclamation. Objections reach 83 hands- below the threshold.
  • Outcome: Amendment adopted by acclimation.

Amendment #3 to Constitution/Bylaws Change #6

CB6-A3

  • David D, NYC: Motivating Author
    • Delegate has concerns about another amendment and amendments that extend Convention season. Concerns that anybody can change the Bylaws. Proposing that power to change Bylaws should rest in Convention alone.
  • Chair asks for adoption by acclamation.
    • Objections do not meet threshold. 
  • Outcome: Amendment adopted by acclimation.

***move back to debate on CB 6 as amended***

  • Tal L., Los Angeles: For
  • This is the type of governing structure DSA needs in concert with previously passed resolutions to prioritize building state organizations across the US. First develop at chapter level, then with development working with state and regional organizations, and finally helping to govern the national organization. Strongly establish better connections between national leadership and various chapters.
  • Halsey H., New York City: Against
  • It attempts to solve a problem, but as it is written will not. Do not have enough leaders in DSA for policymaking if we take 100 from the local level to do this every three months. Will pull local leaders further away from national leadership. The CLC silos decision-making power away from general membership and needs amending. Encourage the next NPC to grow its size to 25.
  • Samuel L., New York City: For
  • This can help us build a more cohesive national organization. The work largely takes place in committees, working groups, etc that operate at national level but are siloed from each other. Committee that’s national in scope can be the place for leaders who do want to get involved and want to work on national committees to also participate in democratic forums.
  • Request for Information, Phillip B., Delaware – How will this body facilitate or not the relationship of chapter committees with national working committees?
  • Renee: We didn’t provide any specific guidance there. The thought is however that with more people in leadership positions it would lead to better coordination. 
  • Tristan B., Chicago: Against
  • Doing this through a 100 person committee rather than through strategic campaigns has a stronger likelihood of burning out developing leaders than getting them to develop the national organization. This body will be likely factional, dysfunctional, and will distract 100 of our best from working on external-facing organizing. It will be highly time consuming. Would name the national Convention less democratically powerful. 
  • Chair asks if there are objections: Over 100. Body will move to roll call vote.
  • Ballots open for CB6.
  • Results: (315 in favor, 727 opposed)
  • Outcome: CB 6 not adopted.

Saturday Debate Block: Saturday, August 7, 2pm-5pm ET

Chair: Walker Green

Constitutional/Bylaw Change #7: Hold All Leadership Elections by Single Transferable Vote

CB 7

  • Moira M, Buffalo: Motivating Author
  • DSA needs standards for its elections. No consistency between and within chapters. Electoral systems should be supported based on their democratic merits. STV rises to the task. 
  • Waleeta C., Chicago: Against
  • Not merely administrative streamlining of a process. This amendment takes the decision out of the hands of operational bodies. STV’s purpose encourages strong factional unity. Chapter members need flexibility to discuss which system best applies and this system doesn’t allow that. 
  • Gabriel S., Atlanta: For
  • We need a basis of democracy to ensure we are setting an example for other forms in the country. Something that represents voices. STV voting used to elect DSA Delegates and NPC. Make sure every voice is represented. Democratic over political. 
  • Sean D., Chicago: Against
  • Misguided to have one kind of voting system. Some folks are disadvantaged under this system. Example: a candidate with 52% voters was elected Alternate, while another with only 20% was elected as a Delegate. Not difficult for partisan actors to win representation using STV. 
  • Matt M., Boston: For
  • This is a proportional voting system that ensures representation. It’s hard to tactically vote under STV except in rare circumstances. One standard of voting will reduce confusion and make it more accessible. Almost 100k members, nowhere near enough. STV makes it easier to speak our truths boldly and we need to make choices and say what we need.
  • Ana P., Austin: Against
  • Using STV to prioritize proportionality might make sense for national, but for all chapters denies autonomy and positive experience with alternatives to STV. Score voting works well in Austin. Prioritizes broad support and a positive approach to leadership orgs. Easy to understand and doesn’t require software. Fosters an environment of cooperation. 
  • Request for Information, Olga L., Los Angeles – How would the type of STV be selected? Is that left up to the individual chapters?
  • Moira: Yes, up to individual chapters.
  • Request for Information, Daniel K., Central Indiana – Would someone *please* explain the different approaches without going political science jargon giraffe? How does each approach work?
  • Moira – Would not consider Borda even close to the next best thing as STV. It is mathematically vulnerable. Borda enables gaming of an election. 
  • Division of a Question, Derrick L., Silicon Valley – Divide the Question to consider voting for local chapter officers separately from voting for regional / state / national orgs.
  • Properly seconded.
  • Ballot vote for Motion 74.
  • Results: (386 in favor, 635 opposed)
  • Outcome: Motion to Divide the Question fails. 
    • Point of Order, Sean D., Chicago  – This motion is out of order. A Division of the Question has to divide specific text in the motion.
      • Point not well taken.
  • Request for Information, Daniel K., Central Indiana – since she used the time to trash other systems and push her view, would someone else please explain STV?
  • The chair will note that Moira’s comments can be viewed as debate. Our apologies as the comments came out that way. 
  • Point of Order, Liz R., Dayton-Miami Valley – Can the chair please try to be mindful of making sure smaller, less central chapters are represented when putting speakers on stack? Several large chapters, including two from the same city, just spoke against CB6, when the decision would also have a profound effect on smaller chapters.
  • Chair will take under advisement, but please note stack is considered by Robert’s Rules of Order and the number of times the Delegate has already spoken in the debate.
  • Request for Information, Emily A., San Francisco – Are Delegates to Convention national or regional/local elections?
  • Chair defers to the Parliamentarian. The Parliamentarian interprets that Delegate elections are local elections.
  • Request for unanimous consent
  • Objections 100+
  • Goes to vote.
  • Ballot for CB 7, requires a ⅔ vote for adoption.
  • Results: (320 in favor, 723 opposed)
  • Outcome: CB 7 is not adopted. 

Platform

  • Justin Charles, NYC, NPC member: Introducing the DSA Platform. 
  • We are near 100k members and at a turning point. We need tangible steps to lead us to the future we want to build. This is the statement we are putting out to those who are thinking about joining us and those who are not. Putting together this plan for a platform. 
  • Time proposal:
  • If 3 for 3 against each, it will take the body 2-3 hours to debate alone.
  • Suspend the Rules for consideration of platform amendments by Limiting Debate to one speaker for and one opposed. 
  • Outcome: Motion passes by unanimous consent.
  • Alex R., Boise: Against
  • Firmly against the adoption of the platform. The development of the platform was done by an appointed committee and not by a democratically elected body. Something so important should be up to a democratic body. A political program should be a list of the political tasks of the working class. We need a program that is for the establishment of the rule of the working class, especially by breaking from Democrats. Platform does not go far enough.
  • Brendan D., At-Large: For
  • Irish Republican Caucus. The cause of Ireland is labor and the cause of labor is Ireland. Cannot find anything on the platform to disagree with. As a basic start, it is fantastic and we must pass it. 
  • Alexander H., Atlanta: Against
  • The proposed DSA platform is class reductionist and should be rejected. Harmless, albeit useless. 

Platform Amendment #2 Green New Deal Amendment text

  • Rory G., Chicago: Motivating Author
  • There are 7 guiding principles for an ecosocialist GND. The unamended text lacks cohesion and an organizational theory of power that the other ones have. It is essential that we stop line three. Demands exist in the totality of GND principles. DSA has a powerful opportunity to reaffirm principles by voting yes.
  • Chair asks if the body can pass the amendment with unanimous consent.
  • Outcome: Passed by unanimous consent.

Platform Amendment #1 International Solidarity Amendment text

  • Chip G., Metro DC: Motivating Author
  • Put together a platform consistent with actual statements based on our actual work. Very little of that text made it into the second draft. 
  • Brandon J., Greater Lansing: Against
  • Opposed to this particular plank as it removes any mention of the Kurdish community from our platform. Grant them recognition on our platform.
  • Request for Information, Christian A., Suffolk County – What is the vote threshold for the platform amendments?
  • A simple majority vote.
  • Chair asks to pass with unanimous consent. Over 100 objections.
  • Move to roll call vote, ballot Motion 75.
  • Results: (519 in favor, 419 opposed)
  • Outcome: Amendment is adopted. 

Platform Amendment #6 Economic Justice Plank Amendment text

  • Grayson L, Orlando: Motivating Author
  • Worked on with another comrade to expand on the public banking within the draft. Idea is to create a unified demographic and public banking system that will socialize finance in the US. Hometown had the highest rate of foreclosures in the US. Public banking would revolutionize finance for poor working class families. 
  • Chair asks to pass with unanimous consent.
  • Objections did not meet the threshold of 100. 
  • Outcome: Amendment passes by unanimous consent.
  • Motion to Limit Debate, Steven B., Centre County – I motion to limit debate to 1-and-1 for all resolutions and amendments in all sessions of the Convention. However, if there are a significant number of objections, I rescind my motion.
  • Will not be considered right now.
  • Time proposal: To suspend the rules for consideration of the amended platform by considering the platform by plank with debate limited to 1 for 1 against.
  • Chair asks for unanimous consent.
    • 100+ objections. Chair withdraws proposal.
  • Point of Privilege, Colin M., Bloomington Indiana – Could the Chair please count down for the last 10 seconds (or so) of each roll call vote as a courtesy to voting Delegates?
  • Chair can instruct the timekeeper to post in Zoom chat.
  • Request for Information, Nate S., Southern New Hampshire – Will we be voting on the platform in its totality at the end?
  • Limit Debate, Steven B., Centre County – I motion to limit debate to 1-and-1 for all resolutions and amendments in all sessions of the Convention. However, if there are a significant number of objections, I rescind my motion.
  • 100+ Delegates object.
  • Motion withdrawn.
  • Motion to Amend Adopted Program, Nathaniel P., Chico – Move to vote on the platform immediately upon conclusion of debate on the platform. If there is a significant number of objections, I will withdraw my motion.
    • Objections to voting now: under 100.
  • Outcome: Motion adopted by unanimous consent.
  • Request for Information, Phillip B., Delaware – Does the language “Withhold pensions and disallow rehiring of cops fired for misconduct” require the denial of pensions for any offence that merit’s discharge, regardless of previous acceptable performance?
  • Chair unable to answer, but will recognize comrade Justin or author of platform if available.
    • Justin – If an officer was suspended or discharged, yes.
  • Request for Information, Ziv K., Lower Hudson Valley – Are Delegates only allowed to debate 3 times in the entire Convention?
  • No.
  • Motion to Reconsider, Nikhil P., Atlanta – Reconsidering Platform Amendment 1
  • The Chair will defer to the Parliamentarian.
    • Motion ruled out of order.
  • Chair asks to pass the DSA Platform by unanimous consent.
    • Over 100 objections.
  • Proceed to roll call vote.
  • Parliamentary Inquiry, Cameron M., Winston-Salem – What margin will be required to pass the platform?
  • A simple majority vote is required. 
  • Ballot open as Motion 77.
  • Results: Motion 77 (818 in favor, 196 opposed)
  • Outcome: DSA platform is adopted.

Resolutions

Resolution #5: Building Worker Power to Win Democratic Socialism: A 

  • Laura G., NYC, Motivating Author
    • Delegate calls for DSA members to get in the fight to win union power. It will take everyone at the Convention to carry out. This resolution makes labor a top priority for DSA. We need to democratize and transform our unions and  push our unions to be more strike ready.
    • This dedicates the organization to organizing the unorganized. Calls on us to connect with our comrades. Calls on us to engage DSA as a whole through labor work.
    • Resolution costs just 13% of what we brought in in 2020. Who will carry this out? The NPC, DSLC, and the whole membership are needed to make this a reality.

***move to Amendment #2 on Resolution #5***

Labor Strategy for DSA in 2021–2023

Amendment #2 to Resolution #5

  • Justin H., Philadelphia: Author
  • Supports the spirit of resolution as a whole and all socialists should support efforts to transform unions. We need political guidance in our labor work. What is the reason for the defeats of the past 40 years? Reliance on the democratic establishment. Limits of current leadership need to be discussed. Constructive criticism without damaging relationships. 
  • Walter K., North New Jersey: Against
  • This amendment turns our labor work into political posturing and not practice. These are dogmatic talking points. Opponents of this resolution as written come from one particular tendency in an attempt to smuggle in another organization’s strategy. 
  • Logan S., Seattle: For
  • Agree with much that is written in the resolution, like the need to coordinate our labor work and the need to take up fights. Weakness is that there is no mention of the role of existing majority convservative pro-business union leadership. Our amendment says existing conservative leadership is the main barrier to rebuilding the labor movement.
  • Ashley P., East Bay: Against
  • The analysis does not reflect the main barriers that DSA has been organizing around. It identifies a problem, but is not the main issue. It is out of touch and assumes that militant and organized rank and file already exist. We need to rebuild the confidence and fighting capacity of the working class and that cannot be resolved or amended into being. 
  • Alex R., Boise: For
  • Directly in favor. Pushing back against the fact that member-led unions are not the priority. Problem is that unions are led by conservatives. Rural folks in Idaho support the idea of unions, but view them as undemocratic. The amendment is additive and does not subtract anything.
  • Laura W., Portland: Against
  • Delegate has been a rank and file organizer for more than 5 years. It is not simply a matter of replacing the bad guys on top. The old guard and Democratic Party are not the only things standing in our way. Most union members aren’t raring to beat down management’s door. That is the main barrier. DSA members have made big gains in changing that. They did not do it with the approach suggested in this amendment. This would lead to antagonism. It’s been done by leading workplace campaigns and taking the fight to the boss. 
  • Division of the Question, Avir W., Boston – Separate the language of R5A2 around elected union leaders to take the average wage (the second portion of the amendment) from the first portion. Rescind if not by acclamation.
  • Out of order to divide on pending amendment, confirmed with parliamentarian. 
  • Chair asks to vote and adopt by unanimous consent.
    • 200+ objections are noted to unanimous consent
  • Body will proceed to roll call vote. 
  • Results: (156 in favor, 898 opposed)
  • Outcome: Amendment #2 is not adopted. 

***return to debate on Resolution #5***

  • Russell W., Boston: For
  • Many labor activists felt we did not need another Convention with dueling labor resolutions and that we need to find common ground. This was passed unanimously by the DSLC Steering Committee. Urges everyone to pass, but more importantly, please implement this strategy in your own chapter and partner with local unions. 
  • Andrew S., Madison Area: Against
  • This is a “do everything” resolution, which is effectively nothing. Same approach as last Convention where every labor resolution was passed and not much was accomplished. 
  • Request for Information, Phillip B., Delaware – This resolution has quite a price tag. What gives way to pay for this and will the NPC decide they just can’t afford it?
  • Chair cannot answer at this time. The next NPC will have to decide this.
  • Chair asks if the body can pass the resolution by unanimous consent. 
  • Outcome: Resolution #5 is adopted, unamended, by unanimous consent.
  • Amend Adopted Program (Agenda), Melissa D., Philadelphia  – Motion to move Resolution 27 and Amendment 13 to be next on the agenda to finish before next break in interest of time. The next resolution has two amendments and will delay our ability to recess. If there are many objections, I rescind the motion.
  • Objections to the motion meet the threshold.
  • Motion does not pass.

Resolution #8: Toward a Mass Party in the United States (Electoral Priority)

  • Sabrina C., Chicago: Motivating Author
  • Consensus view on building a successful electoral program in DSA. That vehicle is a working class party. This resolution outlines a strategy for building that party. Delegate calls for building an actual party against the capitalists of both coalitions. In house electoral skills, recruiting Black and Latino organizers. 
  • Somik M., Boise: Against
  • This resolution requires a break from the Democratic Party. This resolution is a good idea in concept, but the language allows working within the Democratic Party in the near future.

***Move to debate on Amendments #5 and #6 to Resolution #8***

Amendment #5 to Resolution #8

  • Michelle F., Snohomish County: Motivating Author
  • The Left is adrift with the Bernie campaign gone.
  • Las Vegas DSA comrades pulled off impressive feats, but this shouldn’t be on the DSA agenda. DSA should not stand for re-alignment, but instead should work for the working class. Las Vegas is not challenging corporate Democrats.
  • EveryAction, which includes VAN, acquired by a private company. Ruling class sets rules for access to these tools. If DSA grows to be a threat to Democratic Party, it might lose access to VAN and ActBlue. Should use tools while having them, but should also be exploring alternatives.
  • Eric B., At-Large: Against
  • Agrees with many of the amendment’s concrete suggestions and chapters should adopt them when possible.
  • This ties to the explicit strategy of DSA agitating for a new party. Goes against electoralism and building workers party. Co-optation is not a threat: we are still small. 
  • Majority of workers need to recruit are largely within Democratic Party
  • Try to test this amendment locally first. If it works, then we can try to generalize it. But DSA as a whole shouldn’t nationally adopt it.
  • If DSA starts getting stronger and posing threat to Democratic Party establishment, they can and will likely kick us out. But this doesn’t require publicly advocating a split today. Need to focus on building a strong electoral apparatus along the lines of Resolution 8.
  • Stephan K., Seattle: For
  • This is about breaking free from the Democratic Party.
  • Cannot just celebrate successes of electing socialists running on the Democratic line. We need to look at Nina Turner and Bernie Sanders. Wall Street is preparing for a counter-revolution within the Democratic Party. Democratic Party is not our party.
  • This includes the option of running along Democratic Party line, but this is not the only option. 
  • Working people need their own, democratically run organization.
  • Mitchell W., Denver: Against
  • In agreement with many aspects of Amendment 5, but ultimately cannot vote yes.
  • Strategy too prescriptive for electoral in different parts of the country, especially in places where Democratic opposition is weak.
  • In certain areas use of Democratic Party resources DSA can use: happening in Aurora city council elections by Denver. This is in Colorado’s third largest city. This institutional support has been critical to pass victories and current efforts, especially in nonpartisan races such as Aurora city council. In this non-partisan situation, control of the local party is important.
  • This will set DSA back.
  • Heidi S, Austin: For
  • After 2019, the Delegate tried to be the class struggle candidate by running for Congress in Texas. There was little guidance on what it was to run a class struggle campaign. This amendment provides flexibility and strategic recommendations for candidates across the country
  • Local and regional relationships with labor unions hasn’t been stronger because of tactics in this resolution
  • Listen to the working class, rather than the influence of the capitalist class within the Democratic Party: this wins over voters
  • Over 5,000 new organizers involved in Austin DSA because of how chapter ran campaign
  • Gary Z, Metro DC: Against
  • DC has experience operating out of the ballot line by trying to push against Democratic Party and building the Green Party. Did get a socialist elected (in the 90s) to city council. Led them nowhere: too much focus on ballot line structure, which is different from building political constituency capable of challenging Democratic Party
  • Have to focus on building the power to actually challenge corporate interests in the Democratic Party, not just the ballot line. Don’t want to burn people out.
  • Thinks this set the statehood movement back as well: didn’t get pushed into Democratic Party until activists started actively lobbying the party for that effort
  • Motion to Suspend the Rules to Extend Debate, Miguel D., East Bay –  Allow 3 more speakers for and 3 more against.
  • Chair asks if there is unanimous consent. If Delegates object to motion to appeal the ruling of the chair, raise hand. Over 100 hands raised.
  • Chair did not take roll call, as it would take more time to process, it was dilatory, and out of order
  • Chair asks if the body could adopt the amendment by acclamation. 
    • Objection threshold was met. Will head to roll call vote. 
  • Results: (442 in favor, 577 opposed)
  • Outcome: Amendment is not adopted.  

Amendment #6 to Resolution #8

  • Rosemary D., Portland: Motivating Author
  • 2019 Convention took first step of adopting goal of dirty break from Democratic Party – need to adopt measures that will actually begin break and dirty break
  • Candidates can run as socialists or use Democratic Party line, but need to be honest about capitalist base of Democratic Party without shaming rank and file members
  • Socialists shouldn’t just run to win office, but also to popularize socialist ideas
  • Jacey L., At-Large: Against
  • No enforcement mechanist in amendment
  • Need workers party in the future, but this amendment is not the path forward
  • Jacey is a candidate for office openly running as a socialist. Democratic Party can’t stop her from sharing her views and ideology, she’s even endorsed by them. Doesn’t see the purpose of running against the Democratic Party when they don’t exist in her town.
  • She was elected as chairwoman of one of the town’s elected bodies. 
  • Simply running “against” corporate Democrats isn’t the path forward. We need to run for beliefs and ideology.
  • Motion: Point of order – Haley P, NYC – There was a proposal to suspend the rules to extend debate. The chair then took objections to see if we had more than 100, but then moved directly to a vote. We should have had the option to vote by roll call to extend debate before voting on R5A.
  • Chair rules as dilatory.
  • Alex S, Phoenix: For
  • AOC is correct that the US doesn’t have a left wing party. But DSA candidates have had a lot of success within Democratic Party, and Amendment 6 recognizes that while also working on strategy for building our own working class party.
  • Muddies path forward if DSA candidates are friendly with neoliberal politicians or talk about reforming Dem party
  • Eric Adams said he is running against DSA: this amendment explains the Democratic Party dominated by corporate interests and encourages people to join DSA. Most candidates are not doing these things, this amendment aims to change it.
  • Jacob S, St. Cloud: Against
  • Leaves open possibility of running on Democratic Party ballot line.
  • A lot of people even for the amendment have acknowledged that we need to go full force and not back corporate democrats. The issue with this is that if we really oppose Democrats, we can’t be in their party. Party is owned by capitalists and imperialists who reject socialism on principle.
  • Cannot think Democratic Party will ever work in good faith with American working class, and that Democratic Party leadership will just allow DSA to overthrow their own party
  • If we really oppose all capital, we have to oppose parties that support capital. Look at Joe Biden supporting the blockade of Cuba.
  • Ramy K, Seattle: For
  • Rises to the challenge of the movement. Recognizes that we have had success running on the Democratic ballot line, but also that Democrats are dominated by the corporate establishment. Need to work on building our own working class party.
  • This gives flexibility to run as democrats or independents.
  • Given climate crises and widening gulf of inequality, there is a huge desire for anti-establishment alternatives. The time is ripe to run as independents.
  • Urges DSA candidates to promote a socialist message regardless of what ballot they are running on. Should be openly running as socialists and criticizing Democratic Party, and appealing supporters to join DSA.
  • Tashca V, New York City: Against
  • Delegate was campaign manager for two DSA candidates. This amendment doesn’t actually address how we build power for working people, which is more complex and requires a lot of work.
  • Build power by building campaigns that pull people into the political process, build institutional knowledge to challenge how things are happening, when people in office understand how to work together and make legislation happen. This amendment doesn’t recognize that complexity.
  • Doesn’t want to pass things that are overly prescriptive to chapters when things are very different for every chapter. Was on NEC for a while, and knows that every chapter has different circumstances. They need to assess their situation and political environment and make strategic calculations based on that.
  • Appeal the Ruling of the Chair against Extending Debate, Mike H, Charlotte Metro
  • Chair says motion is in order and not debatable.
  • Chair asks if there is unanimous consent. If Delegates object to the Motion to Appeal the Ruling of the chair, raise hand.
    • Over 100 hands raised, so the body will proceed to a roll call vote.
  • Motion is adopted (865 in favor, 136 opposed).
    • Decision of the chair is sustained. Will use unanimous consent as needed and consider roll call votes dilatory going forward.
  • Point of Order, Vincent L., Rochester – The main motion having passed, extending debate is moot.
  • Chair agrees, but says it applies to decisions going forward.
  • Request for Information: will this undo the decision by A5?
  • Chair says no.
  • Request for Information, Rob B., Huron Valley
  • Is this a prescriptive amendment? Does it carry any enforcement power?
  • Request for Information, Mike H., Charlotte Metro – Would the chair be able to call for unanimous consent for both YEAS and NAYS using ‘raised hands’ in zoom? First, call for YEAS to ‘raise hands’ then tally the YEAS and clear the hands; second, call for NAYS via ‘raise hands’ then tally the NAYS and clear the hands. This method would enable the chair to avoid a roll call vote on every call for unanimous consent.
  • Chair says no, that requires a suspension of the rules to proceed for that type of action. The rules require you to use roll call or unanimous consent.
  • Chair asks the body if there is any objection to passing the amendment.
    • Over 100 hands raised, so the body will proceed to a roll call vote.
  • Request for Information, Rob H, Huron Valley – If adopted, does A6 R8 bind individual chapters or candidates to any particular behavior?
  • Chair says it urges the national organization toward certain behavior, but not individual chapters.
  • Motion: Amend Adopted Program, Sam H, San Francisco
  • Replace 7 – 8 pm break with more resolution debate time. Only if it passes by acclamation.
  • Chair notes staff are running things behind the scene and there are scheduled breaks.
  • Chair asks for unanimous consent.
  • Over 100 hands raised in objection.
    • Motion fails.
  • Results: (359 in favor, 623 opposed)
  • Outcome: Amendment is not adopted.

***Return to debate for Resolution # 8***

  • Austin B, Philadelphia: For
    • Delegate is also an NEC member and this was written collectively by NEC members after months of discussion on the best path forward for DSA’s electoral work.
  • This prioritizes what is best for the organization based on feedback from DSA locals after conducting an electoral campaign. Want to make efforts to build a mass party for the working class and invest resources into national and local organizing. A mass party won’t appear unless we work for it.
  • Chair says reached hour of adjournment: will continue consideration of Resolution 8 with a speaker against this resolution at the next debate block tomorrow at 11 am.
  • Results: (728 in favor, 217 opposed)
  • Outcome: Resolution is adopted. 

Sunday Debate Block: Saturday, August 8th, 2021 11am EST

Chair: Walker Green

  • Chair asks if there is objection to Suspending the Rules to Limit Debate on subsidiary amendments to resolutions to 2 in favor and 2 against for the remainder of the debate block.
  • Only 17 objections, Suspension of Rules and Limit Debate is adopted. 
  • Point of order – Evan C., Metro Cincinnati 
  • Point of Order is not well taken,
  • Blake I., Central Iowa: Against
  • Delegate is sympathetic to the dirty break, but sees crucial things missing from resolution itself. 
  • Resolution fails to set firm guideposts for relationship between candidates and DSA. It does not lay out what the members or our candidates should expect from each other. 
  • Might be appropriate for an organization of 5000, but an organization of our size needs to think hard about the relationship between the organization and governance.
  • Fainan L., NYC: For
  • Delegate is the co-author of the resolution. 
  • This resolution argues that a key step for becoming a party and building a socialist majority is growing and developing electoral mobilization.
  • Voters should think about long term vision as well as an immediate approach to building chapters.
  • The resolution allows us to take on key labor reforms, oppose Republicans as well as the establishment Democrats.
  • Freeman R., Twin Cities: Against
  • Strong electoral work is important, but resolution points in wrong direction
  • Victories within Democratic Party have been disappointing; work needs to be done in order to create a separate party outside of current party structure
  • Resolution implies it’s possible to legislate our way to socialism within the capitalist electoral system. Work done on the wrong political basis will bring movement backwards.
  • Request for Information – How much of the tallied budget is a continuation of ongoing work?
  • Fainan (co-author): NEC has ⅓ of a staffer at present and doesn’t utilize significant resources beyond this. Field organizers do support and play a valuable role, but it is hard to quantify due to activity around elections. Fundraising is also done and some amount of press support. Resolution is asking for a significantly larger investment in our electoral work.
  • Chair asks to approve by unanimous consent.
  • Over 100 objections so the body will proceed to a roll call vote.
  • Results: (734 in favor, 218 opposed)
  • Outcome: Resolution is adopted. 
  • Motion to Limit Debate to 2 speakers for and 2 against on all remaining business items.
  • Over 100 objections. 
  • Debate will not be limited except for subsidiary amendments as previously decided.

Resolution #27: Beyond 100K: Building a Mass Socialist Organization

  • Beth H., Boston: Motivating Author
  • We need a mass socialist organization to defeat capitalism. Leaders from across the Growth and Development Committee wrote this together. If we want to continue our growth, we need strategy, vision, and resources in order to achieve this. 
  • Let’s all recruit 5 members so that we can hit 100K members. 
  • No speakers on stack to speak against.

***move to debate on Amendment #13 for Resolution #27***

Amendment #13 to Resolution #27

  • Justin C, NY: Motivating Author
  • Amendment was written strictly to tweak language in light of 100k not being reached prior to the Convention.
  • Chair asks the body to adopt by unanimous consent.
  • Less than 100 objections.
  • Outcome: Amendment is adopted by unanimous consent. 

***return to Resolution #27***

  • Chair asks the body to adopt Resolution 27 as amended by unanimous consent.
  • Less than 100 objections. 
  • Outcome: Resolution passed by unanimous consent.

Resolution #23: Childcare for All

  • Sarah R, New River Valley: Motivating Author
  • Delegate is a public childcare worker from Craig County, VA and Co-Chair of New River Valley DSA.
  • This resolution is all about prioritizing universal childcare. Universal childcare is socialization of reproductive labor. Childcare is prohibitively expensive and the burden frequently falls on women to do unpaid work.
  • This resolution would help to solve the major costs that are difficult for chapters to meet on their own, such as attorneys and researchers who can help us figure out how to pass progressive income taxes for expansion of childcare coverage locally.
  • Funding would be democratically administered by NEC.
  • Crysta S., Los Angeles: Against
  • Delegate is a coordinator for child watch subcommittee and is a healthcare worker who works primarily with pediatrics and elder care
  • Voting against unamended resolution because it treats childcare as a single-faceted solution that can be managed by a single, half time staffer and because it does not address needs of the multi-racial working class.
  • Encourages members to vote yes in favor of the amendment and further encourages the body to vote in favor of resolution if the amendment is adopted.

***move to debate for Amendment #10 to Resolution #23***

Amendment #10 to Resolution #23

  • Emily B., Portland OR: Motivating Author
  • This amendment aligns the esolution with commitments to an intersectional orientation and fight for socialism.
  • It suggests reducing national, half-time staff position and replacing it with technical assistance that can help chapters to contract for expertise needed to draft viable policy.
  • Request for Information: Can the author explain why NEC and not the NPC is referenced in the amendment?
  • NEC is the body that was interacted with in campaign and body that would be most suited to provide support to local chapters; amendment has to deal with elections, which is purview of NEC.
  • Chair asks to pass by unanimous consent.
  • Under 100 objections are noted.
  • Outcome: Amendment is adopted by unanimous consent.

***Return to debate on now amended Resolution #23***

  • Julie S., At-Large: For
  • Delegate is a nanny and their daughter is a childcare worker. 
  • When the pandemic hit, childcare centers were forced to shut down and, in turn, childcare workers were denied unemployment. 
  • Childcare workers, including the Delegate’s daughter, are underpaid. Delegate’s daughter was forced out of industry by exploitative pay structures and now makes more money working at Waffle House.
  • This resolution will provide a framework providing resources for our chapters to assist in childcare for all campaigns. 
  • Liz K., Chicago: Against
  • Against resolution as newly amended.
  • Delegate does not believe this resolution would be successful, as DSA lacks resources to dedicate to this. This resolution would have been better suited to being a platform plank.
  • Has concerns with the structure of using NEC as it seems borrowed from a nonprofit model and not something well suited to democratically decided priorities.
  • Benjamin S., Providence: For
  • This resolution is a means of building real working class power, not a nonprofit charity scheme. It casts a wide net to build amongst multiracial working class.
  • It addresses the need to organize on ground childcare workers.
  • Childcare was one of the great tragedies of the pandemic.
  • Frances G., New Orleans: Against
  • Appreciates amended version of resolution, but does not believe it will succeed as it is written.
  • What prevents chapters from engaging in universal childcare campaigning is our capacity- chapters need training on strategic campaign planning.
  • Spending money on researching tax schemes and consciousness raising will not help the campaign itself succeed.
  • Chair asks to pass by unanimous consent
  • Over 100 objections so the body will proceed to a roll call vote.
  • Results: (711 in favor, 256 opposed)
  • Outcome: Resolution as amended is adopted. 

Constitutional/Bylaw Change #8: Defining the Role of DSA’s National Political Platform

  • Michael C., Space Coast: Motivating Author
  • Organization needs to find a sense of purpose post-Bernie Sanders campaign.
  • Membership is currently defined by vague adherence to democratic socialism and this would change that. 
  • CB 8 would give membership meaning by defining membership by acceptance of platform principles. Just as Bernie had a platform which all of his supporters accepted, DSA needs a platform.
  • Vincent L., Rochester: Against
  • Platform does give the organization and NPC direction, but acceptance of the platform doesn’t have a clear meaning. We do not need a bar with which to judge members or a cudgel to use against members. 
  • Does not want for there to be a bar for entry, which CB 8 may provide.
  • Lydia H., Santa Cruz: For
  • Delegate wants unity and a platform to be a compromise between different tendencies or ways of thinking within DSA.
  • Will serve as a general guiding light for our action, not as something that prescribes membership via adherence to certain things. This is more of a symbolic change because the more important part is holding candidates and people responsible to uphold the platform.
  • It will make the basis of membership clearer.
  • Abel A., Metro DC: Against
  • Voted yes on platform, but is against this amendment.
  • Heard many objections to the platform that may have merit and we need time to figure this out.
  • This platform needs to be tested in the real world before it is codified into Constitution and Bylaws.
  • Neither the platform nor the amendment defines how we amend the platform. Encourages voting in favor of this in 2023 once that has been determined.
  • Tiffany B., NYC: For
  • We are a big tent, but it is necessary to define the borders of the tent. Believes that the platform is the way to do this.
  • Believes that platform raises key demands and that the demands are broad enough to cover the work that working groups and chapters have done.
  • People will not be purged if they disagree with aspects of the platform.
  • Doug S., Milwaukee: Against
  • Agrees with platform and thinks there is a legitimate argument for agreement with platform to be a requirement for membership; however, platform was only just adopted. We need time for everyone to learn about it and space to discuss its content, and possibly to amend the platform itself.
  • Should be revisited in 2023.
  • Request for Information: if a DSA member dissents with the platform, what are the consequences of this?
  • There are no consequences, but comrades are still expected to accept the platform.
  • Chair asks to adopt CB 8 by unanimous consent
  • Over 100 objections so the body will proceed to a roll call vote. 
  • Results: (338 in favor, 637 opposed)
  • Outcome: CB 8 is not adopted. 

Resolution #20: Class Struggle on the Housing Terrain: Building Power in the Tenants’ Movement

  • Sarah M., Boston: Motivating Author
  • Share of income going to rent has increased 4x since 2008; tenants are getting poorer and landlords are getting richer.
  • Millions of working class tenants could be on the verge of eviction.
  • Need to have a bottom up plan for organizing tenants. Can also produce a new base of socialists if we are successful.
  • This provides concrete plans for DSA to build its tenant organizing capacity and meets a litmus test for what we should invest in.
  • Cea W., NYC: Against
  • Agrees with authors of resolution that tenant union organizing is a key priority for DSA.
  • Will vote no because this was already made a priority in the Consent Agenda with a more realistic structure.
  • This resolution encourages affiliation with another organization which doesn’t make sense for all tenant unions.
  • It puts too much of an emphasis on legal aid.
  • Creates a confusing budget structure by dividing resources

***Move to debate for Amendment #9 to Resolution #20***

Amendment #9 to Resolution #20

  • Lawrence L., East Bay : Motivating Author
    • Originally submitted an amendment after the cost adjustment meeting and concerns were raised by the finance committee about costs that would go with lobbying and compliance.
    • Amendment clarifies language to make the resolution very specific
    • Legal aid will be legal information rather than legal advice; providing basic legal information to tenants and tenant unions.
  • Request for Information: Need clarification of specific language.
    • Language specifies that three wings created in resolution will not include any lobby.
  • Allison T., New Orleans: Against
    • Believes this amendment pigeonholes us by its wording as it says that we shall not engage in lobbying nor work on any campaign.
    • Believes it was written by folks in large cities with specific tenant union structures.
    • Tenant rights are very disparate depending where you are in the country.
    • Is also against Resolution 20. The resolution contains good things. but nothing that isn’t already covered in Resolution 21.
  • Request for Information: Motivator bought up TANC, wants to know the relationship between DSA and TANC and whether resources will be going towards TANC.
    • Question is referred to Sarah M (Boston)-
      • There is a lot of overlap in membership, but TANC is not receiving chapter funds from DSA.
  • Chair asks to adopt by unanimous consent
    • Over 100 objections. Amendment not adopted by unanimous consent.
  • Connor W, Metro Charlotte: For
    • Unamended resolution simply points organizers towards legal counsel; amendment provides legal advice which greatly refuses burden on locals
    • Can raise class consciousness and recruit for tenant organizing; this cannot be done solely from within DSA. This amendment gives us a chance to build power through organizing tenants via established autonomous tenant unions.
  • Request for Information: Clarify what the legal outfit would do.
    • Goal is not to hire a lot of lawyers to interpret state law. The goal is to have DSA do research on local legal aid organizations – rural comrades have stated this is too difficult to simply do via Google search. Aims to get chapters connected with resources in their local area.
  • Body proceeds to roll call vote.
  • Results: (404 in favor, 549 opposed)
  • Outcome: Amendment is not adopted.

***Return to debate for Resolution #20***

  • Nick W., Boston: For
  • This resolution provides resources necessary to build a working class movement that is democratically run by tenants.
  • Will help to grow DSA by helping new members get ground organizing experience; has seen how tenant organizing has helped new members expand their thinking on housing and rent.
  • Karen N., NYC: Against
  • Delegate will be voting no on the resolution whether amended or unamended.
  • Is concerned with language around legal aid; doesn’t believe there’s a clear vision for how legal assistance will be provided.
  • Is concerned about the efficacy of implementation because of general lack of clarity in resolution language.
  • Is concerned that amendment is concerning because it doesn’t include resources for policy campaigns such as rent control.
  • Would like to see a more effective resolution pass connected to Resolution 21 and also to organizing work already being done by chapters.
  • Allison Z,. Tidewater: For
  • Local district is devastated by eviction and lack of protection for tenants.
  • Delegate is proud that DSA passed Resolution 21, however, fears that without a framework it might not be enough to give new organizers direction to win power. Resolution 20 fixes this problem.
  • Sebastian FG., Triangle: Against
  • Would vote for this if it was the only housing resolution.
  • However, Resolution 21 already includes everything needed. Resolution 20 includes provisions that we likely do not have capacity for if they were not included in Resolution 21.
  • Chair asks to pass by unanimous consent
    • Over 100 objections so the body will proceed to a roll call vote.
  • Results: (430 in favor, 570 opposed)
  • Outcome: Resolution is not adopted. 

Resolution #30: Strengthening DSA From the Bottom Up Through National Matching Funds for Chapters to Hire Staff and Open Offices

  • Robert B., Louisville: Motivating Author
  • DSA chapters should be built into permanent, visible hubs of community organizing. Local offices have been proven to help strengthen DSA chapters and their organizing.
  • Shocked to learn that most chapters (even larger chapters) don’t have office space. Louisville’s office has been invaluable.
  • Matching funds structure facilitates sustainability. 
  • Support must be self-sustaining for growing chapters in order to scale up to our goal of overcoming capitalism.
  • Avir W., Boston: Against
  • Believes hiring local staff is not the answer to problems of burnout, growth. or training. 
  • Watching unions avoid serious organizing work because hiring staffers causes staffers to become “experts”. Members become over-reliant on staff and defer to staff.
  • Cannot rely on professionalization of movement or on money. Need to stress building grassroots connections.
  • Request for Information: Can the author clarify how much this will cost?
  • Nothing is prescribed in resolution to determine this; this is up to the NPC.
  • Request for Information: Is there a cap on how much money will be made available or a mechanism for prioritizing individual chapter requests?
  • This is a matching funds structure; it’s up to the NPC to determine whether specific applications would be viable for the organization.
  • This will depend on the degree to which chapters can raise their own funds.
  • Request for Information: Were union staff consulted on this, would chapter staff be members of the bargaining unit, and are we risking illegal labor practice?
  • Cannot speak to whether staff was consulted. 
  • Hired staff would probably be members of the bargaining unit.
  • Beth H., Boston: For
  • We need to organize both people and money in order to build power.
  • Certain administrative tasks are extremely appropriate for a staff member. This allows political leaders (volunteers) to remain unburdened or swamped by administrative details, which causes burnout.
  • Gives chapters more resources and opportunities to organize.
  • Lily M., Tidewater: Against
  • Does not believe offices or staff are a bad idea, but small chapters, even with matching funds, would not be able to afford rent on offices or to hire full time staffers.
  • Resolution would only serve to expand the divide between smaller and larger chapters.
  • Request for Information: Does every single chapter get funding?
  • No, chapters would have to apply to the NPC and the NPC would make decisions.
  • Michael H., Cape Cod: For
  • Admin burnt Delegate and their co-chair out, having staff that could help with this would be extremely helpful
  • Language in the resolution allows chapters to be creative and also to work together with other chapters
  • Remi D., Rochester: Against
  • Even a situation of a staffer doing internal work can degrade internal democracy.
  • Solution is to create a mass base of comrades, not to crystallize the situation by putting the work on one person (paid or unpaid).
  • Chair asks if there is objection to extend debate block time to fulfill requests for information
  • Less than 100 objections.
  • Debate block is extended.
  • Request for Information, Colin J., Denver: How are hiring decisions made and who can make decisions?
  • The National Director makes hiring decisions in consultation with the Personnel Committee from the NPC. There is a model for hiring local staff with NYC, but these are very specific terms and NPC would need to develop the new language.
  • Request for Information: Is NYC’s staffer part of the national union?
  • Yes.
  • Request for Information: Can statewide organizations get funds through R30?
  • Yes.
  • Request for Information: Is funding guaranteed to any chapter that applies?
  • This is left up to the NPC to determine which chapters and initiatives are funded. Initial fundraising requirement for chapters provides a barrier to entry.
  • Request for Information: Would chapters be required to hire staff if they mean to pursue matching funds or could they pursue funds for an office only?
  • Chapters may pursue matching funds without hiring a staffer.
  • Would staff be employees of DSA or of the chapter and would they be union members?
  • Staff would be employees of DSA and would also be union members.
  • Motion to Divide the Question:
    • This motion fails as there is no clean way to Divide the Question.
  • Chair asks to pass resolution by unanimous consent
  • Over 100 objections, proceed to roll call vote
  • Results: (682 in favor, 324 nopposedo)
  • Outcome: Resolution is adopted. 

Meeting is adjourned until 2:00PM EDT

Chair: Graham Denaham

Resolution #1: Resolution on the Defense of Immigrants and Refugees

  • Alexander H., Atlanta: Motivating Author
  • Migrants in the US are disenfranchised from basic legal protections under the current legal framework.
  • This resolution reaffirms commitment to building power with working class communities of color currently outside of DSA. This is a clear message to the incoming NPC to take seriously the immigrants’ rights struggle.
  • Jack S., Los Angeles: Against
  • Speaking against because we have already passed several resolutions that focus on immigrants and people of color (Resolution 31, 14, and the NPC recommendation #5)
  • Thinks Resolution 14 focuses better on developing relationships with immigrant workers and is a much clearer path for diversification of the organization
  • Resolution 1 brings us a path to citizenship rather than a socialist analysis of how we do immigration work.

***Move to debate Amendment #1 to Resolution #1***

Amendment #1 to Resolution #1

  • Alexander H., Atlanta: Motivating Author
  • This is a friendly amendment; amends the resolution to ask for a quarter as opposed to full time staff funding.
  • Chair asks to adopt the amendment by unanimous consent.
  • Less than 100 objections. 
  • Outcome: Amendment is adopted by unanimous consent.

***Return to debate for newly amended Resolution #1***

  • Motion to Refer to the NPC
  • Motion is properly seconded.
  • Chair asks for unanimous consent to refer this to the NPC.
  • Unanimous consent is not achieved and the Motion to Refer is deemed dilatory.
  • Julian B., San Francisco: For
  • Restatement of our commitment to immigrant rights organizing.
  • States DSA is a clearly pro-immigrant organization and reaffirms that immigrant justice work is important. This is a reaffirmation of our principles.
  • Margo G., Chicago: Against
  • Delegate disagrees with previous sentiment that this does nothing but reaffirm the importance of this work. The language states that this should be the number one national priority.
  • Does not believe that this should take precedence over other campaigns and plans. It also does not outline what should be done towards these goals.
  • Chris L., Portland: For
  • Delegate wants to speak in favor of supporting the work of the IRWG.
  • Solidarity work with immigrant and refugee communities needs to deal with realities of ethnic and racial formation within the country rather than internationally
  • Nikhil P., Atlanta: Against
  • Politically, this takes the organization several steps back from 2019 when many demands were passed. This resolution only demands scaled back performance metrics.
  • This resolution takes a political position towards the January 6 riots that is detrimental to the organization and promotes efforts to bolster the carceral state.
  • National working groups have had issues being engaged with chapters and being accountable to politically elected bodies and want to see more transparency towards membership.
  • Request for Information: What is the reason for ¼ of staff time being needed to augment working time of IRWG?
  • Unclear how staff allocations are made within resolutions.
  • Request for Information: Refers to membership of IRWG. How large is the IRWG?
  • Request for Information: What is the financial health of the organization? Can we get a cost estimate on resolutions already adopted?
  • Roll call vote is initiated
  • Results: (511 in favor, 417 opposed)
  • Outcome: Resolution is adopted. 

NPC Candidate Introductions and Voting


Chair: Bryan LaVergne

Introduction

  • Kara Hall, Las Vegas DSA 
    • Survey results drove home that DSA has issues with demographic and geographic diversity. Compounded by building a national DSA inclusive to all members. 
    • DSA needs to accommodate people with disabilities and who don’t speak English. A lot of debates about chapters and orgs members don’t have connection to. Need to identify problems, work across tendencies to fix them.
    • Member of GND, socialist feminist working group, has worked with a lot of different authors with different backgrounds to build DSA.
  • Sofia Guimarães Cutler, North New Jersey DSA
    • Running on bread and roses slate because of their Marxist identity. Believes we need to organize the working class and engage in class struggle.
    • Has co-chaired immigrants working justice group, led DSA for Bernie work, led first political education committee.
    • Co-chair of chapter’s electoral working group, leading campaign to elect long-time member Joel Brooks to city council. Has worked with leaders from NEC and Brooklyn electoral groups to learn from them. Helped pivot chapter to an activist endorsement model where chapter is bottom lining entire campaign from comms to finance. Has been incredible to see skills, leadership and infrastructure.
    • Important to build up independent electoral apparatuses to build independence from Democratic Party. Wants to help the chapter build political machines for open socialists.  
  • Jose Alejandro La Luz
    • Lifelong labor organizer, educator and campaigner. Was a founding member of DSA and a national suffrage for Sanders in 2020, organizing Latinx members (largely union). Helped get victory in the NV caucuses.
    • Has organized union/latinx workers to support M4A in Florida and Texas. Was recently appointed member of DSA’s M4A Steering Committee. Decades of organizing in the south, west, and across borders.
    • Thinks need to transform DSA into multiracial mass organization rooted in multiracial working class. That’s why chose to run for NPC, inspired by the work of much younger comrades that have built DSA into the largest organization in the left, including comrades in the Socialist Majority. 
  • Austin González, NPC incumbent, Richmond
    •  3x community college dropout of PR descent, child of deaf parents, lifelong member of VA working class
    • Before being elected to NPC helped found Richmond VA DSA – 1st ever chp in all of VA. Helped organization2019 Convention with Charlottesville, Tidewater and NVA DSA
    • A lot of achievements in NPC. Helped see restructuring and opening up of the International Committee. Represented DSA in 2019 when canvassed for Corbyn in London, and chaired Delegation in Peru to guarantee free election. Met with members of Venezuelen working class in Venezuela
    • Founded national Mutual Aid and national anti-facist working group
    • Treated NPC comrades with grace and respect for org, most have done the same to him
  • Jen McKinney, founding member of Eugene DSA, serves as chair of NPC Steering Committee 
    • Will talk about what other DSA members said about her
      • Jen has been a thoughtful/diligent leader. Since 2019 respect has only grown for her
      • Jen makes herself available to answer questions and give advice
      • Put in work to make organization better and accessible. Thinks about at-large and rural comrades
      • Has been an absolute joy to work with, and DSA would not be nearly 100K member organization without her tireless dedication and hard work
      • Has been one of the kindest and most helpful NPC people. Helps with task and design work
      • Always considerate of others opinions: makes her a strong leader and team member
  • Laura Gabby
    • Has seen within a decade+ of the labor movement that so much power lives within a collective organization and holds power in labor.
    • Helped stage a job slow down when asked to work under unsafe conditions (work without a platform while building a bridge and tower). Won demand within a week. 
    • If DSA exercised that kind of power would be a strong org. Do a lot of work as a relatively small organization. 
    • Wants to strengthen DSA’s labor work. Thinks DSA must win green new deal and medicare for all, can’t do without a fighting labor movement
    • Rank Sophia first, Laura second and Gilman third
    • Next 5-10 years and how DSA works in labor movement critical
  • Kevin Richardson, NC Triangle, current NPC 
    • Wants to continue building DSA as a movement for mass organizing
    • Wants to focus on abolition: defunding police/prisons, investing money in schools and health care
    • Wants to prioritize multi-racial work
    • Wants to support chapters in national committees: strengthen connection between National and locals. Wants to support southern chapters, at-large members, make sure National committee staff/NPC can work together as a cohesive body
    • This is the work he’s been doing during his tenure (abolition work, GDC, campaign coalition)
    • Enemy is the capitalist class and capitalism: that is what we are fighting against. I Want to build and strengthen DSA.
  • Gilman Bagga, Louisville
    • On bread and roses slate. 
    • Wants to help grow strong and medium chapters by helping them run campaigns and be more diverse
    • Joined Louisville in 2018 when it was a smaller chapter. Were targeted when protested International Committee. Since then, have grown 4x in size. I think it’s because of how we worked in campaigns. Got Yarmouth to commit to M4A, supported the library campaign against austerity budgets, ran their own candidates in elections. Used their electoral machine to express their own politics and build their power and presence in working class communities / communities of color
    • Ran Robert’s campaign: helped recruit a lot of members into the organization. 3/7 Steering Committee members were recruited through that campaign, and got a lot of diversity through it. Want to help chapters have the tools and resources to run those campaigns, help defund police, cut up turf, organize labor and solidarity strikes, etc.
  • Joshua Rusinov, North NJ 
    • 24, been a DSA member for just over 10 months, co-chair of North NJ DSA, son of immigrants (Russian?)
    • Wants to give DSA the hope he has. Doesn’t just imagine a better world, knows we will have one. Will give up everything fighting for it and knows that’s the same with everyone on this call
    • NPC or not will be with everybody at every picket line, rally, meeting, every step of the way
  • Kristian Hernandez, current NPC
    • DSA is the best hope of defeating racial capitalism. Has poured love/labor for the past 4 years as co-chair in TX and NPC member.
    • Led Bernie work locally, supported training / curriculum work for chapters that carried over to National. Helped with National response to George Floyd / support in MN
    • Last year was tough. Need to demystify the process of wagning winning campaigns, strengthen culture of care necessary to win the times
    • We won’t all live to see wins: how we do our work is just as important as what we win
    • Wants to build better culture, has worked to do so 
  • Maikiko James, LA, current NPC
    • Running with Socialist Majority slate
    • Over last term brought 1st interim Steering Committee of National Abolition Working Group together
      • Wants to continue to serve with Kristian and Kevin 
    • Helped administer first socialists of color caucus / afrosocial caucus
    • Worked with GDC, supporting dvpt of national training library
    • Not most visible tasks, but fundamental to keep work going. DSA is in a delicate place. Many incredible members, and new ones continue to join. Big tent is still in its infancy, and needs to organize through conflict. Pandemic has tested how we can survive it, but has seen a lot of resilience in DSA members
    • There are deep problems, we need a clear strategy, we need to appeal more to the POC / working class. Up to us to make it work
  • Matt Miller, Boston
    • Independent un caucused
    • Electoral working group co-chair in Boston, helped author one of priorities for transformative justice committee in Boston 
    • Wants DSA to build stronger institutions of working class power: strong fighting unions, autonomous tenants unions fully independent of non profit and govt funding
    • Wants to see DSA continue successful electoral work and take concrete steps towards breaking with the Dem party. Build independent apparatus and run campaigns with strong candidates
    • Wants strong internal structures within DSA. Deepen internal dem, invest in transformative justice and conflict resolution. Hopes for a liveable planet and just society relies on multiracial working class.
    • DSA’s growth should make us hopeful
  • Desiree Joy Frias
    • Queer afro-latina mom, independent candidate
    • DSA organizers across country show up for fight: PK in Portland, Housing in Houston, India Walton, Hunts Point teamsters
    • Served 3 years in the branch organizing committee, provided mutual aid 8 months after giving birth during quarantine. DSA gave her training and resources
    • Wants Spanish language integration: fully translate materials to increase reachin BIPOC community
    • Wants more digital organizing
    • Wants to build out new state-level program that was adopted yesterday: bring training / resources to chapters, new resources to National
    • Want to address painful moments at this Convention. We hurt each other and lose skilled comrades. If elected, will expand training and resource bank so more resources for restorative justice and conflict resolution
  • Sabrina Chan, Chicago DSA
    •  Engage in electoral work because need socialists wielding state power to take on racial capitalism
    • Socialist majority slate
    • Chapters have done amazing work at ballot box: Maine DSA, Portland, for instance. National had their back: helped them push a fundraising campaign for legal challenges. That’s the kind of work she wants them to support.
    • Capacity for coordination needs to be built. Turned around dysfunctional committee that then supported chapters with political organizing
    • Launched a fundraising program for nationally endorsed candidates: raised over 50K in the past few months
    • Wants to develop national comms strategy: not just supporting indivis in office
    • Wants to support small chapters from start to finish
    • Her survival as trans woman of color depends on the working class winning
  • Jennifer Bolen
    • Will just use time to say thank you: Delegates have seen questionnaire / interviews
    • When Bernie suspended campaign people stopped talking about class war and went back to Democratic Party. DSA made her hopeful. Also made her hopeful during COVID / police brutality in 2020
    • Hopes that DSA will be disciplined organization that fights for class independence 
    • Will win through international proletarian revolution. Have no other choice.
  • Justin Charles, NYC, current NPC member
    • Design and tech worker at a non-profit and adjunct professor. Unionized former job
    • Helped start the Brooklyn branch of NYC DSA, served 2 terms on the chapter’s Steering Committee, and has been NYC DSA Delegate since 2016. Has worked with the electoral working group to recruit, interview and research candidates for city council races. Helped work with racial justice campaign to defund NYPD. A lot more.
    • Served on the budget and finance committee and communications committee for NPC. Part of the Convention Steering Committee, chair of GDC, passed Resolution 27. 
    • Electing him makes DSA a sharper tool. Need to bring more people in the struggle and join them where they are already fighting
    • Job is to tie together a multitude of seemingly different struggles so we all know what solidarity is, believe in it, and fight for it 
  • Sydney Ghazarian, Los Angeles
    • Former climate justice co-chair for chapter, 2-time ecosoc Steering Committee member, steering member of PRO act committee, steering member of national working power coalition
    • Built DSA’s Ecosoc and GND work from the bottom up, beginning in the 2017 Convention. Raised expectations for national working groups and projects. Engaged in strategic campaigns around public power, free transit and more.
    • Has brought together comrades from across the country for shared strategy and goals. The PRO Act mobilization brought out over 86 chapters on May Day, flipped 2 senators,and made millions of calls.
    • Vote for Sydney and the rest of the GND slate at the top of the ballot. 
  • Gustavo Gordillo 
    • Peruvian immigrant running on GND slate
    • Organized with 2 other GND candidates for years
    • Campaigning has been some of the most intense experiences in their life. Worked with NYS chapters to try to build legislation around public renewal energy
    • GND slate emerged from organizing projects rather than a caucus. Know how to move DSA to organize, focus, and do build things. Know how to work across tendencies. That was their experience with the PRO act.
    • Socialist organizations have to create their own class base and build campaigns for transformative reforms. Building power can happen quickly.
  • Ashik Siddique, Metro DC
    • Originally from Brooklyn, parents immigrated from Bangladesh. Pathway comes from being politicized as a Muslim after 9/11 
    • Has been organizing in the EcSsoc working group for over a year with many comrades across the country. Used to doom scroll, but that forced them to cultivate hope and become disciplined in organizing. Became focused on what works to develop power in the years to come.
    • After the past week feels the weight of everything they have to do to rebuild trust. A crucial part of this is continue to build more powerfully on what is already making us strong
    • Have seen structures that can support comrades in working through differences when collaborating on different projects. GND has done this: working across chapters to build skills across comrades from different tendencies. This can also better support all of DSA’s work, from abolition to internationalism.
  • Aaron Warner, LA
    • DSA member since 2017
    • Has been campaign canvasser, union delegator, marshall, 7 year veteran of non-profit world
    • Has built relationships with people of many different backgrounds (anarchist, indigenous, etc)
    • Last uprising we weren’t prepared for the moment. If build up abolition/mutual aid/anti-facist movement, can build up the working class when next moment comes
    • Crises are when possibilities break out of cages. To get there we need to commit to building orgs help. Smash barriers against people. Get smaller and rural chapters talking, and larger chapters listening. Build a new culture of honesty and collaboration so mutual and good faith preserved
    • He’s a revolutionary and in this for the long haul

Resolution #29: Stipends for NPC Steering Committee Members

  • Keon L., Philadelphia: Motivating Author
  • The Steering Committee does a lot of work as volunteers and they could use economic support that will help them shoulder some of the work. It won’t solve all of the capacity problems, but it will help by putting off an additional job in order to support the family.
  • Allie C., Knoxville: Against
  • Believes that this is a recipe for disaster for the next incoming NPC due to factionalism and divisiveness that we have already seen elsewhere. Tying these Steering Committee spots to funding can create more consternation among NPCers. 
  • Motion to Limit Debate to 1 speaker for and 1 speaker against. Chair moves to adopt by unanimous consent
  • More than 100 objections.
  • This motion is not adopted.
  • Andrew P., At-Large: For
  • The NPC works incredibly hard and for very long hours. The Steering Committee does even more and dedicates countless hours to support the organization and its growth.
  • It’s very important for them to be able to do this work and also be compensated for it. This will enable others to take on this work by providing this support to part time workers, parents, etc. 
  • Michael B., Metro DC: Against
  • The principle of paying political leaders who are also functioning as administrators blurs the line between volunteer and staff, which has come up several times already.
  • Request for Information: Would this make NPC members employees?
  • NPC Would not be classified with staff, but would need to discuss with the attorney.
  • Would also not be made union members.
  • Request for Information: How are NPC members currently compensated?
  • They are not currently compensated, they do however receive reimbursements for travel.
  • Request for Information: How many hours does each NPC member work?
  • 20 or more at least.
  • Dave P,, Austin: For
  • Current NPC member. Would not run again unless they were in a position where they could leave their full time job.
  • Do we want our organization to be made by elected leaders who are paid a stipend or by management who never signed up to do this?
  • Request for Information: May Steering Committee members serve, but reject funds?
  • Yes.
  • Shafeka H., Atlanta: Against
  • Delegate believes that a better use of money would be a full time staff organizer.
  • This is addressing the administrative burden on Steering Committee members, which is the purpose of hiring staff.
  • Because this provides effectively $2k a month, it can be argued this is supporting people who are already comfortable financially
  • Real way to solve this problem is to create better bodies within the organization. 
  • Chair asks to pass by unanimous consent.
  • More than 100 objections so the body will proceed to a roll call vote.
  • Results: (542 in favor, 471 opposed)
  • Outcome: Resolution is adopted.
  • Chair asks to adopt 2 speakers for, 2 speakers against by unanimous consent
  • Over 100 objections. 
  • Motion is not adopted.

Resolution #38: A Socialist Horizon

  • Andy S., Madison WI: Motivating Author
  • Updates a resolution from the 2019 Convention and reasserts that our aim is to form a workers’ party independent of the capitalist parties.
  • Lays out that a candidate would already need local DSA chapter endorsement to receive national DSA endorsement.
  • Sean D., Chicago: Against
  • Holds endorsement to strict criteria and if nationally endorsed candidates fail to hold these commitments they will be censured
  • Cannot resolve our way to a mass party; there are no shortcuts. DSA is not ready for a resolution of this degree
  • Robs NEC’s ability to act.

***Move to debate on Amendment #14 to Resolution #38***

Amendment #14 to Resolution #38

  • Kshama S., Seattle: Motivating Author
  • Must learn lessons from Bernie 2016 and Bernie 2020.
  • Socialists must be encouraged to run independent of the Democratic Party as it cannot be reformed from within.
  • DSA should lead from the front by requiring candidates to only accept the average national salary for skilled workers.
  • Request for Information: Statewide races must be enforced by a vote of all DSA members in the state – which races?
  •  
  • Request for Information: w\Would elected DSA members who make less than average workers be reimbursed by the organization?
  • Up to the NPC to interpret
  • Bran A-B., NYC: Against
  • Fails to acknowledge that Bernie’s runs grew socialism each time he ran.
  • Even when we lose, we build socialist organizers by teaching organizing skills.
  • The ballot line does not matter, but winning does matter. Jabari Brisport ran on the Green Party line and failed by 39 points, but he won as a Democrat by 23 points.
  • Amos C., Boston: For
  • Bernie Sanders campaign is actually an argument in favor of this amendment as he was sabotaged by the Democratic establishment.
  • National reform of the Democratic Party is a dead end and we need a new path forward which will require building a broad working class base.
  • Will recognize elections not as an end in and of themselves, but rather as a means for raising class consciousness.
  • Floyd C., Stanislaus: Against
  • Voting against because of the cost of living in Washington DC, which is too high for folks to take the average skilled worker’s living wage.
  • Chair asks to adopt by unanimous consent
  • More than 100 objections, move to roll call vote
  • Result: (151 in favor, 838 opposed)
  • Outcome: Amendment fails and is not adopted.

***Return to debate on unamended Resolution #38***

  • Sam H-L., San Francisco: For
  • SF DSA has already been working along Resolution 38 requirements and the shift in tone has been massive.
  • Resolution will help build a democratic and disciplined organization.
  • Mike N., Austin: Against
  • Cori Bush didn’t use the word socialist in her campaign material and DSA could have chosen not to endorse.
  • Cori Bush was endorsed anyway and we believe it to have been the right decision. The decision was based on signifiers other than socialist branding.
  • DSA is harder to work with when we are too sectarian and overly-prescriptive.
  • Point of Order: Can the chair do a better job of gender parity among speakers?
    • Chair will try their best to do this.
  • Paul K, Twin Cities, For
  • Resolution commits candidates towards upholding the struggle for black liberation; seems like the correct direction after 2020 protests.
  • Want to give chapters tools to fight the imperialist state.
  • Seneca S., Austin, Against
  • Ultimate goal of the mass party is indisputable among Convention Delegates.
  • During the Jose Garza campaign in Austin, a key element of the campaign was to defund the police. It would have been impossible under terms of Resolution 38.
  • Jose Garza got the most votes of any DSA member in any election in the country despite not identifying as a socialist.
  • Point of Order: Cannot easily tell Delegates’ gender by their names.
  • Roll call vote initiated
  • Results: (232 in favor, 754 opposed)
  • Outcome: Resolution fails. 
  •  

Resolution #18: International Committee and Mass Organizing

  • Sepehr M., NYC: Motivating Author
  • Resolution 18 is a request to Delegates to continue our work and as to how DSA approaches internationalism.
  • This would give Delegates the power to elect members to the International Committee and a mandate to make internationalist political decisions while still operating under NPC oversight.
  • Nat S., Metro DC: Against
  • Resolution 14 was passed and supported by International Committee leaders and builds upon work to democratize.
  • Resolution 18 threatens this work, transforming the structure of the International Committee in a radical way. This essentially creates a separate NPC strictly for international issues.
  • Secretariat would be given broad autonomy to release statements on behalf of DSA and other functions.
  • Resolution 18 divorces international from domestic issues and takes a lot of power out of subcommittees of the International Committee.

***Move to debate for Amendment #8 to Resolution #18***

Amendment #8 to Resolution #18

  • Caleb H., Southern Maine: Motivating Author
  • Removes language that directs International Committee to encourage and prioritize participation in foreign political parties over and against self-organization of members abroad
  • Resolution 18 without this amendment is a non-starter for members abroad.
  • Chair moves to adopt the amendment by unanimous consent.
  • Fewer than 100 objections are noted. The body will vote by acclamation.
  • Outcome: Amendment is adopted by unanimous consent.

***Return to debate on newly amended Resolution #18***

  • Kay G., NYC: For
  • There is no socialism without internationalism.
  • Resolution 18 makes the International Committee an organ of mass participation and mass action.
  • The secretariat is still subordinate to the NPC and this is clear in the text.
  • Eshaan V., Las Vegas: Against
  • Member of the International Committee Steering Committee; International Committee has accomplished important work including Delegations to Peru and Venezuela.
  • Resolution will factionalize International Committee leadership and divide the International Committee and the rest of the organization.
  • Bingjiefu H., Charlotte Metro: For
  • Member of International Committee Asia/Oceania subcommittee.
  • The International Committee needs to be opened to the entire DSA membership.
  • Resolution 14 will increase our international presence. The organization must be held accountable for the organization to best present itself internationally.
  • Jana S., Metro DC: Against
  • Current co-chair of the International Committee Americas subcommittee.
  • Agrees with some points, but resolution is omnibus with many things contained therein.
  • The International Committee has already been carrying out the de facto practice of letting in all dues paying members to its subcommittees if they apply.
  • There are 2 NPC liaisons, secretariat, Steering Committee, and then subcommittees. This resolution would give an inordinate amount of power to the secretariat; would give the secretariat power to publish statements, campaign priorities, et al; despite not being part of day to day organizing.
  • Body will move to a roll call vote
  • Results: (270 in favor, 653 opposed)
  • Outcome: Resolution fails. 
  • Motion to Refer all stylistic and technical changes to NPC for ⅔ vote approval.
    • Adopted by unanimous consent
  • Chair asks to move to 2 speakers for and 2 against. 
    • Asks to adopt by unanimous consent.
  • Less than 100 objections. Motion is adopted by unanimous consent.
  • Chair asks for unanimous consent to consider pushing Resolution 25 to NPC and move forward with Resolutions 26 and 36.
  • Less than 100 objections.
  • Outcome: Motion is adopted by unanimous consent. Body will move to Resolutions 25 and 36.

Resolution #26: Developing Independent Organizations & Training Organizers for Emerging Conditions

  • Byron L, Orange County (Author): For
  • George Floyd, Chilean, and Bolivian successes owed to innovative tactics through existing well organized left parties and groups as well as strong and class independent institutions.
  • This resolution as a whole is a cost effective way for DSA and the US left to achieve goals in the face of intensifying crises.
  • Nate K, Atlanta: Against
  • This is against Amendment 12 specifically. This would put all the work for the proposal into the hands of the Mutual Aid Working Group and the Anti-Fascist Working Group while cutting out the Housing Justice Commission and the GDC.
  • Chair asks for unanimous consent to refer to the NPC.
  • Less than 100 objections. 
  • Outcome: This and all other unfinished business will be referred to the NPC

Amendment #12 to Resolution #26

  • Chair asks to adopt amendment by unanimous consent
  • There are more than 100 objections. 
  • The amendment is not adopted by unanimous consent
  • Byron L., Orange County (Author): For
  • Amendment is to clarify which specific committees as original language was vague.
  • Focuses work towards mutual aid and antifascist working groups, but also allows for other national bodies to develop tactics.
  • Justin R., Seattle: Against
  • Resolution is attempting to do too many, loosely related things.
  • Roll call vote is initiated; meeting ends before voting is complete
  • Outcome: This and all other unfinished business will be referred to the NPC

Resolution #36: Prioritizing Working-Class Latino Organizing in DSA

NPC Election results

  • Moment to raise up Joe Schwartz on behalf of outgoing NPC.
  • Opening remarks from NPC Election and Credentials Committee Chair Bryan LaVergne.
  • Committee heard results this morning and the results are unambiguous and clear.
  • The NPC election results are as follows:
    • Gilman Bagga
    • Jennifer Bolen
    • Sabrina Chan
    • Justin Charles
    • Sofia Guimaraes Cutler
    • Laura Gabby
    • Aaron Warner
    • Sydney Ghazarian
    • Austin Gonzalez
    • Kara Hall
    • Kristian Hernandez
    • Jose Alejandro La Luz
    • Jen McKinney
    • Matt Miller
    • Ashik Siddique
    • Gustavo Gordillo
  • Marianela thanks Michael G, Kristina S, Emma B, Rebecca R, all staff, Walker, Graham, Sandy, Natalie, Justin, Evan, and many other people for their role in planning and putting together the Convention. 
  • Another big special thank you to Brian LaVergne
  • Encouragement from Kristian to remember that the work does not end here.
  • Convention adjourns.