Here’s How Doug Phelps (of PIRG/TPIN Infamy) Feels About His Entry-Level Staff
In June, 2016, after the U.S. Department of Labor released a new rule governing overtime pay, The Public Interest Network (TPIN), a national network of “progressive” non-profits, released a statement opposing the rule via its founding organization, U.S. PIRG. In response, TPIN alumni organized a sign-on letter opposing this anti-labor stance and asking PIRG/TPIN to rescind the statement. They reached out to a selection of prominent TPIN alumni, inviting them to sign the letter.
Doug Phelps, the President and Executive Director of TPIN, President and Board Chairman of both U.S. PIRG and Environment America, and Chairman of the Advisory Board for Fund for the Public Interest (as well as CEO of Grassroots Campaigns, Inc. and Telefund, Inc.) got wind of the letter and personally reached out to the same set of alumni. His unprofessional and sarcastic response manifests the extraordinary amount of disdain he has for his entry-level staff—the hundreds of recent college grads his organizations exploit and burn through to put millions of dollars in his pocket. It’s absolutely unbelievable. Here’s what he wrote:
“Esteemed alums:
Apparently at least some of you received a note sometime in the past week or two from a former staffer asking that you sign a letter or petition of some sort, which I’ve not seen but have heard asks PIRG to reverse our position on the DOL overtime rule as it applies to organizations engaged in First Amendment protected civic work.
How would some short-term staffer have gotten their hands on [your] email address, you may rightly wonder. A couple of years ago, Alumni Dept sent a set of senior staff a list of 100 or so alums to whom we wanted to extend an early personal invitation for the alumni vacation. Disappointingly, some genius shared this internal document with people they should not have.
Needless to say we will revise our process in the future. We treat membership and alumni lists discreetly and apologize for this breach of protocol.
Re the underlying issue, our position is one we have had for years, and over the past 15 months worked with DOL, Senators, and the White House to try to shape the rule in a positive way. We were actually assured by most that our concerns were understood and ‘you will like the rule when you see it.’ Not so much, it turns out.
I won’t bore you with the details since most people receiving this note are familiar with them. If the logic of our position is not intuitively obvious, and you wish more info, please contact me or [Andre Delattre, Executive Director of U.S. PIRG] and we’ll be glad to send, and/or discuss.
FYI, I shared some thoughts with core staff about this controversy, as well as other circular firing squad trends developing among young progressives. I’ll copy below for anyone wanting a journey down the memory lane of entry level staff brouhahas.
From an organizing point of view, I understand it. It is hard to build and sustain an institution; it is easy to tear one down. Letter signers and critics have little to lose, and a pissing match gives them leverage. What is hard to understand, given all the institutions in the world with which we surely have multiple and more profound disagreements, is what drives critics’ selection of causes to occupy their time? And why do they get so vitriolic, and stuck, unable to “move on” and agree to disagree?
If I approve of 90 things you do, but disapprove of 10, I am not going to trash you or try to change you, I am going to work with you as a close ally. If I approve of half the things you do, but disapprove of half, I am going to work with you where we agree, and agree to disagree where we don’t. If I approve of little you do, and disapprove of most, well then we may find ourselves fighting, but I still work with you where I can.
Unfortunately, the organizing dictum ‘if we agree on anything (much less most things) let’s work together’ is being replaced in some quarters by ‘if we don’t agree on everything, I won’t work with you, I’ll criticize you, and, in fact, maybe I’ll just go ahead and un-friend you on Facebook.’
I keep thinking of one of the classic jukebox ballads from my childhood: What in the world’s come over you?
Doug Phelps”
Phelps is famously private, but this isn’t the first time he’s come out to insult his staff. In 2003, Green Corps organizers signed a letter to Doug Phelps asking for remedies to staff management problems that had destroyed their morale. (Yes, Phelps also chairs the Board of Green Corps and sits on its Advisory Board.) His reply to their concerns was equally dismissive and sarcastic. Here’s what he wrote back then:
“Your suggestions and the window they provide into your experience in Green Corps so far are always welcome. I have referred the letter you sent to the super staff who actually run Green Corps — Leslie, Heather, Naomi, Antha, Cindy.
Actually, I wish you had taken your concerns individually to those folks rather than signing onto a group letter and sending it out to the Board. There is an inevitable negative vibe created by doing the latter; though the Green Corps leadership seems to be willing to just move on, I myself don’t like people going behind my back or over my head in an organized fashion, and especially people I’m busting my butt to train and serve, and doubly especially if I’m paying them for the privilege! Kudos to them for being so gracious about the whole thing.
As for your apparent underlying concern — the security of your status as a trainee in the Green Corps program — which seems to motivate your suggestions, I find it hard to fathom. We screen who we accept into Green Corps (from amongst a large pool of applicants) pretty damn well, and hardly anyone has ever had to be dropped from the program over evaluation issues. When we have infrequently had to tell someone they aren’t talented enough to really benefit from the training or that their participation will hold back the level for other participants, we take that pretty seriously and as a real failure on our part in terms of admitting the person in the first place.
Obviously, some people this year left Green Corps or were cut from the program for simply not being willing to put in the effort, not respecting the trainers and what they have to offer, or miscomprehending the basic nature of a training program. That’s very unusual; in fact it has never happened before.
Bottom line, anyone with talent who is enthused to have the opportunity Green Corps affords, takes direction, and works hard, is going to graduate. Since the letter you signed certainly makes it clear you are dedicated to Green Corps and getting as much benefit out of your year as possible, I think you can set aside “job security” concerns.
On the specific issue of evaluations, they are mostly informal and ongoing, with periodic formal oral and/or written feedback. They have one purpose: to help you grow and improve in your skills and strategic thinking as an organizer. Ask for them as often as possible.
Doug Phelps”
This man is not a true progressive, and he does not really care about making social change. For more about Phelps and his empire, visit publicinterestprimer.wordpress.com
