[Imc-finance] f.f. critique and possibilities - re: ford, indymedia & questions

[Doug Morris]

Hi all,

Here is a rather strong stance on the Ford Foundation funding issue and the 
implications of points raised in this debate for grass roots imc network 
processes.

Summary:

The imc network is not finished in even its first round of self-creation yet.

         Let's finish making the imc network from the ground up.
         Let's not fund it's creation from the top down.

It is best to do our own thing in imc, from the bottom up...

         To do so is to decide, a next step is to create:
         1. A list of priorities for the global network.   This is simple 
(see below)
         2. A decision process to choose which priorities to act on. (this 
can be hard!)
         3. A way of generating options/plans for action (and again 
deciding on those).
         4. Probably:  A revision of our principles of unity and further 
clarifications about network as local relations and what that entails for 
projects in network and regional groupings and what is the role of working 
groups.

Priority setting, deciding, and planning can be done online... over time! 
This would be a more grass roots and participatory way to go in terms of 
including the most people in discussions. Then, we can act on those plans 
with working group and locals to implement plans.  An online process 
probably will not need grass roots funds raising to fund 
discussions.  Regional gatherings, whenver they might happen, can be a 
great place to develop ideas and go deeper in planning and can complement 
online work.

I'll send an outline of a participatory planning process based on previous 
such projects on the left... sometime.

The following is sort of underlined by my proposal made today about 
newsblasts, a network wide editorial process:
proposal: imc news briefs & special feature pages
http://lists.indymedia.org/mailman/public/imc-process/2002-September/003838.html
We have quite a few network wide projects and working groups.  We need to 
figure out the relation of these and the locals.

Our job is to work for global justice.  Our imc medias, locals and working 
groups all do this.  Let's finish figuring out how to do this in way that 
is flexible.  It'll take some time and lots of summarizing and writing and 
translation.  The fruits of this effort are the good for earth, the sky, 
the oceans, the forests, the animals, the people -- living in 
harmony.  This doesn't have a price. Global justice is worth all the effort 
and more that we put into this.

My apologies for lack of translation -- not a skill that I have!  Love and 
Hugs, Doug

Discussion:
Here is
a critique and some possibilities
of what has been happening with the Ford Foundation fund raising and some 
options for going forward...

As a preliminary to discussing the above:

I wrote a draft of an index and summary of the Ford Foundation grant 
debates today.

The summary offers an overview of various positions on the FF grant and is 
not a simple listing of some key posts like this helpful short (so far) 
index here:
http://docs.indymedia.org/twiki/bin/view/Global/ImcFinance

It may take a day or two to edit that summary.
I've asked Sheri to look it over the summary since she is very hands on 
with this debate. Others may also editing this as they wish in a cc email 
group.  Anyone interested?

So, here is a discussion of summary above:

I disagree with getting funds from commercial foundations as a means to 
discussing imc network issues and solving such, whether at a regional level 
or otherwise.

Getting money from mainstream foundations will not be good for IMC.  Such a 
course has been generally bad for other grass roots organizations, for 
reasons that others have argued.

Getting money from progressive foundations can be ok on a case by case 
basis, again as others have noted: as long as the continuation of our 
processes do not depend on such money.

It was a mistake that a network organizing issue of this magnitude (funding 
for regional gatherings with network wide implications for planning) was 
not announced on widely read imc process lists.  It is not correct to 
identify this as a local funds issue or regional only organizing issue.

The idea for the F.F. proposal might have been shot down if sent to imc 
lists.  And, rightly so.

However, it is understandable how this evolved.  People want to get stuff 
done.  The lists are really hard to work on.  And, the folks involved did a 
lot of work to make things happen. Perhaps the effort will create much 
forward progress.  Perhaps it is simply the wrong direction.  I think 
so.  But, the energy for this can well...  well... keep going onward.

Rather than only focusing on seeking money and debating how to do that,
I would suggest that we can consider other alternatives in our whole 
strategy about networking globally.

Can we facilitate network processes without a lot of money?
Probably yes.

Ideally, it is great if we can do all our media work on a volunteer basis 
and our costs by donations.

In this way, responsibility for global network money issues can be rotated 
within the imc network, across various locals and persons, and not rely on 
outside ties through a few skilled folks.

It is good if we can raise our own funds.

Further, we may want to consider a decision as a new PRINCIPLE OF UNITY to 
NOT ACCEPT FUNDS as a network or as locals from mainstream corporate 
foundations.

Not only are there symbolic problems in working with groups like the Ford 
foundation, but also:
* the politics of making grants sets up some imc facilitators as power 
brokers with the outside.
* in grant making reports, the imc as a movement can get described in 
certain watered down objectified ways in grant reporting processes that 
then becomes part of "official," external evaluations of the movement that 
worm their way into the press and history books and discussion by other 
movements...

The imc network is not finished in its even first round of self-creation yet.
And, there do need to be some network wide processes...
We need a list of these things... and to debate which ones are crucial to 
act on.

So, I take the stance strongly:

Let's make imc network processes from the ground up.
Let's not fund it from the top down.

It is best to do our own thing in imc I think...
To do what we can without money.
To raise our own money if needed.

What is next?

To decide about what to do:

We need a list of priorities.
This is easy to create:  Simply request a lists from imc locals about the 
relation of locals, regional stuff, and imc networking. Then, compile the 
lists.

There is one secret to making the lists work.
It's just:  Gather the effort to make lots of summaries!

We need a decision process to set priorities from a list and plan how to do 
things.
This is hard to create!  We need to discuss alternatives for decision making.

If we manage to do these two things, set priorities and a decision process 
at network level:
IMC has very good chance of a strong future.
Without these, we may fragment or wither.

After (and actually during) creating a decision process, we need to 
generate options for action.
This might be harder as network... but is doable in working groups.  We 
needs both priorities and decision making to happen, and to decide what can 
and can not be delegated to working groups.

In the process of all this, probably we will need to create a revision or 
updates to our imc principles of unity and make further clarifications 
about network and local relations.

We need to explore what is the imc network as relations of locals.  We also 
need to clarify the role of working groups that do tasks and services at a 
global network level and groups that work to support locals, facilitate 
problems with locals, and yes, hold locals to the principles of unity. Some 
of this is sort of undefined and ad hoc now.  This is a most difficult task 
to achieve given divergent views and the existing, ongoing work of working 
groups.
         This can all happen/ be worked out over time by getting views from 
many folks and being creative in generating options, creating syntheses 
eventually of options, and in the circulating of action/communication 
options and responsibility for working groups and network stuff.
         This planning needn't be a network wide process in bulk of 
talk...  It can be summaries from working groups to lists.  But, we do need 
to explore how all this ongoing network level stuff carries on our mission 
and principles of unity... or does not.  Consider:  The recent problems on 
the finance list.

So.
In conclusion:
We can figure out how to decide online.
We probably should do so online.
There will be more participation by people online, probably, than in 
regional gatherings.

As for the issues that Sheri raises in the previous note with this title, 
it is great that she is taking the large view of future 
discussions.  Blicero's focus is good in response.

I would like to suggest a method to focus on big questions that leads to 
considering alternatives for planning and decisions and actions that solve 
some ongoing network problems (that we have yet to solve):

That is, it is important to ask action generating questions and to create 
alternatives to the current debate as possible solutions to our money and 
networking issues:

So, I strongly suggest that we consider a question that has been addressed 
three times now in imc history in large way, now and: in San Francisco 
April 2001 meeting and ensuing discussions (which yielded the new IMC 
organizing process and principles of unity); in Sept/Oct 2001 out of the 
D.C. convergence (which yielded the communication liason organizing effort):

So, to ask again:
Generally, by what processes can we, as an imc network, be decentralized 
and participatory yet coordinate on global issues as needed and delegate 
issues as needed and declare what is local and what is not?

Specifically, how can we have decentralized planning and decision making 
processes (and flexible structures as needed) to work on these things?

Yes, we need the regional gatherings in an ongoing way too.

However, I think we can do a lot of this work online....
If folks will put in the effort.

Over time, probably before we get regional gathering money (which, perhaps 
we don't need):
We can start setting priorities online.
And, we can come up with various decision making models.

I think if we can use this FF funds debate as launch board to discuss 
organizing issues in light of commitment to radical democracy and yet to 
being effective by working in world...

Sorry for length of this.
This is talking about creating the creation of an indymedia constitution 
from ground up. This is more complicated, not less complicated than the 
process for hierarchical organizations.

This debate on funding can be a helpful rain cloud rather than a typhoon.

We can get on with priorities, decision, actions as a global network that 
serve to advance global justice practices and ideas.

Love, Doug