Organisation update
- This topic has 243 replies, 22 voices, and was last updated 6 years, 9 months ago by
.
-
Posts
-
Matt wrote:Gnome wrote:In addition to the responsibility it's likely to be the amount of work involved and the regular commitment required.
I don't think paying for this will resolve that difficulty. Paying for training of a willing treasurer and assistant treasurer might be money well spent, also expenses of traveling, but the motivation has to be one of service I would say.
Absolutely spot on. I don't recall us having a particular problem filling these posts in the past but that was when we apparently had more members who were both committed and competent. And personally I'm ideologically opposed to paying socialists to do party work.
ALB wrote:alanjjohnstone wrote:Or a combined paid position, Brian….two birds with one stoneWe agree on something, Alan. Yes, a combined General Secretary/Treasurer also doing the work of the Head Office Organiser and Enquiries Committee. Paid, but not necessarily employed. That was the idea behind the Investment Committee — to provide a regular income to pay someone rather than (of course) getting a better rate of interest on our legacies.
That's a possibility Alan but like Adam is suggesting there are other tasks which a General Secretary could be included in the TOR/remit. But why stop there there? Why not set up an Admin Section – under the remit of the GS – composed of af all the general workload being done at HO?Also if its a paid post it would require continuity of three years. Which means the post is elected every three years. But again why stop there? Why not make all party elections every three years?
ALB wrote:What's interesting about that list is that there are over 30 different members on it. So the volunteers are there. It is just that no one wants to be treasurer or general secretary at the moment.Or the posts are London based (tho they need not be) and would require a lot of traveling and overnight stays. Not to mention the unecessary paperwork.
robbo203 wrote:The problem, as I see it, is that the way the Party presently organises itself and runs its affairs makes this undue concentration of the workload on a small number of members almost inevitable. In my view this is absolutely key to the reorganisation and revitalisisation of the SPGB – the diversification and decentralisation of its activities and its workload. Unless and until the Party grasps this particular bull by the horns, nothing essential will change and it will be a case of fiddling while Rome burns.Precisely
gnome wrote:Matt wrote:Gnome wrote:In addition to the responsibility it's likely to be the amount of work involved and the regular commitment required.I don't think paying for this will resolve that difficulty. Paying for training of a willing treasurer and assistant treasurer might be money well spent, also expenses of traveling, but the motivation has to be one of service I would say.
Absolutely spot on. I don't recall us having a particular problem filling these posts in the past but that was when we apparently had more members who were both committed and competent. And personally I'm ideologically opposed to paying socialists to do party work.
Your ideological opposistion contains volumes of past traditions. Time for an update it seems. For instance, name one organisation composed of volunteers who are not supported by paid staff? Also why imply that if we had paid posts they could be filled by persons who are not committed and competent?There are ways and means to get around this issue. Indeed we are half way there already with every party election calling for a supporting statement. With suitable adjustments this supporting statement could include a CV listing both.
How are socialists ideologically opposed to paying a socialist for doing work but not ideolically opposed to them doing it for nothing?We live in a capitalist society and I for one am not morally opposed to capitalism. If the party needs to hire admins etc to save itself from extinction and has the money to do so then it should. I am ideologically in favour of that as It would mean the continued survival rathar than an end to the movement.
Quote:Actually the work of Treasurer is not much more than that of any club treasuer except that there are returns that have to be made to HMRC and the Electoral Commission by deadlines otherwise we get fined (and have been). It's just that it requires someone with a liking for, or rather not disliking, money figures. Difficult to find amongst socialists. We also need suitable software, but that's easily fixed.That is good to know. ( I am hopeless personally in money matters.)Your information could be highlighted a bit more when we are appealing for volunteers. I can see the pressures of modern work patterns and family arrangements mitigating against a monthly attendance at the E.C., but some of this could be overcome by technology. I would rather see us spending in those kind of areas, rather in stipends.
Quote:How are socialists ideologically opposed to paying a socialist for doing work but not ideolically opposed to them doing it for nothing?We live in a capitalist society and I for one am not morally opposed to capitalism. If the party needs to hire admins etc to save itself from extinction and has the money to do so then it should. I am ideologically in favour of that as It would mean the continued survival rathar than an end to the movement.(My emphasis)Because we are a voluntary organisation which has portays a specific voluntarist model of potential socialist society. There is a point when numbers of members, would justify some full time paid administration, especially around H.O. admin and so on, but in my view this is not yet the case.( I reserve the right to be proven wrong here.)Perhaps technological savvy and other things such as enabling telecoms, means a higher degree of work skills for HO admin than hitherto. If so we can try to facilitate that.We could spend prudently, if not too generously to enable members to spend more time doing H.O. jobs by facilitating lodgings, travel and other expenses. (We already do some of that.) However travel from a distance away is also debilitating for members and can impinge upon their local socialist branch work and attendance.But this all begs the question of why we do not already have volunteers for specific jobs and the answer does not seem to lie in paying them, but in asking if we have members, sufficiently local, energetic, with time on their hands to spare, or willing to gain requisite skills, to enable them to function with a high degree of autonomy, but heedful of the general members will.
^^^^^ ^^^^^
Matt wrote:Because we are a voluntary organisation which has portays a specific voluntarist model of potential socialist society.As I said we live in capitalism. We have no free access, therefore a member working full Time voluntarilly would be forced to live in extreme poverty. We should take the free labour but not allow free access? That would hardly reflect a specific voluntarist model of potential socialist society. I'm afraid we can't live in socialism just yet.
As an example of administrative time wasting, where changes could be made: Why does the SPGB still have cheque books when noone else has?
Actually, we get cheques in the post every day. And not just from old foggies who are not online but also from others who, for security reasons, don't do online banking. On the other hand we are getting an increasing number paying by Paypal (which, incidentally, is managed by a comrade somewhere in the middle of Yorkshire) and encouraging this. I agree we ourselves should be able to make online payments but there are difficulties which the outgoing Treasurer will be able to explain. You wouldn't believe the number of hoops that we, as legally an unincorporated association, had to jump through to open an investment account.By the amount of self-flagellation that goes on here you'd think we were catholic monks or shiite muslims.
ALB wrote:Actually, we get cheques in the post every day. And not just from old foggies who are not online but also from others who, for security reasons, don't do online banking.As an example, Bank transfers could be authorised by half a dozen appointed members and is potentially more democratic. The six members authorising transfer need not live in London but could be spread around the country. Cheque books are not safer nor more democratic than modern means.
Vin wrote:As an example of administrative time wasting, where changes could be made: Why does the SPGB still have cheque books when noone else has?Cheques are still needed for many transactions especially for a non-incorporated institution like the SPGB. A cheque can be signed by two or more persons Bank drafts, wire transfer, and Money orders are more expensive than cheques, On certain occasions cheques are safer than electronic transactions, even more, the perfect receipt is a cheque. For international transactions, Paypal is the perfect platform for payments, and it also provides money exchange ratesThe treasurers of any institution need certain academic knowledge on banking, finance, corporate law, accounting, and banking transactions
Brian wrote:gnome wrote:Matt wrote:Gnome wrote:In addition to the responsibility it's likely to be the amount of work involved and the regular commitment required.I don't think paying for this will resolve that difficulty. Paying for training of a willing treasurer and assistant treasurer might be money well spent, also expenses of traveling, but the motivation has to be one of service I would say.
Absolutely spot on. I don't recall us having a particular problem filling these posts in the past but that was when we apparently had more members who were both committed and competent. And personally I'm ideologically opposed to paying socialists to do party work.
For instance, name one organisation composed of volunteers who are not supported by paid staff?
There are indeed many but none of them are socialist. That's the rub.
Quote:Also why imply that if we had paid posts they could be filled by persons who are not committed and competent?I'm implying no such thing. Whether we had persons (aka members) paid or not they would still need to be vetted in order to establish their suitability for a particular post.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.