If you don't want to get dragged into a fight, don't make it one. I don't have any doubt that everyone in the finance office worked hard. I have no doubt that everyone at GCI works REALLY hard, and that isn't my point.
I'm sure that I didn't screw up any of my own reimbursement stuff. I wasn't the one who handled most of that stuff directly in my office, so I can't be as sure about everything else, but it was handled by two people who had worked in business before (our CD, for instance, had worked in management for a large corporation for a few years before working on this campaign). I don't doubt that there were idiots staffing many of the offices, but we desparately tried to maintain a professional atmosphere in my office (San Diego Door, but the same goes for street, though it did take them forever to get permission to fire the AD who was getting drunk with canvassers in the office at night), and our efforts were destroyed when paychecks would arrive two days late and reimbursements would never arrive at all. This is not to mention the wacky web of "new hire" paperwork we would ahve to complete each time GCI would spawn--and relegate us to--a new legal entity.
IF you honestly think that the payroll and remibursement system worked well and was only hampered by the mistakes of the director/organizers, than we are just going to have to agree to disagree. That is so far afield of my direct experience that I don't think we can even agree on the basics of what happened and when. I don't mean for anyone to take any of this personally. Even the highest up people at GCI who I met and interacted with were really impressive and admirable people. I like them.
In a previous thread, I made the suggestion that GCI just outsource all the payroll and "officey" shit to a company like ADP or something. You didn't like that suggestion, and that's fair, but it's like I'm totally opposed to being constructive about this.
It's not like I'm totally opposed to being constructive.
"IF you honestly think that the payroll and remibursement system worked well and was only hampered by the mistakes of the director/organizers, than we are just going to have to agree to disagree."
No, I don't think that at all. I think there were two main problems:
1) The people who are great at recruitment, training, staff managment, and motivation are not always the same people who are good at administrative stuff. GCI hired for the former, not the later. And then they had week long trainings where the admin stuff was squeeeeeezed into half of the last day. So organizationally, the people in the field were not prepared to do the stuff they needed to get paid on time. And, becuase the organization is rightfully focused on the "campaign" stuff, no one was ever really blamed when they got the "finance" stuff wrong, so there was little accountability in the field.
Again, this is not to lay blame on individuals, but I never really saw anyone take any ownership for their mistakes, and this stuff wasn't a priority, so there were mistakes made in the field.
Considering this is getting on to two years old now, I don't remember exactly what offices did what, especially with the street and door splits like SD. But let me be clear on this. On VERY BASIC THINGS like getting the payroll spreadsheets emailed in in a timely manner, no office was perfect, except maybe the cape cod office and one or two of the smaller offices in the southwest like tucson. No office was late every pay period, but again, the problem was that a mistake by one office meant that payroll staff couldn't work on getting the checks out the doors for the offices that did get it right, so mistakes compounded one another. In terms of your personal requisitions, I don't remember your name coming up as a problem, but, well, in addition to stapling every single reciept ever, which would make you a saint, can you also honestly say that your budget spread sheet was kept up to date and mailed in regularly? That your debit card spread sheet was also? That your office never sent out a canvasser without having them fill out tax forms? That new hire information (that annoying web that actually had to be done to get people paid...) was sent in on time?
Gah, I really shouldn't be spending this much time on this, so point 2 will be briefer:
2) This gets back to Jax's point about the forest and the trees, but from a different angle. The problem as I saw it was that there was no forward planning. People in finance were more overworked and less apprecieted then in any other part of the organization. (I was an AD, did national recruitment, and finance, so I can speak with some authority there...)
In addition to the (rightful) lack of focus on the admin end, there were two sub problems: a) no forward planning: as refered to above, they refused to hire people in advance and get them trained up before they were snowed under b) you simply can't do the same amount of work doing admin stuff as you can doing organizing or recruitment. staring at spreadsheets for 14 hours is signficantly more draining then a mix of phone work/recruitment/training/canvassing etc over those same 14 hours. and when you make a mistake on the admin end, it messes with someones money, and you can't simply go on to the next role play or door, which makes it more draining still. Maybe that is more personal to me, but I think that's fairly universal.
In terms of being constructive, I actually think this is the place that GCI has the least work to do going forward. My understanding is that the systems are actually mostly working now. And I really think outsourcing is a bad idea, since an outside company would be much less forgiving of the general screw ups that were fairly universal, which the finance staff at least tried to understand since we were mostly former directors and cared about "the cause."
I do think that the most constructive thing would be to somehow get that "forward planning" mindset in place, since it would prevent a lot of these problems.
Finally, I'm sorry if I read your original post wrong, but it really seemed like an attack on the finance staff, and not a critique of the systems that were set up.
I think I'm going to try to refrain from further comments on this part of the issue, since it sorta makes me want so shoot myself in the face.
I didn't mean to attack the finance stuff. I am not doing a good job of making my point, so I will bail out with one final comment: GCI is not a campaign, it is a business. It is not acceptable for a business to get payroll right "most of the time." If they don't get that, they shouldn't be running a business.
After re-reading your comment, I had to add something. The attitude that it's OK to fall short on payroll because other things are a higher priority is symbollic of exactly what's wrong with GCI. I agree that good activists don't always make natural administrative staff (shit, I can bear that out with my own work history!)--but GCI (and I mean "GCI" not "the finance staff they hired in 2004") needs to understand that it is not only a terribly short-sighted practice to knowingly continue a system that results in emplyees getting paid late and reimbursed inadequately, it is also illegal. If the exact same folks were running an entity called "No on 35" or "Smith for Rep.," I think your argument would hold up perfectly. But they are running a business, called Grassroots Campaigns Inc., for a profit--and they are using practices that are not tenable for entities that want to survuve long-term.
That you, I, and anyone else who worked on any campaign in 2004 would agree that administrative stuff isn't our highest priority is a perfect indicator that we are the wrong people to be handling that particular job.
