Meeting Minutes 3/16/21

LOCATION: Zoom

Members Present: Chris Malstrom, Lori Stewart, Bonnie Bain, Rod Kessler, John Mahoney, Liz Bradt, Filipe Zamborlini, Shey Jaboin, Charlene, Victoria Nadel, Jeff Cohen, Marsha Finkelstein*, Alice Merkl, Tyler Carlton*, Chris Fuccione, Lois Sargent, Kate Banks, Linda Stark, Lucy Corchado, Maile Black, Michael Cusick, Nancy Anderson, Nina Yvedin, Steven, Phil Kelley, Debbie Everett, Diane Fawley, Eliud Alcala, Jerry, Joan Lovely Guests: Mike Potishnak, John Berkowitz, Arthur Powell*, Julie Curtis*, Jay Manuel Rivera* Recorder: Bonnie Bain* denotes State Committee Members

Call to order at [7:05]

Guest Presentation - War Powers Resolution: Mike Potishnak

• What is the history of this proposal?

Since the 1960s we’ve seen many US interventions abroad. This resolution has been intermittently brought up along the way, but conversations seemed ineffective. Jump forward to summer of 2019 and an article in the Globe telling folks not to dump on the Trump Space Force idea just yet. The takeaway Mike got from this was that there are a bunch of new technologies out there that should be regulated that are used in US interventions.

Put together a simple proposal to try to address these new technologies. By January 2020 got on the agenda to talk about it on his town committee in Belchertown. The approved a 1 page resolution.

Nov 2019 - Kristen Gillibrand’s End Endless Wars proposal was introduced to modify the war powers resolution.

War Powers Resolution Concepts and Practices -produced by the Congressional Research Office - a nonpartisan entity. This document looks at 20 different cases where the WPR was applied or misapplied. See link.

The idea is to improve the WPR act keeping in mind the new technology, such as drones and cyberattacks, creating more severe consequences, making it clear so that folks don’t take liberties to kill or start something on a whim or to serve political interests, update to prevent surrogate wars, economic sanctions procedure, and improve the issues of vague definitions, and update constitutional issues

• What does it mean to endorse this proposal?

  • Support creation of an updated WPR

  • Recognition that war power tech in 1973 is not the same

  • Support of Kristin Gillibran’s proposal

  • A review of the effectiveness of the previous in the past 40+ years

  • Address penalties for breaking the WPR

• What is the game plan?

  • Goal is to have a nonpartisan resolution

  • We’re at the bottom of the second inning to get this passed - just the start.

  • Salem can endorse ours, or write up your own.

  • When the time is right, write to your congressperson

  • Educate yourself using the materials provided

  • Tell like-minded activist friends and have them do the same

• Questions/Discussion:

  • Rod - at the base of what you are advocating for, is there an assumption that our congress will do a better job or protect us from injustice?

    • A: Maybe yes. If we want to get this moving and see change and give congress back power that drifted to the president prior to 2024 (See Rachel Maddow’s book) we should do this now. I don’t have all the answers but you’ve got to start somewhere.

  • John Mahoney - Are you working with MA dems or is this a national effort

    • A: Starting at a grassroots level at town committees, but on MA state Public policy committee and plan to bring it there. The game plan going forward is to go to organizations like Swing Left and Indivisible. He has contacted Warren and Markey and his congressperson, McGovern.

  • Liz Bradt - agree we need to rewrite the standard op procedure

  • Julie Curtis - can you tell us what's in the WPR, or the principles?

    • A: oversight and constraint

  • Rod - would it be a fair summary to say that you are hoping to inform members of congress that we have an issue that needs to be revisited. We’re not going to tell you how to address it, but it does need to be addressed.

    • A: Yes. It needs attention by the subject matter experts

  • Rod - given this is the focus, I think you’re doing the right thing by going to the grassroots and talking to town committees. Educating and having us all think of this. I endorse it.

  • Chris - I hadn’t thought of it, but it clicked that of course this is something we should care about and think about, particularly in our district with our congressperson. Moulton has experience with military and wars.

  • Filipe - I agree this is needed, I unfortunately think it will be an uphill battle with our congressperson. I’d like to know why other townships didn’t support this so we can prepare

    • A: One person wanted things more binary. The other is from a legal background and believes this is a constitutional issue not resolved through this. The third was the question of if congress would be willing to take the responsibility

  • Chris - I agree with Victoria’s point too. Because of how ambiguous things have become, this is an argument against having this resolution be binary.

  • John - doesn’t believe this is a political win because Gillibrand didn’t do well in the presidential primary and she had this as one of her pillars

  • Charlene - reminds folks this isn’t telling congress what to do, it’s just a request to figure it out.

  • Shey - this seems to be something dems support more than republicans and that it feels that our country is incapable of peace - that we go to war as soon as our interests are at risk.

  • Chris - shall we vote?

  • Filipe - as an immigrant, as a Brazillian, I believe we need to prevent the president from bombing Black and brown countries unilaterally but I say we hold on voting today in order to look at it more fully.

  • Chris - yes, we should have a subcommittee look over it and report back

• Chat record from this portion of the meeting:

Victoria: Part of the problem is that we do not necessarily fight wars against a nation or a clearly defined enemy right now. That is what is at issue, I think.

00:50:57 John Mahoney he/him: good point Victoria

00:51:06 Victoria Nadel: In other words, the Constitution was written in regard to nations and nation states, not Al Qaeda or The Taliban or White Supremacy which is where the danger currently lies since the UN has done a good job, more or less, on bringing defined nations together.

00:58:10 Victoria Nadel: We invaded Iraq to LIBERATE the Iraqi people (in theory) not to declare war against the people of Iraq. It was against the dictator leader, not the nation itself. The geo political world is not the same geopolitical world it was when the US Constitution was written or even when the original war powers act was written. I think this is a very complex issue.

01:05:30 Jeff Cohen he/him: Based on past presidential practice, two reforms spring to mind: defining “hostilities” under the War Powers Resolution and specifying whom the president should consult (and how) before hostilities commence. The former, as advocated by Yale law professor Oona Hathaway, would codify a commonsense view of “hostilities,” which would end the increasingly cynical arguments that airstrikes and raids do not apply under the Resolution. The latter change could provide better direction on how Congress is to be consulted. It could mandate who is consulted (such as a specified group of majority and minority leadership and committee heads), when they are to be consulted, and limit the exceptions that presidents may use to avoid consulting Congress in the first place.

Business Part of Meeting

Review of Meeting Minutes

Review of previous minutes.

MOTION to TABLE minutes until April: Tyler Carlton

Seconded: John M

Discussion: None

Outcome: Approved

Committee & Officer Reports

Bylaws - Tyler Carlton

Note prior language:

The officers of this organization shall consist of a Chairperson (or co-Chairs), Vice Chairperson (one or more), Secretary, Treasurer and Affirmative Action and Outreach Advisor, and such other officers as it may decide to elect. The Chair(s) and Vice Chair(s) shall not be of the same gender.

Note proposed language:

“The officers of this organization shall consist of a Chairperson, Co-Vice Chairperson (of different gender identities)… Subsequently, this change would result in needing to change Article VI - Vice Chairperson to be changed to say “Co-Vice Chairpersons” and the description shall say “The Co-Vice Chairpersons shall…”

Victoria moves to pass this.

It passes unanimously.

Discussion Notes:

The committee recommends that we have co-vice chairs of male identifying and female identifying representation.

After discussion and at Jay’s recommendation, we are looking at having an amendment that says co-chairs of two different genders to be inclusive of gender nonconforming folks.

This is designed to prevent any issues with turning someone away. Example: if Rod was chair and Tyler wanted to run for vice chair, as it stands, Tyler couldn’t run because there is already male identifying representation.

Further discussion to look at why this might be needed as it seems like it would be a rare situation and the question is if this is overcomplicating things.

Rod believes this creates more flexibility and prevents the situation we had this year, and says this does not take anything away.

Marsha is interested in hearing what membership is interested in and that this has become a conversation between 1 or 2 people.

Filipe wonders if we’re getting too complicated with the language.

Tyler shares that every two years we reorg and this prevents an issue where there is an additional meeting if we are put in the spot of needing to scramble.

Jeff - just the word identify is an issue. The state has an issue there. If someone wants to serve, they should be able to serve. To force a member to identity is something we should avoid and I think we can do that with the language. I think this has spiraled into a place it shouldn’t. We need to make this committee encouraging so that folks don’t have to identify.

Chris - my understanding is that folks would know the slate in advance and that we are all thoughtful about it

Victoria - I understand that, but we have had hotly contested elections. The idea of changing the bylaws is to ensure inclusivity for people who want to serve even if we have the same gender for every office, the additional office seat for each allows for inclusivity.

Jay - The reason behind it is irrelevant. It’s the language that needs to be updated and serves this committee. The state party doesn’t have the right language. Salem is setting an example for the state party.

Alice - we have had times when there wasn’t a lot of interest and when there wasn't a lot, so I support this change. I like Jay’s point of being a model for the state with inclusive language.

Chris - no arguments if this is what is what we all want and is the most inclusive for everyone and we’re not accidentally going opposite of what our goal is.

Note prior language:

The officers of this organization shall consist of a Chairperson (or co-Chairs), Vice Chairperson (one or more), Secretary, Treasurer and Affirmative Action and Outreach Advisor, and such other officers as it may decide to elect. The Chair(s) and Vice Chair(s) shall not be of the same gender.

Guest Presentation: Death with Dignity - John Berkowitz

WesternMassDeathWithDignity@gmail.com to be in touch.

It is a social movement that has been around for 30 years.

9 states have passed this, including DC.

New Mexico is soon to pass this.

In MA we’ve been working on this for 10 years. Sometimes it’s called compassionate aide in dying.

There is a well-known Republican columnist in the Salem News named Barbara Anderson. She and her partner had to go through the excruciating experience of her having cancer and really suffering at the end. She wanted to choose to get a medication to have a painless death for herself and her partner. Her surviving partner wrote last year in the Salem News in an Op Ed in support of the bill and spoke for his wife who also supported it.

It is a humane and compassionate option. Hospice does a great job, but there are a number of folks who experience so much suffering they would like an alternative option

Canada 2016, New Zealand, Columbia, Holland, and other countries have this.

53 house members support this, we are trying to get Paul Tucker to cosponsor as well. Joan Lovely is a sponsor.

Essentially the bill allows for this option when you have 6 months left on a terminal illness. Two doctors have to diagnose and approve this. You go to a pharmacy and get your pill and after taking it you pass within two minutes, pain free.

Liz Bradt and Chris have been briefed. Others can get in touch with him with questions.

Announcements

John M: reminds of the Organizing Hub through the Mass Dems on Saturdays at 3pm. This is organizing for the next elections, encouraging town committees to form, etc.

Julie: The convention caucus period is being discussed as June 1st - July 11th. Tentative convention on the 3rd week of September. State committee meeting in April.

Tyler: We will vote during the April meeting to confirm these dates.

Julie: Monthly Salem Cleanup - this Saturday at noon. It’s at Collins Cove. Rod, Julie and Alice have all participated and would love to see the Salem Dems do one. Salem Beautification Committee, run by high school student, Ethan, in the Point.

Subcommittees

We have Four we are required to form: Bylaws, Resource Development, Coordinated Campaign, Membership Development

• Resource Development includes events and fundraising

• Coordinated campaign includes activism we’re working on and a platform we as the Salem Dems create and support

• Membership Development - its critical we engage and add new members.

In addition add the following:

• Diversity and Inclusion - James is continuing on as the chair.

• Digital Communications - social media and prioritizing a policy and specific tone/messaging, and website development

Tyler thinks this is great and we should make them permanent through the bylaws committee

MOTION to adjourn made at [8:45]: Chris F

Seconded:. Lois Sargent

Discussion: none

Outcome: adjourned