CALL FOR A VOTE: Amendment to adopted recommendation

[Annabelle Backman]

Hello Bylaws Committee members,

Thank you for putting up with the various iterations on the proposal. I'd like to get one more through tonight if we can, to try and arrive at unanimous consensus on the recommendation.

Please find attached an updated proposal (2019-02-14 v2), along with two "diff" documents showing the differences between this draft and the 2019-02-14 and 2019-02-13 versions, respectively. The changes in this draft are as follows:

1. Striking Precinct Coordinator from the County Chair rejection related clause of 2.4 since KCDCC doesn't have any say in the matter.
2. The privacy policy-related changes struck, returning Article 12 to its 2019-02-13 version. We can implement a privacy policy without bylaws changes now, and this is too complex to just slip in.
3. Striking the "serve on KCDCC Standing Committees" change for KCDCC Reps and Alts. There isn't agreement on what that clause is supposed to mean, so let's leave it as is and continue discussions in the future.

Please reply to this thread with your vote on whether or not to adopt this amended proposal as the committee's recommendation. As it is late and the report is due tonight, I am holding voting open only until 9:00 PM or until a clear majority of votes is cast one way or another.

–

Annabelle Backman

Vice Chair for Technology | Washington State 43rd District Democrats

https://www.43rddemocrats.org/

[Brad Bell]

Yes

--
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/CABRLSOuVS9Vp43L_VbBNeyK3n%2BruyEsy5C4fC%3DY2raBRn6xbbg%40mail.gmail.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

[Scott Alspach]

I vote yes. 

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/43rd-bylaws/CACOE%2Bxbh76DgKpe2hL__qqvtqUP1w1FVbS5ft3Bjkocu_nFLug%40mail.gmail.com.

[James Williams]

I vote “Yes”

James

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/43rd-bylaws/CABaqRXsV2d4zb5s-4F89Ea0Ozsuxi5EMRAJpPHUtTJnGtN5WQQ%40mail.gmail.com.

[Angyl]

Re-registering my dissenting opinion No from from Nope Hill.

- Angyl

Sent from ProtonMail Mobile

[Brad Bell]

What is it you're dissenting from? This is a yes/no vote on returning to the near-consensus it seems we had. Are you just registering a blanket dissent for any recommendation that comes out of this committee?

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/43rd-bylaws/DmZZ76X_3BwD39baBfuYes3sZmwVVVVwXVB8ByBKdJuMFxyHKDbq7WAYBCozeWjFqeUqIX5TFsPGPKVHGvvXcfjOfxt_ETnzyPMTVJ5D980%3D%40protonmail.com.

[Angyl]

I’ve written quite a few times regarding my dissent hill, please reference back.

Sent from ProtonMail Mobile

[Bradley Bell]

I’ve read all the emails, I’m not clear on whether your “no” is to the 3 items being voted on, or the whole recommendation (which is not technically in order)

-Brad

[Angyl]

The call is to vote on the amended proposal. The amended proposal does not address the PCO status ambiguity generating my prior no. I will not vote to approve something that grants PCO Office based Membership voting rights to someone who is objectively not yet a PCO, whose ultimate position as such is outside the scope of the 43rd to validate.

Sent from ProtonMail Mobile

[Annabelle Backman]

This is not a vote to approve something "that grants PCO Office based Membership voting rights to someone who is objectively not yet a PCO." The text you are taking issue with has already been voted on and passed as a recommendation, and will remain the committee's recommendation irrespective of the outcome of this vote, as this amendment does not alter that text.

–

Annabelle Backman

Vice Chair for Technology | Washington State 43rd District Democrats

https://www.43rddemocrats.org/

[Scott Alspach]

The current bylaws grant membership to Appointed and Acting PCOs on the date that they are approved by the membership.  The current bylaws proposal maintains this status quo.

  2.3 The effective date when an individual becomes a Member is the earliest of: (a) The date when his or her term of office as an Elected PCO begins; (b) The date when the 43rd LD Democrats recommend his or her appointment as an Acting PCO or Appointed PCO;  

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/43rd-bylaws/CABRLSOt5CDw7psUQ0CeZpky6auMQSSeVaf%3DAMUqj5Be17TAOww%40mail.gmail.com.

[Amy Madden]

I vote yes on this current proposal, but look forward to going through and re-reading every detail before the final votes next Tuesday.

I hope we can schedule a Zoom call inviting our community to talk over everything moving article by article (and/or major change by major change).

--Amy

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/43rd-bylaws/CA%2B7_Oai-JaquB%2B7E7vkPVgGD%2BEtVkjeceO%3DaKgqNNP9wxkkJXQ%40mail.gmail.com.

[Aidan Carroll]

I vote aye

Sent from my iPhone

--
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/CABRLSOuVS9Vp43L_VbBNeyK3n%2BruyEsy5C4fC%3DY2raBRn6xbbg%40mail.gmail.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

<Diff - 2019-02-14 v2 versus 2019-02-13.pdf>

<Diff - 2019-02-14 v2 versus 2019-02-14.pdf>

<Annotated Bylaws Proposal (2019-02-14 v2).pdf>

[Annabelle Backman]

I guess I should make clear that I vote yes. 

–

Annabelle Backman

Vice Chair for Technology | Washington State 43rd District Democrats

https://www.43rddemocrats.org/

[Angyl]

I mean, sort of? The status quo existed in a context where KCDCC created a role called “Acting PCO” which was signed off on at the County level using the same process Appointed PCOs went through. That higher role is (*most likely) being eliminated on strong cause making references to it moot. Hence the need to address the “Acting PCO” language and create the “Precinct Coordinator” role. The new role created by the LD begins and ends at the LD; the member approval there is the endpoint (the County Chair does NOT approve “Precinct Coordinators” and this proposed language is problematic in that respect as well. A “Precinct Coordinator” is one as soon as they are approved by LD, there is no longer an additional step as this is not a County-defines role.)

The annotated 2-14 version is what I’m looking at.

2.1 defines a Member as “is a PCO or is a Precinct Coordinator”. But then 2.3 defines the start of Membership as BEFORE a PCO is actually a PCO. This is a direct internal contradiction.

The 2-13 version did not have this problem as it set the Membership date at when the County Chair approved the PCO, which is when they in fact become a PCO. But it did have the problem of implying the County Chair needed to approve “Precinct Coordinators” which they do not.

- Angyl

Sent from ProtonMail Mobile

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/43rd-bylaws/CA%2B7_Oai-JaquB%2B7E7vkPVgGD%2BEtVkjeceO%3DaKgqNNP9wxkkJXQ%40mail.gmail.com.

[Tara Gallagher]

I vote yes for the draft as a whole, to get it moving along

There’s strong points here in the membership section that need further discussion.

Tara

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/43rd-bylaws/uzXfbCR7iAwww5P-WgjfXUSDsA1N-W-O_p2xp5aBqJgRndj6vJ32w8ZpLQrL3my9erTipcOSDLjwF8ofnN3_OfUqMC9QzF65ncfsMsleYvI%3D%40protonmail.com.

[Annabelle Backman]

Angyl,

Thank you for explaining again the issue regarding Appointed PCO membership start times. In all the back and forth on this topic I misunderstood what you were suggesting be changed.

It's a somewhat moot point as the vote is over and the amended proposal was adopted, but the 2014-02-14 version is what was passed earlier in the afternoon. The amendment being voted on in this thread corrected one error (treating Precinct Coordinators as though the County Chair had any say over them), but did not correct the error you're describing (the misalignment between 2.1 and 2.3 regarding Appointed PCO membership). At the time of this thread's vote, the recommended proposal contained both errors.

In any case, I agree with you and Tara that there are still some items to work out here. I'm open to suggestions on ways to approach that on Tuesday, or if we should wait to pick these items back up after Tuesday.

–

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/47D76534-F771-4735-B03A-9E6797246B21%40tara-jamie.net.

[Angyl]

There are many options for what could be changed, depending on what the intent is. I don’t have any horse in the race for what that change should be, outside of not creating this conflict.

Because the Acting PCO role (*probably) isn’t going to be County based anymore and the LD is creating a replacement, that role can be anything the LD wants to define, and can take effect immediately after LD vote.  If the intent is a fast track to nonpaid Member voting, that’s the form it should take. It could be anything from just a pre-vetted and voted-in (per Forbes’ mention about Federal issues) form of Membership to part of the Precinct Coordinator role to saying all applicants for PCO are automatically Members (which might require Membership upon filing for Elected as well).

If the intent is that legal PCOs are to be members, then just shift the Membership start date to County-signed papers, and clearly differentiate PCs as immediate members who are not PCOs, then decide if someone can simultaneously be / be nominated for both for bookkeeping purposes. (This is probably the fastest and easiest fix.)

If the intent is to create a form of Member expected to do Precinct GotV work, PC appears to do that, just don’t forget the vetting. If the intent is to create a form of Member expected to volunteer in some less bound way, pick a new name, create that role, and define any requirements. (This would take time to develop well and should probably wait for a latter round of voting.)

- Angyl

Sent from ProtonMail Mobile

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/43rd-bylaws/CABRLSOsBBRB8yVm8k%3D8AS_F-Rwd_VD5KVKfnJg-3zF4CGa3%2BbA%40mail.gmail.com.

[Angyl]

OH! Also probably important to figure out if the PCs are under the purview of the PCO Committee or Membership Committee for administrative stuff.