We are going to get started. We do have a quorum. Thanks to everyone for taking a break and coming back with us. We are going to continue as we have spent the morning going through the next section, which is party reform. Party reform is a big section and obviously covers a lot of topics, so i would like to highlight the key areas. And then we are going to be voting and amending, amending and then voting each section. So instead of going through everything, we will go through section by section and make amendments and vote. The key elements that we will be focusing on this afternoon, are recommendations that are focused in the following areas, the first is making the party more competitive in all regions of the country, the second is supporting and growing state parties and increasing grassroots participation. The third is operating in a manner that is open and transparent. And ourth is strengthening inclusive participatory culture at the d. N. C. Fifth, building on the great diverse quit of our party. Sixth and seventh and protecting and promoteing the vote. For each of those sections we will stay focused on those sections as we go through amendments. And stick to a section and we will amend and vote and move onto the next section. So with that, we are going to move onto the first section which is making the party more competitive in all regions of the country. The commission believes that the d. N. C. Must update and enhance the way it operates in order to make our party competitive. There can be no off years and Grassroots Organization must be a high priority. 2020, redistricting is a top priority and one of the most important thing that democrats can run and win local electrics. Underneath that, we have a series of six different recommendations. So at this time, i would like to ask the commission if anyone has any amendments on the six recommendations that are under making the party more competitive in all regions of the country. I move the section as written. Second. Much of this wasnt discussed in any of our meetings but none of it is objectionable. Ts just fine. We are going to go vote through each one, ok . Can i suggest we vote on the block, one as a block. And i so move. We are going to vote on making the party more competitive in all regions of c, d and e as, b, a block. Those in favor say aye. Unanimous. Ection 1 is adopted. Section 2, supporting and growing state parties and increasing grassroots participation. State and local parties. We are supposed to be excited, engaged and empowered. So amendments for section 2 . We have an amendment we would like to offer and is it available to post . Can someone read it . We are going to put it on the screen. Online 33, at the end of that sentence, the line that starts with activists, we would for the page 13 commissioners. We would add, at the same time, asdc, which is the state party chairs and state parties agree that accountability metrics are put in place with such state Party Programs like the state innovation grants to ensure that the resources are being used to effectively grow the state parties, engage members of diverse constituencies and view points, increase Voter Registration, ensure sufficient organizing staff and institutionalized training for staff im sorry, i made a mistake, that should substitute end. And not go at the so moved and seconded. Discussion on the amendment . Seeing none. Hose in favor say aye. Its unanimous. Any other amendments to section 2 . Just for clarification, on the sheet of paper that was passed out, we didnt have an opportunity to discuss this. The one that says under party typo, page 13 page 3, nsert that would be line 28 section 2, party reform, page 13. We could make it more confusing. A little bit more confusing . I could translate it into greek. Party ld add state budgets must be transparent, subject to, not pursuant to the same budgetary bylaws and amendments to the commissions reform. Funds raised must be disbursed to endorse Democratic Candidates with elected state Party Candidates or Budget Committees approving allocation. I could use my beautiful state of new york. The executive committee in new york has not seen a budget and sitting on 30 million and not where that money is going. I would second that. And such thing called i. D. C. And we dont have a state senate that is democratic, major problem. Discussion . Love the principle of this. The only problem is state parties are not governed the d. N. C. Doesnt govern state parties so anything we do here would basically not matter. State parties all run autonomously to the d. N. C. So for that reason i have to say no on this one. I would agree with that and everything cannot be measured by the two states that are on the coasts. Ey tend to have a unique arrangement, unique makeup. So what happens in new york doesnt necessarily happen in maryland and doesnt this is not a one size fits all. It would be difficult to plement first all, because every state party is its own entity. And so this would not be practical to do that. O i would be a no on this. Just based on my experience in my own personal state. I would ask my colleagues to reconsider and consider voting yes. We are making as we had this discussion before, we are making an aspirational statement about what state parties should do. If you would accept a language change as a friendly amendment to say state party budgets about should be transparent, if that is acceptable, i would hope you would consider voting for it as an as pier asal statement from democrats to democrats especially if we are engaged but the assumption is that they arent. No. O. Without making the statement that theyre not, were making the statement they should and there are some states that dont and rather than identifying which states arent, we are making a general statement about how we feel all of it should operate. I hope you could support it with that friendly amendment. Question was called. Thats not debatable. You can vote yes or no. Those in favor say aye. By calling the question. Raise your hand. Opposed. He count is five quickly well vote again. All those in favor of calling the question, please raise your hands. S it nine or 10 . All those opposed to calling the question fl has been called. We voted to call the question. I got it. He question has been called big party budget must be transparent. Pursuant to the same d. N. C. Budgetary bylaws and amendment to this commissions reform. Whats wrong with that . I neen i just dont understand whats wrong with that. Because i dont live in that world, i didnt experience this and i want to be sensitive to those who do have that experience, so if you could explain to me and maybe to us what that lack of transparency has looked like because thats something that was not a part of how we operated in maryland. So it is foreign to me. It out want to poohpooh of hand, explain to me what the problems are in other areas so i can understand what you are talking about. That would be helpful. Should i respond . For instance, ill speak on behalf of new york and there are other states, maybe other states im not going to other states, i havent heard firsthand accounts. In new york, the d. N. C. Gives money to state parties or should be to state parties. And we have no oversight of where that money is going. In new york we are sitting on 30 million that is raised off of democrats in new york and maybe beyond and we have a senate that is on the fence and eople are sending money to the new York State Democratic Party maybe assuming we could win back that senate and that money isnt being allocated outside of the governors race and thats the way the structure of the party is set up. The executive committee in new york, many who were appointed under our governor are complaining that they have a fiduciary duty to the party. And they have no overview of where major finances are being allocated, forget where they are coming from. The state party is not giving any money to any candidate across the state when new york bub democraticically controlled and new york is the worst example usually. But there are other states that complain about having no budget oversight not where the money is coming from but where its going. The state parties i worked with and all of our background in nevada and colorado, they have been transparent, building strong infrastructure within the process with their members, local state members. One of the things that it is important to work within their structure. I think it would be hard for us to say state parties arent fully funded by the d. N. C. And shouldnt be held by our recommendations and i have more carrots to give before we Start Talking about sticks. And i think this is one of those places that individual state parties where there are problems we should try to work within the state parties as members talking to their officers and Voting Members to see what can be done. Lastly, its my understanding that all party reports are public. And so we can can go back and see where this money has been spent. I have been involved in olitics a long time. But a lot of people ask me a lot of questions because of my long history in civil rights and the question is on the table now from the left especially is book and said hillary got the money. Without oversight how could that happen and no one has brought that up. Maybe these things arent connected, i dont know. But talking about state parties and oversight, seems to me they are. And why are we dancing around it . Of e d. N. C. Has an amount leverage over state parties to make them behave in certain ways and impose requirements in terms of affirmative action. I dont think there is anything wrong as a statement that parties should be transparent way. Somer some arent. So i would be supporting the amendment. I think the message we send by voting against this is not going to be helpful to the goal we have of making state and National Parties accountable and transparent. This is not the time for us to advocate states rights. We believe in setting aspirational goals and this is an instance we are saying that not all parties are bad, but all parties from our perspective ought to operate in an accountable and it is setting goals like the goals for affirmative action that we hope parties will operate we are not proposing an enforcement mechanism but proposing a goal, n as pierational goal. I think of all the reforms we talked about here, the vast majority, primaries, caucuses, representation falls on the states. And giving them resources and giving them reforms and give them accountability and havent talked about resources. My opinion, they are one and the same and im coming from working in state parties and the incredible work they do and the need for more support. As im looking at this, the flag that i see is just a practical concern about whether or not the state parties are be holden to d. N. C. One suggestion i would make is look at that first one that says state party budgets must be transparent subject to the bylaws. One consideration might be nstead of that saying, state and bylaws and amendments to this commissions reform. Getting at as pirgsal neal and should be guidelines that they are following but not saying it must be the same as the d. N. C. And thats pointing out states requiring different guidelines based on the states andsed on t guidelines. That is a potential compromised position. I would accept that. And if i can add, i would definitely accept that language. Put thank you at the end of it . If you like. Just to respond to one of the points earlier about the information being public from the budget, i think we have to keep in mind here and even with the d. N. C. Itself, the executive officers have a fiscal a fiduciary responsibility, so if money is being allocated without them knowing, what does it serve them to look at the filings after the fact. It is important knowing where the money is being spent prior. We are people who are privy to that. Its not with the public and not with all the Voting Members of the state but the people who have a fiduciary responsibility and we should have conversation about where major money is being allocated in terms of candidates. Im going to ask the chair to read it again. We have a substitute amendment from the chair. State party budgets should be transparent and subject to similar guidelines inaudible] we are voting on that chairs substitute. All those in favor of the amendment. Raise your hands. One opposed noted. Its adopted. Further amendments to section 2, supporting growing state parties increasing grassroots participation. Sorry, theres one more and then his. Each position should be nominated and strike it must be and move it to should be and shall be nominated, should be nominated. Bottom of section 2 . Correct. I will second that. Where did you go . I lost you. Its a standalone, correct . Correct. And slate nominations, endorsements and elections are undemocratic and each position should be nominated and voted on by the greater body and the reason i propose this, instead of say, a governor or i mean it would be the governor traditionally saying here are my 25 executive Committee Members and vice chairs, vote on all of them at once, that prevents people saying i would like to run for vice chair or executive committee and does it prevent them from doing that if they choose to do it. Just because the governor annoints people it doesnt prevent someone from stepping up saying they want to run. Technically, but there have been motions or denied, people are quieted. In our state there is a problem again. Let me speak from my own experience because you are speaking from your experience in new york. When we have our officers as they are slated for the state party, there are certain considerations that go into play. O for example, if the chair is female and the vice chair is blah, blah, blah. We have to have a representative prince gomery county, georges county and then it is gamed out that way. Sometimes people get together from different regions because they can put a slate that has the gender consideration and decide if they want to run together because they check all of the boxes. Other times, they dont. But often leaves a hole that needs to be filled because if you have too many people from one region and nobody from the other region, so sometimes you know help is needed in determining and reaching out to those people. I just want to be sure we are not hamstringing the state party and also making sure that just because which i think is healthy if the governor annoints people, people should have the right to rise up. Im trying to understand how. His is going to work im trying to understand. When i added the language each position shall be nominated on and voted by the greater body and individuals create their own slates rather than the governor creating a slate. It is cultural. It is through intimidation. It is intimidating, the choice is there as a of the governor and they are in charge of what motions get put forward and what comes up for delate, in a lot of cases it has been documented. A lot have been shut down. Does anybody have any similar . Im going to take people to raise their hands. Eff. Maybe ask Jim Roosevelt, we already have prohibitions on official slates . If this is for state party positions, we dont typically have rules regarding selection of state party officers. Many states massachusetts a rohibition of official slates. Doesnt come from the d. N. C. And thats what i meant. Each state is different. The way ours is set out, it doesnt come officially from the d. N. C. But in our bylaws how we want to allocate those individual seats. Im just concerned with this being d. N. C. Language when each state operates differently. Thats why i raise the question. Jim . I think we have a principle here that is a good one and the question is how do we frame the language to make it acceptable so we dont vote it down. I think that we understand that there are undemocratic practices that have been in place and we want to find a way one of our mandates is to build the party, grow the party and get more people involved in the party. It becomes quite discouraging here there is no entray to the party. And therefore, the question is w do we structure this requirement or this goal that elections be open that they encourage greater participation. They create opportunities for people to run and not feel intimidated. When the governor proposes a slate, it is intimidating to challenge that from the floor. That should not be the case. It should be the case where the nominating process is open, understood and provides people an opportunity to get involved. Otherwise we arent fulfilling our mandate. If we can find language that works there, i would be more than happy to consider that. I just wanted to clarify something sorry, hold on. I wanted to clarify something. I thought one other thing i was hearing based on what was described in maryland, it didnt sound like it was inherently undemocratic to have a slate come forward and that is what was objectionable to you that given in some context, the slate process actually works and ends up being more inclusive because of the way your state operates. If i can clarify. That actually falls under this. Maybe im open to including the language official slate. That they are banned. State party chairs must be nominated and elected by state and helpful for the people who have been in the state party system, but it sounded like there are states that dont want that process that have actually decided to not allow did i hear that as well, there are some states that have chosen because they dont like that process, they have chosen to ban it and other states like your state perhaps has chosen to allow it. And so what youre saying is to let the states decide in what context slate nominations work for them and what context it doesnt work for them just wanted to clarify. I would like to say this. There are problems in new york, but i dont think one state can determine every decision to be made for the 50 states. There should be some level of autonomy to state parties. Now i think if there is a problem in new york or california which tend to grow on our party, the decision should be made to change them in new york and california and not impose our will on state parties that arent having any problems at all. I know where this is coming from. And talked about the national d. N. C. And democratic president and kind of pro forma that that president appoints the d. N. C. Chair. Kind of coming from the same place. I would recommend language that would say state party chairs should be elected by state Party Members. The d. N. C. Discourges slate nominations. E d. N. C. Discourages slate nominations . We do . We actually dont discourage slate nominations. Im saying if it is good at the d. N. C. Level. I mean we dont have slate nominations per se except for the specific things that are specified. There was a lot of pushback that slate nominations are undemocratic and was happening in each