Open Item Discussion: Appointed PCO membership start date

[Annabelle Backman]

Tara's feedback:

There’s two possible dates for an appointed PCO to become a voting member—the day the PCOs vote on them at a meeting, or the day the County Chair signs off on their appointment. Since we’re also extending automatic membership to Precinct Coordinators, both should become voting members after the meeting approves, them; in other words, the prior language of “when the 43rd LD Democrats recommend their appointment as an Appointed PCO, or approve their standing as a Precinct Coordinator." The PCO doesn’t get *PCO voting rights* until the County chair signs, but we can start automatic membership upon approval. (PCO appointment votes go the agenda after sensitive votes like endorsements)

My reply:

The problem is that the appointment of an Appointed PCO can be rejected by the County Chair. If their membership begins when the District Chair appoints them, then it has to be revoked if the County Chair rejects them (your proposed text had a sentence for that). I thought it would be clearer for Appointed PCOs to gain their membership rights when the County Chair confirms their appointment, so the revocation scenario is avoided entirely. This also means that their membership begins when their PCO rights/responsibilities begin, much like Elected PCOs' membership only begins on December 1st.

Debate and discuss.

–

Annabelle Backman

Vice Chair for Technology | Washington State 43rd District Democrats

https://www.43rddemocrats.org/

[Tara Gallagher]

Annabelle’s reasoning is very sound; my main concern is that we do not get active notice from KCD of approval and appointment of PCOs. It’s bad enough to track down the info those times we have a PCO-only vote coming up.

Tara

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "43rd District Democrats Rules and Bylaws Committee" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to 43rd-bylaws...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to 43rd-...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/43rd-bylaws/CABRLSOtnokjda%2BPVibHn5EAT8r2PkmRke3xhCnY9ix57HkvxsA%40mail.gmail.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

[Annabelle Backman]

This sounds like a good topic for a floor amendment at KCD, along the lines of “the County Chair shall provide notice to the District Chair of PCO appointment approvals or denials  within 7 days.” I’ll prepare something.

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/43rd-bylaws/AD9DB71E-B1B2-46C3-84DD-023511532910%40tara-jamie.net.

For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

--

[Tara Gallagher]

No matter what, we are leaving appointed PCOs in a limbo controlled by KCD. Also, the proposed KCD bylaws give the KCD chair 30 days from receiving an application to process the application, which on its own has high potential to make the date after the *next* 43rd Regular meeting; seven days notice doesn’t help with that. (And this all is assuming the KCD chair follows KCD bylaws, not always a given…)

On further consideration—applications are rarely rejected by the KCD chair, and the only reasons I’ve seen for rejection are applicant doesn’t live in the precinct listed, or the precinct isn’t vacant—which is why checking addresses and precincts is supposed to be job one of the PCO committee when processing an application.

Other reasons would be something like applicant is not registered voter or not a Democrat, which violates our membership rules anyway; or the KCD chair being as ass, which brings us back to that limbo. 

Tara

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/43rd-bylaws/CABRLSOtz7pxKcJ-F1Fh8Ti_qjX1R5oTs-%3Dm2y3FDFxLYwU8-cA%40mail.gmail.com.

[Annabelle Backman]

Hmm. Maybe we should think about this differently: why revoke membership at all, under those circumstances? Likewise, why revoke membership for PCOs who cease to be eligible (e.g., due to moving out of the precinct)? Why not honor their commitment by continuing their membership through the end of the full term? Or at least through the current year?  That eliminates this problem, shows our appreciation for their dedication and effort, and  removes further insult to PCOs injured by economic eviction.

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/43rd-bylaws/5D5BBFF8-9682-4CE5-B3F9-FD60A3EF7940%40tara-jamie.net.

For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

[Tara Gallagher]

That seems reasonable, (those who move out of the district retain non-voting membership)--although I would add a minimum time of service to avoid a churn for free memberships.

Tara

[Annabelle Backman]

Given the need to be appointed and approved I don’t know that abuse is that much of a concern here. If it becomes one, then we need to do a better job of vetting candidates ahead of their approval vote.

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/43rd-bylaws/3FEACE1F-014A-425E-B1FE-327A0A4D047D%40tara-jamie.net.

For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

[Brad Bell]

I am pretty strongly for letting them start at the time the 43rd votes them in. Is the language "The date when the 43rd District Democrats recommend their appointment" good enough for that?

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/43rd-bylaws/CABRLSOvAYsPx8d-owbvNA6WD091DO3t1GxU_8tdBx2dnWkeJ6Q%40mail.gmail.com.

[Scott Alspach]

Just to clarify, we are only talking about voting rights as a member correct?  PCO votes aren't granted until the county chair signs the form. I am hopeful this process will be smoother this term than it has been in the past.

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/43rd-bylaws/CACOE%2BxZpVt4MBrLceyFCVqcgb%3D0RWFsV4u79tpG1akrN%3DwArxw%40mail.gmail.com.

[Angyl]

It sounds like a core question is, what is the desired outcome for an individual who applied but was rejected in application by the County Chair. Perhaps you have a virtuous Chair and their rejection is a signal of this person being a real problem, or perhaps you have a shenanigans Chair with a personal vendetta or lazy Chair just not doing their job. Whatever your default is will apply regardless of the case. If you fail open, with virtuous Chair, now you have to go through an embarrassing removal process or wait for a suitably large disruption. If you fail closed, with lazy or shenanigans Chair, your new recruit has to wait for free voting rights.

This suggests another question already mentioned - is simply expressing the desire to take on the PCO role sufficient for free voting membership immediately? That feels easy to shenanigans to me. Generally the purpose of wait times is to mitigate that kind of gaming as a short term tactic by adding some advance planning to it. I would posit that we want PCOs who priority want to do the work of PCOing more than we want PCOs who priority want to vote on a specific thing on the agenda of the moment.

So I would propose that an approved Appointed get voting rights at the lesser of when they are confirmed as signed off at County or whatever the deadline is ostensibly for the County Chair to sign off (was that 45 days or something?), and if actively rejected by the County Chair they are rejected and redirect to - what did we rename Acting? - that path, which it seems to me completely appropriate for the LD to have ownership of under the rest of this Bylaws model.

Maybe even present why they were rejected and let the body decide if it's shenanigans. Rejected for holding a DSA card by the County Chair? Let the body decide. Rejected for being a former GOP Organizer? Let the body decide. The County Chair hasn’t signed papers for 5 months? Let the body welcome them.

You can get trained and do PCO work without a vote, and you’re in theory supposed to be getting vote in exchange for that PCO work, so I really have no problem with an up to two meeting wait. How long is that Elected path wait between filing and Dec1?

- Angyl

Sent from ProtonMail Mobile

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/43rd-bylaws/CACOE%2BxZpVt4MBrLceyFCVqcgb%3D0RWFsV4u79tpG1akrN%3DwArxw%40mail.gmail.com.

[Scott Alspach]

I think Angyl makes a persuasive case.

I thought I saw a thread where we were discussing how the 43rd recruits PCOs but I can't seem to find it now. Regardless, I want to note that the 43rd Chair also has to sign and approve of PCOs as well. It seems like that sign off should at least unofficially happen before the membership votes on someone, but from my read of the bylaws it seems like the Chair would have the right not to appoint up until they sign the form.

I have no intention of using this ability in the future, but it does seem like an appropriate fail safe to have in various circumstances.

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/43rd-bylaws/sv9QdeFyagPFiuGy3k-yeoZpa7RmB0hgGVIGUPWW_3HdA_0FnMnG7rHN998qRpDJWLzbAF5-Ggz5hf_dQBUokx1NetJmd90CwUdrqORQkcw%3D%40protonmail.com.

[Bradley Bell]

There is already the waiting/notification period of ten days before the meeting for Pco approval, plus whatever time it takes for recruitment ctte to process their application 

-Brad

[Angyl]

I haven’t double checked the current bylaws draft on this but I would think it should work much the same way. The order of operations that seems to make the most sense is :

- Somebody recruits

- forms submitted

- PCO committee does verification work and any vetting

- PCO committee recommends to membership one or more candidates for appointed via agenda

- epic rap battle if contested, membership votes or approves.

- LD Chair signs or rejects, if reject GOTO reject process

- if signed, papers to County

- County Chair signs, rejects, or times out, goto reject process.

- if CC approves, PCO or PCO committee may get the ack early, maybe they built a response channel or check the county page regularly, and whenever they do that person gets added to credentialed PCO voters in db. An optimal PCO committee would arguably be in contact with recruits throughout the process, but should hold explicit responsibility for tracking County signings at lest monthly to keep PCO credentials accurate and letting the PCOs know when their process is complete and getting their VB access up, or updating them if it moves to the neoActing approval process.

-  In order to avoid a dead stop there, maybe there should be a more grassroots process for not-Acting-anymore, like nominating from the floor or something, so if somebody 45 day times out and there’s a total black hole they can still go straight to the body for approval of their desire for a PC role? Since it’s built as the body granting role and rights, that seems appropriate.

- Angyl

Sent from ProtonMail Mobile

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/43rd-bylaws/CA%2B7_OaidjcaofZeftyTG6UG2rnFawRfW15kZHgWiMBz%2BBH7ccQ%40mail.gmail.com.

[Angyl]

Here’s a scenario that actually happens, a lot, and is the main cause of PCO process drama:

https://www.google.com/amp/s/southseattleemerald.com/2017/04/13/controversy-continues-at-37th-district-dem-meeting/amp/

Replacing an Elected. This is basically the biggest thing PCOs can do, and it is totally common for potential replacements to actively recruit floods to PCOs specifically to vote for them. But they need to be fully verified all the way to have that vote, that’s RCW level stuff. Therefore it’s vital to have a process that fully verifies Appointeds

Creating a 35 day gap between status is just imho introducing the sort of confusion that renaming Acting is trying to reduce. You’re new, and you sort of have a vote but also sort of don’t? For some amount of time you may or may not be communicated to about?

Maybe you go the not-Acting-anymore path for org voting free membership and org work, and the PCO path for PCO work and PCO vote (which also applies to County). PCO vote is for RCW restricted stuff pretty much exclusively under these Bylaws, so it really does need to be treated appropriately and fully removed from the ambiguity zone.

- Angyl

[Tara Gallagher]

This is pretty much the ideal order of operations. 

It has mostly fallen apart on “PCO committee does verification work and any vetting”  (which is how we approve PCO appointments to precincts that didn’t match the address they listed, or to precincts that weren’t empty)

There is also a step somewhere between “forms submitted [presumably 'to the PCO committee’ is meant here] and ”LD chair signs or rejects” which is “PCO committee gets forms to LD Chair” This seems so obvious it’s not on the list, but lots of appointments fell apart not so long ago because of missing this step.

I don’t much care how long appointed PCOs wait to get their free membership; they can pay dues if they want to vote right away. I am mainly concerned with being totally clear at all times that the candidate for appointment is not a PCO until the County chair signs off on the appointment. Assuming folks in both orgs follow their bylaws, this is up to 45 days from the PCO approval vote.

Tara

[Angyl]

Ooooooh 🔥🔥🔥 super guilty 🙇‍♀️

Yes add those steps too.

Sent from ProtonMail Mobile

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/43rd-bylaws/DE300AB9-FFD0-4A20-9BAA-7B5D43629C8C%40tara-jamie.net.

[Annabelle Backman]

Tara, does §3.7 in the current draft (part of the rework of Article 3 that you submitted) adequately address your concerns about making clear when an Appointed PCO actually becomes a PCO?

In keeping with my earlier suggestion, here is my recommendation:

1. Change §2.3 (b) back such that Appointed PCOs and Precinct Coordinators become members when they are voted on and approved by the membership.
2. Change §2.4 (a) such that PCOs and Precinct Coordinators' memberships end on January 31st of the year following the end of their term/appointment.

This makes membership duration consistent across all the ways a membership can begin, closing some weird gaps where an Elected PCO's membership did not extend through the next Reorg, whereas a paid member's did. Could this be abused by people to get free memberships? Maybe...but if that is happening to the extent that it is a problem worth caring about, then our PCO vetting process is bad and we should feel bad. We can address processing and vetting procedures through standing rules (something for the PCO Committee to work on).

Thoughts?

–

Annabelle Backman

Vice Chair for Technology | Washington State 43rd District Democrats

https://www.43rddemocrats.org/

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/43rd-bylaws/XCUCGcF03tR2HXbkJRrgP78xghcULSTDbH-NmCjhqmDilR_Zt2CnHZEpaOqT2HEFBnEnQQJAXotS_3v2jQNCXARQz_ZQjWrZGEY8Jfx52KQ%3D%40protonmail.com.

[Brad Bell]

I like this solution

[Angyl]

Elected PCOs all take office Dec1 through dept of elections Certification and the various Chairs have nothing at all to do with any of it. The Elected PCOs coming in to office is a prerequisite before any reorgs can meet quorum and elect their Chairs etc.

If you extend an Appointed to Jan31, you could have an Appointed occupying the office of a newly Elected. If you extend just the LD vote portion, you’ve created another weird ambiguity space.

Sent from ProtonMail Mobile

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/43rd-bylaws/CABRLSOt%3D%3Dw9L5OAMAfMRF6rW3c%2BU%3DsfL%3Dw_H5ToPcG_oqrr1%3Dg%40mail.gmail.com.

[Annabelle Backman]

Membership and PCO status are conceptually unrelated to one another. One can be a PCO without being a member, and vice-versa. I don't see how extending the duration of a free membership creates any confusion.

–

Annabelle Backman

Vice Chair for Technology | Washington State 43rd District Democrats

https://www.43rddemocrats.org/

[Angyl]

Hm, how can one be a PCO without being a member? Like if I were in such a status what would that functionally mean for my votes, VB access, mailing list status?

Sent from ProtonMail Mobile

[Annabelle Backman]

I should say that one could be a PCO without being a member, if not for our free membership provision in our bylaws. We have zero say in who registers to run, and who gets elected, after all. I imagine that the free membership exists in part to keep the craziness you're describing from being an issue.

–

Annabelle Backman

Vice Chair for Technology | Washington State 43rd District Democrats

https://www.43rddemocrats.org/

[Angyl]

I’d want to doublecheck with RCW and DMD or someone but given that the PCOs must quorum to elect the Chair etc and approve the Bylaws it reads like the PCOs vote to form the org which is then permitted in Bylaws to bring in additional non PCO members and give them votes not restricted through other layers of rules to PCOs only. Because the Bylaws don’t cease to exist at term change, the last term’s Bylaws are what extend that additional membership to the non PCO reorg votes.

Idk, maybe it won’t be as confusing as I fear, but I’m pretty sure new-me would be confused by it.

Now, the restriction of appointing PCOs during the shuffle makes legal sense, but I’d argue there’s no such restriction on approving non-paying org members in December or at Reorg immediately following PCO restricted votes, as that’s a thing the org has a right to define outside of RCW. So a former PCO who is in a precinct with someone else newly elected could arguably go through that process and have non PCO reorg vote that way.

Sent from ProtonMail Mobile

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/43rd-bylaws/CABRLSOsmi0d1qgvu8DQTB6YQvhgUqT3NRG4BkQ%3DgxFQm550CSQ%40mail.gmail.com.

[Annabelle Backman]

I've lost track of where we're at in this conversation. Are you opposed to my last proposal?

–

Annabelle Backman

Vice Chair for Technology | Washington State 43rd District Democrats

https://www.43rddemocrats.org/

[Tara Gallagher]

3.7 and 2.3-4 are completely independent of each other. 3.7 is fine.

PCOs cease being PCOs on December 1. Therefore, if someone hasn’t paid dues and has not continued on as a PCO, they are no longer a member. 

Section 2.4 “When their term of office ends.”

An ex-PCO, having been a voting member the previous year, can instantly renew membership by paying dues, as in section 2.3

Tara

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/43rd-bylaws/CABRLSOtTpTZPxWChej3n4Oa6yHvXx%2BUUwnD0%2B3S8r732n2Zr-w%40mail.gmail.com.

[Scott Alspach]

It is hard for me to tell exactly where we are at without the proposed text in front of me.

I think we give elected and appointed PCOs membership in the organization so that they can fulfill their duty to represent their precinct. If they want the rights of membership they really should be encouraged to become paid members like everyone else. We have not done a great job of this during my time on the board.

If they are not interested in becoming paid members, I don't think we should grant them free membership votes at reorg after their term expires.

I am also concerned about the implementation details of all of this. King County holds the official list of 43rd PCOs. We ran into issues with this last term and I want to avoid a similar fate or situations where it becomes easy for us to lose track of who is appointed but not official so can vote on one thing or another.  I've run sign in many times and it is very easy to mix this up and it makes people pretty unhappy. I think simplicity is a big advantage here.

I am in favor of keeping appointeds and actings as members as soon as they are approved, but do not think we should extend membership for PCOs past their term.

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/43rd-bylaws/4337C9F7-96EA-4711-8C3B-44B197EB5E52%40tara-jamie.net.

[Brad Bell]

I am also in favor of keeping it as painless as possible for the members. 

I think the reason this "extend outgoing PCO membership to Jan 31st" rule is being proposed is not so that PCO's never have to bother with paying, it's so we don't have two different payment deadlines, one right before reorg, and one right after.

The sign-in difficulty I hope will get fixed as well, we need to do that no matter what decision is made on this rule.

[Tara Gallagher]

To clarify—PCO terms end on Dec. 1 of an even-numbered year.

I stand by the ‘and they then cease to be voting members of the 43rd unless they pay dues’

Tara

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/43rd-bylaws/4337C9F7-96EA-4711-8C3B-44B197EB5E52%40tara-jamie.net.

[Angyl]

This is part of the ambiguity/confusion I was thinking of too, that bookkeeping part.

Tbh I just can’t imagine the PCOs voting in favor of bylaws that strip them of Membership votes unless they pay if they’re aware of that impact, but I won’t fight about putting it up for consider if y’all want.

Mostly I’m fighting about keeping the PCO role as covered by RCW totally unambiguous and strictly operating under PCO rules on the RCW timeline.

I feel the clearest and easiest way to do this is a PCO is a PCO while they’re a RCW PCO and only then. Simultaneous with bring a PCO they are a member. When that ends, they are no longer a member by virtue of PCOdom but can still be a member through member channels approved in bylaws. As a prior member they may pay at Reorg if they are not an Elected PCO.

Optionally, you can load the non-paid former “Acting PCO” Member voting role approval in front of member vote reorg as there is nothing higher restricting it. Also not a hill I’d die on either way, just another path to filling the intent of offering non-paid voting membership for Reorg if that’s what the intent there is.

- Angyl

Sent from ProtonMail Mobile

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/43rd-bylaws/CA%2B7_OaiLu3w8qwsjHWtBCcpyEf%3D%3DbRKfnpbkm1XaShVHpfc6Tw%40mail.gmail.com.