We are going to get started. We do have a quorum. Thanks to everyone for taking a break and coming back with us. We are going to continue as we have spent the morning going through the next section, which is party reform. Party reform is a big section and obviously covers a lot of topics, so i would like to highlight the key areas. And then we are going to be voting and amending, amending and then voting each section. So instead of going through everything, we will go through section by section and make amendments and vote. The key elements that we will be focusing on this afternoon, are recommendations that are focused in the following areas, the first is making the party more competitive in all regions of the country, the second is supporting and growing state parties and increasing grassroots participation. The third is operating in a manner that is open and transparent. And ourth is strengthening inclusive participatory culture at the d. N. C. Fifth, building on the great diverse quit of our party. Sixth and seventh and protecting and promoteing the vote. For each of those sections we will stay focused on those sections as we go through amendments. And stick to a section and we will amend and vote and move onto the next section. So with that, we are going to move onto the first section which is making the party more competitive in all regions of the country. The commission believes that the d. N. C. Must update and enhance the way it operates in order to make our party competitive. There can be no off years and Grassroots Organization must be a high priority. 2020, redistricting is a top priority and one of the most important thing that democrats can run and win local electrics. Underneath that, we have a series of six different recommendations. So at this time, i would like to ask the commission if anyone has any amendments on the six recommendations that are under making the party more competitive in all regions of the country. I move the section as written. Second. Much of this wasnt discussed in any of our meetings but none of it is objectionable. Ts just fine. We are going to go vote through each one, ok . Can i suggest we vote on the block, one as a block. And i so move. We are going to vote on making the party more competitive in all regions of c, d and e as, b, a block. Those in favor say aye. Unanimous. Ection 1 is adopted. Section 2, supporting and growing state parties and increasing grassroots participation. State and local parties. We are supposed to be excited, engaged and empowered. So amendments for section 2 . We have an amendment we would like to offer and is it available to post . Can someone read it . We are going to put it on the screen. Online 33, at the end of that sentence, the line that starts with activists, we would for the page 13 commissioners. We would add, at the same time, asdc, which is the state party chairs and state parties agree that accountability metrics are put in place with such state Party Programs like the state innovation grants to ensure that the resources are being used to effectively grow the state parties, engage members of diverse constituencies and view points, increase Voter Registration, ensure sufficient organizing staff and institutionalized training for staff im sorry, i made a mistake, that should substitute end. And not go at the so moved and seconded. Discussion on the amendment . Seeing none. Hose in favor say aye. Its unanimous. Any other amendments to section 2 . Just for clarification, on the sheet of paper that was passed out, we didnt have an opportunity to discuss this. The one that says under party typo, page 13 page 3, nsert that would be line 28 section 2, party reform, page 13. We could make it more confusing. A little bit more confusing . I could translate it into greek. Party ld add state budgets must be transparent, subject to, not pursuant to the same budgetary bylaws and amendments to the commissions reform. Funds raised must be disbursed to endorse Democratic Candidates with elected state Party Candidates or Budget Committees approving allocation. I could use my beautiful state of new york. The executive committee in new york has not seen a budget and sitting on 30 million and not where that money is going. I would second that. And such thing called i. D. C. And we dont have a state senate that is democratic, major problem. Discussion . Love the principle of this. The only problem is state parties are not governed the d. N. C. Doesnt govern state parties so anything we do here would basically not matter. State parties all run autonomously to the d. N. C. So for that reason i have to say no on this one. I would agree with that and everything cannot be measured by the two states that are on the coasts. Ey tend to have a unique arrangement, unique makeup. So what happens in new york doesnt necessarily happen in maryland and doesnt this is not a one size fits all. It would be difficult to plement first all, because every state party is its own entity. And so this would not be practical to do that. O i would be a no on this. Just based on my experience in my own personal state. I would ask my colleagues to reconsider and consider voting yes. We are making as we had this discussion before, we are making an aspirational statement about what state parties should do. If you would accept a language change as a friendly amendment to say state party budgets about should be transparent, if that is acceptable, i would hope you would consider voting for it as an as pier asal statement from democrats to democrats especially if we are engaged but the assumption is that they arent. No. O. Without making the statement that theyre not, were making the statement they should and there are some states that dont and rather than identifying which states arent, we are making a general statement about how we feel all of it should operate. I hope you could support it with that friendly amendment. Question was called. Thats not debatable. You can vote yes or no. Those in favor say aye. By calling the question. Raise your hand. Opposed. He count is five quickly well vote again. All those in favor of calling the question, please raise your hands. S it nine or 10 . All those opposed to calling the question fl has been called. We voted to call the question. I got it. He question has been called big party budget must be transparent. Pursuant to the same d. N. C. Budgetary bylaws and amendment to this commissions reform. Whats wrong with that . I neen i just dont understand whats wrong with that. Because i dont live in that world, i didnt experience this and i want to be sensitive to those who do have that experience, so if you could explain to me and maybe to us what that lack of transparency has looked like because thats something that was not a part of how we operated in maryland. So it is foreign to me. It out want to poohpooh of hand, explain to me what the problems are in other areas so i can understand what you are talking about. That would be helpful. Should i respond . For instance, ill speak on behalf of new york and there are other states, maybe other states im not going to other states, i havent heard firsthand accounts. In new york, the d. N. C. Gives money to state parties or should be to state parties. And we have no oversight of where that money is going. In new york we are sitting on 30 million that is raised off of democrats in new york and maybe beyond and we have a senate that is on the fence and eople are sending money to the new York State Democratic Party maybe assuming we could win back that senate and that money isnt being allocated outside of the governors race and thats the way the structure of the party is set up. The executive committee in new york, many who were appointed under our governor are complaining that they have a fiduciary duty to the party. And they have no overview of where major finances are being allocated, forget where they are coming from. The state party is not giving any money to any candidate across the state when new york bub democraticically controlled and new york is the worst example usually. But there are other states that complain about having no budget oversight not where the money is coming from but where its going. The state parties i worked with and all of our background in nevada and colorado, they have been transparent, building strong infrastructure within the process with their members, local state members. One of the things that it is important to work within their structure. I think it would be hard for us to say state parties arent fully funded by the d. N. C. And shouldnt be held by our recommendations and i have more carrots to give before we Start Talking about sticks. And i think this is one of those places that individual state parties where there are problems we should try to work within the state parties as members talking to their officers and Voting Members to see what can be done. Lastly, its my understanding that all party reports are public. And so we can can go back and see where this money has been spent. I have been involved in olitics a long time. But a lot of people ask me a lot of questions because of my long history in civil rights and the question is on the table now from the left especially is book and said hillary got the money. Without oversight how could that happen and no one has brought that up. Maybe these things arent connected, i dont know. But talking about state parties and oversight, seems to me they are. And why are we dancing around it . Of e d. N. C. Has an amount leverage over state parties to make them behave in certain ways and impose requirements in terms of affirmative action. I dont think there is anything wrong as a statement that parties should be transparent way. Somer some arent. So i would be supporting the amendment. I think the message we send by voting against this is not going to be helpful to the goal we have of making state and National Parties accountable and transparent. This is not the time for us to advocate states rights. We believe in setting aspirational goals and this is an instance we are saying that not all parties are bad, but all parties from our perspective ought to operate in an accountable and it is setting goals like the goals for affirmative action that we hope parties will operate we are not proposing an enforcement mechanism but proposing a goal, n as pierational goal. I think of all the reforms we talked about here, the vast majority, primaries, caucuses, representation falls on the states. And giving them resources and giving them reforms and give them accountability and havent talked about resources. My opinion, they are one and the same and im coming from working in state parties and the incredible work they do and the need for more support. As im looking at this, the flag that i see is just a practical concern about whether or not the state parties are be holden to d. N. C. One suggestion i would make is look at that first one that says state party budgets must be transparent subject to the bylaws. One consideration might be nstead of that saying, state and bylaws and amendments to this commissions reform. Getting at as pirgsal neal and should be guidelines that they are following but not saying it must be the same as the d. N. C. And thats pointing out states requiring different guidelines based on the states andsed on t guidelines. That is a potential compromised position. I would accept that. And if i can add, i would definitely accept that language. Put thank you at the end of it . If you like. Just to respond to one of the points earlier about the information being public from the budget, i think we have to keep in mind here and even with the d. N. C. Itself, the executive officers have a fiscal a fiduciary responsibility, so if money is being allocated without them knowing, what does it serve them to look at the filings after the fact. It is important knowing where the money is being spent prior. We are people who are privy to that. Its not with the public and not with all the Voting Members of the state but the people who have a fiduciary responsibility and we should have conversation about where major money is being allocated in terms of candidates. Im going to ask the chair to read it again. We have a substitute amendment from the chair. State party budgets should be transparent and subject to similar guidelines inaudible] we are voting on that chairs substitute. All those in favor of the amendment. Raise your hands. One opposed noted. Its adopted. Further amendments to section 2, supporting growing state parties increasing grassroots participation. Sorry, theres one more and then his. Each position should be nominated and strike it must be and move it to should be and shall be nominated, should be nominated. Bottom of section 2 . Correct. I will second that. Where did you go . I lost you. Its a standalone, correct . Correct. And slate nominations, endorsements and elections are undemocratic and each position should be nominated and voted on by the greater body and the reason i propose this, instead of say, a governor or i mean it would be the governor traditionally saying here are my 25 executive Committee Members and vice chairs, vote on all of them at once, that prevents people saying i would like to run for vice chair or executive committee and does it prevent them from doing that if they choose to do it. Just because the governor annoints people it doesnt prevent someone from stepping up saying they want to run. Technically, but there have been motions or denied, people are quieted. In our state there is a problem again. Let me speak from my own experience because you are speaking from your experience in new york. When we have our officers as they are slated for the state party, there are certain considerations that go into play. O for example, if the chair is female and the vice chair is blah, blah, blah. We have to have a representative prince gomery county, georges county and then it is gamed out that way. Sometimes people get together from different regions because they can put a slate that has the gender consideration and decide if they want to run together because they check all of the boxes. Other times, they dont. But often leaves a hole that needs to be filled because if you have too many people from one region and nobody from the other region, so sometimes you know help is needed in determining and reaching out to those people. I just want to be sure we are not hamstringing the state party and also making sure that just because which i think is healthy if the governor annoints people, people should have the right to rise up. Im trying to understand how. His is going to work im trying to understand. When i added the language each position shall be nominated on and voted by the greater body and individuals create their own slates rather than the governor creating a slate. It is cultural. It is through intimidation. It is intimidating, the choice is there as a of the governor and they are in charge of what motions get put forward and what comes up for delate, in a lot of cases it has been documented. A lot have been shut down. Does anybody have any similar . Im going to take people to raise their hands. Eff. Maybe ask Jim Roosevelt, we already have prohibitions on official slates . If this is for state party positions, we dont typically have rules regarding selection of state party officers. Many states massachusetts a rohibition of official slates. Doesnt come from the d. N. C. And thats what i meant. Each state is different. The way ours is set out, it doesnt come officially from the d. N. C. But in our bylaws how we want to allocate those individual seats. Im just concerned with this being d. N. C. Language when each state operates differently. Thats why i raise the question. Jim . I think we have a principle here that is a good one and the question is how do we frame the language to make it acceptable so we dont vote it down. I think that we understand that there are undemocratic practices that have been in place and we want to find a way one of our mandates is to build the party, grow the party and get more people involved in the party. It becomes quite discouraging here there is no entray to the party. And therefore, the question is w do we structure this requirement or this goal that elections be open that they encourage greater participation. They create opportunities for people to run and not feel intimidated. When the governor proposes a slate, it is intimidating to challenge that from the floor. That should not be the case. It should be the case where the nominating process is open, understood and provides people an opportunity to get involved. Otherwise we arent fulfilling our mandate. If we can find language that works there, i would be more than happy to consider that. I just wanted to clarify something sorry, hold on. I wanted to clarify something. I thought one other thing i was hearing based on what was described in maryland, it didnt sound like it was inherently undemocratic to have a slate come forward and that is what was objectionable to you that given in some context, the slate process actually works and ends up being more inclusive because of the way your state operates. If i can clarify. That actually falls under this. Maybe im open to including the language official slate. That they are banned. State party chairs must be nominated and elected by state and helpful for the people who have been in the state party system, but it sounded like there are states that dont want that process that have actually decided to not allow did i hear that as well, there are some states that have chosen because they dont like that process, they have chosen to ban it and other states like your state perhaps has chosen to allow it. And so what youre saying is to let the states decide in what context slate nominations work for them and what context it doesnt work for them just wanted to clarify. I would like to say this. There are problems in new york, but i dont think one state can determine every decision to be made for the 50 states. There should be some level of autonomy to state parties. Now i think if there is a problem in new york or california which tend to grow on our party, the decision should be made to change them in new york and california and not impose our will on state parties that arent having any problems at all. I know where this is coming from. And talked about the national d. N. C. And democratic president and kind of pro forma that that president appoints the d. N. C. Chair. Kind of coming from the same place. I would recommend language that would say state party chairs should be elected by state Party Members. The d. N. C. Discourges slate nominations. E d. N. C. Discourages slate nominations . We do . We actually dont discourage slate nominations. Im saying if it is good at the d. N. C. Level. I mean we dont have slate nominations per se except for the specific things that are specified. There was a lot of pushback that slate nominations are undemocratic and was happening in each of the regional caucuses. Speak . Ne else wishing to look, its not just new york, there are other states that have problems here. I understand your point, but no one is punishing other parties. If parties are performing at a standard, we simply want to encourage all parties to operate at that same standard. So this is setting an as pierational goal and i fear the language that is being used that we dont tell states what to do, we all remember the georgia delegation of back when when we told states what to do because we set diversity goals and desegregation oles goals and that defined us who we are as a party. We are saying lets have a goal that we set for state parties that says your party should be inclusive and allow and encourage people to join, run and be officers in your party and not engage in practices that discourage that involvement. Thats it. I dont think that is imposing a burden as much as it is setting a very desirable goal. Having been involved in a state party for most of my adult life, for major things if you are electing 60 people at once, people have to sit in a meeting for 12 hours. Slating is inherently bad. And antidemocratic not to let people vote. So i have seen plenty of situations if you didnt slate you would be there for four days. So i reject this. Can i clarify the language. I think the language is very confusing right now. Im proposing state party chairs should be nominated and elected by state Party Members and official slate nominations, and meaning that is coming from the governor. But you have the right as individuals to create your own lates. Are you finished . Yes. Anybody else we have a motion to call the question. The question has been called. All those in favor of calling the question indicate by raising our hands. The questions been called. 3 motion. Anybody wishing to vote no on calling the question . I understand that. Questions been called. You want to restate your motion so people understand . This is an amendment that would be added as f on number two. In spirit incluesist state party chairs should be nominated and elected by state Party Members and official slate nominations, endorsements and elections undemocratic. And each position should be nominated and voted by the greater body. You have heard the amendment, all those in favor of the amendment as read, please ndicate by raising your hands. Pposed by like sign. Ou have the names . Point of inquiry. Vote for total sections . Individual sections. Are there any other amendments . Are there any other amendments. On section 2. Any other amendments on section 2 . Can you put it up there. And then well go through the section. Start with a. Now we are voting on the c, d, e. Items, a, b, paragraph 2, number a, the parties should encourage to participate in all Party Affairs and take steps to activate to run for leadership positions through the Party Infrastructure at all levels. Those in favor say aye. Of a as read, please indicate by raising your hands. Down hands. Opposed. Ill slow down. B, as amended, state party budgets should be transparent oh, wait. Its unanimous sorry, its confusing. We are on b. B as amended, state party budgets should be transparent and subject to similar guidelines as the d. N. C. Budgetary bylaws and amendments to this commissions reforms. As amended. So anything that is amended have been updated on the screen and it is in bold and nderlined. Ok. This is b as amended. You have to look at the screen, not at anything printed. m going to read it again. State party budgets should be transparent and subject to similar guidelines as the d. N. C. Budgetary bylaws and amendments to this commissions reform. Plural. All those in favor of b as read, please raise your hands. Raise your hands, please. Unanimous. Ere on c. C is different here than c here. On b i got it. Ill explain it for everyone else. Now the lettering is off than what you are seeing on your paper because we inserted a new letter and everyone should be working off the screen in terms of the letter itself. The content of the old b is the new c. Hows that . Sounds like netflix. Inside story. The Commission Recommends that the increased investment in state parties be maintained and possibly expanded over the course of the cycle. All those in favor of the new c, indicate by raising your hands. Unanimous. The ok. The new d and this is amended from the old c. The new d. T the same time, the d. N. C. , afdc and state parties agree that accountability metrics are put in place with such state Party Programs like the state innovation grants, to ensure that the resources are being used to effectively grow the state parties, engage members of diverse constituencies and viewpoints, increase Voter Registration, ensure sufficient organize staff, and institutionalize training for staff, activists and candidates. So, d, as amended. All those in favor indicate by raising your hand. Unanimous. Ok. E. This was the old d. Its not amended. So i can read it from the paper. I dont have to take an eye test. The Commission Recommends that state parties explore the best way to mobilize, train and engage grassroots activists. This could include Holding Hearings or listening sessions. So that Party Organizers and activists share their thoughts on how democrats can be most effective organizing in their respective states. E. Prior d. All those in favor indicate by raising your hand. Hands up down there. [laughter] ok. Its unanimously adopted. Thank you. Little bit directive. But thats ok. [inaudible] [laughter] ok. F. Which is the old e. And not amended so i can read it from the paper. State parties must have an open and transparent path to leadership. It depends on Member Engagement and not engagement by leadership alone. This process can often be obscure and needs improvement. State parties must provide clear information on Party Leadership positions, deadlines, nominating requirements, on their websites. The rules and Bylaws Committee of the d. N. C. Shall review and monitor all state party procedures to ensure that they are fair, open and transparent. In no case shall the path to Party Leadership be longer than one year. Following the election of state delegates. The election of state delegates shall be open to all registered Party Members with no waiting period. Party registration will be open to all registered voters at all times. All those in favor of f as read, please indicate by raising your hand. Its unanimous. Hat concludes section two. Thank you. Ok. Moving on. We are going to go to the next section, which is operating in a manner that is open and transparent. You cant raise your hand. Were not even talking about anything yet. I can raise my hand any time i want. Thats true. But im the chair so i dont have to call on you. Ok. As we have brief section, theres a summary that leads into this section. The headline is operating in a manner thats open and transparent. I believe theres an amendment on the summary of the section and i will now call on the lovely jim zogby. Madam chair. I have a language to propose that is up on the screen. The d. N. C. s charter and bylaws currently calls on our party to operate in a manner that is open and transparent. The Commission Recommends an immediate review of the charter and by laust to ensure that these provisions are appropriate and implemented. And i encourage support. Any discussion . Seeing no discussion, were going to call a vote. There needs to be a second. Oh, right. Seconded. Thank you. Were now going to call a vote. All those in favor please raise your arms. Its unanimous. The summary will be updated with that language. Thank you. E now going to move to here are one, two, three, four eight amendments. Add recommendations in this section. So eight recommendations in this section. So we are going to open it up to amendments for this section. I dont have the update language for one i proposed. I mean, i wrote it. I can just read it off my email . Ok. F you would you a loy allow i wanted you to explain what this is. Ok. For the commissioners and public. I have an amendment that was put into one large paragraph. And based on debate earlier, we split it up. We changed some language and we split it up into three parts. And it goes where . It goes below a. So it would be b, c and d. So this would be three new recommendations. All related but three new recommendations. Im sorry. Page 14. Line 17. Between a and b. Under a. So a is there should be a regular review of the charter and bylaws. And then it would insert b, c and d. And this is for commission, this is from number 24 previously, that is now being broken up into three new recommendations. Correct. If thats where it is, are we going to vote on a then . The a . Because this would go after a. Were just taking amendments now. Oh, were just doing the amendments and then we vote on it, ok, sorry. Theres no script up there. B now states the commission calls for the formation of a detailed financial conflicts of interest policy that expands on the charters conflicts ethics policy, article one, section seven, and is modeled from best practices of other entities or government legislative bodies. Why dont do you all three. Ok. The new c would be the expansion of the charters conflicts of interest clause should be understood to apply directly to any persons who have voting privileges on areas of d. N. C. Governing, for example, resolutions and leadership races. Further morning the commission cause for a mechanism of accountability and process, if a Voting Member or officer has past, current or future conflict of interest, either disclosed or undisclosed. I second. I have one more. Theyre not being voted on as a bloc but im going read them as a bloc it. Might be easier for you. D is, if a current vogt d. N. C. Member or officer discloses, fails to disclose, or is found with a conflict, we call for the rules and Bylaws Committee to have a that person which recuses themselves from leadership and voting and replacement processes outlines. And thats it. Ok. So we will vote on these separately. But we wanted to go through them because they were connected. So we now open for discussion to elaine. I am not sure you mean this. But if you could go back to c. Conflicts of interest clause should be understood to apply directly to any persons who have voting privileges on areas of d. N. C. Governing, i. E. , resolutions. A labor at mean that union member on the d. N. C. , either from a state or at large, cannot vote on a resolution, say, banning right to work . We have those all the time. So what does it mean . What we had discussed earlier was financial conflicts of interest. So a Labor Union Member would not be conducting consulting or wouldnt be a vebbeder of the d. N. C. Vendor of the d. N. C. So im asouping he wouldnt have to recuse himself assuming he wouldnt have to recuse himself. For instance, if someone was to put forward, like has happened at the last meeting, a resolution banning lobbyists from the d. N. C. , if youre a d. N. C. Member who is a lobbyist, you clearly have a conflict of interest with that resolution youre voting on. Does that make sense . Yeah, but, i mean, thats awfully broad. Im happy to clarify. This just strikes me as resolutions. You can imagine lots of people who work as lobbyists, bad word, we have good lobbyists too. Lobbyists for our causes. Womens organizations, whatever. Who are going to be at the d. N. C. Voting. I mean, i dont get what this is about. Ok. So this is standard practices for most nonprofits. And organizations. Its not about a lobbyist who works for a womans organization lobbying congress or lobbying the d. N. C. This is about if you have a financial interest or stake in the partys business, you are banned from voting on the partys business. Then why dont you say that . Because i just pulled this straight from a nonprofit site. National Democratic Institution language. In the context of the d. N. C. , thats going to cause all sorts of havoc. Because it means people cant vote on things that they believe in because they happen to work for a group that is for that. I mean, i think youve got to say financial conflicts of interest. We did. The updated language says financial conflicts of interest. They havent updated that. This is updated. So in c, i dont think your updated version i asked to have that add. Remember when we discussed it. Its not in c. Ok. So anywhere where its conflict of interest is labeled, we had added based on our previous meeting, apologies to the public, financial before that. We did. Yeah. Talked about it anyway. We talked about it. It didnt make it in there. We should add it. Its people being paid by the d. N. C. Just a question. It says right now, any person who has voting privileges on areas of d. N. C. Governing. So, delegates at the d. N. C. Convention actually have the ultimate governing authority of the d. N. C. So does that eliminate all delegates as well . Just trying to understand the implications of this. I think the Practical Implications are, if you, for instance, if were going to use the Convention Delegates as an example, if youre a delegate who happens to have a contract with a president ial candidate and or the d. N. C. , you should not be voting on the president ial process. Thats standard for most organizations. Nd congress. Just for clarification. I dont know if thats me or somebody else. Doesnt the first one, which a s the d. N. C. Should have detailed financial conflict of interest policy, so were saying that it should have that, and then it says and that it should expand on whatevers already there. Meaning whatevers already there is not adequate. And it should then whatever the revisions are, should be modeled on best practices. So if its if were saying if thats what your intent is there, that its going to be modeled on best practices, and then the d. N. C. Will look at what other entities, including government legislative bodies, have for their conflicts of interest policies, then there may be any number of things that might emerge that should be included in the conflicts of interest policy. Right . Meaning, as opposed to dictating what should be in there, in the c and the d, dont we want i thought the intent of the first twoose guide that whole revision by what are best practices. Im not sure i completely understand the question. But when i first brought this forward and sent it to patrice, i had attached language from a Previous Organization and quoted that language and used that as something to model off of. Im happy to write something in here saying we send the specific language to the rules and bylaws we ybe we meet, you know, meet to specify the language even more. I think financial conflicts of interest are pretty standard. Thats what im getting at. Meaning that financial conflicts of interest are pretty standard. So why do we need to keep going in c and d if were going to do based on best practices under your b . Because the best practices is outlining what the conflict of interest is. The mechanisms for accountability and the process is specific to the d. N. C. Alone. So if we find out based on using the language of a large nonprofit or say governing bodies, that somebody in the party has who is an executive committee member, is making 10 million off the d. N. C. , that falls under b. C and d are what happens when we find out that person has that conflict. They recuse themselves, what is the process of recusal, do you go before the rules and Bylaws Committee . A lot of what were proposing in many other amendments this is what we propose and this is how we hold that proposal make that thing accountable, that accountability factored into it. So a is identifying it. B is the process and mechanism of accountability. And d is furthering that you know, what would happen under the r. B. C. And so just to further understand that. Thats helpful. But so that means what were saying is that whatever body is doing the review of the conflict not free policy is to, within looking at best practices and the application of best practices, determine what the appropriate process and accountability measure is . Were mandating that, is that what you were saying . Were mandating that the r. B. C. Have a process. So under d, if a current voting d. N. C. Member is found with a financial conflict, we call for the r. B. C. Rules and Bylaws Committee to have a process in which that person with the financial conflict recuses themselves from leadership or voting. That doesnt exist right now. Even though we have a conflict of interest policy, theres no, you know, if we find out, theres no way of determining hat happens as a result. Ok. The question has been called. So were going to vote oncalling the question. Were going to vote on these serially . Yeah we will. But first we have to vote on the oncalling the question. On calling the question. To call the question on all three. [inaudible] exactly, yes. All those in favor, please raise your hand. Were calling the question. Alling the question. Are you participating . Sfp any against . No, everyones up. Its unanimous. Ok. Were going to vote on these individually. Voting on b. All those in favor please raise our hands. Ok. Unanimous on b. Now going to vote on c. Ll those in favor. I have seven. All those opposed. C failed. Were going to vote on d. All those in favor please raise your hand. Six in favor. All those opposed. Ine against. The amendment fails. Additional amendments for this section. Which is operating in a manner hat is open and transparent. I have an amendment on page 4, on line 22. Which is the end of what is currently section b. In that same section, after the word executive committee, a new sentence. The new sentence would read, this Ombudsman Council shall be empowered to hear complaints from president ial candidate, state parties, and d. N. C. Members who have concerns that d. N. C. Officers, staff or the body as a whole may not be adhering to provisions of our charters and bilaws. This Ombudsman Council should have five members elected by the full d. N. C. In an election in which each d. N. C. Member shall be entitled to vote for two candidates with the top five ote getters comprising the Ombudsman Council for a fouryear term. And if i may, after a second, explain my purpose. Ill second it. The purpose of the resolution this current is in b, it recommends the development of a process to address violations and calls for the creation of an Ombudsman Council. But it doesnt lay out either the mechanism, how to create it, nor does it lay out the mechanism of what its function should be. And if were going to set the goal of having a process to address violations, then its imperative that a mechanism be established. And i believe that the only appropriate way to establish a mechanism of this sort, an Ombudsman Council, would be an election. So that d. N. C. Members themselves are involved in that process and not have it be an appointed Ombudsman Council. I can explain further, if we have more discussion as to why i think an election i think would be important. Thank you. Discussion . Im going to thank you for offering. This because i think theres been a lot of you know, weve discussed various judicial mechanisms throughout the commissions meetings. And i think there was a lot of concern that this Ombudsman Council would be used as a way to second guess discretionary decisions or political decisions or spending decisions. I want to thank you for offering this to really clarify and narrowing the scope so that they are dealing only with questions of violations of the charter and by laust. I think this amendment bylaws. I think this amendment add as lot of teeth and narrows the scope appropriately so we dont have some council thats second guessing political judgments or spending decisions in terms of do we spend money in arizona or california or new york or some other place. So i think this really makes this stronger and makes the councils role clearly defined in terms of what its going to address. So thank you. Im going to oppose this. Already he sense provides for the r. B. C. To develop a process and i think that we should leave it to the r. B. C. To develop a process. On how to create this council. Any additional discussion . Yeah. If the r. B. C. Is an appointed body, which it is, then for it to develop a process that itself is an appointed body does not reflect the membership as a whole of the d. N. C. This is a critically important committee. That will be calmed called upon to evaluate or to evaluate complaints from everything from president ial candidates to d. N. C. Members who are concerned about charter bylaw violations. And therefore i think to leave it to the body as a whole is a far more appropriate way to do this, rather than have an appointed body create an appointed body that will ultimately become the judicial review body of the entire d. N. C. Just to be cleerk the r. B. C. Is fully elected by the d. N. C. Full membership. Its authorized and at the end of the day, elected by the entire d. N. C. Membership as it was just a few months ago. In october. It was. Thats not fully accurate. Just like its not fully accurate to say that the d. N. C. Elects the 75 atlarge members. Im happy to have that debate. Lets have that debate and dig into it. You cant say, please, send us recommendations on who the 75 atlarge members are and consider that a nomination. Because thats not. And there wasnt proper notice to the d. N. C. Members on how you actually nominate somebody for and atlarge member. I would have certainly put myself forward for the rules and Bylaws Committee, but i was never given that opportunity and i would be happy to go toe to toe with anybody currently on the rules and Bylaws Committee to try to get votes for my fellow d. N. C. Members to serve on that committee. So i want to come back to the amendment for a second. I just want to ask a question. To jeffs point that the first half of your addition, it gives some clarity on what exactly the Ombudsman Council would be adhering to. So to the provisions of the charter and bylaws. So that adds some clarity about the role of it. And then the second part is how it should be built and created. And so i guess i would just say, in my for my standpoint, those are maybe were in a situation of an a and b. But i think the clarity is helpful on what its purview is supposed to be. I think the question of how it should be built of five and where it comes from might be harder for some people to feel like they would want to vote for that. Because that might be something that would go to the rb to kind of determine. So, i just put that out there to say that could be a consideration that may be we could take half of this and not all of this, if we can. It would be an unacceptable one. Because the language as it currently exists calls for the r. B. C. To create this committee. Thats not an acceptable approach. It really needs to be an open election process that involves the d. N. C. Membership. And to build on what jane just aid, we were asked to nominate ourselves if we wanted to run for d. N. C. Positions. Many people did. Many state chairs offered names. Those names and nominations went into the ether and we were presented simpy with a slate. As if no one else had nominated themselves. You cant claim to have a nominating process and have it be an election when basically youre give an piece of paper and its an updown vote on those names. Again, yes, you could have nominated yourself from the floor, but you couldnt nominate yourself from the floor because there was a sevenday deadline. And people, while they had submitted their names in advance of the seven days, floffs official record of that there was no official record of that, no notice of that. Lets be clear. If we are creating a body as critical as a judicial review body, which is what this is, that would, for example, in the last election have maybe found some improprieties with the party chair, we have no body at this point. And my argument to this group before was, if you look at the stories that weve gotten over the last year, every one of those could be have been avoided if wed had an internal mechanism so that complaints could have been brought forward about everything from debate schedule to victory fund to contracts with certain firms, etc. We could have solved those internally. But we didnt. Therefore the only way they got adjudicated was in the press. We could have avoided that by creating an internal body where we could have brought the complaint forward, had it decided fairly, and everybody would have gone away with a solution found. By the body itself. It makes no sense to me that we dont have a judicial review body. But at the same time, to be an appropriate judicial review body, it must be elected by the body itself. Simply saying create one and have the r. B. C. Create it does not meet the requirement that im calling for here. [applause] i think your point is well taken about how we could have adjudicated some of these things internally. As somebody who was intimately involved with many of those disputes. I do im not quite sure what the objection is, i dont know if its the whole amendment or half of your amendment. But are people concerned that they dont want it to be mandated to be elected by the d. N. C. . Theyre concerned about the particular election mechanism that he has described . I think what you want is to outline in the first sentence the sort of scope of its authority and the second sentence to make sures that elected by the d. N. C. As opposed to an appointed body. Right . [inaudible] right. Given the roles that going to perform, i think it makes sense that we have we dont have an appointed body. If you have an appointed body, that then is passing judgment on the conduct of the person that they just apointed them, that puts them in a difficult situation. So i dont know. People would be open to loosening the language in the second just to ensure that its an elected body without all the specifics about voting out of two out of five and what have you . I think people would be open to talking about that. But i think the first part of your, limiting the scope and laying out the scope, and the second part to make sure its elected versus appointed, i support both of those. I would charge people to Work Together to try to get a resolution that works. Just a clarification. How would this council be formed . Would people not name themselves . Would they sign up nominate themselves . Would they sign up to run and run a Campaign Like we just went through . Is that your vision for how this would work . Im just trying it figure out where we would get the people from that we would actually how would that work . We have two ways of doing. This the way weve done it in the past, which is you get names on a piece of paper and you vote updown. Which is what weve done. Or what we did at the last meeting when we elected chairs and a whole bunch of other posts, you have an open election with a nominating process. I think given the importance of this body, an open nominating process is critical. And frankly, while i know, having been on the d. N. C. For 26 years, that we all posts are elected. But we know the difference between an election and an appointment process. One is ratifying an appointment and the other is an actual contested election. And actually the last elections that we had were, i believe, the first time that we ever had contested elections for all those posts. It was energizing, it was i think very good for the party. For the health of the party. And i think that it doesnt hurt us at all to engage in that process. So, yes, it would be an open lection process. Does anybody have any language that theyre willing to put in this, other than what the chair recommended . To make this work . I think the clear that we all realize theres a lack of accountability and completely transparent and open voting processes in this party. Weve been addressing this for the last nine months. Im in favor of this, i dont know how jim feel, but think wed be open to suggestions. I know we didnt have an opportunity to discuss this backstage. O im open to ideas. If we could just conscious we can table this if we think theres language that could be think about it and make the language clearer and how the process would work for the people. Is there a motion to table . Motion to table. It needs a second. Were tabling the discussion of the amendment to b so that we can try to see if we can work through some language. [inaudible] [inaudible] we should table. I think we should table the whole thing. Well table both b and the amendment. Do i have a second . Thank you. All those in favor of tabling. Ok. Were tabling. Still in operating in a manner that is open and transparent. Any additional amendments to be brought before the commission . Id like to start with jim zogby. If you liked the last one, youll love this one. [laughter] in what is currently listed as c there is a section which im going to read. It says that the commission was informed of concerns about level of transparency with budgetary process at the d. N. C. Currently there is a budget and finance committee that is tasked with providing in quotes, this is from the actual bylaws of the party, annual reports to the executive committee and the full Democratic National committee on the goals, purposes of expenditures and results of expenditures and staff. End of quote. The Commission Recognizes that the d. N. C. Budget is a strategic document and recommends that there be increased transparency and accountability so that members are informed on the financial status of the party. Instead of to insert currently theres a budget and finance committee thats tasked with providing whatever. Im inserting instead a Financial Oversight Committee should be created in order to ensure that the d. N. C. Fulfills its bylaw requirements, that the d. N. C. Shall receive in quorkts annual reports on the goals, purposes of expenditure, and results of expenditures and staff, this body should be elected by the full d. N. C. , allowing for adequate representation by the state chairs, regional caucuses, and the parties, caucuses and down sills. I also want to remove that sentence that follows that says, the Commission Recognizes the d. N. C. Budget as a strategic document and recommends there be increased transparency and accountability so that members are informed on the financial status of the party, since financial status of the party is not what is called for in the bylaws. Its not the financial status, but its the goals, purposes of expenditure and results of expenditures and staff. And so i encourage support for this creation of a Financial Oversight Committee that will fulfill our bylaw requirement and that the body be elected by the full d. N. C. Do you have a second . Can i ask a point of clarification . So would the financial oversight for or take over replace the budget and finance committee . I do not know what the budget and finance committee does. But what i do know is that whats not done is to present us with a report on the goals, purposes of expenditure and results of expenditures, and since it is an appointed committee, its very difficult to give the responsibility of oversight on the expenditures made by the chair to a committee that is appointed by the chair. The optics of it just dont work. So to have full transparency, if thats what were looking for here, then the way to have full transparency is to have the state chairs, the regional caucuses, and the councils and caucuses of the party become or elect a committee, maybe one from each of those bodies, that would actually review the budget , they could review the budget with the finance current budget and finance kerks the mechanisms of that to be worked out. But the oversight body has to be independent. And thats what we do not urrently have. I have two points. If the doctor is open to this, perhaps recommending that the Current Budget Committee be elected. So that we have maybe we can condense the two committees. The second point id like to ake is, we learned through Donna Brazils former book that there were, in the last election, during the general election, there were funds being allocated outside of her knowledge. She was not signing the check, she wasnt aware of the checks being signed. And we also learned through the d. N. C. It chair debare that debate that executive Committee Members were not aware of these funds being allocated during the president ial primary and general election. Now, what does that mean legally . That means the people have the fiduciary responsibility to this party, were unaware of where the money was going. So god forbid something, hopefully knock on wood, nothing has happened inappropriately, theyre held, theyre responsible. And they had no idea. So i would also urge, and somehow put this into the language a little bit more clear, that any major budgetary decisions be put before the executive committee as is said, i believe, in the bylaws. But make it very clear, make that language very clear. Because i think its completely inappropriate for funds to be given out without any i mean, if the person who knew was the treasurer and the executive director as far as we know. And nobody else. And this isnt one of those things where you go back and look at the s. E. C. Filings. This is called we need to know before the mess happens. And its not just s. E. C. Filings. Money gets allocated in different ways that are not put filed in f. C. C. So one more thing ill add to that is theres been a lot of conversation over the past few months about vendors and there was a lot of money spent on vendors, as we know. And we lost. We lost not just the presidency, but we lost, like, you know, 1,100 seats seats it. Wasnt all the d. N. C. But i think a lot of d. N. C. Members and chairs who are looking for money, who have been stambd of resources, might want to know where the majority of that money was going. So retroactive, understanding of where the budget was, and then future, just so we dont get in a messy scenario where the people who have the fiduciary responsibility of this party are completely left out in the dark. But where the money is going. [applause] im a little bit confused by this. It sounded like we dont know what the budget and finance committee does but were possibly maybe replacing something that it may be currently doing. With this language. So i just i wanted to clarify. That because it sound like jim said he didnt know what they do, but in any event, we need something. Seems like it would be useful to actually be knowledgeable about what theyre doing before we decide to do something different. Because it may already be encompassed in their role. If it hasnt been carried out or something in some instance, and so thats a different problem to solve for. So that was just one point. Meaning that thats been a question of implementation of the rules. The second thing was, it sounded like you said we needed a report and i think that thats what is in the original c. Isnt that whats in the last line . Which says that were calling for a published report that includes all these issues, including vendors. In terms of how vendor money was spent. I just wanted to clarify. Can i respond . Do you want to go first . I just wanted to say, thank you for that. Been in ssue ive the d. N. C. For 26 years and ive been on the executive committee now for 16. And i might be mistaken and maybe missed the meeting but ive never gotten a report of the goals, purposes of expenditures and results of expenditures and staff. Never seen it. That being the case, whatever the budget and finance committee does, does not fulfill the mandate that is laid out in the bylaws of the party. Which is that we are to receive that report annually. We do not. And therefore i wanted a committee that would actually fulfill the existing bylaws. We have the aspiration, the bylaws say we should get it. We dont have a mechanism to do it. There is such a thing as getting we do get sometimes a power point. We have this much money. The ats not the same as kind of requirements that are laid out in the bylaws. Doesnt tell us, for example, did this work . Did we actually raise money with this vendor . Did we actually get votes out with this process that we used . We have a whole bunch of expenditures, and the report will tell you how much money got spent. But it will not evaluate that and give the d. N. C. As a body, which ought to be the governing body, the opportunity to evaluate did that actually work . And so im asking for a Group Elected by the body that evaluates postmore tum, does this work or doesnt it work . Has the Budget Expenditures fulfilled the goals that were set out . Otherwise, why are we hiring the same vendors back again . Its that kind of process. There is a current committee. I dont know what they do. I do know one thing and that is that when the decision was made, for example, to free up the victory funds during the primaries, i got calls from people saying, when did you all decide to do that . I have no idea. Never heard about it before until i read it in the newspaper. I called every one of the vice chairs and asked them when the decision was made. None of them knew that the decision had been made. I called the treasurer and he said, i found out about it the same way did you, reading it in the newspaper. We do not have oversight. And the absence of postmortum oversight leads to the kinds of situations that we get into because theres no accountability. So creating an oversight mechanism will put us on the right track and i believe that it is absolutely critical to do o. Im going to try to stay in my two minutes. Let me first say, since you dont know what the committee does, obviously you never made a demand on them to give you anything. I think the first thing that we need to do is work within the structure. Ive been on many, many boards. Ive been in many organizations, executive committees, if i have a question i ask it. If i demand information, i put it in writing, i say, this is your responsibility, do it. But since you dont even know what they do, youve never asked them for it. So i think that we first need to try to work within the structure and make sure that the people who are empowered to do it do it. We all have a fiduciary responsibility if we serve in certain capacities. It would be incumbent upon every single one of us that have those kinds of responsibilities to protect ourselves, if no one else. By asking the questions. And ive not heard that today. I think we cant continue to try to solve a problem that weve not ever even addressed. Ive asked for that. Well the Budget Committee, you said you dont even know what they do. I have asked for the fulfillment of the bylaws, ive asked for that. Youve asked whom . The chairs for that. And ive asked the checktive committees, not the executive committee, but the vice chairs for that. Ive asked the treasurer for that. I would suggest to you that if that is the body, since you dont know what they do and i dont know what they do either, lets find out out what they do and ask them for the information. I think youre entitled to it. I believe its your entitle i believe that youre entitled to it, i believe that were all entitled to it. But i dont think its incumbent upon us or even in our purview to sit here and decide every single little way that the d. N. C. Should be changed. Thats not our charge. Our charge is to say, this is how we think were going to better the institution by broadening our base. The four things we have here. I think were outside of our purview. And i think weve gone too far. We have elaine next. Yeah. Jim, im sympathetic with this because i know, having served, worked at the d. N. C. , and been close to for a long time, when you have an incumbent president , when you have an incumbent governor, when you have an elected official who is the head of the party, the party becomes less transparent by far. And we certain lisa that during the obama years. Much as i love him for many other things, he did not lead this party well. Lets face it. And i even think he knows it now. And has said things that indicate that. But im not sure that we need to do this. I think we have a Budget Committee. I think its empowered. I think its in the charter. I think the executive committee has a lot of authority, has a lot of ability to get this information. They didnt respond to you, that was wrong. But frankly, i dont see how this fixes it. I think its one more layer of bureaucracy in a situation that, yes, has gone wrong from time to time. It always does. We should fix it. Theres no doubt about it. I dont think this fixes it, though. Nomi is next. Then jeff, jane and emmy. So, we spent the last year talking about how were going to empower this party. And the d. N. C. Chairs race, we heard almost every single state chair complain that they were not receiving the resources, the support, and we lost, what, 1,100 seats over the past nine years because of those state parties werent funded. If the executive committee were aware of the budget, and if the state chairs had some sort of report that was a little bit more detailed of the budget, i think a lot of these questions would have brought up been brought up after the first shah lack. Not after the second, the third, the fourth, fifth. So i do think all things do come to the budget and it is within the duty of our party, our commission here, to deal with the budgetary issues. I might be wrong here, but i seem to recall that we just learned about the Budget Committee. That many people didnt even know it existed. They dont know who is on it. Youre on the rules committee. Some people well, you guys are on the rules committee. Two people here who are on the rules committee knew about the udget committee. Well go back to that. I would be curious to see ive heard from several executive Committee Members that they were unaware that the Budget Committee existed, who was on, it when they met, what the reports were, and theyve asked these questions. So if the burdens on the executive committee to ask these questions, and they were unaware that checks were being ate cated, and this was allocated, and this was brought up publicly, i dont know who that comes down to. Does it go to the rules and bylaws . Does it go to the chair . The chair wasnt signing off on these checks . The executive committee wasnt signing off on these checks. But the Budget Committee, we dont know when they meet, what theyre meeting about, whos on it, its a mysterious committee and we have to be real. Weve barely talked about the Budget Committee. , so thats number two. Last thing is, its not just about these vendors that are receiving these large contracts that just spent it into oblivion and lost us 1,100 seats and left state parties completely starved to recruit talent, train talent. All these people want to run for office now, we have no resources to do so. But its also opened big contracts. You want to talk about weve been talking this about this. Theres no diversity of our vendors. Just the other day, there was a horrible mailer sent out, a blatantly racist mailer in alabama. Who was that vendor . And why do we keep hiring that vendor . If we had open bidding for these vendors, which comes through the budget process, we might not be in those situations. Time and time again. Im a firm believe that are this budgetary process, no, its not going to be revealed to everybody in the party. But it should at least be put before the executive committee and the mysterious Budget Committee who i have no idea when they meet, who is on it, maybe some of you did. But ive heard it from a lot of people that they didnt even know it existed until they read the charter. On our list we have jeff, jane, emmy, senator turner. I would just say that what the amendment is looking to do is to create another committee, to have this committee do what this committee is already charged to do. Because in here it just reiterates she thud they should do what theyre already required to do. It doesnt i dont to me it doesnt necessarily it doesnt make sense to me, if we have a committee thats supposed to do a certain thing, then we should let that committee do its work or we should take it up with the chairman or whatever. But to create a committee, to make a committee do what its supposed to do, doesnt sound and most of us apparently, you know, we dont know that much bout this committee, including the people who were working on this subgroup, of which i was not one. So im not sure, you know, if were sufficiently well informed to do it. We have seven people in line to talk. I want to give everyone the pportunity to do it. [inaudible] that the doctor gets to clarify. Its his amendment thats being represented as something that it is not. I want to hear from him. Is that correct . Is that a correct carization of his amendment . Characterization of his amendment . I know people on the Budget Committee. They dont know what they do. I ask them, what is the charge of this committee . And theyve told me, i dont know the i just got apointed and it wasnt made clear. Number one. Number two. Weve been meeting now for eight months. We had a subgroup. I got no feedback from the subgroup about these proposals. And therefore, at this point in time, for all of a sudden it to now be this huge controversy, i was told we dont need it, but not why we dont need it or any of the arguments that are being made here. I believe we do need it. I believe that there is a mandate here. And im not asking for this committee that im proposing to duplicate, im asking for it to do what the bylaws call on us to do, which i do not believe that the budget and finance committee is charged to do. If that had been made clear to me six months ago when i first proposed this, i would have had a different opinion, maybe. And we could have gone to the Budget Finance Committee and asked them to come and talk to us. That was never made clear. All of a sudden now we are actually assigning to the budget and finance committee a function that they do not currently have. Let me be clear here too. The budget and finance committee is appointed by the chair. The issues that were, if you would, just for a moment, if you would, the problems that were discussing are problems some of which begin with the chair. And therefore you cant expect that committee, which is appointed by the chair, to have that kind of oversight function. Its putting a burden on them that is unfair and inappropriate. It should be a body that includes state chairs, that includes regional representatives, and includes the down sills of the party. It is a critical one councils of the party. It is a critical one. So i urge you to please consider doing it. I think it will make our party more transparent, more accountable, more democratic, and it will make us stronger. For the purposes of this clarification. We have the language here of the budget and finance committee. Not to put an opinion either way, its just to read what it says in the bylaws that everyone has here. We can put it up on the screen. So for budget and finance committee, the budget and finance Committee Shall be composed as a treasurer of the National Finance chair, not more than nine other members of the Democratic National committee, who have training or experience in finance or management. The budget and finance Committee Shall in full consultation with the National Chairperson of the d. N. C. Review the budget of the d. N. C. On an ongoing basis, make periodic reports, including an annual report to the executive committee, and the full d. N. C. On the goals, purposes of expenditures and results of expenditures of the d. N. C. And its staff. The budget and the finance Committee Shall, working with the National Chairperson, achieve Financial Officer and council, develop and present to the executive Committee Policies and procedures with respect to contracting and procurement of goods and services by the Democratic National committee, including a affirmative action policies, and avoidance of conflicts of interest. Meetings of the budget and finance Committee Shall not be subject to provisions of article nine, section 12 of the charter. Is all the rest of this part of it too . It goes down to i . No. So now we can kind of see that up there. Thats the language that is in there. Obviously as weve discussed, it addresses some of the pieces that it should be doing, whether it is or not. Thats the language thats in there. So going back to the list of folks that have raised their hands, its now skwline is up jane who is up. Thank you. So i think a couple things of why i think this type of committee is needed and whether we table this and kind of get some better language in place, which can kind of move this further along i think is critical. But three reasons why i think this is needed. One, ive been on the d. N. C. For a year. Ive never seen a budget. Two, i went to the budget and finance Committee Meeting hoping i could then see the budget and hear discussion about the budget. The meeting lasted i think for maybe 10 or 15 minutes and there was no discussion of anything that you just laid out for what should be happening in that committee. And three, when chair perez was pushed on the budget today by a reporter, saying, why havent d. N. C. Members seen it, he pointed to the f. E. C. Report. And the f. E. C. Reports are different than a bufplgt and different than what our rules and bylaws clearly say the budget and finance committee should be doing. So i think that theres a clear disconnect between the rules and bylaws and the reality. And i think we have to get out of this tradition of this being some secret and really get back to what our rules and bylaws say. [applause] emmy is next. Hi. [inaudible] emmy has the floor. Just a few things. One is that, according to what you said here in the charter, also what i saw in las vegas, that all meetings for budget and expect committee are open to d. N. C. Members and publicized. I was not there. I was not a d. N. C. Member yet. But i know jess oconnell, the new c. E. O. At the d. N. C. , did walk through the budget. In las vegas. For d. N. C. Members. I can only tell you what i know. I was not a d. N. C. Member at the time. I can just tell what you i know. Thats one thing. The other thing is that but still, it stands thatary owl open. Publicized that theyre all open. Publicized to d. N. C. Members who want attend. The other thing is, we dont control budgets for other campaigns, even if they are democratic campaigns. By we i mean the d. N. C. D. N. C. Members, d. N. C. Bylaws. I know you noted alabama but thats just its just true that the d. N. C. Has very little Decision Making process for those campaigns or ability. The other thing is that weve been talking a lot since we first met in may and theres been i think a lot of evolution with the new d. N. C. With chairman perez, with deputy chair Keith Ellison. With a lot of the reforms that we wanted to see. They are investing more in campaigns and grassroots efforts. 1. 5 million in virginia. Theres a new executive board. Theres a new Budget Committee. There are a lot of new reforms going into place. I think that part of our responsibility is to ensure that the charter and the bylaws are being followed. But we have to give them that chance. Were not even in a new year for the administration and were barely in a new month for the new d. N. C. Membership. So, my opinion is we let them do what they do best without sharing our budget insight with potential opponents, with general public, but make sure that its being shown to the budget and executive committee. Id like to move to table this resolution. [inaudible] ok, fine, fine. It wont take but a second. Because this may be a solution. First of all, i do need to clear up. Its not a secret committee. The budget and finance committee for d. N. C. Members only meets at every d. N. C. Meeting. The meeting was in vegas from 3 00 until 4 00 on friday, october 20, and they have a budget and finance Committee Meeting. Whether theyre doing what theyre supposed to be doing at meeting is not the issue. But i cant let it sit out there that its a secret meeting, group that never meets, that we meet they meet at every meeting. Cant let that sit out i that it is a secret Committee Meeting and the other thing and not making excuses. But what could have happened at the meeting in vegas that you attended, that group was trans ingsing out. The new group was being voted on that saturday. That group that you saw at that friday meeting was carryover. My suggestion would be, jim, they were transitioning out. So my suggestion would be not that we have a new budget and finance committee, we have the opportunity to work with them and restructure it in a way that is responsive to what we are requesting rather than add another layer of bureaucracy and why not work within the structure that we have. We have these mandates that we would like to see done. And these recommendations that we have, hold them accountable based on what we are telling we need from them and give the opportunity to respond after we make the ask and if that doesnt work then we add that stronger layer of bureaucracy. And let these people work with these guidelines and lets see we can move forward within the universe that is already in place. Do we have a motion to table . I hear all of that, but 16 years, 25 years, even though there was new people transising in and out that doesnt abdicate the people to do their job. So we cant make excuses why the party has not been transparent. We just cannot. [applause] the bottom line is some folks werent doing their job and got away with it. Seen she never seen this stuff and donna. We do have there is a crisis in the city when it comes to this money and i dont understand why we cannot agree that not the d. N. C. Members, not about giving secrets out to the already side. The people internal to the d. N. C. Should know how that money is being spent. The chair woman said and a reporter today, when he was asked a question about why the finance of the Budget Committee doesnt have this stuff. He said that today. We need to verify, did he say that to a reporter today and did he say there is a crisis in the d. N. C. That we need to solve. And then just even bringing up the russian dosier for example, when the question was called, who spent the money, everybody said, i dont know. Well, does 9 million get on a research of that magnitude and nobody from the Clinton Campaign and the d. N. C. Campaign doesnt know how 9 million was spent. We have a crisis. I dont think we should wait. I understand where the doctor is going and it is up to us to police ourselves to make sure we can win people back to this party. [applause] obviously that will body was not doing its job and our job to get unity is to give reforms and part of those reforms to know where that money is going, not out in the open but people internal to the d. N. C. Who have been working for the d. N. C. For years dont know how this money s being spent. Inaudible] what the hell good is it if you dont have the checks and balances. You folks should know better. Its pretty to stupid to respond to that. People out there want to be part of the Democratic Party are asking these kinds of questions and its factual and now you say we can clean up. I wouldnt want you running a corporation for me. Lets deal with it, if we are going to clean up things and draw more people and get more money into the state parties, lets do the right thing rather han trying to cover up our asses. Please. How does this smell to the public that the budget of the party before the people have the fiduciary responsibility, whether it is congresswoman gabbard or dr. No idea where the money was going. Spent a billion dollars and easiest president ial race you can possibly imagine, state parties werent being funded. During the race, said im the acting executive drock tore and have thrrs 3,000, how are you supposed to rebuild the party if you have no idea where the money was spent. It smells. We are talking to close to 800 million between the joint fundraising agreement being spent on five consultants. This is not a public outrage issue. The d. N. C. Chairs are upset and i dont know who is on the Budget Finance Committee. It was 15 minutes long and a pie chart that was put on the screen, but as a Democratic Party member of this commission, we have a duty and people are watching us right now, the number one issue i get asked is what are you going to do about the budget . It is absolutely ridiculous to keep the status quo system when it says we are going to lose 1,200 seats. Lets break that down a little bit. Ou are in arizona and you have a pregnancy and cant go to a planned parenthood clinic. You have to drive over to new mexico. You could bleed to death on the way. You know whose problem that is, that is the Democratic Party, investing in local parties and that is our fault because we have put that money to the top five consultants. And that goes to the conflict of interests. This is outrageous and unethical and and excuse me it is corruption. If you want to look at this finance and Budget Committee im sorry here, i advise that it be an elected budget and finance committee. We have very clear standards of oversight. And it is not just looking at past budgets but putting forth a budget with debates with people who have a fiduciary responsibility in that room so they can find out if it is an overbid budget, congresswoman fudge said it doesnt have to do with the budget. We have to have a conversation about who are those vendors and that would happen to another committee. But i think whats key that committee has oversight and it is elected, because right now these committees are staffed with whoever the chair decides who is on the committee. I dont know what the chairs interests are because i has been chair for eight month. I dont know who he is in line with. But we dont have time. We have a freak in the white house and state legislatures controlled by republicans and go out there and fund raise on her own because the Democratic Party isnt able to allocate that money. All that money went to president ial races and it was burned. And who resulted as a result who suffered, the american people. Lets keep this in perspective. We have a duty here and not just a duty to our Committee Men and the status quo. Its the duty of the american people, the Democratic Party members, the chairs and executive Committee Members and the people who have a fiduciary esponsibility. Has the correct oversight process. Congresswoman fudge has indicated an interest in this and i would like to see if we can Work Together with anyone else who has input to come up with language that protects the integrity of what i want to do but at the same time becomes acceptable to a majority because i dont want to have this body lose it. Its not just the principle but our party. I dont want our party to go on record opposing financial transparency. I dont think we want to do that. I think the majority of us would want to have a resolution that works but come up with the language that makes everyone happy. Im happy to table this now and do it tonight or come back tomorrow with language that is acceptable. So i would move to table. Are you moving to table . Second. All those in favor of tabling. Unanimous. Thank you, we are still in amendments to the section which is operating in a manner that is open and transparent. I have two amendments that i would like the body to consider. The first one is on a, that there should be regular review of the charter and bylaws. We should define what regular review is every two years, every four years. There should be a time frame on hat. Are you making a specific recommendation . Im. There should be a regular charter, review and bylaws. Discussion . Seeing snow discussion. We can move to a vote. All those in favor of amending a, please raise your hand. Unanimous. The amendment is adopted. The second thing i want to bring up because the conversation is flowing so fast, it is on e. I dont know if there were other written amendments on this, because this is one area i feel so strongly, i found it shocking that i wouldnt be able to run for a committee, that all of those were appointed by the chair. And that needs to be reformed moving forward and simple language could open that up because i have been talking with Jim Roosevelt about this, nominations processed and notifying deadlines for nominations should include d. N. C. Positions. Everything else should be the same. The nominations process is not clear. Nobody really knows what it is, and or, its all done by the chair. I think that is unfair. Undemocratic. If you are not good friends with the chair, you are essentially screwed if you want to serve. So i really think that e should say nominations process and the rest is the same. Because that should be laid out clearly. And i have told mr. Roosevelt that i plan on coming to the rules and Bylaws Committee that a nomination process gets established for all committee positions, including atlarge. It would say nominations process and im sorry on b. Notice on deadlines of nominations. Can you read the full sentence. Line 24 would say nominations process and notice on deadlines for nominations should include d. N. C. Positions, et cetera. Adding those three words, ominations process, and any discussion. Ill second it. Do you have it . For the sake of clarity, read the full sentence how you want it to read. The nomination process and notice on deadlines for nominations should include all d. N. C. Positions including atlarge positions and Committee Members. Were going to put itp on the screen. Im getting tired. m not as clear. Jane, does that look right to you . Looks great. Seeing no discussion, well move to a vote. All those in favor of the amendment, please raise your hands. Unanimous. He amendment is adopted. Ok, we are still in operating in a manner that is open and transparent. Yes. Any additional amendments the ommission wants to bring up . Ok. 22, which is, line under g what number is it . 28, excuse me. This is 28 from the amendments document which is referencing. Ge 15, line 22, which is g line 22. ,fter the sentence that ends in these agreements, nonofficers or nond. N. C. Officials [including staff, personnel and consult tapts] may not place integrity of the d. N. C. In jeopardy by signing nonauthorized in contracts [authorized by d. N. Rmpt c. ] without prior knowledge and affirmation. I think this is pretty standard. The chair of the executive committee should know if nonauthorized contracts are being signed. If it didnt go before the Budget Committee, this could be a simple contract or Major Contract but needs to have an authorization process. For clarification, this is saying that any contracts the d. N. C. Is signing must go through the chair and the executive committee before its signed. The chair or the executive committee. Ill say or. 25,000. To say over bigger . If you are in the middle of a president ial cycle, you dont think the executive director shouldnt be deciding contracts . The executive director who is the nrn officer. Im pulling this from recent reporting. To the executive committee . As i said the chair or the executive committee. You just made two changes. Reread it. Nonofficers or nonu. S. Sfirbles or personnel may not place integrity of the d. N. C. In jeopardy by authorizing nonauthorized contracts without prior knowledge and affirmation by the d. N. C. Or executive committee. Im going to say by signing nonauthorized contracts [over want to negotiate on that . It sounded like, but im not sure, that jen yeah, i do, you cant hear me . It sounded like, jen, you restated what this says but in the affirmative, meaning the conditions under which contacts contracts could be signed and im wondering if it would be clearer as opposed to in the negative, does that make sense . It sounded like that. And then so it sounded like you were trying to honor the intent of the amendment but stated in the affirmative and stated concisely. An easier way would be to do that, any contract over 25,000 must be approved through the d. N. C. Chair or the executive committee before signing. Correct. In addition to the staff part. That would be senior staff members. So the chair should have some sort of idea as incoming chair, an executive committee doesnt know which staff is in senior positions. But its not referred to staff, personnel or consultants. Reading this it looks like they are not allowed to make decisions on behalf of the d. N. C. You want to add in senior staff contracts must be approved by the d. N. C. Chair or the executive committee and contracts over 25,000. Senior staff. Jeff. We are doing this on the fly here. A lot of us arent familiar with the current contracting process and what is a reasonable threshold or isnt in terms of the normal operating practice and who are the best officers to authorize a contract or not. We are coming with something as arbitrary. And im not hostile to the content, whether we shouldnt also table this to figure out if we were going to address it, how would we do that. Im happy. Jim roosevelt . I have a couple of wording things. If we are going to table do we have a motion to table . I move to table. Those in favor of tabling ok, we will table this amendment. We will be tabling all of g and also this amendment. But i could look at it, i didnt think of state party chairs. But even there would be something that would be open i just want to understand jim, has a question. Whenm going to oppose this i got on the d. N. C. , it was i mean, look, i think back over the years of people i have known, including the person to my left, people like harold these are folks with whom i have learned a great deal and at times would disagree and they were there in a mentoring role. I was one of the new guys coming on. The rotation is actually quite significant. The number of people coming in and out, we have an atlarge capacity to increase diversity and thats the role it plays. And in states that we have seen that have these term limit situations can become quite chaotic and there is no one with historic memory. What happens then is something i have been concerned about and all due respect to staff, that when you do this, power ends up residing in staff and not in the folks that actually serve know ow the situation operates. And i encourage you to oppose it, too. We have a lot of new people coming in. And i dont want to lose the folks that made a difference in my life helping mentor them. One of the reasons i have been opposed to term limit in legislatures, you give power to lobbyists because you have people in there who are new and dont understand the things and have to rely more on outsiders. There is a value inletting there be at least some part of a body that has a lot of experience. So i agree with jim and i want to compliment jim for even though i dont think your proposal actually solves the problem you are discussing, i think you are identifying what has been a very big problem with the Democratic National committee for all of the years that i have been associated with it and it is particularly bad when there are incumbent president s and this is ng fact different and let me just say this, but there is a lot of scholarship backing this up. The management of the republican National Committee has differed substantially from the management of the Democratic National committee. There has been less funny business. More of a profession staff. They control their vendors. They put limits i mean its just embarrassing that i have to say this, and as a consequence, all i will do is refer you to all those silly news stories in september of 2016 that said, oh, Hillary Clinton has 77 field offices in pennsylvania and donald trump only has two. Well, donald trump didnt need 77 because he had a fully fledged, very professional Republican Party that has been operating for decades now. We are constantly beat by these guys. We need experience. We need a professional staff. We need as jim has said, we need to stop the funny business with the money. I dont think your proposal is going to do that, jim. But i just want to congratulate you on identifying it. Jim roosevelt was next. The jims are together. Gotcha. I have to give a compliment to many of the Commission Members that i have learned from over the past nine months. I read about the Democratic Party. And my first job was funded by the Democratic Party, but i have learned so much forgive my term, by the elders in the room who have far more experience than i do, but it has been so powerful and at a time when my generation as we know and gone over these numbers are sadly leaving the Democratic Party. I feel like i have weapons now, because i have this institutional you have been incredibly helpful in understanding where we have been. Elaine went where we got through. When did our primaries start to shift. She was there in the beginning. I read about that. You were there. That is so important and so important for our institution to have some sort of muscle memory. When did we lose our way. We only know that by reading history or having people in the d. N. C. Who can say, 30 years ago, consultants didnt control this party and the budget was operating differently. I only know that by talking to the elder statesmen of the Democratic Party. I will have to vote against this because of that. There are strong positions because of diversity and there are elections and there are decent elections when it comes to d. N. C. Elections. And this is probably the most vibrant real electoral process. It comes down to the d. N. C. Membership. Frank. Just a couple of things on this, no one is saying you are going to get kicked out and cant talk to anyone ever again. These people can still be called on for four things. All im saying is, at some point they need to transfer that information to somebody else so when they are done and want to retire or step away, there is someone else there to fill the slot. We cant spin this last many d. N. C. And g on the say we need to keep everybody there, its great. So i want to be clear, im not saying they could never talk to anyone ever again, we can still involve them and still be part of things. They mrs. Comstock and give presentations and heard from a lot of people that were former d. N. C. Members and i learned a lot from people who arent d. N. C. Members, too. Mia. One thing amendment suggestion to the amendment. The clarifying point is what you are proposing, since this wouldnt start until 2020, that means people who are now would finish out whatever their termsr another three years plus they could be reappointed two more times. So basically anybody who is currently on the committee could get 11 years, theoretically, before the term limit system would kick in on them, right . Right. The second thing is i was going to propose an amendment because it sounded like part of this was just making sure yes, it is a given that you dont have to talk to someone the amount of time people spend on it, meaning their willingness to participate actively and give you all their knowledge. So the suggested amendment would be to say will not serve more than two consecutive fouryear terms. Meaning. So you get some turnover and would get new voices and new opportunities in, but that you wouldnt have have, lets say, 30 years. It sounded like that is what you are trying to get at. If thats clear, im proposing the amendment. Im good with that. Is there any objection to that . Jorge, you dont have an objection . I dont have an objection to the amendment because it goes to jorge, a friendly amendment, i suppose. But doesnt address the issue that was talked about in terms of when you create this, you strip the body of its collective memory and those who are the bearers of that memory and disempower. We have seen in michigan, the state legislature is in chaos. Two terms and out. And the result is they are not a functioning body as they ought to be. And while i agree that we have problems with people who dont know when to go home and i assure you im leaving you at the end of this election cycle no, i wasnt even going to stay, i wasnt going to stay until senator sanders asked me to participate in that. I said damn it, i want to make it better in my time shot. Its not billion me but the fact that the body itself cannot be subject to this imposed artificial rotation. It doesnt help. The intent of that amendment doesnt mean you cant come back, but you can come back and reinstitute. It allows for not a full and forever going away from the committee, but it does then create some moments of opportunity for new people and new voices. I wanted to clarify that the intent was to allow people to not be banned forever from serving on the d. N. C. Again. Jorge, do you want to accept that . We are going to adjust this to say two consecutive fouryear terms. And do you want to add anything else . I think this is a perfect example and jim, you are done at the end of the year. All that Institutional Knowledge is leaving with you and we arent going to have that. But i still think you will be involved in the d. N. C. I think most of the people here is your plan to be here for another 11 years, 13 years . Thats what i propose. Its great. When does the transition plan out . I understand there is Institutional Knowledge and thats great, but are talking about a large time frame and we need to be thinking about what the next generation is and be very intentional that they have that knowledge. Senator turner. I agree with having some type of plan in place where we can learn from the most seasoned people who have been around and seeing these fights, but just limiting somebodys tenure on the d. N. C. Doesnt necessarily assure that we will have a transition plan at all. So i do understand where you are going. But i feel like if we are not presupposing this on jorge but seen this in other places. But what the doctor had to say, i served in the Ohio Legislature and they impose term limits on the legislature but that power goes somewhere and the power went to the lobbyists and the bureaucrats instead of the people who were elected. And i feel like the same thing could happen within the d. N. C. Take the bitter with the sweet, do people transition out and serve in these roles that they have an obligation to the body politic within the Democratic Party itself to take somebody under their wings to do some succession planning but limiting peoples terms doesnt mean we will have succession planning. Im against all forms of discrimination and if we live ong enough, we will be 60, 70, 90 and not throw away our seasoned elders. They could have started very young and been on the d. N. C. For 10 years or 15 years. We have to be very careful with that. King, te somebody, dr. Longevity has its place, i dont want the d. N. C. Whether inside or outside for us even as a party or as a people who should respect our elders and we need all generations to get to this point where we feel as though people have to be thrown away because millenials will be 50 one day and 60 and the generation behind them is going to say to them get out of here. There is always a generation ahead of us and a generation behind us. If the point is succession planning, which i believe jorge is going, but lets not artificially kick people off the d. N. C. Something we are looking to address and i want to be sure it happens and i think the amendment we are going to have people come back in but that it s not consecutive. Its expensive to do this and sometimes people continue have the resources. We do all of this at our own expense when we come to meetings and when we attend. If people arent stepping up, we dont want to leave a void in our state because we have arbitrary term limits set upon us where people dont have the resources. We need to think about all of those things before we make a blanket statement. That would be my suggestion. [inaudible] your mike. I have seen term limitations cause havoc both at the state level, municipal and whatever else. And i remind you something that elaine said is that the republicans are much more organized in many ways than we are. Ronald reagan came through to president through the Hoover Institute and put him in there for a while. I think we need some sort of transition but needs to be thought out, planned, because when i got elected, i ran against a twoterm incumbent and i got drafted but he wasnt in sync with the people. But we knew that. I gee we need youngblood, but lets have a transition and put together a total plan of what it should be before we scrump on that band wagon. I dont want to speak for jorge and this doesnt have to do with age or youngblood but diversifying our party. Had there not be turnover of the d. N. C. We wouldnt have our first three months. And who has that back grouped and voice and that fight, i think that is important and doesnt have to be one or the another. It inkeyses the need for transition which has already been discussed. Plans for sharing knowledge and i think the most important thing it creates more points of entry. I think there are a lot of people as we saw in the 2016 election. There are a lot of people who became engaged. I would want to create opportunities for them and all the new people coming in to have the opportunities to run, opportunities to take on chair manships, opportunities to join committees and have a Democratic Party. I understand that we will have pitfalls and unintended consequences that can come with term limits but its good to now what the intention is. The question has been called. Those in favor say aye. Of calling the question, please raise your hand. Unanimous. We just put it up and going to be voting on this. All those in favor, please raise your hand. Four in favor. Consecutive. Ok. All those opposed. This is a nobrainer. You are going to pass this one. Mia . E resolved 31, ad to put the language in. Roposal 31 oh, oh, sorry. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah we are operating in a manner that is open and transparent, that section. So do we have any additional amendments for that section . I do not believe so. His mikes on. Are you good, jim . Ok. Well done, team. We are going to vote through section 3. Ok, thats the format. We have a number that we are tabling and as we go through, well highlight the ones we are tabling. Ok. So for 3a, there should be a regular review as amended, every four years of the charter and bylaws. I didnt mean to do it that way. Amended version of a. There should be a regular review of the charter and buy laws. All those in favor. Looks unanimous. The amendment passes. I know that the lettering is different. Is b tabled . This is the new b. You just tell me whats tabled. We are voting on 2b. The commission calls for the formation of a detailed conflict of interest policy that expands on the ethics policy article 1, section 7 and modeled from best practices of other entities or government legislative bodies. All those in favor, pleas raise your hands. Its unanimous and it is adopted. Point of inquiry, i believe jane went out to the bathroom. Weit within our authority havent had a bathroom break in a while. We dont need a bathroom reak for people to go. On c we are tabling this on the bottom buds man croum and come back with updated language. On d amended, the nominations process and notice on deadlines for nominations should include all d. N. C. Positions and atlarge members and Committee Members. The chair will nominate a slate but any d. N. C. Nominations should reflect the views in our party as well as the diversity of our members. All those in favor, please raise your hands. E, we are tabling, which is the discussion on budget and finance committee and budget stuff. , the d. N. C. s charter and bylaws require neutrality in the president ial process so no candidate participating gains any unfair advantage real or perceived. The Commission Recommends all agreements with the d. N. C. Be transparent. Ll those in favor, pleas raise your hands. Gmp, the Commission Recommends that during a president ial cycle, the party meet with representative of the campaigns concerning the parties activities and general election planning and applied in a uniform manner. Those in favor say aye. Unanimous. Whatever sion on etter on h is tabled. I, particularly in cycles where there are multiple president ial candidates, many campaigns and or the d. N. C. May use vendors or consultants that work for multiple campaigns or the d. N. C. To avoid any actual or perceived conflict no one shall participate on behalf of any candidate or the d. N. C. In a dispute between the d. N. C. And the candidate. All those in favor. Unanimous. Oh, it wasnt . Im sorry. Shon. Sen absent. We are now closing this section and well talk about the tabled stuff. We are going to recess for 15 minutes and a break. Thank you all. And then well continue no. We will take a break and continue with party reform to get that done tonight. And a break here in the meeting of the Democratic NationalCommittee Unity reform and the recommendations will be issued to the d. N. C. Rules and Bylaws Committee to be considered for the 2018 election. Well show part of the meeting from earlier today and this will e a 15 minute break. All right, good morning, everyone. Thank you all for being here. Im jen omalley and im the chair and joined by migrate friend, larry cohen, the vice chair of the commission and i call the final meeting of the Unity Reform Commission to order. Would like to join us for the ledge of allegiance. I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of america and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under god, indivisible with liberty and stice for all. Roll call. The mr. Baker. Ms. Bower. Mr. Burr man. Ms. Flores. Congresswoman fudge. Ms. Harris. R. Went. Ms. Cohen. Ms. Lewis. Mr. Newport. Mr. Neary. Mr. Roosevelt. Ms. Ruiz. Ms. Turner. Mr. Weaver. Mr. Webb. Mr. Rugby. Misomalley. And mr. Cohen. We are missing a few Commission Members but we certainly have a quorum and i would like to start today by acknowledging chairman perez, whos here and we are very hankful for his participation. And more than that, for his leadership of the democrats and the national party. We are glad you could be here with us and look forward to hearing your remarks. Great. Good morning. Good morning everyone. I want to say thank you for all your hard work. This was an immensely important exercise and labor intensive and everyone came to it with an open mind and with remarkable set of ideas. So i want to say thank you to all of you. And particular thanks to our cochairs, jen and larry. We have been meeting regularly, brainstorming regularly and i cant say enough wonderful things about both of you. You have both entered this enterprise with a spirit of bold passion, a spirit of ingenuity, a spirit that understands that this is the most seryouse stress test on our nations democracy perhaps in our history and the work of this Unity Commission is so critically important. And so, larry and jen, thank you so much for what you have been doing. Its impossible to overstate the importance of the work you have been doing and everybody else here and has been doing. This is i come to you both with a sense of remarkable so bright given whats happening in washington and around the country in the era of this president and also a sense of optimism, borne out of what we have seen on the ground. You look at the chaos and carnage that we see every day from this administration and the stakes couldnt be higher. The tax bill that people like congresswoman fudge and others fought against is just an abomination. It is a break for wealthy people, wealthy corporations at the expense of virtually everybody else. The attack of the Affordable Care act. 13 Million People potentially losing health care, all in service of the tax cut for large corporations and wealthy people who dont need it. They tell us theres no money to reauthorize the state Childrens Health insurance program, but yet they want to eliminate the estate tax, which s a boon for the 1 of the 1 . And you see what is happening overseas where we have become the laughing stock around the world. Other countries have figured out how to handle this president. You shower him you roll out the red carpet and appeal to his ego and take him to the cleaners. Thats what has happened in china and else where and our allies, rather than having our back, this administration establishes them in the back. And we are a much less safe country and democracy. And thats why this work is so critically important moving forward. And so we all understand the seriousness of the task at hand. And i come to you with the sense of optimism because we have seen in 2017 because we have seen what we can do when we are united. The last time we won the governors races in new jersey and virginia in the same year was 2005. And we saw what happened in the house of representatives a year later in 2006. We saw what happened in both new jersey and virginia. But in other places. We saw what happened when we are united. We saw what happened when we organized. We organized early. We organized everywhere. We swhaw happened when we lead with our values. Few. Voters responded to that. Health care was the number one issue in virginia by far and the Democratic Party led on that issue and that is a big reason why we won. In virginia and elsewhere. And so we have a lot to look back on in 20717 and wasnt just new jersey and virginia. We can win elections virtually anywhere. The special elections in oklahoma that took place, three special elections in deep red trump districts and what they all have in common, we won all three elections. State senate seat in new hampshire, a special election down in florida where the republican won last year by a doubledigit margin and annette won that race. You see when we organize. You see what we do and we listen. And when we make sure take the term off year out of the electiony con of the Democratic Party. We have gone to school on the lessons. And one of the lessons we learned from the past is the mission of the Democratic National committee must always be to elect democrats up and down the ticket from the school board to the oval office and we have done just that. And with the help of this commission, we will be able to do that even better scale because the recommendations that you have put forth today are remark apply important in moving forward as we turn the corner. I believe again that democrats can win everywhere. And the motto of our partnership with our state parties, we call it every zip code counts because again we can understand we can win everywhere and we have demonstrated that in elections. We understand that we have to spend money on nfrastructure. We havent spent a dime on television at the d. N. C. Our investments have been organizing and connecting directly with voters. Through our Summer Program led by deputy chair Keith Ellison, we knocked over a million doors to invite americans of all walks of life to join us. E made investments in virginia up to a million five in virginia. Zero dollars went into television, but into organizing and made sure the tech tools were there to help our friends in the progressive ecosystem. And in new jersey, we helped people up and down the ticket. It was an honor to campaign on behalf of the house of delegates candidates. We want you to govern and best way is to flip the house of delegates. Last time democrats this many seats in the Virginia House of delegates was the late 19th century. It wasnt a cow insi dens and the 15 republicans who are about to on become former members of the house of delegates are all [captioning performed by the national captioning institute, which is responsible for its caption content and accuracy. Visit ncicap. Org] [captions Copyright National cable satellite corp. 2017] men and replaced by 11 women. History made, including the first two latinas in the history of the house of delegates. First Asian American in Virginia House of delegates and first openly transgender person in Virginia House of delegates. We can win. So thats what weve learned. Thats the progress we have made. Thats the momentum. We need to scale that and make sure we are doing that everywhere in 2018 because we can win governorships and state legislatures. I was with the Democratic Attorney Generals Association yesterday and i was also with the dlcc yesterday, again, reiterating the message ta the new Democratic Party is up and down the ticket and working to organize verywhere. I believe we can win everywhere and we can win everywhere as long as we are continuing to organize and continuing to put in place the recommendations of this remarkable commission. And so, as we shift into this next phase of the commission, i want to take a moment to tell you some of the things we have already put in place because i think its really important and inspired conversations with people i have had in this room. We need to be looking toward 2017 and need to have an eye on the future and build a party that can win today and sustain those victories tomorrow. We need to make sure we are preparing now for the 2018 election, but also preparing ahead for the 2020 election. And as we think about 2020, there are many things that are very important. We spent a lot of time learning from the past and our istakes. I think its so critically mportant heading into 2020 and that starts now at the d. N. C. That it does not put its thumb on the scale either in fact or in perception. Nothing the d. N. C. Or our Party Officials do should give a primary candidate an unfair advantage. Toward that end we announced a wild back that one innovation we re going to do to make sure we are true to that addmon is and announce our debate schedule for the democratic primaries well in advance so there is no perception there is a thumb on the scale for any one candidate. I know there are other things we can do and thats why in this Commission Im committed to make sure all of our joint fundraising agreements are transparent and available to all of the candidates. We need to make sure we give them more opportunities. The recommendations here on the primaries i think are some of the most important things we can do. It makes absolutely no sense to me to have a Voter Registration deadline thats on one day and a eadline to change your Party Affiliation even one day earlier. That makes no sense to me. I suspect that makes little or no sense to anyone on this commission and thats a really important reform that i look forward not om to adopting with this commission but to implementing because its one thing to adopt but another thing to make sure we move forward with our recommendations. We also need to make sure that we remain vigilant in making sure we expand opportunities for people to vote, not contract them. My work as a civil rights lawyer has given me a front row seat to the fact that Voter Suppression is a permanent part of the republican playbook. The sooner we understand, the sooner we respond. They have been talking about this decades, not just for months and implementing not just through voter i. D. Laws that are aking it harder for eligible people to vote rather than easier. We need to make sure that voter offense and defense are part of our playbook and these recommendations of the commission and i commend the chair and the cochair for the work they have done in this area because there are too many oom working people who cant vote in his. We have had a robust dialogue and i thank everybody who has been working on the issue of caucuses because obviously we want to make sure that if you are a shift worker you can vote in the caucus or a member of the military or someone else who has been left out of the process that we can do that, that you can vote and make sure that your franchise is exercised. And there has been remark apply important discussions here. I think opening up that caucus process consistent with the recommendations are going to be Game Changing and i applaud the work of the commission and i applaud the work you have done in the area of super dell gates. In 2016, it made up 16 of the delegates in the commission. T that time, when you were negotiating the Unity Commission, both secretary clinton and senator sanders agreed on the mandate passed there to provide for a significant reduction in the number of unpledged delegates and im excited about the fact that the recommendations are going to reduce that by over 50 . And that is so critically important. But timely and i shouldnt say but, finally, if we want democrats to win and stay in power we have to reform our party from the ground up. Our resistance summer effort was a downpayment, efforts of grassroots organizing, we are at rise and organ we are going to continue this. Rise and organize and were going to continue this. I commend my friend and colleague, Keith Ellison who has been part of that conversation. We have been making investments in our state parties and making investments in ballot races and working with our colleagues in the progressive ecosystem. Some of these organizations dont have a chief Technology Officer but what they have is Tremendous Energy and when they harness that technology and use the tools we have, that is a orce multiplier because we all succeed when we all succeed. And as we saw in new jersey, virginia and elsewhere, we are at our best when we are united when we have our oars in the ater and rowing. And thats why we are continuing to make sure we make these investments. Im proud of the fact that we are now providing onethird every month to state parties. And its not a blank check but accompanied by Accountability Measures and working together with state parties and critical stakeholders in each state to develop that Strategic Plan for success that enables us to win this year and for many years to come. Im proud of the Technology Infrastructure that we are building, the Voter Protection infrastructure, all of those hings that unable us to work across states to make sure we are empowering folks. We need to continue to empower ur diverse grassroots democrat at every level and make sure they have a seat at the leadership table. Ets build on our small dollar fundraising success and stand by our pledge to ban corporate i was born at night but not last night and this commission is a critical part of that process oving forward. And i am confident that senator kennedy once taught me many things but he said, you know, tom, we are at our best when we are united and unity doesnt ean you muslim it. Doesnt mean unanimity. We may not agree on everything. But when we realize what unites us is better than what divides us, thats when were at our best. Senator kennedy moved the ball down the field and making sure if we protected the right to organ making sure we protected womens rights and immigrants rights. When we move forward in that spirit and im confident we agree on many, many things here and im confident there are areas where we may still have disagreements. But i know what units us far exceeds our differences. Moving forward this report is going to make a big ifference. Im going to work with all of you to make sure it doesnt gather dust because the work you do today and tomorrow is the end of one chapter but the beginning of an equally important chapter, [captioning performed by the national captioning institute, which is responsible for its caption content and accuracy. Visit ncicap. Org] [captions Copyright National able satellite corp. 2017] ok, so we have heres our plan. We are going to get through party reform. Tonight. There are four sections. We at the moment have three amendments so we think we can move through and thats our goal. We will obviously play it by ear. But were going to keep powering through. Before we get to the next section, i want to ask that we put out the last vote we had. Which was the amendment from jorge. Nothings changing. This is voted down. But we need a recount of the tally for our record. So if those who were in favor of this can raise their hand. [inaudible] [laughter] yes. For the record, lets please give a half a vote to emmy in addition. Ok. And those opposed. Thank you. Ok. Rolling. Number four. Party reform number four. Strengthening an inclusive and partyry culture at the d. N. C. Were going to go through the three action items and any amendments. The paragraph reads, just to give a sense what have this is, the commission was informed that the culture of the d. N. C. Has not always been welcoming to ideas and perspectives that were different than that of its leadership. Have a strong party. All facets of our party have to be consistently welcomed and engaged. Strengthen d. N. C. Culture, the Commission Recommends. Ok. Floors open for amendments to number four. Theres an amendment. Recognize nomi. Thank you. Theres an amendment on the second extra sheet of paper that is labeled page 15. This is written a couple of hours ago while we were in our breakfast meeting. It would be the new a, a new paragraph. So above current a, below line 38. Inserted into line 39. All communities all committees, including executive committee, Budget Committee, rules and Bylaws Committee, caucuses and council, state chair associations, and atlarge members shall be electriced in a cordance with the d. N. C. Diversity ratios based on d. N. C. Bilaws. Specific language around the committees. This is the latest amendment. Members of the above categories must be elected by 2 3 of the d. N. C. Members voting. Following a vacancy, a position shall be filled through an election at the next d. N. C. Meeting. We recommend that the rules and Bylaws Committee create a detailed structure that outlines an electoral process that expands on these guidelines and that all standing rules shall be publish along with the charter and bylaws, laying out nominations and electoral processes. Furthermore, it should be understood that the submission of slate nominations and slate elections are undemocratic and each position shall be nominated and voted on by the greater body. This is for the d. N. C. As a whole body. As opposed to the state, which we discussed before. Second. Any discussion . I guess i have a question. Caucuses and councils. Dont people join those based on their interest level in some cases . So, well, it wouldnt necessarily apply then. You wouldnt say, well, we cant take you because your throwing the diversity ratio off or you need to be elected or Something Like that. So this is sort of a team project here. This amendment. It wasnt just me. Jane and i discussed caucuses. I think this really gets back to the broader issue of how the nominations process is not clear for the various offices that somebody can serve within the d. N. C. So, i think it would be great if there was an amendment to this, to make it maybe more succinct. But thats really the bottom line. Thats what this gets to. I agree with that. Hat there is a gap here. I actually wrote to chairman because someone asked me, have you asked to be back on the d. N. C. . And kind of, you know, said, i sure want to be. But i just didnt even know what the fuzz was. So i said, id like to be considered for the continuing to serve as chair of the Resolutions Committee and also be on the executive committee, and atlarge member. He wrote me back an email that said, a text message that said, because there is no process, we are figuring out how to do this. Which i thought was an important acknowledgment on his part that there is were absent a process. So a process does exist. Whether this is exactly the process we need, or not, we dont have a process right now. D what weve been getting is apparently many people submitted names to the d. N. C. Selfnominated. But what we got was a onepage slate. How that slate was compiled, what happened to all the other people who nominated, we dont know. And there were some bad feelings all the way around. The process needs to be more transparent. It needs to be more democratic. I had initially proposed the creation of a nominations committee. And we got a lot of pushback on that so i let it go. If it is not this group that helps at least lay out the guidelines for a nominating process, then we at least need to give the rules and Bylaws Committee some guidelines that we want to be adhered to. And, for example, i feel strongly that with regard to at large, the committee that helped screen those names, ought to include the state chairs, the regional caucuses, and the and the councils caucuses of the of other groups in the party. To create a sense of diversity that would help give people an on tray, to know if you want to serve on the d. N. C. , heres the way you go and heres the process you go about doing it. So i think that there is an absolute need for a process. And with regard to the issue that jeff raised, i think, jeff, that we could simply added word applicable diversity ratios, because i know on the ethnic council, for example, that i serve on, we have a diversity component of the multiplicity of ethnic groups to make sure that we have enough representation for different groups. And we of course have the basic requirement that the d. N. C. Has for all of its councils and that is a gender requirement. So applicable i think would solve that problem. And we might just look into this to see what we keep and how we frame it. Maybe we should actually have a broader discussion and come back tomorrow on the mechanics of this. I just have a question. Whoever wrote elected by 2 3 of the members voting, you know, having been in many of these situations for years and years, i dont know how you can force 2 3 of the people to vote for anybody. Id like to understand that. Im happy to amend to make it majority. Can you put up your hands . Ill try to be quick. I think we might be mixing apples and oranges here a little bit. If you want committees including executive committee, Budget Committee, rules and bylaws, thats one thing. To be elected. But then when you pull in caucuses and councils, and state chairs association and atlarge members, like you said, caucuses and councils, we sign up for that. Having just come through an election, there was an election process that we had at the africanamerican caucus and then when you talk about a diversity ratio, how are you what are you talking about . If we have those that are specific to a particular Constituency Group . Your womens caucus or your black caucus. So i just think that the way this is worded, it doesnt make sense to do this. Im happy to clarify. I mean, i remember when i was in the youth council, it was apointed. There was no election. I signed up to be a member of the black caucus. Then i chose to run as chair of the black caucus. And we had a clear nominating process and we went through everything that we needed to go through. Also, if you want to run for an office in one of the caucuses, you get your nominating forms, you get all of thats in place. So i dont quite understand again, this is a group created project. I aybe the parts that i think the d. N. C. Does an amazing job and that was very clear for the regional caucuses. And shootbased caucuses, consistencybased caucuses. The forms were sent out way ahead of time. People understood that they could nominate themselves or nominate somebody else. It was a very clear process. We want that same process for, we think that that same process should be for atlarge and all of the special committees, because we think it is a more fair process. I would recommend taking this other stuff out. I think essentially were trying to say that all of these different groups should have the same process. Its not saying that those groups dont have it. Its saying that all of these should have the same process and should be in accordance with because its not explained clearly in the bylaws and its not expanded on and theres really no oversight on top of it. Let me just ask, it seems like the third paragraph is really the main paragraph. Is that correct . The way youre explaining it . I mean the third paragraph. Its a lot clearer than the other two. Im sorry. The third paragraph of the new one. The third paragraph of the new one is basically clarifying that all of these committees have the same electoral process and it falls under the rules and Bylaws Committee and they should have a detailed structure that outlines the process. Just to clarify. But it does more than that, right . Because it also says that slate nominations are inherently undemocratic. That comes back i think we talked about that in another section. So it sounds like that paragraph is doing more than just making sure that we have the right these elections. It sounds like its doing more than that. Theres two sentences there, youre right. Thats fair. The second one goes further. The first one is trying to say that for all these different positions that are elected, there should be a clear process from rules and bylaws. And that at least thats not apparent to everybody. If there is one. Then it goes further about slates. Youre right. To clarify the slate position, the deprinches what i understand between the last slate argument we had was over state parties and being able to administer control over state parties. This is the d. N. C. So this would really fall in line with what i understand to be the existing charter and how it states that we conduct elections. This is just to reinforce by saying that slates should not be part of the d. N. C. s electoral process. [inaudible] elected. Thats whats hanging me up. So it says here, all committees, including exact budget rules, caucus, council, state chairs association and atlarge members shall be electriced. So are you saying you want caucus and councilmembers to be elected, to be a member of that caucus . The leaders of it. Ok, see, it doesnt say that. Im happy to add that language. You want to be elected by the full d. N. C. . By the full d. N. C. . So im willing to strike the first paragraph and just move and the second paragraph even and just move to the third paragraph. And leave it to the rules and Bylaws Committee to come up with a detailed structure for each of these committees. Because basically what we had discussed is that each of the committees do not have a fully transparent, open and, i mean, some do, some dont. But theres no clear process. For each of the committees. And theyre not uniform. Does that make sense . Would you be willing to also strike the last sentence about slates . No. I mean, the problem with prohibiting slates is that you to cant do your balance. So you cant guarantee diversity. A committee, if you dont have a slate. If youre electing one at a time at a time, you know, you cant get 5050 malefemale. You cant get your minority representation, etc. So its one thing to amend, to allow for competing slates, but given all of our requirements for diversity, you cant get there without slates. This prohibition on slates is counterproductive to all of our other rules. Right. So what if we use Jim Roosevelts language from massachusetts. Official slates . That would be much better. People can still vote it down. Im just saying. Thats what you really mean. It means that the chair is not the person who recommends the slate. Because, again, through intimidation, official slates. I mean if in his role as chair [laughter] i dont understand why this is debatable. [inaudible] yes, yes. Not chairman perez, right . Ok, we got it. Can i ask you a question . Thats what it means in massachusetts as i understand the comments earlier. That might be a good model. Other comments on this . I wanted to clarify. Are you saying that changing it to official means that there will still be an enforceable way to end up with a slate thats diverse . You have to have the slate. When youre dealing with large committees, 30, 40 people, you cant get the right outcomes unless you have a slate. So right. And i think thats important that we get the right outcomes and ensure diversity. So thats what im trying to make sure, i understand the implications of doing anything related to the slate, if its going to undermine potentially. If potentially it could undermine our diversity goal. It is going to undermine diversity because theres no way when youre doing 40 votes in a row that youre going to get the right outcome and the right percentages, etc. Its practically difficult. So the question is, if you put official slates in, and somehow oes that solve this problem . Second. Going to put nut queue here. If thats ok. I have three people in the queue. Jeff, you want to defer . Yeah. Ok. Youre up. So this is a real problem. So, for example, the way we deal with it, without official slates in massachusetts, is we have a meeting where people people are let go elected at the ballot. Then some people are elected at the next meeting of the state committee. Then at the following meeting we elect genderbalanced members just to get to that particular diversity requirement. It makes it very complicated. Thats for the national party. Thats a little hard. Also the problem here, the caucuses for sure and largely the councils i think are selfnominating. Selfidentifying. There are criteria. But theyre pretty much selfidentifying. As opposed to elected. Were back to jeff. Jeff, jim, jane. All js. Ny other js here . I dont want to go but im a j. Another j. [laughter] so on this amendment, the first two paragraphs have already been eliminated. And i would say, if we would eliminate the last sentence and focus then on having the r. B. C. Set up a structure for elections within the d. N. C. , i could go with Something Like that. The alternative would be, you know, i would be ready to vote. Because then i wouldnt support the amendment at all. But if we can do that, i think we could work out something. If thats sufficient. So my question is did you want a response . Youre jumping the queue. Just to clarify. All js. Would any of the js or anybody else on the commission be willing to come forward with some sort of language that would prevent a heavy hand from the chair . I mean, weve had this in the past. Well, i mean, we want to laugh. But if we staff hang on. Thats so subjective. Well you cant write that in. Let me finish. If the chairs to nominate seven executive Committee Members and they are there to basically be a stamp for everything he says, that eliminates all oversight checks and balances. This is about creating some form of checks and balances. Some profits for electoral for running peoples elections. I understand the diversity. But if we can find a balance im happy to amend that. Looking for democracy there are wait a minute. She asked who was going to take up that sword. Youre going to take it up . No, i didnt say i was. But i want to see if there are no takers, then we should have a vote on the motion. Or vote on the amendment. On the question. I would no, there are two imperatives here. One is the diversity issue. The other is creating an opportunity for participation in the d. N. C. And allowing for nonmembers to feel that they can become members and for members to feel they can be elected to committees that they want to serve on. I understand the diversity mandate. But i also understand that if you continue the process as it is, then basically what you do is you erase the democracy mandate. There is no possibility, there is no transparent possibility for someone to say, i want to serve on rules and Bylaws Committee. Want to serve on the budget finance oversight committee, whatever it is. Because basically we are handed a slate. And frankly, if we if we allow the creation of official slates, then what youre doing youre taking no process and replacing it with a nontransparent process. You might as well have no process at all. I can tell you from experience over the years that weve had many situations where people have ended up getting bounced off the committee and that they wanted to be on. Or situations that were simply not comfortable. I think back to the ellis jermon situation. It was uncomfortable for the whole party to be in that situation, when that happened. And we wouldnt have gotten the stories that we got after the last meeting, which was a purge, which may or may not have been the intent. But thats what it was read as because there was no transparent process. And so i think that what we need , jeff, is language that somehow balances both imperatives. How do we create diversity while at the same time ensuring that there be a democratic and open process . I wouldnt be in favor of getting rid of the first two paragraphs there. Or the first paragraph in particular. I think that the language can be changed, for sure. But to say that there ought to be a more democratic, a more open process that encourages people to be what they want to be and to grow in the party as they want to grow and to whatever. That to me i think is absolutely essential and cannot be taken ut of the mix. If the sole emphasis is on diversity, then you get what you get, which is all the names come in, staff and the chair work, they come up with 75 people for this and 70 people for that and 30 people for this and then we get it and we vote on it and basically in fiction its an election. But its actually an appointment process that we ratify. To be quite blunt about it. We have to find a way to balance those two imperatives and find language that helps us do it. Ok, jane. Anybody else in the line here . I would ask people, two minutes. I first have a clarifying question for Jim Roosevelt. Jim, i know that theres or i think that theres gender requirements for the executive committee. That its genderbalanced. Is that true for any other committee . And are there diversity requirements for committees . Because i cant find them. The gender balance is required for all Democratic Party bodies. There are not other diversity requirements in the charter or bylaws. There are diversity requirements in the delegate selection plan. Exactly. So elaines comment about a slate would fulfill diversity requirements is a moot point because thats not part of any rules and bylaws that we have. And quite frankly, i think the selfnomination process would give us a more diversity of people. Not just in gender, race, ethnicity, but also in region. If you look at a lot of the committees right now, they are stacked with a lot of folks on the coast. And they are stacked with people from one wing of the party. And i love that wing of the party. But there are other wings of the party that should have an opportunity to serve and lead and direct our party. So i have suggested language that i would like to offer. It says that the rules and Bylaws Committee will create a process for atlarge members in special committees to follow the same nominating and election process as the current caucus and council. Because the current caucus and council nominating an election rocess is very fair. Im open to it. I second that. Substitute. Would you accept that . Yes. [inaudible] for the beginning or . How would that work . Because, see, the caucuses, the members of the d. N. C. Decide who which caucuses theyre going to go. To they sign up for it. They vote for their leader. But there is no, what, would people like go to the rules and bylaws caucus and vote the members . I dont understand. Not at all. Regional caucuses, for example, if i wanted to be the chair of the regional caucus, there was a whole nominating process that was very clear to everybody, it got sent out way ahead of time. This is what you do. There were reminder sent out it. Would be the same thing for atlarge positions and for the special committee. It would say, there are x amount of male and x amount of female positions available. For the rules and bylaws. It is a fouryear term. We are accepting nominations now for the rules and Bylaws Committee. You would submit your nominations and then there would be an election. I would argue that those Committee Members for the rules and bylaws should be voted on by the entire d. N. C. Body. By the whole d. N. C. Yes. They would have two lists. The male list and the female list. They get to vote for, like, 20 on one 20rks on the other, the full. How about selecting the chair of those committees . Then that could do the same process to elect the chair. Ok. Basically what that means then, having just gone through a very limited election, where i had 100 members that i was calling with the africanamerican caucus, that means that anybody that wants to be on these committees, theyre going to spend all of their time on the phone calling 400 and some d. N. C. Members to say, vote for me. Which means the d. N. C. Members are going to be im just saying, this is how the mechanism would have to work if im understanding you. So they would have to be on the phone calling to get people to vote for them. So you have a slate of like 50 people that are calling all of these d. N. C. Members or whoever wants to sign up to be on these various committees. Calling and then we have a big massive election like we did at the meeting. Is that the way it would work . Yes. And i realize that that puts, you know, a lot of responsibility onto individuals who want to be on that committee and that means d. N. C. Members are going to be getting calls. But i also think it means that people who want to serve in those positions would be really working to serve on those positions. And would be explaining why they think that they should be on that committee and what they bring to the table for that committee. Ok. Ok, jim. Jim roosevelt. [inaudible] can you call the zpwhe the question has been called. All those in favor of calling the question please indicate by raising their hand. Hes called the question. Well figure out what the language is in a minute. The questions been called. All those in favor of calling the question indicate by raising their hand. Down hands. Oppose by like sign. Questions been called. Ok. Well restate the motion. Please. Questions been called. Please restate the motion as you made it. The rules and Bylaws Committee shall create a process for atlarge members in special committees to follow the same nominating election process as current caucus and councils. People talk while you were reading it. If you could dont worry so much about that right now. Lets just read it again slowly and if we could all listen that would be great. Hold on. Before do you that, is this a replacement for all three paragraphs . Yes. So one more time. So it would be, we recommend that the rules and Bylaws Committee shall create a process slow. Read slow. I thought that was slow. People say im from new york but im really from florida. Fwrp do you want me to start . For at large members and special committees were having trouble here, so. To follow the same nominating and election process as the caucus and councils. We would have to add something with, i mean, we say it goes to the rules and bylaws, but i understand what you were saying. That it actually is not the exact same process. Youre going to look at it and make sure its what you want it to say. Then its going to be voted. So its got to say what theyre oing to vote on. Maybe we should say to follow a similar nominating election. Because its not exactly the same. Same changed to similar, thats what youre saying . Yeah, to follow a similar. Ok, so, yeah, to follow a similar nominating and election process as the regional caucuses. Yeah. Because each one of the other councils and caucuses have their own internal procedures. I think it would be better [inaudible] and i have full confidence that the rules and bylaws will develop that. Were going to read it again. Because it changed. Can we have the whole resolution up there . Theres nothing up there. Thats all struck. Thats it. Thats it. Do you want to read it one more time . We recommend that the ruse and Bylaws Committee will create a process for atlarge members and special committees to follow a similar nominating and election process as the regional caucuses. All the rest is struck. This is going to rules and bylaws to do, to be adopted, correct . Yes. No further discussion on the motion as substituted. All those in favor please indicate by raising your hand. Down hands. Id you get it . Pposed by like sign. Ou were opposed . Ok. The motions defeated. Ther amendments . What do we then revert to on that . Youre back to for as written. Strengthening inclusive and participatory culture at the d. N. C. And then we have an a, a b and a c. And theres not amendments. Were going to read the a, b, c. Word for word. And vote on them one at a time. Jeff says ok. Therefore i will do it. Democrat a, well be voting on this. Democrats Work Together to create an informed electorate, realizing if you guys could democrats Work Together to create an informed electorate, realizing the tolerance for internal debate and disagreement is an element of party building, engaging each other, and our external opponents in a spirit f civil discourse. Page 15, a, i just read it. Goes over to 16 read. It goes over to 16. All those in favor of a as read, please indicate by raising your and. Unanimous. B. Boom. Leadership provides more avenues for input and discussion at d. N. C. Meetings. Theres a word missing. Should. Shall. Ok. Why dont we vote on should versus shall. Shall. Ill accept that. Leadership shall provide more avenues for input and discussion at d. N. C. Meetings. These meetings should be structured to provide more time for member and activist input on important issues, including key races, organizing priorities, and member concerns. Called. All those in favor of b as read. Please indicate by raising your hand. Its adopted unanimously. C. E d. N. C. Its missing something here. Should, shall, hold, hold. He d. N. C. Shall hold regular postmortum debriefs after key races to discuss the strategies that were effective difference trained not to have sentences like this but ok. N mobilizing our base. I was really trained not to have sentences like this. What best practices were learned , and areas that require further improvement. Well take a look at that in a second. This should include a detailed report on the nature and composition of Party Vendors and their diversity. That ones good. Lets go back to that first sentence and make sure it works. D. N. C. Shall hold regular postmore tum debriefs after key races to discuss the strategies that were effective in mobilizing our base. You want period . [all talking at once] if you change it to and, it will be easier. What best practices were and best practices. It wont have a pulitzer prize, but it will get through. Shouldnt it be effective at mobilizing our base, best practices we learned or just best practices yeah, best practices learned and areas that require further improvement . Or best practices. Can we get rid of the what and the were . Yeah, that will help. Got it . The what and the were. Ok. As amended. Friendly amendment to the chair. Were voting on c. All those in favor of c as effectively amended. Ok. Its adopted unanimously. Ok. Were back to you. Le. I hate to do this. But i do want to go oned record. On the record. I was the colead of this party reform section. And in all of the drafts that i submitted, there was a section dealing with a nominating process. It has been eliminated even though we presented multiple alternatives in doing that. And theres language here that we never even talked about. A and b we did. But c, sort of came out of the blue. Its fine. But i think that taking out a nominating process, which would ensure inclusion, diversity, all of the issues that we care about, and include democracy and transparency in our decision make prague sess. So i want to just go on the record saying that im while i agree with a, b and c, im opposed to the overall section because it delete what is i think is a critical mandate that we have to honor which is making our party more democratic and transparent. Even though my colleague, the chair, did three, we did have a section of three. That was tabled. We approved it on nomination. We approved the second. That was approved on table . Ok. So it was adopted. It starts notice on deadlines for nominations process. May not be the same. Im just saying theres language here on nominations. I intend to take i mean, assuming that the d. N. C. Votes for this and everythings fine, i intend to organize d. N. C. Members to go to the rules and bylaws and say, so lets act on b. Right . Yeah. Thats what the process is about. Your comments are noted. Thank you. Appreciate your work on this whole section. Were on five now. Ill turn it back to the chair. Thanks. Five. Building on the great diversity of our party, the d. N. C. Should continue to strengthen its commitment to diversifying our elected leadership and candidates at the national and local levels and our vendors. Ere are a series of five recommendations that we will go through. Id like to open it up for amendments on those recommendations. There was one we had agreed to among ourselves. Put your mic on. I can. , line 29 s in line 25 d line 32, where it mentions in all three instances to mobilize the full diversity of our core constituencies, we agreed to change the language to organize and mobilize the full diversity of our party. Including our core constituencies. And i submit that as language that i hope we will adopt. Ok. For clarification, that is in b. Can you scroll down . Its in b, c and d. I know. Thats why im asking. Its in c and its in d. So i would like to vote on the full distribute three recommendations. All those in favor of this amendment, please raise your hands. All right. Its unanimous. The recommendation amendment is adopted. That done, id recommend that we simply vote on five as a whole. Ok. Ny other amendments . K. Were going to vote on building on the great diversity of our party as a whole, which includes five amendments. I am going to read them quickly. 5a, the d. N. C. Should set a goal for vendor diversity and contract bidding at the national, state and local levels where possible and provide an annual report on the nature and composition of Party Vendors and their diversity. 5d, the d. N. C. Should can we do should for this instead of shall . Im partial to should. Should develop a comprehensive outreach and engagement strategy to reach, engage and mobilize the full diversity of our party, including our core constituencies. C, the d. N. C. Should work with Partner Organizations and allies to develop training opportunities on running for sorry. Nd working in the lights in my eye balls here. Let me start that over again. The d. N. C. Should work with Partner Organizations and allies to develop training opportunities on running for office and working in politics, targeted and accessible to the full diversity of our party, including our core constituencies. With d. N. C. Should work state parties to develop a pipeline of opportunity and facilitate connections that are focused on the full diversity of our party, including our core constituencies, so that they can easily become involved in the Party Operation and empower them to act and organize. E, a concentrated outreach strategy by the national, state and local parties to make the party more accessible to our diverse constituencies and ensure that we are not just talking to, but engaging with and empowering these critical constituencies within our party. So we are going to vote on the full number five. I would like to propose that we table a until after we have the conversation after we vote about the budget. Because i think that theyre related. And i would like to actually add an amendment if the still possible. Its still possible. I mean, there was other amendments added here on the floor. One thing at a time. Youre suggesting youre putting forward a motion to table a. Because it was related to the budgetary conversation that we tabled earlier. Its directly related. For instance, you know, opening its one thing to say you have a goal for vendor diversity. But if we dont have part of the proposal is to have some sort of oversight of the budget and detailed presentations on the vendors, but having a pie chart we met these goals doesnt really theres no real accountability there. As a question back, we are and have already tabled an amendment that will address what you just specifically laid out, that will be clearly in there. Go if it passes. So this is a sort of if then situation. If that passes, then this will be moot. If it doesnt pass, this is actually very important and we should debate it. Im not sure it would be moot. Because i think were making it clear that we expect there to be vendor diversity and in our contract bidding. So this is actually stating a principle that we expect from the d. N. C. Whether or not the other thing passes. Meaning theres no oversight, though. A key factor is theres a lot of proposals in the charter but theres no oversight. So farther of part of that recommendation is that theres a transparent process in oversight. The only reason i ask is, i hear you. But i want to make sure that you know, theyre related. We table it and we ok, so theres a motion to table on the floor for a. Is it seconded . Second. Ok. All those in favor to table a, please signify by raising your hands. All those opposed. 10. The motion to table fails. Then you have another amendment. Id like to add an amendment right after d. On 35. Is this a separate amendment or as addition . A separate amendment, sore rifment as the new e sorry. As the new e. The Commission Recommends that the d. N. C. Enact a 50state strategy. Period. We get put it under state parties, pipeline of opportunity. Im justmendment reiterating this. Well, this is a diversity section. The 50 state strategy statement would not be pertinent to the diversity issue. Agreed. Is it possible to move up this amendment somewhere else . It would fit more appropriately with facing grassroots participation. Can i speak . Since