Statements for and against Amendment 2 to Resolution 2024-07-GR1: Improve Chapter Security will be posted here.
IN FAVOR by TIMOTHY S
This amendment fixes a small issue with the steering vetting resolution: without it, it’s difficult for a steering candidate to know in advance what will be in their public vetting report, and so can’t act accordingly, by e.g. dropping out of the race if they object sufficiently strongly to that information being shared with the chapter. This scenario is, I hope, pretty unlikely, but it’s a fair thing to be thinking about, and adjusting the resolution to create a procedure that gives candidates an opportunity to think this through improves the underlying resolution. I commend the authors for figuring out something specific they had concerns about, writing a simple, implementable amendment that leaves the base resolution intact, and communicating what it does clearly. I will be voting yes and hope you will join me in doing so.
IN FAVOR by CARL R
Comrades, I’m writing to ask you to vote FOR this proposed amendment to Resolution 2024-07-GR1: Improve Chapter Security. I think it solves a valid problem with the resolution; it removes pressure from steering committee candidates. While I don’t personally envision this being a problem, having it directly built in should help assuage people’s fears and increase the likelihood of members making the choice to run for leadership - which is an unalloyed good, in my opinion.
IN FAVOR by JULIA P
This amendment closes a critical loophole in the underlying resolution, one about which many chapter members have justifiably expressed trepidation. The resolution as written stipulates that, when vetting of steering candidates is completed, the security department will generate a report that notes any flags which will then be made available to the general body. Given that our vetting guidelines are (for good reason) not made publicly available, steering candidates have no way of anticipating what might be revealed in these reports. For all they know, they are risking the exposure of sensitive personal information to an audience for which it was never intended, a possibility which could easily deter them from running in the first place. While I and my comrades in the security department know that our guidelines, while necessarily mysterious, are not sinister, steering candidates who have no way of knowing these guidelines should not be prevented from running by the fears that naturally arise from these unknowns. The changes proposed by this amendment would help them feel safer putting themselves forward knowing that they have an out if anything they would prefer to keep private is flagged on their report.
One might argue that the very generation of a public report is an inherent violation of privacy and that this stipulation should be struck from the resolution entirely (the other amendment to this resolution proposes exactly this). I understand this perspective, but I believe it overlooks the fact that publishing the report is an essential accountability measure not only for the candidate being vetted but for the security department which generates the report. The public nature of the report prevents the security department from vetoing a candidate simply because we dislike them or disagree with them politically. If we have concerns about a candidate, we are required to substantiate those concerns with concrete evidence, and if the general body disagrees with our assessment, they have the freedom to make their own judgment. This provides an essential check on the unconscious bias inherent in the vetting process and maintains the organizational transparency that is necessary to create a culture of trust.
This amendment strikes a healthy balance between privacy and transparency. It respects the right of steering candidates to curate which aspects of their lives they choose to publicize to the general body while holding them to basic standards of accountability. Chapter members have the right to know who they are electing to leadership, and leaders should be prepared to face a higher level of public scrutiny than the rank and file, but this does not mean steering candidates should be preemptively driven out of the running by fear of public humiliation. All chapter members who wish to run for steering should be able to do so without the weight of gnawing anxiety created by the opacity of the vetting process, and this amendment would enable new leaders to emerge unhampered by fear. For these reasons, I intend to vote yes on this amendment and encourage all comrades to do the same.
IN FAVOR by MICHAEL M
Statement IN FAVOR of Amendment 2 to Resolution 2024-07-GR 1
Comrades, I urge you to vote YES on this amendment because it adds two reasonable provisions that strengthen the underlying resolution. The authors of this amendment demonstrated a lot of foresight by suggesting that the full vetting report be communicated to each Steering Committee candidate before it gets released to the general body. This mitigates the candidate being blindsided by a failed vetting report and allows them to process the results before they go public. I also think it’s smart to give the candidate the option to withdraw from the election if they choose to and not be included in the full vetting report available to the membership. Both of these additions create the conditions for a more fair process and improve the underlying resolution.
For these reasons, I urge you to vote YES on Amendment 2.
IN FAVOR by KEELI M
I helped with this amendment as a simpler alternative to the original security resolution. I am fully in support of Amendment 1, but I know there are far more changes there, but one of the more harmful parts of the original resolution is the report being released in the manner that it is.
I think this amendment (2) makes the original resolution a little less invasive and gives explicit clarity that a candidate 1) receives communication on the content of the report before it is released to membership and 2) if the candidate decides to withdraw for any reason, their info wouldn’t be included in the full release.
This change is aimed to be used in good faith to allow someone with a less concerning vet failure to mediate and choose to withdraw to protect their information.
It should be explicitly said that the chapter bylaws already have a separate process so that someone with a serious vet failure would be held accountable and given a process, and that information wouldn’t just fade into the background because they withdrew.
So, Amendment 1 is important first and foremost for changes, and Amendment 2 is important for simple harm reduction. If both pass, they can be merged together to keep the relevant parts that the chapter voted in support of.
I urge my comrades to pass this amendment!
IN FAVOR by BETH S
I am in favor of Amendment 2 to Resolution 2024-07-GR 1, Resolution to Improve Chapter Security and Vet Steering Committee Candidates Amendment (Improve Chapter Security Amendment - Google Docs), sponsored by Alf A and Keeli M (cosponsored by Shawn V.). To be clear, I would prefer to begin the Chapter’s discussion of Resolution 2024-07-GR 1 with the additions of Amendment 1 (sponsored by Alex Y and Alf A), which bypasses the need for this amendment. In my view, Amendment 2 pulls Resolution 2024-07-GR 1 up to a bare-bones level where it could be eligible for discussion. Resolution 2024-07-GR 1 is simply not viable without handling the concerns Amendment 2 attempts to address.
Cosponsor Shawn V. concisely laid out the goals and reasoning behind Amendment 2 in his comment on the Steering channel on 07/14/2024 at 6:39 pm (Slack):
“…[this amendment] provides some explicit clarity that candidates getting vetted 1) receive communication on the content of the report before released to membership and 2) if the candidate decides to withdraw for any reason, their info wouldn’t be included in the full release.
“We want to flag that this is a harm reduction amendment, and this change would be aimed to be used in good faith to allow someone with a less concerning vetting flag to choose to mediate and then withdraw and protect the content of their information. In cases where a more serious vetting flags would be found and mediated with the candidate, our bylaws already have a separate process so that someone who has something serious can’t just withdraw and fade into the background.”
IN FAVOR by BAKARI W
I support the base resolution, but I think this is a good amendment that addresses the potential privacy concerns of candidates. I encourage you to vote for this amendment.
IN FAVOR by FAR
I am writing to suggest voting FOR the Amendment 2 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 STUART K
I’m submitting a statement in favor of Amendment 2 to Resolution 2024-07-GR1: Improve Chapter Security.
The base resolution provides a sound foundation for ensuring chapter security during and after Metro DC DSA Steering Committee elections, and I believe Amendment 2 builds on that foundation. The vetting of leadership candidates for our DSA chapter’s Steering Committee is important, but it’s also important that those candidates retain some agency when relating to the results of that vetting. Allowing Steering Committee candidates to see the results of any security vetting report before that report is shared with all chapter members—and then allowing candidates to withdraw from the election and be removed from the report—seems very fair.
I will be voting in favor of Amendment 2, and I hope other Metro DC DSA members do the same.
IN FAVOR by APARNA R
Hi I would encourage you to vote yes on Amendment 2! I think this is good, and the additions are very common sense. I think it makes sense to let steering candidates know about the results of their vetting before the rest of the chapter. I appreciate the copsonsors for bringing these ideas forward, and introducing an amendment that improves on the original resolution by clarifying some oversights in the original.