On July 27, 2007 I wrote to Jim Berger, Tim Lapp and Ellen Berz and expressed concerns about the ineffective staff structure at AIDS Network.  This was ten months before my resignation.

My questioning the status quo created much angst among not only the Executive Committee but also with the management staff.  30 months later and the staff structure of AIDS Network has remained basically the same.  Some titles changed; job responsibilities revised, etc.,yet for all practical purposes the concerns I expressed in July 2007 remain unaddressed.

Here is the relevant portion of the July 27, 2007 email.  Information regarding specific personnel have been redacted for obvious confidentiality reasons:

…I’m concerned about the employee issue at AIDS Network…

First, I think AIDS Network is top heavy. For an organization with a 1.4 million dollar budget(+ or -) I question the number of “Director” level positions that exist under the current staff structure.

In a recent copy of the staff directory that we were all sent I noted the following

• We have seven Director positions

Executive Director
Development Director
Director of Finance
Director of Operations
Director of Prevention Services
Director of Life Care Services
Director of Legal Services

• We have the following “upper tier” level positions (Non-

Director)
Staff Attorney
Volunteer Coordinator
Special Events Coordinator (half time)
Treatment Support Services Coordinator

• We have the following Case Management positions

Bi-lingual case manager
Four Additional Case managers (including one for Janesville/Beloit)
Program Assistant/Case Management

• We have the following “Prevention” Positions (Non Director)

Prevention Specialist
Two Outreach Specialists
Prevention Case Manager
Two MSM Outreach Specialists
Prevention Case Manager (half time)

I truly believe that the above list points out that my premise that we are “top heavy” may, indeed, be correct. In reviewing the list of positions, I had to stop and pose the question: “Why does an organization of our size need seven Directors positions?” “Is the top heavy nature of AIDS Network squandering valuable resources?” “How much of upper level staffing decisions have been based on personal friendships vs. sound business practice?” I don’t know the answers to those questions, but they are ones that any management consultant would ask. Likewise, I feel that they are legitimate questions for a Director to ask; especially when there are warning signs that the organization appears to be drifting into dangerous territory.

I realize that I often invoke my prior experience as a gauge, and I realize that this may not always be fair. However, I do think that my professional experience in nonprofit management gives me a unique perspective. This experience makes it difficult to ask these questions (because I know what it’s like to have a “meddling director”) yet the flip side of the equation tells me that I have a responsibility, as a fiduciary of the corporation to ask the questions when there are issues that I feel may need to be addressed.

Having said that, I pose the following questions:

1.     What role/purpose does the Development Director serve? By my rough calculations, AN brings in less than 70,000 in contributions that are not related to the AIDS Ride, Red Ribbon or Bingo. I understand that this amount has been fairly static over the past several years, so there has been no appreciable increase in “fundraising” by the Development Director. I have reviewed last years audit and the bulk of non-grant revenue was from the AIDS Ride (253,005) Red Ribbon (Net of 46,374 in 2007) and Bingo (net of 3326.00) While I recognize that all staff plays a role in making an event successful, the Development Director’s involvement in the AIDS Ride is limited due to the fact that AN employs a Special Events Coordinator.   Further, I understand the philosophy of grant writing/submission that AID Network uses (shared responsibility among Directors) While I disagree strongly with this approach, this email is not the place to discuss my feelings about the inadequacy of that approach. My reason in raising the issue, however, is to point out that the Development Director does not play a key role in grant writing or, more importantly, grant SEEKING

2.     It is curious to me that the number of “Prevention” staff seems, on the surface, to be as great as the number of Case Managers. I am unaware of what Prevention activities AN undertakes that would justify the number of “Prevention” employees, especially considering the fact that AN is NOT engaged in any community wide Prevention activities other than those geared toward “targeted at risk” populations. I recognize that this is a hot button issue for me and it is one that I will not let go of. It appears that AN has adopted the philosophy that the prevention message is one that must be targeted (because of funding issues, etc), yet it is my position that anyone who has sex or injects drugs is at risk (gay, straight, male, female, young, old), yet with the number of “Prevention staff” it raises the question of what they are doin

3.     Case Managers are the very heart of the services we provide, yet we are losing Case Managers. Why? What action do we need to take? Is the top heavy nature and ill-advised allocation of resources the cause? What is their work load? How many client contacts does each case manager have on a monthly basis. How many active clients are there per month vs. how many are carried on the books as being case managed. If, as has been stated, Case Management is one of the key services provided, why isn’t that reflected in the staff structure?

4.     Why isn’t the Executive Director taking a more active role as a partner in working with the Board of Directors?

The above is sufficient to convey my deep concern about the staffing structure and our allocation of precious resources. I have given this much thought and have held off on sending this email, yet I feel that something has to be done to address this issue before we find ourselves in the middle of a complete organizational breakdown because of mismanagement of staff resources….

What we learn from this email of July 27, 2007:

• I had grave concerns about the squandering of resources that were made known to the officers and directors long before I resigned;
• The staff structure was weighted heavily towards management positions (a situation that continues to this day)
• Dollars wasted on bloated staff structure could be used to provide direct client service
• Karen Dotson, since her hiring, has maintained (for all practical purposes) the status quo and has not addressed the dysfunctional and ineffective staff structure.