Deb K R
Hi, comrades. For those of you who don’t know me, I am Debra Keefer Ramage or Debs (she/her pronouns.) I was one of the first co-chairs elected in 2016 under our then-new constitution and bylaws (which I also had a major hand in writing, so please forgive me if some of them make your life difficult.) After cycling off of the Steering Committee in 2018, I served a few other roles: an early non-SC Pol Ed Coordinator, briefly a member of the original Grievance committee, and volunteer parliamentarian. So I am drawing on these four former roles in the chapter to offer a review of the September 2024 convention from that standpoint, highlighting how I think we may improve for next year, how we have already improved from previous years, and what are some of the things I think the chapter will need from us if we are going to succeed in this ambitious program we have devised.
One of the lenses I want to look at this from is inclusion, accessibility, and, via those qualities, attracting maximum attendance. I passed on to chapter leadership a real time note I wrote up during the convention and a lot of you may have seen that already. So rather than repeat it, I will list a few tips and ideas (not all from me) about improving inclusion and accessibility in hybrid meetings.
- Prior to meetings, a tech operations team should do quick checks to determine that the following “connections” all work:
- In person speakers can be heard and seen by in person attendees
- In person speakers can be heard and seen by Zoom attendees
- Zoom speakers can be heard and seen* by in person attendees
- Zoom speakers can be heard and seen* on Zoom
- There is a clear way for in person attendees to be recognized for points of order or points of personal privilege
- There is an equally clear way for Zoom attendees to do the same
- (* By seen it might just be a box with their name and pronouns, or a static photo)
- In the first few years, we used “silent applause” (twinkles, snapping, etc.) as a consideration for people with sensory issues and hearing aid users. We should bring back that protocol. BUT – no applause of any kind should be used when a debate that will precede a vote is in progress.
- Breaks need to be longer and/or more frequent for many reasons.
- It would probably make our organization more welcoming to Muslim members if we included prayer breaks in any meeting over two hours, as the DFL does.
- We want to be welcoming to all ages, including kids. People are more likely to bring their kids to meetings if there are reasonable amounts of break time.
- For the podium laptop signed onto Zoom, which is used to share a view of the speaker with Zoom attendees, an independent webcam (not built-in) with a flexible stand would enable seeing people’s faces instead of their belly or the top of their head.
- A rules of order thing we don’t do, which is in fact an accessibility thing, is that the chair should repeat or summarize what speakers from the floor say, and should also read out the entire motion just prior to calling for a vote.
- For food preferences, lots of variety is key (because of allergies etc.) We should avoid non-fairtrade chocolate, and products of union busters, or boycotted entities, i.e. Israel.
The other lens I want to use is a more procedural / structural one. I confess: I was dreading this convention. It did NOT live up to my fears, and though I had moments of frustration as I am sure we all did, on the whole, I both enjoyed it and was fine with the outcomes. I feel that we have seen real advances in our ability to delve into the heart of what we are doing and why, and to have comradely discussions (for the most part) around high stakes issues, and for members to follow through on their stated desires to organize.
Whether we do another round of priority setting next year will depend largely on how successful we are following our priorities this year. If so, we can’t rely on the membership of one year agreeing with that of the previous, so some of this will need repeating. People were confused or even angry, about the vote on whether to adopt priorities at all, following as it did a couple of hours of intense debate on which projects to elevate to priority status. In hindsight, a lot of the planning team realized why – we should have put that question first.
Another thing that came up in hindsight is that the more complex and sophisticated we get as an organization, the more people begin to appreciate literacy in meeting planning and rules of order. Our DSA rules of order are more than just Robert’s Rules, although they are a key part. In the coming year, I am going to be thinking about doing some skill shares (which will actually be more of an open discussion group than an expert imparting wisdom) on bylaws and how to write them. I would also encourage members to look out for announcements about an independent project that my co-author and I are working on – the Sinistral* Parliamentarian Study Group (SPSG.) All are invited to join and contribute.
(*”Sinistral” is Sam’s fancy cod-Latin way of saying “Leftist.”)
Samuel D
Occasional Parliamentarian
Hello members, and thank you for electing me to be an At-Large Member of the Steering Committee. I’m writing this about 12 hours after my first Steering Committee meeting as a member of this body, a week after our convention.
First, I have to give kudos to our esteemed co-chair, Revmira B., for their skillful chairing of the annual convention. They maintained composure through challenging moments, read the mood of the room, expedited actions when appropriate, and all the while adhered to the meeting rules and best practices spelled out in Robert’s Rules of Order Newly Revised.
Rules are Democracy
I’m a big advocate of studying parliamentary procedure and rules of order, and it’s not because I like getting bogged down in an esoteric process or ruling people out of order. It’s because parliamentary procedure is the very practice of democracy according to science and reason. Through trial and error over nearly a millennium, this body of rules has evolved so that groups may efficiently, fairly, and democratically make decisions without resorting to violence or dictatorship. Parliamentary procedure often feels complicated because it doesn’t mesh well with our usual social instincts. It requires restraint and discipline. But I promise you, it isn’t Whose Rule Is It Anyway? where the rules are made up and the points of order don’t matter.
My best advice I can offer to anyone is to read the rules. I don’t suggest reading Robert’s cover-to-cover – I haven’t even done that. But do read the proposed meeting rules, constitution, and bylaws. It may sound obvious, but these documents answer the most frequent questions members pose. Knowing the rules is also a key aspect of planning effective strategies, defending from undemocratic actions, and in general seeing that your perspective becomes the will of the assembly.
When the principles of parliamentary law are well-adhered to, we often don’t notice it. This is a good thing, because things are going smoothly and everyone knows what’s going on. On the other hand, almost every time I’m in a deliberative meeting that is full of confusion and consternation, I’ve diagnosed the cause as a significant deviation from principles of parliamentary procedure. These points of pain often lead to “rediscovering” the principles underlying parliamentary law. Yeah, science!
By the Rules
In my opinion, some of the best parts of our annual convention were when we embodied both the spirit and rules of parliamentary law. For example, all debate followed the introduction of a main motion (i.e. a priority proposal, resolution, or bylaw amendment). This meant that discussion wasn’t wandering or attempting to construct a proposal, but was zeroed in on the exact language of the proposal in front of us so we all knew what was in question.
Another aspect we did well at was decorum. This doesn’t mean stodgy and stilted discussion full of niceties, formalities, and deference. Rather decorum is about how we debate, because our individual behavior can support or inhibit democratic decision-making. Some of the aspects of decorum in debate as defined in Robert’s which I believe we excelled at were: confining remarks to the merits of the pending question, refraining from attacking or questioning a member’s motives even in the face of passionate disagreement, refraining from disturbing the assembly (such as interrupting, distracting others, or blocking with sightlines), and referring to other members in respectful terms (“comrade,” “the chair,” etc.).
Another aspect of decorum in debate as defined in Robert’s is refraining from speaking against one’s own motion. This is explicitly prohibited. The underlying problem here is misrepresenting one’s position. When we saw members rise to speak against a question they actually supported for the sole purpose of enabling another speaker in favor, it was recognizable as a “gaming” of rules. It made our meeting less efficient. This is why you should appreciate decorum – it serves a function!
Making Rules and Practices Work for Us
But good rules and adherence can only go so far. They enable democratic decision-making, but they don’t guarantee it. As Debs has detailed, there’s several specific ways we can improve the functioning of our meetings beyond the rules to improve inclusion and accessibility.
From my perspective, it comes down to accessibility by design, not by accommodation. This is often known as Universal Design. We ought to intentionally design each aspect of the meeting around members who experience the most barriers to participation, whether because of (dis)ability, identity, religious practice, access to technology, transportation, childcare, and so on. We’ve already made significant progress on this.
The flexibility of hybrid meetings solves for a lot of these barriers, which makes it doubly important that we keep refining the technical aspects of hybrid meetings. OpenSlides is a very slick solution to the perennial challenge of hybrid meetings, which is a fair and equitable method of members attaining recognition regardless of if they’re in the room or calling in. Using Zoom to generate captions helps those with hearing impairments but also just about everyone else. Breaks for prayer times support our Muslim comrades, but also those who medically may need to eat or use the restroom more frequently. It even accommodates smokers. Behold, the curb cut effect!
Some members have suggested that we continue to plan to use the Pohlad room at the Minneapolis Central Library so we don’t have to re-learn a tech setup in new venues constantly. This is a smart suggestion. I would also recommend that we make investments in A/V equipment. Wireless microphones with runners, a basic sound mixer, multiple tripod mounted cameras, and maybe even a designated A/V technician (who isn’t also operating Zoom) would all help resolve the need to see and hear each other regardless of location.
Finally, as Debs mentioned above, we’ve been operating under our current constitution since 2016. I believe we’ve outgrown aspects of it and are due for a comprehensive rewrite. This doesn’t have to mean a total rebuild like Hennepin Avenue. Indeed, we have a solid foundation because of the culture and commitment of our membership. But after nearly a decade of filling potholes, we’re due for a full mill and overlay to comprehensively make all parts mesh together nicely. And we can incorporate more frequent and better-placed curb cuts as well.
The road to socialist democracy is always winding, but it doesn’t have to be bumpy. Knowing and respecting the rules of the road keep us from taking a wrong turn, driving into the ditch, or hurting those just trying to cross the street. It’s not always easy, and it requires restraint, but it is worth it!