i am not totally oppossed to the idea of paid staff. i share all of the concerns for how this would affect volunteers/the community/”management”/etc. and those things would need to be figured out. but i don’t see a direct link to the disappearance of volunteers if we get paid staff, namely, because as dave pointed out, we don’t really have any volunteers….also, in conjunction with paid staff, something like an “assistanceship” or “internship” would help create another stable position of responsibility. that position would likely need to be taken by someone who had free time, was in school, or had other requirements they needed an internship for.
also, i disagree with getting salaries paid through grants which makes us dependent. i think grassroots fundraising is important, but dont want it to be taking up all the time of staff to fundraise their own salaries.

i also think an advisory board is a good idea, with or without 501 c(3, would be important for larger visioning and direction to take place. i don’t think the paid staff should be making decisions, but should be taking direction from the larger advisory panel. to me, that would mean we stay truer to the original vision of the hive and it would also help mediate some of the issues of “management”. of course there will be smaller decisions to be made (ie. host this event or not, who to choose as volunteers) which i think can be autonomously decided by staff. but larger visioning stuff should be done as a collective.

i also really think that the first comment by someone from GGNA is very relevant to our current situation: allying with local organizations doing similar work, especially in the same area, could really help strengthen our relationships and potentially foster stronger projects and visions with more volunteers. i think there could be a mutally beneficial relationship, especially between the hive and ggna where the work being done on both ends could turn into more volunteers for both organizations. this is something we have talked about before, but never put any real energy into.

in the last comment, dave mentioned the hive serving as a platform for social change work in greensboro. i agree with that, but also want to acknowledge that i don’t think it would be out of place for the hive to organize something as “the hive”. this does not mean the hive is responsible for synthesizing all cultural/political organizing in the city and bringing it together in some meaningful way, but i want to stress the importance for the hive’s existence and for the fun and energy level of hive volunteers that the hive is not just managing resources like the library and the computers and paying bills. stripped down, yes, that is what is necessary for basic functioning, but i think the hive is much more than that. i think the hive is made up of the folks who frequent it, hang out there, hold events there…but i also think another dynamic relationship is at play within the “organizing committee”. basically, i think the point dave brings as clarifying the “platform” vision is important as this is something we have touched on before several times and should talk more about in this next stage of process.

finally, i would like to propose that at some point folks need to discuss just how/why the hive has over time lost its core volunteers. i think this could be a useful conversation to understand our current situation and may provide insight as to how to move forward.

so much love to everyone. i know whatever happens it will bring good things to the hive and all involved. thanks for everyones thoughts and hard work.
miss you!
ricky

The proposal does not intend to make grants the main source of funding. If I was unclear when I drafted that, I apologize. I only included it to point out, as Marnie reiterated, that it is often easier to receive grants if you are a 501(c)3.

All three bring up the issue of community involvement and the fear that transitioning to this structure would lower community involvement. However, the reality of our situation now is that we have very little community involvement in the organizing/operations of the HIVE.

This once again begs the question, which community? Those of us who are active on a daily basis running the HIVE have formed a type of community. The broader Glenwood community is not well represented in any of our decision-making processes. By and large the people active in running the HIVE are white, middle-class folks. Minority groups are nearly totally absent.

Yet, while the community of organizers has dramatically shrunken in both numbers and diversity over the last six months, the number of people accessing the HIVE for programs has increased substantially. Our calendar is full of events covering a huge spectrum of communities, ethnicities, and needs. Most of these programs are very well organized, advertised to their constituencies, and attended. The weak link is in the HIVE itself. And this manifests in very basic things getting dropped: the place is not entirely cleaned up after events, the library organization has not been maintained, etc.

The HIVE was originally envisioned as a sort of “platform” on top of which all kinds of things could be built and grown. I feel, and my proposal was intended to address, the reality that the HIVE-as-platform-for-social-change is being neglected in favor of a more vague vision of the HIVE as a an active entity driving social change in Greensboro. I feel this is a problematic direction to take, precisely because we do not have the capacity to manage that vision, given the wide variety of initiatives it invites.

One of the problems that those of us who have been consistently active in running the HIVE hear quite often is that there is no clear individual or group “in charge” who people can go to about various issues. This is an indication that the “platform” vision needs work and, I feel, needs to be placed back at the center of our focus.

Sorry if that was long or rambling…

Dave

I am committed to being a part of continuing this conversation even though I only have sporadic internet access from Nicaragua for the next few weeks.

Before I talk more about these problems, though, I want to say that I am totally impressed with and proud of the HIVE. We’ve been around for a year and a half, have created a place where amazing things occur regularly, all in service to a new vision for organizations, community, and gettin’ stuff done. These 19 months mean a lot for what we’ve achieved and for the model we have shown to others in Greensboro. As we look at our problems closely, we need to keep in mind that the HIVE’s continued existence just to this point marks an incredible achievement.

Back to our problems: the main problems seem to be linked. Here’s what I think they are, from my own experience in the HIVE and in talking with folks: 1) a lack of continuity, consistency, and follow-through in day-to-day operations; 2) a diminishing number of folks who are taking responsibility for both day-to-day operations and the larger vision; 3) exhaustion and frustration among the small number of folks who are carrying the responsibility for day-to-day operations and nurturing the larger vision.

These are serious problems. We must figure them out if we are to succeed, not to mention show care and concern for the folks who are getting exhausted. I take the proposal as a serious-minded attempt at tackling these problems.

There are two linked ideas in the proposal–paid staff and 501-c-3 status/structure to facilitate fundraising to pay the staff–that I think are intended to address the three problems above.

I want to say, though, that I am not sure this approach will actually solve these problems.

My main concern is that we not rush into getting the 501-c3 status — it comes with a cost (not just financial), I don’t think it will solve our problems, and it may exacerbate some of them. I think there are other approaches we can use instead. I discuss these issues at some length below.

I am also concerned that any decisions around moving to a paid staff model be undertaken with incredible care and a great deal of community discussion. Once a decision to hire staff is made, the HIVE enters into an obligation that is not easily undone, so let’s be really thoughtful about every aspect of it, recognize we will do some things wrong, and build a culture around the issue of staffing that allows us to have difficult conversations about what it means to work for pay or be an employer in a capitalist world (for example, in a place like the HIVE, who exactly is “the employer?” Who wants to play the part of “management”???)–and gives us room to reevaluate.

We might decide not to hire staff at all, or we might decide to do it. Whatever we decide, if past experience is a guide, it will likely prove to be more consuming than we initially imagined–requiring a great deal of time from non-paid folks, as well as from paid folks.

Which brings me to the tricky issue of having both paid and unpaid people contributing their time and talent to the HIVE. There are economic realities that limit the amount of time volunteers can spend–I get that, and it’s why the idea of having paid staff is something I am taking seriously. It might help tremendously if one or two people had the time (because they were getting paid) to ensure that day-to-day stuff and the big picture both get attended to.

But be aware of what happens in capitalism: unpaid work just seems, well, less important. It’s a force that operates almost unawarely in the back of the mind for many USers, if not most USers — even anarchists and others whose “front of the mind” knows better. It only takes a few people getting tripped up in this–awarely or unawarely–for the paid vs unpaid thing to become a dichotomy that divides the HIVE. We need strong community connections and dozens if nt hundreds of unpaid folks, so let’s make sure—if we hire staff—that we do it in a way that builds that, not depletes it.

A few practical issues on rates of pay and what it will cost the HIVE to sustain paid staff:

1) The $9.82/hour the raise the wage group is asking for is not a “living wage.” According to NCJustice.org, you’d have to get to $12-15/hour to approach that, and that assumes a health benefit is supplied. $9.82 is what we think we can win–and it represents what the min wage of 1968 would be today if it had only held constant with inflation. It’s a min wage, not yet a living wage. Whether the HIVE can afford to go above that or not, i can’t say.

2) $9.82 an hour for 48 weeks per year inherently means no sick pay, no vacation pay, no holiday pay. Just want to be clear on that. If we paid $9.82/hour for 20 hours per week for 52 weeks, then those things are covered to some extent. That would total $10,212.80 per staff member, or $20,425.60 for two staff members.

3) We’d have to pay FICA, medicare, and NC unemployment and FUTA — that adds 9.65% to all salary expenditures — about $1,800/year more.

Now i want to get back to some stuff around the 501-c3 thing.
First, there is nothing inherent in a 501-c-3 structure that automatically or easily fosters more committed or active board members, so this structure can’t be counted on to solve the problem of a too-small number of folks staying connected, committed, active, etc.

This problem is one we have to solve, but keep in mind we aren’t the only group suffering from it–it challenges all orgs in this over-busy, capitalist, economically stressed country of ours. Both formal orgs and informal orgs, nonprofit or not. It’s a problem central to social change efforts of any kind, not to mention cultural efforts, educational efforts, etc. It’s a problem well worth struggling with, because our future as a species in large measure will hinge on folks learning how to hang together in semi-organized ways.

I know many 501-c-3’s that suffer from a lack of board members, and/or board members who are not particularly knowledgeable or committed or useful to the organization. In fact, there is some evidence that having a traditional board structure with paid staff has the effect of reducing the interest level and commitment of volunteers/stakeholders. I don’t think it always has to have that effect, but that’s where things tend, without a great deal of attention to making sure it doesn’t happen.

Having a large number of folks having a stake in (a sense of “ownership” of) the HIVE seems to be essential to its vision. So I want to be very careful about taking a path that could well reduce the number of committed folks (albeit inadvertently).

Another concern I have about 501-c-3 status for the HIVE: Setting aside the time and effort and money it takes to achieve 501-c-3 status, there are ongoing requirements and work related to maintaining the status. Apart from the time and skill it takes to file an annual 990 form and all the other corporate reports it would take to stay legal, I am becoming increasingly aware of how non-profits’ actions are constrained by 501-c-3 status.

For example, I think the HIVE could no longer host Raise the Wage meetings or otherwise make its support of this political effort known. (It could, actually–but we’d have to file special forms and reports and possibly pay taxes on part of our income if we did. Filing these forms and reports also has the effect of triggering a higher level of IRS scrutiny for everything we do.) Same with the Sick Days Campaign, and any political work that connects to actual local, state, or federal legislation. Grassroots orgs give up some forms of power when they become 501-c-3’s.

Now, not being a 501-c3 doesn’t stop us from aggressive grassroots fundraising. You can raise funds without being a 501-c3–depending on how much you raise, you might have to report it, but if we spend it all on program and operations, we don’t pay taxes on it (you pay taxes on “profit,” which we would be sure never to have).

The lack of a tax deductibility incentive for donors might make a 10-30% difference in the amount of money any person who is concerned with that might give (meaning a $100 donation might become a $70-$90 donation), but I am thinking we aren’t really going to miss out on many donations or take a big hit.

With regard to getting grants, not having 501-c3 status is problematic, but not necessarily the end of the world. We’d have to find a fiscal sponsor who was willing to sponsor us as a project. Any staff of the HIVE might–on paper–work for the sponsoring organization. So that’s solvable.
The other issue with getting grants, is, well, getting them. Yes, there’s money out there for this kind of thing, but it can take quite a lot of time and talent to get it. Who would do this work? If we add grant-writing (or for that matter grassroots fundraising) to the duties of paid staff, they might well spend all their time chasing the $$$ that make up their salaries. So let’s assume this work falls on the shoulders of the Board — we still have to ensure a sufficient number of folks with the time to do this kind of thing. Back to that problem again.

I am also aware of the issue that Sharp raised—the grant chase becomes the whle purpose of the org, and the granting orgs aren’t always happy to support the vision of a group like the HIVE. So this needs to be very carefully considered too.

My thoughts for now,
Marnie

I admit that I’ve only been to a few organizing meetings, but I think the HIVE is great and I think that this proposal is a terrible idea. A few points that I think are important:

1. Being funded by grants instead of the community will make the HIVE accountable to those organizations that issue grants as opposed to being accountable to the community. When you apply for grants, there is more at stake. Depending on lots of small donations from a solid community of people is more robust and less prone to failure. I don’t want to see the HIVE take the grant route. (I have worked in a non-profit and this was a problem.)

2. I really don’t like the idea of paid positions at the HIVE. This will create the mentality that one persons work is more important that others. It will also discourage volunteers. The fact that the proposed general managers duties are so diverse suggests that the HIVE has had problems distributing responsibility within it’s collective. I believe the HIVE should address this rather than replacing the structure with one which will have less opportunity for distribution of responsibilities. Responsibility = more engaged collective members.

3. I don’t believe the 501c3 structure is consistent with the vision statement. If the HIVE is to go 501c3, it should take out the mentions of “community based participatory democracy,” “self-determination,” and arguably more. Why does the HIVE need a board to provide oversight? Shouldn’t the people implementing the decisions be the ones making them? How can we be self determined if we are being directed by a board of which membership is restricted. I think that rather than assuming that a 501c3 would be the natural progression from a collective, we should examine what forces directed the HIVE to a collective decision making model versus a 501c3 in the beginning.

4. This is more bureaucracy than it is worth. Do people really ask themselves whether the HIVE is tax exempt or not before donating??

5. We need to be aware of the so-called “non-profit industrial complex” or NPIC. INCITE! (women of color against violence) has many important observations about the NPIC, such as that the NPIC “redirects activist energies into career-based modes of organizing instead of mass-based organizing capable of actually transforming society.” INCITE! also notes that that the NPIC “Encourages social movements to model themselves after capitalist structures rather than to challenge them.” I’ve worked in a non-profit that was a worker collective in addition to a board that met with the collective once a year. It was a great organization but the bureaucracy of 501c3 was still an imposing structure, both in the form of fundraising and also in the hierarchical relationships the 501c3 structure necessitated. I have also heard from those working in a more traditional 501c3 structure that it was extremely inefficient and very frustrating.

You can read more from INCITE! about the non-profit industrial complex at http://www.incite-national.org/index.php?s=100

I’ve ended up writing a lot more than I thought I would, but this proposal is a big deal. If implemented, it will fundamentally change the HIVE as we know it.
-sharp

I was just re-reading the Klein book two days ago! Also, the construction of the board will be an intentional process with the goal of bringing in local community voices to help provide strategic vision and oversight. The GGNA would be welcome in that process.