Organisation update
- This topic has 243 replies, 22 voices, and was last updated 6 years, 2 months ago by
.
-
Posts
-
At the minute, solutions which involve getting the party to do more, or different, aren't eally viable. We need ways in which we can look at the party doing less. I'm not prepared to do more work (I really want the year off that was denied me last year when I was mugginsed into being Trustee without my consent). So, in that spirit, I can't propose clever new initiatives. MOst of this stuff is beside the point, we lack volunteers to do the treasury work. Now, the bulk could be moved to the HOO, as with the bulk of the secretary work, but then HOO becomes a critcal post, if we can't get that, we need a way to miniise the tediuos admin.
Young Master Smeet wrote:I'm not prepared to do more workNeither am I and, what's more, my present domestic circumstances wouldn't allow me to even if I wanted. Not only do we lack volunteers to do the treasury work but almost every other area of activity within the party is similarly blighted. Frankly, I'm sick of mollycoddling members who obviously have no intention of taking part in any organisational activity. My branch (KSRB), and I guess it's not particularly exceptional, has a handful of youngish members (45 years of age or below), all of whom joined the party online within the past five years and despite repeated attempts to encourage them to participate, be it by email, letter or personal contact, all, with the possible exception of one, remain totally passive. In fact, overwhelmingly we don't get any response from them whatever. I'm in a minority of one within the branch inasmuch as I want to divest ourselves of these freeloaders who are a burden on those of us who are active and do the work of running and keeping the party alive.
I don;t want to burden anyone with more work but can someone point me to the location of the terms of reference for the various party posts and roles? I genuinely think that there are a few dozen members currently doing little or nothing who would be prepared to do 1-2 hours per week remotely if there were some way we could feasibly and efficiently arrange this. That's equivalent to a full time role. This needs no upheaval: tasks can be delegated but still be retained within the democratic accountabillity of the Party officer.
And therein lies part of our problem. A long-standing member doesn't know where to find basic information about party administration that's actually quite readily available. We clearly need to make it easier, especially for newcomers.https://groups.yahoo.com/neo/groups/spintcom/files/Depts%20and%20Committees%20%20-%20ToR/
What's interesting about that list is that there are over 30 different members on it. So the volunteers are there. It is just that no one wants to be treasurer or general secretary at the moment.
ALB wrote:What's interesting about that list is that there are over 30 different members on it. So the volunteers are there. It is just that no one wants to be treasurer or general secretary at the moment.I think you're talking about the committee list (see below) whereas I posted a link to committee Terms of Reference.https://groups.yahoo.com/neo/groups/spintcom/files/Committee%20lists/
ALB wrote:What's interesting about that list is that there are over 30 different members on it. So the volunteers are there. It is just that no one wants to be treasurer or general secretary at the moment.So why is this? Do members consider that the posts carry too much responsibility? Or is it because the posts are unpaid?
Brian wrote:ALB wrote:What's interesting about that list is that there are over 30 different members on it. So the volunteers are there. It is just that no one wants to be treasurer or general secretary at the moment.So why is this? Do members consider that the posts carry too much responsibility? Or is it because the posts are unpaid?
In addition to the responsibility it's likely to be the amount of work involved and the regular commitment required.
gnome wrote:Brian wrote:ALB wrote:What's interesting about that list is that there are over 30 different members on it. So the volunteers are there. It is just that no one wants to be treasurer or general secretary at the moment.So why is this? Do members consider that the posts carry too much responsibility? Or is it because the posts are unpaid?
In addition to the responsibility it's likely to be the amount of work involved and the regular commitment required.
Which suggest to me they should be paid posts.
Young Master Smeet wrote:At the minute, solutions which involve getting the party to do more, or different, aren't eally viable. We need ways in which we can look at the party doing less. I'm not prepared to do more work (I really want the year off that was denied me last year when I was mugginsed into being Trustee without my consent). So, in that spirit, I can't propose clever new initiatives. MOst of this stuff is beside the point, we lack volunteers to do the treasury work. Now, the bulk could be moved to the HOO, as with the bulk of the secretary work, but then HOO becomes a critcal post, if we can't get that, we need a way to miniise the tediuos admin.YMS Thats fair enough as far as you and others are concerned who carry out the core functions of the SPGB. I agree with you – I dont think you should be loaded with yet more work. Too much of what gets done seems to depend on far too few The problem, as I see it, is that the way the Party presently organises itself and runs its affairs makes this undue concentration of the workload on a small number of members almost inevitable. We end up, on the one hand, with a small minority of hyperactive members at risk of burnout and, on the other, a large majority of relatively inactive and isolated members who are inactive precisely because they feel they cannot do much or because their circumsatnces are such that they cannot do much This is not a healthy situation to be in. What i am suggesting is NOT that the Party does "more" in the sense of " more of the same" but rather that the Party diversifies and significantly expands the range of activities that it currently engages in in a way that would enable it to tap into the potential of the relatively inactive majority of members. In other words spreading the workload outwards in new imaginative ways to incorpopate and engage this currently inactive majority. Attending branch meetings, even when this is possible, may not be everyone's cup of tea so it is important to accommodate more fully the range of personal preferences amongst members (and sympathisers!) as to how they might want to contribute. Party work should not be seen as a duty but a pleasure. I have already provided a few examples of how this might be done; I'm sure other comrades can think of a few more. In theory (or at least, this is my hope) this should kickstart a momentum of grrowth which will then lead to an increased level of voluntarism and a greater number of volunteers coming forward to perform the kind of core functions that the Party has traditionally concentrated on. People tend to become more active when they are more enthused and when they feel are getting somewhere. Conversely they reduce their activity when they dont feel they are getting anyway. Its a vicious circle which we need to break in a pretty decisive way if the Party is going to get anywhere. In my view this is absolutely key to the reorganisation and revitalisisation of the SPGB – the diversification and decentralisation of its activities and its workload. Unless and until the Party grasps this particular bull by the horns, nothing essential will change and it will be a case of fiddling while Rome burns.
alanjjohnstone wrote:Or a combined paid position, Brian….two birds with one stoneWe agree on something, Alan. Yes, a combined General Secretary/Treasurer also doing the work of the Head Office Organiser and Enquiries Committee. Paid, but not necessarily employed. That was the idea behind the Investment Committee — to provide a regular income to pay someone rather than (of course) getting a better rate of interest on our legacies.
I think the treasurer's job requires some competence in financial and accounting matters.
Quote:In addition to the responsibility it's likely to be the amount of work involved and the regular commitment required.I don't think paying for this will resolve that difficulty. Paying for training of a willing treasurer and assistant treasurer might be money well spent, also expenses of traveling, but the motivation has to be one of service I would say.
Actually the work of Treasurer is not much more than that of any club treasuer except that there are returns that have to be made to HMRC and the Electoral Commission by deadlines otherwise we get fined (and have been). It's just that it requires someone with a liking for, or rather not disliking, money figures. Difficult to find amongst socialists. We also need suitable software, but that's easily fixed.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.