Having come fresh from the state convention, I had an idea for the LPSF
bylaws.
Currently, we have four officers on the county executive committee: chair,
vice chair, secretary, and treasurer. Outside of our normal business
meetings, where LPSF members can vote on party business, it takes a 3/4
vote to approve anything since 2-2 kills whatever is on the table.
I suggest we add a couple of At Large positions to the county executive
committee. This would be beneficial for several reasons: 1) by lowering the
threshold for approval from 3/4 to, say, 4/6 (from 75% to 66%), more
business gets done, and 2) by bringing in new committee members, the At
Large positions would serve as a mentee role for people aspiring to higher
party office, giving them experience and institutional knowledge. By
enlargening the decision making process, we get more input from the
membership, which means more accurate representation from the body, rather
than concentrated in a few individuals.
As the party grows, we might think about a rep from each SF district or
neighborhood in SF: the Mission rep, the Tenderloin rep, the FiDi rep, etc.
We don’t need to wait to have every rep in every district-- we could just
elect or appoint them as one expresses interest. If members see other
members take on those roles, they themselves might be inclined to be their
district rep.
Let me know what you think. I aim to have exact language for such a
proposal before the January 2026 annual membership meeting.
Having come fresh from the state convention, I had an idea for the LPSF
bylaws.
Currently, we have four officers on the county executive committee: chair,
vice chair, secretary, and treasurer. Outside of our normal business
meetings, where LPSF members can vote on party business, it takes a 3/4
vote to approve anything since 2-2 kills whatever is on the table.
I suggest we add a couple of At Large positions to the county executive
committee. This would be beneficial for several reasons: 1) by lowering the
threshold for approval from 3/4 to, say, 4/6 (from 75% to 66%), more
business gets done, and 2) by bringing in new committee members, the At
Large positions would serve as a mentee role for people aspiring to higher
party office, giving them experience and institutional knowledge. By
enlargening the decision making process, we get more input from the
membership, which means more accurate representation from the body, rather
than concentrated in a few individuals.
As the party grows, we might think about a rep from each SF district or
neighborhood in SF: the Mission rep, the Tenderloin rep, the FiDi rep, etc.
We don’t need to wait to have every rep in every district-- we could just
elect or appoint them as one expresses interest. If members see other
members take on those roles, they themselves might be inclined to be their
district rep.
Let me know what you think. I aim to have exact language for such a
proposal before the January 2026 annual membership meeting.