Display:


Re: The Canvassers Union (conclusion): Toward the (none / 0)

Could someone on the PIRG/FUND staff or a signficant funder or client, please call for full disclosure of the relationship between Doug Phelps as sole owner of Telefund and Grassroots Campaigns Inc (the largest combined canvass and telephone operation in the US) and the positions he holds with the family of PIRGs including Chair of the Board of USPIRG, The FUND, Green Century Funds, Greencorps, NAOPI, CALPIRG and CALEnvironment, etc. etc. etc?

There are certain myths about the situation with Phelps that are so patently false they raise deep alarm bells as to the level of denial and the lack of transparency occuring in the PIRG/FUND movement.

Myth #1: Phelps is wealthy because he inherited his wealth.  False. False. False.  Phelps had no money when he was hired by the PIRGs and has never received money from his family.  Quite the opposite:
His multi-millions and his lofts and houses are as a result of the profits from Telefund and GCI.  He doesn't take a salary because he takes the profits.  He is not an employee of Telefund and GCI who is on salary -- he is the owner of those businesses and therefore owner of the profits.

Look, let's get real here: These multi-million dollar companies could not have been created without appropriating the technology of canvassing and phoning from the FUND.  These companies could not have been created without key senior staff siphoned off from the PIRG and the FUND. And, at least in the case of GCI could not be sustained without use of the FUND canvasses today.  The PIRG/FUND movement was used to create these private businesses and the movement continues to be used to drive profits for Douglas Phelps --- to the tune of multi-millions.  This may not be illegal, but is it ethical? Is it transparent?  Does the staff and the public and the funders understand that this is the reality on the ground, ie that the same person who holds every significant position of authority in the PIRG/FUND movement is also the sole owner of Telefund and GCI?  Is it perfectly transparent that Phelps used and uses the PIRG/FUND movement to continue to build up his businesses?  Is it perfectly transparent how exactly this in the best interest of the PIRG movement?

Myth #2: Phelps works 20 hour weeks.  This is a joke.  Phelps can certainly focus intensely when he needs to, and is genius at creating the sense of working all the time, but if you look at, say, a typical day in the life of Phelps in Santa Barbara -- let's see -- he'd get in at 11am, drive to UCSB for one of the best bean burritos in the world with a young female personal assistant around 1pm, "oversee" 3-5 personal assistants at any one time to pick up laundry, organize personal schedule, to get his videos and busied himself with the purchase of property for himself and family members from the Telefund profits. He'd leave at 5 to take swing dancing lessons.  I suppose if you count his attending the numerous PIRG/FUND parties and gatherings of young people that happen consistently in the PIRG, of his hanging out cavorting with the new young Greencorps organzers, work, then you could add some serious hours to his work day.

Myth #3: Phelps is a real leader and the PIRG/FUND couldn't get along without.  Get real:  This is a man who consistently takes credit for other people's work, lies like a banshee, a guy who has stolen technology, names, who is despised by many many many but who surrounds himself with a bunch of loyal sycophants that in the words of Jerry Brown "all who have those particularly dead PIRG eyes."

we are talking about a man who will leave an entire senior staff waiting for hours and some times days while he sleeps in or gets his thoughts organized, who will make on a whim a several hundred person organization change travel plans (and force staff to personally cover the cost to do it who will, just to show who is boss, hold back already agreed upon salary increases for entire staff's for years at a time while enriching himself, who spends most of his time plotting against his internal enemies, a person very few like or feel any affection towards, a man who uses fear, humiliation, and bullying to get his way. We are talking about a man who truly creeps out more than a majority of the senior staff and alumni women.  Alot of women won't be alone in a room with him.  How's that for leadership?

Name one PIRG person who has challenged Phelps on one issue of import and I'll show you a staff person who regardless of how slow or overt the process, was ultimately villified and/or forced to leave the organization.

Myth #4. Because Phelps was a significant player in the 1960s, he is therefore entitled to make every significant decision within the PIRG/FUND movement, treat staff like like shit, use the organization as his personal playground, and become a multi-millionare in the process.  First of all, who ever heard of Phelps' impact on the 60's???  He was in the area when Wounded Knee occurred and along with a bunch of other college white boys tried to help.  What exactly does this entitle him to today?

The situation with Phelps and the PIRG movement is a disgrace to the progressive movement, and the top will be blown off one of these days if one of the key funders, clients, or staff members doesn't act first.  


by artfunk on Mon Dec 04, 2006 at 06:43:58 PM EST

Re: The Canvassers Union (conclusion): Toward the (none / 0)

artfunk seems to have beaten me to the point, and gotten a whole lot more specific about it, too. But I was going to say...

I almost feel sorry for the model...this is not the model's fault, and it's getting a bad rap. It's the fault of the people at the top who are implementing it, who are so rigid and heartless and irresponsible about what it's really supposed to be about. And yes, I hold Phelps personally responsible for much of it; and I also think it's the responsibility of alumni like myself to call for it to be remedied.

So maybe this was a problem all the way back in the 80s, before I came on. It does seem to me that there was some kind of 'tipping point,' maybe in the late 90s, maybe just before we started street canvassing--that would explain how all these union drives have been breaking out everywhere. Maybe it was because by then, everyone who really cared and took their responsibilities seriously had just given up and left.  Then it was just Doug and his "team," who were only too willing to let Telefund and GCI tip everything way too far...


by Lockse on Mon Dec 04, 2006 at 10:33:58 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: The Canvassers Union (conclusion): Toward the (none / 0)

Well, I worked for 7 weeks in the summer of 1988 as a MASSPIRG canvasser (college summer job), and the job sucked.  Miss quota 3 days and you're outta there.  And doing the same awful "Hi.  Give us money." every single day.  I knew a couple of guys who, in the car on their way out to canvass, started discussion how it would be a lot better if we sometimes got briefings from our lobbyists and others working on these issues instead of the same money-raising practice, and that evening they were called in to the director's room and thoroughly dressed down.  (One of them told the director to go f himself and quit on the spot.)

The pay sucked, there was no real respect, and it partially turned me off of activism for most of a decade. (And turned me off of the PIRGs permanently.)

So things were pretty lame back in the late 80s as well.


Get a Vegetarian Starter Kit and a Dem. Party Mastercard
by Go Vegetarian on Tue Dec 05, 2006 at 11:36:47 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: The Canvassers Union (conclusion): Toward the (none / 0)

Eh, I would want to see far more evidence of actual malice before I would go this far.  I mean, Telefund has been around since 1988, GCI for only a few years.  Phelps has been doing this since the 60s.  That would mean over two decades of hard work before he became the wealthy head of all these groups.  That seems a bit much for someone who only cares about the cash.

I think a lot more of the problems are about a failure to adapt then malice.  That includes not planning ahead, not providing resources in advance, failing to move to a more bottom up structure over time, and so on.  Once you've done something for 30+ years, it's very easy to assume that what you have been doing is absolutely correct, and should not be changed at all.  Personally, I'm still hopeful that the mistakes can be fixed and the model improved significantly, especially if client groups are pressured significantly.


by dansomone on Tue Dec 05, 2006 at 09:59:09 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: The Canvassers Union (conclusion): Toward the (none / 0)

They came to do good, they stayed to do well...


by esteban on Tue Dec 05, 2006 at 12:23:03 PM EST
[ Parent ]