[Imc-g8-2005] IMC UK G8 debt, hierarchy and regional 'pawns'

[Planet Mail]

Hi,

this seems mostly to be about a misunderstanding by steve.

It seems he thought that it was down to sheffield (and sheffield alone) to 
pay all of the 'debt' from the g8 reporting. Obvoulsy this is not the case.

I've replied to this mail bit by bit.

ciao,
dave

ps of course any help from sheff would be great, same from any other local 
groups!

At 11:10 03/10/2005, Chris wrote:
>Hi
>
>The suggestion, made by people from Sheffield, that we
>could combine the Indymedia weekend film festival we were
>planning at the end of November with a fund raising party
>to help with the G8 debt [1] has resulted in a huge row in
>Sheffield :-/
>
>Perhaps some people who were involved with the decision
>making about expenditure at the G8 might be interested in
>addressing some of the issues raised by Steve in the
>following emails?

ok - see below


>On Sat 01-Oct-2005 at 05:46:32PM +0100, Steve Against the
>War wrote:
> >
> > Personally I'm in favour of donating some money to the
> > IMC deficit but not all of it. After all we weren't
> > invited to comment on the borrowing of the money in the
> > first place.
> >
> > To me it seems out of order first getting into big debt
> > without consulting us and then wanting to use our event
> > (and presumably other IMCs) to pay it back. We're really
> > being used. It's a very unhealthy relationship. There's
> > a real hierarchy there.
>
>http://lists.indymedia.org/mailman/mmid/imc-sheffield/2005-1001-68
>
>On Sun 02-Oct-2005 at 01:45:15PM +0100, Steve Against the
>War wrote:
> >
> > Sheffield wasn't really invited to help with stuff in
> > Scotland at all.

Not true there are many emails on the imc-network list asking for input for 
months prior to the G8 itself. - Chris has done some memory archiving of 
this and of discussions in sheffield itself.

>All we got was an invite to join a
> > list to help with coordination.

Which was the main list being used to organise the media centres and the 
media activities, if people couldnt make the meetings then they could 
participate throught the lists. In fact that list was the main way most 
people who were working on the preparation for the g8 reporting kept in 
touch (though photo, radio, video, tech etc also used their own specific uk 
wide lists, and of course scotland imc used their own scotland lists for 
local organising as well).

>There was no
> > explanation of what that actually meant or what was
> > planned or how much money was needed or anything.

Sorry but this is simply not true. Back at the uk network meeting in march 
05 it was estimated that the G8 reporting could cost up to around £5000, 
and the notes included a run down of what activities / tasks / roles might 
take place.

All comms about the reporting also refered to the imc g8 wiki
It was here that as full as possible infos on what was being planned was kept.
http://docs.indymedia.org/view/Local/ImcUkG8

This included the major budget lines - hire of venue for edinburgh - 
payment for satellite vehicle + 20 laptop suite - purchase of computers - 
diy work on venue rooms - additional ADSL connectivity - projected faslane 
reporting costs etc

> >
> > Also the IMC coverage was heavily criticised by many.

?? I didn't hear that feedback. We certainly made critique ourselves about 
how we worked and what we could have done better, but my feedback was that 
the coverage pretty much rocked.

> > There was no centre running on the Wednesday morning
> > (day of action) when it was most needed and the people
> > who were supposed to be running it could not be found or
> > were in bed.

This is simply not true. I was along with others working from 3am (after 
one hrs sleep) - the centre in edinburgh was open wed morning, as it was 
every day.

> >
> > To me it feels like one group has gone off and done
> > their own thing, spent a load of money and then want
> > other groups to pitch in to the debt they incurred.

Sorry this just seems to be your preception. No offence but this was always 
going to be a 'uk network' project.
Such uk wide common projects have been few and far between. The server - 
some publicity flyers in the past etc.


>But
> > we've had no input into how or what the money should be
> > spent on. There is no accountability.

Yes there is - see the wiiki with the financial breakdown.
If you'd wanted to you could have had input, it's as simple as that, but 
that would have meant you being proactive and actually inputting in the 
months beforehand.

>It's bit like the
> > government spending people's taxes. A similar kind of
> > relationship, although any donation we make is voluntary
> > - though there is still an expectation we should
> > contribute.

Pers I think there should be a expectation that all imc groups do 
contribute _something_
Sheff of course does not have to, and yes any contribution is voluntary.

> >
> > A revealing way to think about this is to see how it
> > would work if things were the other way round. Let's
> > suppose our group decided on an Indymedia project of
> > some sort or other and we ended up with a big debt
> > afterwards. Would the rest of the UK IMC network want to
> > put on fundraisers to help us out?

Well i think they should if the 'activity' sheff imc engaged in had been
a) proposed and agreed as a uk network project at a uk imc network meeting 
several months in advance
b) that activity involved people from every local collective, and was 
clearly the biggest project ever done by indymedia uk network.

>Personally I wouldn't
> > even want to ask the rest of the network as I'd feel it
> > was our responsibility.

Maybe yes, if you had not consultated and only sheff imc people had been 
inviolved in the project.

Also, and i think importantly, part of being in a network is solidarity.
In the past imc's like bristol and scotland have requested or recieved 
assistance finnancially either as donations or loans. Fundraising parties 
have been held. It's about solidarity, and it's important.

London, and others too, did a lot to organise fundraising which went 
towards the uk server, which benefits all local collectives on the server. 
Thats's cool.

> > By simply fundraising for things which we have no input
> > into how they're run or how the money is spent we are
> > basically pawns.

You did have the opportunity to input - did you?

>The money has already been spent so
> > there is absolutely no way for us to involve ourselves
> > in this process now - except give our money away.
> > Surely this is the kind of social relationship we are
> > trying to get away from?
> >
> > Now, I realise the G8 thing was a national thing and
> > that most if not all IMC's would have wanted to happen.
> > But I do think if the group organising the G8 stuff
> > could have said before the G8, "This project is going to
> > cost us X amount, this is what we want to do, will other
> > IMC's help raise the funds either before or afterwards?"

We did. You obviously missed it.

Personaly I think spending around 3.5K on the set up and reporting
of the G8 is amazing value for money.

> > it would have allowed us to input into that decision by
> > saying either yes we'll help or no we won't or we'll
> > give you so much towards this.
> >
> > I agree with helping out (I suggested up to 50% of our
> > profits) I just don't think we should give all our money
> > away,

giving some of the money sounds fair but obviously
that's up to you sheff folks to sort out.

cheers,
dave


>esp.  when we've had no input into the spending.
> >
> > We are defintely not the only place in the country with
> > a space. There were 7 social centres set up specifically
> > for Dissent stuff. I think Manchester and Leeds have one
> > each for starters, and they have them for at least a
> > year too. Other places, like Notts and Brighton have
> > even longer term spaces - Sumac and Cowley. With the
> > uncertain future and temporary nature of Matilda,
> > Sheffield is probably worse off than most other cities
> > for social spaces.
> >
> > Also if a group wants to fundraise they can do so in a
> > number of different ways. Squat parties or even hiring
> > somewhere are common methods.
> >
> > There are 14 IMC collectives in the UK so I really don't
> > think the burden should fall on us just because we have
> > Matilda.
>
>http://lists.indymedia.org/mailman/mmid/imc-sheffield/2005-1002-9n
>
>On Mon 03-Oct-2005 at 12:47:55AM +0100, Steve Against the
>War wrote:
> >
> > I think a post about plans, costs etc. to the Sheffield
> > list would have sufficed.
> >
> > I had no idea of what there was to get involved in so I
> > never even had the chance to consider it. This was not
> > well networked.
> >
> > If we planned to do something involving the whole
> > network - like say the UK network meeting - the first
> > thing we'd do (did in fact) is post an email all the
> > local lists with detailed explanation of what we
> > intended to do.
> >
> > Your low expectation of the G8 group is completely at
> > odds with what we would do if we if we organising a
> > national project.
> >
> > So there is the hierarchy: those that worked on the G8
> > stuff cannot be criticised by those who are simply
> > paying the bill.
> >
> > I feel very strongly against this.
> >
> > If we're non-hierarchical my input is as valid as anyone
> > elses. I have the right the question how the money we
> > raise is going to be spent.
> >
> > I think if there is an expectation of all groups to
> > contribute to something then all groups should at least
> > been sent some basic info about what was going on. The
> > onus is on the leading group to inform us not expect us
> > to trawl though email lists when we don't even know what
> > we're looking for.
>
>http://lists.indymedia.org/mailman/mmid/imc-sheffield/2005-1002-3q
>
>Chris
>
>[1] http://lists.indymedia.org/mailman/mmid/imc-sheffield/2005-0929-n9
>
>--
>Aktivix -- Free Software for a Free World
>_______________________________________________
>Imc-g8-2005 mailing list
>Imc-g8-2005 at lists.indymedia.org
>http://lists.indymedia.org/mailman/listinfo/imc-g8-2005