Loomio
Tue 11 Oct 2022 11:57PM

Service Structure Proposal

CS Caroline Savery Public Seen by 6

FULL TEXT OF PROPOSAL: https://docs.google.com/document/d/11e5xGvEZ95onJWIxrTPWmoBG5Btf5Q5MTGuY-euGQ8g/edit?usp=sharing

Here's the summary:

Problem: Shared Ground needs to transition from a small, all-volunteer run team to a functional organization, capable of meeting revenue and mission goals and onboarding new members, community and users, implementing on our vision of a shared-use hub for community resilience capacity building. And we have free reign to do it, now that the lease is signed.

Solution: We authorize contractor support from among our core team to achieve two mandates within a one year period: 

  1. Develop a functional, operational, revenue-sufficient organization to SG’s specifications

  2. Onboard and train members into various roles that add capacity to the organization (typically: committees), and equip members and committees for the capacity for future self-governance using the sociocracy model.

AB

Adam Brock Wed 12 Oct 2022 11:50PM

Thanks, Caroline, for taking the time to develop this proposal - it’s definitely the right time for developing more clarity around how our rapidly-growing operational needs will be met! That said, I have some strong objections to how this proposal aims to address those needs… I’ll do my best to summarize them here, along with a counter-proposal for how the same needs can be addressed.

First off, it doesn't feel responsible to me to be discussing paid contractor roles when there currently aren’t the resources to pay anyone. We’re still scrambling to pay both October and November’s rent, and soon insurance will be added to that monthly cost. Whether it’s through fundraising, a membership drive, co-working seats, events revenue, or some combination of them, our immediate task is to figure out how we - in our current capacity as volunteers - can get enough money coming through the door to meet those basic needs. Only once our cashflow starts to feel stable and we're accumulating plenty of reserves do I think we should be having a conversation about paid roles.

Once we DO get to that point, there’s the issue of who is to be hired. Yes, we as steering committee members certainly have the most context for our current needs, but that doesn’t necessarily mean that any one of us would be the ideal fit for a given role. I’m sure we each know some very talented and qualified folks that don’t have the ability to be on the steering committee, but whom would thrive in a specific role if it were paid. If we’re going to invest a good chunk of our resources in hiring someone, let’s at least put the word out to our close community and see if there’s anybody out there that could do a better job than any of us could. Anything else feels unethical and unprofessional to me.

My third (and somewhat smaller) objection is to the assumption embedded in the proposal that our long-term strategy is to transition out of paid positions and into sociocratic self-governance. I’m personally really excited about a sociocratic model, but I don’t at all feel confident that it would replace the need for paid staff - and in any case, we haven’t yet made any decisions about our long-term governance model. My understanding is that that will be a big part of our retreat on the 23rd - but until that’s established, it seems premature to include here.

With all that said, here’s the basics of a counter-proposal, which builds off our conversation in last week’s meeting:

  • Let’s spend the next couple weeks developing some very basic revenue models for each program area/income stream, getting a feel for potential income and costs over the next six months or so. The revenue models should be phased and emphasize on low-friction, low-overhead systems that can continue to be managed by the steering committee or our nascent sub-committees/projects.

  • Based on what the revenue models tell us, let’s choose one or maybe two areas to focus the entire organization’s capacity around getting off the ground and launching some spirals of abundance.

  • Once we have enough revenue coming in from one or two income streams to cover our rent and insurance with some leftover, we can decide as a team what the wisest way is to redistribute that surplus: capitalizing a third or fourth income stream, hiring someone to manage an existing income stream, marketing, nicer furniture, etc.

  • If we do choose to hire someone, we would go through a hiring process led by the Steering Committee, in which any SC members interested in the role would recuse themselves.

CS

Caroline Savery Thu 13 Oct 2022 5:30PM

Thanks for sharing your perspective Adam! I believe I understand your alternative proposal about how we could move forward. In it, I believe I see what is normal and considered "best practices" for a traditional 501c3 nonprofit model.

I have some strong objections to your objections, I just want to summarize those here, and then hopefully we will have room to discuss this more through in person and full group dialogue space.

  • I don't think it's appropriate to attempt to establish earned income streams using volunteer time. I could see fundraising through grants, loans or donations as an all-volunteer board, but wherever we are seeking earned income–member revenue, event sales, coworking seat sales—a paid steward should be in place in order to deliver on customer expectations and maintain a good reputation. If we consider each of the self-sufficient, profitable, earned income streams as distinct businesses—whose profits or surpluses are designed to serve the overall nonprofit org—then each of these arenas should be tended according to business best practices, not a slow-moving, volunteer-run nonprofit ideal.

  • We have taken on obligations that already create financial pressures for us—namely, rent. We cannot afford to keep attempting to meet needs through the volunteer capacity and pace that we've had thus far. The pace that's gotten us here to this moment is partly dependent upon the time/energy that I and Drew have invested. Drew and I are giving an estimated 20 hours per week each to this project for months now, and much of that is going to managing operations (events sales, and startup capacity-building) whereas other steering committee folks are giving 5 hours per week—which is our reasonable agreement. If Drew and I were to step down to 5 hours a week and in strictly governance capacities, the organization would fall even further behind its goals. Simply observing the pace at which we've been able to recruit volunteers lately, much less onboard them and equip them in ways that add capacity to our organization, and the pace at which we've been able to fundraise, I believe we will not be able to "keep pace" if we move forward with the strategy you propose. By contrast, with a strategy like the service structure or some other short-term contractor strategy, we could empower ourselves with the capacity to immediately and aggressively begin meeting revenue goals. I'm less concerned with the "paying people" issue, because I think a deferred pay arrangement would be feasible, especially if we're working with people who are already devoted to the project.

  • In my opinion, the hiring process you propose is consistent with a traditional 501c3 nonprofit, but not consistent with the radical, cooperativist, church that I believe we are building. How does our principle of "relationship first" factor into hiring? What about the principle of self-determination or reciprocity or mutual aid? I have been devotionally giving 20 hours a week for months to this project, on the reasonable hope that I would be able to steward this organization in a compensated way in the future. If this were a traditional or cooperative business organization, this would be a non-issue: the founders would get to determine who steps into which paid roles in the company. We are founding a church with spiritual, ethical, regenerative design leadership at its heart. Why do we have to approach hiring in the framework of a "context-less" nonprofit industrial complex? I could just go get a job. But I don't want to—and I don't want Shared Ground to want me to. In what way is this unreasonable? Recently, Adam, you provided $2K to the organization to cover rent—but instead of wanting to consider this a potential donation, you asked it be counted toward something tangible: your future coworking desk rent. Can you see the parallel between my giving thousands of dollars worth of co-op development consulting and project management for months, and then asking for the organization to employ me so I can simply continue delivering value to the organization? My biases and my background is rooted in cooperatives—so, yes, I absolutely see the potential for us to employ ourselves to deliver on business propositions within the organization, namely, the earned income revenue streams listed above.

  • I believe we are very near the moment where governance needs to bifurcate from operations, so that both can actually succeed at their domains within the pace/timeline we are on. Whatever rules and norms around hiring that would help accommodate that, I support the organization in adopting. As a values-based church (defined as a "community of shared values"), and not a normative nonprofit, we have a little more leeway in considering whether employees would serve on the governing body. Contractors is one widely accepted way that board members can work for a nonprofit organization in distinct, contained projects. However, it's totally fine to suggest that those who would become employed by the organization would step off over governance leadership. Again, I support whatever rules would be best for the org to put into place around contracts and hiring, and a collective process to define the domains appropriate for paid workers. However, I vehemently would disagree that we can make our way forward given the pace we've already had and the obligations we've already made, on an all-volunteer basis—especially when it comes to domains that are self-sufficient businesses within the church (like events, coworking).

B

Bobbie Wed 19 Oct 2022 6:48PM

Wow. This discussion is complex and very interesting. And obviously very fundamental to this whole project. I wish I had more to contribute but this is unfamiliar territory for me. I am just letting it sink in. Will look forward to more discussion in person with the full team.

DH

Drew Hornbein Tue 15 Nov 2022 3:26AM

It seems to me that this proposal is no longer on the table. @Caroline Savery do you agree? I'd like to archive this thread.

CS

Caroline Savery Fri 18 Nov 2022 10:27PM

Yes, archive it!