tv Democratic National Committee Unity Reform Commission Meeting Part 2 CSPAN December 11, 2017 5:24pm-8:03pm EST
up to point out the security is doing what it was doing according to the hotel. we are recessing for lunch, and we will come back in a short amount of time once we have fed ourselves. thank you. we're going to get started even though we don't have all the commission members. we do have a quarum. thank you everyone for taking a break and coming back with us opinion we are going to continue we 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. i'd like to highlight the key areas we're 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 we're 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, we're 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 i'd 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. >> i'll move the section as written. i would just add, if you will much of this wasn't discussed in any of our meetings i think it's 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. we're 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? >> we're 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. it's unanimous. >> any other amendments to section two? >> just for clarification, this is on the added sheet of paper that was passed out, we didn't have an opportunity to discuss this. sorry, there's 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 commission's 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, i'm going to use my beautiful state of new york as an example. where the executive committee in new york is sitting on the budget, they're sitting on $30 million and they don't 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 doesn't govern state parties, anything we do here would basically not matter, in that sense for state parties. state parties all run autonom s autonomously. i'm 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 make-up. so what happens in new york doesn't necessarily happen in
maryland and doesn't necessarily happen, there's not a one sized fits all, which is why i think this would be even -- it would be difficult to implement first of all. everybody's -- 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, we're 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 aren't. >> no, it's -- >> it's not. >> let's finish, please. we're not making the statement that they're not, we're making the statement this that they should. there are some states that don't, rather than identifying which states aren't, we're 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, that's 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.
we'll 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? >> it's not going to matter on this, it's calling the. owe those opposed to calling the question? it's 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 12-4. >> all right, the discussion continues. different roberts rules than i
used but that's okay. >> just to respond to the earlier point about state parties, we are in every single section, we've 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 wouldn't be preferable but we have some things we can do through carrots and sticks to make sure that state parties. it's not just new york, quite a few state parties, they're own executive committees. we're 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 they're not receiving assistance from their state parties, this is a common theme, we heard it during the dnc chair's 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 don't 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, they're 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 don't know what's wrong with that, pursuant to the same budgetary bylaws, what's wrong with that? i mean, i just don't understand what's wrong with that? >> if -- because i don't live in
that world, i don't -- i didn't 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, that's something that was not a part of how we operated in maryland, so it is foreign to me. i don't want to just poo-poo it out of hand. explain to me what the problems are in other areas, so that i can clearly understand what you're talking about. that would be helpful. >> chairs, should i respond? >> yes, go ahead. >> i'll speak on behalf of new york, i have heard about this in pennsylvania, new jersey and i'm sure there are other states, maybe other states in -- i'm not going to go into other states i'm aware of. i haven't 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, we're sitting on $30 million raised off of democrats. especially right now, we have a senate that's 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 that's 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 they're 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 they're 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.
that's -- i'll 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 it's going. >> demi, gus. >> thanks, i can only speak to the state parties that i've worked with, and i think that's all of our back ground, so in nevada and colorado i think they've dn a great job of being transparent. within their process, their members. i think one of the things, if there are problematic state parties, it's 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 shouldn't be held fully by our recommendations, the other part is, i know you've mentioned carrots and sticks, in my been we have a lot more carrots to give them, and we're 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, it's my understanding that all party reports are now public. >> i've been -- a lot of people ask me a lot of questions, because of the long history in the civil rights 37 it's down in brazil's 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 aren't connected. i don't know. when we're talking about state parties, it seems to me they are. and why are we dancing around it? >> i don't 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 don't think there's anything wrong with saying its an aspirational statement, they should be running a transparent way. some are, some aren't. 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 we're 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 don't 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, there's no -- we're not proposing an enforcement mechanism here, we're proposing a goal, an as spurational goal, i would encourage everyone to vote for it. >> chair -- >> i'm sorry, we have one person ahead of you. >> chair? >> he called on me directly. >> oh, he did. >>. >> i don't 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 haven't talked about is also giving them more resources, we're giving them responsibilities, we're giving them reforms, we want to give them accountability and we haven't talked about resources. my opinion, they are one in the same. and i'm 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 i'm 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 they're following, not saying it must be the same as the dnc, and flankly that as evette's pointing out, state's require different guidelines based on the types of states and programs they have. that's a potential compromise position. >> is that acceptable to you? >> i would accept that. >> if i can add, first of. >> to respond to one of emmy's points earlier. where money's 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. what's important is knowing where that money is being spent prior and having a conversation about it, with people who are privy to that. it's not with the public. it's 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. >> i'm 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, it's a substitute for the amendment in full. >> now it's the chair's
amendment. >> further discussion on the chair's amendment? the question's been called, all those in favor of calling the question? indicate by raising your hand? >>. >> there's two sentences here, you're saying that one sentence would replace the eng tirety of what's here? and, okay. >> that's correct. >> we'll read it again before we vote. >> we're calling the question, all those in favor of calling the question, raise your hand. down hands, opposed. >> the question's been called. >> we're 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. >> we're voting on that chair substitute. all those in favor of the amendment, please indicate by raising your hand.
down hands? opposed. >> one opposed. noted. it's 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? >> we're voting on that section. >> sorry, different than before. >> hold on one second. >> we're working on it right now. >> thank you. >> there's one more amendment. >> are you sure? >> i'm sure. it's 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. >> it's a stand alone f,
correct? >> correct. >> why does it say our >> do you mean undemocratic? >> can you read it again? because there's 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 can't have -- >> you can't have a slate. >> oh. that's the impact of it. >> why not? >> because -- >> you can have a slate, you can't 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 doesn't prevent them from doing that if they choose to do it, right? i mean, just because the governor anoints people, it doesn't prevent someone from stepping up and saying that they want to run. right? >> technically, no, but there's a history in some states where there have been motions denied or ignored. people cannot be nominated, they're quieted. i know in our state, it isn't a problem, again. >> rhett me once again, i'm going to speak for my own experience, just as you're 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 george's county. someone from montgomery county, someone, blah, blah, blah. we do that. and then we -- it's 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 don't, but that 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 sneeded in determining and reaching out to those people.
i just want to be sure that we're not hamstringing the state party, also making sure that just because, which i think is healthy, if the governor anoints people, i think people should have the right to rise up and say, it's not going to be that way so i'm just trying to understand will those pieces stay in place? i'm not saying yes or no, i'm trying to understand. >> so when i added the language, each position shall be nominated and voted on by the greater body, i think that would refer to situation where individuals create their own slates rather than the governor creating a slate and, you know, it's cu cultur cultural. through a little bit of intimidation. we have to be clear about that. it's intimidating, you know, the secretary, if the secretary is there as a choice of the governor, and they're in charge
of what motions get put forward and whonominated, what comes up for debate, in a lot of cases, itst be's been documente our state, conversation has been shut down. jeff, you remember this very well in new york. does anybody else have any similar -- i know jane had mentioned some stuff earlier. >> yeah, i'm just going to take people as they raise their hands. that's okay. so jeff berman. >> yeah, i just wanted it sh. >> anybody else, raise your hand, i'll put you on the list. >> maybe ask jim -- jim rooseve roosevelt, we already have a prolix on official slates. >> well -- >> somewhere in the rules. >> if this is for state party positions, we don't typically have -- other than the -- of delegate selection plans, we don't typically have rules regarding selection of state party officers. >> right. >> many states do have -- massachusetts has a prohibition of official slates, but it's not -- that doesn't come from the dnc.
>> i'm sorry, that's what i meant, each state is different so the way ours is set out doesn't come officially from the dnc and, you know, it's in our bylaws as to how we want to allocate those individual seats. i'm just concerned with this being dnc language when each state operates differently. that's whey i raise the question. >> jim zogby? >> once again, 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 that we don't vote it down? that's what i would be looking for. i think that we understand that there are undemocratic practices that have been in place, and we want to find a way to make the precedents one of our mandates is to build the party, grow the party and get more people involved? the party. it becomes quite discouraging in some states where there is no entree to the party. and it becomes a close -- not
your state, but there are other states that are. and, therefore, the question is, how do we structure this requirement or better -- this goal that elections be open. that they be encouraged greater participation. that they create opportunities for people to run and do not feel intimidated. it is, let's be honest, when the governor proproses the 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're not fulfilling, i think our mandate of growing the party, so if we can find language that works there, i would be more than happy to consider that. >> maya? >> i just wanted to clarify
something because i thought what i heard from yvette -- >> sorry, hold on, can you close your mike? can you close your mike? >> i wanted to clarify, i thought one thing i was hearing, yvette describing what happens in maryland, it didn't sound like it was inherently undemocratic to have a slate come forward. so that was also what is kind of -- was objectionable to you about this language, given that in some contexts, this late process actually works and it ends up being more inclusive because of the way your state operates. >> that's -- >> okay. >> if i can clarify, that is actually faults under this. that's a nominated slate. maybe i'm open to including the language, official slates are -- must be nominated by state party members and endorsements and
elections that are official, official slate nominations meaning coming from a superior. >> i just want to clarify because it's helpful to hear for the people who actually have been in the state party system but it sounded like there are states that don't want that process that have actually decided to not allow official slates. there are some states that have chosen because they don't like that process. they've chosen to ban it and other states like your state, perhaps, has chosen not -- has chosen to allow it and so that what you're saying is to let the states decide in what context slate nominations work for them and in what context it doesn't work for them. as opposed to provide -- doing an overall -- okay. i just wanted to clarify. >> congresswoman? >> i'd just like to say this. i know there are obviously some problems in new york, but i don't think we should let any one state determine decisions that are going to be made for the 50 states.
so i think it's important that we understand that there should be some level of autonomy to state parties. now, i think if there's a problem in new york or california, which tend to run our party, the decision should be made to change them in new york and california. not that we impose our will upon state parties that are not having any problems at all. >> jane? >> so i think -- i know where this is coming from because i've seen it -- and it's also at the national dnc level, too, right, web when we have a democratic president, it's pro forma that president then appoints the dnc chair which some people think is not right and there should always be elections. so these are, like, coming kind of from the same place. i would recommend language that would say, state party chair should be nominated and elected by state party members, period. the dnc discourages slate nominations.çó >> official or just state
nominations? >> just the dnc discourages slate nominations. that's what we do, right? we discourage slate nominations. >> no, we don't, we actually don't discourage slate nominations. some states prohibit official slates. >> talking about the dnc level. i'm saying if it's good for the dnc level, that's all -- >> at the dnc level, we don't have slate nominations, per se, except for the specific things that are specified for the chairman to submit a slate for it such as the executive committee. >> and what was happening at the last meeting, like, with regai n regional caucuses, there was a lot of pushback within each of the bodies that slate nominations are undemocratic. i mean, it was happening in each of the regional caucuses. >> i have jim, anyone else wishing to speak? jim? >> yeah, look, i -- it's not just new york. there are other states that have problems here.
understand, and 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. and so this is setting ans aspirational goal. i fear that the language that's being used, that we don't tell states what to do, i mean, we all remember the georgia delegation of back when. when we told states what to do because, in fact, we set diversity goals and desegregation goals and that was an important part of defining who we are as a party. or simply sayi ining here, let' have a goal that we set for state parties that says your party should be inclusive. your party should actually allow and encourage people to join, run, and be officers in your party, and not engage in practices that discourage that -- that involvement. that's it. i don't think this is imposing a
burden as much as it is setting a very desirable goal. >> so, so, having been involved in a state party most of my adult life, i will say that for very major things where you're electing 60 people at once, if you don't slate, you actually create a situation where people have to sit at a meeting for 12 hours while different nominations happen. so this idea that, like, slating is inherently bad, it's actually anti-democratic not to let people vote efficiently. and so i've seen plenty of situations where if you didn't slate, you would literally there for four days. so i reject this. >> can i clarify the language? >> there's a -- >> i think the language is very confusing right now. i'm proposing in spirit of inclusivity state party chairs should be nominated and elect by state party members and official slate nominations. i want to clarify official, meaning coming from the
governor. which you have the right as individuals as individuals to create your own slate. >> you get to vote, but let her. are you finished? okay. anybody else? we have a motion to call a question. question's been called. all those in favor of calling a question indicate by raising your hand. >> it's close. okay. >> okay. the question's been called. two-thirds motion. excuse me? >> you have to take the no votes in order to know that you got two-thirds. >> oh, there were two people left. anybody wishing to call no on calling the question? i understand that, i also know how to count, though. okay. question's been called. so you want to restate your motion? so people know what it says now?
this is an amendment that would be add eed as "f" on number two >> in spirit of inclusivity, state party chairs should be nominated and elected by state party members and official slate nominations, endorsements and elections are undemocratic and each position should be nominated and voted on by the greater body. >> okay. you've heard the amendment. all those in favor of the amendment as read, please indicate by raising your hand. opposed by a like sign. you have the names? >> only doing names -- >> okay.
>> we're not doing it on amendments. it was on the final votes. >> right. >> point of inquiry, final votes for sections, total sections? >> individual sections. >> i'm sorry, okay. >> so just not on the amendments -- >> the amendments to the sections. correct. >> are there know oaany other amendments? are there any other amendments? >> on section 2. >> yeah, i understand. are there any other amendments on section 2? >> we're now voting through -- >> can you put it up, please? >> yes. thank you. we start with "a" -- >> right. >> now we're voting on the lettered items "a," "b," "c," "d," "e" consecutively.
on paragraph 2, number "a." the party should encourage all democrats to participate in all party affairs and should take steps to educate and inform activists on the process to run for leadership positions throughout the party infrastructure at all levels. okay. all those in favor of "a" as read, please indicate by raising your hand. down hands. opposed? >> you have to give them -- >> yeah. i'll slow down. >> and -- >> okay. "b" as amended, state party budget should be transparent. >> oh, wait i'm sorry. i thought we were voting on -- >> no. we're voting on -- >> oh. >> okay. it's unanimous. that's fine. it's confusing. okay. we're on "b."
"b," as amended, state party budget should be transparent and subject to similar guidelines as the dnc budgetary bylaws and amendments to this commission's reforms. it's "b" as amended. >> we already voted on the amendment, so -- >> it's okay. >> so anything that's amended have been updated and it's on the screen and it's in bold and underline. >> okay. so this is "b" as amended. you have to look at the screen, not at anything printed. i'm going to read it again. you guys -- thank you. state party budget should be transparent and subject to similar guidelines as the dnc
budget tear budgetary bylaws and amendments to this commission's reform. plural. okay. all those in favor of "b" as read, please indicate by raising your hands. all in favor of as read, raise your hand, please. unanimous. we're on "c." "c" here is different from "c" there. >> okay. it's not underlined. >> no, because you added -- >> it's fine. >> -- a new amendment, no, on "b." >> i got it. yep. >> i'll explain it for everyone else. >> go ahead. no, go ahead. >> so now the lettering is off from what you're seeing on your paper because we inserted a new letter so everyone should now be working off the screen in terms of the letter, itself. >> so, yeah, the content of the old "b" is the new "c."
yes. how's that? that sounds like netflix. yeah. inside story. the commission recommends that the increase 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 hand. unanimous. okay. the new "d," this is amended from the old "c." the new "d" at the same time, the dnc, asdc, 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 organizing staff and institutionalized training for staff, activists and candidates. "d," as amended. all those in favor indicate by raising your hand. unanimous. okay. "e." this is the old "d" and it's not amended so i can read it from the paper. i don't 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 effecti effective, organizing in their respective states. okay. "e," prior "d." all those in favor indicate by raising your hand. hands up down there.unanimously.
thank you. a little bit directive but that's okay. [ laughter ] >> okay. "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 dnc shall review and monitor all state party procedures to ensure that they are fair, open and transparent. in no case should the path to party leadership be longer than one year following the election of state delegates. the election of state delegates
should 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. >> thank you, larry. okay. moving on, we are going to go to the next section which is operating in a manner that is open and transparent. that's true, but i'm the chair so i don't have to call on you.
okay. so as we have reached section, there's a summary that leads into this section and the headline is operating in a manner that is open and transparent. i believe that there is an amendment on the summary of the section and i will now call on the lovely jim zogby. >> madam chair, i have language to propose that is up on the screen. the dnc's charter bylaws currently updated with
is. >> for the commissioners and public, i have an amendment that was put into one large paragraph. based on earlier debate, we split it up, we changed language and split it up into three parts. >> it goes where? >> below "a." it will be "b," "c" and "d." >> this would be three new recommendations. >> all related but three new recommendations. >> what page? >> i'm sorry. page 1. >> page 14. >> line 174. >> page 14. >> line 17. between "a" and "b." under "a" -- there should be a regular review of the charter and bylaws and then it would insert "b," "c" and "d." >> this is for commission, this is from number 24. previously. that is now being broken up into three new recommendations.
>> if that's where it is, should we -- are we going to vote on a "a," then, the "a," because this would go after "a." >> okay. apologize that there's 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 1 section 7 and is modeled from best practices of other entities or government legislative bodies. >> why don't you do all three? >> all three? okay. the new "c" would be the expansion of the charter's conflict of interests clause should be understood to apply directly to any persons who have voting privileges on areas of dnc governing, in parentheses,
for example, resolutions in leadership races. furthermore, the commission calls for a mechanism of accou t accountability and process if voter member has past, current, or future conflict of interest either disclosed or undisclosed. and -- >> i second. >> one more. they're not being voted on as a block but i'm going to read them as a block. it might be easier for you. okay. "d" is if a current voting dnc member or officer discloses, fails to disclose,a ióor is fou with a conflict, we call for the rules and bylaws committee to have a process in which that person with conflict rekuss themselves from leadership or voting and replace process is outlined. that's it. >> we will vote on these separately. we wanted to go through them so they're connected. we now open for discussion to elaine.
>> yes. i have a -- i'm 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 dnc governing, i.e., resolution, so does that mean that a labor union member on the dnc either from a state or at large cannot vote on a resolution saying, banning right to work. we have those all the time. what does it mean? >> what we it discussed earliers financial conflicts of interest. a labor union member would not be conducting, consulting, a vendor of the dnc. i'm assuming he wouldn't have to rekus himself. it would be, for instance, if someone was to put forward like happened the last meeting, a resolution banning lobbyists from the dnc, if you're a dnc
member who's a lobbyist, you clearly have a conflict of interest with that resolution that you're voting on. does that make sense? >> yeah, but that's awfully broad. >> i'm happy to clarify. >> yeah. >> you can plimagine lots of people who work as lobbyists. bad word, too. lobbyists for our causes. women's organizations, whatever. who are going to be at the dnc voting. i mean, i don't get what this is about. >> okay. this is standard practices for most non-profits and organizations, not about a lobbyist who works for a women's organization lobbying congress or lobbying the dnc. this is about if you have a financial interest or stake in the party's business, you are banned from voting on the party's business. >> why don't you say that? >> because i just pulled it straight from a non-profit. >> that's democratic institute language. >> in the context of the dnc,
that's going to cause all sorts of havoc because it means people can't vote on things they believe in because they happen to work for a group that is for that. i mean, i think you've got to say financial conflicts of interest. >> we did. the updated language says financial conflict of interest -- >> it -- >> they haven't updated that yet. >> it's updated. in "c," i don't think -- >> i asked to have that added. remember when we discussed it? >> not in "c." >> okay. so anywhere where a conflict of interest is labeled, we had added based on our previous meeting, apologi popologies to public, financial before that. >> we did. >> yeah. >> talk about it, anyway. >> we talked about it. just didn't make it in there. >> we should add it. there's people being paid by the dnc.
>> just a question. it says right now any person who has voting privileges on areas of dnc governing so delegates at the dnc convention actually have the ultimate governing authority of the dnc. so does that eliminate all delegates as well? just trying to understand the practical implications of this. >> i think practical implications are if you -- for instance, if you're going to use the convention delegates as an example, if you're a delegate who happens to have a contract with a presidential candidate, and/or the dnc, you should not be voting on the presidential process. that's standard for most organizations and congress. congress -- >> maya? >> doesn't -- just for clarification, i don't know if that's me or somebody else, doesn't the first one, which says the dnc should have a d
detailed financial conflict of interest policy, we're saying it should have that, and then it says -- and that it should expand on whatever is already there, meaning whatever is already there is not adequate. and it should then -- whatever the revisions are should modeled on best practices. so if it's -- if we're saying whatever -- if that's what your intent is there that it's going to be modeled on best practices and then the dnc 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," don't we want -- i thought the intent of the first was to guide that whole revision by what are best practices.
>> i'm not sure i completely understand the question, but when i first brought this forward and i 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. i'm happy to write something in here saying we send the specific language to the rules and bylaws or maybe we meet, you know, as jeff and jeff are meeting on a different cause, we meet to specify the language even more. but i think that financial conflicts of interest are pretty standard. >> that's what i'm getting -- i'm sorry. that's what i'm getting at, meaning that financial conflicts of interest are pretty standard, so why do we need to keep going in "c" and "d" if we're going to do it based on best practices under your "b"? >> best practice is outlining what the conflict of interest is. the mechanisms for accountability and the process is specific to the dnc, alone. so if we find out based on using the language of, you know, a
large non-profit or, say, you know, governing bodies, that somebody in the party has -- who's an executive committee member is making $10 million off the dnc, that's the -- that falls under "b." "c" and "d" are what happens when we find out that person has that conflict. do they recuse themselves, what is the process of recusal, does it go before the rules and bylaws committee? you know, a lot of what we're proposing in many other amendments has been, this is what we propose, this is how we hold that proposal, make that thing accountable, that proposal we're making, make sure there's 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 rbc. >> and so just to further understand that, that's helpful, but so that means what we're
saying is that whatever body is doing the review of the conflict of interest policy is not free to within looking at best practices and the application of best practices determine what the appropriate process and accou accountability measure is. >> we're mandate iing that. is that what you're saying? >> we're mandating that the y have a process. under "d" if a current voting dnc member discloses or is sound with the financial conflict, we call for the rbc rules and bylaws committee to have a process in which that person with the financial conflict recuses themselves from leadership and voting and replaces processes outlined. that doesn't exist right now. even though we have a policy, if we find out, there's no way of determining what happens as a result. >> okay. the question has been called so we're going to vote on calling the question.
>> are we going to vote afternoon these serially? >> yeah. we will. but first we have to vote on calling the question. >> all three or just one? >> to call the question on all three. >> voted on serially. >> exactly. yes. all those in favor, please raise your hand. we're calling the question. calling the question. okay. >> give us a chance here. are you participating? >> okay. >> 13-4. >> now everyone's up. it's unanimous. okay. so we're going to go to vote. we're going to vote on these individually. okay? so voting on "b," all those in favor, please raise your hands.
okay. unanimous on "b." now going to vote on "c." all those in favor, please raise your hands. one, two, three, four, five, six, seven. i have seven. okay. >> seven's right. >> seven. all those opposed, one, two, three, four, five, six, seven, eight. okay. and one abstained. okay. "c" failed. okay. we're going to vote on "d." all those in favor, please raise your hands. one, two, three, four, five. i have five. six. okay. oh, okay. that's fun. you got to eat.
i got you. six in favor. all those opposed, please raise your hands. four, five, six, seven, eight, nine. maya. okay. nine against. any abstention? jim. okay. okay. the motion -- the amendment f l failed. okay. additional amendments for the section. which is operating in a manner that is open and transparent. >> madam chair. >> yes, jim? >> i have an amendment on page 14 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 should be em popowered to hear complaints from presidential candidates, state parties and dnc members who have concerns that dnc officers, staff, or the body as a whole may not be adhering to provisions of our charters and bylaws. this ombudsman council should have five members. elected by the full dnc in an election in which each dnc member shall be entitled to vote for two candidates with the top five vote getters comprising the ombudsman council for a four-year term. and if i may after a second explain my purpose. >> i'll second it. >> purpose of the resolution is that there is in this current
"b," it recommends the development of a process to address violations and calls for the creation of an ombudsman council but it doesn't lay out either the mechanism how to create it nor does it lay out the mechanism of what its function should be. if we're going to set the goal of having a process to address violations, then it's imperative that a mechanism be established and i believe that the only appropriate way to establish a mechanism of this sort, ombudsman council, would be an election so that dnc 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?
>> i'm going to thank you, jim, for offering this. there's been a lot of -- question discussed various judicial mechanisms throughout the commission's 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, and i want to thank you for offering this moment to really clarify that and narrowing the scope so that, in fact, they are dealing only with questions of violations of the charter and bylaws. so i think actually this amendment adds a lot of teeth to the ombudsman council and narrows the scope appropriately so we don't have some council that's second guessing political judgements or spending decisions in terms of do we spend money in arizona or california or new york or some other place? i in ithink this really makes t stronger and makes the council's role clearly defined in terms of what it's going to address. thank you. >> sorry.
i'm going to oppose this because the it already provides for the rbc to develop a process and i think that we should leave it t rbc on how to develop a process on how to create this council. >> any additional discussion? >> yeah, if the rbc is an appointed body, which it is, then for it to develop a process sthat, itsel that, itself, is an appointed body does not reflect the membership as a whole of the dnc. this is a critically important committee that will be called upon to evaluate or to evaluate complaints from everything from presidential candidates to dnc members that are concerned about charter bylaw violations. 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 -- of the entire dnc. >> david? >> just to be clear, the rbc is fully elected by the dnc full membership. it's, yeah, it's authorized and at the end of the day, elected by the entire dnc membership as it was -- as it was just a few months ago. >> that's not fully accurate. just like it's not fully accurate to say that the dnc elects the 75 at-large members. and so i'm happy to have that debate. let's have that debate and dig into it because you can't say, please, send us recommendations on who the 75 at-large members are and consider that a nomination because that's not. and there wasn't proper notice to the dnc members on how you actually nominate somebody for an at-large member.
i would have certainly put myself fwoord for t myself forward for the rules and bylaws committee but i was never given that opportunity. i would be happy to go toe to toe to get votes from my fellow dnc members to serve on that committee. >> i want to come back to the amendment for a second. i just want to ask a question. so to jeff's point that the first half of your addition, it gives some clarity on what exactly the ombudsman council would be adhering to. 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 -- from my standpoint, those are, you know, maybe we're in a situation of an "a" and "b" but i think the clarity is helpful on what its purview is supposed to be. you know, i think the question of how it should be built a 5
and where it comes from might be harder for some people to feel like they might want to vote for that because that might be something to go to the rbc to kind of determine. i just put that out there to say that could be a consideration that maybe we can take half of this and not all of this, if we can't -- >> it would be unacceptable. i'm sorry to say. because frankly the lange wang as it currently exists calls for the rbc to create this committee. that's already there. the point is that that's not an acceptable approach. it really needs to be an open election process that involves the dnc membership and to build on what jane kreeb just said, we were asked to nominate ourselves if we wanted to run for dnc positions. many people did. many state chairs offered names.
those names and nominations went into the ether and we were presented simply with a slate as if no one else had nominated themselves so you can't claim to have a nominating process and have it be an election when you're basically given a piece of paper and it's an up/down vote on those names. yes, again, you could have nominated yourself from the floor but couldn't nominate yourself from the floor because it was a seven-day deadline and people, while they had submitted their names in advance of the seven days, there was no official record of that. so no notice of that. so let's 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. my argument to this group before was if you look at the stories that we've gotten over the last
year, every one of those could have been avoided if we 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, et cetera. we could have solved those internally but we didn't. the only way they actually got adjudicated was in the press. we could have avoided that by creating an internatione inineie 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 don't 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. so simply saying create one, has the rbc created, does not meet the requirement that i'm calling for here. >> mrkts aya is next, and jim,
off your mike. >> hey, jim, i think your point is well taken about how we could have adjudicated some of these things internally if we had a mechanism for doing that during the presidential campaign as somebody who was intimately involved with many of those disputes. and i do -- i'm not quite sure what the objection is, i don't know if it's your whole amendment or after your amendment, but are people concerned that they don't want it to be mandated to be elected by the dnc? are they concerned about the particular election mechanism that he has described? i think what you want is to outline the first sentence the sort of scope of its authority and the second sentence to make sure that it's elected by the dnc as opposed to an appointed body. right? >> names and -- >> right. given the role it's going to perform, i think it makes sense we don't have an appointed body. if you have an appointed body that then is passing judgment on
the conduct of the person that they -- just appointed them, that puts them in a difficult situation. so i don't know, people would be open to loosening the language in the second just to ensure that it's an elected body without all the specifics about voting for two out of five and what have you. i think we probably -- people would be open to talking about that. i do think that the first part of yours is limbiiting the scop laying out the skcope and make sure it's elected versus appointed is -- i support both of those. i would charge people to work together to try to get a resolution that works. >> just for clarificatioclarifi would -- how would this council be formed? i mean, would people nominate themselves? would they sign up to run and run a campaign like we, you know, we just went through? is that your vision for how this would work? i'm just trying to figure out where we would get the people from that we would actually -- how would that work? >> we spr two whave two ways of this. in the past, you get names on a
piece of paper and vote up/down which is what we've done. or what we did at the last meeting when we elected chair 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 dnc 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. 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. i think that it doesn't hurt us at all to engage in that process. yes, it would be an open election process.
>> go ahead. >> does anybody have any language that they're willing to put in this other than what the chair recommended to make this work? i think it's clear that we all realize there's a lack of accountability, you know, completely transparent and open voting processes in this party. we've been addressing this for the last nine months. i'm in favor of this, i don't know how jen feels but i think we'd be open to suggestions. i know we didn't have an u opportunity to discuss this backstage, so i'm open to ideas. >> we can table this if we think -- >> think about it and make the language clearer and how the progress would work for the people that -- >> motion to table? >> yes. >> motion to table. >> needs a second.
>> we're tabling the discussion of the amendment to "b" so that we can see if we can work through some language. >> didn't we vote on "b"? >> no. >> we -- i think we should table the whole thing. >> so we'll table both "b" and the amendment. do i have a second? thank you. okay. all those in favor of tabling. okay. we're tabling. still in operating in a manner that is open and transparent. any additional amendments to be brought before the commission? i'd like to start with jim zogby. >> if you like the last one, you will love this one.
in what is currently listed as "c," there is a section which i'm going to read. it says that the commission was informed of concerns about level of transparency with budgetary processes at the dnc. currently, there is a budget and finance committee that is tasked with providing, in quotes, busine this is from the actual bylaws of the party. annual reports to the executive committee and full democratic national committee on the goals, purposes, of expenditures and results of expenditures and staff. end of quote. the commission recognizes that the dnc 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. i am moving to insert instead
of, currently there is a budget and finance committee that is tasked with providing whatever. i'm inserting instead a financial oversight committee should be created in order to ensure that the dnc fulfills its bylaw requirements that the dnc shall receive, in quotes, annual reports on the goals, purposes of expenditure, and results of expenditures in staff. this body should be elected by the full dnc, allowing for adequate representation by the state chairs, regional caucuses, and the parties' caucuses and councils. i also want to remove that sentence that follows that says, "the commission recognizes the dnc budget is a strategic document and recommends there be increased transparency and accountability so members are informed on the financial status of the party since financi" sin
status of the party is not called for in the bylaws. it's not the financial status, but the goals, purposes of expenditure and results of expenditure and staff. and so i encourage support for this creation of a financial oversight committee that will fulfill our bylaw requirement and the body be elected by the full dnc. >> do we have a second? can i ask a point of clarification. so would the financial oversight committee take over for or replace the budget and finance committee? >> i do not know what the budget and finance committee does, but what i do know is that what's 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, it is very
difficult to give the responsibility of oversight on the expenditures made by the chair to a committee that is appointed by the chair. it's the optics of it dustjust t work. to have full transparency, if that's what we're looking for here, 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 current budget and finance committee. the mechanisms are yet to be worked out. the oversight body has to be independent and that's what we do not currently have. >> okay. i saw nomi then maya. >> two points, if open to this, perhaps recommending the current budget committee be elected so
that we have -- maybe we can condense the two committees if that's an issue of just background noise. the second point i'd like to make is, we learned through donna brazile, former chairwoman's 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 checks. she wasn't aware of the checks being signed and we also learned through the dnc chair debate that executive committee members were not aware of these funds being allocated during the presidential primary and general election. now what does that mean legally? that means the people have a 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, they're held, that means they're responsible and they had no idea. i would also urge and somehow put this into this 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 it's completely inappropriate for funds to be given out without any -- i mean, the person who knew was the treasurer and the executive director. as far as we know. and nobody else. and this isn't one of those things where you go back and look at the filings. this is called we need to know before the mess happens and it's not just filings, money gets call ka allocated in different worlds that are not put through files in fec. so one more thing i'll add to that is there's been a lot of conversation over the past few months about vendors and, you know, 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. i mean, it wasn't all the dnc. i think a lot of dnc members,
dnc party chairs, who are looking for money, who have been starved 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 don't get in a messy scenario where the people who have the fiduciary responsibilities of the party are completely left out in the dwa ta dark about where the money is going. >> maya? >> i just -- i just want to -- because i'm a little bit confused by this, which is it sounded like we don't know what the budget and finance committee does but we're possibly maybe replacing something that it may be currently doing. with this language. so i just -- that's -- i wanted to clarify that because it sounded like jim said he didn't know what they'd do, but in any event, we need something. so that's just -- i mean, it would -- i don't know, it seems like -- >> sure. >> -- it would be useful to actually be knowledgeable about what they're doing before we
decide to do something different because it may already be encompassed in thard roeir role hasn't been carried out or something? som in some instance. that was so that's a different problem to solve for. so that was just one point meaning on the question of the implementation of it rules. the second thing was it sounded like you said we needed a report. and i can that's what's in the ornl seat. it calls for a public report including vendors, in terms of how money for vendors was spent. i just wanted to clarify. >> do you want to go first? okay, i just wanted to say, maya, thank you for that. but the issue -- i've been on the dnc for 26 years, and i've been on the executive committee
now for 16. and i might be mistaken and maybe missed the meeting but i have never gotten a report of the goals, purposes of pex penditures and results of expenditures and staff. never seen it. that being the case the result of what the committee does, does not fulfill the mandate that is laid out in the bylaws of the party, which is we receive that report annually. we do not. we got the aspiration, the bylaws so we should get it. we don't have the mechanism to do it. with regard to -- i mean there is such a thing as getting -- we do get some kinds of power point, we got this much money. but that's not the same as a -- the kind of requirements that are laid out in the bylaws. it doesn't 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 fec report will tell you how much money got spent, but it will not evaluate that and give the dnc which as a baud a, which ought toby a governing body the opportunity to explain did that actually work. so i'm asking for a group elected by the body that evaluate postmortem does this work or doesn't it work. has the budget expenditures fulfilled the goals that were setout? otherwise why are we hiring the same vendors back again. so it's that process. so yes, maya, there is a current committee. i don't know what they do, but i do know one thing.
that is 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 tugboat in the newspaper. i called every 1 of the vice chairs and asked them when the decision was made. none of them knew the decision had been made. i called the treasurer and he said i found out about it the same way you did, reading the newspaper. the absence of postmortem oversight leads to kinds of situations we get into because there's no accountability. i believe it is absolutely critical to do so. >> congresswoman. >> okay, i'm going to try to stay in my two minutes. let me first say since you don't know what the committee does, you never made a dammed for them
to give you anything. i've been on many boards, organizations, executive committees. if i have a question, i ask it. i say this is your responsibility, do it. but since you don't even know what they do, you've never asked them for it. so i think we first need to work with the structure and make sure the people who are empowered to do it, do it. we all have a fudishiary responsibility. it would responsible of us to protect ourselves by asking the question. i don't think we can continue to solve a problem that we've not even addressed. >> congresswoman, i have asked for that. >> from the budget committee? you said you don't even know what they do. >> i've asked for the fulfillment. i've asked the chairs for that.
i've asked the vice chairs for that. i've asked the chair for that. >> i would suggest to you if that is the body and you don't know what they're doing, i don't know either, let's ask what they do and find out that information. let me finish. i believe that you are entitled to it. i believe we're all entitled to it. but i don't think it's incombt of us even within our purview to sit here and decide every little way the dnc should be changed. that's not our karj. our charge is to say this is how we think we're going to better the institution by broadening our base, the four things we have here. i think we're outside of our purview, and i think we've gone too far. >> we have elena. >> jim, i'm sympathetic with this because i know having served, worked the dnc and been close to it for a long time, when you have an incumbent president, when you have an
incumbent guvmer, when you have an elected official who's the head of the party, the party becomes less transparent by far. and we certainly saw that during the obama years. much as i love him for many other things, he did not lead this party well. let's face it. and even think he knows it now and have said things that indicate that. but i'm not sure that we need to do this. i think we have a budget committee. i think it's empowered. i think it's in the charter. i think the executive committee has a lot of authority, has a lot of ability to get this information. they didn't respond to you. that was wrong, but frankly i don't see how this fixes it. okay, i just don't. i think it's one more layer of bureaucracy in a situation that, yes, has gone wrong from time to time. it always does. we should fix it. there's no doubt about it. i don't think this fixes it,
though. >> nomi is next and then jeff, jayne, and elle. >> so we spent the last year talking about how we're going to empower this party. and the dnc chair has raised, we heard almost every single state chair complain they were not receiving the resource, the support, and we lost like 1,100 seats now for the past nine years because those state parties weren't funded. if the executive committee were aware of the budget and if the state chairs had some sort of report that was little bit more detailed of the budget, i think a lot of these questions would have been brought up after the firstt first shellacking, not after the first, the fourth, the fifth. i do think it's in our commission here to deal with the
budgetary issues. i might be wrong here but i seem to recall we just learned about the budget committee, that many people didn't even know it existed. you do because you're on the rules committee. you guys are on the rules committee. two people here who are on the rules committee knew about the budget committee. jim -- okay, we'll go back to that. i will be curious to see. i've heard from several executive members they were unaware they knew the budgetary committee existed, what the reports were, and they asked these questions. so if the burdens on had executive committee was to ask these questions and therapy unaware that checks were being allocated and this was brought up publicly, i don't know who that comes down to. does it goes down to the rules and bylaws, does it go to the chair? the budget committee that we don't know when they meet, what they're meeting about, who's on it, it's a mysterious committee
and we just have to be real. we've barely talked about the budget committee. so that's number two. the last thing is, you know, it's 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. you have all these people that want to run for office now and have no resources to do so. but it's also open bid contracts. we've been talking about this endlessly. there's 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 had come through the budget process, we might not be in those situations time and time again. so i am a firm believer that this budgetary process, no it's
not going to be revealed to everybody in the process, but it should at least be put before the executive committee and the mysterious bubblingt committee, who i have no idea when they meet, who's on it. maybe some of you did. but i've heard from a lot of people they didn't know it existed until they were on the charter. >> 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 they should do what they're already required to do. and so it doesn't -- to me it doesn't necessarily -- it doesn't make sense to me if we have a committee that's 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 it's supposed to do doesn't sound -- and most of us apparently, we don't know much about this committee including the people who were working on this subgroup, which i was not one. so i'm not sure, you know, if we're sufficiently well-informed to do it. >> hold on. i'm sorry, but we have seven people in line to talk and i want to give everybody the opportunity. >> his amendment is being represented as something it is not. i don't think. i want to hear from him, is that the correct characterization of his amendment? >> hold on. if jim can clarify to that
point. >> jeff, i know people on the budget committee. i asked them what is the charge of this committee, and they told me i don't know, i just got appointed and it wasn't made clear, number one. number two, i got no feedback from the subgroup about these proposals. and therefore at this point in time for all of a sudden for it to now be this huge controversy. i was told why we don't need it, but i believe we do need it. i'm not asking for this committee that i'm proposing to duplicate. i'm 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. 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. but -- let me be clear here, too. the bucket and finance committee is appointed by the chair. the issues, if you would, the problems that we're discussing are problems some of which begin with the chair. and therefore you can't expect that committee, which is appointed by the chair, to have that kind of oversight function. it's 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 councils of the parties. it is a critical one. so i urge you to please consider doing it because i think it'll
make our party more trance parent, more democratic, and it'll make us stronger. >> for the purposes of just clarification, we have the language here of the budget and finance committee. so i'm not -- that's not to put an opinion either way. it's just to read what it says in the bylaws everyone has here. yeah, we can put it up on the screen. so for the budget and finance committee shall be composed of the treasure, the national finance chair, not more than nine other members of the national democratic committee who have training and experience in finance and management. with full consultation of the chair person of the dnc, review on an ongoing basis, include periodical reports and the full dnc on the goals, purposes of expenditures and results of expenditures of the dnc and its staff. you getting there? >> we're close. >> the budget and the finance
committee shall working with the national chair person, chief financial officer, and counsel develop and present to the executive committee policies and procedures with respect to contracting and procurement of goodies and services by the democratic national committee including affirmative action policies and avoidance of conflicts of interest. meetings shall not be subject to provisions of article 9, section 12 of the charter. is all the rest of this part of it, too? it goes all the way down to "i"? okay, so now we can kind of see that up there. put that's the language that is in there, which obviously as we discussed addresses some of the pieces that it should be doing. whether it is or not, that's the language that's in there. so going back to list of folks who raised their hands, it is now jayne who's up. >> thank you, chairwoman. i think a couple of things why
we need this and whether we table this and get better language in place which can move this further along i think is critical. but three reasons why i think this is needed. one, i've been on the dnc for a year. i've never seen a bunlt. two, i went to a budget and finance committee meeting hoping i could then see the budget and hear discussion about the meeting. and 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 haven't dnc members seen it, he pointed to the fec reports. and the fec reports are different than a budget and different than what our rules and bylaws say the budget committee should be doing. so i think there's 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. >> amy is next. >> just a few things as i know it. one is according to what you said here in the charter, also what i saw in las vegas, all meetings for the bunlt and exswrek committee are open to dnc members and publicized. the new ceo at the dnc did walk through the budget in las vegas for dnc members. well, i can only tell you what i know. i was not a dnc member at the time. i can omtell you what i know. and so that's one thing. i think the other thing is that -- but still it stands they're all open, publicized to
dnc members who want to attend. the other thing is we don't control budgets for other campaigns even if they are democratic campaigns. we at the dnc, dnc members, dnc bylaws. i know you noted in alabama, it's just true that the dnc has very little decision making process for those campaigns or ability. i think the other thing is that we've been talking a lot since we first met in may, and there's been i think a lot of evolution with the new dnc, with chairman perez, with deputy chair keith elson, and a lot of things we want to see. $1.5 million in virginia. there's a new exec board, a new budget committee. we've got to give them that chance. we're not even in a new year for the administration and we're barely in a a new month for the new dnc 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 it's being shown to the budget and exec committee. >> and i'd like to move to table this resolution. okay, fine, fine. >> it won't take but a second because this may be a solution. first of all, i do need to clear up it's not a secret committee. the budget and finance committee for dnc members only meet at every dnc meeting. the meeting was in vegas from 3:00 until 4:00, and they have a budget committee meeting. whether they're doing what they're supposed to be doing at the meeting is not the issue. they meet at every meeting. now, what they do there, that's not the issue. but i can't just let that sit out there, that it's a secret committee that nobody knows anything about.
now, the other thing that could have happen asked not making excuses, because obviously there's some deficiencies there if we're having this discussion. but could have happened at that meeting that you attended, that group was being moved out. that group that you saw at that friday meeting was carry over. so my suggestion would be if that's correct, jim, they were transitioning out and the new people were being voted and seated at the meeting. we have the opportunity now to work with them and to restructure it in a way that is responsive to what we are requesting rather than add another layer of bureaucracy. why not work as the congress woman says within the structure that we have? we have these mandates and things that we would like to see done. why don't we work within the structure that we have, with the recommendations that we have, hold them accountable based on
what we're telling we need from them, and give them the opportunity to respond. then if we find that doesn't work, then we add that extra layer of bureaucracy. let's give these people a chance with guidelines from us of what we'd like to see. that would be my recommendation. and let's see if we can move forward that way. >> do we have a motion at the table? >> do you still have something to say? >> is it my turn now? >> sure. >> i mean, i hear all of that. but dr. zogby, 16 years, 25 years. even though there was new people transitioning in, transiging out, that doesn't abjuicate the people from that moment to do that to their point. we can't keep making excuses why this party has not been trance
parent. so the bottom line is some folks weren't doing their job and they were able to get away with it all this time. you had vice chair woman and then interim chair donna brazile saying she hadn't seen this stuff. i don't understand why we cannot agree that the dnc members, it's not about giving secrets out to the other side. the secret is already out. there are no secrets about this. the people internal to the dnc should know how that money is being spent. chair woman just said the chair woman said to a reporter just today when he was asked a question about why the finance budget committee does not have this stuff, and he said they can pull it from the fec. there's something wrong. he said that today.
and if he said that today, then again there's a crisis in the dnc right now that we need to solve. and then just even bringing up the russian dossier, for example, when the question was called who spent the money, everybody said i don't know. well, how in god's name does $9 million get spent on a research of that magnitude and nobody from the clinton campaign to the didn't knows how $9 million was spent? again, we have a crisis in the city. and i don't think we should wait for this. i understand exactly where dr. zogby is going. and so it's up to us to police ourselves and make sure we have accountability and transparency to make it back to the party. obviously that body was not doing its job and our job to get unity is to give reform. and part of those reforms that are necessary is to know where that money is going. not out in the open so folks can
get the secret but even people internal to the dnc, who have been working for the dnc and democratic causes for years don't even know how this money is being spent. >> mayor newport. >> we were all appointed in the unity reform committee. this dnc has been hemorrhaging money since 2012, big money. i've heard from different people that the budget that gets -- is treat bide the lobbyists. you can nod your heads and say this is all laid out and described in the bylaws and feel good about it, but what the hell good is it if it doesn't have checks and balance snz you're educated people. you're supposed to know better. that's pretty stupid to respond like that. and democrat it if we can't do it right, because people who
want to be part of the democratic party are asking these questions. now it's factual. you can say we can cleanup and go back, hell, i wouldn't want you all running no corporation for me. let's deal with it. if we're going to reform, we're going to cleanup things, we want to get more money into the state parties, then let's do the right thing rather than covering up our asses for something that -- >> nomi is next on the line. >> okay, this smells. this doesn't just smell to the public right now that the pudbut of the party -- forget about the budgetary committee for a second. put before the commission of responsibility. whether it's donna brazile, or over half the executive
committee right there who had no idea where the money was going. with joint fund-raising agreements, state parties weren't being funded. during the dnc chair emphasis race there were some state parties chair who said -- how are you supposed to rebuild the party if you have no idea where that money was spent? we're talking about $700 million to $8 million being spent on consultants. the dnc chair is upset, the officers are upset. i did go to the meeting. it was 15 minutes long, and it was a pie chart that was put on-screen. 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 out in the public by dnc members
is what are you going to do about the budget? it is absolutely ridiculous we are going to keep a status quo system when it basically says we're going to lose 1,200 seats. let me describe what it looks like. let's break that down a little bit. if you're in arizona and you have a pregnancy, you can't go to a planned parenthood clinic because it's gone, because that state ledgislature is lost. investing in local parties, and that is our fault because we have put that money to the top five consultants. and part of that has to go to that conflicts of interest. this is outrageous, unethical,
outrageous and frankly it's -- excuse me, corruption. i advise -- i'm sorry here. i adveez that it be an elected budget and finance committee. we have very clear standards of oversight. and that is not just looking at past budgets but putting forth a budget for debate with the people that have fudishiary responsibility in that room so they can find out is this an open bid contract. because congresswoman fudge mentioned it doesn't for to do with vendors. well the majority of the budget goes to vendors. so we have to have a conversation about who are those vendors. i think what's key is that that committee has oversight and it is elected. because right now these committees are staffed with whoever the chair decides is on the committee. i don't know what the chair's
interests are because he's in chair for eight months. i don't know who he's in line with. but we don't have time. we have a freak in the white house and state legislator is controlled by republicans and poor state party chairs, having gogo out there and fund raise on her own fwhauz democratic party is not able to on her own. and suffers as a result, the american people. people they rounded up by i.c.e. let's keep this enpin perspecti here. it's a duty to the dnc members, the executive committee members, and the people have a fudishiary responsibility. >> you had your hands up. >> this resolution. this issue is very important and
important to me personally. i do not want to lose it. i do want to have a vote and lose it. nor do i want to see it gutted to the point where it is meaningless. but i do think that it is possible that we table it now and have serious discussions and come back with a resolution that accomplishes what i want to accomplish with a mechanism that is democratic and has the correct oversight process. congresswoman fudge has indicated an interest in this, and i'd 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. i think it would be damaging if we lose it -- it's just the principle i'm looking at. it's our party. i don't want our party to go on
record opposing finance transparency. andiodon't think we want to do that. i think the majority of us would want to have a resolution that works. we just have to come up with the language that makes everybody happy. i'm happy to table this now and see if we can do this tonight or tomorrow to come up with language. >> you move it to table? all those in favor of tabling? it's unanimous. thank you. we are still in amendments to this section, which is operating in a manner that is open and transparent. jane. >> 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. i think we should define what regular review is, if it's every
two years, every four years. i think there should be some type of time commitment on that. there's no paper i just -- >> so are you making a specific recommendation? >> i am. i'm just saying there should be a regular review, comma, every four years, comma, of the charter and bylaws. >> discussion. okay, seeing no discussion we can move to a vote. all those in favor of amending "a," please raise your hand. unanimous. the amendment was adopted. and the second thing i wanted to bring up because the conversation was flowing so fast, it was on "b." so so i don't know if there was other written amendments on this, because this is one area i feel so strongly about.
because a dnc member i found it shocking that i wouldn't be able to run for a committee, that all of those were appointed by the chair. and i think that that needs to be reformed moving forward. and i think simple language in here could open that up so then many of us because i've been talking with jim roosevelt about this. if it simply said nomnations, process, and deadlines for nominations should include -- so everything else would be the same. but i think the nominations process is not clear. nobody really knows what it is and/or it's all done by the chair. and i just think that is unfair. it's unfair, its undemocratic. so if you're not good friends with the chair, then you're essentially screw. you don't get any committees you may want to serve in your leadership position. so i think that "b" should say nominations process and -- and the rest is the same. because that should be laid out
clearly. i have already told mr. roosevelt i plan on coming to the rules and bylaws committee to suggest a clear language gets established for all committee positions including at large. it would just say nominations, process and -- >> but where in there? >> on ba"b." >> can you read the full sentence? >> line 24. it would say nominations, process and notice on deadlines for nomngz should include dnc positions, et cetera. so it's just adding those three words, nomination, process and. >> any discussion? >> i second it. >> okay.
so just for the sake of clarity, can you read the full sentence that you want, how you want it to read? >> okay, so it should say the nomination, process and notice for nomination should include all dnc positions including at large members and committee members. >> do you have that? we're just going to put it up on the screen. i'm getting tired, so things are not as clear. jane, does that look right to you? >> yep, looks great. >> okay, so seeing no discussion we'll move to a vote. all those in favor of the amendment please raise your
hands. it's unanimous. the amendment is adopted. >> jane's very happy. >> okay, we are still in operating in a manner that is open and transparent. yes, any additional amendments the commission wants to bring up? >> okay, give me a second. on page 15, line 22, which is under "g." >> what number is it? >> that is same -- >> number 28. >> 28, excuse me. so this is 28 from the amendments document which is referencing page 15, line 22, which is "g."
>> right. okay, now i have to find it myself. so line 22, after the sentence that ends these agreements, nonofficers or nondnc officials in parentheses including staff or other personnel or consultants, end parentheses, may not privately place in the tegty by signing nonauthorized contracts, end parentheses, without prior knowledge and affirmation by the dnc chair and executive committee. i think this is pretty standard. the chair is executive committee should know if nonauthorized contracts being signed. if it didn't go before the budgetary committee for instance, this could be a simple contract but it to have some kind of authorization process. >> so for clarification, so this
is saying that any contract the dnc is signing must go through the chair and executive committee before it is signed? >> the chair or the executive committee. >> change that to and. >> i'll say or. and i'm happy to say over $25,000. bigger? i mean if you're in the middle of a presidential cycle, you don't think the chair should have -- the executive director should be deciding contracts? that's a duty. i mean the executive director -- i'm pulling this from recent reporting. okay, so we'll say "or." >> you just made two edits, so
reread. >> nonofficers or nondnc officials including staff or other personnel and consultants may not privately place the integrity of the dnc in jepper die without prior knowledge and affirmation by the dnc or executive committee. i am going to say by signing non-authorized contracts, end parentheses, over -- do you want to negotiate on this? >> it sounded like, but i'm not sure, that jen -- can you hear me? you can't hear me? it sounded like, jen, you restated what this says but in the affirmative. meaning the conditions under which contacts could be signed,
and i'm just wondering if that might be clearer to do it that way as opposed to all the in the negatives. does that make sense? that's what i'm saying it sounded like that, so that was confusing to me, too. it sounded like you were trying to honor the intent but stated in the affirmative and concisely. >> an easier way to do that would be any contracts over $25,000 must be approved through the dnc chair or the executive committee before signing. >> correct. and in addition to the staff part because it's not just contracts but staff in addition to the contract. i would say staff members, senior staff members. if an incoming chair and executive committee does not know which staff -- >> but it's not referred to on -- >> including staff or other
personnel consultants. >> reading this, it just looks like they're not allowed to make decisions on behalf of the dnc. but what you're saying is you want to add in senior staff and contracts must be approve bide the dnc chair or the executive committee and contracts over $25,000? >> yes. >> so adding hiring. >> yeah, hiring senior staff. yeah, exactly. >> jeff berman? >> we're kind of doing this on the fly here. a lot of us aren't really familiar with the current process or what is reasonable thresho threshold in terms of a normal authorizing process. i guess i'm wondering -- and i'm not hostile necessarily to the
content. whether we shouldn't also table a list to figure out if we were going to address it, how would we do that. >> i'm happy to. >> jim roosevelt, do you have some -- >> i have a couple of words things on the table that i can be on that process. >> so do we have a motion to table? >> yeah, i move to table. >> all those in favor of tabling? okay, it's unanimous. we will table this amendment. we'll be tabling "g," all of "g" and also this amendment. okay, we are still indeed operating in a manner that is open and transparent. i feel like we're getting there.
so do we have any additional amendments? jorge? >> so i would like to add an amendment, line 15, page 22, the dnc member will not serve more than two four-year terms. i believe that in an effort to make sure we're continuing to diversify our party, to bring new blood in dnc members should be aware at some point they should step aside and bring someone else onto help train them, serve in that capacity so we can continue to bring new ideas into the dns. and that's not discounting any of the folks that have served for a really long time on the dnc and their work. but it's really an effort as we're building a pipeline, these people need to be filled into a specific role. >> and so this would be a new amendment -- a new recommendation that would be added in, essentially letter "i"
or whatever letter we're on at this point but not any accommodation to another recommendation. any discussion? >> i just have a couple of questions actually. i'm naught hostile to this. i want to make sure i understand it. so someone on the state party chair would get two terms as a the state party chair, is that right? i'm just asking. i'm not hostile. i just want to understand how it works, right? did you mean at larges or -- >> or do you mean everybody? >> the intention was everybody, but i could look at it. i didn't think of state party chairs, but even that would be something that'd be open to thinking through. >> i just want to understand. >> jim zogby had a question.
>> i'm going to oppose this. and it's not because i've been on the dnc this long but because when i got on the dnc, i mean look i think back over the years of people i've known including the person to my left people like herald and don fowler, these were folks of whom i learned a great deal and would sometimes disagree. but they were people who were there in kind of an active mentoring role for new people coming on. i was one of the new guys coming on. the rotation is actually quite significant, the number of people who come in and out, we have an at large capacity to increase diversity, and that's the role that it plays. and states that we've seen that actually have these term limit situations, become quite ciotic because there is no one then with historic memory. basically what happens then is
that something i've been concerned about and with all due respect to staff, when you do this power then resides in staff. not in the folks who actually served, know how the situation operates. and frankly am concerned about that. so i'm going to oppose it, and i encourage all of you to oppose it, too. i think we have do not a lot of vehicles for new people, we do have new people coming in. and i don't want to lose the folks who have made a difference in my life and the folks of other lives of people mentoring them. >> elaine. >> i'm going to oppose this, too. one of the reasons i've always been opposed to term limit legislators, is you give power to lobbyists. you've got in there who are new and don't understand the nuances of things, so they have to rely
more on outsiders. so i do think there's a value in letting there be at least some part of a body that has experience. i agree with jim. i don't think your proposal that we talked about before actually solves the problem you're discussing, i do think you are identifying what has been a very big problem with the democratic national committee for all of the years that i've been associated with it. and it is particularly bad when there are incumbent presidents. and this is in in fact different, and let me just say this because i hate to admit this, but there's 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. it is more of a professional staff. they control their vendors.
they put limits -- i mean it's 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 didn't 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 don't think your proposal is going to do that, jim. but i just want to congratulate you on identifying that.
>> jim roosevelt was next. the jims are together. got you. nomi. >> i have to give a compliment to many of these commission members who i've learned from these past nine months. i have learned so much, forgive my for lack of a better term, the elders in the room who have far more experience than i do. but it's been so powerful. and at a time when my generation as we know -- we went over these numbers already -- is fleeing the democratic party. i feel as if i have weapons now because i have this institutional -- you know you've been incredibly helpful in understanding where we've been. when elaine at our first meeting went through where do super
delegates come from, when did our primaries start to shift? she was there in the beginning, montana hunt commission. i read about you were there. that is so important. it is so important for our institution to have some sort of muscle memory. you know, when did we lose our way? we only know that either through reading history or by having people in the dnc who can say 30 years ago consultants didn't used to own this party, 20 years ago they didn't control this party. the budget used to be operating differently. i only know that by talking to the elder statesman of the democratic party. the second thing i want to add to that is, and i will have to vote against this because of that. there are very strong provisions in terms of diversity, and there are elections. and they're actually decent elections when it comes to dnc membership. i say that coming from a state that probably has the worst situation.
and this is probably the most vibrant rael electoral process. >> jorge. >> so i think just a couple of things on this. no one's saying you can't ever get kicked out or talk to anyone again. these people are still going to be around. they can still be called on for some things. all i'm saying is at some point they need to transfer that information to someone else so when they're done and want to retire, there's someone there to fill the slot. we also can't spend these last how many hours railing on the dnc and how terrible it is and say oh, all of a sudden we need to keep everybody there, it's great. so i just want to be clear they can never talk to anyone again. we can still involve them. they could still be part of things. i'm just saying, dnc members, they could come and give
presentations. we heard from a lot of people who were former dnc members. i learned from a lot of people on the commission that aren't dnc member, too. >> maya. >> two things. one is a clarifying point and the other is an amendment suggestion to the amendment. the clarifying point is under what you're proposing, jorge, since this wouldn't start until 2020, that means people who are on now would finish out whatever their terms are which are another three years, plus they could be reappointed two more times. so basically anybody who's on the current committee could get 11 years theoretically before the term limit system would kick in on them, is that right? >> yes. >> okay, i just wanted to clarify that. and the second is i wanted to
proe propose an amendment. yes, it's a given you don't have to talk to anyone ever again. obviously you can go to someone who's been on the committee before. but probably the amount of time people might spend on it might be less if they're not actually on the committee itself, that means they're willingness to participate actively and give you all their knowledge. so the suggested amendment would be to say will not nerve more than two consecutive four-year terms. meaning that so you get some turn over and would get new voices and new opportunities in but that you wouldn't, like, have let's say 30 years or whatever. which it sounded like that's what you were trying to get that. anyway, if that's clear i'm proposing that amendment. >> i'm good with that.
>> second. >> is there any objection to that? jorge, you don't have an objection? >> i don't have an objection to the amendment because it goes to jorge, it's a friendly amendment, i suppose. but it doesn't address the issue that was talked about in terms of when you create this imposed artificial rotation you strip the body of its collective memory and of those who are the bearers of that memory and you dissempower. i would say in michigan, for example, the state legislator is in chaos. it's two terms now, and the result is they simply aren't a functioning body as they ought to pea. and while i agree that we do have problems who don't know when to go home. and i assure you i'm leaving that the end of this election cycle -- >> that's not binding.
>> no, but the point is i wasn't going to stay until senator sanders asked me to participate in this. and i said damn it, the 26 years i've seen, i want to try and make it better in my final shot. so it's not about me. it's the fact the body itself cannot be subject to this imposed artificial rotation. it doesn't help. >> okay, so i want to just stick to the amendment first. >> it sounds like that's going to pass, but i just want to clarify the intent of that amendment doesn't mean you can't come back. you can come back and reinstitute. i mean 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 to be in. so i just want to clarify it was to allow for new people to not be banned from serving again.
>> do you want to accept that or -- so we're going to adjust this to say two consecutive four-year terms. and then, jorge, do you want to add anything else since you had your hand raised? >> yeah, so i think this is perfect example. jim you may be done at the end of the year. so all that institutional knowledge is leaving with you. and we're not going to have that. that's the theory. but i still think you're going to be involved with the dnc. i think most of the people here, is your plan to be here for another year, another 13 years, that's pretty much what i propose. i understand there's institutional knowledge, and that's great. but you're talking about a large time frame here. and at some point we need to be thinking about what that next generation is be very intentional that they have that knowledge. >> senator turner. >> thank you, madam chair.
i do agree with having some time of plan in place where we can learn from the more seasoned people who have been around and seen these fights. but just limiting somebody's tenure on the dnc doesn't necessarily assure that we will have a transition plan at all. so i do understand where you're going. i just feel like if we are -- and not presupposing this on jorge, but i've seen this in other places. to what dr. zogby had to say, i served on the ohio legislator and they imposed term limits. and the power went to lobbyists and bureaucrats instead of the people who were elected. and i feel like the same thing could happen in the dnc. but we're going to take the bitwer the sweet do people transition out and understand when they serve in these roles have an obligation to the body
politic within the democratic party inself to take somebody under their wings, to do some susection planning. but limiting people's terms doesn't mean we're going to have secession planning. if we all live long enough, we're going to be 60, 70, 80, 90, and i don't think we should throw away our elders and even more seasoned people. because people with the knowledge necessarily -- they could have started very young and still be 40 or 50 and still be on the dnc for 10 years or 15 years. so i think we have to be very careful with that. to quote somebody greater than myself, dr. martin luther king, jr. said longevity has its place. so whether it's within the dnc or outside the dnc 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 millennials if they're blessed will be 50 one day, and will be 60 and the generation behind them will be saying get out of here. so there's always a generation ahead of us and a generation behind us. so if the point is susection plan, let's talk about secession planning. but let's not artificially kick people off the dnc. >> okay, to senator turner, we have a line of three people that have comments. so if it's direct to senator turner, i will allow it. but if it's not you have to get in line. weave three people over here that are all speaking. >> i'll be quick. i just want to know who you're
talking about in terms of rotating off the dnc. because in addition to chair and vice chairs automatic to the dnc, you have people that ran, that were elected by their states to be national committee. if that's the will of the people of their state to continue to represent them, like the senator said, if you're talk about term limits are you going to come into my state to say you can only let your person serve two terms and then you have to do that across the board. i'm not sure that's what you really want to get into, dictating to states what, those are the kinds of things you would need to figure out. >> it's not that. it's easier to run if you're an incumbe incumbent. if you know the process and you're the only one that knows the process and not creating an opportunity for other people to run it makes it easier. really educated folks on how to run to be a member. it hasn't really happened. it's something we're looking to address. i want to be sure that it
happens. the amendment is we're going have people come in and they come come back in if they want. it's not consecutive. >> the only thing i would caution with that is in some states people don't step up to run because, let's be honest, it's expensive to do this. sometimes people don't have the resources to go to the meetings. we do all this at our own expense when we come to meetings and when we attend. we have some kind of arbitrary. this is the way it's going to be. that would be my suggestion. >> major newport.
>> i've seen term limitations happen in variety of places at state level, municipal and whatever else. i would also remind you something that elaine said the republicans are much more organized in many ways than we are. ronald reagan came to power after he had been governor in california. i think we need some transition but it needs to be thought out. when i got elected, i ran against a two term incumbent. i got drafted. he wasn't in sync with the people. we do need young blood but let's put together a total plan of what it should be before we jump
on that band wagon. >> i don't think this has anything to do with age or young blood. >> one example is had there not been turn over, we wouldn't have our first dreamer and member with the background, voice and that fight for so many of our communities. a few other things it increases the immediate for transition and mentorship, plans for sharing knowledge. it creates more points of entry within our democratic party. there's a lot of people with diverse backgrounds we saw in the 2016 election. a lot of new people who became engaged that maybe not had been
please raise your hand. one, two, three, four. four in favor. it's in there. all those opposed. amendment fails. i believe that was the last amendment. >> one more. >> there's one more. >> this is no brainer. you're all going to pass this one. >> okay. jim. >> we've already resolved 31, right? we did that. have to put the language in.
proposal 31. sorry. >> we are operating in manner that's open and transparent, that section. to we have any additional amendments for that section? d i do not believe so. his mike is on. do you have anything or you good, jim? okay. well done. we are going to vote through section three. we have -- okay. that's a format. okay. we have a number that we're tabling. as we go through we'll just highlight the ones that we're tabling. okay. so, for 3a, there should be a
regular review as amended every four years of the bylaws. i didn't mean to do it that way. this is an amended version of a. there should be a regular review every four years of the bylaws. all those in favor. unanimous. the amendment passes. okay. b. the lettering is different. we're voting on 2b. the commission calls for the formation of a detailed financial conflicts of interest poli policy. section 7 and is modelled from best practices of other entities or government legislative bodies. all those in favor, please raise
your hand. >> i believe jane went out for the bathroom. is it within our authority to call her back in? >> you can text her. >> we haven't had a bathroom break in five hours. >> we don't need a bathroom break for people to go. we're tabling this on the ombudsmen council. we'll come back tomorrow with updated language to discuss. the nominations process and notice on deadlines for nominations should include all dnc positions including at large
members and committee members. the chair will continue to nominate a slate. with problem notice any dnc member could nominate a slate. it should reflect the diverging views as well as the diversity of our members. all those in favor, please raise your hands. it's unanimous. e. we are tabling which is the discussion on budget and finance committee and budget stuff. f. the dcc charter and bylaws require neutrality to ensure that no candidate participating in our presidential no, ma'am thating process gains any unfair advantage real or perceived during our primary season. the commission recommends all agreements with the campaigns be transparent. all those in favor, please raise your hands. adopted. the commission recommends during a presidential cycle the party convene regular meetings with
representatives from each campaigns with all relevant information concerning the party's activity relating to the no, ma'am medicati nomination process is supplied in a uniform manner. all those in favor. it's unanimous. the discussion on whatever letter. it just went past me is tabled. okay. no such vendor or consultant shall participate on behalf of