CALL FOR A VOTE: Amendments to Recommendation for Articles 2 and 3

[Annabelle Backman]

Hello Rules and Bylaws Committee,

Based on the discussion on tonight's call, I have put together two draft amendments to the current committee recommendation for Articles 2 and 3. The attached document contains both amendments along with three versions of the affected sections for each amendment: the current version, the recommended version, and the amended recommendation.

Amendment 1: Regarding Start of Membership for Appointed PCOs

Amend the recommendation to append “, or is awaiting confirmation by the County Chair of their appointment as an Appointed PCO” to the end of section 2.1.

Section 2.1 as recommended says PCOs are members. Section 2.3 as recommended says Appointed PCO membership starts when the person is recommended for appointment by the membership, but since those people are not technically PCOs until the County Chair signs off on their appointment, this conflicts with section 2.1. This amendment addresses this inconsistency by modifying the definition of "Member" to explicitly include people in this recommended-but-not-yet-a-PCO state.

Amendment 2: Striking Acting PCO/Precinct Coordinator

Amend the recommendation to strike “ or is a Precinct Coordinator” from section 2.1, strike “or Precinct Coordinator” from section 2.3, strike section 3.3 in its entirety, and strike section 13.1a; and refer to the PCO Committee the issue of how to canvass and recruit PCOs for precincts currently without a PCO.

This completely removes all text defining or otherwise relating to the Acting PCO/Precinct Coordinator role, and directs the PCO Committee to figure out what we should actually be doing, if anything, with this role.

Call for a Vote

Please reply to this thread indicating whether or not you support adopting these amendments as committee recommendations. You may vote yes or no on each independently (i.e., yes on one, no on the other).

I am holding this vote open until the earliest of 9 PM Wednesday, March 13th, 2019, or either the "for" or "against" side has received an insurmountable number of votes, for both amendments.

–

Annabelle Backman

Vice Chair for Technology | Washington State 43rd District Democrats

https://www.43rddemocrats.org/

[Annabelle Backman]

...and I forgot to attach the PDF. Here it is.

For the record, I support adopting both amendments as committee recommendations.

–

Annabelle Backman

Vice Chair for Technology | Washington State 43rd District Democrats

https://www.43rddemocrats.org/

[Tara Gallagher]

Yes on both

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/CABRLSOtmAFg4Lf9kNAyF-aV%3DeuFeaBFE5DXw_mY5L2GEZ1EqwQ%40mail.gmail.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

[Angyl]

1 No

2 Yes

Reason for no on 1:

This still doesn’t address the case where the PCO Appiintment is a) invalid because of an error in LD level vetting eg. Precinct already has a PCO or applicant was listed the to the wrong Precinct and that was for whatever reason not noticed (this has happened before and iirc there’s even video confirming instances of error) b) invalid because County Chair does not approve for whatever reason. There is no clause that revokes Membership of a not actually PCO who fails to fully become PCO, while there is a clause that revokes Membership of actual PCOs when they cease to be PCOs because they moved to a different precinct that already has a PCO. This seems unfair.

Question re 2:

In the discussion I missed tonight, was there no interest in creating a non-paid Membership path? Or is that just getting sent to Membership Chair to figure out?

- Angyl

Sent from ProtonMail Mobile

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/43rd-bylaws/6C9B18C1-C4BB-4F4B-9533-C3E4B007C0A1%40tara-jamie.net.

[Annabelle Backman]

I believe the current recommendation addresses your concerns regarding amendment 1. It amends 2.4 to read:

2.4 The effective date when an individual ceases to be a Member is the later of: (a) The date when their term of office ends or the District Chair receives notice from the County Chair of the County Chair’s rejection of their appointment as Appointed PCO; or (b) January 31st of the year following receipt of dues payment.

Regarding non-paid membership, we discussed that a broader dues exemption for volunteers might be appropriate, but would need to be fleshed out (presumably by the Membership Committee), and either way shouldn’t be explicitly defined in the bylaws. The amendment doesn’t refer the issue to the Membership Committee mostly because I didn’t think to include it. 😛

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/43rd-bylaws/0EOGoXz3mQpfHgfFAnPUtzw9SF7qcNUqsE7hBGaopkY387aWk9RxKBKSGJ6LkIH_YZbQ8yn_hzz-UsoH-9RKKm5-W8IMi72WlHIN89iE4l0%3D%40protonmail.com.

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

--

[Angyl]

I have repeatedly heard but cannot confirm that the point of this whole clause historically is that sometimes the County Chairs will pull a Bailey and just not sign, nor reject, (which can still happen and doesn’t trigger the new clause) and that was considered unfair to the prospective PCO, especially the now-defunct Acting PCO, but frankly the better answer for that is for the LD Chair and KC Reps to go up the chain raise the matter of the County Chair not following their Bylaws at KC, State if necessary, and stand up for the rights of their qualified constituents to become full official PCOs, rather than do a bunch of patching around a special status available to only a few people by virtue of where they happen to reside.

This still creates an unfair class of Member that is inconsistent with everything else. Elected PCOs do not become Members when they file. They do not become Members after the Primary if they won or were unchallenged. They become Members only when they become PCOs. Meanwhile new paid members have to wait 10 days for their voting rights. Only this special class of people get free, immediate membership right at the beginning of a meeting based on nothing more than filling out paperwork that may or may not be verified or accepted at the next level.

As I’ve said ad nauseam, if you deliberately want to create a class of free Membership that is open even to people who live in a precinct that already has a PCO, I have zero problems with doing so if so willed by the PCOs. I just staight up oppose giving immediate Membership status based on being a PCO to some people who are pending PCOs and not others. It’s simply not fair to every other PCO and Member, and there’s no deeper local inequity it’s addressing to justify that unfairness. Systemic failures up chain need to be addressed by those tasked with interfacing and demanding accountability up that chain, not by creating a local disparitiy.

- Angyl

Sent from ProtonMail Mobile

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/43rd-bylaws/CABRLSOu_uGDbj-m4JKa3T5DtcSmsc27Zx5uC1PdS%2BBC3-VSL5Q%40mail.gmail.com.

[frui...@tara-jamie.net]

Strong point.


How about Appointed PCOs are members 30 days after a vote to approve
their application?


One of the concerns with waiting for the signature was there there is no
obligation KCD to let us know when the chair signs appointments.
30 days assumes a timely appointment by the KCD chair and lets the
appointed PCO vote at the *next* general meeting. It is the case that
while we used to vote on PCO appointments late in general meetings, that
seems to have crept earlier in the agenda, so the most recent proposal
does let PCO applicants potentially vote at the meeting when they are
approved, which was not the intent.


Technically there's a 45-day window for proper application processing
(two weeks for the 43rd to submit the application, 30 days for the KCD
chair to sign or actively reject) but 30 days seems safe. We do have the
brake of ending the membership if the application is rejected.

(And I know 30 days doesn't let PCOs voted on in Feb vote as members in
March. Talk to Julius Ceasar and Pope Gregory)

Tara

>> AMENDMENT 1: REGARDING START OF MEMBERSHIP FOR APPOINTED PCOS

>> Amend the recommendation to append “, or is awaiting confirmation
>> by the County Chair of their appointment as an Appointed PCO” to
>> the end of section 2.1.
>>
>> Section 2.1 as recommended says PCOs are members. Section 2.3 as
>> recommended says Appointed PCO membership starts when the person is
>> recommended for appointment by the membership, but since those
>> people are not technically PCOs until the County Chair signs off on
>> their appointment, this conflicts with section 2.1. This amendment
>> addresses this inconsistency by modifying the definition of "Member"
>> to explicitly include people in this recommended-but-not-yet-a-PCO
>> state.
>>

>> AMENDMENT 2: STRIKING ACTING PCO/PRECINCT COORDINATORAmend the

>> recommendation to strike “ or is a Precinct Coordinator” from
>> section 2.1, strike “or Precinct Coordinator” from section 2.3,
>> strike section 3.3 in its entirety, and strike section 13.1a; and
>> refer to the PCO Committee the issue of how to canvass and recruit
>> PCOs for precincts currently without a PCO.
>>
>> This completely removes all text defining or otherwise relating to
>> the Acting PCO/Precinct Coordinator role, and directs the PCO
>> Committee to figure out what we should actually be doing, if
>> anything, with this role.
>>

>> CALL FOR A VOTE

>> Please reply to this thread indicating whether or not you support
>> adopting these amendments as committee recommendations. You may vote
>> yes or no on each independently (i.e., yes on one, no on the other).
>>
>> I am holding this vote open until the earliest of 9 PM Wednesday,
>> March 13th, 2019, or either the "for" or "against" side has received
>> an insurmountable number of votes, for both amendments.
>>
>> –
>> Annabelle Backman
>> Vice Chair for Technology | Washington State 43rd District Democrats
>> https://www.43rddemocrats.org/
>>
>> --
>> 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/CABRLSOtmAFg4Lf9kNAyF-aV%3DeuFeaBFE5DXw_mY5L2GEZ1EqwQ%40mail.gmail.com

>> [1].

>> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
>
> --
> 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/6C9B18C1-C4BB-4F4B-9533-C3E4B007C0A1%40tara-jamie.net

> [2].

> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
>
> --
> 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/0EOGoXz3mQpfHgfFAnPUtzw9SF7qcNUqsE7hBGaopkY387aWk9RxKBKSGJ6LkIH_YZbQ8yn_hzz-UsoH-9RKKm5-W8IMi72WlHIN89iE4l0%3D%40protonmail.com
> [3].

> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
> --
>
> –
> Annabelle Backman
> Vice Chair for Technology | Washington State 43rd District Democrats
> https://www.43rddemocrats.org/
>
> --
> 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/CABRLSOu_uGDbj-m4JKa3T5DtcSmsc27Zx5uC1PdS%2BBC3-VSL5Q%40mail.gmail.com

> [4].

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

> Links:
> ------
> [1]
> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/43rd-bylaws/CABRLSOtmAFg4Lf9kNAyF-aV%3DeuFeaBFE5DXw_mY5L2GEZ1EqwQ%40mail.gmail.com?utm_medium=email&utm_source=footer
> [2]
> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/43rd-bylaws/6C9B18C1-C4BB-4F4B-9533-C3E4B007C0A1%40tara-jamie.net?utm_medium=email&utm_source=footer
> [3]
> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/43rd-bylaws/0EOGoXz3mQpfHgfFAnPUtzw9SF7qcNUqsE7hBGaopkY387aWk9RxKBKSGJ6LkIH_YZbQ8yn_hzz-UsoH-9RKKm5-W8IMi72WlHIN89iE4l0%3D%40protonmail.com?utm_medium=email&utm_source=footer
> [4]
> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/43rd-bylaws/CABRLSOu_uGDbj-m4JKa3T5DtcSmsc27Zx5uC1PdS%2BBC3-VSL5Q%40mail.gmail.com?utm_medium=email&utm_source=footer

[Angyl]

Tell ya what, throw in a mechanism by which pending Elected PCOs get Membership upon certification of the Primary, such that they can vote on the General Election Endorsements the year they filed and won, and I’ll buy that as an expression of “the 43rd deeply values pending PCOs and wishes to grant them voice and vote, get them on the communications lists, and get them actively involved in the LD before their office is certified by external sources”.

There’s still some weird bookkeeping, but it’s for a clear consistent purpose that I can enthusiastically get behind, and I don’t actually have to do the bookkeeping personally.

Sent from ProtonMail Mobile

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/43rd-bylaws/6d6007f99e5b16a8257706a9389eaab5%40tara-jamie.net.

[Bradley Bell]

1 Yes

2 No

The second proposal does sound like a good solution to remove an increasingly overcomplicated entity from the bylaws, but it does represent a pretty significant philosophical change for our membership to deal with, and I’m afraid there won’t be adequate time to do so. 

I don’t really understand the “immediate membership” question, since the application process is anything but. The shortest possible time for a PCO/precinct coordinator applicant to become a voting member is ten days, and that’s if they get their application in and signed off on by committee on the same day as the agenda is sent out. 

-Brad

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/43rd-bylaws/io4oz6X-UCMJXuFg66Bj9hcNSdx2t2gQm4-RqVMCna1Z4nkAMOjaU4booRnp3STlwcLloeWgdqB-t67u2rv8ayt5cAfxbkNXA6AWqcAiEd8%3D%40protonmail.com.

[Angyl]

We had multiple meetings last cycle in which PCOs published on the Agenda were different than those put up for Appointment at the meeting because errors were found in the mean time. We had on the floor precinct re-mappings to correct what was on the agenda. We had corrections at the following meetings once or twice. We had the PCO Coordinator showing up with unannounced lists at the literal last minute. The cycle before that, some people (including me) never actually got Appointed at all despite submitting paperwork AND filing with King County Elections.

Sent from ProtonMail Mobile

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/43rd-bylaws/ACC774F6-B3D9-4A5A-80B3-512F402257B8%40gmail.com.

[Brad Bell]

Thanks, that makes a lot of sense. I assume those actions were out of line with the bylaws, but what are you gonna do when everyone has the best intentions in just wanting to correct some oversights and get it over with as quickly as possible. 

[Angyl]

Unless the Bylaws specifically forbid it, Roberts lets you live-edit the Agenda on the floor - everybody does that a lot actually, especially if candidates show up or something. And tbh nobody is likely to challenge that because the PCOs generally actively want to welcome more PCOs to get out more votes. The most common floor comment was asking if the people to be Appointed were present and if they could introduce themselves and be welcomed. 🤷‍♀️

Sent from ProtonMail Mobile

[James Williams]

I vote yes on both amendments.

James

--
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/CABRLSOtNZ_8zXrdgiS2Gpp8u2VFvC6d_nF0VE_OXG3t3o2OBXQ%40mail.gmail.com.