[Payment-discuss] Payment-discuss Digest, Vol 2, Issue 38

Mr. Demeanour mrdemeanour at jackpot.uk.net
Sat Feb 17 09:47:40 PST 2007


Michelle Shumate wrote:
> Stacy and others,
> 
> Thanks for the clarification for why there was such concern about the
>  UC-IMC collective.  If the concern is the structure and legal status
> of the organization BECAUSE we have been the fiscal sponsor of the
> global network since 2002, that makes more sense to me.  Then it
> isn't about saying what another IMC should or should not do, but
> looking for alternatives for the global bank account.

There's concern about UC-IMC quite aside from the fact that it is the
"fiscal sponsor" of the global network (which I think means nothing more
than that UC-IMC legitimises and collects tax-free donations for it).
These are two separate issues, both of which I believe to be on-topic
for this list.

Personally, I prefer not to get too excited about how another collective
chooses to organise itself, as long as that doesn't affect the rest of
the network negatively.

But I'm not at all comfortable that global is "sponsored" by UC. I'm not
comfortable that it's sponsored at all; to be able to accept
tax-deductible donations, it has to get into legal arrangements with the
US Government, whether directly or indirectly. I'm not greatly inclined
to trust the US Government. And frankly, I don't trust UC-IMC either.
There's been too much of the "Global Indymedia Headquarters" nonsense
coming from that place.

How badly would donations to global be impacted, if global were to
renounce it's US government privileges? And, do the tax-deductions
accrue to the donor or to the recipient?

-- 
Jack.

Before we were the fiscal sponsor, it is my
> understanding that Jam for Justice and Seattle did the same thing for
> the network (see link for the proposal that got us 
> here<http://archives.lists.indymedia.org/imc-finance/2002-February/001106.html>).
> 
> 
> UC-IMC has always stated we didn't want to be the fiscal sponsor
> forever, have encouraged other solutions including a rotation among
> IMCs who have legal status, and even global indymedia becoming its
> own legal entity. There is a danger in moving the global money to a
> person's bank account (less accountability and less legal recourse if
> something should go wrong), and there has been too much in the
> account to put in a shoebox (when we first began fiscal sponsorship
> is was $46K).
> 
> As for Cat's concern about the board being able to change the
> by-laws, legally a vote of the membership would be required to change
> the by-laws. We have had several such votes, which lead to our
> current structure document available on the website (www.ucimc.org).
> 
> As for the consulta, could we change #6 to be more internationally
> neutral. Maybe something like: Is your indymedia center legally
> recognized? Then we might give some examples (non-profit corporation,
> association, etc.).  My concern is that non-profit
> corporation/association is primarly a US tax law thing and it may not
> make sense to our international comrades.
> 
> The consulta looks good to me otherwise and I like the idea of a
> deadline presented.
> 
> Michelle
> 
> 
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________ Payment-discuss
> mailing list Payment-discuss at lists.indymedia.org 
> http://lists.indymedia.org/mailman/listinfo/payment-discuss



More information about the Payment-discuss mailing list