By David Jenkins, a member of the DSA National Political Committee, DSA’s National Secretary, and an NYC Convention Delegate for World2Win. Special thanks to Tom J. for contributions to the Proposed Bylaws and this article, and Evie R. for her edits and proofreading.
Link to “Democracy and Unity: Representative Bylaws for NYC-DSA” resolution
Who Cares About Bylaws Anyway
In DSA, bylaws are typically understood in two ways: (1) they are the rules established by an organization to run itself and subject to the scrutiny of nonprofit law, and (2) they are an utterly boring legalistic exercise that no one ever really wants to engage with, in favor of “doing the work.” This tension leads to inscrutable, neglected bylaws that are often not followed because of practicality. They may be periodically patched to address some new context, leading to confusing collections of articles, amendments, and clauses. They may even be used as blunt instruments of authority by those with insider knowledge or experience. This is a problem for member participation in DSA at every level.
Ideally, bylaws should be as simple as possible, completely legible to the average member, and useful to all as a reference document. They should represent how we agree to work together – nothing more, nothing less. The parts should fit together to create a functioning whole, and make the machine run smoothly while facilitating the purpose of the organization. They should be regularly reconsidered, in their entirety, to keep pace with the practice and needs of the org.
Some find it strange that members of the Libertarian Socialist Caucus (LSC), many of whom are anarchists, have such a penchant for bylaws and parliamentary procedure. This, of course, belies a fundamental misunderstanding of anarchism prevalent across the left – that we all eschew order and organizing for individualist whims. “Anarchy,” even to many democratic socialists, is still a synonym for “chaos,” as popularized by more than a century of anti-communist propaganda, as well as a lamentable lack of imagination for statelessness. Rather, it is our commitment to order – an order that is transparent, collectively understood and agreed-upon, and within DSA at least, maximizes member-led democracy – that compels us to this task. Anarchists carry into DSA our same commitment to be neither ruled, nor ruler, but rather to work to agree to rules. It is a firm belief that while structural fixes cannot replace the work, it is absolutely essential that we take great care to design a system that genuinely facilitates the principles of democracy in DSA.
The Bylaws are NYC-DSA’s History
The NYC-DSA Bylaws trace the story of the organization. NYC-DSA started in a church basement and the apartments of members. It has since grown to be the largest chapter of the largest socialist organiziation in US history; to the point of capturing the mayor’s seat and operating two offices. Adapting to this massive growth, accommodating the surge of organizing energy and ever-increasing political stakes and contradictions of our work, has meant building the plane as we fly it. Our bylaws reflect this.
The current Chapter Bylaws are sprawling and difficult to navigate, redundant, contradictory, confusing, and at this point out of compliance with national standards, as recently formalized with the Democracy Commission (DemCom) and expectation of Chapter Affiliation Agreements. We’ve operated in such a silo that when faced with structural questions, we’ve depended on unique solutions for facilitating member democracy at scale.
Attempts to make patchwork changes have themselves had unintended consequences. Adding additional seats elected by majority to the Steering Committee (SC) and arcane formulae to determine the combined Branch Organizing Committee / Citywide Leadership Committee (OC/CLC) seats has led to less representative leadership, and confusing roles and elections. Adding administrative committees piecemeal instead of creating a standard practice has stifled delegation and transparency of important tasks, while the Admin Committee (AC) seats remain majority elections to sit on SC and CLC.
The Bylaws have also become a site of fierce factional struggle, and not just for competing visions of member democracy, like asynchronous voting vs. general meetings, or technocratic tweaks for better operations or factional benefit. In fact, the very definition of membership and affiliation with DSA nationally has been questioned and had to be defended.
The current Bylaws were brought before the 2024 Convention without most of the changes made to the draft previously assembled by the CLC highlighted. This version included additional legalese, and, most importantly, new language around local-only membership, in violation of DSA policy and practice. Most delegates, myself included, assumed these were the bylaws CLC had worked on with the minor changes noted, and approved them despite those unnoticed out of order additions. They were then used for our relatively late separate chapter incorporation, which had been standard practice for DSA chapters for years.
This became very confusing to many new members joining during our “local dues drive” riding the Zohran wave, which at first appeared to make good on that definition change. This was also very troubling to many members who feared there was an active intent to eventually split NYC-DSA away from the national organization. Thankfully, after much tension and discussion locally and nationally, the NYC-DSA Steering Committee clarified that it wasn’t the intention to give “local-only” donors full membership rights, and has since put forward an amendment that partially patches the issue. But to meet the other DemCom requirements, another amendment was put forward that grants the CLC the unprecedented power to edit the Bylaws themselves instead of addressing it at Convention.
Despite the stakes of this membership question and DemCom, most of the discussion around Bylaws we’ve seen this year was regarding the compensation of Co-Chairs. Even new members flagged this policy as disallowed, and the conversation shifted to workarounds put forward by Steering to begin payments early. Politics aside, this debate underscored that the Bylaws are only engaged with when they are obstacles, rather than guiding, agreed-upon principles.
Ironically, my position as a member of the National Political Committee (NPC), in a position of ostensible authority and tasked with the responsibility of executing Convention mandates, has made my every earnest intervention in this question perceived in the absolute worst way. Efforts to direct NYC are inextricably linked to longstanding tensions with the chapter, factional maneuvering, and tangential questions around AOC. My concerns are not quite ignored, but given the overall lack of communication the only options our authority affords us would be punitive, entrench factional divides, and be profoundly disorganizing to DSA when we should be struggling together through these conditions to unify with our largest chapter, which has so helped catalyze DSA nationwide.
But really, I know my power doesn’t solely come from being on the NPC, in a position of “authority.” My power is also as a DSA member, and my right to organize within my chapter to achieve the changes I envision. That is, and should always be, the way we enact changes like these. I do not regret the steps I took on the NPC to enforce the rules, but I know in my LSC heart that it was never the way I wanted it done.
So it is in the absence of chapter-wide discussions on Bylaws revisions, the dire state of our governing document, and the imperative that NYC-DSA affirm its unity with DSA that I put forth this overhaul. It’s rooted in national standards and practices and preserves as much as possible to avoid unnecessary confusion or critique. I hope it can be the new baseline upon which we deliberate further revisions or amendments at the 2026 NYC-DSA Convention and beyond.
Democracy and Unity: Representative Bylaws for NYC-DSA
This proposal substantially improves the accessibility and coherence of our chapter Bylaws by significantly simplifying them and introducing proportionality and direct member democracy to NYC’s existing structures, the SC, CLC, and Branches. Other than merging the existing Admin Committee, which is fully redundant, with the Steering Committee, making changes which aren’t strictly necessary either for compliance or to achieve those more basic democratic aims has been avoided. An overall reformatting also vastly improves their readability, as well as their ease of reference and amendment.
It may seem at first glance to be a messy tangle of tweaks and edits, but it’s important to zoom out and understand the simple big picture of what it is trying to achieve: member democracy and proportional representation. The various solutions and simplifications allow the democracy to flow more smoothly – that is, more representatively – and better express the will of membership in decision-making, leadership, and organized activity in the Branches and citywide. Responsibilities are clarified and in every way members are more empowered.
Now, zoom in to the experience of a member. You attend (or review minutes from) general meetings for your Branch, which combines Chapter updates with member decision-making about the activity of the Branch. Local events and campaigns, from electoral and labor to the Tenant Organizing Working Group and the Community Solidarity Committees, build roots and credibility in our neighborhoods. These projects connect with or can develop into chapterwide priorities, campaigns, and coalitions. You elect your Branch Organizing Committee (OC) to run a “branch” that, anywhere else in the country, would be considered a “very large” chapter, perhaps with even its own branches. For most members not deeply involved in Working Groups, the Branch is your political homebase and an embedded part of your community.
When it comes to citywide decision-making, the question of cost, logistics, and feasibility of regular General Meetings (GMs) hasn’t been settled.The Citywide Leadership Committee (CLC) serves as a body that can function in the place of a GM, and represent you citywide. You can serve as, or organize for seats in, your Branch delegation to have your views represented, and that’s why the CLC is strictly proportional. CLC members actively work and deliberate on citywide initiatives, and their decisions are considered the highest decisions between Conventions and Special Meetings. It’s about the size of a medium chapter’s general meeting, but represents thousands of members, and is exciting to observe.
Lastly, in order to elect the day-to-day leadership and the Board of Directors, you and every other NYC-DSA member have a vote to decide the Steering Committee and Co-Chairs.These seats can be filled by a member from any Branch. There are officer roles like Treasurer, and liaisons like Tech & Tools, but they’re supported by robust admin committees with skilled members regardless of political leadership. The Steering Committee keeps the work moving, keeps people connected, keeps NYC-DSA’s books and paperwork up to snuff, and coordinates with the national organization and major coalition partners. They have broad authority, but answer to the CLC as the representation of membership.
You’ve voted for three layers of leadership, and they’re all proportional to membership through single-transferable votes and subject to a recall. Now how can you actually organize to get things done? You can bring a resolution to a Branch Meeting, perhaps after workshopping the idea with comrades in working groups, chats, and socials. If it’s within the Branch’s authority, you can debate and decide it there. If it’s something you want the CLC to consider, the Branch can take a vote on whether to pass it along. And, if you and others organize to pass it in every Branch, it’s considered passed chapter-wide because, well, that just makes sense, doesn’t it? The CLC is a tool to represent the membership, not a detached authority over it.
I think this member experience, beyond reflecting my political commitment to proportionality in representative democracy, would be a welcome change and relief for the droves of new members joining our chapter who have reported difficulty navigating or understanding the various structures. I believe it will create more productive and open debate, better retain and develop member-organizers into leaders, and ensure the chapter runs smoother than ever, with leadership truly in the hands of its members.
Members should rank “Democracy & Unity: Representative Bylaws for NYC-DSA” highly on the Delegate Survey in order to have this debate at Convention. It is important these decisions are made by our highest and most representative body, not one that is in dire need of reform itself.
For more details on the amendment, please see the Changes Explained tab from the resolution, as well as some in-depth answers to Frequently Asked Questions.
