[CIMC-working] (another contention of a clique at Houston IMC) Fwd: RE:
[IMC-Process] New IMC or reform Old IMC
Chris Kaihatsu
ckaihatsu at myrealbox.com
Wed, 01 Jan 2003 05:00:30 -0600
-- Forwarded Message --
Greetings,
My name is Ken Freeland. I am also a member of the IMC collective here
in Houston. Unlike Robert Graham, but like Loel Coleman, I have been
involved with HIMC since its very first meeting.
Things are spinning out of control here in Houston, and I am hopeful,
like Robert, that someone or some people on this list may have the
answers Houston needs to pull itself out of its crisis.
What Robert reports about the pressuring out of Loel Coleman from HIMC
is true. I was also present at that meeting, and witnessed the same
coercive behavior on the part of Nick Cooper, leading to Loel's
"voluntary" departure from our group, a loss keenly felt.
I also know a bit more of the history behind this than Robert does, I
think, and I would like to relate that history here for the record:
Owing to the problems being created at Pacifica station KPFT by a small
group of disruptors who act very much like provacateurs, Loel suggested
that he would like to do a story about one of the more identifiable
culprits on HIMC's half-hour radio show on KPFT. A few people expressed
reservations, but no one sought to block his effort. But then the
subject of the story somehow caught wind of it, and flew, as he is so
often wont to do, into a rage. On the one hand he reportedly threatened
one of our members that he would file a lawsuit if the story were done.
On the other, the station general manager, hearing of the plan (from
whom I don't know, possibly from the subject himself) let it be known to
other IMC people volunteering at the station that he didn't want the
story done because he didn't want the "shitstorm" that would follow. In
effect, editorial pressure was brought to bear from outside our ranks.
Several turgid HIMC meetings followed in which this situation was
discussed, Loel claiming that others were submitting to harassment in
violation of our action guidelines, these others (a.k.a. the "radio work
group") claiming that they were not. Finally the way was officially
reopened for proposal and production of the story in question, but
meanwhile an official statement by the HIMC radio work group was
publicly posted at KPFT in which the HIMC radio group distanced itself
from Loel, and in effect criticized his activity in this area. This was
all done without the slightest consultation with Loel. In my opinion,
the tone was mean-spirited, and a rather transparent attempt to please
the KPFT management and molify the subject of the proposed story.
Loel was incensed enough when he was shown a copy weeks later that the
radio group were asked to correct the impression they gave, and to
reflect what actually was resolved in the HIMC meetings. Loel wanted
them to retract some of the unkinder things they had implied in the
statement, and eventually, unsatisfied with results, suggested to them
that he might have recourse to a lawsuit against them (Loel is a lawyer)
for thus defaming him publicly. An attempt was made at a later meeting
to resolve this problem to everyone's satisfaction, but I do not think
all the terms of the agreement have been complied with. In any case, it
was at a final meeting about this issue that Loel was pressured by Nick
to leave. The vibes in that meeting were horrible. The idea of driving
someone out of the group is abhorrent to me, and I virtually alone
openly defended Loel throughout the process.
How does Nick Cooper get away with this? Nick has a small group of
blind followers who support him no matter what he does. Nick gets away
with this kind of bullying behavior because that little group supports
his behavior (enables it). This same group, which Robert properly terms
the "Nick clique," also just happens to be the same group that
consituted the original radio work group (and was responsible for the
public statement about Loel) and just happens to be the same group that
has a monopoly on password access to the HIMC website, and refuses to
provide training or passwords to others of us who would like to assist
in that function. Moreover, it is the same group who recently filed
spurious Action Guideline Violation charges against me, one of whom then
used that fact to delay and ultimately refuse the training and password
access promised to me and to Robert by consensus of the editorial work
group. This cycle just goes on and on, this small minority determined to
maintain a stranglehold on HIMC's resources and prerogatives at any
cost to group morale -- an oligarchy of sorts in our midst. I believe
that Loel was the first to identify this problem, and he has been the
first to be "purged" from HIMC on account of it. But similar efforts
have been made against me recently. This kind of dysfunctional group
dynamic does not bode well for HIMC. We are supposed to be oriented to
anarchist-democratic organization, but a heinous hierarchialism has
reared its ugly head in our midst.
So my question is, has any of the rest of you ever experienced anything
like this in your IMC, and do you have any suggestions as to how the
democratically-minded among us should proceed in this matter?
Thanks for taking the time to read this report. I am gratified that it
is now entered into the public record. I have felt very bad for a long
time because of what was done to Loel, and so I hope he can feel in some
way vindicated by my effort. And I hope he will respond to it on this
list, if he is still subscribed to it.
Peace,
Ken
-----Original Message-----
From: imc-process-admin@lists.indymedia.org
[mailto:imc-process-admin@lists.indymedia.org] On Behalf Of Robert
Graham
Sent: Thursday, December 26, 2002 3:19 PM
To: National IMC process
Subject: RE:[IMC-Process] New IMC or reform Old IMC
Greetings,
My name is Robert Graham. I am a member of the IMC collective in
Houston, Texas and have been active with this group since August, and
am joining this process list in hopes of finding answers to some
persistent internal problems in HIMC function (dysfunction would be a
better word for it).
It was serindipitous to discover Loel's post, with Nick Cooper's
defensive response, in the December 5 archives of this group (see
below). It serves
as an important starting point for my own concerns. Loel was indeed
pressured out of the HIMC, and this was done at a meeting at which I was
present. Though it is technically true that he left of his own accord,
it is also true that Nick Cooper put immense psychological pressure on
him in the course of that meeting. As always, Nick was supported by a
small group of supporters, but his effort did NOT have the consensus of
the entire group. Loel, already weary from months of struggle with
another member of the group (see Loel's earlier posts on this list),
just decided to throw in the towel for a while. I sure hope he
reconsiders -- we could really use his help addressing the current
problems in HIMC, which are directly related to the ones he was trying
to address when the "Nick clique" pressured him out of the
organization.
It is surely no coincidence that the same little group of people whoLoel
is referring to as the "radio work group" also hold a virtual monopoly
on password access to HIMC's website, and are refusing to enable
interested others who do editorial work on the website to gain equal
access. This has followed on frequent neglect of editorial
responsibility by those who hold the only "keys" to publishing features
on the site. There is a long history of editorial requests not meeting
with the approval of this group being ignored, and no one individual is
ever considered responsible when this happens. Just this week, to show
a typical example, several requests that I had submitted to enhance a
feature story were first employed as I had requested, then completely
removed about fifteen minutes later, all of this without the slightest
rational explanation. I was told: We just put that up to show you how
easy the process is, and someday, after the AVG process, we will put it
all in writing.
The AVG process, that stands for Action Guideline Violation. This is
another area where serious abuse of IMC process has been taking place.
This same group insisted that another very productive contributor to the
website, who like myself has requested (for over six months in his case)
training to enable him to assist in the website editing process, be
charged with "unconstructive activity," while themselves refusing to
provide him the training and access that would make him more
productive. Clearly, they are, as Loel indicated, conspiring to keep
control of HIMC in a few hands, in opposition to our mission statement
which calls for the opposite.
I would hope that anyone in any other IMC who has ever experienced this
kind of destructive behavior can give us some suggestions on how to
proceed. I am grateful for any advice you might offer. I will alert
the other activist, Ken, about this list so that he can add to my
report.
robert
loel@CoolRio.com writes:
> I just left the Houston IMC because it was taken over by a bunch of
neophyte, inexperienced, amateurs
It is true we're not professionals, but who did we take it over from?
You chose to leave our group, but no one else has. No one has been
kicked out.
>who had not a clue as to what they were doing other than to make it
>their
own little
little?
>self-serving
We don't serve any of the people or causes we do stories about?
>and self-promoting
we do strive to do promotion
>clubhouse.
Does that imply that we sit around drinking, gambling and gossiping?
Surely you are aware that we produce a primetime weekly radio show for
Pacifica, arrange monthly video screenings, maintain the site and do
other extensive IMC projects such as the FTAA video "Trading Freedom."
> They turned the consensus process into a star chamber to rid
> themselves of
anything about which they did not agree.
What things did we rid ourselves?
>It was a most disgusting and very undemocratic display.
What was? The meeting you attended and charge another HIMC member witha
violation? The letter written in response to your threat of legal
action? To what are you referring? o
> Some of we who had concerns that were quashed without being resolved
> met
and came up with the same question.
You raised an charge against another HIMC member and no one in the room,
not even those who agreed with you that things had been handled badly
regarding the Pacifica radio show, supported your charges in a straw
poll. Or are you referring to something else?
> Do we attempt to create another houston indymedia that is inclusive
> and
democratic; or, do we just get disillusioned and cynical and say: US
people are so socially conditioned as to be unable to do anything other
than engage in self promotion, greed, and power grabbing?
Assuming I am one of the people you feel has engaged in self-promotion,
greed or power-grabbing, exactly what do I get? What was my pay-off?
Peace
Nick Cooper
Here is my original report on some of the background of this:
http://lists.indymedia.org/mailman/public/imc-process/2002-July/003606.h
tml
_______________________________________________
imc-process mailing list
imc-process@lists.indymedia.org
http://lists.indymedia.org/mailman/listinfo/imc-process
_______________________________________________
imc-process mailing list
imc-process@lists.indymedia.org
http://lists.indymedia.org/mailman/listinfo/imc-process