[Imc-finance] Re: PENDING: PROPOSAL D -- funding request from South Africa IMC

[Petros Evdokas]

PENDING: PROPOSAL D -- funding request from South
Africa IMC

Summary:
A number of relevant themes are explored, and a
concrete Proposal put forth, which has implications on
our future ability to work together.

In this letter:
- Introduction
- Our working- group, as a collective entity, and its
process
   composition (membership)
   accountability
   six month period
- Proposal 
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

 
Hi,

It’s wonderful to see so much activity these last few
days on the imc-finance email group.
I’d like to be able to say things that would encourage
more of the dialogue, in the same spirit. However, in
the spirit of co-operation… most of the things I have
to say are more likely to be experienced as
discouragement rather than positively. I wish it were
not that way.

The letter by Ted, here, 
http://lists.indymedia.org/mailman/public/imc-finance/2002-August/001391.html
points to a whole lot of subjects related to imc-
funding which we have knowingly shied away from dealing
with all this time, even though many of us are
experienced political activists and radical
journalists. Sheri summed it all up in the brilliant
comment she wrote:  "we've been waiting for adequate
participation on this list", in order to create a
groupsense, and a set of valid guidelines and criteria
by which we would make decisions. We did not
participate enough in our dialogue to create any of
that. *If * we had talked, we would have clarified a
lot of concepts collectively, and these would be
guiding us now, to make some decisions together, today.
That’s partly the reason why now that we are faced with
a need to make a decision, all sorts of things are
coming up making it seem as if we don’t know how to
proceed. It’s *true* that we don’t know how to proceed
- we have not really worked out among us any guidelines
or criteria by which we can make the decision lying in
front of us.

We are repeating a pattern. In a similar scenario a few
months ago, issues connected to the Earth Summit 2002 /
Johannesburg  Rio 10 Summit came up in our dialogue,
they were identified, and were left hanging,
unresolved. These were  issues which are very strongly
connected to our existence and mission as a
*politicized* radical and free- media network, which
deserve a great deal of scrutiny  (regardless on
whether we agree or disagree). They  were introduced
and left unexplored when we received the Caravan to
Africa / imc- nigeria funding proposal - all those
concerns, which are still valid, were published as
"food for thought" here:
"Caravana to Africa / Ways to help imc- Nigeria without
money."
http://lists.indymedia.org/mailman/public/imc-finance/2002-June/001335.html
They were ignored by everyone in the work- group,
except by the author of the original funding request,
who responded by sending threats and insults to myself
and to others in Indymedia, and also wrote to a number
of our colleagues in Europe and the US urging them to
isolate, abandon, and to shut down Cyprus Indymedia in
order to punish me for participating in the dialogue on
whether we should approve that funding request or not.
So far, and as far as I know, none of our colleagues in
imc- finance (I refer here to our colleagues with
seniority among us) who also received those letters by
that person containing threats and depravities, wrote
anything to aknowledge that we run the risk of injury,
or losing our lives or liberty by entering a discussion
here at imc- finance. But it is a risk! So, friends,
please think twice before you express your collective’s
thoughts and feelings here.

Furthemore, the word  "emergency" regarding the funding
request is something of a misnomer in this case, given
that we knew for many months ahead about the Earth
Summit 2002 / Johannesburg  Rio 10 Summit, and had even
discussed the upcoming need for how to deal with it.
There was even some participation in our  meager
dialogue, by our colleagues in South Africa, who had
some very helpful and insightful commentary at the
time. 
Using the word "emergency" is a smoke -screen to cover
up the inefficiencies in our own process (I’ll get to
them below).
 

Our working- group, as a collective entity, and its
Process

The sad truth is that we are not a working- group
consisting of "empowered liaisons" as Sheri wrote - and
I wish we were! But the truth is that, after long
debates in the Spring aimed at creating an imc- finance
working group which would consist of "empowered
liaisons", when all was said and done which supposedly
"finalised" who this group consists of, 
1.  the decision was then bent and shaped to
accommodate the demands of the London Working Group by
accepting a series of complicated definitions which,
after they were adopted by our group, were then
re-interpreted by the London Working Group to mean
"anyone may participate".
2.  the decision was contested repeatedly by various
groups among us, but we all became silent and accepted
a compromise proposal by Bart to not discuss it for six
months so that we can get some work done.

As it turns out, we can not get much work done, until
we clarify Membership to this group, or to put it
diferently, Who are we accountable to?

For example, if we are building a federation of
collectives and if we are a group of empowered
liaisons, we should be accountable to the
Communications group, which is the organ consisting of
all Liaisons from all Indymedia groups. Even more so,
if we are a group of just anyone, open to all so that
"anyone may participate", we should *really* make sure
to be accountable to some  collective Indymedia body. 

If we are not accountable to any Indymedia group, if
"anyone" may participate here, if we have no criteria
for funding, no guidelines on how to judge a funding
request, how can we be honest to our benefactors and
donors that we are supposedly allocating their money
which they so generously donated to Indymedia,
according to the political principles which are at the
root of Indymedia? Personally, if  I had access to
these donors, I would be telling them with great shame
that we still have not generated a collective process
worthy of the right to allocate these funds. At least
I’m very proud to say the funds were not wasted or
mispent, and I’m very happy that our colleagues have
been safeguarding them until we can properly dispense
them.

The six- month period which Bart had proposed is over.
It’s time to start the dialogue about our Membership,
our Mandate, our Guidelines, our Decision -Making
Process.


A Proposal

The funding application for the South Africa Indymedia
group in relation to the Earth Summit 2002 /
Johannesburg  Rio 10 Summit has many merits, of course,
but it also serves to illustrate horrendous gaps in our
process. 
My proposal would be that we agree together *before*
making the decision on whether to fund or not,
regardless of what the decision will be, to *not* be
bound by this decision as a precedent. What we need is
collectively created Criteria and Guidelines to serve
as precedents, not rushed decisions to serve as
precedents. Sheri expressed it best- she wrote: "i also
think that we need  criteria so that we start setting
precedents".
I don’t want to go so far as saying that I would move
to block any decision to fund or not fund unless we
first agree to this Proposal above, but I’m very
tempted.

Everything I wrote above on this subject is not my
personal opinion, but is deposited here through me from
the group I’m active in. It is not derived word- to-
word from Cyprus Indymedia group dialogues (of which I
am the empowered liaison to the imc- finance group), 
but it is in keeping with the collective
interpretations which guide us. If things came to a
consensus- survey, a poll, or a vote, what I wrote
above is probably what we would be deciding ("voting")
as a group. 

Thanks for your patience, 
Petros, Cyprus Indymedia volunteer
http://PetrosEvdokas.cjb.net
----------------------