[Payment-discuss] Payment-discuss Digest, Vol 2, Issue 34

[dan blah]

On 2/17/07, bmedia at riseup.net <bmedia at riseup.net> wrote:
> stacy,
>
> thanks so much for saying all that. i was so disheartened by the
> direction of discussion on this list, i was actually thinking i would
> just unsubscribe. not because i don't believe this to be an extremely
> important issue, but simply because i was feeling like i just don't
> have the strength to keep finding the words to explain why it's so
> important. thanks to you for coming up with the right words.
>
>
> > Eventually, with most 501(c)3's that I've seen, the
> > activism is shed gradually to accommodate the needs of the structure.
>
>
>
> this has been exactly my experience as well. and that of most of the
> people i know who have been involved with this structure.
>
> and regarding this:
>
>
>
>
> > The reason that UCIMC is the focus of so much controversy over any
> > other collective is because it controls the global indy bank account.
> > This is perhaps the only instance where the global network is
> > represented by only one collective - in all other areas, the
> > collectives are autonomous and not legally linked to any other
> > collective unless they choose to be.  So this quite understandably
> > makes people nervous.  It is the point at which the theory of
> > non-heirarchical organizing hits the pavement of the extremely
> > heirarchical capitalist system, and so it needs to be discussed at
> > length to be sure that all collectives are heard - even if they are
> > saying things that you don't like to hear.
>
>
>
> yes. that's exactly the problem. i would not be worrying about what
> some other IMC is doing, if it did not directly impact the work that i
> am trying to do. which is what has happened, on more than one
> occasion, with the money issue as represented by UC.
>
> in the work that i do, i am often talking to people who don't talk to
> the media.  it is very hard, and necessary, to earn (and deserve!)
> their trust. that means trust in me, in what i do, and trust in the
> fact that i am not the corporate media, and i am not going to sell
> them out. often, they are very careful about this. i am thinking as i
> write this about one occasion in which i was shooting a video which is
> still sitting unfinished on a drive somewhere. i needed an interview
> with someone. it was very important. i had worked for months to build
> a relationship with this person, who was very skittish about the whole
> thing. he really needed to be able to trust me, and my motives, before
> he was going to say anything publically. it took lots and lots of work
> to build this trust, to show him that this really was about getting
> out the truth, and not in selling a product. and then, he brought up
> UC. he had done some research, he said. and it turns out that there IS
> a hierarchy, there is a "global headquarters" of indy, there is a
> connection between indymedia and the state, and who is pulling those
> strings? nothing i could do would convince him that there was no
> connection between portland imc and UC imc. because the story told by
> UC seems to be that they are the global headquarters....
>
Just for the record, that is not the opinion of the members here at
UC.  We have more than one fiscal sponsor or similar arrangements and
with none of them do we claim to be some sort of headquarters.  It is
locally understood we are one of many IMC's globally and to my
knowledge most local members have no idea our direct relation with the
global fund.  It seems to me this idea that we are the global
headquarters is another unwarranted idea held by the global community.
 Again it seems this forum, as I have reviewed past forums on similar
topics, has become just another place to publicly degrade the UC IMC
with the same unwarranted opinions and ideas without viable
alternative suggestions.  I joined this list for the chance to hear
real potential structure changes.  Could someone point me to where
those have been discussed?  It would seem the majority are more
concerned that UC IMC be mindful of its position... we are very much
so.  Local members concerned or curious of our internal workings
discuss this issue often.

I am very open to viable suggestions on how the global fund should be
manged but have yet to see how transferring the funds from either one
501c3 to another solves the issue or how moving the funds to an entity
not recognized by a government solves more problems than it creates.
The closest thing to a working suggestion I have seen is the use of
another organization to work as a proxy or firewall for the global
fund and other IMC's.  How is this not currently being done by UC-IMC?

I very much agree that organizational structure has bearing on the
root issue of this forum and like the idea of payment being a local
per collective decision.  I am finding it very hard to take outside
suggestions seriously from uninformed global members who's collective
has very different local involvement and responsibilities.  Could the
other global collectives that have a similar membership base,
comparative outreach capabilities, comparative building space, and
similar financial responsibility's explain to me how you are managing
it all?  How have you ensured a minimum needed 10 to 20 hours of
bookkeeping is completed so your collective can remain a vital
community resource?  How are you keeping up with maintenance and
utility needs if you have a space?

I am also curious how you all in Portland and other IMC's, having
renounced accepting funding, are able to afford computer equipment to
master your productions, the equipment to present your productions,
and your tapes/cameras to create your productions?  Who's paying for
your hosting, bandwidth, and administration?

Lastly, I think the consulta is an awesome idea and believe we need as
many completed responses before we can constructively continue these
discussions.  I would like to see a couple additional items added:
How many active members are in your collective.  What is the estimated
population surrounding your collective.


> so when we talk about local autonomy, we also need to reflect on the
> fact that an IMC which has intentionally chosen to set itself up as
> some kind of hub for all IMCs does not really have the luxury of
> appealing to "local autonomy" when it makes decisions that are
> fundamentally at odds with what some of the rest of us would have
> chosen.
>
> stacy said all that better than i did, but i wanted to underline that.
>
> Cat
> _______________________________________________
> Payment-discuss mailing list
> Payment-discuss at lists.indymedia.org
> http://lists.indymedia.org/mailman/listinfo/payment-discuss
>


-- 
Daniel