George Mason represent!!!

Lowell,

One of my step-neices is in the Comptroller’s Office at GM,– as mentioned here somewhere previously– so I am more aware of the models being adopted there (and how!) and VCU, opposed to Michigan State, for instance. This is a time of great change; I was amazed to hear VCU declare its mission to be “a primary driver of local change.” Speaking of messages Williams should hear!

WKU is at least five years behind these models– if it had meaning, I could probably date adoptions of specific methods and programs. We lack many basic resources. And I’m perfecting badgering the system into adoption…

…anyway, back to work.

I was one of the students that took part of the original PIRG drive. It was a revealing exercise in how you can talk pre-occupied, busy people into signing petitions.

PIRG was sold to us, as we then sold to others, as a liberal but not especially doctrinaire organization that would try to look out for the good of the entire student body as well as the public. We came up with some useful projects, such as consumers guides and the like for studens, also some local environmental projects.

After going to the statewide conference/convention it became clear that it was a much more bureaucratic venture, and that, in aggregate, a lot of money was involved. And that some quirky ventures were being pushed that did not have much to do with students or higher education, but were part of larger political schemes that had little to do with what we thought we were getting in to.

Perhaps it was just a way of starting up a Naderite third party… either way, it was by no means a grass-roots, student motivated venture that I at least thought it was.

In retrospect, there was not anything we did that could not have been done through the regular student group systems. Not much of a budget would have been needed. MassPIRG must go through a lot of cash, because every year they are back at my door asking for money!

At this point I am surprised to hear PIRG is still at Williams, or that enough people were still signing those petitions for it tio be around in 1993. I concur it is probably time for Ephs to come up with a new and improved organization.

I am sure today’s students can do a lot better than we did.

Dear Anon,

PIRG is a Nader organization– Laura advised them at Berkeley– bing!, why haven’t I emailed Laura?– and that explains much of the consumer advocacy work they do, much of which I think is truly good.

By the mid-90s, PIRG’s presence on campus had grown to the point where one-fifth of the students on campus participated in one way or another.

Some of the environmental projects were, equally, quite good, and co-ordinate with CES.

As I have said, I have serious concerns about the ultimate nature of the organization.

My main point at the moment, is that PIRG taught some of the students involved many of the operational details of a political machine– for instance, how to manage a phone banking campaign; how to quickly distribute a media message.

That has value, as those skills have many potential applications, outside of party, issue or perspective. PIRG taught many people that they could get things done, and how.

Williams PIRG was also a pet of President Oakley, and began its decline in 2000 or so when it lost the right to have a “check here if you don’t want to donate” box on the term bill sent to parents. Since then it has been back and forth; no current chapter. To me, given the central role it played in Williams during the 90s, it was really a surprise that it had declined to the point of not having an active chapter.

Semi-rant follows:

My longer criticism would be that, unless you became valuable to PIRG– essentially, unless you ran a chapter and then became an employee of the central organization– you had no say in the organizational goals. Conventions were only an exercise in presenting the face of democracy– and thus, highly destructive to students’ learning about democratic inclusion and process.

I believe all PIRG funds are spent on PIRG functions, and the salaries quite low. I’ve at least never heard criticism on the grounds of financial corruption.

Regardless, as I write above and elsewhere, the structure meant the “Party line” was formed at levels far above, distributed down without contact, and that social acceptance was about being a happy-smiley kid doing what was socially “right”– no matter how wrong it might have been in some cases. Thinking creatively to transform “the Machine”– I mean that in Mario Savio’s sense!– was not encouraged.

I’m not a fan of such organizational structures– my favorite example is Alan Walker’s “open door to any employee” policy at AutoDesk– so long, of course, as you had good reason to come chat. PG&E and UP&L, as created by LL. Nunn, had similar structures originally.

It seems to me the PIRG structure above is simply too rigid– it does not really open the organization to ideas and perspectives flowing upward. A few people at the top– hardly just Ralph and Laura– set an overall agenda (or set it many years ago). They then build a base of supporters, strengthen ideological belief in their righteousness, and attempt to acheive the goals… no matter come what may.

This is the story of Bill and Hillary Clinton meeting at Yale, as I know it from their classmates who adore them. I admire their vision– insomuch as it seems appropriate to the challenges of the late 60s and early 70s. By the mid-90s, it seems to me rigid and no longer appropriate. It is too stuck in the ideology of many projects such as “black empowerment,” when history has shown the politics of African-American resentment to be negative to “African Americans.”

What I am thus claiming is that the structure of PIRG seems to me to close a lot of doors for such an institutions to participate in real social change. For one, working at a soup kitchen in North Adams is fine– it raises the social net that protects people from poverty– but getting those people skills, and meaningful jobs, is the real point. Understanding the real problems– which is not easy– is the real point.

The real point of democracy and voting. I did not mention above: I once read part of the PG&E correspondence: what is amazing is the true nature of the day-to-day engagement which produces results. And that the people involved managed by careful correspondence, five or ten or twenty pages at a time, mixing practical examples and news… to touch for a second on Ethan Berman’s model.

And as mentioned here by someone else not long ago… such programs (and some social programs) may indeed create or reinforce poverty (speaking of Kentucky!). (Phil Kazinitz once taught that North Adams was a classic failure of social policy; left alone, it might have had a good chance of survival.)

On his Blog, David Ramos mentions that the decline of textile manufacturing in the northeast may have been more an issue of culture than of economic competition– northeastern managers and owners would not change their methods, their employees relations and procedures, as the rest of the world did.

Kentucky’s developmental economics advisors keep telling us the bottom line is: you have to change the culture.

A true “Public Interest Research Group” would track such changes, and “help”– maybe I should say “support,” or “act as an engine of change.” It would realize that “helping” North Adams is not about handouts to those “less fortunate,” but that “supporting and enabling” is about treating others as equals and continually educating North Adams residents– and ourselves– in the patterns of success.

As long as I’m spouting my own party line, such a strategy would view the College and community as linked… at every level that implies. VCU.

That’s my quick vision; as you say, probably there are some Williams students who could do better than me.

And as a pipe burst on our third floor in the middle of this, requiring a few repairs (”this old house… 1886″), I a still further behind.

1) The CC regulation prohibiting money from going to “external politcal organizations” was in effect ‘95-’97, and probably before and after that. MassPIRG money did NOT go through the CC; the “check box if you don’t want to donate” was considered a seperate mechanism.

2) It takes time and energy to be self-governing. Like it or not, one of the reasons MassPIRG attracted so many people and was able to get things done was because it was largely dictatorial. Many people want to do things that (they believe will) make a difference, and they don’t want to spend time discussing what they should do and how they should do it. This is especially true of impatient 18 and 19 year olds. (At least my involvement in a non-PIRG activist organization in my time taught me that (a) only a few committed members want to work through all the planning, and (b) by the time planning was done there was little energy left for the doing. And this was with an ex-PIRG person among our ranks who knew how to organize.)

Dear Alex!

Hello again! Unless I’m getting this wrong, we knew each other from Prospect?!

And thanks for your reply!

re: 1: As an oft CC rep, if my memory serves me, I don’t offhand remember any requests for money; my archives are couple thousand miles away tonight (though only a few miles from Castro Valley). Thanks for the data point; I wonder if mPIRG requested CC money before the checkoff was denied them?

re: 2: As a Deep Springer etc still up sending and responding to emails, and getting very tired of 2-3 hours sleep, I certainly understand your point. But I would question implication: certainly a PIRG-like organization could be designed that had a clear set of objectives and projects when you joined, and nonetheless offered members of the “lower levels” more open and democratic access to the upper circles– if they wanted it, if they merited it, and if they had the time and energy. (And I even hope that, if well-designed constitutionally, it could avoid much of the chaos that plagues small ’service’ organizations.)

My feeling is that PIRG simply did not open itself to “a few committed members” rising up the heirarchy. And per the above, please of course note that I very much respect many parts of PIRG, its acheivements, and the Naders.

Does that thinking make sense?

Would love to hear about your war stories from the organization above.

Ken,

Yes - we do know each other. I’m in Davis these days.

I agree with you, though I’m not convinced it is actually possible to make the details work. I have been told that rural New England towns have been suffering a gradual decline in town meeting participation for years, so this may be part of a larger social problem.

Alex,

Good to hear your “voice,” even as it is in this sort of forum. I rememebr many of our conversations on civic responsibility (at Williams) very well.

As for “details,” they are indeed complex challenges. Locally, I miss about half the town meetings here that I’d like to go to– even thought City Hall is around the corner– because business committments always create last minute conflicts. And I’m much more committed to contributing to those meetings that other local businesspeople… who nonetheless tell me they would like to be a part. I certainly dream that we will find new versions of the “town meeting,” that include many more perspectives… locally, it seems clear to me that any prospect of renewal is dependent on some solution to that.

Moving to the voting campaign, I have two absolutely critical emails to respond to, which I hoped to respond to during business hours– had my own employees not risen up against my involvement in Mexican voting and said they had to meet to resolve their challenges. Any solution other than staying up later escapes me, and I’m not willing to “stay up later” week upon week. Neither can my health afford that :)

I have no easy answer for either problem; our “social and technological changes” mean that it is no longer easy to ensure to ensure that 7PM will be free for “citizens” to participate. The structural changes– and rapid growth– of the town I live in mean that, for many, the commute to a meeting at City Hall is 30 minutes or more. Who wants to endure that for a four-hour meeting filled…

After all the experiences I have had at Deep Springs/Telluride and their sister organizations– which means, hour upon hour of meetings– a simple suggestion I have is to limit debate; create set deadlines to the end of planning and discussion. And give the participants limited power to extend debate in exceptional situations. Anything more than that, and go out for dinner or pizza– privately, outside organizational time.

After this experimental “voting drive” is over, I hope to present a 1-page white paper of the effort, describing the organizational structure as a (very draft) response to some of the concerns above. (I am also amazed that I have quickly adopted some of the organizational techniques of MicroSoft, which I have argued against for years). Discovering my own ignorance is a continual source of amuzement :).

Sorry for the very off-the-cuff nature of the above writing.

Through L Nader and others today:

The PIRG structure is a very careful design against the “state appartus,” as it is conceived by L. Althusser et al. My concerns above “seem to describe” the failures of the centralized state that PIRG is meant as an alternative to.

While my perspectives may be appropriate to specific times and events, they do not characterize the operations of PIRG as a whole; just the opposite. PIRG is intented to foster public participation, citizen democracy, and the flow of and “representation” of ideas from the people to government. It is meant to be citizen governance.

PIRG is potentially interested in co-operation with any such movement as I propose, but “highly suspicious” of any initiative that appears to originate from a State organization.

The above is my quick re-presentation– substituting some of my own words and concepts– from some “dressings down” I received today. FWIW.

All taken to heart. Amazing that Althusser would be explicitly referenced as a justification for committment and partipation, at such a moment. As per previous discussion, Williams as a community should provide its members with a road map of such troubled waters.

I was thinking about these reported comments on how PIRG was designed, and thinking: why didn’t they take ideas from the anti-nuclear movement and other Quaker-and-anarchist-influenced mass consensus models? And the answer, thinking back to what I knew (not being a participant) about how PIRG was organized: they did!

But why hasn’t it worked out well? I can think of 3 factors: (a) wide geographic distribution (it’s hard for a Williams student to participate in a meeting in Boston) (b) shortage of skilled (and neutral) facilitators, and (c) too many sheep.

(c) is the easiest to solve - sheep don’t really want to sit through planning meetings anyways.

(a) can potentially be solved through technology, but such solutions seem to place even more burden on (b) - because disciplinary action that corrects disruptive conduct without shutting off useful ideas is harder to take when participants are not in the same room.

Which leaves (b) - the problem is that people who stay in the organization long enough to learn good facilitating skills are likely to be people who fit into the current culture and agree with current viewpoints and ideas, making them not neutral. Now, a really good facilitator can hide his or her bias effectively, but, still, we now suddenly need twice as many experienced people as before, because, no matter what, it’s really impossible for the same person to facilitate and be the person who has all the ideas for getting things done.

Caveat: I am not all that familiar with mass consensus models and have no personal experience with consensus decision making in groups larger than about 30.