[Imc-finance] Re: Indymedia Finances and trust

[Sascha Meinrath]

On Thu, 31 Oct 2002, Petros Evdokas wrote:

>
> Indymedia Finances and trust
>
>
> Sascha,
>
> It would increase trust and transparency among us if
> you were to send copies of the decisions made by the
> imc-finance working group to the imc-communications
> group, which is an indymedia body comprised of liaisons
> from all imc  groups.

This sounds good.  I'm preparing a brief synopsis of our finances and will
cc communications.  And we can also cc communications with future
proposals.


> We don’t want to create the impression that the
> financial decisions are made behind closed doors. It’s
> best if everything is there, available and open for
> debate, for inspiration, and for any other use (or even
> "blowback" as they say in the pentagon) which the
> simple sharing of information generates. After all,
> these decisions concern all of us in indymedia, our
> entire network. The decisions should be shared with all
> of us. Liaisons from all the indymedia groups should
> just receive a copy of the decisions in their
> mailboxes, in order to be able to inform their
> respective imc groups.  We must not be comfortable with
> the idea that "anyone who wants this information can
> hunt down the relevant links and find them".
>
> After the Ford Foundation fiasco, we must take extra
> care to weave trust among us  - using the "CC" tool on
> our email program is not very costly or difficult, but
> it requires *seeing* our work in a certain way.
>
> So, there have been some financial decisions in
> September, some more in October, and there are a few
> more pending. There have not been any letters to
> imc-communication about all this, except once in
> August. Wouldn’t it be right to share this information
> with everyone in the network? Even though you had begun
> to share this information with imc-communication, you
> stopped again.
>
> The embryonic collective body we are building in the
> form of the imc-communication group is not going to
> evolve unless we are willing to invest trust and bond-
> building efforts into it - whatever potential value it
> might have now, will be lost if imc members who are in
> sensitive or key positions among us, and who have some
> "seniority" in imc, are perceived in ambiguous ways: if
> I show disrespect toward the imc-communication process,
> how can I expect it to inspire collectivity in others?
>
> As it is, the work of the imc-finances group is still
> not accountable to any collective body of imc, except
> to itself. We should make every effort to draw the
> imc-finances group toward more openness to the wider
> imc community.

On a day to day basis, this may be correct; however, the finance group
does post updates to imc-process and does have proceedures in place were
it to spend more than $5000/month.

> During debates around the Ford Fiasco, you wrote (on
> Mon. Sep. 16. 2002):
> "While I agree that communication could have been
> better, I also think that the structures and process
> were not set up "in the dark";  "…….  I'm not sure how
> such a negative interpretation of events continues to
> persist, but would encourage everyone to take a look
> through the list's archives before making accusations
> about how events unfolded."
>
> So, I agree with you, let’s make sure no one feels left
> "in the dark" - let’s open up our information- sharing
> before another fiasco shakes our foundations to pieces.
>
> In the recent past I wrote to thank you for sense of
> accountability and responsibility (my letter is below).
> But since you stopped again writing to
> imc-communication about financial decisions, I don’t
> feel so secure that this is a priority for you. I would
> feel better if you just do it (because you say that see
> its value), and not have to prod you or encourage you
> in that direction.
>
> I’m very open to your thoughts and feedback, and my
> apologies if I misunderstood this temporary lack of
> transparency. Perhaps there is some other reason for it
> that I’m not aware of. But someone needs to explain it.

Communication is a high priority for me.  My not cc-ing the communication
list wasn't meant to downplay that and was a simple oversight.  You
shouldn't read anything more into it.  I too am a volunteer whose Global
IMC time is constrained by my 3 paying jobs, my local IMC
responsibilities, working on my thesis, etc.  And sometimes important
details get overlooked in that frenzy.  I apologize for the oversight &
hope that in the future we'll be able to spread out the role of
shepherding disbursement proposals more widely so that they get the
individual attention and dissemination they deserve.

In solidarity,

--Sascha Meinrath
Urbana-Champaign IMC