This weekend, Chuck Fager told the true story of Eating Dr. King’s Dinner, by Zoom at the historic Fairfield Friends Meeting in Camby, Indiana, near Indianapolis.
The invitation came from Fairfield’s well-known pastor (and best-selling author) Phil Gulley.
You can now watch Chuck telling this story (34 minutes), right now, at this free link.
(You don’t need to register, and we won’t collect your data.) Continue reading King Day Special! “Eating Dr. King’s Dinner” – Told LIVE
Having read and pondered the lengthy memo from General Secretary Joyce Aljouny laying out the plans for the latest AFSC Restructure, I think I’ve figured out what’s going on there.
It has little to do with the current effort to stoke a staff rebellion, so we’ll deal with that only in passing. Its roots, I think, go back years before, fourteen in fact, to January 27, 2007, which is better remembered as, “The Day The Movement Died.”
I remember that day well, because I was there too.
Before dawn that morning I helped fill a bus in Fayetteville, North Carolina, headed north on I-95. We got off the bus near the Mall in Washington, and joined a big antiwar rally.
How big? One estimate said 500,000, another sniffed it was merely “thousands.” I don’t know, but it was big. There were banners and flags and speeches and music and all that. It was aimed at building pressure on Congress, newly taken over by Democrats, to stop the war in Iraq and Afghanistan.
The umbrella sponsor for the rally was, as noted by the Washington Post: “United for Peace and Justice, which describes itself as a coalition of 1,400 local and national organizations. Among them are the National Organization for Women, United Church of Christ, the American Friends Service Committee, True Majority, Military Families Speak Out, Iraq Veterans Against the War, Farms Not Arms, CODEPINK, MoveOn.org and September 11th Families for Peaceful Tomorrows.
While AFSC was third among the groups listed above, it was among the top in UFPJ by internal weight. It had staff; it had money; it had a web of ten regional offices and thousands of contacts; and it carried an air of respectability which had been ratified by a Nobel Peace Prize in 1947.
While not large as Washington lobbies went, AFSC’s activist clout dwarfed that of most of the peace groups on the UFPJ roster. Further, AFSC had held this unofficial but key position for decades, ever since the national “peace movement” surged out of the civil rights struggles and onto the streets of Washington and New York in 1965, during the escalation of the Vietnam War, and then spread across the country.
Spirits were high that January rally day. Hopes also. Former U. S. Senate majority leader Tom Daschle told a reporter of the rally, “Its primary value is that it keeps up the pressure. There is a sense that by summer, a march like this will be two or three times as large.”
Our Fayetteville busload was hopeful too. In fact, we were planning to quickly ratchet up the pressure from our little base in flyover country, with a follow-up rally seven weeks hence, on the doleful anniversary of the Iraq invasion. Continue reading AFSC After “The Day The Movement Died”
It appears AFSC’s “LT” (Leadership Team) is serious.
In the post below, copied from the Western Friend page, Lucy Duncan states she was fired on Monday January 3.
The dismissal was not a surprise (Duncan herself had predicted it). But it was revealing nonetheless, answering questions raised by Duncan’s “Perilous Crossroads” letter:
Would the LT respond decisively to the insurgents’ call for their overthrow and the crushing of their restructuring plan? Could they?
Or would there be more endless palaver, “listening sessions,” “Seasoning” meetings, consultants doing consultations and interviews & focus groups, amid the ceaseless search for “transformation”? Continue reading AFSC & The Hammer: Duncan Fired
The long-simmering dysfunction in SAYMA (Southern Appalachian Yearly Meeting & Association) quietly boiled over on First Month (January) 2, 2022.
Swannanoa Valley Monthly Meeting, in Black Mountain NC, adopted the following minute:
We at Swannanoa Valley Friends Meeting are called to remove ourselves from continuing to support, enable, and normalize abusive behavior in SAYMA. This includes our witness to the breakdown of Quaker process. As a result, please remove us from Yearly Meeting membership effective immediately.
However note that we intend to continue our relationship with the SAYMA Young Friends program (SAYF). This includes offering our personal and financial support, as well as our meetinghouse for furtherance of its work.
[This text is not yet online, but was confirmed by a member who was present.]
The abuse spoken of is a years-long pattern of disruptive behavior centered on the self-identified “Quaker anti-racism ministry” of a person, Sharon Smith, currently based in South Carolina. Continue reading Breaking: A SAYMA Meeting Quits to Protest “Abuse”
Is the AFSC about to plunge into an existential crisis?
Oh wait – did I say “Crisis”?
Beg pardon: What I really meant was,“transformation.”
But Lucy Duncan wants a crisis, and no mistake. In late December, she and five collaborators published a manifesto in the Western Friend, under the title: “AFSC Is at a Perilous Crossroads.” The full text is in the magazine, here. And this is the gist:
AFSC management labored with the Board and staff eighteen months on a new strategic plan, which was finalized either in August of 2021, or maybe October (both dates are on their website with it. The plan is here.
To carry out the plan, Duncan & Co assert, AFSC management wants to undertake
a dramatic re-engineering of the organizational structure . . . that will alter the Quaker character of the organization.
The specifics of the “restructuring” plan were laid out in a long memo of April 16, 2021. (The full text of this April 16 memo is here.) The AFSC Board expects to act on it in April 2022. But the dissidents want action, immediate action, from Friends, to stop it cold. Duncan:
Despite widespread dissent among staff and governance members, management has continued to push this plan forward. We call on other Quakers to call for a cessation of the planned restructure, an external evaluation of the Senior Leadership Team and a searching, well facilitated internal conversation about how this process proceeded so far despite widespread opposition and how the organization can heal and move forward collectively, honoring all voices especially those most impacted by the issues upon which AFSC focuses.
Basically, this is a demand for a coup. After all, any member of the “Leadership Team” who considered themself a professional manager and was submitted to such a forced “external evaluation” would either resign, or refuse and be forced out. And such a purge appears to be the main objective for Duncan & Co.:
In the name of strategic plan implementation, the Senior Leadership Team has since proposed a dramatic organizational restructuring that invests another $500,000 per year into a commitment to fund six additional middle management positions while adding no resources into the programs on the ground. It is unclear from where the funding for the new management positions will come.
These funds would be far better spent investing in the critical work staff are doing on the ground. We need investments in current staff, creating pay equity, and providing additional funding for local program and network convening, rather than experimenting with an excessively costly move to hire so many more managers.
Today we are at a crossroads. Will AFSC adopt a top-down NGO, grant and donor centered approach, or will it build on a powerful history by committing even more deeply to a grassroots, community-led approach that builds strategy and campaigns from the bottom up?
Can the insurgents do it? Continue reading “Hello, AFSC? There’s a Crisis on the Line—And It’s for You.”
16 April 2021
Thoughts and Recommendations for Change and Restructuring to Support Strategic Plan Implementation
(for Seasoning)
Since the release of the 2020-2030 Strategic Plan, AFSC’s leadership team, governance members, regional management teams (international and US), staff, and consultants have been engaged in a process of deep discernment to ensure that the organization’s systems and structures are aligned with the ambitious goals outlined in the Plan, that the organization has the human and financial resources needed to execute on the plan, and that any needed changes are pursued in spirit of equity, collaboration, anti- racism, and anti-oppression. To ensure transparency, I have followed the process I laid out to you when the Strategic Plan was completed in collaboration with the Coordinating Team for Restructuring Consultations (CTRC) over the past six months.
I have been humbled to serve in the role of General Secretary throughout this process, as it has provided a daily reminder of the thoughtfulness and compassion of my colleagues, and the seriousness with which they take their obligations to each other, to the institution, and to Quaker belief and practice.
This memo aspires to synthesize the thinking of the many stakeholders who have weighed in, and to make affirmative recommendations from the leadership team for reorganizing AFSC so that we are well- positioned to achieve the goals of the Strategic Plan. I hope that this memo evinces the depth of our engagement with the many perspectives that have been offered up throughout this process, including:
Each of these documents, as well as countless formal and informal conversations and consultations, have been treated with all due seriousness as the leadership team has formulated the proposed new direction. The leadership team has met for more than 40 hours over the last few weeks alone in order to come to consensus on most of these recommendations. We have also met on several instances with regional leadership in both the US and International programs to ensure their voice is incorporated in our thinking. The leadership team has not taken its charge lightly.
Throughout this process, the team has grappled with a range of priorities surfaced by staff and governance volunteers, including the need to advance organization-wide cohesion and equity; to maintain strong roots in the communities with which we work; to create systems and resources that allow both IP and US programs to create systems-level impact; to mitigate undue stress, trauma, and transitions for staff; and to streamline the role of volunteers and Friends as part of programming and governance. The team has also been guided by an appreciative inquiry approach and the idea of building on what already works.
Throughout this process, I have sought to remain true to our commitment to ensuring a vibrant and sustainable organization. New ideas must be consistent with our philanthropic resources and the goal of balancing our budget—something that we have not always focused on over the past 15 years, to our detriment. AFSC will need to continue to exercise care whenever decisions that are made create significant new obligations.
These proposals are my current recommendations, and I expect to receive significant feedback over the course of April and May 2021. I also expect that some of our conversations this spring will evolve some of the ideas that set forward below, and I welcome the opportunity to refine this plan further. In line with our By Laws, the Board of Directors will approve any unit changes resulting from this restructuring.
I am proposing the following new direction, the details of which are laid out below in section VI. Highlights include:
I recognize that these are substantial changes, and that we must pursue them at a pace that is methodical and that allows for regular reflection as well as input from stakeholders throughout the organization.
Additionally, financial projections for the proposed new direction are still in progress, and we must allow for refinement as the specifics become clearer. For all of these reasons discussed above, we will plan to have an initial review at the end of FY22 and explicit in-depth assessment after two years, at the end of FY23, to ensure that new elements that we are introducing into AFSC are evaluated for their efficacy.
I welcome your thoughts and feedback on this proposed new direction and look forward to working together to evolve AFSC into an organization that is well-positioned to reach the aims of the new Strategic Plan.
The leadership team has engaged in this process with the goal of setting a new direction for the organization, attentive to the points raised by staff and other stakeholders over the past three years as well as to our own experiences. Synthesizing recent findings and recommendations from stakeholders across the organization, we have identified a set of key organization-wide aspirations that we seek to make progress on through our proposed directional shift:
Throughout this process, the leadership team has strived to adhere to a set of principles that honor AFSC’s Quaker values and make space for divergent ideas. The principles include:
The proposed shifts offer opportunities to strengthen AFSC’s commitment to anti-racism and anti-oppression, both within the organization’s systems and structures and in the impact that is achieved as a result of the organization’s work. The leadership team has had deep discussions on our expectations for equitable outcomes from an anti-racism/oppression lens. We have used the Anti-Racism/Oppression Toolkit, and we have simultaneously made every effort to adhere to AFSC’s existing anti-racism and anti- oppression principles throughout this process, carefully considering a set of key questions to ensure that our work reflects Quaker principles. The full Anti-Racism/Oppression Toolkit is jointly developed with the BWGPDM and the CTRC and will accompany the final recommendations the Board.
In addition to using the toolkit in our deliberations and trying to identify concrete ways to increase participatory decision-making in structural ways, we also have recognized that we need to identify and mitigate harm at AFSC, through this process and beyond. Although there is universal consensus on the organization’s commitment to anti-racism and anti-oppression, and the ideal of growing areas of participatory decision-making, many of our surveys and stakeholder comments indicate that insufficient attention and resources are being dedicated to realizing these commitments or that the leadership team and Board are not being ambitious enough in realizing our ideals. So, we are trying to be explicit about the things we hope to do.
Some of our priorities to ensure equitable outcomes have included:
There are some calls for more radical reorganizing and “flattening” of AFSC. My current view is that an organization as complex as AFSC, which requires sophisticated global programmatic, legal, financial, and fundraising compliance, demands some level of hierarchy and related accountability.
Finally, I continue to hear concerns about the Board of Directors being too far removed from staff and programs, and concern that the composition of the board is in direct conflict with our organizational commitment to lifting community voices. I am encouraged to see this matter emerging for discussion on the upcoming Board agenda. We also hope to build on the ICJTT report engagement process to begin reinstituting more meetings between staff and Board as soon as it is feasible to do so in person.
The new direction that is being proposed does not foreclose on the processes initiated by the Inclusive Cohesive and Just Task Team – ICJTT, and indeed is designed to deliver proactive solutions to many of the sources of stress and trauma that have been identified. Through greater clarity, equity, and support for staff members, a realistic assessment of what any individual staff member can reasonably be expected to accomplish, an enhanced investment in DEI functions, a toolkit for advancing our commitment to anti-racism and anti-oppression, and greater autonomy for on-the-ground staff, we can begin to concretely address the issues that are being raised. I believe that this can be the beginning of a long-term effort to become a healthier organization that does not create trauma for staff and does not replicate past harm.
See Appendix I for a summary of the proposed structure.
The leadership team believes the following modifications to the staffing structure, roles, and responsibilities would advance the goals outlined in this memo and address many of the issues raised by other stakeholders in recent months. To be clear, regional presence in the US and IP would look differently and serve different roles. Though we recognize that having distinct structures in US and IP programs may run counter to the notion of organizational cohesion, we see it as the most effective means of streamlining decision making, creating equity between program areas, and empowering staff around budgeting and program planning.
As a means of encouraging cross-unit cohesion and programmatic autonomy, the proposed reorganization incorporates a matrix reporting structure, including dotted line reporting for a number of roles. Described in detail in Appendix II, dotted line reporting would break down silos between departments, reduce unnecessary bureaucracy, and formalize much of the collaboration that already occurs. In practice, some staff would solid-line report to a manager within their unit responsible for performance review (consistent with union Collective Bargaining Agreements for many US staff), considering job advancements, and making any changes to job descriptions, and dotted-line report to a secondary manager on a program team who would provide feedback and assign tasks in a more limited managerial role.
Now more than ever, and especially after experiencing the devastation of a global pandemic, it is clear that global communities not only share intersectional struggles but are deeply interdependent. The AFSC/FCNL Shared Security Framework further underpins this interdependence. AFSC’s shared history has shown that we are strongest when US and International programs work in unison. Our shared analysis underpinned in our Strategic Plan presents compelling arguments for working globally and presents a whole-of-organization plan around three programmatic focus areas.
Global cohesion, while an underlying organizational premise, does not require that US and IP programs mirror each other. There is a recognition that both function within distinct operating models responding to varying contexts and utilizing different methodologies. In the US, staff are rooted in communities and often do direct implementation. In IP, staff also are rooted in community, but often implement the work through strategic partnerships, amplifying and strengthening civil society organizations closest to the conflict or oppression. IP programs and staff are mostly grant funded by European donors, which necessitates global policies, systems, and regular audits.
International Programs have been using a program cycle process to make decisions about when to continue, change, devolve, or lay down work as a core part of evaluations. Staff are often hired on contracts that correspond to a large grant and are often 100% funded by that income stream. The four IP regions have worked collaboratively on common strategies through the Shared Security program and the Dialogue and Exchange Program (DEP). The structure of the International Programs Executive Committee (IPEC) has supported a global holistic look at International Programs work.
At present, areas of US and IP collaboration are few and found primarily when US foreign policies are a focus of our influencing work (e.g., Palestine/Israel). To be true to the goals of the Strategic Plan, and to leverage our unique strengths and wide-ranging presence domestically and globally, AFSC would be intentional about identifying opportunities for joint work across issues and global regions.
Intentionality requires ensuring systems, resources, and structures align in support of this new direction. Our US and IP teams worked diligently together and produced compelling shared objectives. Many intersections were discovered along the way: how we address peacebuilding in the US and its relationship to state/national structural violence; militarism and our global analysis on conflict; how climate change and conflict are drivers of migration; and how xenophobic policies impact countries’ response to migrants in the US and around the globe.
I propose to create a new organizational unit tasked with creating opportunities for shared planning and programming and learning among issues and global regions. The position of Associate General Secretary for Global Planning, Collaboration, and Learning (AGS-GPCL) would be introduced and is considered a priority.
The AGS would lead AFSC programming in line with the Strategic Plan and, in addition to leading the collaborative initiatives, would consolidate organizational programming in the US and IP and have oversight over Global Policy, Advocacy and Research, and Planning, Monitoring & Evaluation.
Specifically, the AGS would:
Our goal is that the new AGS-GPCL would be resourced with a budget to allow for convenings, DEPs, joint initiatives, and a provision for administrative support.
The proposal structures US programs around the three themes outlined in the strategic plan: Just Migration, Just Peace, and Just Economies. With this transition, we intend to continue to be responsive and accountable to local communities, while we move to foster wider and deeper structural changes at local and national levels.
To that end, we propose to create three thematic units led by new directors that will support the three thematic teams comprised of local programs. These teams would use participatory decision-making to develop each theme’s overarching strategies and approaches toward structural change. The thematic program directors (PDs) would:
All existing US programs would be bolstered by the support provided by both regional and thematic support staff. Regional management would continue to support local programs through staff supervision, staff development, and the provision of local operational and administrative support. They would also serve as important liaisons for maintaining and building relationships with community partners, and Quaker monthly and yearly meetings.
We aim to build out these thematic teams as soon as possible, hiring PDs and embedding existing staff from the communications, grants and advocacy units who will provide the teams with additional support later this year. As funding allows, each team would also phase in campaign coordinators and planning/monitoring/learning support staff. We have also proposed to shift a small number of staff to different units in support of organizational structural changes. Written proposals of these possible shifts will be submitted to the applicable unions by Monday, April 19.
The challenges of injustice, violence, and oppression are interconnected, so we need coordinated approaches. So that new silos are not created, a US Programs Council would be formed to give feedback on the US Programs budget, to identify and support cross-thematic collaborative efforts, and discuss how to use pooled funds. The Programs Council would involve both thematic and regional staff.
I see the US as one country, with coordinated work toward the strategic plan goals, and bolstered by regional presence to support staff and local relationships. Regional and thematic staff would maintain steady communication and close working relationships, so each US program and community would be supported well while we build up our capacity for coordinated structural change.
Though much discussion was given to the idea of organizing international programs solely by issue outcomes, I ultimately decided that it is neither desirable nor feasible, and am recommending instead that we add two thematic directors on peacebuilding and migration, while also retaining the regional leadership structure. This is best practice within INGOs and donor governments. Because much of IP funding comes through government donors that focus on specific regions, and because grants from these sources often require a senior level staff member associated with a specific region, a leadership structure with only thematic directors would likely lead to a sharp reduction in resources for IP programs.
Additionally, if the global trend of shrinking civil spaces continues, as we have seen most notably in Asia, AFSC regional staff may represent a critical foothold. Finally, some of our new work internationally, e.g., in Africa with the newly established Peace Action Hub, and hopefully in other locations as well, is being supported and organizing itself with regional advocacy goals, all of which requires a high level of geographic, regional coordination.
In the desired structure, Regional Directors would deepen their management of regional contextualization, leadership, visibility/outreach and networking in donor and INGO spaces. The RDs would be expected to be well versed in the overall organizational program goals and analysis within their region/countries and also the intersection between them. RDs would also be responsible for successful implementation of country and regional programs supported by the IP operational unit and significant, grant-related deliverables.
As AFSC seeks opportunities aligned to the Strategic Plan, such as the Horn of Africa Hub, and as civil space shrinks in some of the countries where we work, the regional offices become even more important for supporting research, programs, and partners where we do not have a physical office. To ensure alignment with the Strategic Plan, we would phase in at least two senior level program or “thematic” directors (PDs) on peacebuilding and migration, who would lead and develop strategy for international programs. We may phase in economic justice capability in time, as this is currently the least developed area of work in IP. The PDs would guide the thematic work developed at the regional and country-level and sign off on thematic priorities and outcomes. The PDs would work with their counterpart US program directors for Just Migration, Just Peace, and Just Economies, and would be able to streamline coordination across IP and US, co-manage the DEP program, create global proposals and support RDs and program staff on contextual analysis, proposal development and program content, and represent AFSC in international networks. The Peace Director would manage Under the Mask (one manager and/or fellow) and build out the Civic Rights portfolio globally. The Migration Director would have a Climate Justice focus as well.
In addition, while I am still open to discussion on reporting lines, I am proposing that the IP Policy and Advocacy staff who work in the US and globally remain in IP with a reaffirmed dotted line to OPRA. I have heard compelling arguments in support of identifying public education and advocacy coordinator (PEACs) as integral members of the IP regional program teams. The engagement of advocacy staff with their IP regional colleagues on a daily basis would ensure that the policy and advocacy positioning is locally grounded and regional and IP strategic priorities are centered. Often, these staff have been the bridge to AFSC’s most recognized collaborative work. I have also heard the importance of establishing stronger links between IP advocacy staff doing US foreign policy influencing work with our OPRA; this too is critical and should not be ignored.
The OPRA office and the LAC office have identified a need for a policy coordinator to focus on US/LAC advocacy around migration. This was a position that has been vacant for some time where strong collaborative work has occurred. In this plan, we would include a Policy Advocacy Coordinator under OPRA. The reporting relationships will be discussed in more depth this coming month, following which I intend to finalize. We do note that there can be greater efforts to reduce silos, and increase collaboration. There is a value in strengthening the relationship with OPRA through dotted line management and guidance on priority setting. We are proposing that advocacy staff have broader portfolios, adding thematic responsibilities to country and regional level work, and linking to critical initiatives outside of the U.S, such as the advocacy goals of the Africa Hub in Ethiopia and Brussels. IP policy staff should be active members of the IP and OPRA teams.
Corresponding to these program shifts, we also would prioritize, in the coming three years, building out an operations team to address the inequity of support that IP has received and also to enable programs to meet donor requirements. We remain in discussion as to the reporting structure, which could include reporting to IP, Operations Director, with a dotted line to technical functions to ensure that there is equitable and enhanced finance, HR, IT, and advancement support, or it could sit in the technical units with a dotted line to IP. This is still open to discussion.
IP programs would also make key adaptations to participate more fully on cross-organizational work and to ensure a level of equity in organizational and operational support. The net result would be clearer global policies/procedures that enable less centralized day-to-day controls, a better articulated model for systems changes in each region, and a high level of thematic expertise housed within each region.
To summarize, key proposed staffing changes or shifts include:
While the shifts outlined for IP programs may not be as visibly disruptive as those to US programs, I am nevertheless committed to making them with sensitivity and thoughtfulness, and to ensuring that staff who are affected are given the support and resources that they need to thrive in new or shifting roles.
Our Strategic Plan urges us to challenge structural oppression. Challenging systems requires us to present and advocate for alternative solutions and to educate and influence decisionmakers toward the world we seek. To produce compelling alternatives, we need sound research and analysis grounded in the lived experiences of communities. Whether we are seeking local, state, federal or global systems change, we need to invest in building relationships with other networks and coalitions who share our vision. And, for AFSC to succeed in changing the hearts and minds of policymakers, we need a more robust and cross- organizational effort through a revitalized Office of Policy, Research, and Advocacy (OPRA).
Over time, the OPRA would increase capacities of issue-specific advocacy and policy coordinators, and it would also house our technical staff, and specialists, researchers, and senior fellows. OPRA’s mandate would be to effectively model policy impact and ensure that all program staff have access to the learning and expertise that the organization has developed, to strengthen global program staff’s connections with this work, and to allow for intentional investments in needed relationships with policymakers’ offices, coalition partners, program staff and key community partners, and other thought leaders.
The new OPRA would allow all advocacy positions within AFSC to have a common reporting line (solid or dotted), ensuring cohesion. This is especially important in the context of US state, federal, or foreign policies. Though we have the greatest footprint in the US and would therefore focus the greatest energy on the Office’s US-based work in the short term, building towards truly global capacity would be a key priority. For US programs, issue-based Advocacy Coordinators from the Office would be embedded in the newly established strategic program units to facilitate the process of coordinating with program staff who are engaged with impacted communities and contexts. As stated above in the IP section, we remain in discussion about the reporting lines of IP staff who conduct influencing work that includes the US and beyond (influencing multinationals, foreign countries, EU, African Union, peacebuilding community, etc.) and I will present a final decision in May. The Office also would coordinate closely with the Communications unit, which has been an essential part of OPPA’s success and is worthy of replication. Additionally, the OPRA office would serve as a critical direct interlocutor with the Quaker UN Office (QUNO) in New York.
Further, research in service to action has been a historic strength of AFSC, with the organization’s NARMIC (National Action and Research on the Military Industrial Complex) unit often cited as a positive example of impactful systemic change work because of this close integration. We will build on this model by expanding our office functions over time, to encompass a think tank-like role, drawing upon our organization’s global experience with communities and movements, and in close collaboration with our programs.
To launch a revitalized and effective version of this office would require the following staffing:
Over a 10-year horizon and consistent with the Strategic Plan, the advancement unit seeks to support greater fundraising for all of AFSC, greater visibility for the organization and its programs, and greater constituent engagement, including Friends, alumni, and young people, on advocacy goals. In recent years, the unit has benefited from some strategic investments, including for our current fundraising campaign, so there would be no new staff members focused on fundraising and communications in the coming year, but over a longer timeline I anticipate the following changes:
Over the ten-year timeline, the Finance Unit intends to meet the expectations of the Organizational Development Goal 1. The overarching goals of modernized and efficient financial systems, transparent and accessible financial information, and growing into sustainability will require deliberate reorganization and addition of resources.
Finance is currently implementing a new and modern financial system that will leverage current staffing resources and create economies of scale through consolidated functions. But this will only be accomplished when the systems are fully implemented, and staff has received full and recurrent training.
The bifurcation of our global work has had unintended competition of resources even as our global work has grown increasingly complex. To achieve compliance and meet donor requirements and deadlines, the following staffing changes are also proposed:
For the past several years, IP regions have expressed a need for more support from Human Resources, including an enhanced level of expertise and support of benefits administration in the various countries within the IP regions. There also is a need to better convey information and HR policies and procedures on compensation for international staff. Additionally, staff have consistently requested greater support for training functions. To this end, the proposed restructure includes:
We would conclude the hiring of the new Director of Diversity Equity and Inclusion (DDEI) who would be a in a senior leadership role and have a dotted line to the General Secretary. In addition, we would hire an Associate Director of Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion to provide additional support to the DDEI in implementing a cohesive and comprehensive Global Diversity, Equity and Inclusion strategy aligned with objectives of the new Strategic Plan. The DDEI will encourage and support the creation of staff affinity groups.
IT
Since April 2020, IT has seen a sizeable increase in the demands for technical and virtual meeting support from around the organization as it has shifted to a fully remote environment in response to Covid-19. This rapid change put considerable strain on IT staff who were thrust into a role of supporting all the technological infrastructure that enabled every other department to change their working model to being fully remote. The IT team has worked tirelessly to help the organization through this period.
The proposed reorganization would create new responsibilities for IT, keeping the unit at or near its current temporary level of work indefinitely. To meet this need, and pending adequate funding, the IT would fill two currently open positions, including:
Security would be relatively unaffected by the proposed reorganization. The Director of Security position has been vacant for some time because of recent budget reduction strategies and would be filled in this process to comply with AFSC’s Duty of Care policy and to mitigate potential risk exposure and fulfill insurance coverage requirements. The search requirements would include security and safety expertise in international contexts and developing preemptive safety guidelines, plans and protocols.
AFSC and the Quaker United Nations Office (QUNO) have some degree of shared organizational support and resources. We see the proposed reorganization as an opportunity to strengthen the relationship with QUNO especially with International Programs and OPRA. As we revise the MOU we hope to see an elevated level of resource and support coordination.
Though many of the issues we are seeking to address are indeed urgent, the kinds of changes the leadership team is urging require transition time. Though the proposed new direction is designed to be fully implemented along the 10-year timeline of the Strategic Plan, I am cognizant of the need to address urgent issues and to build momentum for culture shift. To this end, the new direction has short-term and long-term milestones embedded within it. By the end of year two, it should be clear how shifts are affecting the staff and the organization’s ability to achieve impact, which allows for inflection and revision as needed.
I see FY21 as a transitional year, and am proposing that the following elements be prioritized within the first phase of implementation (FY22-23), budgets allowing:
After these initial changes, the leadership would reflect on their impact and, barring any need to modifications, proceed with the second stage as we assess the needs of programs and their supports.
Our plan for building up additional staff within different program areas also will develop further after our restructuring and results from our funding campaign have begun to take root.
All of these timelines are aspirational and depend on the available resources and the organization’s fiscal status. Having a blueprint of our plans will be essential if we are to make decisions holistically and to look at the big picture.
Throughout this process, I have kept the leadership team rigorously focused on the budgetary impacts of the potential changes we have considered. I am committed to having any reorganization put AFSC on strong financial footing, in both the short- and long-term. Staff must be able to make informed choices about the resources they will have available to them, and the organization must take every possible step to avoid hiring for positions that resources cannot ultimately sustain. The proposed changes would be phased in over time in large part to ensure that our projections are accurate and that we are not making commitments that we cannot honor, and so that the approach can be revised as new information emerges.
We expect that there may be some modest savings in some aspects of the restructuring that is proposed above. We will be spending time in April and May to do a proper financial analysis, as we are getting feedback during listening sessions.
Though the full projections of the budgetary impact of the proposed new direction are still in process, several key factors have factored heavily into the leadership team’s thinking:
I see this as a critical moment of organizational inflection and believe that this proposed new direction that will position us to do more and better as truly global organization affirmed by our Quaker principles of community. This new structure would strengthen organizational equity and maximize our impact in the world in line with our Strategic Plan. I welcome continued conversation about the perspectives offered here.
In peace, Joyce Ajlouny
Glossary of Abbreviations
AGS: Associate General Secretary
BWGPDM: Board Working Group on the Role of Governance in Program Decision Making CR: Country Representative
CTRC: Coordinating Team for Restructuring Consultations DEI: Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion
DDEI: Director for Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion DEP: Dialogue and Exchange Program
EU: European Union LT: Leadership Team
FCNL: Friends Committee on National Legislation GPCL: Global Planning, Collaboration, and Learning HR: Human Resources
ICJTT: The Inclusive Cohesive and Just Task Team INGO: International Non-Governmental Organization IP: International Programs
IPDF: International Programs Director of Finance IPEC: International Programs Executive Committee IT: Information Technology
LAC: Latin America and Caribbean Countries MOU: Memorandum of Understanding
NARMIC: National Action and Research on the Military Industrial Complex ODG: Organizational Development Goal
OPRA: Office of Policy Research and Advocacy PD: Program Director
PEAC: Public Education and Advocacy Coordinator PFM: Program Finance Manager
PMEL: Program Monitoring Evaluation and Learning QUNO: Quaker United Nations Office
RD: Regional Director
USCG: US Coordinating Group
Appendix I: Recommended Restructure
Appendix II: Matrix Management – Draft Principles (under discussion)
The proposed new direction calls on an organizational structure that is new to AFSC: dotted line reporting. As we consider the possibilities ahead of us, it is important to understand what this structure would mean for all parties involved.
What is dotted line reporting?
In practice, dotted line reporting means that staff will at times receive assignments from and submit completed work to a manager other than their direct or solid line managers, generally on a set of clearly defined ongoing projects and tasks. This relationship often focuses on reporting the progress of deliverables, project updates, and initiatives, rather than on job performance.
Dotted line reporting may be temporary, with a project manager overseeing work for a short period of time, or it may be ongoing, particularly if the direct manager is in another state or country.
Why incorporate dotted line reporting?
Dotted line reporting is a feature of joint management. In joint management systems, employees have two managers (Co-Directors) who handle different responsibilities of management. It provides greater organization and cohesiveness when there are strict divisions between different teams or departments, but an employee has responsibilities that require input from multiple departments or teams. For example, a member of the advancement team might have solid line reporting into the advancement team to ensure accountability to fundraising goals but have dotted line reporting into a specific program unit as they work with staff to gather information and manage reporting.
How does it work?
Employees working within this framework will have a solid line manager and a dotted line manager, who share a vertical relationship. The solid line manager is an employee’s primary manager, responsible for performance review, considering job advancements, and making any changes to job descriptions. The solid line manager has greater administrative responsibility for and provides more oversight. A dotted line manager is a secondary manager, providing feedback and assigning work-related tasks in a more limited managerial role.
How can we successfully incorporate a dotted line framework?
Employees can make the most of this framework by proactively ensuring that their managers are aligned, by asking clarifying questions whenever managers appear to have different priorities, and by communicating in a group email or group setting so both managers interact directly. When employees need to balance workload, they are encouraged to be transparent with both managers about how much time they can devote to the project or assignment in relation to other tasks.
Other related posts:
“Hello, AFSC? There’s a Crisis on the Line—And It’s for You.” — January 3, 2022
https://wp.me/p5FGIu-5qk
AFSC & The Hammer: Duncan Fired
January 5, 2022
https://wp.me/p5FGIu-5qN
AFSC After “The Day The Movement Died”
January 13, 2022
https://wp.me/p5FGIu-5rp
The short answer: I don’t know . . . But. I have a test for deciding; I’ll get to that presently.
This reflection was provoked in early December 2021, after two very smart women pundits whose work I take seriously, made opposite predictions about this.
First, Jennifer Rubin, a Washington Post columnist.
For years she was reliably right wing. Trump changed all that. Rubin’s not exactly a born-again liberal now, but is vociferously pro-Roe v. Wade. And she thinks its overthrow would be a huge political boon to Democrats, writing:
[I]f Democrats needed reason to fire up the troops before the 2022 midterm elections, this might do it. The obviously partisan court will thrust the nation into a period of turmoil, chaos and outrage over new restrictions on women’s life choices, which Republicans will seek to cement in state laws. Every Republican on the ballot for state legislator, governor, the House or the Senate will have to defend new intrusions on women’s autonomy, including in cases of rape and incest. Given the wide and deep support for abortion rights, Republicans may come to regret appointing religious ideologues to the court.”
Turmoil, chaos & outrage” eh? Continue reading Will there be a big backlash when Roe is thrown out?
[NOTE: This story is fiction. But it echoes & rhymes with many true events from the soldier resistance during the Iraq invasion that began in March 2003. It also unofficially reflects my experience as Director at Quaker House in wartime conditions. Since Quaker House is now seeking a new Director, I hope it will get the attention of persons who might be interested in the best Quaker job of all, or know someone who should be.]
Fayetteville/Fort Bragg North Carolina, late December 2003 – Wartime
I was running behind that morning, as usual.
Didn’t wake up until after ten – but then, working til all hours and then sleeping in is one of the few perks you get as the head of a peace project with a one-person staff.
Anyway the night before, I was trying to finish the latest Quaker House newsletter. It was supposed to be printed and in the mail within a week. I might make that deadline, might not. More late nights would probably be needed for that one.
Stumbling back from the bathroom, still rubbing my eyes, I remembered this was Wednesday, and our peace vigil downtown was scheduled for noon. Usually it’s at five, but a Canadian TV crew was going to be in town just this morning, and they asked if we could switch the time. Continue reading Money for College: A Quaker War Resistance Story
It’s Whittier’s birthday.
John Greenleaf Whittier (1807-1892) is now 
mostly thought of as a very old-fashioned conventional poet, who can be dispensed with in light of modern notions of verse and literary values.
But I think such a dismissal misses a big point which should give us pause today:
Whittier was also a very public Quaker who lived through the years when American democracy fell apart in the cultural conflict over slavery, and was only salvaged after four long and extremely bloody years of civil war, with an aftermath not yet concluded.
And while Whittier did not take up arms in the war, he was still active and vocal throughout, as he had been for years before the fighting began.
The weapon he took up was his poet’s pen. That’s what he was: a poet. And poets can go to war in their own way, like others.
He wrote poems, many of which were widely circulated, in service of the cause of abolition, for which the war ultimately was fought. So whatever the lasting literary value of his work, it remains an example of turning one’s gift and calling to work in one’s times.
So for his birthday, when deep cultural strife haunts the land again, here are three of his poems, which might, if we can see past our pedantic prejudices, be useful for reflection and encouragement in facing our own time of trials.
Written for and read at the dedication of Pennsylvania Hall, Philadelphia, May 15, 1838. The building was financed by donations, and erected after most churches and halls in Philadelphia refused to host abolition meetings. Whittier said it was built so “that the citizens of Philadelphia should possess a room wherein the principles of Liberty, and Equality of Civil Rights, could be freely discussed, and the evils of slavery fearlessly portrayed.”
While the poem imagines a distant future time when slavery was banished, Pennsylvania Hall’s future was extremely short: On May 17th, two nights after the poem was read there, it was burned by a mob, Whittier said, “destroying the office of the Pennsylvania Freeman, of which I was editor, and with it my books and papers.” Lucretia Mott, another supporter, had also spoken there and was pursued by (but escaped from) a proslavery mob.
Pennsylvania Hall (excerpts)
And fitting is it that this Hall should stand
Where Pennsylvania’s Founder led his band,.
From thy blue waters, Delaware!— to press
The virgin verdure of the wilderness.
Here, where all Europe with amazement saw
The soul’s high freedom trammelled by no law;
Here, where the fierce and warlike forest-men
Gathered, in peace, around the home of Penn,
Awed by the weapons Love alone had given
Drawn from the holy armory of Heaven;
Where Nature’s voice against the bondman’s wrong
First found an earnest and indignant tongue;
Where Lay’s bold message to the proud was borne;
And Keith’s rebuke, and Franklin’s manly scorn!
Fitting it is that here, where Freedom first
From her fair feet shook off the Old World’s dust,
Spread her white pinions to our Western blast,
And her free tresses to our sunshine cast,
One Hall should rise redeemed from Slavery’s ban,
One Temple sacred to the Rights of Man!
Oh! if the spirits of the parted come,
Visiting angels, to their olden home;
If the dead fathers of the land look forth
From their fair dwellings, to the things of earth,
Is it a dream, that with their eyes of love,
They gaze now on us from the bowers above?
Lay’s ardent soul, and Benezet the mild,
Steadfast in faith, yet gentle as a child,
Meek-hearted Woolman, and that brother-band,
The sorrowing exiles from their “Father land,”
Leaving their homes in Krieshiem’s bowers of vine,
And the blue beauty of their glorious Rhine,
To seek amidst our solemn depths of wood
Freedom from man, and holy peace with God;
Who first of all their testimonial gave
Against the oppressor, for the outcast slave,
Is it a dream that such as these look down,
And with their blessing our rejoicings crown?
Let us rejoice, that while the pulpit’s door
Is barred against the pleaders for the poor;
While the Church, wrangling upon points of faith,
Forgets her bondsmen suffering unto death;
While crafty Traffic and the lust of Gain
Unite to forge Oppression’s triple chain,
One door is open, and one Temple free,
As a resting-place for hunted Liberty!
Where men may speak, unshackled and unawed,
High words of Truth, for Freedom and for God.
And when that truth its perfect work hath done,
And rich with blessings o’er our land hath gone;
When not a slave beneath his yoke shall pine,
From broad Potomac to the far Sabine . . .
Then, though this Hall be crumbling in decay,
Its strong walls blending with the common clay,
Yet, round the ruins of its strength shall stand
The best and noblest of a ransomed land —
Pilgrims, like these who throng around the shrine
Of Mecca, or of holy Palestine!
A prouder glory shall that ruin own
Than that which lingers round the Parthenon.
Here shall the child of after years be taught
The works of Freedom which his fathers wrought;
Told of the trials of the present hour,
Our weary strife with prejudice and power;
How the high errand quickened woman’s soul,
And touched her lip as with a living coal;
How Freedom’s martyrs kept their lofty faith
True and unwavering, unto bonds and death;
The pencil’s art shall sketch the ruined Hall,
The Muses’ garland crown its aged wall,
And History’s pen for after times record
Its consecration unto Freedom’s God!
Whittier was a political abolitionist and a supporter of the new, antislavery Republican party. In fact, as the presidential campaigns peaked in the 1860 election, he penned a shamelessly partisan campaign lyric, celebrating favorable political news from Pennsylvania.
The song was written for a Republican mass meeting held in Newburyport, Mass., October 11, 1860.
The Quakers Are Out
NOT vainly we waited and counted the hours,
The buds of our hope have all burst into flowers.
No room for misgiving—no loop-hole of doubt,—
We’ve heard from the Keystone! The Quakers are out.The plot has exploded—we’ve found out the trick,
The bribe goes a-begging; the fusion won’t stick
When the Wide-awake lanterns are shining about,
The rogues stay at home, and the true men are out!The good State has broken the cords for her spun;
Her oil-springs and water won’t fuse into one;
The Dutchman has seasoned with Freedom his kraut,
And slow, late, but certain, the Quakers are out!Give the flags to the winds! set the hills all aflame!
Make way for the man with the Patriarch’s name!
Away with misgiving—away with all doubt,
For Lincoln goes in, when the Quakers are out!
With Lincoln’s election, war soon followed. Then, in 1863, Whittier heard a tale about an alleged confrontation in Frederick, Maryland, when a large Confederate rebel force passed through a Maryland town enroute to a major battle nearby. He spun it into stanzas that “went viral” on the new telegraphic internet, and were long repeated after the war had ended:
then,Largely forgotten now, the poem’s fame endured long enough that when British Prime Minister Winston Churchill visited the house in 1943 with President Franklin Delano Roosevelt, Churchill is said to have recited all 30 couplets by heart.
Not to ban the slogan. But to close it like a book, and put it on the shelf with others that have been read, which delivered value, and have become part of a reference collection.
In the almost sixty years since I was drawn into racial justice work, many such slogans have come and gone: like best-selling novels, page-turners in their day, then outpaced by new events, new stories and new mottos.
When I came along, it was all “Desegregation,” “integration,” “civil rights,” and “We Shall Overcome.” Back in The Day, they were stirring, often thrilling, and not a few sanctified with the blood of martyrs.
They didn’t disappear either. But they were elbowed aside, particularly by “Black power, just as ”Negro,” a term of respect which Dr. King spoke with pride til the day he died, was replaced by “Black” (which in turn is now jostling with “people of color”). And there have been many others.
For that matter, there was a long succession of similar mottoes before my time, going back over 250 years:
Among Friends there were manumissionists, such as John Woolman, urging owners to free enslaved individuals; then anti-slavery advocates, succeeded in the 1830s by abolitionists, radicals who aimed not so much at individuals as at the slave system.
After the Civil War and the defeat of Reconstruction, there was a long slow progression through guarded euphemisms like “Intergroup relations“ and “human relations” toward the more candid “inter-racial cooperation;” but not until after victory in World War Two did “human rights” enter the discourse.
Some of these terms receded because they were shown to have downsides: “Black Power!” centered African-American agency and justified anger; but it was vague about concrete goals, and some of its advocates slid into the dead-end of violence.
Today, many pretend not to notice, but “anti-racism” carries issues of its own:
Why? Since too many of us fear actual conflict, yet can’t avoid the echoes of events mostly happening beyond our cultural bubbles, we displace our anger and fear at the forces outside, and dump them over each other instead, pretending they are the real adversaries. Continue reading To Promote Racial Justice, It’s Time to Move On from “Anti-Racism”