[Imc-finance] Indymedia Finances and trust

[Petros Evdokas]

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.

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.

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.

Petros
-----------------------     

Background reading:
http://lists.indymedia.org/mailman/public/imc-communication/2002-September/002293.html

------------------------