New Bylaws for a Growing Boston DSA

Boston DSA grew to 1,100 members in 2017. As we grew, it became apparent that our chapter’s governing document, the bylaws, are not suitable for such a large and active chapter. To address some of the structural issues that we identified, local members of Refoundation and Boston DSA have proposed following 14 bylaws reforms and additions. Refoundation authors collaborated with many non-caucus Boston DSA members to add suggested edits and language during the secondary amendment submission period. Authors of those friendly amendments are listed at the end of the proposed primary amendment’s rationale.

1. Revised Purpose (authored by caucus member Rob C): meant to replace an outdated purpose with one that draws directly from the most recent National DSA Constitution’s purpose, with language included about local organizing, the assertive vision of socialism that DSA has ratified nationally last year, as well as the renewed commitment to internationalism our organization has since the resurgence of membership, and an explicit defining of capitalism as an oppressive economic order and DSA’s view of socialism as intersectional and liberating. A secondary amendment authored by caucus member David M and non-caucus members Kit C and Drew F has been accepted as friendly.
2. Change requirements for voting on dues (authored by caucus member Eliza M): meant to allow for voting on matters regarding local dues at meetings beyond just our Annual Meeting, as this discussion will need to happen at a later date.
3. Law Enforcement Disclosure Amendment (authored by caucus members Jason B, Drew D, Jess L, Annie DF): meant to better protect against law enforcement taking a role that is adversarial and disruptive to the purpose, goals and even the routine operations of organizations such as DSA and many of our coalition partners. Law enforcement’s disruption and aggression against leftist organizing is not always expressed through open repression or confrontation: surveillance, agent provocation, and other clandestine methods have been employed against activist organizations like ours before. We as a DSA chapter need some manner of organizational process to account for this. A disclosure process for law enforcement and similarly aligned organizations would make members aware of a law enforcement presence at meetings and able to act accordingly.
4. Edit language of ‘democratic centralist’ clause in expulsion criteria (authored by caucus members Jarib R, Alexis D, and Rob C): meant to provide clarity on the question of entryism, its relationship to self described democratic centralist organizations, and its implications for member expulsion criteria. By amending the criteria for the local to vote on member expulsions — from membership in a democratic centralist organization, to attempts to influence internal decisions while under the discipline of any organization — we acknowledge that entryists can come from not just democratic centralist organizations, but from all organizations. This bylaw change has been instituted in other chapters as well. As it stands, Boston DSA has collaborated a fair amount with democratic centralist organizations. None of these organizations or their members have engaged in any way with DSA that resembles entryism and have shown no possibility of any of them intending to join DSA either. Therefore, there is no reason for membership in a democratic centralist organization to be criterion for a vote on expulsion to be brought forward. Our current bylaws associate entryism with membership and not with conduct, and by doing so unfairly put the burden on democratic centralist organizations — in reality, it can occur from any organization. To handle the issue of entryist conduct, our proposed clause should be sufficient regardless of where that conduct is coming from.
5. Accessibility and Proxy (authored by caucus member Eliza M): Boston DSA must make a concerted effort to involve comrades with disabilities in the business of the chapter. This new section of the bylaws would prioritize accessible meeting locations, create a process for accessibility accommodations and will allow for proxy voting and proxy speaking.
6. Define Subgroups — Working Groups, Caucuses, Committees (authored by caucus members Dean R, Eliza M): meant to align the bylaws with current practice, and to specify the structural responsibilities of the subgroup types. Caucuses (such as the Women’s and Gender Non-Binary Caucus) are for self-aligned identities; Working Groups (such as the Healthcare Working Group) are for political work; and “teams” (such as GM planning, direct action, fundraising, party planning) are defined as Committees which are for administrative tasks, both temporary and ongoing. More specific requirements for the election of Working Group chairs/co-chairs are added, along with the responsibilities of that position; a democratically elected point person is vital to keep working groups functional. Caucuses need not answer to the SC but must make sure members know of their existence and permit members to join if aligned with the identity. A secondary amendment authored by non-caucus members Presley P and Valerie Y has been accepted as friendly.
7. Leave policy for Executive Board and Committee Chairs (authored by caucus member Casey F and non-member Peter M): meant to address the reality that comrades in positions of leadership may have to deal with personal issues that prevent them from devoting their full attention to their position. This bylaws addition would establish a regularized system for people to take a leave of absence and appoint a replacement for the duration of their absence.
8. Term Limits for Co-chairs (authored by caucus members Jarib R, Alexis D): meant to provide a mechanism for aiding ourselves and our organization to seek to develop new leaders, and encourage fellow members to take leadership.This amendment will ensure that there’s co-chair rotation such that knowledge, skills and power are shared between exiting and incoming leadership on a regular basis.
9. Add Communications Coordinator to Officers (authored by caucus members Annie DF, Rosie B, Eliza M and non-member Madeline H): meant to create a position in leadership to address work that is desperately necessary to the operations of our chapter — we leave all Communications Coordinator work currently to the Co-Chairs and a few SC members who are too busy sending out meetings notices & post-meeting notes to membership to be able to do the duties they should have. A secondary amendment authored by non-caucus member Beth H has been accepted as friendly.
10. Process for electing newly added officer positions (authored by caucus members Peter B, Eliza M): meant to address the issue of elections for an officer position that is added to the bylaws the same day as the election. This bylaw amendment outlines a process for an election of a new officer position to ensure it is run democratically.
11. Reduce the size of the Executive Board (authored by caucus member Annie DF): A smaller size and odd number will make votes, discussions, and reaching quorum easier. A smaller size will also make distributing labor evenly possible, and will hold leaders accountable to the work they have volunteered for. This amendment also amends the language of “male” to read instead, “identify as cis-men”. A secondary amendment authored by caucus member Ben S has been accepted as friendly.
12. Accountability for Executive Board Members and Committee Chairs (authored by caucus members Edward G, Alexis D, Eliza M): meant to establish a recall mechanism for abuse of one’s position of leadership. In a clear oversight in our current bylaws, we currently have no such mechanism and thus have no ability to enforce consequences for malfeasance. A secondary amendment authored by non-caucus member Beth H has been accepted as friendly.
13. Prohibit Public Office Holders from being members of the Executive Board and require disclosure from Staffers and Campaign Staffers running for or on the Executive Board (authored by caucus members Edward P, Scott S, David M, Liliana G-M): meant to address issues that may arise from those holding or seeking elected office and those who are paid staffers being in chapter leadership. The goals of elected officials, even ones endorsed or otherwise supported by Boston DSA, may diverge from the interest of our local. It is important that when those divergences occur and might affect our local’s work or internal democracy, that our elected leadership has a greater commitment to Boston DSA, something that cannot be guaranteed if they have a vested interest or are the elected official in question. Therefore, we should prohibit anyone holding or seeking elected office and require disclosure from those who are staffers to prevent this inherent conflict of interest from affecting our local. By requiring that staffers disclose their work, we can entrust the membership with the decision of whether they will serve DSA effectively, and by requiring recusal in votes that pose a conflict of interest, we can allow campaign staff to help with much of our administrative work without compromising our interests. A secondary amendment authored by non-caucus members Matt M, Presley P and others in the Electoral Working Group has been accepted as friendly.
14. Mandate for Robert’s Rules — GM Votes Void if taken during a meeting not run by Robert’s Rules (authored by caucus members Sara K, Eliza M): meant to mandate that general meetings be run in accordance with Robert’s Rules of Order. When a meeting is run without Robert’s Rules of Order, it is extremely easy to circumvent democratic process, frequently unbeknownst to those in attendance. Since this is especially true of meetings in which votes are taken, this will help ensure a more democratically run chapter.