[Imc-finance] IMC-Atlanta Amendment to Proposal B - Sunset
Clause
Elizabeth Hansen
eehansen at artsci.wustl.edu
Thu Jun 6 17:40:03 2002
> This message is in MIME format. Since your mail reader does not understand
this format, some or all of this message may not be legible.
--MS_Mac_OE_3106226176_797391_MIME_Part
Content-type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"
Content-transfer-encoding: quoted-printable
To the finance group and the Atlanta IMC:
The StL IMC had a meeting 6-4 and we have a few concerns with the Atlanta
proposal. We feel it may be unwise to add a sunset clause to the current
proposal (which may not even be in effect at the end of July) before a
replacement is created.
We think it may be better to have a longer sunset period, and to have a
concrete plan for a replacement.
Liz Hansen
StL IMC finance liaison and volunteer
From: Warren Goodwin <warren@riseup.net>
Date: Sat, 01 Jun 2002 22:26:52 -0400
To: imc-atlanta@lists.indymedia.org, imc-finance@lists.indymedia.org
Subject: [Imc-finance] IMC-Atlanta Amendment to Proposal B - Sunset Clause
Atlanta IMC supports proposal B (Including the St. Louis amendments ) ,
but only as a temporary and provisional method of fund allocation.
It is the sense of the group that we need a budget-based fund allocation
procedure, rather than the line item-expenditure process outlined in B. We
are concerned that if we look at each proposal individually, we will rapidl=
y
spend our funds without properly prioritizing them.
Atlanta IMC is working on ideas for a draft of a budget based expenditure
procedure.
Atlanta IMC suggests as an amendment that a sunset clause be added to
Proposal B; that proposal B expire on July 31st 2002. This will allow us t=
o
fund extremely pressing needs in the short term, give us all a chance to
create a more balanced budgeting process for the future, and ensure that we
are not locked in into an unwise spending process.
Proposal B as amended would read:
For making fund allocations we will follow the following decision-making
timeline:=20
=B7 EMERGENCY FUNDING: 2 Days
=B7 REGULAR FUNDING below 500$: 1 week -- with 1 day extensions by
request. NOTE: original text was 4 days -- with 1 day extensions by request=
.
Ammendment proposed by St. Louis IMC. =B7 REGULAR FUNDING above 500$: 2
weeks -- with 2-day extensions by request. NOTE: original text was 1 week -=
-
with 2 day extensions by request. Ammendment proposed by St. Louis IMC. =B7
SUNSET CLAUSE: This process will be used as as an interim measure only unti=
l
7/31/02
=20
=20
-Sincerely,
Warren Goodwin,
for IMC-Atlanta
--MS_Mac_OE_3106226176_797391_MIME_Part
Content-type: text/html; charset="ISO-8859-1"
Content-transfer-encoding: quoted-printable
<HTML>
<HEAD>
<TITLE>Re: [Imc-finance] IMC-Atlanta Amendment to Proposal B - Sunset Claus=
e</TITLE>
</HEAD>
<BODY>
To the finance group and the Atlanta IMC:<BR>
<BR>
The StL IMC had a meeting 6-4 and we have a few concerns with the Atlanta p=
roposal. We feel it may be unwise to add a sunset clause to the curren=
t proposal (which may not even be in effect at the end of July) before a rep=
lacement is created. <BR>
We think it may be better to have a longer sunset period, and to have a con=
crete plan for a replacement.<BR>
<BR>
Liz Hansen<BR>
StL IMC finance liaison and volunteer<BR>
<BLOCKQUOTE><BR>
<B>From: </B>Warren Goodwin <warren@riseup.net><BR>
<B>Date: </B>Sat, 01 Jun 2002 22:26:52 -0400<BR>
<B>To: </B>imc-atlanta@lists.indymedia.org, imc-finance@lists.indymedia.org=
<BR>
<B>Subject: </B>[Imc-finance] IMC-Atlanta Amendment to Proposal B - Sunset =
Clause<BR>
<BR>
</BLOCKQUOTE><BR>
<BLOCKQUOTE>Atlanta IMC supports proposal B (Including the St. Louis amendm=
ents ) , but only as a temporary and provisional method of fund =
allocation. <BR>
<BR>
It is the sense of the group that we need a budget-based fund alloca=
tion procedure, rather than the line item-expenditure process outlined=
in B. We are concerned that if we look at each proposal individually,=
we will rapidly spend our funds without properly prioritizing them. &=
nbsp;<BR>
<BR>
Atlanta IMC is working on ideas for a draft of a budget based expenditure p=
rocedure.<BR>
<BR>
Atlanta IMC suggests as an amendment that a sunset clause be added to=
Proposal B; that proposal B expire on July 31st 2002. This will allow=
us to fund extremely pressing needs in the short term, give us all a chance=
to create a more balanced budgeting process for the future, and ensure that=
we are not locked in into an unwise spending process.<BR>
<BR>
Proposal B as amended would read:<BR>
For making fund allocations we will follow the following decision-making ti=
meline: <BR>
<FONT FACE=3D"Symbol">=B7 </FONT>EMERGENCY =
FUNDING: 2 Days <BR>
<FONT FACE=3D"Symbol">=B7 </FONT>REGULAR FU=
NDING below 500$: <B>1 week</B> -- with 1 day extensions by request. NOTE: o=
riginal text was <B><I>4 days</I></B> -- with 1 day extensions by request. A=
mmendment proposed by St. Louis IMC. <FONT FACE=3D"Symbol">=B7  =
; </FONT>REGULAR FUNDING above 500$: <B>2 weeks</B> -- with=
2-day extensions by request. NOTE: original text was <B><I>1 week</I></B> -=
- with 2 day extensions by request. Ammendment proposed by St. Louis IMC. <F=
ONT FACE=3D"Symbol">=B7 &n=
bsp;</FONT><B>SUNSET CLAUSE: This process will be used as as an interim meas=
ure only until 7/31/02<BR>
</B> <BR>
&n=
bsp; <BR>
-Sincerely,<BR>
Warren Goodwin,<BR>
for IMC-Atlanta<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
</BLOCKQUOTE><BR>
</BODY>
</HTML>
--MS_Mac_OE_3106226176_797391_MIME_Part--