Topics. Id like to highlight the key areas were focused on. And then we are going to be voting and amending. Amending and then voting each section. So there will be instead of going through party reform, section by section, make amendments and then discuss and vote. The key elements on party reform that were going to 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 inning creasing grassroots participation. The third is operating in a manner that is open and transparent. The fourth is strengthening an inclusive anticipatory culture at the dnc. The fifth, building on the great diversity of our party. The sixth, connecting our values and our actions and the 7th promoting and protecting the vote. So for each of those sections that i just highlighted, we will stay focused in those sections of Commission Members as we go through amendments, we will stick to a section, we will amend, we will vote and move on to the next section. With that, were going to move on to the first section, which is making the party more competitive, in all regions of the country. And as the topper to that, the commission believes that the dnc must update and enhance the way it operates in order to make our party more competitive. There can be no more off years. Grassroots must be a priority for the dnc. Redirecting is a top priority for the party, one of the most important things democrats can do is run and win local elections all across the country. Underneath that, we have a series of six different recommendations, so at this time id like to ask the commission if anyone has any amendments on the sixth recommendations that are under making the party more competitive in all regions of the country. Ill move the section as written. I would just add, if you will much of this wasnt discussed in any of our meetings i think its just fine. We are going to vote through each one. So can i suggest that we vote on the block. I so move, and you. We are going to vote on making the party more competitive. A, b, c, d, and e. Section two, supporting and growing state parties and increasing grassroots participation. This is strong state and local parties. Were supposed to be excited engaged and empowered. We are. Not supposed to be. So amendments for section o two. Patrice, is it available to p t post . Can someone read it . Were going to put it on the screen, and then jeff in line 33 at the end of that sentence. We would add 33 page 13 from commissioner commissioners at the same time the dnc, which is the state Party State Party chairs and state parties agree that to ensure that the resources are being used to effectively grow the state parties, engage members of diverse constituencies and viewpoints. Increase voter distribution. And staff activists and candidates. That should substitute for c. Moved and seconded on the discussion, all those in favor indicate by raising your hand. Its unanimous. Any other amendments to section two . Just for clarification, this is on the added sheet of paper that was passed out, we didnt have an opportunity to discuss this. Sorry, theres two. The one that says under party reform page 13, page 3. Insert on line 28. That would be line 28. Section two, party reform. Page 13. A little more confusing . I would add, state party budgets must be transparent. Subject to, not pursuant to same dnc budgetary bylaws and amendments to the commissions reforms. Funds raised by and for the state party must be dispersed fairly with elected state Party Executive and or Budget Committees. If i can explain why i added this, im going to use my beautiful state of new york as an example. Where the executive committee in new york is sitting on the budget, theyre sitting on 30 million and they dont know where that money is going. I would second that. Discussion . Love the principle of this, the only problem is, state bartenders are not governed by the dnc doesnt govern state parties, anything we do here would basically not matter, in that sense for state parties. State parties all run autonom s autonomously. Im going to 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. They tend to have a unique arrangement, a unique makeup. So what happens in new york doesnt necessarily happen in maryland and doesnt necessarily happen, theres not a one sized fits all, which is why i think this would be even it would be difficult to implement first of all. Everybodys every state party is its own entity, this would not be practical to do that. So i would be a no on this. Just based on my experience in my own personal state. Jim . I would ask my colleagues to reconsider and to consider voting yes. We are making as we had this discussion before, were 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 should be transparent if that would be acceptable, then i would hope you could consider voting for it as an aspirational statement as democrats to democrats about how we feel their state parties should operate. Especially if we are engaged in the same pursuits. The assumption is that they arent. No, its its not. Lets finish, please. Were not making the statement that theyre not, were making the statement this that they should. There are some states that dont, rather than identifying which states arent, were making a general statement about how all of this should 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, if youen watt to have further decision. All those in favor of calling the question, indicate by raising your hand. Opposed . You have a count . I counted five quickly and six nos. Well vote again, sorry, i go quickly. All those in favor of calling the question, please indicate by raising your hand . Can we get one count . Is it 9 or 10 . Its not going to matter on this, its calling the. Owe those opposed to calling the question . Its been no, the question has been called. They voted to call the question. I got it. I got it. Okay, the question has been called. No. It needs two thirds of the vote to call so the discussion can is that right . Yes, you have to have 124. All right, the discussion continues. Different roberts rules than i used but thats okay. Just to respond to the earlier point about state parties, we are in every single section, weve been talking about recommendations to state parties. That is a major component to our work here. Now, we know very well, because we already set this up as a standard, that state parties have a choice, and that wouldnt be preferable but we have some things we can do through carrots and sticks to make sure that state parties. Its not just new york, quite a few state parties, theyre own executive committees. Were not talking about some sort of bernie versus hillary agenda, this is executive committees in several states have complained that they have no oversite over their budget, and you have democrats who are elected who have complained theyre not receiving assistance from their state parties, this is a common theme, we heard it during the dnc chairs race, i think it would be irresponsible of us not to actually try to say issue some sort of standard for state parties to issue the same rules that the dnc operates under. Of course, we can enforce this, we can only do carrots and sticks. Senator turner . Thank you, amen to what nomi had to say, and state parties are recognized by the dnc. And i just dont understand for the love of god why we would not want to or maybe in the name of transparency have state parties to do this. Now, the state parties who already do this, god bless them, theyre there, there are several state parties that do not do, with new york being one of the most egregious ones. State party budgets must be transparent. I dont know whats wrong with that, pursuant to the same budgetary bylaws, whats wrong with that . I mean, i just dont understand whats wrong with that . If because i dont live in that world, i dont i didnt experience that i want to be sensitive to those of you that do have that experience, if you could just explain to me, and maybe to us what that lack of transparency looks like, thats something that was not a part of how we operated in maryland, so it is foreign to me. I dont want to just poopoo it out of hand. Explain to me what the problems are in other areas, so that i can clearly understand what youre talking about. That would be helpful. Chairs, should i respond . Yes, go ahead. Ill speak on behalf of new york, i have heard about this in pennsylvania, new jersey and im sure there are other states, maybe other states in im not going to go into other states im aware of. I havent heard firsthand accounts from them. In new york, the dnc gives money to state parties. Or should be. Right . And we have no oversite of where that money is going. In new york, were sitting on 30 million raised off of democrats. Especially right now, we have a senate thats on the fence. And people are seconding money to the Democratic State party. Unfortunately, that money is not being allocated anywhere outside of the gubernatorial race. And thats partly because of the way the structure of the party is set up, they the executive committee in new york, many who were appointed under our governor are complaining that theyre not they have no they have a fiduciary duty to one party. They have no overview of where major finances are being allocated. Forget about where theyre coming from. What people do know, the state party is not giving money to any candidates across the state, especially at a time when new york is a state that is democratically controlled. Thats ill speak new york is the worst example usually, but there are other states that complain about having no budget oversight. Not necessarily where the money is coming from, but where its going. Demi, gus. Thanks, i can only speak to the state parties that ive worked with, and i think thats all of our back ground, so in nevada and colorado i think theyve dn a great job of being transparent. Within their process, their members. I think one of the things, if there are problematic state parties, its important we work within their structure, just a few things. I think it would be hard for us to consider state parties are not fully funded by the dnc. They shouldnt be held fully by our recommendations, the other part is, i know youve mentioned carrots and sticks, in my been we have a lot more carrots to give them, and were far from that before we Start Talking about sticks. The reforms have been to strengthen the state parties, and this is one of those places that for the individual state parties, we should try to work within those state parties as members, talking to their officers. Lastly, its my understanding that all party reports are now public. Ive been a lot of people ask me a lot of questions, because of the long history in the civil rights 37 its down in brazils book. What are we talking about oversight when she says that hillary went back obama did it four years before that. Without oversight how could that happen . Nobody has even brought that up or something. Maybe these things arent connected. I dont know. When were talking about state parties, it seems to me they are. And why are we dancing around it . I dont want to repeat what other people said, the dnc has a tremendous amount of leverage in state parties to make them behave in certain ways. I dont think theres anything wrong with saying its an aspirational statement, they should be running a transparent way. Some are, some arent. We should aspire for all of them to behave in that way. I would be supporting that amendme amendment. I think the message we send by voting against this is not going to be helpful to the various goal the very goal we have of making state and National Parties accountable and transparent. And this is not the time for us to start advocating states rights, we believe as a party in setting aspirational goals, this is an instance where were saying not that all parties are bad, but that all parties from our perspective as a National Party ought to operate in an accountable and transparent way. I dont see the down side here as much as i see the upside of setting goals like the goals for affirmative action that we set, that we hope parties will operate, theres no were not proposing an enforcement mechanism here, were proposing a goal, an as spurational goal, i would encourage everyone to vote for it. Chair im sorry, we have one person ahead of you. Chair . He called on me directly. Oh, he did. I dont view it as one of the other strengthening the National Party are one in the same. Of all the reforms we talked about here, a vast majority of them falls on the states, but what we havent talked about is also giving them more resources, were giving them responsibilities, were giving them reforms, we want to give them accountability and we havent talked about resources. My opinion, they are one in the same. And im just coming from the perspective of being in the states, working with state parties and seeing the incredible work that they do. And the need for for support. The only thing i wanted to add, just as im looking at this, the flag i see is a practical concern about whether or not the state parties are actually be holden to dnc, but i so for my point of view, one suggestion i would make is maybe to look at that first line, which currently says state party budgets must be transparent. One consideration saying, state budget should be transparent. Getting at again aspiration ali, there should be some way to have transparency, guidelines that theyre following, not saying it must be the same as the dnc, and flankly that as evettes pointing out, states require different guidelines based on the types of states and programs they have. Thats a potential compromise position. Is that acceptable to you . I would accept that. If i can add, first of. To respond to one of emmys points earlier. Where moneys being spent. I think we have to keep in mind here, for the dnc itself, the executive officers have a fiscal response a few dush yairry responsibility. What does it serve them to look at filings after the fact. Whats important is knowing where that money is being spent prior and having a conversation about it, with people who are privy to that. Its not with the public. Its not even with maybe all the voting members of the state. It would be with the people who have a fiduciary responsibility. They should have a conversation about where major contracts or money is being allocated. Im going to ask the chair to read it again. State party budgets should be transparent and subject to similar guidelines as the dnc is that a substitute for the entire yes, its a substitute for the amendment in full. Now its the chairs amendment. Further discussion on the chairs amendment . The questions been called, all those in favor of calling the question . Indicate by raising your hand . Theres two sentences here, youre saying that one sentence would replace the eng tirety of whats here . And, okay. Thats correct. Well read it again before we vote. Were calling the question, all those in favor of calling the question, raise your hand. Down hands, opposed. The questions been called. Were going to read the amendment again by the chair. Please, microphone. Thank you, larry. State party budgets should be transparent and similar to guideline guidelines. Were voting on that chair substitute. All those in favor of the amendment, please indicate by raising your hand. Down hands . Opposed. One opposed. Noted. Its adopted. Further amendments to section 2. Supporting the growing state parties, increasing grassroots participation. Seeing nun, i turn it back to the chair. Are we voting on the whole thing now . Were voting on that section. Sorry, different than before. Hold on one second. Were working on it right now. Thank you. Theres one more amendment. Are you sure . Im sure. Its kind of confusing. Page 14. This is with the other addendum sheet of paper. Page 14 after line nine, after e, before section 3, state party chairs must be nominated and elected by state Party Members and slate nominations endorsements in elections are undemocratic, each position should be nominated and voted on by the greater body. I move to strike must be and move it to should be . And where it says shall be nominated, should be nominated. This will go at the bottom of section 2 . Correct. I will second that. This will become f, cen willy . Correct . Where did you go . Is it a stand alone or an add in. Its a stand alone f, correct . Correct. Why does it say our do you mean undemocratic . Can you read it again . Because theres a grammatical problem i think. I mean for party positions. Is that the question . Chair, vice chair, the executive committees, you know you need to say cant have you cant have a slate. Oh. Thats the impact of it. Why not . Because you can have a slate, you cant do it in one shot. In one shot, exactly. Can you just read it again . It still seems awkward. Okay. State party chairs should be nominated and elected by state Party Members and slate nominations should be nominated and voted on by the greater body. I reason proi pose thpose this, of basically saying here are my 25 executive Committee Members and vice chairs, vote on them all at once, oftentimes that prevents other people from feeling comfortable for rising up and saying i would like to run for vice chair, i would like to run for committee, executive committee and they go at odds with each other. But it doesnt prevent them from doing that if they choose to do it, right . I mean, just because the governor anoints people, it doesnt prevent someone from stepping up and saying that they want to run. Right . Technically, no, but theres a history in some states where there have been motions denied or ignored. People cannot be nominated, theyre quieted. I know in our state, it isnt a problem, again. Rhett me once again, im going to speak for my own experience, just as youre 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 place. So, for example, gender balance. If the chair is female, the vice chair is blah, blah, brought. But also in maryland, we go by region. Right . So we have to have a representative from prince georges county. Someone from montgomery county, someone, blah, blah, blah. We do that. And then we its gamed out that way. Sometimes people do get together from different regions because they can put a slate together that satisfies that geographic consideration as well as the gender consideration and they decide that they want to run together because they check all of the boktss. Other times, they dont, but that often leaves a hole that needs to be filled because if you have too many people from one region, and no