[Imc-finance] Ford Foundation and confidence-unity issues

[Sascha Meinrath]

Hi everyone,

I think we should take a critical look at who has accepted funding from
the Ford Foundation before declaring that accepting these funds would
irreparably harm our reputation.  Here is a (very) partial list of some 20
projects and organizations that Ford Foundation has funded.  Take a look
and decide for yourself whether they've all "sold out" to corporations:

ACLU -- American Civil Liberties Union
AFL-CIO
Alliance for Justice
Center for Investigative Reporting
Deep Dish TV
Economic Policy Institute
Electronic Privacy Information Center
Human Rights Watch
Independent Media Institute (funders of Alternet)
Independent Press Association
NAACP
Paul Robeson Foundation
Palestinian Centre for Human Rights
Progressive, Inc. (as in the magazine)
Progressive Technology Project
Public Citizen Foundation (as in Ralph Nader's group)
The Apen Institute
The Democracy and Workers' Rights Center
The Nature Conservancy
Tides Foundation

In answer to some of the other issues that were raised, the UCIMC did not
take a cut of the Global IMC funds when they were transferred to our care.
However, the UCIMC does sponsor individual IMCs and IMC projects (as well
as the Global Network) and does charge a fiscal sponsorship fee for new
funds that come through the UCIMC.  Each of our projects is invited and
expected to have a liaison on our finance group e-mail list; as such, each
project we sponsor is both empowered and in-the-loop about decisions the
UCIMC makes as a whole (which is pretty much unheard-of among fiscal
sponsors) -- I think one would be hard-pressed to find another
organization that keeps its projects _less_ in-the-dark.  I have posted
numerous updates about the state of the Global IMCs funds to the Global
Finance list, and whenever a decision or outcome directly impacts the
Global IMC, the UCIMC has worked to keep the Global Finance group
in-the-loop.  Obviously, we should have done better in this case and I
apologize that this issue caught several people flat-footed.

The UCIMC is a non-profit organization and when we do take a fiscal
sponsorship fee it is among the lowest in the non-profit,
fiscal-sponsorship realm.  These fees go directly into funding the
operations of the UCIMC, paying for registration costs (which are closing
in on $1000) and otherwise supporting the Indymedia Network.

Unlike almost any other fiscal sponsors, we also allow for an incredible
amount of autonomy for our projects while still offering as much support
as our projects wish.  Given this liaison structure, our inclusive,
participatory structure, and our own integrity as an organization, I do
not think it would be either advisable or necessary to have "Everything
UCIMC is involved in...on this list and subject to global discussion."
If this were required, the UCIMC would probably not sponsor the global
Network, and I doubt very much that we would find _any_ non-profit that
would agree to this demand.  I do not mean this to sound harsh, but if one
looks through this e-mail list's archives, one will find that the UCIMC
has been incredibly open and communicative with this list.

Finally, the idea for the Encuentros group grew directly out of discussion
that happened on the Global Finance list.  The orgiginal ideas were talked
about in February 2002 and a more formalized proposal was put forward by
Jay in March following the ideas that Dan put forward:
http://lists.indymedia.org/mailman/public/imc-finance/2002-March/001154.html

A bunch of individuals followed up on this post and created what became
the encuentros group.  While I agree that communication could have been
better, I also think that the structures and process were not set up "in
the dark"; and, in fact, directly parallel the efforts that were utilized
for the Threshhold Grant in November 2001.  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.

The Ford Grant would be administered by the Encuentros group (or whichever
group is empowered by them to make disbursement decisions).  The UCIMC's
role is as fiscal sponsor (and fiscal coordinator) -- legally speaking,
the UCIMC would make donations to individual IMCs that are earmarked for
supporting regional gatherings.  Each IMC would have the option to accept
or decline this funding.  This would be no different from what has already
been happening with existing IMCs that have received funding through the
UCIMC.

In solidarity,

--Sascha Meinrath
Urbana-Champaign IMC

P.S.  I changed the Finance Group e-mail list footer to the updated
website:  http://docs.indymedia.org/twiki/bin/view/Global/ImcFinance

On Sun, 15 Sep 2002, dan wrote:

> Hi all,
>
> Personal opinion only.
>
> For UC-IMC to be at once the fiscal sponsor (for a percentage) and then to seek out and
> engage in sponsoring projects related to IMC, presuambly taking percentage each time,
> without communicating with global IMC seems to put them very close to violation of IMC
> guidelines re not-for-profit.
>
> Autonomous projects are one thing.  A IMC that makes money from these projects may even
> be OK.  that it happens in the dark is not OK.
>
> Everything UCIMC is involved in should be on this list and subject to global discussion.
>
> SF-IMC has this in discussion.
>
> Dan
>