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

[Michelle Shumate]

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.  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
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.indymedia.org/pipermail/payment-discuss/attachments/20070217/300284a2/attachment.html