Obama's Movement
Home | Articles | Proposals

Obama's Movement

Proposals for Post-election Activities

Recommendations to the National Office

In this statement, which I’ll send to the national Obama for America staff for their current evaluation and planning session, I amend and elaborate on the proposals I presented in The Future of the Obama Movement and The Importance of Structure.

With regard to the proposed requirements of membership for the envisioned home-based teams, I delete “who live in the same Congressional District (CD),” which is my first amendment.

Most people identify primarily with their city (or nearest town) and don’t know the boundaries of their CD. To require them to learn new boundaries before forming a home-based team would provide a roadblock. Moreover, eliminating the CD requirement would enable existing activist groups with a different boundary to more easily affiliate with our national organization.

So each team should be free to identify its own geographical boundaries.

And each team should be free to name itself and define its own nature based on particularcharacteristics or interests – for example, “Richmond District Labor for Change.”

Individuals unable to meet face-to-face with others could establish a team that met online or via conference calls. This option should be discouraged, however, for face-to-face interaction is extremely valuable.

Each individual member would be limited to voting participation in only one team, though they could participate in others.

The basic requirement for voting rights should be participating in one’s primary team for a basic minimum of hours, perhaps five hours a month.

The need to concentrate attention on Congresspersons could be addressed by creating CD Teams that would be a branch off the organizational chart. Individual members with the time to participate in CD Team meetings and discussions could do so.

If a team were to have only one member living in a particular CD, for example, that member could connect with members of their CD Task Force from other teams to work together to address the Congressperson, or she or he could do it alone. In either case, she or he would report back to the home-based team afterwards.

Even with this mix of teams with different kinds of boundaries (and perhaps some with no boundaries), each team could still be invited to select one or two representatives to the next-higher-level team (or “advisory board,” see below). If a team had members in two cities, for example, they could send their reps to a county team if there were one, or to the regional team if there weren’t.

So the higher levels would be consistent: national, multi-state regions, state, and intra-state regions. The variation in structure would occur at the local levels, depending on the lay of the land and the nature of the participation.

The higher-level teams consisting of representatives from below would have a different function than that of the home-based teams. To clarify matters, they could be called “advisory boards,” which is my second amendment. They would report horizontally to one another on their activities, provide encouragement to one another, brainstorm and evaluate new ideas, develop recommendations to send to the next-higher level advisory board, and report back to those they represent.

Calling them “advisory boards” would help clarify their nature, for they would not be charged with taking action, such as lobbying, which would be left to the home-based teams and other entities with which they affiliate. Rather, the primary role of the advisory boards would be to develop recommendations to send upward toward the national office.

If the new organization allowed for the formation of teams that did not meet face-to-face, it would need to establish some method for such teams to send representatives to a city-based, an intra-state regional advisory board, or a state advisory board, for it would be out of balance for them to send a representative directly to the national advisory board.

In urban areas, folks could be encouraged to start with neighborhood-based teams. Once one of these teams reached ten or so members, they could either stop inviting new members or they could sub-divide. Sub-dividing would offer a good opportunity for recruiting new members, for each new team would have space for new members – either by inviting individuals they already know or by posting a public notice (such as a MyBO or Facebook event) that they are open to new members.

A current list of all teams and reports on their activities could be maintained on a website, perhaps one with wiki collaborative software with each team having their own password in order to edit their page.

Keeping the teams fairly small would be important in order to enable the full participation of every member within a limited time frame. Many people have only limited time for activism. So it’s important to structure the organization so that those people are able to participate fully.

The national office could encourage the formation of as many precinct-based teams as possible. When teams sub-divide, if two or three members live in the same precinct, they could commit to recruiting their neighbors to join their team. We could also encourage teams based in large housing units. These measures would facilitate the kind of year-round precinct work that will be needed to build a truly powerful grassroots organization.

Advisory boards would need to be required to sub-divide when they reach a certain threshold, maybe 20 or so. Once a group becomes too large, the full participation of everyone becomes problematic. These teams might conduct discussions online or with conference calls.

Thus, a very active neighborhood might have several teams, most of which would send representatives to a neighborhood-wide advisory board, which would send reps to the citywide advisory board. When a neighborhood team sub-divides, the reps from the initial team would resign and the new teams would select new reps, perhaps including one or more of the initial reps.

Nothing will be more problematic than how to determine the content of recommendations for action to be issued by the national office. This mechanism needs to balance various needs, including inclusive leadership, timely actions, a thoughtful process, and maximizing participation.

The national governing board must be diverse and fully represent the people of the United States. If a completely new organization is formed, initially the incorporators could achieve diversity by choosing the first Board carefully and wisely and stipulating that the Board will be self-perpetuating – that is, the Board itself fills vacancies. The national advisory board (and perhaps others) could offer input into these decisions. Terms should be for three years, with one-third of the Board being replaced each year. This overall approach would provide stability during the first critical years of the new organization.

After a few years, this process could be modified to enable members to elect some or all Board members directly, if some measures were established to assure diversity, such as requiring candidates to run on a slate and having members vote on entire slates. However, during the first few years, while everyone is getting to know each other more fully, a more controlled process would enhance prospects for stability.

Whether with a new organization or a transformed Democratic Party, the national governing board should not micromanage. Rather, as John Carver and others have argued, it should adopt written policies for the organization, hire an Executive Director (ED), delegate responsibility for the implementation of those policies to the ED, and regularly evaluate the ED. An effective Board will have its hands full accomplishing these goals, without interfering in daily decisions. If it doesn’t like a decision made by the staff, it should adopt a written policy to prevent it happening again.

The ED in turn should be directed by the Board (via a written policy) to form a top-level management team that would work collaboratively and democratically to the maximum extent feasible, while selecting other team leaders who do the same with their responsibilities. Myself, I think it’s best to have one person clearly identified as the coordinator, for the sake of clear communication.

One of these teams should be charged with determining the content of recommendations for national action to be issued by the national office. This team would need to be small enough to make decisions rapidly, for it would be important that these decisions are timely, and the situation in Congress can change rapidly. Moreover, it would be important for the national office not to flood members with too many requests for action, for most individuals have limited time. So the national office should highlight occasional, perhaps monthly, actions that are top-priority and winnable. To do this, it would need to make well-informed decisions quickly following adequate deliberation, so this team would need to be relatively small in size.

Especially with the Internet, various mechanisms could be established to offer this team guidance, such as polls. But using these methods to make final decisions would be problematic. Use of the Internet is skewed, so the decision-makers would not be representative of all Americans. Polls and such take time, so they tend to be general, and when it comes to crunch time with legislation, the crucial options for action are often more specific. And such methods don’t allow for back-and-forth discussion and thoughtful deliberation, which happens best face-to-face and/or via videoconferencing.

So, it seems to me that the best way to determine the recommended action is for the national staff to establish a representative team to make that decision. If members at large were unhappy with these decisions, they could try to remedy it through the network of advisory boards. And, again, after a few years of stability, especially with a totally new organization, we might amend the bylaws to empower members to elect national Board members directly, in which case they could remedy their dissatisfaction by electing new Board members. Eventually, we might even establish a mechanism for empowering members to determine the recommended action. But all that would get complicated and time-consuming, and we need to act quickly early next year by trusting our national staff to study the issues and make timely recommendations.

Myself, I like the idea of specifying the second week of each month as Action Week. This schedule would enable everyone to free up time by planning ahead. And if we persuade our Congresspersons to conduct regular public forums, such as the proposed Community Dialogues with Elected Officials, we could try to get all of those events to take place on the second Saturday, so activists from throughout the country could go to a Community Dialogue with their Congressperson on the same day and communicate the same message.

Another issue is how to form alliances with other organizations. A new post-election organization or the Democratic Party could explore forming a coalition with other national activist groups, as presented in the proposal for a Million Member Monthly Mobilization.

Individual home-based team members would decide for themselves how to communicate with their Congressperson, while relying on a guide prepared by the national office as needed. One option could involve a few team members getting together to write individual letters. Each one would write a draft, show it to the others for feedback, and then re-write it until satisfied. Another option could involve a few members going to the Congressperson’s office to talk with a staff person face-to-face. If a Community Dialogue or some other public forum were scheduled, all team members who are free at that time could participate. If need be, all teams with roots in the CD could work with other organizations to organize a picket line or some other action.

The basic approach should be respectful dialogue geared toward developing a constantly improving relationship with the Congressperson. If the Congressperson is already committed to supporting the issue at hand, the dialogue can focus on expressing appreciation for that commitment and exploring how everyone might work on advancing the issue. Asking questions, rather than merely making demands, is essential. Prior to each communication, folks can formulate a few questions for which they want answers, including basic information, and follow through later to get answers as needed.

Many progressive activists believe there is no need to develop a closer relationship with their Congressperson because he or she already votes the right way on most issues. This assumption is incorrect.

Every Congressperson could be doing more to use their office as an organizing tool to help strengthen their local community. In addition to talking about specific national legislation, team members could raise other issues, like persuading the Congressperson to participate in a monthly Community Dialogue (which would be a community organizing tool), convening a fundraiser for some worthy project, or joining the Progressive Caucus. Also, since Congresspersons send mailings to all of their constituents with taxpayer money, team members could develop recommendations concerning the content of those mailings. There’s probably no limit to the ways that teams could develop stronger partnerships with progressive Congresspersons, and help to assure that they follow through on their commitments.

In addition to talking with their Congressperson, teams could organize support in the community for persuading the Congressperson to convene a monthly Community Dialogue, which represents the kind of structural change we need to democratize our country.

And perhaps team members could be encouraged to communicate with their Senators and President as well. If so, I believe priority would still need to be placed on Congresspersons so we’re sure to focus as much energy as possible on the House of Representatives, which is more responsive to pressure. Once we know that we’re able to do that, then we could expand our efforts.

With measures like these, we can develop a national organization that is rooted in small supportive teams that engage in both community service and political action on national issues in order to help transform not only this country, but also the whole world.

Comments: To give feedback or make a suggestion concerning this page, click here.