[Imc-finance] Comments: Proposals A & B -- the final lap

[Sascha Meinrath]

SYNOPSIS:  comments on discussion about centralization and local
empowerment; re: Proposals A & B.

***

Hi Matthew (et al.),

First off, the issues Matthew raises are both very important, and ones
that we have struggled with since the very beginning of the IMC Network.
Having visited St. Louis IMC folks and seen the amazing projects they've
been working on, I understand both why the reservations exist, and that
they are borne of a sincere committment to seeing the IMC Network succeed
by empowering peoples at the most grassroots levels.

I think that the tension between decentralization and devolution of power,
on the one hand, and the pragmatics of raising funds and providing support
and coordination, on the other, will (and necessarily should) be a
constant pressure.  I think Matthew's synopsis and Bart's response provide
a springboard for further discussion, and help focus debate on several
issues that we should always be keeping in mind when creating our
processes and making decision.

My reading of these comments (and please correct me if I'm misinterpreting
your focus, Matt), are that the intension is to spur discussion, but that
they are not intended to "block" either proposal.  There are multiple
ongoing discussions (both on-list and off) among IMC Volunteers who are
working on various aspects of these issues, and often ad hoc (though
highly effective) solutions are found to address them.

I don't think we're going to find "final" solutions to these concerns, but
that we will be able to create _processes_ that address these issues.  I
know that if we became another centralized bureaucracy I wouldn't be
interested in participating; and I think that a vast majority of folks who
are volunteering to build and maintain both local Indymedia and the
Indymedia Network are likewise motivated by a sincere desire to build
empowering structures for participants.

Whenever possible, our Finance and Donations groups have worked to devolve
funding and support to local IMCs.  However, the situation is that we do
have tens of thousands of dollars that we are entrusted to disburse, and
some donors do want to give to the IMC Network as a whole.  So, we need to
find pragmatic solutions to this problem (because having our funding sit
in an account isn't helping to support Indymedia).

As long as we continue to work in a supportive and constructive manner, I
think we'll be able to address the issues Matthew raises.

In solidarity,

--Sascha Meinrath
Urbana-Champaign IMC

On Thu, 11 Jul 2002, hoity toity wrote:

> To the Members of the IMC Global Finance List--
>
> It is with a great deal of reservation that I am writing this, as I have
> managed to swallow my opinions and remain for so long outside of the
> discussion and debate.  However, I feel that before the final proposals
> are passed, I must at least voice my opinion concerning this venture.
> These are opinions I have held since the beginning of this process, but
> have refrained from committing them to the list firstly because when the
> discussion was first getting started I was embroiled in personal issues
> locally and could not extend myself into the ‘global’ realm at that time,
> and secondly because St. Louis IMC did not come to consensus around my
> proposal and I did not want to enter the discussion as an individual
> rather than as a representative of our group.
> Since that time I have logged in occasionally and viewed the progression
> of the discussion and the decision-making process.  I have been very
> impressed by that process and how well it has worked and how able we, as a
> network of individuals and groups around the globe, have been at working
> through a process in this very tricky medium.
> However, from the beginning I have been very concerned by the aim and
> intention of this particular discussion as I feel that it cuts to the core
> of what our global network is and should be.  There are several aspects of
> what is being decided here that I find counter to the ideals I have for
> the global network of autonomous INDEPENDENT media Centers.
> First, it is one of several moves to CENTRALISE our network.    One of the
> most prevalent responsibilities of most governing structures is to
> determine how to spend and allocate the group’s money.  In more democratic
> governing structures, this is determined by a group of representatives for
> the sake of the whole.  Unlike most governing structures, we as an IMC
> network have no safeguards written in for how a representative is chosen
> by their local IMC, nor for how long they may serve, etc.  It is assumed
> that they are chosen by consensus and that each group will make their
> decisions via consensus, as will this working group.  However, there is at
> present no way of verifying this, or really knowing how well a local
> representative is serving or representing hir local IMC.  Also, within the
> IMC network some degree of hierarchy is created by a few factors, among
> them: knowledge of the system, connection to other individuals and groups
> in the system, tenure of involvement, and language of the majority.    My
> point is not that we should make a detailed plan to counter-act these
> trends but to point out that they exist and are inherent in the system we
> are dealing with (i.e. a high-tech medium in which keeping up with global
> issues generally requires more free time, technical access and
> proficiency, and familiarity with the system and language of exchange than
> keeping up with local issues).  In fact, we as a network have put in place
> some very good measures to counter-act some of these.  But, how well have
> we examined the ways in which a centralization of this magnitude will
> effect our network in regards to these inherent inequities?
> I believe the IMC’s with the greatest amount of existing wealth in terms
> of technical hardware, proficiency, and local stability will naturally be
> more able to partake in online decision making and will therefor have more
> of an ability to influence the decision making process.  Also, most
> nations have only one IMC, whereas the United States has many.  Does this
> not cause an imbalance in the decision making process as well?
> It is my belief that the global network serves the local IMCs the most as
> a hub of information and resource exchange among and between individual
> IMCs, rather than as anything resembling a unified, governing body.  I
> believe the more decentralized we are the more we empower our local
> communities toward making change where it matters most--locally. This is
> not to say that global awareness is not important, but that the focus for
> most people is on the locality of our daily lives, which will set the
> precedent for what we can and cannot exert our energies toward.
> Had we decided to disburse global funds equally among existing, local
> IMC’s after a certain quantity had accrued, I feel that we would have been
> making a truly radical step away from a mere shadow imitation of
> centralized, hierarchical power structures and towards greater autonomy
> and decentralization.  The more decentralized we keep our resources, the
> less able any one IMC or individual can hold sway over how we allocate
> those resources or how our local IMCs operate.  IMC proposals for
> financial aid could still have been made to a central list, but it would
> be up to individual IMCs--their priorities and their decision-making
> groups--to individually decide whether to answer the call, while ensuring
> the resources in question were safely in the hands of the local groups
> making those decisions.  It is my belief that disbursing funds as
> equitably as possible among active IMCs would help counter-balance the
> inherent hierarchies and inequities in our global-decision making process.
> So anyway, I apologize for putting this ‘out there’ so late in the
> process.  I hope that people on this list have seriously examined for
> themselves the purpose they want the global network to serve, whether they
> feel comfortable with systems that mirror centralized governing bodies,
> etc.  Most governments tend to keep the resources from the people, and
> then decide how to use those resources with some input from the people.
> Wouldn’t it be a radical step in the right direction to distribute the
> resources directly to the people BEFORE asking the people how they want
> their resources used?
> Sincerely,
>
> Matthew B. (writing as an individual only)
> St. Louis IMC