The following is a repost of a statement that the Organizing Committee of the NYC-DSA Anti-War Working Group recently released:
We are frustrated and disappointed with NYC-DSA Steering Committee’s decision to seize control of the Anti-War Working Group’s Organizing Committee (AWWG OC) elections from the working group itself and announce chapterwide elections instead. We are also deeply disappointed by the Steering Committee’s cynical invocation of the US-Israel war on Iran as a justification for actively disorganizing the work that existing AWWG leaders and bodies are doing to end the war.
This is a coup attempt. Steering is attempting to replace existing leaders, who have sustained organizing in the working group over the past year, with candidates more politically sympathetic to them. But their factions have had virtually no involvement with AWWG and wouldn’t be able to win in an election among working group members, so Steering has no choice but to disregard AWWG bylaws and democratic precedent so they can ignore the will of working group membership.
On top of being profoundly disorganizing to the essential anti-imperialist work that AWWG leaders and members are carrying out, this decision is disrespectful to the democratic institutions of the chapter and runs counter to how we should be conducting ourselves as comrades and wielding power as socialists. Steering is abusing their power and weaponizing procedure to disempower organizers with whom they disagree with politically. If allowed to stand uncontested, this decision has grave implications not only for anti-war and anti-imperialist organizing within NYC-DSA, but for the very possibility of carrying out democratic, member-led work in DSA.
We urge NYC-DSA Steering Committee to reverse their decision and allow the Anti-War Working Group to carry out its own elections, in accordance with AWWG bylaws.
How did we get here?
The Anti-War Working Group held OC elections in February, in accordance with its bylaws. AWWG OC announced the election months in advance and repeatedly informed everyone of the eligibility criteria to apply and vote via meetings, chats and emails. The deadline to submit an application was the night before the February 16th GM.
There were 9 applications submitted. Of these 9, only 6 met the eligibility criteria, as laid out in the Working Group bylaws. The eligibility criteria were that, in order to be on OC, a person must 1) be an NYC-DSA member in good standing and 2) have attended at least 1 meeting of the Working Group in the past six months. The 3 candidates who, by their own admission, did not meet the eligibility criteria (i.e.had not attended 1 meeting of the Working Group in the past six months) were disqualified from running.
Elections were held with 6 candidates on the ballot that went out to 864 eligible voters who had RSVPd to attend an AWWG meeting or action in the past 6 months. Out of 129 votes cast, 40 were submitted blank. Even though the election was uncontested, candidates had to pass a 65% approval vote threshold according to AWWG bylaws. Because of the blank ballots, none of the candidates reached this threshold, though all received above 50% of the vote. Turnout was low due the fact that it was an uncontested election, with many members saying they did not submit a ballot for the candidates because they mistakenly assumed all 6 would be seated automatically. This gave the coordinated blank ballots disproportionate weight in the final result.
Due to the urgency of seating a new OC, and in accordance with precedent set by previous elections (where blank ballots had also been submitted and were allowed to be disregarded by Steering), the sitting AWWG OC voted unanimously to approve all 6 candidates for the new OC. These 6 candidates were announced as the new OC on 2/26. (According to AWWG bylaws, an OC can be anywhere from 5-9 members). Later that day, AWWG OC received an email from Steering informing us that no new OC could be seated because none of the candidates had passed the 65% approval threshold.
In light of Steering’s communication, AWWG OC announced on March 3rd that the election would be re-run in order to give candidates an opportunity to meet the approval threshold. The OC reopened applications and stated that anyone who had met the eligibility criteria by the time of the new election would be eligible to run. In effect, this would mean that the 3 previously disqualified candidates now qualified, since all had attended the February General Meeting at which candidates were discussed (after the nomination period closed). The election was set for March 10th and a virtual candidate forum was planned for that day.
The next day, Steering sent an email to the OC saying they were taking total control of Anti-War Working Group and canceling the March 10th election we had announced. Instead, Steering emailed all members of NYC-DSA announcing a chapterwide election with unspecified rules and solicited OC applications with no eligibility criteria, meaning any member of the chapter regardless of involvement in AWWG can run and vote for a new OC. They also informed AWWG OC that we are no longer in leadership positions effective immediately and threatened us with Code of Conduct violations if we did not comply with turning over all means of official working group organization and communication within 48 hours.
Political context
The NYC-DSA Steering Committee is dominated by members of Groundwork (GW) and Socialist Majority Caucus (SMC), and all 3 disqualified candidates from the last election are members of one of these caucuses. The election was brigaded and results are being challenged in retaliation for the disqualifications, which were, by the candidates’ own admission, entirely in accordance with the by-laws. In fact, AWWG OC would have been neglecting their duties by failing to disqualify these candidates.
But we all understand that this is not really a procedural issue. Steering Committee is using administrative technicalities as an excuse to undermine and harass AWWG leaders as a result of their longstanding frustration with pro-Palestine and other anti-imperialist organizing projects, which are generally spearheaded by members of caucuses that disagree with SMC and GW politically. They wrongly view these efforts as detrimental to their reformist project of aligning with liberal progressives to run electoral candidates and pass legislation.
In response to this legalistic harassment and undemocratic political maneuvering, we say that:
- Steering hides their partisanship behind proceduralism to achieve what is best for their factional ends, not the important anti-war organizing work in the chapter. If their factions cared about organizing in the working group in good faith, those candidates would have met the transparent and sensible definition of AWWG membership, therefore qualifying them to run in the February election and make their case to working group members openly.
- Steering’s targeting of us is unwarranted and unprecedented. Every working group elects leaders from among those actively organizing within it. For Steering to upend that norm sets a dangerous precedent for organizational democracy and working group autonomy in the chapter.
- Steering’s actions have had an objectively disorganizing impact on the working group and its leaders. At a time when the US is initiating a major war with Iran, starving Cuba and trying to overthrow their government, kidnapping president Maduro and attacking Venezuelan sovereignty, and continuing the genocide in Gaza, Steering has gridlocked the working group and prevented us from focusing on our anti-war work.
What you can do
The Anti-War Working Group has organized tirelessly in the chapter over the years, including for the Break the Chain Campaign, Arms Embargo Now Campaign, Not on Our Dime Act, Cuba City Council resolution, Uncommitted, Ceasefire Now mobilizations, student encampments, and many other anti-war coalitional efforts and anti-imperialist political education. As a result, leaders in AWWG have come to hold many important relationships and built trust with many coalitional and organizational partners in NYC. All of these efforts and relationships are now at risk.
If you are concerned about this decision and its implications for organizing within DSA, we encourage you to sign onto this letter urging NYC-DSA Steering Committee to allow the Working Group to continue with its own legitimate election process in accordance with the bylaws.
From The Socialist Tribune via This RSS Feed.