by Matt T.

The 2025 Convention is over, and with tensions dissipating around internal questions and work beginning again, so too must come the analysis of the various debates within DSA itself. A specific feature of debates within our party over the past several months has been the attempt to delineate the factional politics of DSA in various ways. While this conception is not the most pressing of concerns, it is worth exploring in order to clarify the issues up for debate. The most obvious framing is the standard “left” vs “right.” Though this dichotomy may be apt in many cases, it breaks down over specific issues. As a brief example: Communist Caucus, a “left communist” faction, often agrees entirely with Bread and Roses on labor questions, a “centrist” one. The flaws of the left/right dichotomy are, however, easily explained through analysis of the ideological framings of the caucuses and the issues at hand, with the ultimate result being that we learn the terms “left” and “right” are specific, not general. 

In the lead-up to the convention another framing was frequently used by what we consider the right of DSA: members of Socialist Majority Caucus and Groundwork making the claim that the divide is between “sectarians” on one side and those who support “mass politics” on the other. This is a deeply interesting accusation, one worth taking the time to analyze. 

First of all, it is perhaps best to break down what “sectarianism” is in actuality, and then compare this framing with the political orientation of those in DSA labeled “sectarians”. “Sectarianism” is a term levying the charge of disunity or a “breakdown in solidarity,” a rather weighty accusation in an organization such as DSA, where open debate and factionalism are held sacrosanct.[1] Writing for the Socialist Majority Caucus, comrade Vincent L. defines sectarianism as follows:

The sectarian tendency longs for a purer and necessarily smaller organization that will transition very soon into an ideologically cohesive, separate political party with elected officials who owe allegiance to the party’s elected leaders; this tendency measures success in terms of DSA’s appeal to already organized vanguardist sects and prepares for a final crisis of capitalism to sweep a socialist party into power.

There are several obvious criticisms. Foremost is the claim that these factions, as diverse as they are, are uniformly in favor of a “smaller organization.” The root of such an accusation? Completely unexplained. After all, the partyist wing of the organization is in favor of a mass socialist party, not an organic centralist Italian left-communist monstrosity.[2] From Resolution R7: Principles for Party Building, supported and celebrated by supposed “sectarian caucuses”:

The fundamental purpose of a socialist party is to be a mass association of the working class formed for collective political action. The party will be united around a democratically created program that outlines goals that, enacted together, will allow the working class to rule and end capitalism.

Clearly stated, the goal is for DSA to be a mass socialist party, not a smaller organization. Any notion that these caucuses are fomenting disunity or undermining socialist solidarity is, then, on its face false. Frankly, even intellectually insulting. Since this framing of ‘sectarianism’ fails to hold up to scrutiny, what more is there to discuss? The answer is that while a poorly thought out accusation and factional description, it does point to a very real conflict at the heart of DSA’s internal politics. This article is not meant to break down who is necessarily “right” or “wrong” in such a struggle, but to identify the struggle itself and help my comrades on the right or “mass politics” wing of the Party have the proper terminology to be able to articulate and argue their own politics better. This is better than the current framing of discourse, where their claims are often ignored because of factional bias or ambiguity.

Mass politics is the uniting factor in DSA; from left to right, whether eco-socialist or Trotskyist or Maoist. Instead, the divide in DSA is between two different forms of mass politics, both with long histories and battles between each other: the United Front, in its various formations on the “left,” and the Popular Front on the “right.” Both of these strategies are based around combatting right wing politics, a central concern in an increasingly hostile American political environment, but position themselves with different allies and with different class structures. 

The left of DSA finds itself advocating the United Front strategy, whether through Trotsky’s classic formulation in the wake of the events in Italy in 1922 (where he was likewise opposed by right-wingers in the PCF) or through roundabout strategic constructions learned in times of guerrilla warfare by Marxist-Leninist and Maoist formations through the second half of the 20th century. The “United Front” posits a coalition of class forces specifically rather than wide ranging alliances with general “anti-fascist forces” of unreliable political and class orientations. This coalition of class forces include “workers’ parties and organizations,” i.e., combining Communists, trade unionists, Social Democrats (in the post-Great War sense) and other workers’ organizations to combat fascism and also prepare for workers’ power. This was the strategy of the left of the German SPD and various opposition factions in the KPD. The same formulation existed in Austria with the KPO and SPADO, though with more success due to the weaker hostilities between the parties and more left-wing political positioning of the SPADO. 

This formulation tracks to the supposed “sectarians” in DSA. The “United Frontists” wish to combine the elements of the workers’ movement which already exists in the U.S., and expand them. That includes appeals to the existing actual sectarian left, not in a defeatist or liquidationist sense, but in hopes of continuing to expand DSA with experienced organizers and socialists and assimilate them to our open political culture. If we cannot win over existing socialists, how are we to win over a political majority? 

Furthermore, the United Frontists are, much like their historical counterparts, oppositionists. They are opposed to the idea that socialist institutions are already built, only requiring socialists to take power in them. As a result, they are opposed to the compromise of principle for the sake of short term gains which may hurt the long term objectives of a mass movement. This can mean a more pessimistic view of socialists in office, but only in the sense that the United Frontist wishes for that socialist in office to be the United Front’s socialist in office—an extension of the mass movement, and not a political entity in and of themselves.

The opposed political orientation is that of the Popular Front. The Popular Front ignores the class question in favor of expanding to all organizations opposed to fascism. In France, the Popular Front took government in 1936 as a coalition of Radicals (briefly, ideological left-social liberals), the French Section of the Workers’ International and the Communist Party. In the United States, the conception of the Popular Front dissolved the CPUSA in practical terms into the Democratic and later Progressive parties in support of the New Deal. As such, CPUSA allied itself not only with the workers’ movement, but the sections of the petit- and big bourgeois in the United States in support of the Roosevelt administration. This maps onto the central thesis of DSA’s right, that we should, if necessary, compromise with non-socialists to win short term victories. The Popular Frontists of DSA are those that support the strategy of realignment of the Democratic Party and, in a sense, tail popular candidates. In other words, the supporters of realignment view socialist organizations as having, more or less, already been built. Now our only duty is to take power and rule said institutions. As such, the Popular Frontist views socialists in office as inherent members of the Popular Front, rather than contingent upon them being tribunes of a principled mass movement. 

By writing this, I hope to increase the level of discourse between the factions of DSA as the lack of theoretical care from certain comrades is less than encouraging. The alternative framing of these issues should provide clarity in discourse and clarity in our internal struggles, which are not things to shy away from in the pursuit of a better,  clearer and more scientific socialist politics. 

[1] “Sectarianism and Opportunism.” n.d. Marxists.org. https://www.marxists.org/glossary/terms/s/e.htm.
[2] For further reading on “Organic Centralism” see: Bordiga, Amadeo. 1924. “Communist Organisation and Discipline.” Communist Left. https://www.marxists.org/archive/bordiga/works/1924/discipline.htm.

The post Mass Politics vs Sectarianism: Misrepresenting an Important Reality within DSA first appeared on Rochester Red Star.

This is a special meeting of the GRDSA Chapter to consider a proposal to endorse and support several ballot initiatives.

We will have reps from each campaign to give a brief presentation and answer any questions. Then chapter members will present a proposal to endorse and circulate these petitions as a chapter.

Michigan for the Many (M4M) is an alliance between the MOP Up Michigan (Money Out of Politics) and the Invest in MI Kids (wealth tax to fund education).

Rank MI Vote (RMV) would amend the Michigan Constitution so that we would use Rank Choice Voting (instant runoff) for elections.

Join us Sunday, October 19, 4pm, on Zoom to hear how these initiatives can empower the working class of Michigan.

The post Special Chapter Meeting: Campaign Proposal Town Hall appeared first on Grand Rapids Democratic Socialists of America.

The following article is the result of a visit to the People’s Republic of China to participate in celebrating China’s 80th Anniversary of its victory over Japanese fascism. Dee Knight and DSA China Working Group coordinator Anlin Wang were part of a five-person self-organized delegation of DSA members.

Beijing buzzed with excitement on September 3, as leaders of friendly countries poured into the city from around the world. They came to celebrate China’s 80^th anniversary of defeating Japanese fascism in World War II and to participate in the Shanghai Cooperation Organization’s (SCO) Summit meeting. It was an impressive display of “unity in multi-polarity” featuring Russian President Putin and Indian Prime Minister Modi, as well as North Korean leader Kim Jong Un, among about two dozen others.

With participation of most southeast Asian members of ASEAN, as well as the “stans” of central Asia, China was literally surrounded by the representatives of countries representing well over four billion people and nearly half the world economy. Another prominent participant was President Pezeshkian of Iran, which maintains close economic and military partnerships with both Russia and China.

The New York Times called Beijing’s Victory Day parade on September 3 “a defiant warning to its rivals.” The awesome display of China’s military might at the V-Day parade lent “a menacing tone” for Western leaders and media. CNBC said Xi Jinping made “a thinly-veiled swipe at Trump’s global tariff campaign” when he said “shadows of Cold War mentality and bullying have not dissipated, with new challenges mounting.”

CNN offered a more measured tone, quoting Xi: “I look forward to working with all countries for a more just and equitable global governance system… We should continue to dismantle walls, not erect them; seek integration, not decoupling.” CNN added that “Xi’s vision pushes back against the foundations of a US-led world order, opposing alliances like NATO.”

Russian President Putin commented to Russian media after the summit that “The SCO is not designed to confront anyone. We do not set ourselves such a task. And… during the discussions and bilateral meetings, there has never been anything that could be described as a confrontational beginning during these four days.”

In kicking off the SCO Summit, Xi said “We should advocate an equal and orderly multipolar world, and a universally beneficial and inclusive economic globalization, and make the global governance system more just and equitable.”

How defiant is that? (Strange that advocating “universally beneficial and inclusive economic organization” can actually be considered a death threat for the US-led “rules-based” system.)

The massive military display at Beijing’s V-Day celebration left little doubt that China would never allow itself to be bullied again. More than 35 million Chinese were killed in Imperial Japan’s invasion and occupation of their country from the early 1930s to the end of World War II in August 1945. That’s even greater than the USSR’s loss of 27 million from the German Nazi onslaught. Together those numbers prompted Trump to say “Many Americans died in China’s quest for victory and glory. I hope they are rightfully honored…” 

Through the summit, we can see the past and future in contention for a world that’s striving to break away from overwhelming U.S. domination and unipolar rule. 

The “American Century”

The US lost about 420,000 soldiers in World War 2, according to the National WW2 Museum. But it assumed the role of overall victor, launching “the American Century” along with a global war against communism. It has maintained occupation troops in Japan, South Korea, the Philippines, Guam and other Pacific islands – all of which are deployed today against China, just as NATO (and its “defensive alliance” against the Soviet Union) continues to threaten Russia. Which side is threatening and destabilizing? It depends largely on your point of view.

During the Korean War, from 1950 to 53, the US slaughtered millions of Koreans, and flattened all buildings of more than one story, in a massive bombing campaign. Its threats to extend the war into China were repelled by the mobilization of half a million Chinese to fight alongside the North Koreans. The US war against Vietnam began shortly after the French colonizers were routed in 1954 and lasted until the US too was finally defeated in 1975, at a cost of additional millions of Vietnamese victims and tens of thousands of US troops. Some estimates put the total number of Vietnamese dying from the U.S. war there at over 3 million, a staggering amount of human loss. Both wars were also aimed at China, and China provided troops and weapons to support their allies in both, staving off further ruin and destabilization within their own territory.

The war zones of today, in Eastern Europe, West Asia and the Far East, are continuations of eighty years of US unipolar domination, both militarily and economically. But the way the US is protecting its interests in all three areas has exposed a blunt reality: the constant official refrain that “America is protecting democracy and human rights” is nothing but war propaganda and mythology. For most of the world’s population, America’s leadership has only meant invasion, coups and more death. 

The US: Sponsor and Protector of Fascists

While China and the USSR achieved major defeats against fascism, the US sheltered and rehabilitated Imperial Japan’s fascist rulers, helping them form and maintain the country’s far-right Liberal Democratic Party which has ruled virtually non-stop for 80 years. (The US CIA did the same for the fascists of Ukraine, and have since sponsored them against Russia.) Japan’s rulers have been obstinate in acknowledging their role in the horrors their empire had perpetrated across Asia, refusing  to apologize for slaughtering millions in their invasion and occupation of China. Ditto for Japan’s 35-year colonial hold on Korea, from 1910 to 1945. In both countries the Japanese imperialists were notorious for setting up systems of “comfort women” – sex slaves for Japan’s occupation forces (not very different from the hospitality enjoyed by US occupation forces across Asia today, but a significant contrast to the status of women in China today).

In South Korea, a country formed by Korean collaborators with the Japanese empire,  the U.S. has sponsored a series of military dictatorships in South Korea, until democracy finally broke through in the 1990s. Such dictatorships were aimed at threatening China, most notably in the so-called Korean War, that resulted in an armistice in 1953 but never officially ended, which has kept Korea split in two and maintained a kleptocratic U.S. client state in power in the south for generations to come. In fact, through the armistice deal, the US working with its anticommunist counterparts in South Korea, awarded itself a forever military presence there, guaranteeing “operational control” of the massive Korean military in case of war against the Democratic People’s Republic of [North] Korea (DPRK), China, or both. Such belligerence underscores the significance of DPRK leader Kim standing next to Russian President Putin and Chinese President Xi at the V-Day event. It would seem that America’s network of alliances is now being faced with a counter-alliance of groups and nations no longer willing to accept its rule. 

Even the internal politics of South Korea has been scrambled over the last few months. Its new president, Lee Jae Myung, came to power last June, following six months of intense popular struggle to oust the US puppet President Yoon, who was impeached and jailed after declaring martial law, and trying to provoke a war with US backing. When President Lee visited Trump in August, he resisted US pressure for him to join US escalation against China, which is South Korea’s number one trading partner.

The friendly leaders from around the world who joined both the SCO summit and the Beijing V-Day celebration showed that US efforts to surround and threaten China are failing. Most of the southeast Asian countries that make up ASEAN, notably Vietnam, Indonesia, Laos, Malaysia, Myanmar, Thailand, and Cambodia, attended after recent visits to their countries by Chinese President Xi. The significant exception was the Philippines, where the US maintains a military alliance aimed at China. But like in South Korea, the popular movement against US domination is strong, with serious efforts to force the US bases out, and to help US soldiers refuse to engage in a hopeless war that can only lead to needless suffering and death.

The American century, part two, is in a phase of serious reckoning, as China does what the U.S. has never done, which is build alliances rather than simply imposing its will on other nations. 

Remembering When the US Helped China Against Fascism

The week before China’s national V-Day celebrations, there was a special event in the southwestern province of Guizhou, honoring doctors and nurses from the US and European countries who formed an International Medical Rescue Corps. As this Xinhua article reports, “Dozens of foreign medical workers worked alongside thousands of their Chinese counterparts from the Chinese Red Cross Medical Relief Corps to save lives and provide medical training under harsh conditions. Today, these foreign medical workers are collectively remembered as the International Medical Relief Corps (IMRC).”

On August 26, a delegation of the descendants of these volunteers attended a commemoration in Guiyang, the capital of Guizhou province, “to pay tribute to their forebears and mark the 80th anniversary of the victory in the Chinese People’s War of Resistance Against Japanese Aggression and the World Anti-Fascist War,” the Xinhua report said.

“As descendants of the International Medical Relief Corps, we are incredibly grateful to you for keeping our ancestors’ memory alive,” said Peter Soyogyi, whose father served in the IMRC. “For them, as international anti-fascists, this was not just China’s war; it was their own. It is essential for future generations to understand the fight against fascism and the struggle for freedom,” he added.

Following the commemoration ceremony, the descendants’ delegation and a group of solidarity activists from the US traveled along the famous “24-Zig Road” – also known as the Stilwell Road – which served as a supply line from Burma (now Myanmar) and India for medical supplies to the US-supported Chinese resistance to Imperial Japanese aggression. The road was a joint project of US and Chinese forces, and a symbol of their united efforts against Japanese fascist forces at the time.

US commanding General Joseph Stilwell had many conflicts with Chinese Kuomintang (KMT) leader Chiang Kai-Shek, who called for his ouster. Stilwell argued for unified efforts of the KMT and Red Army forces, which led to his replacement.

The descendants’ delegation, and the solidarity group from the US, got a close-up view of the challenges faced by US troops, as well as US and European medical workers, in helping the Chinese resistance to fascism during World War II.

Official US support during World War II for Chinese resistance to fascism was a major factor in defeating global fascism. But the switch to supporting fascism after the war, including up to the present day, poses a challenge to the world’s progressive forces. The existence of the Shanghai Cooperation Organization constitutes a giant bulwark in that fight. But the struggle continues, as challenging as ever, as can be seen in the US-backed genocidal assault on Palestine. Just as the world’s progressive forces united to stop fascism in the 1940s, history calls on us to unite even more strongly today. Victory against fascism today may spell the end of imperialism and capitalism, and usher in the common prosperity and shared future the world needs now. China, clearly, in its honoring of U.S. medical teams from the past, and in its willingness to bridge divides between itself and other countries, some who have been less than sympathetic to China such as India, should be taken seriously by those of us studying world events and the trajectory of history. So far, a new world order appears to be possibly forming right before our eyes, a world order promising far more diplomacy than explicit warmaking, a world order led by China and countries emboldened to try a different route than what had been the norm under U.S. unipolarity for generations. The recent summit exemplifies this new possible path that China and other countries are now willing to risk against the terrorism of the West. 

Photo: General Secretary of the Chinese Communist Party Xi Jinping, General Secretary of the Workers’ Party of Korea Kim Jong Un, President of the Russian Federation Vladimir Putin, President of Kazakhstan Kassym-Jomart Tokayev and President of Indonesia Prabowo Subianto at China’s Victory Day military parade in Beijing. Courtesy of the government of Indonesia.

In 2020, Portland DSA led a large coalition of unions, community organizations and elected officials to win our largest victory to date: Preschool for All! This program will provide universal preschool for all children in Multnomah County by Fall 2030, with living wages for teachers, all paid for by a small tax on Portland’s highest earners. Preschool For All is now in its 5th year of a 10-year rollout, and continues to advance, developing significant infrastructure  and capacity expansion in early learning and care.

But before we even won at the ballot in 2020, the establishment was aggressively against us. In early 2020 they took us to court to stall our signature gathering. Despite that, and amid the Covid-19 crisis that year, we organized to collect an astonishing 32,000 signatures in under 5 weeks – nearly 10,000 more than were required! 

Unsurprisingly, powerful and wealthy business interests have continued to relentlessly attack PFA, using all sorts of dirty tricks in an effort to avoid paying the small tax that funds it. We and our allies are paying close attention, however, and our tightly focused class analysis has been instrumental in overcoming every attack. 

2025 Brings New Attacks

In an article published on June 18 by Willamette Week, Governor Tina Kotek was quoted as suggesting to Multnomah County Chair Jessica Vega Pedersen a restructure of the Preschool for All tax. In the Willamette Week article, Kotek is described as making the argument that the tax is causing Portland’s wealthy “job-creators” to flee the city. This assessment couldn’t be further from the truth.

Kotek’s argument was based on spurious data: in a chart created by economist Mary King and posted on Bluesky by DSA member and Portland City Councilor Mitch Green, the data clearly show that the percentage of high-income earners in Multnomah County is dramatically increasing. “Basically, everyone has adopted uncritically this idea that the people who are leaving this county are those exposed to the PFA tax, which just isn’t borne out by the data,” said Councilor Green. With facts like these in hand, coupled with the enormous popularity of the program, we were able to produce a surge of popular outrage that forced the Governor to withdraw. 

The Willamette Week wrote a follow-up article about our campaign to defend PFA, quoting chapter co-chair Olivia Katbi: ”Governor Kotek is declaring war on preschool. She is sacrificing the future of Oregon’s children so that her rich friends stop yelling at her. This is an unacceptable capitulation to the demands of Oregon’s rich and super-rich, whose feelings have been hurt by being required to contribute to the society that made it possible for them to get so very rich.

Kotek’s fear-mongering about the loss of the city’s tax base because of a tax which funds a universal program for every resident of the county is a great disappointment, but not unexpected. It shows how subservient our political class is to the moneyed elite, who pay high prices to get access to elected officials and their political power.

It also hinges on the tired myth that Portland is a city in decline, burnt out after so much conflict. The reality is that Portland is a vibrant, thriving city that the rich want to live in, along with the rest of us. This is true in part because of its social programs, not in spite of them. Working-class voters won this program and will defend it — and Portland DSA is proud to be a part of that fight.” 

Soon after Kotek’s attack, former Nike lobbyist and current Multnomah County Commissioner Julia Brim-Edwards tried again, proposing a ridiculous tax-indexing scheme that would have effectively killed PFA before it could realize its 2030 stated goals. We saw that one coming too, and turned out hundreds of parents, educators, and community members to testify at the County Commission about the impact of free, universal and well-paid preschool in Portland’s communities. Ultimately Brim-Edwards withdrew her proposal; another embarrassing waste of time and energy in the service of greedy people who will stop at nothing to avoid paying their share.
It is instructive to observe the difference between the two strategies that the establishment employed against PFA. While Kotek’s plan was simple bean-counting as a handout to the ungrateful rich, Brim-Edwards’ indexing scheme was more insidious, relying on the traditional Democratic Party technique of means-testing all social spending out of existence. Opponents of PFA understand that the program’s popularity comes from its universality, and seek to undermine it through the arbitrariness of means testing and by a slow erosion of administrative restructuring. The universality of PFA is why it works, and the fact that the program provides these benefits to everyone models a social environment in which social care is not deserved by the worthy, but a right freely given to all those who make up the social fabric. Universality is central to the socialist politics that underpin the organizing that DSA does in Portland. A society that works for everyone is not just the world we want to win, but it is how we win: not just a strategy but also a tactic.

What’s Next

Proposals to cut the tax and therefore the program will continue over the next several months, leading up to the next Board vote; probably in March of 2026. Big business lobbyists Oregon Business & Industry have just released a report calling for an economic sabotage campaign against Preschool for All, the Portland Clean Energy Fund and Metro Housing Supports – all popular programs created by popular ballot measures. The business class also want new limits on ballot measures proposing local taxes, because they know that they can’t defend their selfishness against the democratic process.

We will have to demand that our state reps and senators stand strong against further underhanded attacks from the Governor and right-wing legislators, and we will need to be ready to push back against the media hit-pieces that will continue to fester in outlets like the Oregonian and Willamette Week. The wealthy business elite will continue to bend the ears of malleable electeds such as Kotek and Brim-Edwards with tired homilies about the humble needs of job-creators and the generous nobility of the rich, and we will need to be clear with our audience that what that means is class war. After all, that’s the war we’re here to fight. And we intend to win it.

Conclusion

The battle for PFA isn’t over until funding is ironclad and every child in the Portland metro has a secured place. We know more attacks will come, but we will continue to use those attacks to bring more people into our movement. These campaigns give us the opportunity not only to fight for and win necessary social programs, but to show new members what organizing looks like, to demonstrate what we can win, and how we win, when we work together. 

Sign up on the mailing list at friendsofpfa.org and follow us online! If you’re a DSA member (and if not, why not?) you can join the discussion in our discord.

Header image of attendees at our Preschool For All Town Hall. Photos by Chris Hagen.

The post Successes and Lessons from the Fight to Defend Preschool for All appeared first on Portland DSA .

Last night, Wilmington City Council voted 4-3 to enact the Luke Waddell-sponsored “anti-camping” ordinance, which bans camping or sleeping on public property between the hours of 10PM to 7AM. It is no secret that this directly targets the unhoused population in our city, specifically in the downtown area. While there were some positive amendments to the ordinance to make it less punitive towards the unhoused, Wilmington DSA condemns this vote in the strongest possible terms, and applauds council members Andrews, Spears, and Barnett for their votes against it. 

A variety of mental health professionals, community activists, and shelter workers spoke out against this ordinance. They all stated — correctly — that it offers no solutions to the housing problems in Wilmington, and that a cycle of punishment, even if lowered from misdemeanors to infractions, only further traps those experiencing homelessness in  their present condition. It would also exacerbate the problems for unhoused Wilmingtonians dealing with mental health issues or addiction. Councilman Joyner and Mayor Saffo – both Democrats who will likely be asking you to “Vote Blue No Matter Who” in the near future – were the deciding votes on passing the ordinance. Their betrayal of the causes they campaigned on must be noted and remembered. 

We want to be clear: anyone framing this as a grand compromise, or a victory, is lying to you. Any politician or political party that describes this as a positive example of reaching across the aisle to get things done is counting on you being too busy, or bored, or uninterested, to really look at what this ordinance does. This is not a bi-partisan compromise, it is a capitulation to those attacking the most vulnerable among us in the name of protecting downtown businesses and real estate value. No wonder, then, that so many of our City Councilors come from the world of real estate, and openly ignored the advice of the experts who had spent months trying to explain to them why this ordinance would not solve the housing problems in Wilmington.

City Council and the County Commissioners need to work together on a comprehensive plan to create more resources, shelters, and affordable housing in Wilmington and New Hanover County. Policies to control rent, build affordable housing, and create alternatives to police-first interactions are key. These are supposed to be our politicians — we should expect them to enact political change. If they cannot find it in the current laws to do so, they need to write new laws or appeal to the state legislature to do the same. Pretending the problem will simply go away through infraction punishment — which can still require fines or community service from unhoused citizens who often have no means of fulfilling those obligations — is a distraction thought up by those who believe that punishment and heavy policing are the only ways to fix our city’s shortcomings. That future changes and plans for a more compassionate response were promised with no plan for implementing them — despite this issue not being a new one — shows the contempt the city government has for those who organized or showed up at yesterday’s meeting to protest this ordinance. 

We can imagine a better future for ourselves and our citizens. While homelessness has no magic fix, there are examples of working solutions to combat it all across the globe. Our inability to enact them here is a failure of willpower and general disinterest in the actual problems facing our city. Wilmington deserves better. 

Image credit: WECT

By: Dylan Wegela

The following statement was originally posted to social media on October 3rd, 2025 by State Representative for Michigan’s 26th District, Dylan Wegela.

Last night, after a marathon session, the Michigan Legislature passed its General and School Aid Budgets. These budgets were tied to a road funding plan. I ultimately decided to vote no on both budgets, and I hope to outline why in this post. This post is going to be detailed, and I am going to do my best to explain the complexities involved. I urge you to read this entire post, as it is necessary to fully understand why I voted the way I did.

I want to first try and explain our undemocratic and non-transparent budget process. The way we do budgets in Michigan always stinks, but this year was particularly bad.

The Process:

Normally, budgets are passed before July 1st, but this year, Republican Speaker Matt Hall intentionally dragged the budget process out to the October 1st deadline. The deadline approached, and we were facing a shutdown.

It was announced last week that leadership in both parties agreed to a budget deal, and even though they knew all of the details of the budget, they intentionally chose not to share this information with us rank and file legislators. This was done to prevent the public, the press, lobby groups, and legislators from advocating for changes that might blow up the deal.

Several days ago, we were briefed on the toplines of the budget, with some essential information being withheld, and with no way to verify the accuracy of the information.

Yesterday’s session started at 10 am and ended this morning at 4:30 am. I sit here writing this at 1 pm the day after. Exhausted, frustrated, and disappointed.

In the House, we ended up voting on the General Budget around 9:30 pm. It wasn’t until 6 pm that I received the House Fiscal non-partisan summary of the General budget. A 240 page document that is simply impossible to review with any real scrutiny in 3.5 hours. We actually didn’t get the actual line-by-line budget until around 9pm.

We were then forced to vote on this budget almost none of us had seen, with less than 30 minutes to review. This is obviously an intentional tactic used to force votes on a budget. More time to review means more questions to answer. Republican Speaker Matt Hall is the only one with the power to call the vote, and he did.

Call me a radical, but I think that the press and public should have time to look over the budget, provide scrutiny, and ask questions before the vote. At the bare minimum, we should expect that elected representatives should have time to review. To be blunt and honest, I would be surprised if even 1/3 of Reps. even opened the House fiscal analysis to review before voting.

GOVERNMENT SHOULDN’T WORK LIKE THIS.

It is the next day, and I still don’t know everything that is in the budget. I will be analyzing it over the next several days.

I want to stress that both of these budgets and the roads package are interconnected. One doesn’t work without the other. I am going to outline why, despite the shell games played to move money around, this budget simply doesn’t work. I first want to start with the budget implementation bills that make this budget possible.

Budget Implementation Bills:

1. Decoupling of the Corporate Income and No Tax on Tips and Over Time:

I voted yes on this bill, and it is one of the most important bills in this equation.

First. “What is decoupling?”

In tax policy, “decoupling” refers to a state choosing not to follow (or only partially follow) certain federal tax rules, even though state tax codes are often based on federal definitions. It’s a way for states to preserve revenue, maintain policy preferences, or avoid unintended consequences when federal tax law changes.

Before this bill, the Michigan Corporate Income Tax (CIT) was coupled with the Federal Government. So when the Big Beautiful Bill Tax cuts were passed, it triggered a tax cut for Michigan corporations. Passing this bill stopped that corporate tax cut from happening, freeing up revenue in the budget.

Additionally, this bill started coupling the state with the federal government for the purposes of removing taxes on tips and overtime, as well as social security. This was a revenue hit, but was offset by the CIT decoupling.

2. Sales Tax & Gas Tax Swap:

These bills exempted gas and several other fuels from sales tax on fuel. Instead, replace it with a gas tax. I voted against exempting these fuels from sales tax.

Here is a simple breakdown of where the constitutionally protected revenue from the Sales Tax goes in Michigan.

Michigan Sales Tax Allocation (6% total)

1. School Aid Fund
2. General Fund
3. Local Revenue Sharing

Exempting fuel from the sales tax means these areas will lose funding. Moving it over to a gas tax ensures that revenue can be used for roads instead.

Schools were set to lose $700 million from this shift. This money was replaced in other parts of the budget (backfilled). Even with this maneuver, I still have major concerns with backfilling school funding from a non-constitutionally protected source.

The local revenue sharing hit is an estimated $64 million. This was not backfilled. Constitutional local revenue sharing is one of the pots of money that cities, counties, villages, and townships receive from the state. At the time of this writing, the amount of money local governments get in this budget is still unclear; it is a bit of a shell game, but more on this later.

24% Cannabis tax increase:

In order to raise money for roads, you need revenue. The road plan proposed a 24% Wholesale tax increase on Cannabis in Michigan. This is estimated to raise $420 Million (Yes that is the actual estimate…), and this money is to be directed into the newly created roads fund. I want to note that some believe that this hit of a tax increase on Cannabis might have devastating effects on the industry. Some also believe that this might force people onto the black market, which could lead to inaccurate revenue projections. Conversations that would have been nice to have, but this was another vote given on minimal notice.

It is also possible that this change will be ruled unconstitutional, due to the fact that the Cannabis ballot proposal that was passed by voters is constitutionally protected. Depending on interpretation, this might mean changes need a ¾ vote to change. (which this didn’t get).

I share these concerns as well, and if this is ruled to be the case or if this is tied up in court, preventing the tax from being collected, the math of the entire budget simply doesn’t work. This would mean local governments would get less road funding than projected under this budget.

I should also be clear that when we voted on this budget, those projections were not available for us to see how each city would be impacted. Even if they were, these projections would be merely speculative.

Even though I had some reservations, I ultimately voted yes on this. I have seen the State Legislature only reduce revenues since being elected. While I think it would be wise to find other sources of revenue, such as taxing the rich. We will never have the roads and schools we deserve if we don’t raise some type of revenue.

Saving Medicaid:

This was another change that was needed because of Trump’s Big Beautiful Bill. I voted yes on this. Here is my best simple explanation of what we did.

Michigan helps fund Medicaid using a tax on health insurance companies called the Insurance Provider Assessment (IPA), but new federal rules say the current setup doesn’t fully qualify anymore. To avoid losing federal money that supports healthcare for millions of residents, we passed changes that allow Michigan to temporarily keep using the IPA while it asks the federal government for permission and works on a new plan. If that permission is denied, Michigan will need to create a different funding system to replace the IPA. The state has up to about three years to make the transition.

Those are the major bills that were required to make the budget work functionally. Now, let’s look at the budgets. I want to start with the School Aid budget, because what they did to this is at the core of why I opposed both budgets.

School Aid Budget:

The Good Stuff!

• Per-Pupil Funding $10,050 ($442 Increase)
   — Note: You will see people calling this record funding. We have to stop doing that. Is it the highest it’s ever been? Yes. Does that account for inflation? No. Michigan schools are still severely underfunded.
• Free Breakfast and Lunch Protected
   — It’s wild to think this would ever be on the chopping block….
• Mental Health and School Safety Funding increased.
• ELL, Special Education line items preserved.
• At Risk Funding Increased

Things that should never happen:

• An additional $400 million was raided from school aid for Higher Ed (aka a shell game to fund roads)
   — This was one of the largest raids on the School Aid fund in Michigan’s History
   — There is a bit of a shell game here, but this was done in order to free up more money for roads.
   — This isn’t complex. We shouldn’t steal from public schools to fund roads.

In 2018, I helped lead one of the largest teacher strikes in US history to secure $400 million for Arizona’s Public Schools. I refuse to steal that exact same amount from schools today. As I said, these budgets are intertwined. I refuse to support budgets propped up by stealing from our kids.

• $100 million was reduced from MPSERS reimbursement, raising costs for our school districts.
• Cyber Schools are getting the same Funding as traditional public Schools.
   — It simply doesn’t cost nearly as much to run online schools. This just pads the pockets of these “schools”.
• Public Dollars funding private schools.
   — This budget allows private schools to access some public funds related to school lunch and school safety.
   — I am all for requiring private schools to feed kids and keep schools safe, but it is unacceptable to fund them with public school dollars. This is a slippery slope and brings us one step closer to vouchers and other ways for private schools to steal public funds.

Now onto the General Budget. It is important to note again that the General Budget cannot be funded without stealing an additional $400 million from the School Aid fund. This brings the total amount of School Aid dollars being raided from School Aid to $1.3 billion.

General Budget:

• Almost every Single Department in the State had its funding cut.
   — At a time when we are seeing federal efforts to cut departments across the government, I refuse to support a budget that makes significant cuts across the board for no good reason.
  — Republicans will claim they are cutting 2,000 ghost jobs, and Democrats will claim they are cutting no people currently in a position.
   — In reality, there are around 1,000 of these positions that our departments are actively trying to fill; in some cases, these are seasonal positions, subject to regular turnover. Now these positions will simply not be filled. Just because a position isn’t filled, it doesn’t mean there wasn’t work that needed to be done. We should not be cutting government jobs for the sake of cutting jobs.
• The Local Revenue Sharing Shell Game
   — We are cutting 64 million from constitutional revenue sharing.
   — Some types of Local Governments are getting additional road funding
   — It was unclear at the time of the vote and of this writing, the exact breakdowns.
   — Estimates will be based on the assumption that the Cannabis tax holds up in court. If it doesn’t, the road funding would certainly be less than advertised.
   — Like with schools, it is usually a bad idea to cede constitutionally protected funding.

Huge Wins!

• The SOAR (Corporate Handout) Fund has sunsetted (Ended) and will not be funded moving forward.
• I have been fighting to eliminate this funding since being elected! I am happy to see it go.
• Medicaid and SNAP protected (For Now).
• Money for Lead Line Replacement.

Enhancement Grants:

As with every budget enhancement, grants are used to wrangle votes and drum up support for the budget.

Romulus received $1 million for a Fire Truck thanks to Rep. Reggie Miller.

Inkster received $500,000 for the Inkster Cultural Center thanks to Sen. Dayna Polehanki.

Not every rep/district received an enhancement grant. They were limited this year. While I am glad these were added to the budget, it doesn’t change the potential risks of limiting constitutional revenue sharing for all of the cities in District 26, and it didn’t fix the fact that this budget is propped up by questionable math, budget shell games, and, most unfortunately, by robbing even more from our public schools.

This isn’t an easy job, and this wasn’t an easy decision, but I center myself in always trying to do what is right for our District and the long-term health of the State. I am sure there are some who will disagree, and some who will have an honest disagreement with my assessment. There will be others who weaponize it for political victory.

We are in a split government, and things could have been worse. That could be true, but it is equally true that if we had an open and transparent budget process with journalistic and public discourse, it could have resulted in a better budget.

It would have been almost certainly easier for me to fall in line, plug my nose, and vote yes, but I think that is part of the problem right now. We have to stand up and demand better from leaders on both sides of the aisle. Demand better for the people of Michigan. I will never stop fighting to ensure that we have the Public Schools and government we deserve.

In Solidarity,

Dylan Wegela State Representative District 26

Why I Voted No on the State Budget was originally published in The Detroit Socialist on Medium, where people are continuing the conversation by highlighting and responding to this story.

By: James N

WORCESTER, MA — About 700 medical residents, represented by CIR-SEIU, are in their fifth month of negotiations with UMass Memorial Healthcare.

Residents are working physicians — often more than 80 hours a week and 24-hour-plus shifts in Worcester — that also specialize in specific fields, like internal medicine or pediatrics. Medical residents agree to work for a hospital, generally three-to-seven years, depending on their speciality. 

“When patients come to the hospital for an appointment, they are most likely first seen by a resident,” said Dr., Dipavo Banerjee, a psychiatry fellow at UMass and CIR-SEIU regional vice president. “Residents are at the heart of the care that UMass provides.”

What the Union Fights For

According to Dr. Banerjee, medical residents in CIR-SEIU are fighting for three primary points: reinstated contributions to workers’ medical plan, a meaningful increase in pay that reflects the rapidly climbing cost of living in Worcester, and a housing stipend.

As in many cases, workers’ labor battle is not just a battle for workplace conditions.

The Worcester Telegram and Gazette reports that Worcester is the third most competitive rental market and experiencing a severe shortage of Housing Choice Voucher (HCV) to meet the needs of the most vulnerable fixed-income, low-income, and no-income tenants, against a context of no requirement for landlords to accept Section 8 vouchers. Only 52% of people can secure a lease using a Housing Choice Voucher (HCV). That’s down from 93% about eight years ago.

The tenants’ crisis and lack of homes is taking a toll on medical residents, their families, patients and everyone in between, Banjeree said. Maeve O., a second-year resident, right before she met a patient going into labor after speaking with Working Mass, reported:

Honestly, we’re not even asking (UMass Memorial) to pay us what we’re worth, because we know we’re worth far more than what we’re being paid. We’re just asking for the bare basics to cover our cost of living living and necessities.

Medical Residents or Student-Workers?

UMass Memorial management claims medical residents are students, not physicians. Banerjee said:

We are often the first providers patients see when they come to the hospital for an appointment. We wholeheartedly serve as the frontline caregivers for this region’s most vulnerable – caring for the sick, acutely ill, uninsured, and underinsured – while stretching ourselves to fill gaps in staffing and resources that threaten the health of our entire community.

Other institutions that employ student-workers rely on flawed methodology that also ignores the important first provider role performed by residents. But even more broadly, attacks on student-worker rights have increasingly become an arena for labor battle. Earlier this year, Working Mass reported undergraduate workers at Clark University went on strike in their fight for student-worker rights, utilizing tactics informed by challenges to their own classification as workers they anticipated from the NLRB.

UMass management claims they don’t have the funds to cover cost-of-living raises, housing stipends, or medical plan contributions for student-workers. That stance informs UMass’s refusal to meet worker needs. Meanwhile, according to The Boston Globe, UMass CEO Dr. Eric Dickson’s pay increased 26% in 2023 year-over-year, totaling $3.9 million. UMass Medical Center’s former president, Dr. Michael Gustafson, received a 60% raise, during the same time, totaling $2.8 million.

“At this critical time, hospital systems must prioritize putting resources into patient care, not executives’ pockets,” Banerjee said. “When we invest in those who provide care, we protect the patients and communities who depend on us most.”

Management Pushes to the Indefinite Future

A common medical management response is that residents will make much more money once they graduate and finish their residency programs years down the road, resident Maeve O. said. “To me, and a lot of us, it felt like a slap in the face, because my landlord doesn’t care if I’m going to make a lot of money in two years.”

With rising rents, student loans, other costs, and landlords willing to evict, residents can be priced out of the city. Adding a commute on top 80+ hour work weeks can take its toll on worker morale. Patients want a doctor who is healthy and not burnt out and sleep deprived,” Banerjee said. “A fair contract for residents means improvements to our well-being which are inextricably tied to patients and the care we provide them.” 

Bargaining sessions have been tough and emotionally challenging, he added. Nevertheless, residents are building solidarity through collective action across medical specialties. Earlier this year, UMass reached a tentative deal with another union, UMass Food and Commercial Workers Local 1445. Banerjee said that collective effort is a path toward reaching an agreement.

And support has also come from other places. On September 30, Worcester City Council officially passed a resolution urging UMass Memorial Healthcare to reinstate health benefits and bargain a fair contract.

As Maeve O. said:

Our hospital admin folks are good people, trying to do good things for the community… with the financial crisis as of late, it’s been kind of easy to put the residents to the side, despite the fact that we’re the ones that are on the front lines, actually helping patients.

James N is a member of Worcester DSA and contributing writer to Working Mass.

The post Worcester Medical Residents Persevere Through Fifth Month of Negotiations with UMass  appeared first on Working Mass.

SOMERVILLE, MA – On October 6, 2025, the Somerville Elections Commission issued a final decision to overrule an objection to a divestment ballot initiative led by Somerville 4 Palestine, paving the way for city divestment to be decided by the electorate on the November ballot as Question 3.

Opposition to the ballot measure was led by Judy Pineda Neufeld. The former Ward 7 Councilor decided to not run for reelection in May 2025 before forming the committee that would accept $150,000 in funds raised by the Anti-Defamation League and their allies to defeat the ballot measure to divest the city from genocide. The average donation was over $1000.

In March, Somerville residents nearly overwhelmed Somerville City Hall in their demand for divestment – 700 outside the doors. The council at that time voted to put the initiative as Question 3 on the ballot for voters to decide, rather than to approve it directly. Six months later, with the opposition now consolidated to challenge Question 3 on the basis of its rules, the Elections Commission scheduled the hearing on Monday, October 6. 

A Summer of Canvassing

Somerville 4 Palestine has spent the past six months in a “summer of canvassing.”

After learning that Question 3 would move to the ballot, Somerville 4 Palestine registered as a municipal ballot committee and started building support through bread-and-butter conversations with residents across Somerville. 

Organizers spoke to every membership and at every town hall and to every assembly that would have them. They also planned a canvassing operation that spanned the city. Somerville 4 Palestine clipboarded at farmers’ markets, borrowed time at Porchfest stages, and intercepted pedestrians and bikers traversing across the four square miles of the city. Organizers rolled suitcases full of signature sheets from people’s house to house, from Union to Magoun, from Porter to Ball Square. 

It was “pure democracy at work,” said one organizer. 

In the end, Somerville 4 Palestine turned in 11,000 signatures. The number was more than double the 5200 unique signatures from residents needed to reach the ballot.  Organizers indicated there were 288 different community members volunteering for the initiative, working to gather the astounding mountain of signatures. 

Even though 8000 signatures were certified by Elections prior to the hearing, Zionists still poured money into their challenge to decertify the “polarizing, divisive” ballot question to divest from genocide. Supporters rallied outside City Hall at 9:15AM before packing the council chamber for the hearing at 10AM.

Challenge in the Chamber

The room quickly reached capacity. Outside, supporters turned away by security stood in the bright sunshine texting others in the chamber. Others wrapped in keffiyehs stood in tense conversation with hecklers who showed up late just to deny Palestine’s existence and dismiss genocide concerns with “we both want humanity for both peoples.”

Nonetheless, the only person whose voice rose to a screaming pitch was yelling about parking.

Inside, every seat was filled. Willie Burnley, Jr., DSA-endorsed city councillor running for Mayor of Somerville, listened to the hearing next to other supporters in the audience. DSA-endorsed Ward 2 city councillor JT Scott took notes, brow furrowed, in a chair on the side of the room. Palestine banners draped from seat to seat as the people watched the hearing. Minutes passed.

At 10:45AM, Somerville 4 Palestine began to rebut the arguments of the objection to Question 3. The Elections Commission listened, impassive, as organizers related each point of the canvassing operation. Organizers also described the step-by-step process through which Somerville 4 Palestine approached the subject to ensure all rules were followed, including the recommendations of city councillors and the city solicitor. At the end of the hearing, the chair motioned for deliberation.

As a Somerville 4 Palestine organizer said during their speech:

There’s no ballot question that isn’t contested. That’s the whole point of elections. This is an exemplification of the democratic process.

The audience murmured for the three minutes of deliberation taken by the commission. Then, suddenly, the chair stood. “We have decided to overrule the objection,” he said. A quick all in favor passed before he slammed the gavel: “so ruled.”

The audience erupted into a storm of applause. Now, the decision on divestment rests with Somerville itself.

Travis Wayne is the deputy managing editor of Working Mass.

Edit: This report was edited after publication to name the ballot initiative as Question 3, as it will appear on the ballot.

The post Somerville 4 Palestine Defeats Challenge, Divestment Moves to Ballot appeared first on Working Mass.

When did prisons become the primary method of justice? What future should abolitionists be working towards? In her short but powerful book, Angela Davis carefully maps out the origins of the prison system, explains the haphazard merging of interests that created the Prison Industrial Complex, and uncovers the inner workings of its racist and misogynistic structures that continue to evade reformation.

Join us for a collective conversation using this landmark book! This will be an open discussion. So bring your unanswered questions, your concerns, and your personal stories. Feel free to join even if you didn’t get the chance to read.

The post Greenville Book-Talk: “Are Prisons Obsolete?” by Angela Davis appeared first on Grand Rapids Democratic Socialists of America.

October 7, 2025 marks two years of genocide in Gaza. That is two years of bombings and massacres that have killed at least 67,000 Palestinians – 3% of the pre-war population, who were already living in an open-air prison under an illegal occupation prior to October 7, 2023. The vast majority of those killed have been innocent civilians, including over 20,000 children. This amounts to one child killed every hour. On top of this, one in every 14 Palestinians in Gaza has been injured, many in life altering ways, and that is before we even consider the mental and emotional injuries living through a genocide inflicts. It is estimated that 3-4,000 children have lost one or more limbs. It must be noted that the official death statistics only count those bodies that have been recovered, identified, and have a cause of death directly related to an attack. There are likely thousands still under the rubble, unidentifiable, or who died by starvation, dehydration, disease, or lack of normally accessible care for pre-existing medical conditions. Determining the true toll will only be possible via an extensive, comprehensive study – something Israel has made impossible both through its relentless onslaught of attacks and its refusal to allow foreign press, investigators, and officials into the Strip. As ghastly as the official numbers are, there will come a day when we learn the situation was much worse all along.

Israel has also manufactured the mass starvation of Palestinians in Gaza by blocking humanitarian aid. Instead of allowing the passage of the thousands of tons of food and medical supplies waiting at the border ready to be distributed, Israel has solely authorized the Gaza Humanitarian Foundation to carry out this task. This supposed humanitarian organization is well-documented to be a front for the IDF and foreign mercenaries to systematically humiliate and massacre the people who are forced to travel long distances through hostile territory in the hopes of collecting a meager bag of flour for their starving families. Last week, the Global Sumud Flotilla attempted to break the Israeli blockade and deliver food, medicine, and baby formula to the people of Gaza. Israel illegally intercepted the 42 civilian vessels in international waters and kidnapped 462 activists. Those kidnapped were taken to an Israeli prison where many were beaten and abused. As of writing, six remain in captivity. 

In the West, massive censorship and free speech violations have been employed in an attempt to cover up the genocide that is being live streamed to all of us and to suppress our righteous dissent. This includes the unconstitutional ICE kidnappings of green card and student visa holders who have dared protest against Israel and the buy-out of TikTok by tech billionaire, mass surveillance zealot and ardent Israel supporter Larry Ellison. While these actions can most immediately be connected to the genocide in Gaza, we can also see that they serve a larger purpose in the advancement of fascism at home, the war against the enemy within. Just as policing techniques and surveillance technologies first used abroad are inevitably deployed within the heart of empire, so too will fascist tactics used first to defend Israel be extended to support the total suppression of freedoms in the United States. We are already seeing this happen across the country, including in LA, Chicago, Portland, and now Madison as well. In many ways, we can view October 7, 2023 as the day the thin veneer of liberalism was finally shattered, laying bare the two options before us: socialism or barbarism.

Living in this reality, it is easy to give up hope and cower in fear. That is what the Trump regime is betting on – that you will eventually lie down and accept barbarism. The capitalists and their mouthpieces will tell you the other option is impossible. We know that isn’t true – socialism is winnable, but only through solidarity, organization, and our collective resolve to fight for the world we deserve. If you are feeling hopeless and scared in this moment, remember that you are not in it alone. In this week’s newsletter you will find a number of events where you can learn, protest, organize, and most of all, build the community we all need to fight fascism and win socialism, together. Check out the highlights below, and check your inbox for the full newsletter or click here to subscribe.

Tue. October 7, 6:30pm: Copaganda Book Talk with Author Alec Karakatsanis

Thu. October 9, 6:30-8pm: Marx’s Capital and Global Capitalism Today

Sun. October 12, 11am-12:30pm: Wretched of the Earth Reading Group

Sun. October 12, 5-9:00pm: Halloween Carnival & Queer Liberation March Fundraiser

Wed. October 15, 6:30-8:30pm: October General Membership Meeting

Sat. October 18, 12-5pm: No Kings! No Bosses! No Billionaires!

Mon. October 20, 6:30-8pm: Virtual New Member Orientation

Thu. October 23, 6-8pm: Organizing 101

Tue. October 28, 6:00pm: Madison Community Town Hall