[Imc-finance] Re: [Imc-communication] Ford Foundation -- my opinion

[Jay]

SUMMARY:
-- reminder that the grant application was put together with very positive=
=20
intentions
-- suggesting there should have been discussion on imc-finance much earlier
-- but, understanding why people would be wary of bringing ideas to the=20
open indymedia lists in the first place.

***

Hello everyone,

Just got onto e-mail for the first time in a while and just saw the debate=
=20
about the Ford grant.

I have reviewed a couple drafts of the proposal but haven't been otherwise=
=20
involved so I wouldn't be the right one to ask about the details of it, but=
=20
I do want everyone to remember that the application was being put together=
=20
with the best of Indymedia at heart.  The idea of supporting regional=20
conventions through providing travel stipends seems like a very positive=20
one to me.  No individual nor individual IMC would benefit specifically=20
from this proposal, especially the Urbana IMC -- administering a grant like=
=20
this is a huge pain in the butt, costing many hours of frustrating work,=20
well outpacing any percentage taken from the grant to cover basic=20
costs.   In all of this legitimate passion, let's do our best to remember=20
the positive intentions of the volunteers who worked so hard to put this=20
together.

There are at least two real questions here.  One is whether we should take=
=20
money from this particular foundation.  I'll let other people who know more=
=20
about Ford make the arguments for or against that.  I do want to echo the=20
sentiment that truly "clean" money is hard to come by -- it is, after all,=
=20
money -- though there is most defenitely a difference between taking money=
=20
from someone with shady ties in the past and taking money from an=20
organization that actively supported dictatorships.  I'm learning more=20
about the Ford Foundation than I ever imagined.  (there have been similar=20
debates about taking money from Soros funds -- so far I believe every IMC=20
has made up its own mind on that)

The second question is one of network involvement in the process for=20
developing network-wide grant applications.   I personally support the idea=
=20
of affinity groups working together on specific funding projects, as long=20
as there is disclosure of those projects when appropriate on imc-finance so=
=20
people from throughout the network can get involved if they choose.  In=20
this case I believe there should have been discussion on imc-finance at a=20
much earlier point so people throughout the network could be aware of the=20
possibility and add their comments, both positive and negative.

Why would there be an inclination toward less discussion rather than=20
more?  Again, please remember the best intentions of the people putting=20
together the proposal.  The goal of this grant is to enhance network-wide=20
communication structure.  We obviously need, and have long needed, to=20
enhance network communication structure.   What seems to have happened here=
=20
is a prime example of why.  Sometimes, as you all know, positive ideas are=
=20
trashed on these lists before they have a chance to grow.  People are slow=
=20
to respond if they like something, but have no problem finding fault in=20
others' ideas.  That seems to be a reality of on-line communication -- if=20
all is well, people generally say nothing, if they have a problem with=20
something, they say so.  Of course, very often there are legitimate reasons=
=20
to raise questions about a proposal, such as in this case, but when being=20
negative is the default, people become afraid to take initiative in public.

Key to having successful working groups is the feeling of trust that the=20
general body will support the creativity and effort of the working=20
group.  That's something we don't always have here.  People are wary of=20
bringing positive ideas to open e-mail lists that will very likely result=20
in negative responses that often stop good projects before they start.

The argument for the need for more face-to-face networking couldn't be much=
=20
clearer, nor could the motivation for raising money to make sure that=20
networking can happen among people who may not otherwise have the money to=
=20
visit other IMCs.

Jay




At 9/16/2002, gekked@blackflag.net wrote:
>(espa=F1ol debajo)
>
>San Francisco IMC is preparing a statement on the Ford Foundation
>issue. But, I want to say a few short things, speaking for myself.
>
>1) Where is the transparency? Someone can say with honesty that a
>grant for 100,000USD is not a major change for Indymedia? In the past,
>we have had intense discussions about money and transparency, and the
>Ford Foundation grant seems to have no good faith towards
>transparency. Who discussed this grant and on which list? If it is the
>"encuentros" list, how have people discovered it (it is not on
>lists.indymedia.org)? This is a recurring problem, and not because we
>"do not have a process." As written on these lists numerous times
>before, transparency without process is better than no transparency,
>no process. I would like to hear real answers to this concern. Even
>now, where is a copy of the grant?
>
>2) Enough with process tricks. I will say that an "autonomous affinity
>group acting with UC-IMC" is absolute trickery. What other "autonomous
>affinity groups" exist within Indymedia? None. "Autonomous" implies
>that you cannot use Indymedia collective accomplishments and call them
>your own, or on behalf of Indymedia.
>
>3) This is a network decision. 100,000USD from a known CIA front group
>with restrictions impacts every single IMC. Especially, the funds are
>specifically for network (not local) meetings. I ask anyone to show
>good reason why this is not a network decision.
>
>For these reasons, and those sent from Argentina and Italy (and soon,
>San Francisco), I personally believe that the process on this grant
>must end immediately. Going against bad faith is enough reason.
>
>(espa=F1ol)
>
>San Francisco CMI est=E1 elaborando una declaraci=F3n sobre la cuesti=F3n=
 de
>la fundaci=F3n de Ford. Pero, quiero decir algunas cosas, hablando para
>me.
>
>1) D=F3nde est=E1 la transparencia? Alguien puede decir con honestidad que
>una concesi=F3n para 100.000USD no es un cambio importante para
>Indymedia? En el pasado, hemos tenidos discusiones intensas sobre el
>dinero y transparencia. La concesi=F3n de la fundaci=F3n de Ford me
>parece no tiene ninguna "buena fe" o transparencia. Qui=E9n discuterion
>esta concesi=F3n y en cual lista? Si la lista de "encuentros" ... como
>la gente la ha descubierto? (no est=E1 en http://lists.indymedia.org)?
>Esto es una problema que se repite, y no porque "no tenemos un
>proceso." Muchas veces antes, hayamos escrito en estas listas,
>transparencia sin proceso es mejores que ninguna transparencia, ningun
>proceso. Quisiera oir respuestas verdaderas a este comentario. Incluso
>ahora, d=F3nde est=E1 una copia de la concesi=F3n?
>
>2) Bastantes con trucos de proceso. Dir=E9 que un "grupo aut=F3nomo de
>afinidad que actua con UC-IMC" es enga=F1o absoluto. Que otros "grupos
>aut=F3nomos de afinidad" existen dentro de Indymedia? Ninguno.
>"Aut=F3nomo" implica que no puede utilizar los cumplimientos
>colectividad o utilizar el nombre de Indymedia global.
>
>3) Esto es una decision de la red. 100.000USD de un grupo delantero
>para el CIA, con restricciones, =E9l afecta a cada CMI. Tambien, los
>fondos est=E1 especificamente para las reuniones de la red (no local).
>Pido cualquier persona para mostrar a buena razon por la que esto no
>es una decision de la red.
>
>Por estas razones, y =E9sas enviadas de la Argentina, y Italia, y pronto
>San Francisco, creo personalmente que el proceso en esta concesi=F3n
>debe terminar immediatemente. Ir contra la "mala fe" es bastante
>razon.
>
>- gekked, san francisco imc
>
>_______________________________________________
>Imc-communication mailing list
>Imc-communication@lists.indymedia.org
>http://lists.indymedia.org/mailman/listinfo/imc-communication