6 ways that MoveOn can save its GCI campaign

ChangeGCI (CGCI) is a group of veterans of Grassroots Campaigns Inc operations--specifically the MoveOn campaigns of Leave No Voter Behind, Operation Democracy, and Call for Change, as well as former high-level GCI staff who were with the company at its inception (you can read diaries from some of us here, here, here, here, and here). We believe that even though GCI is engaged in important work, it has consistently misapplied core organizing principles; we believe that GCI sacrifices the quality of its campaigns for the sake of the quantity of its recruits, and that its result is far less than the sum of its parts; we believe that a campaign organization has a responsibility to honor the commitment of each organizer and every volunteer, and that whenever such honor is broken, the progressive movement suffers.

Upon MoveOn.org's request, we have submitted the following recommendations as to improvements that it can make to its GCI field program. MoveOn has not yet responded. We have a wider set of recommendations for mid- and long-term improvements to GCI's campaign model, but MoveOn's campaign is currently entering into a critical phase, and the following actions have been selected because they are all accomplishable in the short-term. We believe that these actions would bring immediate gains in effectiveness to the 2006 Call for Change campaign; we also believe that this would set a precedent of campaign accountability that can continue to develop beyond this election. Potentially, GCI could become a positive force in the progressive movement; however, if it is not held accountable, we believe that it will continue to squander our most precious resources.


1. Volunteer privacy --
According to the fine print on MoveOn's web site, when MoveOn members attend an Operation Democracy or other GCI-run events, their contact information is submitted to GCI's "membership." Supposedly, members are first contacted by an email in which they are invited to "opt out" of this agreement; those who do not "opt out" are transferred to Telefund, GCI's for-profit telefundraising sister company.

ChangeGCI holds that this fine print can help explain GCI's prioritizaion of endless full-bore recruitment, and insists that MoveOn reverse this agreement: GCI should send an email to all MoveOn members (including those who have already joined Operation Democracy), asking if they would like to be contacted by GCI/Telefund about other issues. Any members who do not respond in the affirmative should be removed from GCI's telefundraising list. Changing this process from "opt-out" to "opt-in" will create ample incentive for GCI to reconsider the quality of its volunteers' experience, rather than just the quantity of its signup lists; this action would result in a better campaign for MoveOn, since a better campaign will be the only way that GCI can generate more members for Telefund to contact.

2. A web forum for volunteer teams --
MoveOn members who join Operation Democracy and Call for Change have only the most rudimentary, unreliable means of communication available to them; if not for their GCI field organizer, the volunteers would have no viable access points into the campaign. A simple web forum would allow for better transmission of relevant information, and would encourage a more productive and supportive environment within volunteer teams. We believe this would bring minor but significant gains, in terms of the campaign's social dynamics as well as its effectiveness.

3. Campaign labor standards -- As has been attested in the MOFO diaries and accompanying threads, GCI's workplace standards are a serious issue that must be systematically addressed, and management has actively prevented internal efforts to do so. We understand the demands of the final months before an election (many of us have extensive capaign experience)--and yet even at this late date, there still must be professional practices and established limits. Far too often, organizers must campaign out-of-pocket and face delayed or incomplete reimbursement. In some cases, the extreme work demands have quite literally put organizers' health in danger. MoveOn should engage with GCI and its organizers in an ongoing dialogue, both general and specific, about the best practices by which its campaign can operate.

4. Respect for MoveOn members' commitment --
In much the same way that organizers' needs and concerns are at issue, GCI has a clear record of failing its volunteer recruits. Every MoveOn member who takes on a significant volunteer role should be guaranteed a certain weekly amount of one-on-one organizer guidance.

5.  A third-party monitor to oversee the implementation of the model --
We believe this is the most important recommendation. A common thread in most GCI veterans' experiences is the lack of viable channels through which the organizers can communicate--whether to MoveOn or GCI itself. In the short term, the crisis of leadership could be resolved, or at least mitigated, by a third-party monitor. Organizers should be able to provide qualitative reports to the monitor (ie how the raps are working, technical needs, etc); these communications must be exclusively between monitor and organizer, to preserve the security of organizers to speak freely. The monitor must have a viable capacity to process organizer feedback and ensure the model's fair and efficient implementation; the monitor's goals will be shaped by objectives related to conditions on the ground (specifically, with regard to the previous two recommendations). The monitor will report to all heads of MoveOn (not just the MoveOn PAC director).

6. Formal post-election audit --
There is good reason to doubt that the post-LNVB analysis was conducted in a serious and fair manner, and that the majority of organizer feedback was made available to the heads of MoveOn. (On the other hand, they cannot claim total ignorance.) If the monitor finds that GCI is incapable of executing a campaign without serious, repeated failures in regards to the commitment of its staff and volunteers, MoveOn will review GCI's contract after the election and terminate if necessary.

These recommendations were submitted to MoveOn over a week ago. ChangeGCI has not yet received a response. If you agree that these are matters that MoveOn should act upon, please email eli@moveon.org and cc us at changegci@gmail.com.



Display:


Fundamental Question (none / 0)

Why is it better to have a shadow organization performing the same functions as the Democratic Party should be performing, especially when said shadow organization cannot legally speak out in the affirmative for the Democratic Candidate?


by adamterando on Mon Sep 18, 2006 at 02:24:25 PM EST

Re: Fundamental Question (none / 0)

Well, the NRA has sure been successful without being able to "legally speak out in the affirmative" for the Republicans.  So have various anti-abortion groups.  

There is a very large benefit to having "outside" groups with significant resources working the progressive side.  That's part of matching the "institution" building that the conservatives have been soooo good at for the last 30 years.  Unfortunately, over that same time, the liberal ground game (read: unions) has shrunk.

The issue is that those groups actually have very decent labor practices, they treat volunteers fairly well, and they actually build a movement.  Admittedly, they are totally top down, which I don't like, but still.  Building a movement means more then just building up the party's ability to do GOTV.  


by dansomone on Mon Sep 18, 2006 at 02:32:46 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Fundamental Question (none / 0)

I generally agree with you. I'm just leery of Moveon doing this particular part of the movement. I'd think you could do a lot more good if the moveon captains were Democratic PCOs and we were out organizing precincts that have been dead for years.

Couldn't agree more that a movement means more than just building up the party's ability to do GOTV. But that's exactly what Moveon is trying to do in a backhanded way with GCI.


by adamterando on Mon Sep 18, 2006 at 03:04:03 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: 6 ways that MoveOn can save its GCI campaign (none / 0)

So basically, the only numbers that the monitor would track would be the number of paychecks and reimbursements that are delayed or missing, the number of hours that MOFOs are working with their volunteers, the number of days in a row that an organizer has worked without a break -- stuff like that.

I love it. I have a feeling that GCI will not.


by hoboninja on Mon Sep 18, 2006 at 03:57:35 PM EST

Re: 6 ways that MoveOn can save its GCI campaign (none / 0)

Ultimately, I think that web forum technology has great potential to generate more effective field operations; through sophisticated feedback mechanisms and peer moderation, such a forum could become a vital way for knowledge about the ground to be generated and shared. The implications are arguably profound. On the other hand, the very idea of an open forum is anathema to PIRG/Fund.

Even MoveOn actively avoids forum capability. But I've heard MoveOn's arguments as to why a forum wouldn't be right for them...I won't question their model in general, but those arguments just don't hold up in the context of a focused volunteer-based field operation. I'm actually volunteering for Call for Change (first house party last Saturday!), and I can say as a volunteer: the teams really do need a way to communicate with each other that is better than what we've got. And maybe I'm wrong, but I believe this could be arranged quickly and painlessly.

Suffice it to say, the other recommendations are all much more important with regard to the matters at hand.


"In it to win it!" - http://beatingbush.cc
by greg bloom on Mon Sep 18, 2006 at 04:54:42 PM EST

Re: 6 ways that MoveOn can save its GCI campaign (none / 0)

I think if there is not enough ways for volunteers to communicate directly to MoveOn or GCI than that is a problem.

I mean ultimately decisions have to be made at the top. This does me that the people at the top need info from all levels to make good decisions. If, everyone is not on the same page than everyone is off is many different directions which is not a good thing.

I can see the need of volunteer to volunteer communication in terms of unity and the sharing of ideas, but it does have its short comings. It could just turn into the place where people complain rather than problem solve. If you are a couple of months away from an election it would be a better idea. When it gets closer people just need to get on the same page and do the program. It would be a great thing after the election as well. (The audit sounds like a great idea)

I can just see this being an interaction:
MoveOn Member1: These call lists are terrible.
MoveOn Member2: I know. Know lets keep talking about it.

During that time they could be calling through the lists deleting the ones that are incorrect and finding the ones that are correct and contacting voters, right.


by thegatekeeper on Mon Sep 18, 2006 at 06:01:27 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Web forums (none / 0)

I'm definitely not pushing web forums as furious engines of productivity. You're probably right that a fair amount of kvetching would be involved (on the other hand, especially in LNVB, the kvetching was about things that really weren't working! Kvetching can be useful too!).

But there's plenty of other kinds of information exchanges that can be made. People like to be able to call together, and don't like depending on having to make that one house meeting a week; right now they have to exchange their information one-to-one at the events to do that. People might want to ask the group for solutions for all the long-distance calling. People don't like to feel like they're just handed a script and told to execute it...this is a group, the campaign should allow it to act like one. Along those lines, I think an argument could be made that the more time people spend thinking about and talking about the campaign (even in a "non-productive" online forum), the more invested they are in doing it period.


"In it to win it!" - http://beatingbush.cc
by greg bloom on Tue Sep 19, 2006 at 08:50:20 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: 6 ways that MoveOn can save its GCI campaign (none / 0)

1. Volunteer privacy --

Shouldn't we should quote the MoveOn Privacy Policy directly on this one?

Members who participate in events run by Operation Democracy volunteers, or who join the Operation Democracy list may be contacted by GCI about other progressive campaigns. Prior to being contacted by GCI, you will first receive an email from MoveOn.org Political Action advising you that GCI would like to contact you, and can decline the invitation by responding to the email. If you do not opt out in response to the email, GCI will contact you. If you become a member of GCI, any information you provide to GCI will be subject to GCI's privacy policy, which is located on their website at http://www.grassrootscampaigns.com/

Has anyone actually been able to find GCI's privacy policy on that site?


by esteban on Mon Sep 18, 2006 at 06:04:53 PM EST

Letters to MoveOn (none / 0)

ChangeGCI has been cc'd on a number of letters since we have begun posting diaries. With the authors' permission, we'll post some of them here:


Subject: concerned about GCI's tactics

Eli,

I have been an active MoveOn member for a number of years now.  But, the latest that I heard about GCI's tactics (in cooperation with MoveOn) have me concerned:
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2006/9/13/ 144427/497.

This is just one of the several stories I've heard about concerning problems within GCI.  But, this last one including efforts to crack down on employee/volunteer organizing is just unfathomable.  I could understand one falsely written post, but I keep reading about this.  If you want to ensure the effectiveness of MoveOn now and into the future, please take this information to heart.

-johne


Subject: Concerns about GCI, monthly donations cancelled

Hi Eli,

I've been reading the diaries on mydd.com about folks who've worked for Grassroots Campaigns Inc on MoveOn campaigns.

I've never worked for GCI, so I don't have much firsthand experience myself.  But, I used to work in an office in the same building as a GCI operation, and the limited amount of observation I do have is not inconsistent with the concerns raised.

Today I got an email saying my credit card information had changed, and would I please update it to continue my monthly contribution to MoveOn PAC.

I've decided to let it sit for now, and not continue giving to MoveOn PAC.

This is mostly a matter of caution.  When I have better information -- which shows MoveOn has been taking the concerns of former GCI employees seriously by addressing them -- I'll consider giving to MoveOn entities again.

You can count on me continuing to support specific candidates, and other progressive PACs ... in fact, I've never done so much political giving
before as I've done so far this cycle.  Federal, state, and local campaigns.  Easily over $500.  It's certainly true that MoveOn has been one of the influences in getting me more involved in politics, and for that I'm appreciative.

I want MoveOn to be an unambiguously positive influence on how workers are treated in this country, and I want to know that's happening in the most direct ways as well as in the political arena.

Best regards,
[redacted]

Dear DNC & Moveon.org:

Why haven't MoveOn.org and the DNC replaced Grassroots Campaigns Inc with a company that values its workers and respects their ideals by treating and paying them fairly?

The DCCC took a stand for the little guys and so should MoveOn.org and the DNC!

All the liberal bloggers have warned you.  Many of the abused employees have warned you.  And yet, you guys have refused to rid yourselves (and our community) of the likes of GCI.

I hope a change in your policy takes effect immediately because I would hate for it to affect my donating to either organization.

Aren't Republicans the ones who treat people this way?

Geez!

Joshua Epstein
New York, New York


by ChangeGCI on Mon Sep 18, 2006 at 10:42:51 PM EST

Re: 6 ways that MoveOn can save its GCI campaign (none / 0)

GCI is hands-down the most successful recruiters in the field. But they're running the Fund model in a short-term campaign environment, and they can't really understand the consequences of their actions when it just doesn't add up right. I mean it--they simply don't understand why they keep losing so many people. On some level, they know that there's a problem; I wouldn't quite say that they are actively trying to solve the problem, but they're not quite selling these positions as "community organizing" jobs any more. Beyond tweaking their recruitment, they simply don't get it. They refuse to accept that the problem could be with the model. And they refuse to accept that there could be serious negative consequences to their actions--that's just not how they have learned to think about organizing. They don't know any other way.

In order for them to begin to retain people, they're going to have to learn how to listen to their employees--but they're unwilling to do that, because that would mean they would have to admit mistakes, would have to be accountable to their employees, to their members. They might even have to become transparent. If that were to happen, the model might get dislodged from this awful place it's been stuck. But at this point, I believe that even that will never happen unless external pressure is applied.


by Lockse on Mon Sep 18, 2006 at 11:40:51 PM EST

This one took me a while, I'm learnin to blog (none / 0)

Bring it to the DK, MyDeliciousDefarges! Tickle my recommend pickle!


pwned!!1
by little brudda on Tue Sep 19, 2006 at 11:47:49 AM EST

Re: 6 ways that MoveOn can save its GCI campaign (none / 0)

There's something that maybe isn't totally clear to readers who don't understand why MoveOn isn't responding. The GCI senior management came from the PIRGS; the point person at MoveOn who manages the GCI program came from Green Corps; the director of MoveOn PAC, Adam Ruben, was the head of Green Corps; Doug Phelps, the owner of GCI, started GreenCorps and controls the PIRGs.  Much of the rest of GCI management came from the Fund.

So, the head field guy at MoveOn has his old boss as his client. The field people at MoveOn all went through this intense indoctrination, and they're basically ideological about the PIRG model. So they're totally invested in making this work, because it's their organizing religion.

The other parts of MoveOn aren't PIRG -- so it's possible that they a) might not understand what's fucked up and b) might not really be getting the best information from the Field people. This can help explain why MoveOn is having such a hard time responding to these charges. It's got a bit of a splitt personality that's working against itself. If the non-PIRG part of MoveOn is paying attention to this, maybe it's time that they have a meeting that excludes the PIRG part.


by Future Senator D on Tue Sep 19, 2006 at 12:25:14 PM EST

Re: 6 ways that MoveOn can save its GCI campaign (none / 0)

This is an interesting point, but it actually works against my biggest issue with the PIRG model.  Take a look at the list of Green Corps alums.  http://www.greencorps.org/alumni.asp?id2 =19469

Thats a pretty impressive list of placements.

Doesn't that indicate that people are moving up and working their way from the PIRG model to other types of activist careers?  A lot of em do move into PIRG affiliated groups, but others work with a wide range of groups...


by dansomone on Tue Sep 19, 2006 at 12:42:09 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: 6 ways that MoveOn can save its GCI campaign (none / 0)

Could they all producing results like Adam Ruben? How long is their list of failed campaigns?


by esteban on Tue Sep 19, 2006 at 12:58:20 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Acivism,Inc. - Podcast and Review with the Author (none / 0)

In light of all the excellent diaries on this topic lately, I  didn't think this merited its own diary entry, but everyone should know that over at Future Majority we recorded a podcast with Dana Fisher, author of Activism, Inc.: How the Outsourcing  of Grassroots Campaigns is Strangling Progressive  Politics in America.

You can read a blog about the book, and listen to the podcast here.

Dr. Fisher has agreed to stop by the website periodically this week to answer listener questions.  So if you have questions or observations and would like to hear from someone who has studied these organizations, please stop by and leave a message in the comments.

The podcast is also  available in 4 seperate segments on the website in case people want to link to some audio on specific topics:

1. History of Canvassing

  1. Young People:  Cogs in the Machine
  2. 2004: A Post-Mortem
  3. Solutions


Youth to Power
by Mike Connery on Wed Sep 20, 2006 at 07:35:46 AM EST


You are not logged in.

In order to post a comment, you must be logged in. If you have a member account, please log in to comment.

If not, you can make an account right here. It's quick and free.