Statements for and against Amendment 1 to Resolution 2024-07-GR1: Improve Chapter Security will be posted here.
AGAINST by KENNETH B
This amendment would fundamentally twist the nature and purpose of Resolution 2024-07-GR 1. The original resolution simply closes an existing loophole in our security procedures that could allow someone to gain access to sensitive member data or chapter financial data without having gone through our vetting procedures. It does nothing more than ensure members of the Steering Committee are held to the same standards as all other chapter members who have access to sensitive data, rather than to a lower one, so that all chapter members can trust that their data is in good hands. This amendment would not help the Security Department keep us safer, it would not help us trust each other, and it would not keep us safe from infiltrators or informants. In fact, it would overburden the Security Department with new roles and responsibilities, create a culture of suspicion and paranoia in the chapter, and enshrine the Security Department as a bureaucratic overlord, which any bad actor could use to do significant damage.
The second operative clause of the amended resolution endows Security with the authority to disqualify members from being able to run for Steering Committee, and the striking of the resolution’s original second clause means the vetting report on Steering candidates is never made public to chapter members, so that chapter members would not have to be apprised of the nature of the security concern if a candidate is disqualified. It is impossible to overstate how monumental this change is from the original resolution and from our current practices. No body within the chapter should be able to regulate who is permitted to run for chapter office. As the Security Department is an organ of the Administrative Committee, which answers directly to the Steering Committee, this would allow an incumbent Steering Committee to block any candidates they don’t like from ballot access and have a high degree of control over the ideological composition of their successors. Alternatively, the Security Department, by controlling who can be elected to Steering, could stage a bureaucratic coup of the chapter and run it from the shadows. Creating a mechanism for either of these potentialities fundamentally undermines the DSA’s democratic principles, which are its greatest strength. Some might say the last clause, giving membership a veto over the security department, could be a check on this. However, it would not be difficult for someone in power to ensure that a membership vote could not be held until after the election in question had been carried out and a winner selected, nor would it be difficult for members to be convinced to generally trust the Security Department’s decisions and uphold them, and since the amendment struck the original provision that required vetting reports for steering candidates be made public, it would be almost impossible for someone who had been discriminated against on the basis of ideology or any other quality to prove malfeasance on the part of the Security Department.
The fourth through sixth clauses of the amended resolution instruct the Security Department to reach out to chapter members for “proactive” vetting. This would create an aura of suspicion and paranoia around our vetting practices. “Why do I need to be vetted?” the new member would ask. “Don’t worry, " someone from security would reply, “you can opt out if you like, but you won’t be able to be in leadership or have too much responsibility unless you opt in.” What would the new member think in this situation? Would they think that this is just a pro-forma routine procedure, or would they think they are being monitored and scrutinized? Would they feel welcomed and trusted when someone tells them they want to look into their social media history and conduct an interview? I know I wouldn’t. There is no reason to conduct vetting on people who do not require it. It would waste the Security Department’s time and create a hostile and suspicious environment for new members. Security and Steering would also have control over which members are selected, and they will somewhat naturally select those to whom they are closest, whether that means socially, ideologically, or in whatever other manners are relevant. When the time comes for a member of a new chapter formation to get Action Network access, for example, one of these pre-approved in-group members will be selected, because it is easier to select someone who has already been vetted, furthering the responsibility and experience held by whatever group is already in power and undermining the emergence of natural organizers from across the chapter.
In conclusion, while it is good to correct whatever loopholes or backdoors exist in our security procedure, we do not need to totally overhaul them and mutate them into something like this amendment proposes. We need common sense security practices that are non-invasive and carried out on an as-needed basis, not a sweeping, pervasive panopticon, a Cheka-like bureaucracy that could either make the Steering Committee all but immune to external challenges or assume for itself more authority than our elected leadership, so I urge members to vote against this amendment to an otherwise necessary and effective resolution.
AGAINST by JULIA P
I understand and sympathize with the fact that this amendment seeks to avoid the creation of a paranoid and politically biased security culture within Metro DC DSA, but I believe the proposed solution of preemptively vetting active chapter members would exacerbate rather than ameliorate the problem it seeks to solve. While any and all security measures involve an inherent level of skepticism, our current system of vetting chapter members on an as-needed basis maintains as much trust as possible by allowing rank and file members who do not require access to sensitive data to go about their lives and fulfill their functions in the chapter without a Damoclean sword of suspicion hanging perpetually over their heads. Those who do require vetting undergo the process with an understanding that, although they are presumed trustworthy unless evidence to the contrary emerges, they are voluntarily assuming a responsibility that necessitates additional scrutiny. Steering candidates in particular should understand that seeking to occupy a position of formalized authority means being subjected to a higher level of scrutiny, hence why I chose to co-sponsor the resolution as originally written - why should our leadership be exempted from the same basic operational security hoops through which ordinary members who just want to create Action Network links must jump?
If I were an active chapter member who had not yet had occasion to undergo vetting and found myself receiving a message out of the blue asking if I’d like to voluntarily go through the process “just in case,” this would hardly inspire a sense of trust and comradeship. On the contrary, I would be deeply disturbed to find that I was essentially being surveilled and would question why the chapter keeps such close tabs on its members in the absence of a clearly identifiable reason to do so. This would be particularly true if my personal politics lay on the fringes of the chapter’s Overton window - for all I know, this “voluntary vetting” is an elaborate effort to dig up dirt on and covertly purge more radical members so the right wing of the chapter can consolidate power. I would thus be left with a difficult choice. I could say yes, submit to a culture of unnecessary surveillance, and potentially open myself up to informal ideological retaliation, or I could say no, thereby casting suspicion on myself and compromising my ability to continue organizing with the chapter. There is, of course, a third option: I could quietly back away from the chapter and focus my organizing efforts in spaces that do not automatically regard me with suspicion. This is an option many comrades would likely choose, an outcome that would inhibit the chapter’s ability to attract and retain enthusiastic new members. While I recognize that this is not the intent of the amendment, this is the probable impact I foresee if the measures it proposes are implemented.
On the topic of intent versus impact, it is important to note that the process of selecting active members to be preemptively vetted would inevitably be biased. Members of the security department might selectively choose to vet members we like personally and agree with politically, effectively shortlisting those people for selection when leadership positions requiring data access open up. Alternatively, we could single out members we dislike or disagree with and dig for reasons to discredit and undermine them. It is unlikely that this would occur on a conscious level, but this only makes the problem more insidious. The fact that security department, as a wing of AdCom, is under the direct authority of the steering committee means steering incumbents would have significant power to weaponize this process; the amendment’s proposal that security team members ask steering for lists of names when unsure of who to preemptively vet next compounds this problem. No system can completely remove bias, and our current vetting protocol is not flawless in this regard, but the measures proposed by this amendment would bake a disturbing and easily avoidable level of bias into our security procedures.
Finally, I disagree with the amendment’s assertion that this practice would reduce the potential capacity strain on the security department created by the resolution as written. As discussed earlier, our current system only requires the security department to vet members who need access to sensitive data, and while the resolution as written would create additional work for the department, the temporary strain created by a short burst of work at a critical time would be far easier to absorb than the chronic strain created by constant vigilance. Our current system allows security department members downtime to recover between intermittent tasks, and as a member of that department, this is something I greatly value. If this amendment were to pass, however, the department would never again have a moment of rest. We would be required to constantly keep an eye out for active members to vet, an exhausting expenditure of mental energy which would limit our capacity to conduct thoughtful and thorough vetting where it is truly necessary.
This amendment, while coming from a place of valid concern, would if passed contribute substantially to a culture of suspicion within Metro DC DSA. It would likely reduce the chapter’s capacity and limit our ability to grow by alienating new members, who would justifiably resent the implied assumption of guilt in an unsolicited request to undergo voluntary vetting, it would enshrine a dangerous level of bias in our security procedures, and it would jeopardize operational security by placing tremendous strain on the chapter’s vetting team. I can speak only for myself, but as a member of the security department, I did not sign up to surveil my comrades in this manner, and if this amendment were to pass, I would be deeply uncomfortable carrying out the vetting procedure it proposes. I am strongly opposed to this amendment and I encourage you, comrades, to vote against it.
AGAINST by TIMOTHY S
This amendment totally changes the purpose of the underlying resolution, which was originally clearly and narrowly written to extend our existing vetting procedures to steering candidates. This amendment adds a huge number of additional ‘be it resolveds’ that, instead, completely overhaul our vetting process, adding a huge amount of administrative burden and realigning the entire relationship between the Security Department and the rest of the chapter. These changes in fact make the Security Department much stronger and vetting much more aggressive, rather than limiting it, and appear to have been developed and proposed without input from anyone who participates in these processes, or in the related AdCom processes that they are designed to protect. Furthermore, the provisions imposed by this amendment are so thoroughly disconnected from every aspect of how vetting works that, in my view as a member of steering, a member of AdCom, a former AdCom Steward, a former member of the Security Department, and as someone who has submitted dozens of vetting tickets, it is simply not implementable as written. I urge you to join me in voting no on this amendment, but voting yes on both the other proposed amendment, and on the underlying resolution.
This amendment starts out by changing the underlying resolution to require what is already policy: that we vet people who are requesting access to sensitive data before they get access to those data. The entire point of the underlying resolution is to add steering membership, which is not currently included, to that category; this new language is totally superfluous. It then adds a new provision removing people who ‘fail’ vetting from the ballot, a massive escalation from both current procedure and from the resolution as written, which would only require that the Membership get to consider the results of a report, not bar anyone from appearing on the ballot. The resolution does not define what it means to ‘fail’ vetting, which is significant because our current procedures don’t define a notion of ‘passing’ or ‘failing’ vetting, they simply generate reports to advise leaders on Steering and in AdCom, and with no such definition, the provisions of this amendment relying on those terms can’t be implemented. I also find this significant increase in the Security Department’s power and responsibility bewildering, since many of this amendment’s proposers raised concerns in Slack about the opportunities for procedural abuses that the underlying resolution could create. This amendment increases the opportunities for, and benefits of, vetting lawfare and badjacketing dramatically, compared to the resolution as proposed. The final provision does allow the General Body to overturn a Security ruling, which is good and consistent with the structure of our bylaws more generally, but because a ‘security ruling’ is not something that currently exists, the whole proposal remains deeply ambiguous. I’m glad the authors are thinking through potential problems, but the simplest solution seems to be to refrain from adding this significant new responsibility of determining which Steering candidates may run to a department that does not want it.
The other provisions of this amendment lay out a framework for proactive vetting, which would dramatically increase the pace and prevalence of vetting requests the security department handles. In principle proactive vetting is a fine idea, since it in fact would reduce the bottleneck that vetting can sometimes create, which the underlying resolution in fact will exacerbate by adding a potentially large number of extra vetting requests in November. The issue here is that the reason we don’t do proactive vetting is that limiting how many people have access to data is an important part of a good security program, and the vetting process most consistent with that is to do vetting when we need to add someone who has a need to know. Proactively adding active members certainly makes some sense on paper, but many active members do not need to be doing the kind of administrative work that warrants access to these member data, so spending limited security person hours on vetting them prospectively doesn’t really help in practice. This expectation of proactive vetting also places a lot of burden on the security department, because it adds a totally different kind of work – tracking a bunch of formations and making sure they’re being represented in vetting, liaising with every chapter formation – to the security portfolio, creating a significant change in the department’s workload and scope.
I hope I’ve made a compelling case that this amendment is unlikely to do anything useful, but is likely to create unnecessary administrative burdens and procedural complications. Some aspects of this resolution come from a recognition of real administrative difficulties, but those observations would have been much better served by being included in a narrow, focused amendment, or in a separate resolution.
AGAINST by KURTIS H
I am writing in opposition to the proposed amendment to Resolution 2024-07-GR 1, titled Amendment 1. While I am in favor of some of the clarity this amendment proposes, two primary elements sway me against it. First, I am strongly opposed to the proactive vetting of members that this amendment proposes. Second, I am similarly strongly opposed to the automatic disqualification that this amendment puts in place for a “failed” vetting.
Our organization has a low bar for membership. This is in line with a specific theory of change: we can successfully achieve socialism with a mass movement. Any barriers to membership serve as a barrier to this theory of change. This is why we have dues waivers, new member orientations, and a focus on recruitment. An ask to submit to vetting would have an understandable chilling effect. “Why is this organization I just joined asking me to tell them my socials? Why am I being interrogated, I just want to canvas for eviction prevention?” This is especially egregious since vetting is currently done on an as needed basis for access to sensitive information. There is no reason to make this ask and no reason to clog the vetting pipeline when most of our members do not need and will never need access to sensitive information.
Another pillar of our organization’s functioning is democratic participation. Members are in all cases ultimately in control of the direction of the organization. As imperfect as some of our democratic functions may be, they aim towards this goal. This amendment preempts the membership by disqualifying Steering candidates from an election if they fail vetting. While there are provisions to overturn this decision, it’s unclear why we shouldn’t trust the membership with a report on candidates. Folks in favor of this amendment have argued that the underlying resolution risks corruption by factions wishing to control the outcome of an election, but it’s unclear how this amendment addresses this. In fact, this amendment may make it easier to interfere with elections, as any faction would just need to insert their members into the security department to obtain disqualification. In my view, we should instead have, as part of our election, an open discussion of any flags raised by vetting and determine as a body whether or not those flags are disqualifying.
AGAINST by ALEX S
This amendment takes a straightforward and minor resolution addressing a specific issue and creates uncertainty and extra unnecessary work for an already burdened security team. As was said by people on the security team at the GBM, this amendment could be a nightmare for them and create too much work for them. The amendment also fails to define “more active members”, so it is unclear how the security team should even go about performing the task of actively vetting members throughout the year.
That active vetting of members who aren’t getting access to information is unnecessary, and to the extent the chapter wants to debate this, it should be as a standalone resolution and not an amendment. The point of vetting currently is to check people who get access to member info. That is already being done! The underlying resolution just changes the timing of that for steering candidates, a minor change. This “amendment” does far more than the underlying resolution in calling for vetting of potentially any member throughout the year, and at the suggestion of steering based on an undefined standard of “active.” Currently, steering cannot simply tell the security team to investigate someone if that person isn’t trying to get access to member info. Currently, people choose to undergo vetting by applying to such positions. This amendment is a radical change to current chapter practices, and it is unnecessary to address the problem identified by the underlying resolution.
If chapter members have other security concerns, they should raise those and identify specific practices to address those concerns. And we can debate them as a chapter. This amendment does not do that, and creates many potential issues that we need not in order to pass the underlying resolution. I urge you to vote against this amendment.
AGAINST by MICHAEL M
Statement AGAINST Amendment 1 to Resolution 2024-07-GR 1
I think this amendment fundamentally misunderstands how our current vetting process works and undermines the work our Security Dept carries out on a regular basis.
I want to be very specific here and address each clause I take issue with:
RE: Therefore clause 1 ‘or any other chapter wide position that requires access to sensitive information,’ — this is already standard procedure for our Security Dept’s vetting process. In fact, the Steering Committee is currently the only position in the chapter that does not require vetting before gaining access to sensitive information. All other positions — Working Group co-chairs, Branch leaders, Section leaders, etc. — are required to undergo vetting if they need access to ActionNetwork, chapter comms, or another platform that contains sensitive member data like emails, addresses, phone numbers, union membership status, etc. It’s unclear how this proposal would work with or change our current process. The authors also fail to provide a reason for why this is included in relation to a Steering Committee election. We vet members throughout the year when they get plugged into a new formation or take a leadership role — it has no connection to the Steering election.
RE: Therefore clause 4 ‘any Steering Committee candidates, or any other chapter wide position that requires access to sensitive information, who do not obtain vetting or fail to pass their vetting, shall be removed from the ballot’ — This is a huge escalation compared to what is outlined in the underlying resolution and gives the Security Dept an immense amount of power to influence the outcome of our Steering elections. The underlying resolution does not mandate that the candidate be automatically removed from the ballot if they fail their vetting, but that the general body should be made aware of it through a report so they can make an informed decision on their own. Giving the Security Dept the authority to remove candidates from the ballot based on the results of their vetting process undermines the democratic will of the general body and actually contributes to the culture of suspicion and paranoia that the authors of this amendment sought to avoid in the first place.
RE: Therefore clause 6 ‘the Security Department will be tasked with reaching out year round to chapter members that haven’t been vetted yet so they can opt in to proactively being vetted;’ — how would this work on a practical level? The way our process works right now is once someone gets plugged into a Working Group, campaign, Branch, Section, Committee, etc. and they need access to ActionNetwork, chapter comms, or some other platform, they will submit a vetting request ticket in RedDesk or ask for someone in AdCom submit the ticket for them on their behalf. Then, a member of the Security Dept reaches out to them via email to ask for their social media links and schedule an interview. It’s unclear how this proposal would work with or change the current process. And how would the Security Dept determine which chapter members to reach out to? This seems like a quick way to exhaust the capacity of our comrades fulfilling vetting requests in the Security Dept. We’ve seen a significant increase in the amount of vetting requests the past two years and that means more time and effort expended by the Security Dept to meet these demands. I don’t want our team getting burnt out because there’s a mandate for them to be constantly reaching out to members asking if they want to undergo vetting processes when it’s not necessary.
RE: Therefore clause 7 ‘the Chapter recommends that the Security Department prioritizes reaching out for vetting to more active chapter members before other chapter members;’ — There is no specification here on what the authors’ definition of “active” membership is. Members who are active in their respective formation and need access to our tech platforms already reach out to Adcom to request vetting. Is the Security Dept just supposed to guess who they should reach out to in a slack workspace of 1,900+ people?
RE: Therefore clause 8 ‘should the Security Department ever be unsure of active members to reach out to, they shall ask the Steering Committee as well as the branch Steering Committees for suggestions of members they believe are very active;’ — this gives the Steering Committee unnecessary power and influence over who should get vetted when that’s not their role, nor should it be. This allows the Steering Committee to determine who meets the qualifications of “active” membership and, subsequently, who will be pestered about undergoing the vetting process even if they have no need or desire to do so.
RE: Therefore clause 9 ‘chapter members may ask the Security Committee to get proactively vetted by their own initiative.’ — what’s the purpose of this? I don’t think it makes sense to needlessly exhaust our Security Dept with vetting requests for people who don’t need it. Unless someone requires access to platforms that contain sensitive member data to do organizing work within their respective formation, what is the purpose of having them go through vetting? The authors fail to explain their thought process here.
RE: Therefore clause 10 ‘any member who fails the vetting process may appeal that decision to the membership of the chapter that are in good standing. A vote can either occur during the next chapter General Body Meeting, or via OpaBallot, based on their preferred method unless the next General Body Meeting is less than 2 weeks away, then the vote will occur there. A simple majority vote of the membership in favor of overruling the vetting decision of the Security Committee is needed for it to be overruled.’ — this would be a huge departure from how our current vetting process works. First of all, it’s unclear if this applies to anybody in the chapter who doesn’t clear vetting or just for Steering Committee candidates. Second, I think it would make more sense for the appeal to go to the Steering Committee rather than the general body, and then the general body could overturn the ruling of the Steering Committee if they were unsatisfied with the decision and took it to a GBM vote. I don’t think it makes sense for the general body to overturn the vetting process that the Security Dept has established before going through the Steering Committee first because there will likely be sensitive details that need to be discussed discreetly with the candidate themselves first. Having the appeal immediately go to the general body would likely create a huge public spectacle.
RE: all of the suggested Whereas clauses — I think the language suggesting that the Security Dept isn’t already proactively vetting chapter members fundamentally misunderstands how the Department currently functions and the work its members carry out on a daily basis. They ARE regularly vetting members year round. As I said before, the number of vetting requests in the past two years has increased significantly (and that’s a good thing!). I also think assuming the capacity of the Security Dept re: vetting Steering Committee candidates is a little odd (and also not solved by this amendment). To my knowledge, none of the sponsors of this amendment reach out to any Security Dept members to inquire about their capacity and zero members of the Security Dept are co-sponsors of this amendment. It was the former Security Dept Steward who suggested the provision to vet Steering Committee candidates, after all, and we’ve only mobilized more members into the Dept since then. If they didn’t think they had the capacity to do this then they wouldn’t have suggested it in the first place. If for some reason there is a huge decline in capacity as we approach the next Steering election, then we can approach that issue within Adcom and Steering. But as it stands, the Security Dept has the capacity to vet Steering Committee candidates and continue its work of regularly vetting chapter members throughout the year.
To summarize, this amendment actually creates an ever stricter mandate for vetting processes and unnecessarily requires the Security Dept to be constantly reaching out to “active” members to encourage them to get vetted. This doesn’t make sense from a practical standpoint because it would exhaust the Security Dept’s capacity and we’re an open organization with a low barrier to entry for a reason: it lets people join and get active without asking a lot of them. This is good because it helps us develop leaders more easily and allow people to grow their organizing skills organically. Pushing vetting down new members’ throats without a good reason is off putting and intimidating. We already have a good system where when someone in a chapter formation/leadership position needs access to a tech platform or chapter comms, they reach out to AdCom or submit a vetting ticket for themselves. This amendment misunderstands how our current vetting process works, fails to explain how this proposal would work on a practical level, gives the Security Dept the power to influence the outcome of the Steering election, and imposes stricter mandates on both Steering Committee candidates and the Security Dept.
For these reasons, I’m urging you to vote NO on Amendment 1.
AGAINST by CARL R
Comrades, I am asking you to vote AGAINST Amendment 1 to Resolution 2024-7-GR1: Improve Chapter Security. I think there are many problems with it: it indicates a lack of understanding of our processes, it massively increases the workload of our Security Department for little to no gain, and it includes weak points that any smart infiltrator would utilize to divide our chapter.
But I think the two most important problems with the amendment are, firstly, that it misunderstands one of the key reasons DSA is the leading force on the American Left, and secondly, that it takes away control from the general body.
First: misunderstanding DSA’s openness. DSA is unique among similar organizations on the left: we are incredibly open, easy to join, and very accepting different levels of engagement. Many parts of the American Left have required reading, interviews to join, activity requirements, and high dues. We do not: members are able to participate as much, or as little, as they would like; they do not need to donate large sums to stay in our good graces; and they are, as a general rule, encouraged to start with small tasks and move up a ladder of engagement as they see fit and are able. This has been a core strength of the organization, in my opinion; it means we have a base of people who are in line with our values, and whose experience of DSA is getting some emails or texts, perhaps a phone call, asking them to take part in our big campaigns or come to a meeting, event, or happy hour. By having new members’ first engagement possibly be vetting - a look into their lives that they may not yet feel comfortable doing - we run a serious risk of turning people away from DSA.
And vetting isn’t for this, either; there are long-serving members who have never been vetted because they do not need to be. Going through a process that involves doing things like giving access to social media feeds to the chapter isn’t what everyone wants to do; it also isn’t worth the effort for members who maybe be active - constantly showing up to canvasses, or regularly attending events - without needing access to sensitive member data. This escalation of vetting goes against what I think is a core principle of DSA’s success.
Second: taking control away from the general body. In the original resolution, the Security and Internal Elections Departments simply provide membership with provable evidence of concerns about members running for steering, and the general body decides what to do with that information. Power clearly and straightforwardly lies with membership, and receipts must be provided. This amendment completely undercuts our democratic decision-making. Yes, members can appeal decisions to the general body; but that means, in the best case, adding debate about a member’s disqualification to our local convention, when we could instead use that time to discuss other more important topics, like our priority campaigns, budget, and electoral endorsements. In the worst case, it means people are removed from consideration for steering without general body input. The solution in the original resolution is much simpler and more democratic.
The amendment also removes the requirement that any negative report requires clear evidence that must be provided to the general body; while I have full trust in our comrades doing the important work of vetting, I think this is an important safeguard: people can make mistakes or bad calls, and this backstops their work. I don’t understand how, in this amendment, we as a body are supposed to consider overturning things, either; the only process laid out is a vote. Removing this language has, in my opinion, greatly bureaucratized this process to the detriment of chapter democracy.
For the above reasons, I’m asking you to vote AGAINST this amendment - it won’t do what it claims to do, and it harms our democracy.
IN FAVOR by SAMUEL D
Dear comrades, I’m writing in support of this amendment because it makes this resolution much closer to enacting its intent than the original text is capable of. Amended, this resolution would encourage early vetting for members interested in roles that require access to sensitive chapter data, which will spread out demands on the security team’s time and not create a backlog around pressing times like, eg, chapter elections. In addition, this amendment puts into place a process of democratic accountability that allows the general body to review and appeal the security team’s judgment of a candidate—a process that is currently opaque and unaccountable. This amendment, contrary to the claims of the resolution’s sponsors in the general body meeting, clearly improves this resolution and provides more clarity on how it will be enacted. Please approve this resolution.
IN FAVOR by KEELI M
I’m writing in full support of passing Amendment 1 to this security resolution. I think it fixes many concerns and outlines the intent behind much of what was missing from the original resolution. Something this important SHOULD have a lot more detail and explanation, and this helps.
I wrote a longer explanation as to why I don’t think it should pass as the original on the actual resolution page, but I think this Amendment is a good step to filling some of those holes that left a lot of members confused.
The DC and NoVA Abolition Working Groups both had individual meetings about this and almost 2 hours of talk about how concerning the original was among members and many of those concerns were workshopped and folded into this Amendment.
This amendment removes the report to full membership, and while I think communicating to the general body about the findings is important for transparency, I don’t think the way it was originally proposed would be overall helpful and instead would be more harmful.
This Amendment 1 helps spread out the timeline for vetting, which will be helpful for all involved and alludes to security being a bit tighter for more than just steering if the intent is to protect data and individuals.
It outlines a better timeline and communication of that timeline.
It gives a process for appeal/mediation that isn’t explained in the original.
There is a lot of nuance to this process that was not captured or explained in the original resolution, and I don’t think it’s best practice to leave something as detailed as vetting to assumptions of what will/can/should happen.
Most people wouldn’t abuse that lack of clarity, but I think it could easily be taken advantage of in the scuffle/capacity restraints, and a more outlined process (some of which are captured in Amendment 1) is important
The lack of clarity of what vetting entails is widespread - even outside steering vets - and so not knowing even those basic flags and then publishing a widespread report could be harmful.
I’ve been vetted and didn’t really understand what was going on, what they were doing, and how it helped/what would happen if they found something - I also had access to a lot of information way before I was vetted, and I think a lot of that comes from an incomplete idea of best practices for security in the chapter that should be worked on in parallel to a resolution like this.
Overcommunicating about something like this is important and should be considered when looking at the changes proposed in this amendment.
I urge my comrades to vote in support of this amendment
IN FAVOR by ALEX Y
Fellow comrades, you will likely hear members opposed to this amendment say that this makes too many changes, goes overboard with security, would scare away new members when they join, that this fundamentally misunderstands current security protocols, and other similar arguments. These attacks simply aren’t true and are made in bad faith by the sponsors of the original resolution simply because they think what they wrote is better. I will not do the same when talking about the original resolution or the concerns raised in the general body meeting. As I stated there, this amendment provides even more security than the original resolution offers as well as clarifying the many parts that they left ambiguous since it already seemed clear enough to them, the people who have stared at the text the most and are the most biased. Me and my cosponsor sought to accomplish these goals through logical and clear means, hence why it is so long. It is competent language easy for any member to understand, not just those familiar with every bylaw and unofficial practices in the chapter. Addressing the concerns brought up in the general body meeting, first and foremost, the argument was made that candidates that fail vetting should still be allowed to run in steering elections. Sure that is more democratic, just as it for nations to allow far right parties to run. In essence, this still allows a way for infiltrators to win a position on steering when we could easily bar them from running. And why shouldn’t we? It was also said that the original resolution does a better job at preventing bad jacketing. However, it only helps prevent this with people running for steering. If more people in the chapter are vetted, that lowers the chance that people can bad jacket ordinary chapter members. Why should we only protect steering candidates from this hostile practice? Another argument was that this would overwhelm the security team no matter what. That is simply false and none of the language implies that. Proactive vetting will occur like all other chapter work based on when the members of the security team have the time to do this. There is categorically no directive to force them to constantly be vetting people and reaching out to people for pro active vetting. Additionally, I do not envision the goal of pro active vetting to have every chapter member get vetted. Why else would people have the option to opt out of it? The goal is to just raise the percent of the chapter that is vetted to lower the chance of infiltrators being successful. Therefore the mindset that this would scare away members right after they join becomes untrue. They won’t be the targets for pro active vetting as the amendment recommends focusing on the most active chapter members and anyone requesting pro active vetting themselves. Lastly, one person said that this security goes so far that it turns our vetting into surveillance rather than security. But it would still be under the same guidelines. So which is? Are the guidelines surveillance or security? They can’t be both when applied in different contexts. These fears are not based in the actual text of the amendment but paranoid fears or basic attempts to defeat this amendment as a show of power by the sponsors of the original resolution. They also say we should not adopt this because the security team did not cosponsor it. No, we should only listen to the chapter at large from how this election plays out. We are a democracy not a technocracy. I urge every member of the chapter to vote to adopt this amendment for the best security and defense against any and all infiltration attempts and we will see our chapter better off from adopting this well thought out policy!
AGAINST by BAKARI W
This amendment fundamentally misunderstands what the vetting process is. It was written without the input of anyone on the Security team who would be implementing it, and it shows. This would overburden security team members, the opposite of amendment proposers’ goal, by tasking them with vetting people who haven’t requested it and who don’t need access to member data. This is unnecessary and inefficient. Additionally, members of the security team have said it would make them uncomfortable to vet people who haven’t asked for it, and I agree with them. This is unacceptable.
On top of this, the clause that automatically removes someone from the ballot if a vetting report reveals any potential issues is antidemocratic. The chapter needs to make the final decision about whether the content of any candidate’s report is disqualifying by voting. Any decision-making about this that isn’t accountable to the chapter is unacceptable.
I support the base resolution, but if this amendment passes then I will vote against the amended resolution. Vote NO on Amendment 1.
AGAINST by STUART K
I’m submitting a statement against Amendment 1 to Resolution 2024-07-GR1: Improve Chapter Security.
By emphasizing that the security department should be “reaching out year round to chapter members” so that those members can opt in to be “proactively vetted,” I believe this amendment grants too much discretionary power to—while also placing a heavy administrative burden on—the Security Department.
This may result in unintended consequences, such as the security department taking too much liberty in terms of proactively contacting members while also overworking people in the department.
It’s for this reason that I’m voting no on this amendment, and I hope fellow Metro DC DSA chapter members do the same.
IN FAVOR by FAR
I am writing to suggest voting FOR the Amendment 1 to Resolution 2024-07-GR 1. Ensuring our safety/security is an important consideration when we work to embody a greater ethos of community care especially in difficult times. Vetting members who are given access to sensitive member data is a sensible approach, and we already do this. To do this in the context of an internal election and to transmit a report of vetting results to our entire membership seems to leave a lot of room for error, misuse and the potential for unintentional harm to be done. There is also a very troubling lack of clarity on what is considered to be “concerning” that would be transmitted in a vetting report in this context. Of course truly harmful past behavior should be taken seriously and even have a proper conduct, or harm-grievance process to that effect. I do not think the underlying resolution does enough to outline or define this process and further set expectations around the ethical responsibilities that are incumbent on the people doing such work on behalf of our chapter. If the goal is to prevent harm from occurring, then there is no reason for a resolution to only require this process solely in the context of a steering election. Which is why proactive vetting of very active membership helps obviate this issue, and further it may help with allowing more members to take on more administrative responsibility, and move their commitment to a higher rung on the ladder of engagement. Also, there is no clear way for membership at large to be reasonably sure that this process is being carried out in a truly neutral way, especially if it is being proposed entirely within the context of an internal election. Unamended, this resolution seems to create structures with latent potential for harm. For this reason I will suggest voting AGAINST the underlying resolution, and voting FOR each of the two amendments to the underlying resolution.
IN FAVOR by GARY Z
Gary Z statement FOR Amendment #1 to Resolution 2024-07-GRXX
I support Amendment #1 to Resolution 2024-07-GRXX and do not plan to vote for the underlying resolution unless amended. My support for the resolution is informed by my experience running elections within the chapter on both the IED and as a host to internal candidate forums.
Active security culture is important. This must be something that members participate in routinely and collectively, and we must consistently question and update our standards. Amendment #1 reflects that, by outlining a proactive plan for getting members “cleared” for leadership and stewardship over our technical resources. This Amendment fixes the reactive nature of the original resolution by creating a new scheme for identifying and clearing chapter members throughout the year, rather than smashing vetting into one very-time-sensitive period for the chapter.
My biggest contention with the base resolution is in its creation of a new structural risk to the chapter by mandating a report be published at year-end, an already hectic time for the chapter. I am very nervous about this requirement overloading chapter members tasked with carrying this out, along with burdening our chapter’s administrative system at this critical period of chapter activity. Amendment #1 removes this burden.
End of year shuffling in the chapter is extremely tight. There is little room for error, and the original resolution creates a new point of exposure: Screwing up release of this report would disrupt our internal democracy. Beyond mistakes - this mandate creates a new point of exposure for malevolent actors who could intentionally poke at this reporting mechanism to test or frustrate our chapter’s internal composure. This could be done by inciting controversy around release of the report, provoking confusion around the report in general, or by misrepresenting what “being cleared” really means. Amendment #1 removes this new structural risk.
End of year for Metro DC DSA contains a number of time-intensive and critical activities: Carrying out the elections, preparing Priority Campaign resolutions, preparing end of year work group reports and executing our local convention (and the votes that follow). A flubbed or jostled report could invoke serious stress on our chapter’s ability to carry out these end-of-year functions. For members who were involved in the chapter in 2023, we saw how destabilizing a botched internal election can be to the health and organization of the chapter. I am nervous about our chapter committing to anything that invites a repeat of that.
I also fear that, in the process of carrying out this short-turnaround set of requests, we enable the creation of false positives - where we are certifying candidates as “cleared” without proper examination in the rush to move along with the election. Additionally, a vague or unclear report could spread a false sense of security to our chapter about what actual threats mean in the context of being an elected chapter leader.
In comparison, Amendment #1 creates a new contract for DSA members and expectation for would-be chapter leaders to commit to our security review. It will also smooth and space out the vetting throughout the year, rather than trying to jam important vetting into one small timeframe, reducing the potential for end-of-year stress on our security department.
I appreciate the lively and in-the-weeds debate our chapter has had around this resolution. I believe it’s a good sign of our members’ strong commitment to internal security. Regardless of outcome, I am relieved to see active engagement on this very important question from across the chapter.
AGAINST by DIETER LM
The proposal concentrates too much power in the hands of the Steering Committee and the Security Department, potentially compromising election integrity. It also introduces an overly complex and intimidating vetting process.
AGAINST by CLAIRE M
Against Amendment 1
I am voting against this amendment because it undermines our chapter’s democratic process and expands the purpose of vetting beyond what is reasonable.
First, this amendment automatically disqualifies candidates for running from steering if candidates do not pass the vetting process. This policy takes power away from the general body, who is clearly empowered to elect who they see fit to the chapter steering committee. The original resolution’s strategy of releasing a report to the membership gives the general body additional important information about candidates which should be factored into members’ voting decisions. This amendment expands that power greatly by automatically allowing the security department to disqualify candidates. I believe our general body is capable of electing our steering committee without this interference, and this change undermines our chapter’s democracy.
Second, the proactive vetting proposed in this amendment expands the purpose of vetting by asking the security department to proactively reach out to any or all chapter members. Currently, chapter members ask to be vetted by the security department when they need access to personal member data (full names, addresses, contact information, etc.) to fulfill a particular role. For example, I was vetted after stepping into the role of community engagement lead within We Power DC, so I could use Action Network to set up events, send emails, and see the information on those within the ecosocialist action network group. Within this current system, the purpose of vetting is to keep member’s personal information safe. This amendment sets up proactive vetting of chapter members just because. It sets a standard that people need to be vetted just to exist within the chapter and be a part of our membership. It gives the security department the express power to investigate any and all members of the chapter, and delinks vetting from the specific purpose of keeping member data secure.
The combination of the expansion of the purpose of vetting and the ability to use vetting to disqualify members from running for the steering committee gives undue responsibility to our security department and undemocratically takes power away from the general body.
IN FAVOR by BETH S
I am in favor of Amendment 1 to Resolution 2024-07-GR 1,
Resolution to Improve Chapter Security and Vet Steering Committee Candidates Amendment (Resolution 2024-07-GRXX: Improve Chapter Security Amendment - Google Docs), sponsored by Alex Y and Alf A (cosponsored by Far, Hector M, Hayden L, DJ L, Beth S., Diego J, Kaiser F, Jane N, Scott G, Keeli M, Sam D.). If this is the direction we are going to go as a Chapter, this amendment represents a substantial improvement over the base resolution, and is a more reasonable starting place for a discussion of Chapter security and vetting procedures.
I feel it is important to establish some basics up front:
I think it is reasonable and wise to account for and do some type of vetting for anyone who is granted access to sensitive member information.
I think it is reasonable - and necessary - to have a shared understanding of what we consider acceptable or unacceptable in our group.
I find the base resolution and reasoning a little confused and I wish we could get to the bottom of what the purpose is or what problem it’s trying to solve. One comrade offered me an explanation that the base resolution was simply intended to close a vetting loophole, as Steering members were not explicitly required to be vetted before getting access to member data (if accurate, this is a very understandable organic oversight coming from the fact that successful Chapter Steering candidates would likely have been vetted for taking on additional responsibilities as they got more involved and their reputations grew). I found the resistance to Amendment 1 even more surprising than the resistance to Hayden’s motion to postpone to the next GBM (2024-07-21 General Body Meeting Minutes - Google Docs), given that Amendment 1 strengthens the base resolution, and this amendment’s changes to the first “be it resolved” future-proof us against getting into that situation again. The new points 4 and 5 sidestep the proposed pre-election behavior report and its potential for legitimate privacy issues and/or appearance of incumbent Steering impropriety. That report was a feature which frankly shocked me the first time I read the base resolution, and why I absolutely refuse to consider the resolution unamended.
I had hoped Hayden’s motion to postpone would succeed, because I wanted us to have a chance to actually talk about serious issues as a chapter. I’m disappointed that the “discussion,” such as it is, instead had to be shoehorned into a Sunday afternoon with a week or two of hurried spillover on either side (on this side, with additional pressure to make yourself heard before an actual change is made). I attended the GBM. I heard the objection to the postponement that Chapter Steering had discussed this for months internally, and with various members of the Security Department. Both parties felt they had a good proposal and they were ready to bring it forward to membership. That is fine and I would generally expect that sort of process from any group bringing a resolution forward. However, when an important issue is discussed at length without me and I’m met with impatience when I want to actually engage in constructive deliberation before I give my approval, I don’t feel like I’m being taken seriously, let alone being treated like an equal partner. I assume the proposers of the resolution want their resolution to actually succeed rather than merely be voted on, pass or fail be damned. When it was said during the meeting that the point of not postponing was so that the discussion could be had, I felt confused and, yes, annoyed as the meeting went on. Debate is not discussion. Debate is a contest, a game with a winning side and losing side. I wanted a discussion, and I’m afraid that, again, we won’t get to have one.
Case in point: a member of the security department objected to (at least parts of) points 6 - 9, saying this sounded far too burdensome and like an endless source of stress and administrative labor. I didn’t write this amendment, but I cosponsored it because I agree with it. I was surprised to hear that interpretation, and I’d like to hear more about why that was the impression. Wording can and should be changed if it’s unclear! Instead of having an opportunity for actual discussion, we had an atomized tit-for-tat complete with time limits. The fact that this comrade reacted so strongly implies to me that we have the same read on the situation: the opportunity for generative negotiation was closing fast, but something will definitely happen. And then we just have to deal with it.
Abolition is my real organizing home in DSA, and speaking from that perspective, I’m disappointed again. Other objections to a delay and this amendment in particular were that the Security Department was fully involved with the resolution and not at all with this amendment, implying it lacked legitimacy. You’ll notice many Abolition Working Group members among the cosponsors of this amendment, Alf’s sponsorship of both amendments, and our Chapter Abolition Chair Keeli’s involvement with both. I really wish that some of the preliminary work on the resolution had included abolitionist perspectives - Alf was there, certainly, but I have to ask if Alf’s thoughts as an actual abolitionist were solicited, rather than Alf’s input as the NoVA Branch Liaison. We want to build something for all of us, and that takes time. That said, I find this amendment brings the resolution more in line with our principles.
AGAINST by APARNA R
Hi, I’m encouraging you to vote no on this amendment. There are two main concerns I have with this amendment.
First, this amendment would dramatically increase the Steering Committee’s power over vetting. As it stands now, the Steering Committee and the vetting processes are pretty separate and I think it would be a big conflict of interest to enable committee members to direct vetting. This amendment would empower the committee to tell the security department to investigate any chapter member, even if they don’t hold a leadership position in the chapter, instead of having vetting needs correspond with the sensitive nature of specific positions. Even if the current committee doesn’t misuse this proposed policy, you can imagine how this policy could be easily taken advantage of to investigate people any given Steering Committee doesn’t like. This would also put an unnecessary burden on recruiting new members to the chapter. We intentionally have a low barrier to entry for the chapter, so anyone who is willing to pay dues (or submit a dues waiver) can join – it’s how we’re able to recruit and retain membership and continue to stay a force in the region in our organizing. This process could make it more of a hindrance.
Second, this amendment would allow the Security department to remove members who “fail” vetting from remaining as Steering Committee candidates. I want to clarify that as my understanding of the vetting process stands, people don’t “fail,” but that any concerns are identified. The larger issue with this language though is that means this amendment would provide undue influence for the Security Department to be able to remove Steering candidates from the ballot. I feel that this is an inappropriate concentration of power, and that any decision on Steering candidates should be made by the general body as a whole.