[New-imc] SF-IMC, "Open Letter to Global Indymedia", Response to SFBAY

[gekked at blackflag.net]

New-imc working group and imc-us-process:

This letter is being e-mailed by me (gek/sf-imc) on behalf of SF
Indymedia, who consensed on this response.

We are greatly confused and saddened by the emails recently sent to
new-imc by the SFBAY IMC. As you know, around the end of November, the
existence of two IMCs in the Bay Area was approved by new-imc, and
then approved by the imc-process list. This happened over a month ago.

We all agreed to the expansion into two IMCs, we all agreed to the
terms of expansion, we all agreed to keep it out of Global IMC.

Almost everything in the mediation agreement has been fulfilled.
However, there are a number of items unfulfilled by the SFBAY side and
there are 2 items unfulfilled by the SF Indymedia side. SF Indymedia
has attempted to contact SFBAY about these concerns so they can be
worked out. SFBAY has ignored these attempts completely, and has
instead chosen to further violate the mediation agreement by
attempting to give a one-sided story to mailing lists and individuals
in Global IMC. There are 4-5 outstanding issues with the mediation
agreement; the other items already implemented are not revokable.

Please find attached the letter we sent to SFBAY [1], in an attempt to
communicate the few remaining details of the mediation agreement. 

Also, we have been made aware that SFBAY intends to send an "Open
Letter to Global IMC" which they have already written. In addition to
further violating the mediation agreement, the text of this letter is
one sentence after another of rumors, half-truths, assumptions,
unfounded accusations and personal attacks. We have written a response
to this letter called "Myths and Reality About SF Indymedia." We ask
that if the process moderators are going to allow SFBAY's email to be
sent through, to give us warning so that our response can be received
at the same time. We wish to avoid the kind of discussion that will
result if this happens but we are ready to discuss the full details if
necessary.

Unfortunately, we have just found out that SFBAY has further violated
the mediation agreement by speaking about the split to a corporate
media reporter today.

We urge SFBAY to stop ignoring our emails and requests, fulfill their
end of the mediation agreement, stop the disruptions of Indymedia work
in SF and on the global level, and resolve these issues on the local
level.

- SF Indymedia
  http://sf.indymedia.org/

[1] - Letter sent to SFBAY from SF Indymedia which was completely
ignored. SFBAY's mediation violations listed below were not mentioned
in SFBAY's letter to global IMC lists. 

On November 13, San Francisco Indymedia concluded mediation on a
division into two groups -- sf.indymedia.org and sfbay.indymedia.org.
A joint email was sent to global, we went through the process of
new-imc and everything was approved. We then moved towards a December
31st deadline for the split of material resources, like our shared
space, equipment, supplies, money.

Around December 3, this process was derailed when members of the SFBAY
group physically confronted SF Indymedia members at the space,
insisted that they were not allowed at the space and refused them
access to their personal possessions. Later that night, SFBAY decided
to change the locks to the Indymedia office and server closet,
preventing us from doing our required inventory and getting our things
together from a workspace we've used for a few years now.

In addition, the mediation agreement has been violated in a number of
other ways:

Press Credentials
The agreement we all reached was that Peter Maiden would notify SFPD
that we were two groups that should have our own separate press
credentials. First, Peter began emailing IMC press card holders
privately to misrepresent what was decided at the mediation. Then,
when Peter's contact with SFPD didn't go smoothly, he took unilateral
decisions and actions, including meeting with SFPD Sgt. Gittens to
disclose private information and discuss a "deal" whereby SF-IMC
members could turn themselves in for "counterfeiting" press cards.

We have not heard anything back about this contested issue. Currently,
there are five press cards outstanding which bear the name of our
organization and are unaccounted for. If anyone uses these press cards
in an inappropriate way, even accidentally, SF Indymedia will be held
liable. There have already been several incidents to date which have
provoked law enforcement agencies to take action against SF-IMC in
regards to the press cards. The only solution is that the press cards
be returned to us, unless we decide to account for and be responsible
for the holder.

Sabotage
The mediation agreement, as interpreted in writing by Lisa, states:
"i) Negative Propaganda: Neither IMC will engage in negative
propaganda about the other. No one involved in either IMC should ever
tell other people 'don't post to the other IMC' or 'the other IMC is
not trustworthy.' Publicly we should all support both IMCs and respect
their existence in the Bay Area and continue to be a resource for the
community (no sabotaging each other)."

We are concerned with actions taken by SFBAY, which began many months
ago and contributed to the split, and are on-going even after all
this:
- threatening / blackmailing private emails,
- spreading false rumors about drugs and violence,
- spreading false rumors about local direct action groups,
- divulging non-public information about individuals and activist
  groups,
- sending private emails to people throughout global Indymedia with a
  version of the split that isn't what we agreed,
- engaging in a "free indybay" campaign that demands full compliance
  of the mediation terms from the SF Indymedia side after SFBAY has
  unilaterally violated the agreement with the space and still hasn't
  met other key terms of the mediation agreement

These breaches of the mediation agreement, violations of common sense
security, politically unwise and disruptive actions and sabotaging of
our process are also being framed as an alleged gender problem.

We believe these actions are endangering the future of local and
global Indymedia. At this point, we are in an uncomfortable situation
-- to global IMC, Whispered Media, Suite 216 members, other local
groups -- should we respond with what we think is the right thing,
i.e. our side of the story which details the months of threats,
intimidation, consensus process violations, private harrassment (all
of which occurred with SFBAY members threatening us to keep it a
secret)? Or should we keep up the agreements from the mediation to
portray a seamless "expansion" of SF Indymedia?

Equipment
The mediation agreement ws for us to inventory what was ours in the
space. SFBAY locked us out of the space around December 5 and
prevented this. Several other attempts to get our equipment were
prevented. SFBAY should accomodate us at our convenience to give us
this equipment with no strings attached.

Mailing Lists
On the night SFBAY decided to lock us out of the space, we informed
Mark that this would be a message to us to move forward with other
parts of the mediation agreement, like removing the mailing lists,
etc. He said that would be fine and they had already gotten what they
need. A few days later, the SF Indymedia group consensed to send a
letter to the global mailing list working group (listwork). On
December 13, the SFBAY group (through Lisa) sent several emails to
listwork insisting that we had acted maliciously, that we were
abusing tech power and sending yet another message to global IMC
that we were doing something wrong. We do not want to be penalized for
miscommunication and/or lack of process in the SFBAY group, and this
should be communicated to listwork.

Indybay.org
On the one attempt we made to get our equipment, SF Indymedia members
were ambushed by three SFBAY members who demanded that ownership of
Indybay.org be turned over to them. What was decided in the mediation
is that we would create an EveryDNS account, give Mark access to it,
and he could point the domain name record to SFBAY's server of choice.
While Lisa's resolution does not say one way or another (which would
mean it defaults to no change from the status quo), the notes from the
mediation clearly spell out that Indybay.org ownership was not decided
to be given to anyone. It is unfair for SFBAY to make this demand and
use it as a basis for their continued violation of the mediation
agreement.

PLEASE SEND A RESPONSE AND ALL FUTURE CORRESPONDENCE TO:
organizers at sfimc.net

- San Francisco Indymedia
  http://sf.indymedia.org/