Why I didn't sign the 'transparency pledge' of DSA national leadership candidates

[The Democratic Socialists of America is holding their convention in Atlanta August 1-4. As I've already explained, I am running for the group's National Political Committee. The majority of other NPC candidates have signed a Transparency Pledge, but I refused to sign. Following is what I posted in the internal DSA Discussion Board explaining my decision. I will add that although I raise a number of issues with the pledge, just the first one was more than enough for me to reject it.]

Patronizing tokenization
The pledge commits signers to ensuring that "all text is translated into spanish within a reasonable timeframe." That's bunk: it is not going to happen. I'm a professional translator and interpreter. I guarantee you: the cost is prohibitive and the product is worthless. We have no use for it.

Language justice for Spanish-dominant people is an extremely important, serious matter that the resolution I wrote on orienting to the Latinx communities barely takes the first baby step in broaching. And it is not a question of translation, but of creating spaces where Latinx people --and especially immigrants and the sons and daughters of immigrants -- feel at home.

I can't possibly express my disappointment that concern about the Latino community has been expressed this way, through patronizing tokenization, nor how much I resent having to write something like this once again.

Transcription is not the way to get highly accessible transparency
The translation promise is put in the context of "Ensure that all audio communication is transcribed, and all text is translated into spanish within a reasonable timeframe." Well, everything said in a meeting is "audio communication." Is this serious? A day-long meeting will produce a book-length transcript (+/- 50,000 words).

And does this include translating the transcript of every meeting? Both the transcript and the translation are very expensive undertakings and by far not the best way of guaranteeing transparency.

One thing that could be done instead is to have a good quality video transmission and recording of the meeting. This means multiple mics, an audio board or mixer, multiple cameras (2 or 3) to have a good view of the speaker, and use of a computer program like Vmix that basically gives you the capacity of a small TV control room. It might cost a couple of thousand dollars for the equipment.

And, yes, it is possible and not that hard. We do it every day at Radio Información. You do need trained people, but tons of students are learning this in college.

Wrong-headed or misworded provisions
I disagree with "Ensure final meeting agendas are published no less than 72 hours prior to the meeting." I have no problem with updated agendas going out three days before, but the "final agendas" should be those voted by the NPC itself at the beginning of the meeting. I would refuse to be locked in or censored by whatever the agenda-makers decide is worth discussing.

I also object to "Refrain from holding NPC/SC calls, votes, or other discussions of official business outside of official NPC/SC meeting settings." A National Political Committee has to react to real-world politics, a role the current committee has failed to fulfill. That is going to mean holding meetings on short --even very short-- notice or continuing to abdicate that responsibility. Since the statement doesn't make it clear, I don't know if that falls outside the "settings" the email refers to.

I can't support "Hold office hours remotely for 2 to 4 hours each month, which are scheduled at least two weeks in advance and published to membership" without a lot more being said. We are not officers individually empowered to deal with matters. Our function is as members of a committee. There would need to be strict guidelines, mechanisms and safeguards that all matters that properly belong before the committee are communicated to the entire committee. And let's not be disingenuous: everyone knows that certain NPC members have used their positions to build caucuses and uncaucuses. [We have one internal grouping called "Build" that claims not to be a caucus but has resolutions and candidates before the convention].

And I can't "Commit to the work being done by the membership to improve the grievance process and handle those in a timely manner." without knowing which members are being referred to or what improvements they propose. Otherwise, it is just a blank check.

The elephant in the room: factionalism
I believe the real motive for the pledge is trying to do something about the paralysis and lack of transparency that has resulted from factionalism in the NPC. Other points were added --like the translation point-- in an effort to face up to the blatant failures of the previous NPC.

Transparency measures are very much needed but as I tried to illustrate with the video proposal above, there are other solutions that have not been analyzed. A hastily thrown together pledge drafted by a small number of comrades is likely to be flawed. These things need to be seriously analyzed in a process that is open to the entire membership, in order to develop and refine proposals.

The previous NPC was completely irresponsible in failing to deal with issues like transparency, dues distribution, regionalization, the structure of the national leadership, language justice and many others.

Serious proposals for a convention in 2020
In my opinion, except for amendment 15 enlarging the size of the NPC, ALL of the resolutions on structure, dues, etc., should be tabled to the incoming NPC with a mandate to form open, broad-based commissions to draw together ideas and create one or more proposals in each area for a convention a year from now to consider.

We will clearly need a convention then anyways to decide what to do about the fall election, and if we decide to actively intervene, to organize and mobilize for that effort.

I make an exception for amendment 15 to enlarge the NPC. It may not be ideal but it is the most direct, immediate measure we have available in an attempt to prevent factionalism from dominating the incoming NPC the way it has the past one, and to make it more representative.

The pledge I want: dissolve the factions
The pledge I would have liked to have supported is one demanding that all the factions --including Build-- dissolve. I call them factions because that is what they are: highly structured membership organizations seeking to put their people in the leadership and thereby impose their politics as the politics of the national organization.

You might say that doesn't happen in the DSA but I contend there is no other explanation for the failure of national DSA to deal adequately with what Trump has made the top ongoing political issue in the country, immigration, and the failure of our national organization to reach out to Latinos, the largest oppressed minority. It is a reflection of the narrow, economist, class-reductionist politics of the leading faction in the NPC.

I think comrades who want to advocate a particular point of view should function instead as an ideological current, putting forward their ideas through a web site or blog, maybe with an editorial board but without an elected leaderships that serves as a board or executive committee for the group, membership requirements, bylaws, polls and elections and all the rest of it.

The organized factions and their paralyzing squabbling are alienating big sections of the membership: it needs to stop or we are going to pay a very heavy price, and possibly destroy the DSA as it exists now.