October 24th, 2021

2-4 pm

I. Settle in

1. Carlos O
2. Anika B
3. Shane R
4. Maddy GW
5. Lindsey M
6. Jess B
7. Andrew R
8. Graham
9. Neder
10. Benny Z
11. Max M
12. Kabir K
13. Ariella G
14. Matt L
15. David G
16. Isaac H
17. Zach W

II. Approval of Agenda

A. Consent Agenda

1. Resolution to Support UCSF Benioff/Children’s Hospital Oakland

Submitted by M.V.; passed in the October General Meeting straw poll

Whereas the 2014 Affiliation of Children’s Hospital and Research Center Oakland with UCSF was purported to be a partnership of equals, in the interest of strengthening both hospitals; and

Whereas, in the years since the Affiliation, UCSF has jeopardized the future of Children’s Hospital Oakland (CHO) and its mission to serve all children regardless of background, race, medical condition, or ability to pay, and has weakened the role of Children’s Hospital Oakland as both a safety net hospital for the neediest children in our community, and a tertiary care pediatric referral center for the sickest; and

Whereas, the CHO serves a diverse population, with the majority of patients coming from Alameda, Contra Costa, Solano, and San Joaquin Counties, reflecting the demographics of the East Bay, with many immigrants, children of color, and families from working-class communities; and

Whereas, many of CHO’s patients have been pressured to go to San Francisco for services that have been and often are still provided on the Oakland campus and in Children’s Hospital Oakland's other East Bay facilities, or have not received care at all. Sending East Bay families to UCSF for care has caused their travel and healthcare costs to skyrocket at a time of devastating economic uncertainty; and

Whereas, inpatient and surgical volumes at Oakland have plummeted since the Affiliation, while San Francisco’s census has increased significantly; and

Whereas, Children’s Hospital Oakland has lost the skills and dedication of countless experienced and beloved health care workers, doctors, and nurses who have chosen to leave the hospital for better working conditions at other local facilities; and

Whereas, critical services, resources, and technology have been neglected or cut after UCSF took over the leadership and control of Children’s Oakland; and

Whereas, UCSF continues to implement changes to operations that result in the degradation of the purpose and obligations of a full-service safety net hospital without the community's knowledge or employees' input; and

Whereas, since the affiliation, health care workers’ and community advocates’ attempts to engage UCSF leadership to address these increasing healthcare disparities created by the partnership, and have been met with a refusal to be transparent or accountable; and 

Whereas, multiple requests for financial information, including information regarding past and future consolidation, elimination, and transfer of services from Oakland to San Francisco have been denied by UCSF; and

Whereas, the transfer of wealth and resources from Children’s Oakland to UCSF can be seen as a form of structural racism, and an exacerbation of pre-existing classism, where people with less access to money and influence also get less access to healthy food, healthy air and water, equal rights, and quality health care; and

Whereas, National Union of Healthcare Workers (NUHW) represents roughly 1,200 workers at CHO in three bargaining units: Business Office Clerical, Service and Technical, and Professionals, with job classifications in a variety of essential roles: custodial staff and food service, X-ray techs, respiratory therapists, psychologists, physical therapists, clinical social workers, and countless others; and

Whereas, NUHW is a progressive independent union and East Bay DSA ally that has led the struggle along with DSA to win Medicare for All in California; and

Whereas, the healthcare and service workers at CHO have served the East Bay community throughout the COVID-19 pandemic with inadequate protections and communication from management regarding infection control, and are now facing a spike in pediatric COVID cases as schools have reopened and the Delta variant has proven to be highly infectious in children. Unlike nearly every other hospital in California, UCSF Benioff/CHO management has throughout the pandemic refused to meet with frontline staff to discuss infection control strategies; and 

Whereas, healthcare workers employed by UCSF/Benioff Children’s Hospital Oakland (CHO) and represented by NUHW are engaged in an ongoing and escalating contract campaign and preparing for two other contract campaigns to win better working conditions and job security for East Bay healthcare workers in order to keep vital pediatric healthcare services in the East Bay, where they are vastly more accessible to the diverse working class community that CHO serves; and

Whereas, several members of East Bay DSA are active in the campaign to keep care in Oakland, both as staff and as union member leaders; and

Therefore be it resolved that East Bay DSA stands with NUHW members in their struggle to keep vital pediatric healthcare services in Oakland and ensure job security for the working-class healthcare workers who serve the children and families of the East Bay, and fight for a healthcare system that works for all residents of the East Bay; and

Be it further resolved that East Bay DSA shall support the NUHW contract fight including any possible future actions or strike activity for the contract with material resources, organizing assistance, and publicity as needed; and,

Be it further resolved that the EBDSA/CHO Solidarity Committee shall lead this solidarity support in collaboration with chapter representatives and the aid of other chapter committees and bodies where there is interest.

2. Resolution to Rent an Office and Apply for Matching Funding

Submitted by Benny Zank, Eric Ruud, Neder Gatmon-Segal, Zach Weinstein, Casey Busher; Passed in the October General Meeting straw poll

Whereas the national convention passed Resolution #30: Strengthening DSA From the Bottom Up Through National Matching Funds for Chapters to Hire Staff and Open Offices;

Whereas the resolution provides a year of matching funds to open an office;

Whereas the chapter needs to raise at least 25% of the necessary to fund the office before applying for matching funds;

Whereas our local dues already meet this 25% threshold and we can point to the fact that we have previously rented an office to demonstrate financial self-sustainability for renting an office in the following years;

Whereas an office provides a secure location for our members to organize and meet, which is particularly critical for projects such as the jobs program;

Whereas an office provides a space for training organizers;

Whereas an office provides solid grounding for our organization and a place where members can congregate;

Whereas an office provides a space we can invite allies and comrades we are organizing with into;

Whereas in-person connection is doubly important following almost two years of no in-person events due to the COVID-19 pandemic and;

Whereas lackluster pandemic response by the US government, failing to provide adequate testing, isolation, vaccinations, and financial support to the working class of this country and the world, means that COVID-19 seems likely to become endemic, and given that it has now been shown that well-ventilated, masked, indoor gatherings are relatively safe;

Therefore be it resolved that East Bay DSA apply to the NPC for matching funds to open an office;

Therefore be it resolved that East Bay DSA submit its previous office lease and monthly bank statements to the NPC to demonstrate the ability to be sustainably pay for an office after the matching funds end;

Therefore be it resolved that the Steering Committee develop and adopt a proposal detailing the political, organizational, and recruitment goals that we will seek to leverage the matching funds for, with clear metrics for yearly assessments of progress in order to be eligible for the matching funds;

Therefore be it resolved that East Bay DSA's Steering Committee is tasked with looking for, and finding, an office that meets as many of the criteria listed below as possible, and securing it by the first quarter of 2022;

Therefore be it resolved that the office be within walking distance of BART and AC transit stops;

Therefore be it resolved that the office be ADA-compliant and accessible to all members of our organization;

Therefore be it resolved that the office be large enough and have operable windows so that members are able to be socially distant and have sufficient airflow if needed.

Agenda and 2 straw-polled resolution are APPROVED BY ACCLAMATION

III. Committee Reports

A. Treasurer

• Regular expenses on track
• Next quarterly due share forthcoming
• Two new monthly donors and 4 new one off. 
• Reach out is you need to be reimbursed
• Q’s

1. Benny Z - is there another way for SC members to get access or just reach out to the treasurer? LInsdey: reach out to the treasurer

B. Recording Secretary

• SINCE THE LAST STEERING COMMITTEE MEETING [9/18]:
• General Meeting Votes:

1. STRAW POLL: Shall we pass Resolution to Rent an Office and Apply for Matching Funding 
2. RECOMMENDED 39 yes/0 no
3. STRAW POLL: Shall we pass the Resolution to Support UCSF Benioff/Children’s Hospital Oakland
4. RECOMMENDED 44 yes/1 no

• Online SC votes:

1. Resolution to Support OEA fight for Safe SChools
2. PASSED 11 Yes; 2 abstains
3. Resolution to appoint Jess B to EBDSA SC
4. PASSED 11 yes; 1 abstains
5. Resolution to Host a Panel on the history of Communism in India
6. PASSED 9 yes; 4 abstains
7. Resolution For Rally specific Funds for Hazard Pay Campaign
8. PASSED 11 yes; 2 abstains

• Q’s - Benny Z - getting reportbacks from YDSA coordinator? Annika: we should look into it

IV. New Business

A. Stop OAK airport expansion RESOLUTION

Submitted by David Gassman

Whereas the Oakland Airport is planning an expansion to add 17 new gates, putting the community and climate at risk.

Whereas more than two dozen organizations, many of which EBDSA has organized with (including SFDSA), have signed on as supporters of the Stop OAK Airport Expansion Coalition.

Therefore be it resolved that EBDSA supports the effort to see to it that any substantial structural change at the Oakland airport considers most carefully all environmental and social justice impacts that would result from it.

Therefore be it resolved that EBDSA sign on as a supportive organization of the coalition.

• Motivate: Benny Z initially appointed and yield his time for to David G and Ariella G [https://www.stopoakexpansion.org/]
• Questions:  

1. Benny Z - what is the campaign plan? Ariella - sent signed letter; networking and reaching out; and an EIR is being drafted and preparing for response
2. Neder - What is the DSA active role? Ariella - open to a DSA representative at their meetings and a sign on their letter is wanted
3. Shane R - where is the expansion going to be? Ariella - they made plans to expand on the port. 
4. Maddy GW - example of previous anti airport campaigns this campaign can refer to? Ariella - San Bernardino airport campaign. A lot of anti-airport expansion in Europe. 

• Debate:

1. Against - Shane: capacity concerns for this campaign and remissed to signing onto something we aren’t active in; allying with the DSA’s People’s Transit Alliance is recommended. 
2. Pro - Graham: a perfect principled environmental position that we can sign on now and plan for action later; we signed on with many less-developed actions before; it's a local happening in East Oakland. 
3. Against - Neder: worried there wouldn’ be enough people to strongly organize; would be more open if there was more organic energy - and for signing up of future campaigns; 
4. Pro - Benny: sounds like there is a coalition that’s making plans; there is room for this to grow; hopes to see more engagement from the campaign

• VOTE: NOT PASSED: 5 yes/6 no’s/1 abstain

1. Hasan: Recommended resolutions having 5 people [bottom liners] motivating.

B. Resolution to implement new member onboarding recommendations

Submitted by Lexi R.

Whereas, it’s critical for a mass organization like DSA to have an active member base that includes new and inexperienced organizers;

Whereas, finding a place to plug in to East Bay DSA can be difficult and confusing as a new member, and this experience has been exacerbated by the pandemic;

Whereas, welcoming new members is the responsibility of the entire chapter, not simply one committee;

Whereas, East Bay DSA has continued to see a steady stream of new members joining the chapter;

Whereas, in June 2021 at Convention, we passed a priority resolution to focus on onboarding;

Therefore be it resolved that the East Bay DSA Steering Committee endorse the new member onboarding recommendations described in the linked document, including expectations for both the Member Engagement Committee and the rest of the chapter, effective immediately

Be it further resolved that the East Bay DSA Steering Committee create a new elected position at the committee level, Mobilizer, responsible for engaging new members in their committee and identifying easy/approachable tasks for these members (more details on the Mobilizer position in the doc linked above)

Motivated by Lexi R

• Q&A:
• Benny [for chairs]: clairy on the action/plan is already underway. 2] clarity on whether we have the ability to make the position; Lexi: a pilot program is underway and looked to officiate. Andrew: priorities resolution requires that we approve it; no reason we can’t make the position. 

• Debate:
• Against - Benny: mostly a procedural standpoint; we would have to amend our bylaws to allow for the position to be created. 
• Hasan [POI]: consequences of not finding a person to run for the Mobilizer position? Lexi: the pilot program would be effective immediately.
• Against - Benny: hasn’t been socialized amongst the committee; feels a bit top down. 
• For: Annika B: Labor committee has a similar position; voices Benny’s concern but see the necessity for the position in regards to engaging with paper members. 
• For: Maddy GW - sees the benefit in developing organizers to lead in other campaigns
• Hasan - Point of Order - Amend:
• Replace “Should elect” with “should begin electing” seconded by Carlos
• Q&A Graham - What is the exact point? A: Hasan - to affirm that it's a process and a roll out; partially resolve the socializing issues, will be a more solid resolution down the line. 
• Debate
• Call to question: by Annika
• Call Vote: PASSED 9 yes, 2 abstains
• Amendment Vote: PASSES 9 yes/3no
• Resolution Vote: PASSES 9 yes/1 no/ 1 abstain

C. Resolution to request funds for Branches Working Group socials

Submitted by Isaac H, Zach W.

Whereas the Steering Committee of East Bay DSA approved the formation of a Branches Working Group in June 2021;

Whereas the Branches Working Group has met regularly since, recruiting members of EBDSA who reside in all regions of the East Bay;

Whereas these members have planned socials in their areas to attract active DSA members, “paper” DSA members, and other interested working class people to the organization;

Whereas these members may form the base for future branch structures or campaigns that spread EBDSA’s influence outside of Oakland;

Whereas, the socials will be more successful if they provide food and drink free of charge to all attendees;

Therefore be it resolved that the Steering Committee allocate $800 of EBDSA’s general fund to the Branches Working Group for the purchase of food and drinks at four regional social events;

Be it further resolved that members who purchase the food and drinks may request reimbursement on an individual basis from the Treasurer of EBDSA.

• Motivated by Isaa
• Q&A  

1. Q - Lindsey: A pass-the-hat/ donation plan? A - Isaac: Will make sure to do that going forward
2. Q - Andrew [to Lindsey] - what has been the reimbursement like? A - Lindsey - mainly for food
3. Q - Shane - a ball park for expenses on socials? A - Lindsey roughly $100-150

• Debate: NO ONE TO SPEAK AGAINST

• Resolution VOTE: PASSES 11 yes/ 0 no/ 0 absentions

D. Berkeley Progressive Alliance Resolution

Submitted by Matthew L + Andrea M

WHEREAS, for the past few months, representatives of left-leaning groups such as Our Revolution East Bay, the Berkeley Tenants Union, Berkeley Citizens Action, the Berkeley Community Safety Coalition, SEIU 1021, and TODCO have been meeting to form the Berkeley Progressive Alliance**, a coalition of left-leaning groups modelled in part on the Richmond Progressive Alliance; and

WHEREAS, the mission statement of the Berkeley Progressive Alliance is as follows:

Through an alliance of organizations, coalitions, labor, and elected leaders, this organization’s vision is to advance and safeguard a progressive legislative, policy, and political agenda within the City of Berkeley. To that end, this organization aims to secure and maintain an accountable and responsive progressive majority political leadership within the City of Berkeley, and will utilize a range of tools including, but not limited to, organizing, community engagement, public education, direct actions and coordinating with partner groups and a coalition PAC, as appropriate, to advance its message and mission.

As progressives, our core values include advancing economic democratization and decommodification, adhering to planetary boundaries, uplifting workers, securing social and racial equality, prioritizing social and public ownership of the production and delivery of basic human necessities, protecting and advancing privacy, civil rights, civil liberties and democratic rights, and opposing corporate interests, capital accumulation, and speculation.

This organization will develop, vet, elect, hold accountable and provide progressive legislative and political support to elected officials who share these values. We will educate and mobilize voters and other community members and develop the leadership of residents and workers in marginalized communities. We will fight monied interests and the candidates and policies they finance because they oppose the welfare of the community, particularly that of low-income, working class, and other alienated communities; and

WHEREAS, the interim bylaws of the Berkeley Progressive Alliance also state that

[The Berkeley Progressive Alliance] shall publish and regularly update a platform of fundamental policies and political demands. [BPA] endorses candidates based on their commitment to the platform. [BPA] commits to supporting the work of and defending its endorsed candidates as appropriate. Candidates who are endorsed by [BPA] are expected to engage in regular and productive dialogue with [BPA] through its Steering Committee and other meetings and activities, especially to discuss implementation of our platform. Leaders of [BPA] and candidates endorsed by [BPA] are expected to know and support our platform. Those who act or vote against our platform should expect a withdrawal of support and a refusal to endorse them in the future; and

WHEREAS, this makes clear that the Berkeley Progressive Alliance intends to function as a left-wing proto-party similar to the Richmond Progressive Alliance; and

WHEREAS, the proto-party model used by the Richmond Progressive Alliance has been extremely successful, including for advancing the vision of East Bay DSA; and

WHEREAS, East Bay DSA already has experience collaborating with many of the organizations and individuals behind the Berkeley Progressive Alliance through cosponsoring the 2020 Berkeley Rent Board Convention, the biennial process to pick the progressive, pro-tenant Berkeley Rent Board slate; and

WHEREAS, at a recent political education event on East Bay politics put on by the Electoral Committee, a speaker and former East Bay DSA Co-Chair talked about how the lack of a table where groups like labor and left-leaning organizations collaborate on various things, including coalescing around a single progressive candidate to support, has made it difficult for the left to elect candidates in the East Bay; and

WHEREAS, the Berkeley Progressive Alliance has explicitly extended an invitation for East Bay DSA to be a founding member-organization, including presenting at the previous Steering Committee; and

WHEREAS, East Bay DSA may not have sufficient information at this time to make a decision one way or the other about whether to become a member-organization of the Berkeley Progressive Alliance; and

WHEREAS, at the same time, the most effective (and perhaps only) way for East Bay DSA to gain the necessary information to make such a decision is to become more involved with the Berkeley Progressive Alliance; and 

WHEREAS, the Berkeley Progressive Alliance has expressed to East Bay DSA its understanding of the catch-22 that East Bay DSA finds itself in, along with a desire to provide East Bay DSA with flexibility to resolve it; and

WHEREAS, the best way to resolve this catch-22 is for a East Bay DSA to attend the weekly meetings of the Berkeley Progressive Alliance’s Interim Steering Committee, which is managing the affairs of the organization until matters such as branding, structural tweaks, and formally onboarding all member-organizations are resolved; and

WHEREAS, by becoming involved early on in the Berkeley Progressive Alliance (even on just a tentative and non-committal, but still consistent, basis), East Bay DSA will have a much greater ability to shape the organization to reflect its vision;

NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, that East Bay DSA will promptly designate a representative(s) to attend Steering Committee meetings of the Berkeley Progressive Alliance; and

THEREFORE BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the representative(s) will be charged with

1. Observing, inquiring, and reporting back to the East Bay DSA Steering Committee on whether or not it makes sense for East Bay DSA to formally join the Berkeley Progressive Alliance;
2. Expressing the perspective and viewpoints of East Bay DSA at meetings of the Berkeley Progressive Alliance, including what (if any) changes to the interim structure would need to be made in order for East Bay DSA to feel comfortable becoming a member-organization;
3. Pushing the Berkeley Progressive Alliance to match East Bay DSA’s vision for the organization; and

THEREFORE BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that for the avoidance of doubt, the representative(s) may also attend and participate in BPA committee meetings in order to further the purposes of this resolution; and

THEREFORE BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that for the avoidance of confusion, nothing in this resolution shall be construed either as East Bay DSA joining the Berkeley Progressive Alliance nor about East Bay DSA deciding one way or the other whether to join the Berkeley Progressive Alliance in the future.

* Berkeley's main Defund organization

** Unrelated to the organization founded in 2016 with the same name

Moderated by Andrew

Motivated by Matthew L and Andrea M

POINT OF ORDER - Neder - 5 signatories, and a committee member input, should be required for future resolution. Andrew: while this is explicitly addressed in the bylaws, it’s a good point. 

Q&A:

• Q - Neder: how would the process for representation be? What can participation in BPA look like? A - Matthew L/Andrea M - figures the SC would appoint a member for representation.
• Follow up Q: concerns on appointing a SC member, who have limited capacity. A - Matthew L - open to have reps appointed. 
• Benny Z - Motion to Table, seconded by Shane R
• NO turnaround time to appointed someone by a meeting later this week. 
• Table Vote: FAILS 4 yes/5 no/ 2 abstains
• Neder - Motion to amend, "Therefore be it resolved that East Bay DSA will promptly receive recommendations for a number of potential BPA representatives from the authors of this resolution, to be voted on by email by the SC."
• Seconded by Shane.

Maddy GW - Motion to extend time by 10 minutes - seconded by Hasan

• Debate: no on against
• Amendment vote: PASSES by acclamation

Resolution debate:

Against - Benny: would like a more robust discussion before signing on with BPA

Pro - Shane: we want to be a part of the broader progressive ecosystem, like BPA. 

Resolution Vote: PASSES 8 yes/0 no/3 abstains

E. Discussion: Next steps in looking for an office

1. Benny Z - figuring out a process in coordinating with NPC in finding the funds would probably be top priority. 
2. Shane R - a bottom liner; NPC will need pushing to get the funds. B&R are working to address it and look to involve members outside the caucus. Should scout locations nonetheless. 

V. Committee and WG Reports

1. Branches Working Group - Zack W: a second forum NOV 14 - a feedback on a draft proposal. 
2. Q&A:

• Shane: sustainability and reports from other locations; joining other local campaigns? Reports from other location socials. 
• Maddy GW: the next steps from socials to discussion on political issues.
• Shane: we’re not doing GM’s every month now [every other month], local planning meetings could fill those voids. 
• Zack W: Sees BWG - wants to have a proposal by december and whine down as a working group after. 

VI. Meeting Adjourned

Adjourned at 4:16