Organisation update

[Brian]

gnome wrote:

Bijou Drains wrote:

Dave I understand your principled stance on this issue. I have a degree of dissonance about the idea as well. However we in effect pay staff when we hire in someone to fix the boiler, or repair the roof, or any other service we use.

Let me see now.  Over the past seven years we've paid non-members to install a new shopfront and a central heating gas boiler.  Other than that we pay for regular 'servicing' of the photocopiers, fire extinguishers and alarms.  Everything else, be it administrative or maintenance to the property, is undertaken by party members, all for free, zero, zip, zilch.

Not true.  I know of two members who get paid for maintenance work at HO.  Also the current upgrade of this site involves paying one ex-member and a non-member several thousand for their services.

[robbo203]

gnome wrote:

Bijou Drains wrote:

Dave I understand your principled stance on this issue. I have a degree of dissonance about the idea as well. However we in effect pay staff when we hire in someone to fix the boiler, or repair the roof, or any other service we use.

Let me see now.  Over the past seven years we've paid non-members to install a new shopfront and a central heating gas boiler.  Other than that we pay for regular 'servicing' of the photocopiers, fire extinguishers and alarms.  Everything else, be it administrative or maintenance to the property, is undertaken by party members, all for free, zero, zip, zilch.

Quote:

I don't necessarily see this proposal as one which needs to involve "paying comrades to do party work". I think we should get in skilled and qualified paid administration worker to carry out the admin work for the party. I think people underestimate the skills and values of a good admin worker, if we were to hire non party staff to carry out admin duties, this would release volunteer Socialists from the mundane business tasks and allow them to use their activities more fruitfully in putting out the party case. Not only that, we would have those tasks done by a skilled worker who can do these tasks effectively and efficiently

I'm struggling to think of which administrative duties, other than possibly the paying of wages (and I have my doubts about that), the party could safely and securely entrust to non-members.  Would they be let loose on the SS subscription or membership databases, perhaps free to talk to enquirers about socialism, be they callers to the premises or on the phone?  Could they become the General Secretary, Party Treasurer or Central Organiser, maybe serve on the Executive Committee or sub-committees?  Frankly the whole idea is too barmy to contemplate.

 I agree with Dave that admin work for the party should be carried out by party members only.  Its quite different when you get an outsider to fix a boiler  or whatever.  But with admin work we are talking about someone having access to sensitive data which i would feel slightly uncomfortable about, personally speaking.  However, that is not an argument against having one or two paid full time staff – providing they are members!,  Im convinced the case for now having paid staff is very strong and I also believe that it would lead to a significant increase in the extent of voluntary activity within the party.  Its a win-win situation

[Bijou Drains]

gnome wrote:

Bijou Drains wrote:

Dave I understand your principled stance on this issue. I have a degree of dissonance about the idea as well. However we in effect pay staff when we hire in someone to fix the boiler, or repair the roof, or any other service we use.

Let me see now.  Over the past seven years we've paid non-members to install a new shopfront and a central heating gas boiler.  Other than that we pay for regular 'servicing' of the photocopiers, fire extinguishers and alarms.  Everything else, be it administrative or maintenance to the property, is undertaken by party members, all for free, zero, zip, zilch.

Quote:

I don't necessarily see this proposal as one which needs to involve "paying comrades to do party work". I think we should get in skilled and qualified paid administration worker to carry out the admin work for the party. I think people underestimate the skills and values of a good admin worker, if we were to hire non party staff to carry out admin duties, this would release volunteer Socialists from the mundane business tasks and allow them to use their activities more fruitfully in putting out the party case. Not only that, we would have those tasks done by a skilled worker who can do these tasks effectively and efficiently

I'm struggling to think of which administrative duties, other than possibly the paying of wages (and I have my doubts about that), the party could safely and securely entrust to non-members.  Would they be let loose on the SS subscription or membership databases, perhaps free to talk to enquirers about socialism, be they callers to the premises or on the phone?  Could they become the General Secretary, Party Treasurer or Central Organiser, maybe serve on the Executive Committee or sub-committees?  Frankly the whole idea is too barmy to contemplate.

I don't get to HO as often as I would like. But the last time I called in apart from ADM, I tried to get hold of information such as a list of members and contacts in the NE region. I was told by the then Head Office Assistance that no central data base for any of that information existed (I think Brian might be able to elaborate on the difficulty in getting hold of info for the current survey). There is one simple example of office administration which is hampering the development of the party.In addition the computer and printing systems from what I saw (and I admit my observations are limited) do not appear to be up to the job of a modern efficeint organisation, The systems for holding personal information do not appear to comply with current data holding practices, returns to the Electoral Commision have been filed late, which may lead to a big fine for the Party. Just a few examples.Perhaps I'm biased, my mother, Cde Mama K, was trained at the same commercial school as Jack Common (who was the model for Karl Marx's brow on the Highgate Cemetary grave and a criminally overlooked writer) and she hammered into her kids the value of good administrative practices in running an organisation.

[ALB]

Bijou Drains wrote:

I don't get to HO as often as I would like. But the last time I called in apart from ADM, I tried to get hold of information such as a list of members and contacts in the NE region. I was told by the then Head Office Assistance that no central data base for any of that information existed (I think Brian might be able to elaborate on the difficulty in getting hold of info for the current survey).

Well, you were told wrong ! It is easy to get a print-out of members in the North East and also of contacts there by North East post codes (or anywhere else, for that matter). I can do this tomorrow when I'm at HO if you still want it. Won't take 10 minutes. We are not that incompetent !Head Office supplied the Survey Committee with the addresses, as printed labels, of all members and what email addresses we had and could get for members.But to come to the point at issue, I agree that employing or engaging a non-member to do essential admin work is a non-runner for the reasons mentioned by Robbo. On the other hand, employing/engaging a Party member to do the work of General Secretary/Treasurer/Central Organiser is a sensible way forward. Whatever impression some members may have got, there is a coherent strategy. Following a Party Poll on the matter, we are investing the money from legacies surplus to immediate requirements in an investment fund (to get 5% interest instead of 0.5% in a deposit account)  with a view to using the interest towards paying a full or half timer.The only problem that remains is finding a suitable member.

[Anonymous]

Brian wrote:

gnome wrote:

Bijou Drains wrote:

Dave I understand your principled stance on this issue. I have a degree of dissonance about the idea as well. However we in effect pay staff when we hire in someone to fix the boiler, or repair the roof, or any other service we use.

Let me see now.  Over the past seven years we've paid non-members to install a new shopfront and a central heating gas boiler.  Other than that we pay for regular 'servicing' of the photocopiers, fire extinguishers and alarms.  Everything else, be it administrative or maintenance to the property, is undertaken by party members, all for free, zero, zip, zilch.

Not true.  I know of two members who get paid for maintenance work at HO.  Also the current upgrade of this site involves paying one ex-member and a non-member several thousand for their services.

Yes, I'd forgotten to include the non-member who is helping with the website upgrade.  However, I'm completely unaware of any remuneration being paid to members, other than out-of-pocket expenses, and will seek a full explanation of these alleged transactions and who authorised them at the earliest opportunity.

[Bijou Drains]

ALB wrote:

Bijou Drains wrote:

I don't get to HO as often as I would like. But the last time I called in apart from ADM, I tried to get hold of information such as a list of members and contacts in the NE region. I was told by the then Head Office Assistance that no central data base for any of that information existed (I think Brian might be able to elaborate on the difficulty in getting hold of info for the current survey).

Well, you were told wrong ! It is easy to get a print-out of members in the North East and also of contacts there by North East post codes (or anywhere else, for that matter). I can do this tomorrow when I'm at HO if you still want it. Won't take 10 minutes. We are not that incompetent !Head Office supplied the Survey Committee with the addresses, as printed labels, of all members and what email addresses we had and could get for members.But to come to the point at issue, I agree that employing or engaging a non-member to do essential admin work is a non-runner for the reasons mentioned by Robbo. On the other hand, employing/engaging a Party member to do the work of General Secretary/Treasurer/Central Organiser is a sensible way forward. Whatever impression some members may have got, there is a coherent strategy. Following a Party Poll on the matter, we are investing the money from legacies surplus to immediate requirements in an investment fund (to get 5% interest instead of 0.5% in a deposit account)  with a view to using the interest towards paying a full or half timer.The only problem that remains is finding a suitable member.

I wasn't having a pop at those comrades that do voluntary work at HO, I was just going off what Keith (forget his second name) told me, apologies if that appeared to be me having a go.As to "having a problem finding a suitable member", ohh err, could that be the first line of the new British Comedy sensation "Carry on up Clapham High Street"

[Anonymous]

Bijou Drains wrote:

In addition the computer and printing systems from what I saw (and I admit my observations are limited) do not appear to be up to the job of a modern efficeint organisation, The systems for holding personal information do not appear to comply with current data holding practices, returns to the Electoral Commision have been filed late, which may lead to a big fine for the Party. Just a few examples.

Most organisations use an IT Consultant to look at the organisation and show how best to use information systems. Does anyone know if the SPGB has ever done this?

[Brian]

The returns to the survey/questionnaire, as of 15th Dec 2017, totalled 87 (41 post and 46 email).

[jondwhite]

Vin wrote:

Bijou Drains wrote:

In addition the computer and printing systems from what I saw (and I admit my observations are limited) do not appear to be up to the job of a modern efficeint organisation, The systems for holding personal information do not appear to comply with current data holding practices, returns to the Electoral Commision have been filed late, which may lead to a big fine for the Party. Just a few examples.

Most organisations use an IT Consultant to look at the organisation and show how best to use information systems. Does anyone know if the SPGB has ever done this?

At the last conference when employing staff was on the agenda, I was told the party employed a member full time presumably as an IT consultant which must date to the 1990s or 2000s. I was shocked to hear this.

[Brian]

jondwhite wrote:

 At the last conference when employing staff was on the agenda, I was told the party employed a member full time presumably as an IT consultant which must date to the 1990s or 2000s. I was shocked to hear this.

[/quote]Yes the party does have a member whose  a highly qualified IT 'Consultant'.  He's currently the Assistant Secretary and a member of the Internet Committee.  No he's not employed by the party.

[ALB]

jondwhite wrote:

At the last conference when employing staff was on the agenda, I was told the party employed a member full time presumably as an IT consultant which must date to the 1990s or 2000s. I was shocked to hear this.

It seems that all sorts of urban myths about Head Office are circulating up North!  The Party never employed anybody full time in the 1990s or 2000s. That would have required a Conference resolution and the money, neither of which existed. Even the Head Office Assistant only receives travel and subsistence expenses for being there part-time, for two-and-half days a week

[ALB]

Brian wrote:

The returns to the survey/questionnaire, as of 15th Dec 2017, totalled 87 (41 post and 46 email).

That's good, isn't it?

[Brian]

ALB wrote:

Brian wrote:

The returns to the survey/questionnaire, as of 15th Dec 2017, totalled 87 (41 post and 46 email).

That's good, isn't it?

Yes its a good return in respect of surveys generally, which usually require at least two returns per thousand. But for myself I would have prefered around 100 returns so it represented the views of 30-33% of the membership.  Nonetheless, its a sufficient total for the purpose of collating trends and patterns so we have a rounded view of what is actually occurring in regards to party activity and the members thoughts on organisation and structure.

[Bijou Drains]

ALB wrote:

jondwhite wrote:

At the last conference when employing staff was on the agenda, I was told the party employed a member full time presumably as an IT consultant which must date to the 1990s or 2000s. I was shocked to hear this.

It seems that all sorts of urban myths about Head Office are circulating up North!  The Party never employed anybody full time in the 1990s or 2000s. That would have required a Conference resolution and the money, neither of which existed. Even the Head Office Assistant only receives travel and subsistence expenses for being there part-time, for two-and-half days a week

I've also heard a rumour that South London Branch hold satanic masses at HO where they dance around naked whilst flagelating themselves with wet copies of Questions of the Day. There's some pretty weird folk down there in that there London, I tell tha' that for nowt!

[alanjjohnstone]

Quote:

Yes its a good return in respect of surveys generally

Perhaps for general surveys but this was not a general survey but a request from the Party to its members for information to determine the future of the Party and the return was dismal when put into that context.I'll leave others to do the maths but it now seems like most of the Party doesn't give a toss for the Party's survival, certainly not enough concern to put aside 10 minutes to answer this survey, so we can't expect any physical assistance or internet contributions from them, can we, no matter how member-friendly we make the organisational structure.This places everything into perspective.As a political party, our effective functional membership is less than a hundred. And it is on that figure we must now base all our decisions and proposals, and no longer a fictitious card-carrying number.Perhaps, as Gnome suggests for his own branch, a paring of the dead leaves is necessary, a weeding out, so to permit healthy growth of the Party.I'm not happy with that suggestion and will be pleased if it can be rebuffed with a more optimistic suggestion. As an aside, 50% postal and 50% email replies does undermine my own proposal to go to a more online model as premature.  

[Author]

Posts