|
Comment on this article |
View comments |
Email this Article
|
|
News :: Media |
|
The Money Pit, continued |
Current rating: 0 |
by malatesta
Email: malatesta1000 (nospam) yahoo.com (verified) |
09 Jun 2005
|
|
Notes from the most recent meeting to manage the work and expenses related to the IMC Clubhouse. |
June 8 05 “Space Group Minutes”
By Sandra. Attending: Bob I, Mike L, Danielle C, Todd R.
IMC members / supporters needed to:
- return IMC library books to shelves (should take about 3-5 hours) (contact
Sandra)
- write letter to previous funders (contact Sandra)
- organize tour for previous funders (contact Sandra)
- call Carpetland and other places and get large carpet pieces donated.
(contact Sandra)
- help paint walls Sunday June 12 (contact Mike L)
- help paint walls June 18 & 19 (contact Mike L)
- move items from High Cross Studio to artist collective June 18 (contact
Sandra)
- Video person to tape upcoming training regarding HVAC (contact Mike)
- line and number (paint) 17 parking spots)
-We need a parking lease manager. We have 17 spaces to rent out and need
someone in charge of this for the year. Probably about 10-20 hours first
month and an hour or so a month after that. (contact Sandra or Danielle).
Library: Shelves will be in meeting room.
LifeSafety: Mike asked for ok to budget about $500 to outsource repair of
all emergency and exit lights. In addition he will get light about outside
stairs fixes and has replaced all broken switch plates. Consensus
Artist Collective:
Consensus on OK to proceed. Danielle and Sandra to meet with Troy regarding
liability insurance. Sandra will post details to IMC list and many other
lists to promote.
Lease update: Larry Silkwood(lawyer) (1st floor postmaster room) has
signed. Lawyer Brian (pink and green rooms) is still to decide. Life
Strategies Institute (blue room) (Ammons and V. Clark) have signed. Sandra
is signing (NW corner lower level). Miko will sign (NW corner lower level
smaller room). All require damage deposits.
Roofing: We have bids coming from two traditional roofers (Gire and Nogle).
Need to specify rubber instead of tar and gravel. Wayne Cain has given us
bid – does include tear off; does not include fixing ceiling cracks (about
$38,000). Bid yet to come on reflective roofing. Will come from Wayne Cain.
Todd is looking into all the potential advantages / disadvantages.
Energy/ HVAC: Mike and Todd suggest we contract with “Comfort Mechanical”
which is owned by Denny (whose business through various incarnations has
service this building for years). Denny also was pleasant and willing to
work with us to train / help /allow us to do several things ourselves that
Mike felt would be very beneficial. The inspections / routine maintenance
are usually $3027 per year. He will teach us to do the quick filter changes…
have us buy our own filters and get that cost down to about $1900. We are
overdue for the first inspection (AC) and the group authorized Mike to spend
the $1000 on this.
Liability / BOD insurance: Danielle gave a full report. Group gave
authorization to purchase BOD insurance and to shop for new liability
policy.
Line of Credit / Fund Raising: We have five major purchases yet this year.
1) Security wall for separation of PO from rest of 1st floor ($25K - $50K)
2) fixing toilets downstairs
3) fixing front (PO entrance) steps so they don’t leak (into basement)
4) 1/3 of roof to be replaced
5) proper sign for us and tenants
Danielle is going to pursue line of credit. But we need someone to organize
fundraising effort specifically around these items. Stressing that we have a
building that is in “steller shape” – but needs these known improvements to
transition it to a full community use building.
Parking: We have 17 spaces available at $30 each. (or $20 if you are a
postal employee). Sandra is fielding calls. Zoe is fliering. Sandra is
getting lease ready. |
This work is in the public domain |
Comments
|
In the words of Thomas Carlyle |
by gehrig
(No verified email address) |
Current rating: 0
09 Jun 2005
|
"Only a torch for burning, no hammer for building? Take our thanks, then, and--thyself away."
@%< |
|
Malatesta, The Landlord's Friend |
by Dose of Reality
(No verified email address) |
Current rating: 0
09 Jun 2005
|
malatesticle obviously would be happier if the IMC was spending $700 a month to build equity for a landlord -- and not for the IMC -- in an inadequate building that was not able to serve the community. It would be dangerous to him if the IMC were actually able to serve all the needs and requests that have been brought to it over the years, but which had to be turned away because of our limited old Main St. space. He would rather that the IMC get thrown into the street on 30 days notice when the price finally gets low enough for the bar next door to buy our old space from our landlord. He's the kind of guy that did nothing but sit on his hands when others did the hard work for the IMC to buy its own building, one that many, many people wanted us to buy and to finally be the mistress of our own fate.
If maletestosterone is really an IMC member and ever had Plan B, he sure never presented it as an alternative at any of the several big meetings on the building search and purcahse that I attended.
Real independence for our IMC is something dangerous for the malformed one. He's working hard to make independence seem like a bad idea, but he's too damn lazy but to do anything but repost something that is publiclly available on the IMC lists -- BFD.
The rest of us should be working to now do what we've worked hard for nearly five years to do, something which was repeatedly affirmed by all those present at numerous meetings over the last three years. The PO building is the kind of facility that the growing and diverse community that uses the IMC in various ways wanted the IMC to have, by showing their support in a variety of material and non-material ways that allowed us to initiate this project.
All that's here is the implementation of things I myself have heard at several meetings over the last six months. I am glad that things are moving forward and need to see where I can help. |
|
Re: The Money Pit, continued |
by malatesta
(No verified email address) |
Current rating: 0
09 Jun 2005
|
Dose -- your epithets are childish. You really shoud experiment with countering an argument without resorting to neener neener boo boo.
Disagree with me. Hate me. But grow up, little one. |
|
Re: The Money Pit, continued |
by cmb
(No verified email address) |
Current rating: 0
09 Jun 2005
|
Show me a movement without a physical base, and I'll show you a hobby.
Congrats to the UC-IMC on their acquisition, and fie on the jealous hobbyists condemning them for it.
- not a member |
|
Re: The Money Pit, continued |
by malatesta
(No verified email address) |
Current rating: 0
09 Jun 2005
|
"Show me a movement without a physical base, and I'll show you a hobby."
Really? Let me try . . .
Show me a movement without a physical base, and I'll show you:
Animal Liberation Front
Earth Liberation Front
Zapatista Revolution Front
Revolutionary Armed Forces of Columbia
(FARC)
Tupac Amaru (Shining Path -- Peru)
United Force of Caucasian Mujahadein (Chechnya)
You want to talk about hobbies? Visit the clubhouse. There's arts and crafts and all sorts of other "movements" going on. |
|
Re: The Money Pit, continued |
by malatesta
(No verified email address) |
Current rating: 0
09 Jun 2005
|
I guess, for the sake of inclusion, I should add to the list of "movements without a physical base," virtually every other IMC on the planet.
Unless, of course, they now enjoy the benefits of UCIMC serving as the headquarters for the global imc network. |
|
Re: The Money Pit, continued |
by Sam
(No verified email address) |
Current rating: 0
09 Jun 2005
|
|
malatesta, you forgot to add Al Qaeda to your list of "movements without a physical base." You can join one of those groups if you want to. I'm sticking with the UCIMC, thank you. |
|
Re: The Money Pit, continued |
by curious
(No verified email address) |
Current rating: 0
09 Jun 2005
|
I am curious, malatesta, what do you really want to achieve right now? These people, who are mentioned as meeting's attendees, DIDN'T BOTHER to show the list of contributors. Actually, their behavior confirms that contributions WERE ILLEGITIMATE at the point of all imc requirements. What are you trying more to achieve with them? Their political activism is DICTATED by these contributors, whom they refused to disclose.
Who might these secret contributors be is very obvious. Once again, I can't understand what else might anyone with the conscience
or honesty expect now from these people.
To teach DoR (DC) ANYTHING is pretty much the waste of time, isn't it obvious also?
They have placed themselves in the biggest and the stingiest possible puddle, aren't they?
Other imc should either make decisive actions about them or forget their existence. I think that there is no third choice, or is there? Simply curious. |
|
Re: The Money Pit, continued |
by gehrig
(No verified email address) |
Current rating: 0
09 Jun 2005
|
And once again the anony-mouse is pounding the desk and demanding names.
I guess she's going to make a habit of that.
@%< |
|
Solidarity to Malatesta, but... |
by Paul Kotheimer
herringb (nospam) prairienet.org (unverified) |
Current rating: 0
09 Jun 2005
|
I think Malatesta ought to be free to post without the ad hominem bullshit from Dose of Reality and without the "cherry-picking troll" accusations flying around from many regulars here. And as far as the "too lazy to do such-and-such" dismissals, hasn't M. already told us (s)he doesn't live in Illinois?
Can we please have an online conversation that doesn't resort to this kind of ugliness?
On the other hand, Malatesta might want to do some research. Almost all 501(c)3 organizations keep their donor lists strictly confidential, mostly to assure donors that their contact info. won't be sold to some target margeting factoid database.
If you are interested in gathering the information Malatesta is clamoring for, your local government documents librarian might be able to help you dig up whatever is part of the public record. The UIUC Government Documents Library is located in Room 200D of the Main Library, phone # (217)244-6445. I'm not saying you'll find what Malatesta is looking for. But you might.
Finally, I'd like to thank Malatesta for choosing that pseudodnym, as it got me interested in the original Malatesta:
Errico Malatesta,
Italian anarchist, agitator & theorist.
Frequently escaped execution & often traveled in disguise.
Born in Santa Maria Capua Vetere, Italy 1853, died in Rome 1932.
Important Italian anarchist militant & thinker; member of the Naples section of the International Working Men's Association (IWMA); from 1872 member of the Fraternité intime, derived from Mikhail Bakunin's earlier inner group of 1864; imprisoned many times for his revolutionary activities from 1873 on & repeatedly forced into exile to evade imprisonment; developed in 1876 together with Covelli & Carlo Cafiero a theory of anarchist communism.
Malatesta took part in the abortive uprising of Benevento in the Neapolitan mountains in 1877; published a weekly, La Questione Sociale, in Florence 1883-1884, resumed in Argentina 1885-1889 & again in Paterson, New Jersey, USA around 1900; opposed the Marxists at the London International Socialist Conference of 1896; prepared the unsuccesful anarchist revolt before & during the Red Week of the Romagna in June 1914; edited UmanitĂ nova Milan/Rome 1920-1921 & Pensiero e VolontĂ 1924-1926.
Malatesta lived under house arrest by the Fascist government during the last years of his life.
SOURCE http://recollectionbooks.com/bleed/Encyclopedia/MalatestaErrico.htm |
|
The Crux of Malatesta's argument |
by Paul Kotheimer
herringb (nospam) prairienet.org (unverified) |
Current rating: 0
09 Jun 2005
|
In my previous comment, I got so caught up in the peripheral chatter that I forgot to address the very issue Malatesta raises (as we all have, it seems to me):
Malatesta raises the question: "If UCIMC is collecting big dollars from some donors, couldn't that transaction turn into influence-peddling, if the UCIMC participants fall asleep at the helm?"
This strikes me as a valid concern, but it provokes the simple question "Influence over WHAT?"
It seems to me that the one thing most influencing the UCIMC at this point is its mortgage payment. The lending institution hasn't demanded final copy approval over the text of the Public I-- Have they?
So I would like to take Malatesta at face value, and answer the concern simply by saying I'm confused as to how disclosing the names of donors would change anything.
I am willing to disclose my own donation: I donated 100 copies of my CD release SERIOUS FOLKING MUSIC to the Capital Campaign in 2003-04: Total market value of $1500. Cost to me, $72 plus countless hours of labor. The Capital Campaign paid for the duplication of the discs. A team of volunteers helped assemble the packaging. The CD's went out as "pledge premiums" to Capital Campaign donors in September of 2004, I think. |
|
Re: The Money Pit, continued |
by curious
(No verified email address) |
Current rating: 0
09 Jun 2005
|
|
The research about 'malatesta' pen name is nice and entertaining. However, there is still no information where ucimc has gotten their $75,00.00 from. Thanks, of course, for Paul information, but $1,500.00 is not equal to 75,000.00. And there is no doubt in anybody's mind that solid financial dependency is the complete ideological dependency, isn't it? |
|
Re: The Money Pit, continued |
by malatesta
(No verified email address) |
Current rating: 0
09 Jun 2005
|
Mr. Kotheimer's comments are much appreciated, and I'm glad he took the opportunity to learn a bit about my namesake. He was a great man.
In the spirit of congenial discourse, I'd like to suggest that my position, while it may strike some as extreme, does have its roots in what I -- at least -- consider to be valid concerns.
There is a potentially slippery slope that all too easily leads away from action and towards a self-satisfied comfort. Property accumulation is one of the most common approaches to that slippery slope.
I'm not sure that non-profits always keep their donors confidential -- their addresses, etc, perhaps, but not necessarily their names and contributions (or contributions within specified levels -- e.g. $100 - $500).
All the same, I have no misgivings about rabble rousing here, since there are important questions at stake. And it would, in my view, be truly disappointing if, for the sake of a building, or comfort, or equity, or whatever you want to call it, issues are given short shrift. Thanks again to Mr. K. |
|
Re: The Money Pit, continued |
by Another Imcista
(No verified email address) |
Current rating: 0
09 Jun 2005
|
|
There is no currently and never was any regulation for not-profit organization to prohibit the disclosures of their contributors names. Contributions of local authors, though made with best intentions, seldom achieve the projected values, as projected sales are mainly higher than occurred ones The disclosure of contributors' names and addresses is the very important gesture for ucimc to vindicate themselves. It is very, very strange that they refuse to do it. I am starting to think that numerous accusations against ucimc within last month were not baseless, not at all. |
|
Re: The Money Pit, continued |
by curious
(No verified email address) |
Current rating: 0
09 Jun 2005
|
|
What accusations, another imcista? |
|
Re: The Money Pit, continued |
by Another Imcista
(No verified email address) |
Current rating: 0
09 Jun 2005
|
Just those accusation, which, probably, another 'curious' referred to in this threat.
Comments to last articles of 'malatesta' (since 5/9/05)are the very long story. Read them all, and they would answer ALL your questions. I, myself, have no time and mainly desire to rewrite all these comments for you again. Help yourself, another 'curious'! |
|
Re: The Money Pit, continued |
by malatesta
(No verified email address) |
Current rating: 0
10 Jun 2005
|
"So I would like to take Malatesta at face value, and answer the concern simply by saying I'm confused as to how disclosing the names of donors would change anything."
The general problem with mainstream media is that the money behind it influences what gets reported, and how it gets reported. Now, the scale may be vastly different, but if imc's are getting into substantial fundraising in order to do things such as purchase real estate, then I don't see why it's irrational to wonder who is putting in the money, and to what extent do major funders influence how the organization is run.
The whole issue with the media and with politicians is transparency. And when ucimc steadfastly declines to acknowledge anyone who might have put, say, ten thousand dollars, into its coffers, then it begs certain questions.
If you go to any museum, you'll find information on plaques and other places that provide the names of donors. Same with non-profit hospitals, symphony orchestras, theatre companies, etc etc.
PBS is now running quasi-commercials for its major funders. While it concerns me -- a lot -- that companies like GE and BP are supporting "public broadcasting", at least we know they are doing so.
Integrity is precious. And it's something you either have or don't have. And once there's doubt, you're done. |
|
Re: The Money Pit, continued |
by curious
(No verified email address) |
Current rating: 0
10 Jun 2005
|
|
So there are no accusations against UCIMC, then? I thought to. |
|
Re: The Money Pit, continued |
by curious
(No verified email address) |
Current rating: 0
10 Jun 2005
|
|
I am the 'curious' who posted here all comments except of two last. I want to be not confused with the one who posted two last comments, as he/she is exhibiting the natural or artificial but the very deep and broad type of idiotism. He/she could deserve maybe disability for that if continues the same way, but I am employed and treasure my employment . So, I have not posted two last comments under the name 'curious'. |
|
Re: The Money Pit, continued |
by gehrig
(No verified email address) |
Current rating: 0
10 Jun 2005
|
It is not merely an "accusation" but a fact that, yes, UC-IMC has donors, some of them anonymous, some of them not.
The Capital Campaign was hardly done on the sly -- there's a link to it right under the UC-IMC logo. While the campaign was going on, we never heard from the more-Marxist-than-thou.
Then it bore fruit. Suddenly F.U.D. attacks come out of the (anonymous) woodwork, some of them quite (anonymously) manic, some of them just (anonymously) pissy, several of them complaining (anonymously) that the givers are anonymous.
The capacity for anonymity has been part of the IMC Principles of Unity for as long as there's been an Indymedia network. A few posts from a few anonyms isn't about to change that.
@%< |
|
Re: The Money Pit, continued |
by La Ley
(No verified email address) |
Current rating: 0
10 Jun 2005
|
|
Hi gehrig, I don't think that receiving donations for a capital campaign qualifies as an accusation. I think that curious was referring to the accusation that the Federal Government is subsidizing and/or subverting the UCIMC to serve the right-wing agenda. I'd like to see proof of this. |
|
Re: The Money Pit, continued |
by curious
(No verified email address) |
Current rating: 0
10 Jun 2005
|
If main money are paid by contributors who can be tracked to federal (state) governments and/or mob sources, it would be a proof. Or , if main contributors OBVIOUSLY have nothing to do with both of these kinds of entities, it would be the vindication from suspicions. That is why this disclosure is so important, and the refusal to do it, is the self-confirmation of guilt, and nothing less. Malatesta, I, Another Imcista and many others in different threats agreed with it. That is how all not profit organizations ARE PROVING currently their integrity. Why should ucimc be an exception?
No reason for that.
There is no third way here: either the disclosure of main contributors, or self -admission of the major breach of the very meaning of 'independence'
with all corresponding implications. Ucimc should make its choice, unless, as it seems, it is already fully made. |
|
Re: The Money Pit, continued |
by La Ley
(No verified email address) |
Current rating: 0
10 Jun 2005
|
So, curious admits that there is no proof. I don't think that there are any regulations requiring non-profit organizations to disclose contributor lists. However, if there are such regulations, I would ask curious to post them or to post a link to them so that the UCIMC can determine whether they are in compliance.
I would also like to ask curious why she/he thinks that the UCIMC is receiving illicit federal and/or mob funds. If you have no evidence for this, then you are defaming UCIMC. |
|
Re: The Money Pit, continued |
by malatesta
(No verified email address) |
Current rating: 0
10 Jun 2005
|
|
I suppose at this point I should explicitly distance myself from Curious' position. I am not suggesting that anyone from the government or organized crime contributed to the building fund. That is clearly not my point. |
|
Re: The Money Pit, continued |
by La Ley
(No verified email address) |
Current rating: 0
10 Jun 2005
|
Here's some information for curious to digest:
from http://www.ombwatch.org/npadv/2000/campfinstatement.html:
Congress has historically recognized the importance of shielding most nonprofit donor information from public disclosure. Section 501(c) organizations must report certain donor information to the IRS as part of their exemption applications and annual tax filings. Those documents must be made publicly available, but the names and addresses of donors are excluded from public disclosure.(2) The constitutional dimension of donor disclosure was most notably set out in NAACP v. Alabama,(3) which recognized the right of organizational members to join together to advocate on issues without revealing their individual identities. Subsequently, the Court in Buckley v. Valeo recognized the potential that donor disclosure has for infringing on First Amendment rights.(4) The record keeping, reporting, and donor disclosure requirements imposed by FECA on candidates and political committees were upheld only after a finding that they furthered government interests that were both significant and substantially related to the information required to be disclosed.
Any attempt to mandate the disclosure of donors to nonprofit organizations must be evaluated in light of this standard. Requiring disclosure of contributions earmarked for narrowly-defined electioneering communications would probably be tailored to achieve the goal of making public information about what is perceived as "surreptitious" campaign spending. On the other hand, a requirement of the disclosure of all donors if an organization engages, as any part of its activity, in certain types of advocacy, sweeps far broader, imposes a greater burden on associational rights, and effectively penalizes groups for engaging in political speech at the core of the First Amendment's protections.
Disclosure of itemized expenditures, either of an entire organization or for particular activities, raises similar First Amendment concerns. Mandating disclosure of the identity of those who receive payments from an organization could include potentially private information, such as employee reimbursements. As was recognized in Brown v. Socialist Workers '74 Campaign Committee(5), it is not only those who contribute to or join organizations representing unpopular causes who may be subject to harassment or intimidation; those who choose to do business with such groups may be targeted because of that connection as well. While disclosing which office supply store an entity patronizes is unlikely to have negative ramifications, the clients of individual consultants or small firms may very well reflect the consultant's political convictions. Working with a controversial organization is sometimes not just an economic statement. |
|
Re: The Money Pit, continued |
by gehrig
(No verified email address) |
Current rating: 0
10 Jun 2005
|
curious: "If main money are paid by contributors who can be tracked to federal (state) governments and/or mob sources"
Don't forget space aliens. If we can demonstrate that major donations came from either Mars or Neptune, that would have _serious_ ramifications.
Really, more than enough time has been wasted on this non-issue. The purchase was a UC-IMC effort using UC-IMC donors and UC-IMC labor and overseen by UC-IMC committees like Steering. The idea that some spook is going to jump from the shadows now and turn the whole thing into -- oh, I don't know, a neo-con think tank -- just because UC-IMC is going to own its own space instead of renting someone else's is just absurd.
@%< |
|
Re: The Money Pit, continued |
by La Ley
(No verified email address) |
Current rating: 0
10 Jun 2005
|
malatesta, I think that you're getting caught in some crossfire involving a disgruntled person whose posting privileges to UCIMC were revoked for harrassing others by name. This person, and possibly a troll or two who enjoy imitating her, have jumped on every opportunity to badmouth UCIMC, regardless of the issue involved. I tend to either ignore these people, or ask them incisive questions that usually expose their agenda.
You seem to be different, so I'd like to carry on a civil conversation with you. You seem to be sincere in your anarchical anti-capitalist beliefs. Not everyone at UCIMC, or indeed at any other IMC, necessarily shares the same beliefs, and it's not fair to force an organization to conform to ideological beliefs that not all of its members share. That's why decisions are based on consensus, something that everyone can agree with.
I see your point that rich donors could make large contributions and expect to get something in return. I don't know what to do about that, because there also has to be a balance that protects the privacy of those who wouldn't contribute if they knew their personal information were made public. UCIMC is viewed as a progressive organization by some, and a subversive organization by others. It does, however, operate within the confines of the law. Perhaps the amounts of large contributions can be made public, and the donor asked if they want their name to be made public, but beyond that, I'm a believer in privacy rights. You might find other people who think differently. At any rate, current policy won't be changed unless people who want changes start showing up at meetings and demand change. And then, the result will have to be something that everyone can live with. |
|
Re: The Money Pit, continued |
by curious
(No verified email address) |
Current rating: 0
10 Jun 2005
|
When people or entities are getting some privileges as public figures and/or leading public entities then privacy rights (their and around them) are reduced (or erased) automatically.
It is nothing new in numerous attempts of ucimc to blame anything and everything on troll(s). However, once again, this situation is not allowing the third exit; it is either or... People above twenty one years old are entitled and obligated by lives' realities to make decisions and to leave with them after that. So, what would be or was umimc decision? |
|
Put up or... |
by La Ley
(No verified email address) |
Current rating: 0
10 Jun 2005
|
|
curious writes: "When people or entities are getting some privileges as public figures and/or leading public entities then privacy rights (their and around them) are reduced (or erased) automatically." Can you cite a source for this assertion, curious? I cited a source with legal precedents that says the opposite. |
|
Re: The Money Pit, continued |
by magician apprentice(an awful one)
(No verified email address) |
Current rating: 0
10 Jun 2005
|
I watched transformation of La Ley into La Luz. When did he/she/it transform back?
When should happen the encore of the first transformation? I wish I would be able to do the same. Unfortunately, his/her/its reasoning has no sense and look like pure trick in any stage. |
|
Re: The Money Pit, continued |
by curious
(No verified email address) |
Current rating: 0
10 Jun 2005
|
If you were right there were no rules imposed on public officials , pertinent to acceptance of ANY donations. And these rules are existing and are very solid and clear. So, copy them and you would have all answers to the questions you asked me.
I am sorry La Ley, I think I agree with this 'magician app..' about your reasoning and your ways of conversation. So, I don't feel right answering your questions, as they are deliberately senseless, and it would be the waste of my time in the best scenario, I also watched you in not the best, like with Steve Bisset, and I don't want any part in these kinds of scenarios. So, don't address any of your questions to me. |
|
Put up or... |
by La Ley
(No verified email address) |
Current rating: 0
10 Jun 2005
|
curious says: "And these rules are existing and are very solid and clear." If these rules are existing and solid and clear, then present them, specifically with reference to non-profit organizations. If these rules are "solid and clear," then you must be looking at them. Personally, I can't find them--I think that they don't exist. I await your reply.
An aside to magician's apprentice: I'm not La Luz any more than "curious" is the same as "another imcista" or than either one of them is the same as you. Hmmmm. Give that one some thought ;-) |
|
Re: The Money Pit, continued |
by malatesta
(No verified email address) |
Current rating: 0
10 Jun 2005
|
La Ley -- I appreciate your comments, and the spirit.
Maybe I am a "purist" as some have suggested, but at least it's ideologically/philosophically driven. My basic concern is that almost every movement created to effect radical social and political change is eventually co-opted -- by itself! The movement does it to itself!
In my view, the building is a time and money sink, taking these scarce resources away from direct action. Others disagree. Fine. I respect that.
If my agit-prop has at least managed to stir some debate, to foster some questions, to direct some thought -- then I'm okay with that. Believe me, I'm more than used to being on the short side of the argument.
Again, thanks for the civilized overture. |
|
Re: The Money Pit, continued |
by curious
(No verified email address) |
Current rating: 0
10 Jun 2005
|
|
I have no idea whether another 'curious' in this threat and Another Imcista are the same person or two different. In my opinion, they didn't look like the same person. La Ley was changed into La Luz on the same comments in the Statements of Apology comments threat., which eliminates all possible doubts. All public officials or running for public offices are always obligated to disclose the sources of their donations. I am pretty sure that they would have done that unless there is the law OR THEY CAN'T AFFORD TO LOSE THEIR FACES. Even if the first case is inapplicable to the situation, the second is clearly very applicable. And that is what this story about. ucimc chose to 'lose face' than to disclose the list of major donors. What is here more to talk about, I really can't understand. There is no such entity as an independent person and/or entity, when either one is in full permanent dependence on some source(s) money. It is clear for any person in right mind and any imcist(a). |
|
Re: The Money Pit, continued |
by La Ley
(No verified email address) |
Current rating: 0
10 Jun 2005
|
|
malatesta, thanks for weathering out the storm. I respect your views on the building being a time and money sink, taking away resources from direct action. My view is this: the same groups that have been doing direct action at UCIMC are still around and active, and will keep on doing what they've been doing regardless of where they are based. Sure, buying the building is a risk, but it was a decision taken by the collective as a whole. And, it's only been a month since the purchase was made, so not every problem has been ironed out. I want to make a go of it and try to make it work, as do many others. I think that it's not inevitable that the UCIMC will become co-oped. That will depend on the volunteers who do the work. I, for one, welcome your input, and if you're in town, stop by and give us an earful. |
|
Re: The Money Pit, continued |
by La Ley
(No verified email address) |
Current rating: 0
10 Jun 2005
|
curious, my comment on identity was addressed to magician's apprentice, not to you. It's a logical problem. But, you're hardly anyone to say who I am or am not. I told you that I am not La Luz. You can believe whatever you like. You sure as heck don't have any evidence.
"All public officials or running for public offices are always obligated to disclose the sources of their donations." If you're talking about campaign donations, this is true. What does this have to do with UCIMC? You seem very confused. The UCIMC is not a governmental body.
There are reasons that non-profits are not required to reveal the indentity of donors. Those are clearly laid out in the article I cited earlier. And, the article cites the legal groundwork for the regulations. Read them and get back to me. |
|
Re: The Money Pit, continued |
by curious
(No verified email address) |
Current rating: 0
10 Jun 2005
|
You are wrong , La Ley, your amazing transformation as well as the initial text of your comments there , initially under 'La Ley ' name attracted my attention and I printed both: the initial version and the 'La Luz' one.
As for your citation, then any citation is good only if you provides also the book (name, authors, the year of publication) it was cited from, the page and the line. Do it, and I will, maybe, check it out and then get back to you.
I have no habit to believe a word of yours, and what I have written above about 'La Ley' ,'La Luz' is providing the solid basis for this notion or this feeling, whichever you prefer. |
|
Put up or... ...we're still waiting |
by La Ley
(No verified email address) |
Current rating: 0
10 Jun 2005
|
curious seems to be a little confused, so let me repeat myself...
Check out this website. It will give you links and citations to follow up on. Check with me again after you've read it. And by the way, when you find the law that says that non-profits must disclose the names of contributors, post it as a comment here. I'd rather see facts than suppositions.
from http://www.ombwatch.org/npadv/2000/campfinstatement.html:
Congress has historically recognized the importance of shielding most nonprofit donor information from public disclosure. Section 501(c) organizations must report certain donor information to the IRS as part of their exemption applications and annual tax filings. Those documents must be made publicly available, but the names and addresses of donors are excluded from public disclosure.(2) The constitutional dimension of donor disclosure was most notably set out in NAACP v. Alabama,(3) which recognized the right of organizational members to join together to advocate on issues without revealing their individual identities. Subsequently, the Court in Buckley v. Valeo recognized the potential that donor disclosure has for infringing on First Amendment rights.(4) The record keeping, reporting, and donor disclosure requirements imposed by FECA on candidates and political committees were upheld only after a finding that they furthered government interests that were both significant and substantially related to the information required to be disclosed.
Any attempt to mandate the disclosure of donors to nonprofit organizations must be evaluated in light of this standard. Requiring disclosure of contributions earmarked for narrowly-defined electioneering communications would probably be tailored to achieve the goal of making public information about what is perceived as "surreptitious" campaign spending. On the other hand, a requirement of the disclosure of all donors if an organization engages, as any part of its activity, in certain types of advocacy, sweeps far broader, imposes a greater burden on associational rights, and effectively penalizes groups for engaging in political speech at the core of the First Amendment's protections.
Disclosure of itemized expenditures, either of an entire organization or for particular activities, raises similar First Amendment concerns. Mandating disclosure of the identity of those who receive payments from an organization could include potentially private information, such as employee reimbursements. As was recognized in Brown v. Socialist Workers '74 Campaign Committee(5), it is not only those who contribute to or join organizations representing unpopular causes who may be subject to harassment or intimidation; those who choose to do business with such groups may be targeted because of that connection as well. While disclosing which office supply store an entity patronizes is unlikely to have negative ramifications, the clients of individual consultants or small firms may very well reflect the consultant's political convictions. Working with a controversial organization is sometimes not just an economic statement. |
|
Re: The Money Pit, continued |
by curious
(No verified email address) |
Current rating: 0
11 Jun 2005
|
|
I am not confused even a bit, La Ley. My analogy with public figures and their behavior in similar situation is extremely natural. Under criminal investigation each public figure and/or trying to become one has official rights to involve the fifth amendment. However, if any current or projective public figure is choosing to do it, his/her career as a public figure is over, as many occurrences in the USA are showing. In the current case of ucimc it is working exactly the same way: Even , if you can't be obligated by law to disclose your contributors in order simply to save your non-profit organization's status, your position as imc media center is over, pertinent to the refusal to disclose the list of your main contributor(s). That is all. And that is what malatesta is emphasizing by his/her postings. If any official leader of other imc asks me, personally, to continue legal investigations to strip ucimc from non profit organization status, which, I am pretty sure, would not happen, then, maybe, just maybe, I would involve myself in these legal research, not -before. |
|
Re: The Money Pit, continued |
by La Ley
(No verified email address) |
Current rating: 0
11 Jun 2005
|
curious, you still seem to miss my point. Let me give you the distilled essence of the article, since it seems you can't or won't read what I cited above:
"Congress has historically recognized the importance of shielding most nonprofit donor information from public disclosure. Section 501(c) organizations must report certain donor information to the IRS as part of their exemption applications and annual tax filings. Those documents must be made publicly available, but the names and addresses of donors are excluded from public disclosure (e.g., 26 U.S.C. §§ 6104(b), 6104(d)(3)(A))."
"... a requirement of the disclosure of all donors if an organization engages, as any part of its activity, in certain types of advocacy, sweeps far broader, imposes a greater burden on associational rights, and effectively penalizes groups for engaging in political speech at the core of the First Amendment's protections."
In other words, based on the First Amendment, the U. S. Congress PROTECTS non-profit organizations from disclosing names of donors. One of the main reasons for this is that it protects donors to controversial organizations from harrassment by others opposed to that organization's goals. The UCIMC is fully within its rights to refuse to release the names of individual donors, and in fact, I would argue that they are obligated NOT to release these names if donations were made with this understanding. Of course, there is nothing to prevent individual donors from stepping forward and revealing their identities. Personally, I would have no problem with releasing my name should I make a donation to the building fund, but I defend the rights of those who might choose not to do so.
Well, curious, that's it. Let me know if there is something you don't understand. |
|
Re: The Money Pit, continued |
by curious
(No verified email address) |
Current rating: 0
11 Jun 2005
|
La Ley, you seem to behave exactly like another 'curious' in this threat.
Everybody is the USA is WITHIN his/her rights if they involve the fifth amendment-one of USA constitutional amendments. However, as I have written, it would ruin professional image of ANY public figure to involve this amendment. I am NOT INTERESTED currently (and, probably, ever) to investigate and to conclude whether ucimc jeopardized fully its non-profit status, ACCORDING TO THE USA laws, by its refusal to disclose the list of their major donors on the request of other leading ims members, as ucimc has done. It is more than obvious for any beholder in the right mind, though, and any imcist(a) from any other imc that ucimc has fully destroyed by this choice its own creditability as INDEPENDENT media source. What other imc are going to do about it legally(if any), as being deeply annoyed by Sascha 'great leader's' claims is NOT MY CURRENT CONCERN. Capish finally, or not? I am not going to do ANY legal investigations unless hired or at least asked by people whom I want to help, and IT IS NOT YOU!!!
And La Ley, you are not my commanding officer. So, my suggestions to you in the future to pay at least slight attention to desires, interests and intentions of people you are conversing with. Your arrogance , rudeness even if accompanied by huge persistence would lead you nowhere. |
|
Re: The Money Pit, continued |
by La Ley
(No verified email address) |
Current rating: 0
11 Jun 2005
|
Well, in a nutshell, UCIMC has not jeopardized its non-profit status by any conceivable interpretation of US law. While anyone is within their right to hire you as a legal investigator, it's not something that I would be interested in.
And, while you're free to criticize the objectivity of UCIMC, it would be helpful if you could provide concrete examples of news/media that were skewed to favor a particular political agenda, something that you have failed to do so far.
Have a nice day :-) |
|
Re: The Money Pit, continued |
by curious
(No verified email address) |
Current rating: 0
11 Jun 2005
|
|
La Ley, there is a lot of examples of how unreasonable words (behavior) caused people and the entire entities their prestige, images and/or status. I or anyone else would not spend ten minutes to furnish you with tens of examples. Everybody knows it. Like, for example, inaccurate statement of CBS during election's campaign of 2004. The bottom line is that you have terribly annoyed your mates-other imc, and you chose afterwards to hide your list of contributors. You have paid for it dearly, if you still don't realize it - you would in the nearest future. Whether it would also cost you to lose non profit status, I don't know. Though, I am sure that if you (ucimc and you, personally) would continue your current way of behavior, outraging a lot of people and even organizations, it would happen inevitably. By the way, don't be so sure about your position inside of 'the law box', as it would be no great difficulty to show that you are out of this box. I am not fully sure about it, but let us say - 85% sure. Chao. |
|
Re: The Money Pit, continued |
by La Ley
(No verified email address) |
Current rating: 0
11 Jun 2005
|
|
All I've asked you to do is to prove your accusations, something that you have repeatedly failed to do. You make anonymous insinuations and then fail to back them up. Your latest is: "By the way, don't be so sure about your position inside of 'the law box', as it would be no great difficulty to show that you are out of this box." If it is no great difficulty, then why won't you do it? So far, you have not demonstrated that you have a single ounce of credibility. I will let the readers draw their own conclusions. |
|
Re: The Money Pit, continued |
by La Ley
(No verified email address) |
Current rating: 0
11 Jun 2005
|
|
All I've asked you to do is to prove your accusations, something that you have repeatedly failed to do. You make anonymous insinuations and then fail to back them up. Your latest is: "By the way, don't be so sure about your position inside of 'the law box', as it would be no great difficulty to show that you are out of this box." If it is no great difficulty, then why won't you do it? So far, you have not demonstrated that you have a single ounce of credibility. |
|
Re: The Money Pit, continued |
by curious
(No verified email address) |
Current rating: 0
11 Jun 2005
|
What creditability , La Ley? Yes, I've been at this web, which you've recommended. More than that, I have a pretty full approach how to start the corresponding law suit against ucimc non profit status under the circumstances of 'no apology, no contributors list's release' and your main ideological orientation prior to it. Do you really think that I would release even a bit of it to you? Then , think again. I've written you already that I have no desire whatsoever to help you or ucimc through you to void what they might get. You are still continuing to pressure me. Malatesta, who was actually mainly outraged by Sascha statement, can simply get full impression through this continuing dialog what your "spirit, and intentions" also your technique really are. You are providing the perfect illustration of the arrogant, untihumanitarian , and the very sadistic technique which all imc would be obligated to suffer, if ucimc is not sufficiently stopped right now. That is why, I am answering your comments - to provide illustrations. If I were you, I would stop it a long while ago, but when God wants to destroy someone, this someone is first destined to lose the very basic common sense. That has happened to you, and before - to DC and Sascha.
Anyhow, I think that it were more than enough illustrations already. I have, by the way, better things to do than to answer your senseless comments. So, final chao. |
|
Re: The Money Pit, continued |
by La Ley
(No verified email address) |
Current rating: 0
11 Jun 2005
|
|
Wow. I rest my case. |
|
Re: The Money Pit, continued |
by malatesta
(No verified email address) |
Current rating: 0
11 Jun 2005
|
Curious --
I personally found La Ley to be very cordial in discussing the issues. Even though we disagree, we managed to remain civil and respectful of each others' views.
I would rather you didn't cite me as a supporter of your views -- which escape me. I haven't the slightest idea what you're talking about, so leave me out of it.
Thanks again, LL. |
|
Re: The Money Pit, continued |
by not Frost, not Browning, etc., but I've tried
(No verified email address) |
Current rating: 0
11 Jun 2005
|
Funny thing, but the conversation, which I am watching on this board is always waking up my Muse. Here is the result of her sleepless shape:
The Caution
The caution should be above the whole,
The guard of lives and your own well being.
Don't keep smartness above your soul,
Don't be stupider than any thing living.
Better to hide the head in the shoulders,
Than to lose it while making stupid notions.
If the caution feels now even colder,
It is still very precious-the caution!
The precaution!
If anything,- just simply pass by.
If you can't, then you should crawl in secret.
Try you to have all strong at your side,
Only weak one can become your target.
From the poorest try money to squeeze,
To your kind side don't make motions.
The caution should be like desire to breeze!
The precaution!
Making own living the hard way,
Just forget principles and ideals.
Your life is what you have day-by-day.
And ideals are less important than meals!
Every moment under wheels of the fate
You can be by your destiny's choice.
The caution shouldn't be ever too late!
The precaution!
There's only gossip of blind folks
That the trust is the engine of this world.
One, who yields others to go through door,
Always is left behind the wall
The kind one is always down held,
Being stunned why he was for that chosen.
Doesn't matter what you others tell!
The precaution!
You are in debt to everyone else,
As your family teaches you daily.
To the friends, who'd leave you in mess.
To the enemies, who'd hit without 'maybe'!
You are indebted to you-yourself.
Doing everything to void a foreclosure,
The caution should be in each of your nerves!
The precaution! |
|
Re: The Money Pit, continued |
by La Ley
(No verified email address) |
Current rating: 0
11 Jun 2005
|
|
Thank you, malatesta. I tend to challenge assertions that I don't think are valid. curious made a conscious choice to engage me in a debate that she/he was not willing to follow through on. This is the third or fourth thread in which this has happened, so it's par for the course. I hope we can engage in another discussion sometime without all of the crossfire. I've never spoken with a "take no prisoners" anarchist before. It's kind of refreshing :-) I still have some questions, like what do you mean when you say that radical social and political groups co-opt themselves, and how might this happen at UCIMC? We can continue the discussion here, if you like, or in a new thread. |
|
Re: The Money Pit, continued |
by curious
(No verified email address) |
Current rating: 0
11 Jun 2005
|
|
"So, don't address any of your questions to me... " La Ley is despicable. Does the quote above look like the invitation to any discussion? And it is the quote from this threat's comment, which I have written after her first attempt to start the dialog with me. I can't actually conclude whether it is happening because La Ley doesn't understand English or because she/he has such despicable negligence to other people's feelings and opinions. In both cases, I am doing the last clarification, " I DON'T WANT EVER TO CONVERSE WITH LA LEY!" |
|
Re: The Money Pit, continued |
by La Ley
(No verified email address) |
Current rating: 0
11 Jun 2005
|
curious, if you don't want to converse with me, then why are you? It is completely your choice whether you want to respond to me to me or not. I'm not forcing you. You CHOOSE to participate in this discussion when you could simply turn off your computer and walk away. If it bothers you to converse with me, then stop conversing with me.
malatesta, you're only going to get spammed, harrassed, and mischaracterized here. Sorry about that. |
|
Re: The Money Pit, continued |
by curious
(No verified email address) |
Current rating: 0
11 Jun 2005
|
|
La Ley, unfortunately, I don't possess you despicable arrogance, as well as, persistence. I feel obligated to answer when I am asked. Of course, I have the sufficient self protection, though, not to tell what I don't want to be known. Besides, I don't feel comfortable to repeat what I have already written. So, read my words, " Don't address your comments to me ever more!!!" Is it clear finally? Malatesta, my feeling to La Ley are not applicable to any other person, she has the very "special" place in my book, and I understand that other people, including you , are not interested in details and/or reasons of it. I don't think that she(I am pretty sure that La Ley is a woman) is ever able to leave me alone, but, maybe, I would be able finally to ignore her no matter what. Thank for attention, and chao. |
|
Re: The Money Pit, continued |
by thom pain
(No verified email address) |
Current rating: 0
13 Jun 2005
|
well, hmmm..... honestly, I don't think disclosing the names of big donors is a big deal. Since, we (ucimc) are an official non-prof they can write-off the donation from thier taxes, right? So much for privacy and the protection of snooping by the state? Plus, and correct me if I'm wrong, I do believe that to retain our 501c3 status we have to report such financial shit to the IRS anyways. Once again.... so much for privacy and state snooping, right?
Would disclosure prevent co-option or undue influence by big donors? I don't think so. Because co-option occurs simply when an org becomes dependent on the big money to survive and they fear offending certain donors and losing the big money, therefore jeapordizing thier survival. Basically they begin to 'self-censor' thier positions and activities to prevent that, otherwise they become corrupted and subverted by capital and eventually find themselves bieng more of a 'buffer' against radical change than the locus of it. Which has happened many, many times.
(co-option? for la ley)
A great example would be the 'corporate' labor unions in the US who although once were radical and revolutionary (in fact the labor movement in the US was possibly one of the strongest and most radical in the world at one time) eventually find that for thier survival they have more in common with the employing class than the working class and function more to discipline the working class for the capitalists than to overthrow capitalism itself. Otherwise, they became dependent on capitalism and end up serving the needs of capital more than serving the needs of workers.
Maletesta--although I respect and share many of your views (I identify with Durruti more though), I think you're making one big mistake(sorry)..... the ucimc is not a radical or revolutionary organization (I wish it were but it isn't), therefore it cannot be co-opted. The ucimc is a 'liberal' or 'progressive' at best. Which in itself is fine, because I am not sure it is capable or should be radical that should be the job of other groups (wherever they are) autonomous and independent of the ucimc.
Does buying the building or taking big donations mean that capital can subvert the ucimcs actions or functions? Sure. Necessity of the marketplace dictates that just to come up with the $6,000+/month, otherwise survival. Now we have something to 'lose' if we behave badly. But, most importantly, I don't think that the ucimc was ever really intended to challenge capital or the inherent social relationships of power it creates any more than the IDF.
So, the question becomes.... Is there the will, or the social space, in this in this community to build a 'social movement of the base' that does challenge capital and its power? And, if so.... Is there space in for cooperation, whether inside or outside of the building, between such a movement and ucimc? I honestly don't know. If the answer is yes then everything brought up in this string, pro and con, is exactly why such a movement MUST be completely autonomous and careful not to assume too much.
So let's stop arguing over apples and oranges and start asking the real questions.
my 2 pesos. |
|
Re: The Money Pit, continued |
by La Ley
(No verified email address) |
Current rating: 0
13 Jun 2005
|
Thanks, Thom, for a brilliant and insightful analysis. On the technical matter of disclosing donor names, I believe that you're mostly right. In order to receive a tax deduction, donors have to disclose to the IRS that they donated to UCIMC. Now, I'm not so sure that the UCIMC has to disclose the names of individual donors to the IRS--someone in the finance group would have to address that issue. Personally, it doesn't bother me that the IRS would have this information because UCIMC has nothing to hide from the IRS. I'm more concerned about mentally unstable stalkers and nutcases harassing individual donors. Other than that, I agree, it's a non-issue.
Thanks for the examples of co-option. Now I know what malatesta was talking about. Another example are political parties and leaders. They get co-opted very quickly.
Your question on whether truly radical, revolutionary groups can have a cooperative relationship with UCIMC is the most fascinating. I hope that the answer is yes, but I agree that it will have to be done with eyes wide open. |
|
Re: The Money Pit, continued |
by thom pain
(No verified email address) |
Current rating: 0
13 Jun 2005
|
So, in the name of getting some of the questions started....
In a town where the average rent for a hovel is between $300-400/mo per person plus $200+ utilities, food and other shit why is it so hard to find a job that pays better than as a $7/hr service sector wage-slave, let alone 'full-time' work or benefits (i.e., health care/dental, etc...)
Many, many people I know have 2-3 part-time jobs at 7.50/hr or less, no benefits, working more than 40 hrs/week, under shitty canditions, and are barely making a survival let alone building a better future or security. Even if you do manage to find full time work with benefits a measly 7.50/hr or so, after taxes and insurance (shitty, nearly useless insurance I might add), isn't enough to reasonably pay rent, utils, and necessities in this town. Simply, the 'backmail of survival,' wage-slavery. Sure you can bounce between jobs and maybe change exploiters, but otherwise it's the same shit all over again. And, many people do worse! That's why for some the military seems like a viable alternative.
Now, of course, the university does pay better than that, but have you tried to get a job there? Next to impossible, unless your spouse is an academic and your job comes with the package. That bastion is reserved for a priviledged few. So, you're out of luck if you're not one of them? The walls of the citadel are high indeed!
Where's the anger about that?
How about.... Carle Clinic can have you arrested and dragged into court if you can't pay your bill (i.e., you're one of the many wage-slaves without health care, or disposable income).... yet they get non-prof status and tax breaks as if they're doing you some kind of favor? Community Service?Hmmm....
how come there's no talk of appearing at the recruiters office on Springfield Ave as well as one Main? Or, at least when they're on campus? Other communities smaller than ours, and less 'liberal,' are doing this. Do we have to wait for the draft? Or, will we just stand around politely with signs, and not 'mis-behave' then too?
A new nuclear pant next door?
Let's get pissed, active, and organized about some real shit for a change jobs, health care, racism, housing, utilities, education, etc.... otherwise, a life worth living. Start thinking outside of the 'liberal,' '60s, professor/academic, hippy shit for a change. These are our rights...Yes? And, many people throughout the world, with a lot less resources, are doing it... what's our problem? We have many of the same problems they do right here.
That's my question. |
|
Re: The Money Pit, continued |
by thom pain
(No verified email address) |
Current rating: 0
13 Jun 2005
|
La Ley..... you're absolutely right! Politicians, parties, unions, .orgs, and leaders can definately be co-opted..... as well as individuals who follow them. That's why anarchists fundamentally believe in the horizantalism of the base, direct action/participation, challenging power (including 'libersl' power) whereever it resides, and acute self-crit.... amongst a host of other things.
Look out! You might be an anarchist! |
|
Sorry, one last thing.... |
by thom pain
(No verified email address) |
Current rating: 0
13 Jun 2005
|
|
I think its interesting, and important to note, that malatesta's posts have generated the most participation and discussion on the site. Obviously there is something possibly brewing in our community that we need to take a serious look at. But, I do not think cyberspace is a totally adequate venue. Maybe it's time to consider having open assemblies to encounter such issues..... maybe that should be the first 'radical' thing that should happen in the new building. I'd be there for sure. |
|
