We are rank-and-file members who are concerned with the current status of the East Bay DSA. We offer a few anecdotes that we hope will nourish a productive debate within the East Bay DSA’s wider membership. Our aim is to make apparent some unhealthy tendencies within our chapter so that they can be discussed and resolved. In the spirit of facilitating deliberation, then, we have refrained from doing any in-depth analysis. While we believe that there are clear patterns around which structural, organizational, and interpersonal problems can be pinpointed, we want our readers to form their own conclusions. In the end, all we want is a dynamic chapter that is capable of authentically engaging with the desires and needs of our fellow members, and with the working class of which we are all a part.
1. Brake Light Initiative
As our reader might know, the DSA has recently moved to experiment with mutual aid-style brake light replacement clinics. These efforts have been, by and large, supported by local DSA chapters across the country. Meanwhile, brake light organizers in the East Bay DSA experienced significant pushback from many individuals on the Local Council (“LC”).
Members of the LC have used their organizational positions and social capital to dismiss the hard work of rank-and-file EBDSA members engaged in the brake light program. This has included public derision on social media, the denial of access to official East Bay DSA communications, and exclusion of any mention of the brake light program in the local newsletter. A former member of elected leadership released an article in which the brake light situation was compared to charity, evangelism, and scabbing¹. A Co-Chair explained that the proposal would not be put on the agenda of an LC meeting, deriding the merits of the project while claiming that it would be perceived as “white saviorism.” These types of positions blatantly disregarded the racially diverse organizers who were central to the brake light program’s success.² Without the ability for brake light organizers to engage in a wider dialogue within the chapter, these arguments can only be one-sided.
Even though the brake light program is extremely popular, it was unnecessarily difficult to bring the project to a vote. Brake light organizers were forced to gather 90 signatures to put the brake light project on an agenda. Given sparse general meetings, and a complete lack of access to official membership contact lists, collecting signatures was and remains needlessly laborious³. When the program was finally brought before membership at a general meeting⁴, it soundly passed. LC members were among the few people who spoke against the program.
How the brake light situation was handled leaves us with numerous questions. How can internal democracy flourish if members are made to jump through innumerable bureaucratic hoops? On what basis can we claim to be a “big tent” organization when member-driven projects that do not align with leaders’ ideology are denied support?⁵
2. Arrests in Berkeley during Anti-Fascist Protests
In August 2017, in the midst of recurring white supremacist rallies, the Mayor of Berkeley moved to appease moderate liberals and classified masks as “banned weapons.” During a demonstration against one of these rallies, four EBDSA comrades were arrested under this ordinance. Berkeley Police brazenly “doxed” arrested members by posting their mugshot photos, names, and places of residence on Twitter. Of course, this information was picked up and broadcasted by local news agencies. One DSA comrade was even charged with a felony. An East Bay member requested that this comrade’s court date be shared through EBDSA official communication channels, such as email, in order to amass critical court support. No such call was issued; no official arrangements were made to organize support for these jailed comrades.⁶
Actions taken by the San Francisco DSA (SFDSA) stand in stark contrast. SFDSA used their channels of communication to coordinate jail support and raise bail money. SFDSA made dozens of phone calls, organized legal support and tracked arrested comrades as they were moved through the criminal justice system. They waited outside the jail with food and transport ready until the early hours of the morning, when our EBDSA comrades were finally released. SFDSA made sure all 12 arrested protesters had a ride home, DSA members and non-members alike.
Specifics of the arrests aside, we are again confronted with numerous questions about the chapter’s priorities. Why is it that East Bay DSA comrades were made to rely on a neighboring chapter, which has fewer members, to organize a response to politically motivated arrests? How can our chapter maintain a position against police repression without practicing a basic and straightforward function such as court support? Is this example a problem of the will, a problem of structure, or both?
3. Membership Suspensions
There have been several membership investigations and suspensions that are conspicuous in their near-exclusive focus on individuals who have voiced opposition to positions and statements held by some powerful LC members. The ambiguous procedures of these suspensions have often run against the chapter’s stated objectives, like restorative justice⁷. Such suspensions have had a chilling effect on the ability for other groups to organize within the chapter by generating a contentious and untrusting climate. Members outside of leaders’ consensus have been subject to derision⁸, exclusion⁹, and rumor-mongering. Due to the intricacies of suspensions, we will confine ourselves to one example. A second example, however, can be read about here¹⁰.
One EBDSA member, an outspoken critic of current EBDSA policies who we’ll refer to as Jason for anonymity purposes, was suspended for three months just prior to a critical membership meeting. The suspension was enacted just prior to an LC-initiated special meeting to vote on an electoral endorsement slate. Jason was active in organizing an opposition to this slate, while a large majority of the LC organized in favor. The LC charged Jason with physically assaulting another member (who we’ll refer to as Brian). A cursory, closed LC meeting with no external inquiry was conducted. Of the approximately ten people who were present the evening of the interaction, none reported being asked for a witness statement, nor was a meeting with Jason had. When the LC asked the accused individual to write a statement about the events of the night of the alleged incident, Jason’s statement noted he and Brian had been meeting regularly, and that they did not believe any investigation was necessary. Still, the LC decided to suspend Jason.
Soon thereafter, Brian co-wrote and signed a request with Jason for the suspension to be overturned. Their jointly-signed letter is unambiguous: “No conflict occured on September 14th, 2017 that could be classified as a physical confrontation.” Nonetheless, the LC denied Brian and Jason’s appeal.¹¹
The bylaws require a commitment to the principle of restorative justice: “In all cases, prior to discipline, the Local Council should consider and abide by the principles of privacy, accountability, and restorative justice.”¹² Far from any sensible alignment with restorative justice, the LC acted against the wishes of the supposedly aggrieved party, to which they attributed harm when none was claimed.
This has had the effect of a further form of undue punishment. The suspension has undermined Jason’s reputation among the membership. Some have expressed hesitation to organize with or speak with Jason or people associated with him because they had heard rumors of violent behavior. Obviously, this has had the effect of creating further tension, mistrust, and conflict in the chapter.
The practice of investigating and suspending members is an inevitable part of any organization. However, if suspensions and investigations are patterned by their focus on political opponents, or if their outcome is marked by a significant lack of investigation, we are in serious trouble.
Here again we are left with troubling questions. Is it just for a local chapter to adjudicate imagined problems, without the input of the members it claims are involved? Is it desirable for chapter leadership to emphasize uncertain procedures instead of mediating issues in good faith? How can we trust any judgement that has been made without a substantive inquiry? Must restorative justice act merely as a talking point, or can it actually bear out its promise in practice?
A Concluding Remark:
We have been conservative with the examples we have included. For the sake of brevity, we have only discussed three issues that we have experienced first-hand. We believe that these events demonstrate the following:
- An overemphasis on often vague, bureaucratic processes.
- That some important actions taken by chapter leadership have been inconsistent with resolutions adopted by the membership.
- That apparent political maneuvering has at times marred member participation and alienated individual members.
There’s no question that these kinds of issues merit close deliberation by our fellow members. Resolving problems, in our chapter and in any chapter, cannot take place in back rooms among a few isolated individuals. However difficult or uncomfortable, resolution of these issues must occur in discussion, under conditions that are open and honest. It is both promising and worrying that the problems represented in the aforementioned examples do not exist in other chapters. Worrying, because our chapter’s problems impede in the actual organizing of working class power in real time. But, we are not totally lost. That other chapters have avoided these issues is promising, because they offer models for how to move forward in reforming our chapter’s structure.
Footnotes:
¹ Michael Finnin, “There is no democracy without participation” https://medium.com/@michaelfinnin/there-is-no-democracy-without-participation-c1a1c310349b
² “Give PoC Comrades a ‘Brake’”: https://docs.google.com/forms/d/e/1FAIpQLSdWmX8L38a7pTLgA2J6d9ptqdIMgumxjOsor8ffhYTz33r_LA/viewform
³ After our general meeting in June to elect our LC, members had to wait six months before another general meeting in which they were allowed any input. Per EBDSA bylaws, there are two ways to put an item on the agenda of a general meeting. The first way is a majority vote by LC. The second is to get signatures from 10% of the membership. The latter presents a problem; while our “on-paper” members number approximately 1,000, the active membership is far smaller (perhaps 200 people), and large meetings of members are infrequent. Further, members have been denied access to official contact lists. In practice, this has made it very difficult for members to put items before the general membership, because in effect, they must get ½ of available signatories. (http://www.eastbaydsa.org/resources-bylaws)
⁴ ebdsa general meeting
⁵ There is also an ongoing tenants council project which has been organized by members, but bears no mention by LC. This project is organized by Communist Caucus, which has been subject to attacks by leadership. At a “social housing” event, two organizers from this project were invited to speak about the project, but were voted off the agenda by members of LC.
⁶ While no arrangements were made in an official capacity, we would like to take a moment to acknowledge the few LC members who did take action. We want to thank Molly for attending the arraignment. Thanks also to Ahmed and Jamie, for expressed sympathies, and to Ben F. for removing the last names of arrestees from the EBDSA website.
⁷ See EBDSA Bylaws, Article III, Section 4. (http://www.eastbaydsa.org/resources-bylaws)
⁸ https://imgur.com/a/IxbKV At-large EBDSA LC, and NPC member Jeremy G. released this in response to the Communist Caucus’ foundational statement which explains the politics of the caucus. It was before CC started their project (tenant organizing). Jeremy and Dan D.’s statements contain some factual inaccuracies. Dan has since deleted his statement, an archive can be found here: https://pastebin.com/1H5gg8cq
Here is the CC statement to which they object: https://medium.com/@DSACommunistCaucus/dsa-communist-caucus-our-statement-bccd8fb2bcbd
⁹ There’s a tendency for members who are not of the right “cultural fit” to find themselves iced out of participating in various activities — for example political education, or canvassing.
¹⁰ “Letter to EBDSA Comrades”: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1HSAHDUKcqOuXtC8_cKmzxxrlQ_185cuSrTsVSrMMGDQ/edit#
¹¹The full text of the exchange between LC, Jason, and Brian can be found here: https://medium.com/@Aufhebongrip/a-punishment-in-e-pistolary-c061b2172537
¹² EBDSA Bylaws, Article III, Section 4. (http://www.eastbaydsa.org/resources-bylaws)
