The vast majority of the money raised by the PIRGs goes to fund their staff. They've got several hundred full-time staff around the country; it's expensive to keep that many people employed full-time. Of those, about 100 are advocates (PIRG lingo for lobbyists), 25 or so are field organizers (they do local media outreach and coalition building around campaigns, organize local activists, etc.), 100 are campus organizers (working with student volunteers on college campuses), 40 or so are fellows (advocates in training), and the rest do various other stuff.
As for what the advocates do: they're the staff who are in the legislature day in and day out working to help generate good bills and get legislators to vote for them. Working with legislators to write bills; lobbying legislators to try and get their votes; publishing research to support those bills; and so on. There are 15 or 20 in DC working on federal issues, and the rest are spread out around the state capitols. In a big state like California, there are 7 or 8 advocates. (All of this is on the PIRG and Environment websites for anyone who wants to look at this further.)
On the Solar Homes bill, the Environment California advocate on that campaign was deeply involved in the passage of that bill - from helping influence what was included in the bill, to meeting repeatedly with legislators to secure their support, to meeting with the governor's staff to get his support, etc. Not to mention the thousands of phone calls, letters, and emails that Environment California members sent off to legislators and the Governor in support of the bill. If you ask anyone who was closely involved in that bill (the legislators who sponsored the bill, the governor's environmental advisors, the committee chairs who held hearings on the bill, etc.), they'll tell you that Environment California was a key player.
It seems strange for experienced TOP callers to be saying that they don't know what the advocates do. When I worked in a canvass office for PIRG, the advocates dropped by every couple weeks to tell us how the campaign was going (I'm sure this happened less in office that were further from the state capitol). We'd look forward to their visits to get an inside view on how the bill was faring. From what I hear, these briefings from advocates still happen.
Also strange is that idea that anyone is raking in money off PIRG or Fund fundraising. Even the most senior staff in the organization make a relatively low salary (mid-five-figures plus benefits). No one, including Phelps, is getting rich off this stuff. (As for the argument that Phelps is a ghost, his photo and bio is right there on the USPIRG website. And on the Green Corps website. And on the Green Century Fund website.)
Yes there are advocates on staff. Yes they work on legislation. Yes they publish reports. Yes Dan Jacobson was involved somehow in the passage of the bill, and yes Environment California was a player. Yes this is all on the websites. And yes, james, this is all acknowledged in the post.
By pretending otherwise, you're insulting our intelligence and demonstrating my post's point about the institutional incapacity for critical thinking.
But look, many of the people who spat the rap in these threads in the past are now emailing me and asking how they can help push for these questions to be answered and problems resolved. They stuck around long enough to move beyond the knee-jerk response and start asking the questions themselves. Will you?
I get what you are saying her Lockse and it is not that the questions should not be asked it that people should not make unfair claims like James pointed out. Your whole "tone" when someone gives the "rap" come off like it does no matter that people are confused or make up claims about Doug or PIRG seems a little off. Ian post is a prime example.
How is it not important that people know the facts or what is good about PIRG? Also, when there seems to be some people (not you or Greg) that seem hell bent on go after everything and find something wrong with everything that PIRG does. In paticular the whole they just raise money to raise money and do not actually do anything theme that some people have when talking about PIRG. That is total BS and should be addressed over and over again.
Of course what is GOOD about PIRG is going to be in the raps they use. The whole that just in the rap thing is just an eazy cop out for not addressing what someone defending PIRG is talking about. "That is just in the rap" is not a real defense.
Talk about what they said, do not tell them that they are meaningless until they start asking the questions themselves.
gobears, I agree with you in part: it's not helpful to the conversation to scream and yell that this entire system is one big scam that is stealing from its workers and its members. The truth is much more complicated.
But I hope you understand why people get so angry about this, and who they are getting angry at. This work is hard and important, we all know that. Many people in these discussions have been in numerous campaigns, and they know the difficulties that come with the territory -- and yet they also know that the experience in a PIRG campaign is, for a majority of participants, uniquely frustrating and alienating. In large part, this is because of the PIRG mentality that holds that "we have campaigns to win, and the campaign is more important than the people working on it." That precept is problematic in a number of ways.
Ultimately those problems fall into two camps: the ends are unknown and potentially compromised (the question of "what work is actually being done, and how effective is it?" -- james can assert, but that's all he can do, and neither he nor anyone else has any way to affect positive change if the work is in fact not being effective), and the means are very costly (i.e. an inordinate amount of canvassers walking away from the job not just saying "that's not for me," but "that took advantage of me and I don't think anything came of it and I might as well not bother with this any more").
I think you understand canvassing well enough to be able to accept that yes, in a sense, the PIRG canvassers are actually just raising money so that more money can be raised. That's written into the numerical structure of the PIRG/Fund model -- and it's also at least partially true of any modern canvass fundraise models. But other canvass models (like the Greenpeace canvass, for instance) place a much higher emphasis on education and engagement, and they invest in their workers. (We've had the conversations before about what might make for a better canvass.)
Here I'm asking whether the major problems PIRG/Fund has with labor, as well as its limited and narrow canvass model, can be traced back to the management and corporate structure that makes the entire system unaccountable to members or workers. Up until this post, I've mostly talked about the means; here, I ask a number of questions about the ends. And those questions do not imply that PIRG advocates do not exist, or that none of them are effective in any way. But even when I found someone from outside of the organization who was happy to give a PIRG organization that basic amount of credit (and that was not an easy thing to find), he pointed out that the org's lack of accountability made it significantly less effective.
So that's where I want this discussion to be at, and I hope you can meet us there: this work is important, but is it possible that resources are being inappropriately implemented and no one is being held accountable for that waste and negligence?
All though I have not commented until know I have followed you since you started. So I did read what you had to say about making a better canvassing model.
I take issue with many things you have said, but some people take unfair shots at the model and it is not fair or productive. On top of that people like James point it out and usually Lockse says that they are insulting people by brining it up or they are just using the rap. Why does she not jump on Ian for being insulting for making something up or just being wrong? If, you defend PIRG for one second on theses threads you are either called a PIRGBot or told that what you are saying is not important, insulting or off subject. However if you want to point out something wrong have at it. How can excluding for the most part what is good about PIRG make this converservation better?
In Lockse last post :
http://old_yeller.mydd.com/comments/2006 /11/30/1408/6965/20#20
I this comment Old Yeller stated that:
Anyone who doesn't feel filthy inside after a few evenings of that (canvassing) either doesn't have a heart or should take up panhandling as a profession.
So s/he may think that canvassing is hard, but I do not think s/he thinks that it is important.
There are a lot of people out there that I think feel more like Old Yeller than feel like you Greg.
One more point canvassing does raise money to raise more money often through further contact where a good amount of money is raised. There is a big difference between that and raising money for the sake of raising money when not actually doing anything. A lot of people do not seem to get that.
gobears, you're right--I don't agree with Old Yeller's comment at all, and it escaped my attention until you and Matt had already replied. (I did go back now and give it an unfavorable rating.) I take the canvass very seriously, and believe that it can be a real force for positive political action. That's why this discussion is so important to me. If there's a possibility that all or even most of this hard work is actually being squandered, I want to know for sure, and I want something to be done about it if it's true.
I also want to see a discussion about positive models, and I think that after all this, Greg owes it to us to spend some time looking into positive canvass models that are more effective and respectful of their workers ($20/hr is pretty much ridiculous though).
Lockse, I'm trying to figure out where in my post I insulted your intelligence. I've read it twice, and I'm at a loss. Regardless, I apologize - that wasn't my intention.
I saw several questions raised in the initial post and the comments that I felt competent to answer (who are the advocates? how many of them are there? what was Environment California's involvement in the Solar Homes campaign? where does the money go? who's getting rich off the PIRGs/Fund?), so I tried to join the conversation. I hoped that clearing up some of those questions and providing more information for people would help make this a more productive discussion.
I'm pretty sure I didn't say anything bad about you or insult you in my post. Accusing everyone who says something positive about PIRG of an "incapacity for critical thinking" doesn't do much to foster a dialogue.
Let's say that three years ago, I was a canvass director in California, and one of my canvassers came up to me and said: "I don't understand. How are we actually helping anything? And is there someone on top who is profiting off of this?"
I would have said pretty much exactly what you wrote. And that would have been a fine answer to give.
But that's not what's going on here, and I don't think it's a valid response.
I'm not sure what my reaction would have been if, three years ago, I suddenly came upon this post. I know it would have been really hard to process, and I guess having taken part in this discussion for so long, I might have lost some perspective on that. So I'm sorry if my tone was off. But I really am frustrated with your response.
Every piece of actual information you shared with us was acknowledged in the post--even the fact that Environment California was actively involved with passing the bill. You're repeating that information as if it is new to the discussion and can "answer" the questions, but you're ignoring the series of questions that remain.
Your implication that the callers' accounts are "strange" seems to imply that there is something potentially untrue about them--but you don't get specific about their stories, except to mention that yes, those briefings (which they mentioned) do occur and you found them informative. And then you also call "strange" the "idea that anyone is raking in money off PIRG or Fund fundraising." That is exactly the word Greg used himself. It is a strange idea, and if it's true then it's sad, and outrageous. This post is trying to take the rap that you laid out here and acknowledge that a) neither you, me, him or most anyone else knows for sure, and b) there are enough questions out there to give cause for some pretty reasonable doubt. You were simply reassuring us that there's nothing to worry about. Really? There's nothing to worry about in any of these posts?
I guess I had the word "stange" on the brain.
In the first instance: by "strange", I just meant that the callers' experience didn't jive with my own. As a canvasser, we heard from the advocates pretty often and got campaign updates from them on a regular basis. I don't know which experience is more common, just that the callers' experience is not universal.
In the second instance: by "strange", I meant that it's baseless to claim that the senior staff are making a fortune off PIRG or Fund or GCI fundraising. As I said, even the most senior staff at PIRG make five-figure salaries, often much lower than comparable staff at other big non-profits. Greg's post mentions accusations that have no evidence and generally make no sense to me. Statements like the following, which refers to the question of whether PIRG/Fund is a scam that's padding the pockets of Phelps: "No one knows but Doug Phelps." Which, of course, is not true - in fact, lots of people know. Each individual PIRG has a board of directors, as does the Fund and each of the various PIRG-related groups mentioned in the post. In most cases, it looks like those boards of directors are made up of senior PIRG staff working at that organization; in some cases, there are board members who do not work for PIRG (looks like people from other non-profits, mostly). From the looks of it, Phelps isn't even on the board of most of these groups. By law, any board has to review and approve the budget for their organization. Between all of those boards, you have at least a hundred people who are intimately involved in the budget decisions of the various groups involved. Perhaps you believe that all of those people (non-profit activists from across the country, some of whom don't even work for PIRG or the Fund) are involved in funneling money to Phelps as part of some grand conspiracy. That seems ludicrous to me.
As for your question: "Really? There's nothing to worry about in any of these posts?" Sure, there are things to be worried about. It seems like there are disturbing examples of poor management in both canvass and calling offices, and I hope the Fund and GCI are taking those complaints seriously. And I think it's totally valid to debate how to run an effective canvass. But I don't find most of the other claims believable or worthy of discussion (claims that the PIRGs are a scam, or financially irresponsible, or corrupt; as well as claims that the PIRGs' campaign work isn't effective).
It's 'strange' that you allude to Greg's post so non-specifically. You make it seem like he's making accusations or passing on unchallenged accusations about senior management salary in general. Greg is not asserting that the entire operation is scam - in fact, he occasionally even corrected or at least questioned the accusations of the LA employees and others in the comments.
In the meantime, the state PIRGs themselves might not be kicking Doug any money, but Telefund and GCI are for-profit organizations owned by him. Telefund and GCI both do work for PIRG organizations, and also use resources of PIRG organzations to attract other clients. There are very few people involved in the budgetary decisions of these organizations. Even on the major non-profit boards where budgets are approved and clients like Telefund are signed off on, Doug pulls all the strings. He got rid of people who would resist a long time ago.
FYI, I was on one of those boards that you say are so effective in monitoring the money flows. I saw budgets, but mostly just to rubber stamp them. I never saw where the money really went or how it broke down. I know of maybe three or four people who did; I could be wrong, but I highly doubt the 'circle of access' goes far beyond those people. And I like those people, but I'm not sure that they ever act or speak independently of Doug. Not any more.
So is this 'ludicrous' and 'not worthy' of discussion, or would you just prefer not have to consider the possibility?
The vast majority of money raised does not go to pay their staff. It goes into 'the Fund' which siphons it into Green Century Balanced Funds ($2 billion plus dollars strong, so far). The higher ups (like Phelps)live off of the interest and dividends. Let's not forget that Dougie lives off of the for-profits Telefund and GCI, also, which steal member-prospect-names from his non-profit groups like Pirg (illegal).The pittance that stays within each office to pay for staff is budgeted down to the penny, which is why supervisors feel the need to fail to reimburse canvassers appropriately for gas, steal breaks from callers (Doug has been found guilty and ordered to pay, by the Cal.State Labor Commissioner on 2 counts with 2 callers, so far). This is not heresay, it's on state record, now. He is a labor-code violater.
Pirg has 1 lobbyist per group registered in the state of Cal. From insiders in Sacramento, that lobbyist is not doing much of anything, has no presence, and is there as a token of all of the fundraising. No one in Sacramento even knows who Pirg is. They just attatch themselves to the hard work of others (like Env. Ca. taking credit for Solar Roofs, when it was NRDC and Sierra Club who did the work and actually spent money on the issues). What is on the Pirg and Env. Ca. websites is always just propaganda, taking money while Pirg markets around the issues to get contributions. It's all talk. This is why Phelps never responds when asked to prove that membership contributions ever get spent on solving the issues. The money is being stockpiled in Green century Funds and elsewhere, for the personal benefit of the few (Faye Park, Doug Phelps, Janet Domenitz). Pirg is just paid to mimic the work of the real groups. They literally cut and paste from the info of the real groups, and send it out to members as 'results sheets'.
What's strange is that the Calpirg and Env. Ca. advocates hardly ever came around and spoke with the L.A.top. The only time they did, was when they wanted the callers to do extra fundraising. For example, when they were trying to fire up the callers to ask $15 donors to give $5000 for an emergency ad pushing the Solar Roofs bill in the west coast edition of The New York Times. When all of the major contributers of that ad had their names lisdted at the bottom of the ad, it was yet another sign that the fundraising was, as always, just a bussiness opportunity for Phelps. The callers raised much more than Env. Ca.'s share of the ad had cost them. This is nothing but sheer marketing opportunity, which is all that Phelps' Pirg ever does. The advocates rallied the room, in a case like that.
Otherwise, they never came around, and when they did, they never had intelligent answers to any of the intelligent questions raised by the top. It was always just circular spin, nothing more.
Phelps behaves just like a phantom-ghost (except when it comes time to take credit for the hard work of real organizations, with clever spin). For example, regarding the cases by many L.A.top callers of unpaid breaks and unoffered meals, Dougie Phelps sends grant-writers downtown to the Ca. State Labor Commissioner. He never shows up. He's been found guilty and forced to pay 2 callers, so far, upwards of $4000.00. When the truth about what he is and what he does (like violating labor law that any dingbat employer would know not to do), he's nowhere in sight. Phantom. Phantoms pass the buck, and that's all he ever does. Phantom.
