Home » Committees » Meetings Committee » General Meeting Minutes » General Membership Meeting Minutes 2022 » East Bay DSA General Membership Meeting August 14th, 2022

East Bay DSA General Membership Meeting August 14th, 2022

 I. Sign-In, Settle In

  • Introduction
  • Expert from East Bay DSA constitution read by Shane

II. Approval of Agenda & Consent Agenda

  • Bylaws Amendment to Dissolve Comms Secretary Role
  • Bylaws Amendment to Allow Endorsements at Special Meetings 

A. Bylaws Amendment to Dissolve the Chapter's Comms Secretary Role and Create One Additional SC At-Large Member

Submitted by Kat O’Toole, Molly Stuart, Lexi Ross, Shane Ruiz, Maddy Grace Webbon, Graham Denevan, Michael Tal, Zac Goldstein, Mark Gabriel, Annika Bastacky, Max Lapides, Andrew Richner, Jennifer Arbuckle

Preamble

Communication is one of the central functions of a healthy socialist organization. We need to make our messaging strong and clear to be able to succeed at the work we have ahead of us. We should strive for a chapter in which every member is able to formulate clear messaging on the work they do. 

The Communications Secretary role was created to suit a very different organizational context for EBDSA, but is incompatible with the way our chapter functions currently. As our chapter’s active membership numbers have dipped and comrades holding other Communications-related leadership roles have cycled out in the past few years, this role has expanded beyond just managing the newsletter and website to informally include running the Communications Committee, serving as a contact for several channels of social media and supporting new leaders to take on East Bay Majority. As a chapter, we have developed the habit of asking a single person to be the point of contact for all labor related to communications. In our current engagement lull, there are oftentimes not communications-skilled folks at the ready to fulfill requests, which leaves the Secretary in a position where they can be a deadend or do the work themselves. Rather than being carried out by a single volunteer member of this org, the duties outlined in this role should be carried out by the committees doing the political work itself. We need to develop members who can confidently carry out Communications work in every corner of the chapter while allowing those members to remain engaged in the political work that motivates them. 

Having a single person in the chapter tasked with an unmanageable workload is a recipe for burnout and a missed opportunity for leadership development. This role has burned out some very dedicated comrades and we should dissolve it in order to allow a stronger, more collaborative network of Comms folks to share the work while staying connected to the political work they are creating messaging to advance.

Amendment Language

Article III: Officers

Section 1. Officers and Duties

1. The officers of the Chapter shall be two Co-Chairs, One Vice Chair, one Recording Secretary, one Communications Secretary, one Treasurer, and eight seven At-Large Officers.

2. The Co-Chairs shall be the chief spokespeople of the Chapter. They shall preside over all meetings of the Chapter and the Steering Committee, shall interpret these bylaws, subject to appeal to the Steering Committee, and perform such other duties that are specified in these bylaws. The Co-Chairs shall be ex officio members of each standing committee.

3. The Vice Chair is responsible for assisting the Co-Chairs with all of their duties. If both Co-Chairs are unable to perform their duties, the Vice Chair shall perform all duties and assume all responsibilities of the Co-Chairs until such a time as one or both Co-Chairs are able to resume their posts.

4. The Recording Secretary shall be responsible for keeping minutes and records of all Chapter and Steering Committee meetings.

5. The Communications Secretary shall be responsible for the member newsletter and website, though each of these functions may be substantially delegated to or shared with designated committees.

6. The Treasurer will be responsible for administration of funds, budget, and financial organization of the Chapter. The Treasurer will report to the Steering Committee on the financial status of the organization at each Steering Committee meeting. The Treasurer will maintain transparent and open financial reports available to the entire membership upon request by an officer of the Steering Committee.

7. There shall be eight seven at-large representatives who will comprise the remaining membership of the Steering Committee.


B. Bylaws Amendment to Allow Endorsements to Occur at Special Meetings

  • Motivated By: The Chapter Steering Committee
  • Authors: Matthew L, Shane R

WHEREAS, a resolution passed by the chapter membership at Convention limits to regular membership meetings to a quarterly basis; and

WHEREAS, the chapter Bylaws provide that “The Chapter may only make electoral endorsements at regular meetings;”1 and

WHEREAS, only allowing endorsements at regular meetings on a quarterly basis risks being unable to make important endorsements if they do not fall in a very precise timeline. 

WHEREAS, an informal survey of the bylaws of other large DSA chapters and of other DSA chapters in California could not find a single example of limiting endorsements to special meetings;

WHEREAS, none of the surveyed chapters appeared to require more than 14 days’ notice (and often significantly less) for an electoral endorsement (except for San Diego, which only requires 15 days’ notice;

WHEREAS, requiring 14 days’ that endorsements will be considered at a special membership meeting would provide ample notice for members to attend an endorsement meeting and reflect best practices in other chapters; and

THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Bylaws be amended as follows:

Article VI: Meetings

Section 4. Electoral Endorsements

The Chapter may only make electoral endorsements at regular meetings, or at special meetings with at least fourteen days’ notice that electoral endorsements may be considered at that meeting. Unless authorized by vote of the general membership, members or committees of the Chapter are prohibited from campaigning as representatives of the Chapter for candidates or ballot measures that the Chapter has not officially endorsed.

1. Article VI (Meetings), Section 4 (Electoral Endorsements)

***PASSED VIA ACCLIMATION***


III. New Member Update

  • By Becca T

IV. Endorsements

  1. Recommendation to Endorse Social Housing Authorization Ballot Initiative
  2. Recommendation to Endorse Just Cause Eviction Ballot Initiative
  3. Recommendation to Endorse Democracy Dollars Ballot Initiative
  4. Recommendation to Endorse Housing Bond Ballot Initiative
  5. Recommendation to Endorse Progressive Business Tax Ballot Initiative 

A. Authorization of Social Housing Ballot Initiative

The electoral committee recommends an endorsement of this ballot initiative. 

Oakland is in the midst of an unprecedented housing crisis. In a city where 60% of residents are renters, an increasing number are unable to meet their housing needs. Many continue to be displaced or experience homelessness. 

However, under California state law, municipalities cannot construct or acquire “low rent” social housing units without voter authorization.

This proposal would submit to voters an authorization to develop, construct or acquire 13,000 housing units for individuals and households with low or very low incomes.

Background:

The law banning cities from developing housing for low income residents dates back to 1950. Article 34 sought to maintain the status quo of housing segregation following the adoption of the Federal Housing Act. In past decades, there’s been unsuccessful attempts to repeal the law; currently, legislation is being considered to repeal Article 34.

To put it plainly, Oakland does not have the housing to meet the needs of low income residents. Based on state targets, it is estimated the city has only 43% of the housing it needs for very-low income residents, and only 25% of its goals for low income residents. In order to make of for this deficit of housing, this measure seeks to authorize 13,000 units. 

It appears that if this measure does not pass, but if the housing and infrastructure bond passes, the bond money for low income housing might not be spent.

  • Motivated by Michael and Carol F
  • Q&A
  • Debate

VOTE: PASSED via CLEAR MAJORITY


B. Just Cause Expansion Ballot Initiative

The electoral committee recommends an endorsement of this ballot initiative. 

Background Information

The Just Cause for Eviction Amendment is a ballot measure by the Oakland City Council to Amend the Just Cause for Eviction Ordinance introduced by Councilmembers Dan Kalb and Carroll Fife, to be placed on the November 2022 ballot.

In its current form, the Just Cause for Eviction Ordinance prohibits a property owner from terminating a tenancy without good or just cause. However, these protections only apply to buildings built before 1996.The Amendment would expand these protections to include most properties in the city of Oakland, including the tenants of RVs. Exemptions will remain in place for all new housing for the first 10 years after they are built.

Current law requires landlords to identify a “just cause” before evicting a tenant. There are 11 eligible just causes that landlords can cite to prompt an eviction. The measure would eliminate one of the just causes, which says that a tenant can be evicted for refusing to sign an identical lease when the old lease expires.

Of the 10 remaining eligible just causes, some are considered “no-fault” evictions, such as when the property owner decides to move into the unit currently occupied by a tenant. The measure would amend the Ordinance to prevent landlords from pursuing no-fault evictions against educators and children during the school year.

Taken together, though exemptions to the Ordinance persist, the Amendment proposes to expand tenant protections previously inaccessible to tenants of RVs and of buildings constructed after 1996, and to limit the power of landlords to pursue evictions. The impending expiration of Oakland’s moratorium on evictions adds urgency in passing this measure in November 2022.

Just Cause for Eviction Ordinance, 2021

Landlords are required to identify a “just cause” before pursuing eviction. The Ordinance as of 2021 defines just cause for an eviction as the following:

  • The tenant has not paid their rent
  • The tenant has continued to violate a provision of the lease after written notice to stop.
  • The tenant refused to sign a new lease that is identical to the old one (when the old one expires.)
  • The tenant has substantially damaged the unit and refused to stop damaging it or pay for repairs after written notice.
  • The tenant has continued to disturb other tenants and neighbors after written notice to stop.
  • The tenant uses the unit for something illegal (like selling drugs).
  • The tenant will not let the owner into the apartment, even with a 24 hours’ written notice.
  • The owner wants to move back into the unit, if allowed by a written agreement with the tenant or it is allowed by the lease.
  • The owner or family member wish to move into the unit. Except if the tenant has resided in the unit for more than 5 years and is:
  • 60 years or older
  • disabled
  • catastrophically ill
  • The owner wants to remove the unit from the market through the Ellis Act.
  • The owner wants to perform substantial upgrades to the unit which cannot be completed with the tenant living there.

Renters living in buildings built before 1996 are protected from being evicted unless the eviction meets the standard of an eligible just cause, as defined above. 

Amendment to Just Cause for Eviction Ordinance, 2022

If passed, the Just Cause Amendment will limit the power of landlords to pursue evictions and expand eligibility for tenant protection under the Ordinance.

The Amendment completely eliminates one of the eleven just causes, which allows for a tenant to be evicted for refusing to sign an identical lease when the old lease expires. 

Educators and children will be protected from no-fault eviction during the school year. “Educator” means any person who works on-site at a school in Oakland as an employee of the school or of the Oakland Unified School District, and includes all teachers, classroom and student support providers, administrative staff, counselors, social workers, school health services workers, speech pathologists, custodial or maintenance workers, nutrition and/or food services workers, library services workers, child welfare workers, and attendance liaisons.

Eviction protections pursuant to the Amendment will be accessible only to tenants living in buildings constructed over ten years ago; so a tenant in the year 2022 will be protected by the Ordinance if they are renting in a structure built in 2012 or earlier. Although these exemptions are not ideal, the measure will expand eviction protections to cover the vast majority of Oakland residents, as most housing stock was built before 2012. 

  • Motivated by Michael and Carol F
  • Q&A
  • Debate

VOTE: PASSED via CLEAR MAJORITY


C. Fair Elections Act Ballot Initiative

The electoral committee recommends an endorsement of this ballot initiative. 

Issue Summary:

In elections throughout the United States, as described by the Brennan Center, “a handful of wealthy donors dominate electoral giving and spending.”2 Oakland is no exception to the trend. A March 2022 report on campaign finance in Oakland from the organization MapLight concluded that “wealthy donors and outside spending have played a significant role in Oakland elections.” Specifically, the report found that3:

  • Money in Oakland candidate elections rose to its highest level in eight years during the 2020 election, with $2.4 million in independent expenditures and $2.6 million in direct fundraising.
  • During the last four elections, 77% of the contested races (24 of 31) were won by the candidate who raised the most money.
  • Just half of all fundraising by candidates came from Oakland residents. Even among residents, campaign contributions came disproportionately from Oakland's richest and whitest neighborhoods, the three majority-white zip codes in Oakland were responsible for 45% of the contributions from Oakland residents while comprising just 21% of the city’s population. On the other side, a quarter of the money raised from Oakland residents came from the six Oakland zip codes with a median household income below $60,000, while nearly half of Oakland residents live in these neighborhoods. 
  • Larger dollar donations dominated political spending in city elections, while small-dollar donations made up a low share of political spending. People giving $500 or more, including candidates contributing to their own campaigns, contributed 45% of all funds taken in by candidates’ campaigns while donors giving less than $100 provided just 6% of all candidate funding.
  • Eight organizations and individuals gave at least $75,000 apiece to independent groups seeking to influence candidate elections over the last eight years – accounting for nearly half of outside money during that time. These spenders included: 
  • Michael Bloomberg: $920,000
  •  Lyft: $439,000
  •  East Bay Working Families: $141,000 
  •  Quinn Delaney: $120,000
  •  T. Gary Rogers: $100,000 
  •  Arthur Rock: $99,000, 
  • The East Bay Community Foundation: $80,000 
  • The San Francisco Foundation: $75,000

Public financing of elections has been touted as a solution to deal with the influence of money in politics. While Oakland has a public financing system for City Council candidates it is highly underfunded and insufficient in its scale. The available amount of funds is determined by the number of candidates and the amount allotted by City Council, which according to Fair Elections Oakland ranges from $8,000 - $25,000. These amounts are too low to be relied upon for elections, forcing candidates to turn to big dollar funders. Furthermore, Fair Elections Oakland also has pointed out that the program is vulnerable to defunding because its amounts are not set in law but determined through the variability of City Council’s budget appropriations process.4 

Initiative Summary 5 6 7 8

On July 11th the Oakland City Council unanimously voted to put the Oakland Fair Elections Act as a ballot proposal in the upcoming November elections. The ballot initiative aims to reform municipal elections in Oakland by 1) bolstering public funding for elections, via a “Democracy Dollars” program 2) amending campaign finance and lobbying rules and 3) creating more transparency about campaign finance.

Regarding bolstering public funding for elections, the initiative implements the “Democracy Dollars” program, which would use public funds to provide all certified Oakland voters with four $25 vouchers ($100) to contribute to campaigns of their choosing. 

Vouchers would only be able to be used for city-level candidates; Mayor, City Council, City Attorney, Auditor, and School Board. Candidates who receive the vouchers are limited to only being able to spend the money on campaign expenses such as; advertising and event setup. For a candidate to qualify to receive dollars, they would have to have a set number of donations already, differing by the office (400 for mayor, 150 for City Council members, Auditors, and Attorneys, 125 for District Council members, and 75 for School Board members). Furthermore, candidates will be limited in how much Democracy Dollar funding they can receive. The Cap would be two-thirds of the already existing expenditure limit that campaigns for varying offices have, breaking down as follows: 

________________________________________________________________

| Elected Office Expenditure Limit | Democracy Dollar Cap |

| Mayor $500,000 | $333,335 |

| City Attorney/ | |

| Council At-large Member/ | |

| City Auditor $275,000 | $183,334 |

| City Council Member $150,000 | $100,000 |

| School Board $100,000 | $66,667 |

Logistically, under the program vouchers would automatically be mailed to all registered voters in Oakland, and anyone else over 18 who’s been a resident in the city for 30 days or more could submit a request to the city for vouchers. 

The program’s implementation and enforcement of the aforementioned rules would be overseen by the city’s Public Ethics Commission. To pay for the program, the city would set aside $4 million from the city’s general fund, giving out these vouchers every two years. Furthermore $1.25 million would be allotted to the Public Ethics Commission to implement the program, including hiring staff to run it. 

Aside from the “Democracy Dollars” proposal, the initiative aims to reform campaign finance and lobbying rules and create more transparency by   

  • Lowering individual contribution limits to $600 for individuals and $1,200 for committees. 
  • Instituting a two-year ban on City Officers becoming lobbyists. Currently, there is only a 1-year ban. This applies to the offices of; Mayor, City Administrator, City Councilmembers, City Attorney, City Clerk, City Auditor, executive officers, and members of City commissions/boards. 
  • Requiring the top 3 highest contributors to be disclosed on independent expenditures supporting or opposing an Oakland candidate or measure. 
  • Ensuring Oaklanders can view all independent expenditures in one easy-to-access online portal.  

Supporters/Opponents

The initiative is being championed by the Oakland Fair Elections Coalition which includes the ACLU of Northern California, California Common Cause, League of Women Voters Oakland, Oakland Rising, Bay Rising, Asian Americans Advancing Justice - Asian Law Caucus Pacific Environmental Network, and MapLight. The initiative is also supported by and was introduced into the council by Councilmembers Dan Kalb (District 1), Nikki Fortunato Bas (District 2), and Carroll Fife (District 3). At the moment, no major opponents of the initiative have publicly emerged.  

The Seattle Model

The “Democracy Dollars” program is modeled off a similar public campaign finance voucher program in Seattle which has been in effect since 2017. Although the Oakland plan differs from the Seattle program in various ways, two different studies on Seattle have found that the program has made considerable progress in expanding the population of campaign donors. Since the program was implemented, the number of donors per race in Seattle has gone up by 350%, and candidates have reported hundreds of thousands more in small donations of under $200. Furthermore, users of the vouchers were statistically more likely to be younger, lower-income, and new to political donations.  


  •  Motivated by Ethan
  • Q&A
  • Debate

VOTE: PASSED via CLEAR MAJORITY


D. Affordable Housing and Infrastructure Bond – Electoral Committee Report

Text of the bond

The City of Oakland’s Legislation Page for the Bond

Background Information

The 2022 Affordable Housing and Infrastructure Bond (the “Bond”) is a resolution of the Oakland City Council to raise $850 million via a bond issuance to fund various infrastructure projects identified in the ordinance. The money will be spent on affordable housing, street improvement, and various city-owned infrastructure improvement projects without raising taxes. While passed unanimously by the City Council and endorsed by Mayor Libby Schaaf, the Bond requires voter approval during the November 8, 2022, general election. 

The Bond is styled as building on 2016’s Measure KK, a $600 million bond measure that funded similar infrastructure projects. Measure KK passed overwhelmingly, with 82.11% support. 

The Bond’s preamble identifies the following information about the City as reasoning for the Bond:

-     In 2022, the City’s Point-in-Time Count identified 5,055 individuals who were experiencing homelessness in the City. Of these 5,055 people, 3,337 were unsheltered, while the remaining 1,718 were living in a tent, car, RV, on the street, or in an abandoned building.

o There is no explanation in the bill as to the difference between “unsheltered” and living “on the street.” 

o According to an SF Chronicle article on the Bond, the unhoused population of Oakland has grown 24% in the past three years. Additionally, according to the same article, Oakland is significantly behind its state-mandated affordable housing goal to issue 6,949 permits for low- and moderate-income units by 2023. To date, the City has issued only 1,506 such permits, 22% of the goal. Lastly, the Bond builds on Oakland’s June award of $37.5 million in funds to affordable-housing developers to build 249 affordable units throughout Oakland, 133 of which will be permanent supportive housing for unhoused folks.

-     Oakland is one of the four most expensive housing markets in the country – behind San Francisco, New York, and Boston. Rising rents in Oakland are outpacing the increase in incomes of City residents faster than in any other place in the country.

-     The City has unfunded capital need of approximately $5.6 billion.

-     The Bond also explains the various City initiatives that will be furthered by the funds collected by the Bond. These include the Equitable Climate Action Plan (ECAP), the Five Year Pavement Prioritization Plan (adopted on December 21, 2021), and the Housing & Community Development Department’s Strategic Action Plan regarding housing for extremely low income households and addressing various social issues, such as racial inequalities, displacement, and the effects of the COVID-19 pandemic.

Procedural Status

The Bond was introduced to the City Council on June 23, 2022. The City Council unanimously (Councilmember Kaplan was excused from the vote) approved referring the Bond to voters on July 11, 2022. Passage of the Bond is subject to a supermajority requirement, such that it will only become effective if two-thirds of the voters support it.

The Bond’s Provisions

The Bond will allocate its $850 million as follows (all figures are estimates subject to change):

1.   Affordable housing projects: $350 million.

a.   This work will consist of “acquisition, rehabilitation, or new construction of interim and permanent affordable and social housing.”

2.   Transportation projects: $290 million.

a.   This work will consist of (1) street paving and reconstruction, (2) curb ramps and sidewalks, and (3) “streets capital improvement” – pedestrian paths/stairs, bikeways, sidewalks, streetscaping, accessible pedestrian signals, on-street parking and loading zones, “slowing down traffic[,] and improving access to transit infrastructure.”

3.   “Citywide Facility Preservation and Improvement Projects:” $210 million.

a.   Acquisition, construction, improvement, or rehabilitation of City facilities including housing facilities, libraries, “head start,” recreation and senior centers, “public safety facilities,” and City facilities in the following subcategories and amounts, with the highest priority given to aging facilities: parks and open spaces ($45 million), fire facilities ($30 million), police facilities ($30 million), library facilities ($15 million), and “other city facilities” ($90 million).

b.   Water, energy, environmental, and seismic improvements to City facilities, consistent with the City’s Energy and Climate Action Plan.

c.   Acquisition, construction, improvement, or rehabilitation of City-owned telecommunications facilities.

d.   Acquisition of land with the purpose of maintaining it as open space for public use.

e.   Conservation, rehabilitation, improvement, and/or enhancement of facility outdoor spaces (mini parks, tot lots, play structures, ball parks, swimming pools, and other such things).

f.    Acquisition, construction, improvement, rehabilitation or restoration of City waterways, creeks, storm drains and structures.

g.   Creek restoration projects.

The Bond will be funded by using existing property taxes, which in Oakland are 0.22%, as the City retires existing bonds funded by these taxes.   

There does not appear to be any significant or organized opposition to the Bond, probably because it is structured to avoid raising taxes. The only point of controversy with regard to any aspect of the bill is Councilmember Bas’s proposal to add $10 million to the allocation for fire stations, which Councilmember Gallo opposed during the council’s July 11 meeting. 

  • Motivated by Ethan
  • Q&A
  • Debate

Vote: PASSED

41 Yes; 30 No; 11 Abstain


E. Progressive & Equitable Business Tax Act

Background Information

The Progressive & Equitable Business Tax Act is a ballot measure drafted through consensus-building and input among Oakland elected officials, businesses of all sizes, labor unions, and community groups. It is expected to raise $22 million annually for the general fund. Oakland City Council President Bas first introduced and led this effort and it was co-sponsored by Councilmembers Fife, Thao, and Kalb. The Oakland City Council voted unanimously to place it on the November 2022 ballot.

Oakland, like other cities in California, collects taxes from businesses headquartered in the city. In Oakland, however, this business tax is quite regressive or flat: the tax depends only on a business’ “category,” not on its size. Other cities like San Francisco and San Jose have progressive taxes, where bigger businesses pay higher rates.

In 2020, the Oakland City Council referred the issue of the business tax to a commission, which drafted a proposal for business tax reform. Concurrently, labor unions that represent Oakland city workers drafted the “Invest in Our Oakland” ballot initiative that would have generated even more revenue for the city — over $40 million annually. Business groups also threatened to place a tax initiative on the ballot. The threat of three competing ballot measures motivated the City Council to reach a compromise. Over the past two years, City Council members worked with these and other stakeholders to develop a single ballot measure. ln May 2022, the City Council agreed unanimously to place this proposed measure on the November ballot. 

While the name of the ballot measure is fairly anodyne, its substance has great potential for a DSA-run campaign: taking money away from big businesses like Clorox and Blue Cross/Blue Shield and using it to make Oakland more livable for the working class. 

Progressive and equitable 

City Council President Bas described in her presentation to City Council the progressive and equitable features of this measure: 

  • Tax Relief for Small Businesses: an average tax reduction of 17%, targeted at the businesses and industries most impacted by the COVID-19 pandemic
  • Progressive, tiered structure: As a business’s gross receipts increase, the rate they pay on that revenue increases. Consequently, 24% will pay lower taxes, 66% will pay the same, and the 10% of Oakland businesses with the highest gross receipts will pay higher taxes.

Comparison of Tax Rates 

Reportedly, the proposed tax rates for the largest businesses will still be lower than rates in San Francisco and San Jose. This is designed to keep Oakland competitive, i.e., a desirable location for corporate headquarters. 

Proposed use of funds 

This tax would provide general fund revenue to address needs such as homelessness services and housing, illegal dumping clean-up, street and sidewalk maintenance, small business assistance, fire safety, and community safety. (No change from (“Invest in Our Oakland Small Business Tax Fairness Act.”) 

It is likely that this ballot measure will pass in November due to the broad coalition involved in drafting it and the unanimous City Council vote to put it on the ballot. Therefore, East Bay DSA should put our effort into ensuring these funds will indeed be spent on progressive, socialist issues, such as homelessness services, and not for police. 

Resources 


  • Motivated by Ethan
  • Q&A

PASSED via CLEAR MAJORITY


F. Resolution to Form an Eden Branch

Submitted by George Syrop, Alexis Villalobos, Drew Balthazor, Eric Vance, Jeff Syrop, Sara Lamnin, Nestor Castillo, Eric Espinosa, Sasha Beeston, Simon Jarrar, Lance Jackson, Dave Collins, Amber Jayanti, Jane Freeman, Silvia Brandon-Perez, Christopher Pinzon, Eli Mizrachi, Sean Funcheon, Izzy Goldberg, Mackinley Levine, Jennifer Esteen, Victor Aguilar, Remoun Metyas, Eric Lopez, Kate Betcher, Anthony Ababon, Michael Wooten

WHEREAS, the procedures for creating a branch within East Bay DSA have been followed the area consisting of the Cities Of Hayward and San Leandro and Unincorporated Communities of Castro Valley, Fairview, Cherryland, Ashland, San Lorenzo and Hayward Acres.

WHEREAS Eden Branch will build worker power in the Hayward, San Leandro, and Unincorporated communities, and help build EBDSA in these areas and beyond.

THEREFORE, be it resolved that East Bay DSA authorizes the creation of a branch in the area consisting of the Cities Of Hayward and San Leandro and Unincorporated Communities of Castro Valley, Fairview, Cherryland, Ashland, San Lorenzo and Hayward Acres.

THEREFORE, be it resolved that leaders of the branch organizing effort will work with members in the branch area to democratically adopt a model charter for their branch and hold officer elections.

  • Motivated by Ethan
  • Q&A

PASSED via CLEAR MAJORITY


V. Labor Solidarity Update

  • facilitated by Shane R.
  • Updates by Maddy GW

VI. Richmond Progressive Alliance Update

  • Facilitated by and Updates by Shane R

VII. DSA for Nikki Update

  • Facilitated by and Updates by Shane R

VIII Committee + member announcements

  • Chairs
  • Membership

IX. Meeting Adjorned @ 12:55pm


About Us

The East Bay Democratic Socialists of America (DSA) are working for both an economy and society run democratically to meet human needs, not to make profits for a few.

Made with love by your East Bay DSA comrades 🌹