letter3

Hey.
(Is your feedback publicly visible? Maybe it should be so people can view feedback unless designated as private feedback).

I have read through your proposal, and it seems as though there's a problem with implementing a system where people cannot vote at your general meetings ("collective member" status) without first meeting certain non-trivial criteria, and then going through a de-facto approval process. This is not allowed, basically.

In AMS code it says,
"Membership in all Resource Groups shall be open to all Active Members of the Society."

Membership means voting rights at general meetings, i.e. membership on a board of directors. Honestly, I'm not sure that having any restrictions whatsoever to voting is permissible, but some resource groups have had restrictions of attending X meetings before voting in the past. But if there are to be restrictions, they should be minimal. In my opinion, they should not existin the first place, but if we're to be reasonable but still uphold openness and accessibility, then I think a restriction of "can't vote on their first meeting; must be given a pamphlet on how our organization works" might be tolerable.

I would recommend that you ditch any semblance of an "approval process" for voting rights at general meetings which requires a new member be voted in. This is not consistent with the democratic principles that the AMS runs its clubs/constituencies/RGs with.

I would also recommend getting rid of restrictions on voting at general meetings completely, to be honest. If you have concerns about new members, you can accomplish restrictions in other ways like restricting sub-committee membership, but making it difficult to vote at general meetings is inappropriate and not the best solution, because it acts as a barrier to full involvement from new people. Not enough intake of new members who feel empowered to make decisions == toxic recipe for incestuous resource group.

Currently your proposed restrictions on voting/consensus are:
- attend 3 or more general collective meetings in the term [carries to next term]
- be involved in one working group or committee in the last term
- completed collective skill training[in sept] in the last 2 years
- a one-week gap that "allows anyone to approach with concerns around safety and so forth", regarding the new candidate

I don't think any of these are necessary (and therefore they are not justifiable, given the value placed on openness to participation). The last one might be justifiable if you ran skills training every week or two, but the problem with requiring skills training to vote at meetings is that you're still setting the hurdle for participation quite high; you should have skills training opportunities as often as you have general meetings, or else that means that people are effectively barred from voting until they have the chance to take part in an approved training session. This presents a functional and significant barrier to participation by "all Active Members of the Society [AMS]". There is also no description of what counts as adequate/appropriate "skills training".
It's also stated in your documentation that there is a one-week period to evaluate someone for their "safety". But in the event that someone is found "not safe", who [in practice] makes the decision on whether they can join the collective? Seems really inappropriate to me. This kind of power entrenches whoever is already sitting in the seat of power, and you can never design/run a group on the assumption that whoever is currently entrenched are going to be angels. And honestly, this kind of rule seems to contradict your main guiding principle that "We recognize the radical ability of youth, students, and queer & trans* people to support ourselves, build our own futures, and identify with our own needs". If you have so much faith in them, then maybe they should be allowed to vote at general meetings.
If you want to restrict who can exert power in the group, I suggest you find another way to do it than by creating a hierarchy of who can vote at general meetings and who cannot. I am certain that putting hurdles in front of people as onerous as these go against rules governing the Resource Groups. If you want to keep people safe or restrict membership, you should find other ways to do it (and there are other ways). If you need the power to exclude problematic/destructive people, that should be handled as its own thing rather than dealt with by a blanket restriction process on who can vote at general meetings.

More AMS code, for your reference:
The rules, regulations, and procedures of a Resource Group must ensure that it operates
democratically and must also ensure that only those members of the Resource Group who
are Active Members of the Society shall:

(a) exercise voting rights at Resource Group meetings and other Resource Group
   events; and
(b) hold Executive positions, or similar positions, within the Resource Group
----
This provision notwithstanding, a Resource Group may, in its constitution, limit, for
specifically defined groups of members:
(a) access to specific areas of that same Resource Group's space – or attendance at
     specifically defined events or activities (excluding general meetings) of that
    Resource Group – but only in the interests of preserving and protecting the
     mental, emotional, or physical security of other members of said Resource Group;

So, in other words, general meetings should be open and accessible to all, and it seems to go against the spirit and letter of AMS code to restrict voting (or "counting for consensus") at a meeting. I'm sure there is more code on this matter.

On a related note, regarding consensus:
I also noticed in your document that there seems no way to override a block by a member when seeking consensus. Maybe this is the reason you chose to restrict membership and who can block a proposal? While it might sound nice to enable one person to block a motion, in practice it's not the most practicable. It's quite common for consensus-based groups to allow for voting of a 2/3rds majority if, after a period of discussion and attempt to arrive at consensus, consensus cannot be reached. At the SJC, our constitution governs the process of how consensus decision-making operates. Link: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1gXTQ585iGvf8RSHwZm0IvPNMYOVyWT2BgCnArRcb5GQ (see Section "E - Procedure", subsection 3-d).
Basically this framework says that everything should be discussed and taken into account. It suggests that discussion should be the primary way of resolving differences, rather than going straight to voting. But it also prevents a single person from blocking a proposal. In practice, this is probably more sensible than requiring strict consensus on everything, but only from a select group of people who are allowed to block in the first place.

Sincerely,
-Deniz