[Imc-finance] Fwd: Re: [IMC-Process] The problem I'm having with the FORD thing.

[Sheri Herndon]

hello,

since this pertains to many key questions that face us and since 
michael is so eloquent and articulate and also speaks from 
experience, i thought i'd forward it to this list.  not that this is 
our task (this list) to figure out, but because this list has also 
been hearing about this topic and hopefully we'll have a productive 
irc meeting this coming sunday and some of these topics/issues can be 
talked about more collectively.

peace
sheri

>Delivered-To: sheri@speakeasy.org
>Delivered-To: imc-process@indymedia.org
>Subject: Re: [IMC-Process] The problem I'm having with the FORD thing.
>From: <meisenmenger@mediajumpstart.net>
>To: <imc-process@indymedia.org>
>Date: Tue, 24 Sep 2002 01:29:52 -0400 (EDT)
>
>hi all,
>
>I do appreciate the spirit of these comments and the passion to keep the
>IMC pure and free from any and all foundation connections (direct or
>indirect). And it may well be possible that it will thrive and continue to
>grow with the current funding (modest personal donations), the IMC seems
>to have a resiliency and resourcefulness that is always unexpected.
>
>But having worked around many grassroots non-profits over the years, I no
>longer equate foundation funding with pacts with the devil (except for
>some projects I've seen that have been purposively over-funded and that
>self-destruct as a result). Accepting minor amounts of funding that are
>carefully and transparently earmarked for specific projects that serve the
>entire network can help strengthen rather than compromise the overall
>organization. Ford is certainly tainted by it's past, but accepting money
>from a foundation to do radical work can hardly be seen as accepting or
>acquiescing to a foundations' past history.
>
>The other problem, is that I can count on both hands the number of truly
>progressive if not radical foundations that unfortunately also tend to be
>most poorly endowed. Meanwhile the number of well endowed right wing
>conservative foundations number in the hundreds. Somewhere in between are
>the 'liberal' foundations, with questionable pasts and uneven funding
>records. There are few clean options for foundation funding, and all this
>really means is that to seek any foundation funding one must set clear
>goals (and time frames) and have the ability to hold to your original aim.
>
>Patricio Guzzman's new film on the Trial of Pinnochet received numerous
>funds from foundations, including Soros (which incidentally was one of
>very few funding sources for radical documentary work in the last
>decade). Having seen Guzzman's past and current work (The Battle of Chile,
>etc) it's obvious that it was not tempered in any way by his funding
>sources (foundations don't review final edits). In the 70's the Weather
>Underground knocked over Brink's trucks to fund their organization (being
>the true romantic purists - though several were well endowed with family
>trusts). Today the ELF apparently gets  some funds from PETA which in turn
>is funded by major foundations and some slightly wacked donors. In short
>nothing that involves money is without contradiction and hypocrisy - which
>is why we tend to respect people for their actions and dignity above all
>else.
>
>It seems to me, the gist of the ford proposal was at least partially
>intended to provide travel funds for people in the global south who could
>not easily afford to travel and network regionally. This seems essential
>capacity building that would enable the people most involved in the
>southern network to more easily meet, network and build it up on their
>terms. So, what are the other alternatives for such travel costs? Just
>leave this task up to those who already have the personal financial means,
>leave it up to dollar rich outsiders to do the travelling, or do nothing
>at all? The first alternative poses potentially divisive class issues, the
>second smacks of the worst gringoism and the third, well that seems to be
>the current course.
>
>As to people getting paid stipends to administer the work of potential
>proposals - yes - this can inevitably create animosity. My only suggestion
>is that the tasks of any such position be clearly laid out and made
>transparent and accountable to everyone involved in the project. Grants
>inevitable involve bureaucratic paperwork and followup, though a
>bureaucracy isn't necessary to complete the task. It's also fairly common
>in the volunteer non-profit scene to stipend someone whose burden is being
>the point person for this and other responsibilities. I worked as a
>volunteer in the Paper Tiger TV collective for ten years, the collective
>has now survived over twenty years and has had one or two part-time staff
>people for most of those years. The reasons are simple, there are some
>important day-to-day tasks that simply get screwed up or are left
>unfinished if entrusted to volunteer collective members (most of whom have
>other 'paying' jobs). It was more important to the collective that certain
>tasks were always completed and done really well by one responsible person
>than to worry about perceived hierarchies (though these positions are
>overseen and assisted as necessary by the collective as a whole to avoid
>such problems). Production within in the collective is always a volunteer
>effort - and I think it is important that paid and unpaid tasks are
>separated out carefully.
>
>But all this should also raise questions about promoting sustainable
>projects and lifestyles in the models that we choose. Shouldn't we be
>creating situations where people can start earning a living (at least
>partially) doing the work we think is so important? Should this not be a
>goal for the world we want to create? I know of several people who since
>Seattle are facing considerable debt that accrued as a result of their
>tireless volunteer IMC work. That burden, is of course now theirs and
>theirs alone, but the network as a whole loses when these people have to
>bail out because they can no longer afford to pay rent or buy food. Is it
>worse to sacrifice individuals to their debt owed living bankers or to
>take handouts (without strings) from the foundations of dead ones?
>
>While the ford proposal may be dead, I have a feeling this will re-emerge
>before long. And since few funding sources are clean, there really should
>be quorum on what is acceptable to pursue, from whom and by whom (i.e the
>fundraiser). It would be unfortunate to see more people waste labor on
>such fundraising tasks unnecessarily.
>
>take care,
>
>Michael
>
>>I say fuck 'um.
>>Fuck 'um and their dirty money.
>>We dont need it, we never needed it and if we dont have it we'll be >just
>the more committed to figure out alternative ways of funding.
>>If we create a precedence for external funding such as this we'll grow
>>accustomed to it, we'll grow lazy and forget about our true values of
>>alternative, independant, decentralized grassroots organization.
>>The less money we have, the more creative we'll be about growing >ever
>more independant and self-sustaining.
>>I say we fuck 'em.
>>Fuck 'em and their dirty money.
>>Let's give em a bit of a harder time trying to get us under their control.
>>
>>Cheers.
>>Mic.
>>
>
>  >>The problem starts with somebody getting paid.
>