POLITICAL LEADERSHIP (Will) the leadership bodies to plan, represent, make decisions, make work happen, NPC, DLOC, Organizing Committee, Working Groups, committees, C-team, staff
Synthesis of notes from yesterday relevant to this conversation:
Work load, decision-making, representation, scope of work
- we need a theory of change conversation
- we have to take ourselves more seriously as a political leadership body. we have to take stances (have a process for doing so and negotiating that) - (we didn't talk about our) we need to talk about our opposition, infiltration, the challenges - need to acknowledge and address that we took a step backward in relevance and depth of indigenous struggle - need to see more youth involved. - we need more education with participants about health and wellness; to ensure that people know about it and can have space to learn about it. Making sure that we dont just individualize the health and healing; we also need to do that collectively.
- are we ready to say that we're ready to practice collective action as opposed to just creating a space?
-on point of political clarity vs. political unity—i.e., Zionist question tolerance of racist groups? - Political conversations need to happen face to face. Thinking forward to elections of 2012—anticipating > polarization; repression…People need space or guidance about what NPC/USSF recommends - need to Address questions of leadership – purpose, roles / claim it, and who it is, - No more self-selection into leadership positions - memory is a part of leadership - how do we remember all the conversations we have had?
- Define the NPC – what is the goal, what does it create and build? Are the expectations orientation, logistical and political leadership AND program and outreach. - theorize logistics. Everything has implications. This body needs to understand the politics and practice around logistics; division of labor on-site around logistics. NPC has to plan to participate week leading up to and week of social forum. - Need clear expectations. People on NPC cannot do programming all four days. clear direction and division of labor (Lack of the division of labor created a lot of tension.) Also accountability if folks don't come thru. - do we need design, recreate the NPC? how can it represent movement building? - broad tent or not? - clearer recruitment, additions and orientation process (window of time for that, which closes well before the forum) - how can NPC be responsible for what they don't cover, and understand that overflow lands on local community - clear, centralized goals for NPC that everyone knows. aligned as/with the ussf goals - need address and heal toxic culture
membership: - IJAN was very controversial for other NPC members, and other orgs and forces were going to those members and questioning their participation in a body that includes IJAN. we need to talk about the implications of that...we represent a confrontation of a power structure that is a great opportunity for movement growth. how do we prepare for that.
rosalinda: "there are leaders who position themselves for reasons other than political movement building - it's funding related, other stuff. that discussion needs to happen."
- prioritize creating space for convergence at the local level - understand that there was exploitation of people, inconsistencies in payments and demands on people - need to ensure folks who create the space get to participate in it
- more strategies and systems for conflict resolution for USSF staff
- needed more support - shouldn't have had staff managed just by working groups, made it hard to have cohesion on the staff
- Walda - Staffing should be handled holistically. Not that workgroups make a proposal. This is a political decision.
- need to clearly define the Working Groups – clarity about scope, goals, procedures, program, recruitment, skills needed - need to assess whether this worked or not - is this the central organizing space of the Forum?
* From 2007 NPC: First NPC gathered in 2005: 22 applied, 21 accepted.uneven development in levels of participation; anchor was part of the national and had an at large representative; 15 organizations actually ended up being part of planning process. From there the idea of an OC came out--a body that would take the greatest responsibility for the planning. NPC-OC-c-team-representation body. All the anchors needed to be part of NPC and needed more representation from local organizing committee on the national body. Out of this an agreement was made for more interface between local and national bodies--one co-chair local and one co-chair national.
* Major differences with this year's process: Creation of an OC based on functionality with power to make decisions but this was not formalized; intention for more shared leadership between local and national organizing committee
* Need a different division of labor between local and national: burden on local organizers working on critical fronts of struggle; overflow of work fell to local; impact on political leadership of the location; how can their leadership be upheld during the planning process even as they are focusing on the logistical/coordination work
* Need more transfer of knowledge from each location: need Atlanta and Detroit to systematically transfer information to next location (if there is one or whatever comes next)--transfer was not smooth, needed more support and coaching
* Need to articulate and transfer principles that guide how the work is done locally
* Need more resources for anchor earlier on
* Need unity on what the USSF is about, what its purpose is
* Need to go deeper with the political orientation and principles of our work
* Have staff from old location to carry Forum over until new location has staff
* Too many national meetings for the social forum...a lot of money that could be used for organizing
* Need an orientation for the new NPC members--need history, orientation to role, etc.
* Need more representation of priority forces on NPC (i.e. youth, Arab, etc.); how do we make this more compelling and relevant for forces that aren't here? (i.e. credits for students and touching on issues that are meaningful)
* Maybe we need a transition team and staff between social forums to make it more efficient and less overwhelming for the new location
* Need regular trainings about communication, facilitation, working collectively, addressing dynamics, use NPC members to do these trainings
* Need to reflect on implications of specific NPC members joining and changing the composition of the NPC (political formations)
* Need to have more political clarity on purpose and role of USSF, specific goals for advancing movement specifically in this political moment, who are the most critical fronts and forces of struggle adn therefore representatives on the NPC and OC
* OC needs to be both a functional and political leadership body--Local organizing committee, NPC and OC needs to bring political and logistical/functional leadership
* NPC/OC/Local Organizing Committee needs to provide political leadership and make political decisions and take stances (unrealistic not to do this inside of the US in planning a social forum)
* Error to add five organizations and force unity in Detroit: overcompensation for overwhelm of having one anchor
* NPC should be an advisory body: mobilizing base, political directives, bringing resources
* OC needs to be embolden and needs to be based on both functionality and prioritization of forces/political leadership
* There was a deprioritization of political discussions that prevented us from building unity and having important discussions that would frame our entire discussion: this then impacted on all areas of the planning
* Staffing needs to be accountable to an organization on the NPC or local anchor, not independent consultant
* Need more clarification on roles and responsibilities of personell and decisions; how to handle staff conflict with one another; are there evaluation, is there not?
* Need for conflict resolution training and processes during the NPC meeting
* We need to address the relations of power and issues of power that come up between us during the process as part of the process of building our relationships, political leadership and modeling the movement we are supporting the building of
* Hard to figure out expectations of NPC as a whole and not leave things to c-team and OC and staff that seemed like they had more information
* Need a decision-making matrix (DARCI); without it plays into the distrust
* Needed to make more decisions
* How can we evolve the functionality of the NPC?
* How has NPC evolved?
* Who is the priority in this process?
* How do we account for the economic situation in how we organize this? Newly emerging poverty?
* NPC understands that the local groups want more political representation on the NPC
* We want to keep evolving the NPC and overall political leadership to represent the purpose of and increase the success of the USSF to advance our social movements and to improve on breakdowns from the last social forum: we want to make progress and improve every time
* What can we learn from the Expansion Commission from the WSF to identify the forces and fronts missing
* Where did the distrust come from and what is the resentment and how to we address it? Bilateral
* What was the impact of having a c-team or OC on encouraging the participation of the broader NPC--did it disengage other NPC members?
* How do we address issues of capacity?
* What is it going to take for this body to discuss and make decisions together?
* US Social Forum needs to leave locations stronger then when they began; can't be a drain on resources
* We have a responsibility to each other following the social forum as well as during it (caravan that didn't have the funds, etc.)
* We need to support the forces that are the greatest priorities for the movement in getting here
* Once you determine the political direction and moment then organization can decide everything else
* We can't be afraid to make decisions and provide political leadership: need to figure out what we are doing, why and the political direction and then organize from there and make decisions and calls based on this
* We need to have the hard political discussions to provide the political leadership necessary.
* We need the resources to make this happen in the way that it needs to.
USSF NPC MEETING POLITICAL LEADERSHIP DISCUSSION 2 10/9/10
Marian: We haven’t allotted time to have the political discussions we need, to understand what we are facing politically, objectively. Where are we trying to focus? Is this a waste of our time? What is coming out of the USSF? - political leadership in terms of where we need to grow, our theoretical knowledge, the direction we need to go in
Tammy- we are talking about where the forum should be going and where the movements should be going
Marian- we went back to doing what we were doing before. The USSF should be a part of what the local orgs are doing, so it is not a burden on the local orgs’ work, but enhances it
Will- From the previous discussion, are we clear about the USSF and how it strengthens movement? We didn’t go into the purpose together to come to a view on how this movement strengthens movements. What is going on in this moment? How is the USSF going to impact and strengthen movements in this motion? n could we have a process to answer these questions, should we set aside a time to move forward? n Should we change the NPC? Evolve it?
Maureen- Part of what is being described is a mistake a lot of us made going in to this. Is there a singular definition to what the USSF is? Can we collectivize what the event is supposed to be? This is a convergence of progressive organizations stopping to discuss our priorities en route to going someplace. The whole point of the convergence is to stop, discuss, find agreement, and then move out on those points to make things happen, to hit something. Are others around the world thinking about stuff the way we do at MWRO? Prior to the USSF there wasn’t enough discussion about what would happen when the USSF is over? What are our plans post forum? - looks like we’ve got a whole lotta “new cousins” we have found, but where are then in the conversations? - Colletivity after the event is missing.
Tammy- there seems to be a lot of overlap between political programming and this, there is a lack of understanding about this period and history, coming out of 2007 we also wanted to re-shape the NPC. Only a percentage of folks hold the work. So that percentage provides the actual make-up, logistics itself. We don’t make enough time for these conversations, how to get the objectives out of ussf we want, not enough time to debate and have the political disussions. What does it mean to provide political leadership for the USSF vs what it means to pull off the USSF. Is there contradiction in this?
Oya- in the question of what we do after or even during the process, people are doin things all over the country, but how do we take it to a regional, local, or national level. This needs fleshing out. We are doing things in Detroit, with actions, collectives, fighting chase, etc. all those things are following through, but what does that mean for USSF. Define the vision regionally and nationally
Sylvia- there is a big gap here, but also our identity needs definition. “I went to the forum but didn’t leave as part of something else.” Distrust in the NPC, some conversations aren’t had because they are difficult. There is a crisis point a bit because we aren’t having those conversations.
Walda- There is a real consensus…political leadership isn’t necessarily organizational leadership. They may be the same individuals but not necessarily. The fact that is the case is perhaps problematic. The moment, path forward, the state of the movement, what the social forum process brings to the movement process…are in discussion. How we hear things often depends on our experience. On the question of political leadership, how do we share what we know, have the discussions and common understanding? We haven’t learned to do that very well with the NPC. If we can’t model among ourselves, how can we with 20,000 people, to “have another world” and transform the ussf process to be what we want it to be?
Will- hearing about the desire to explore and have different conversations. SO as we leave today and go tomorrow, what commitments can people make to be on the agenda team, the evaluation team, now and tomorrow. How can we participate in those things to have the conversations and define as we want to, if we aren’t succeeding in doing it yet. Do people see us going into a planning process, discussion? Where do you see us going from here? What should we do next, given where we are now?
Jen- It sounds like this is about the next step, so I think it is important whatever form the next step takes it be together with ongoing political discussion, strategizing and convergence. I think the broad variety of sectors that this body represents is needed at this time in history and I know the orgs I am connected to need that, I need it, this time in history needs it. I see a lot of parallels with this and the world social forum process and what they have undergone, what they continue to go through. Is this an event or an ongoing process? Sometimes to create a forum or just a convergence. Through the process of the international council—looking at Brazil, a strategy group was formed to think more through these things. The assemblies evolved to be an ongoing body alongside the international council, a broader assembly of social movements, considering next steps. Things to think about…
B- The question- what would be the structures to allow to maximize the logistic and political needs of the forum. What does the function and body and process look like and how do people participate in that.
Eddie- The conversation, defining a political moment, intentionality in our approach about the next USSF….the issues involving the NPC can be all over the map. Process of identifiying where people are at so we can know where we can and can’t go. Maybe the wrong people are in the NPC? How can you make that decision, in an open space? You may need to narrow, for a political emphasis. Or do we have the political discussion so there is an understanding of that? Some will step back. I’m just throwing that out there. 2007 was a learning experience. We are in 2010. The next one has to change in some way, but for what end, and who decides that? If the wrong people are in the NPC, who decides that? There may be parts I don’t completely agree with, but it is broad enough so there’s something I can connect with with my base, group, and members. No one here has all the knowledge and theory down. The beauty and problem of the USSF is that it is so broad. Where are we going? I am struggling with that. What should it be?
TDKA- Excellent points. Each social forum that has happened since 2007 is a reflection of the moment of history all of us are operating in. that is why now we can say something has to change for the next. People will have to define what we are doing. This is a united front process, allowing progressives, liberals, moderates to come in. - one thing is missing- no one page paper on where you are at politically. You can’t have a meeting and just ask that, we need to write it down, so others can see where others are at. We don’t even have a name for this moving united front. - A united front setting up conventions under the guise of a forum—as we have seen, a convention ends the day it is over. Is this a convention? If not, how make it different, if it is, why? - Is what we are doing over? Is this closing time? We don’t know, some say put it off 2 or 3 years, some say do it quicker. You could put it off and it never comes back at all. We need to define what we are, put it on paper and have a process. You cant hold a meeting and get all opinions.
Heather- What does it mean by political
TDKA- we aren’t defining what we are saying by political. Class? Culture? I don’t know, we need to find out where everyone stands before we unite and formalize something
__FLO__- I feel like there is consistency in people saying we need to have this discussion now, it needs to happen more than 2 hours, we need to take this prime opportunity to take the time at the next face to face meeting to have this discussion. Without that how do we know we will dissolve the process or move it forward and how. I don’t think the USSF movement in the US is a very important thing, because it isn’t a single issue, specific campaign or politic. But I think it is an important thing. The next step is taking a step back to have the conversation about who are we and what are we doing. The USSF is bigger than the NPC, it affects orgs and communities. There is a lot of support and criticism. Bring these voices into who were are and how to move forward
Ahmina- I think our role is to provide guidance among the collaborations. We can have a collaborative role without telling other groups issues to focus on or what to do. Fear sometimes keeps us from making decisions because we are an open space. We need to learn to make decisions. As far as the evolution of the NPC, what do we need to create and have in place in order to function properly? In Detroit there was a group that did advising, and one that did functions. How do we spread these duties out so that folks are not overburdened? Amongst the groups that function, DLOC and anchor groups functioned as high of a level as working groups. But that moving forward, how will that change?
Cindy- I appreciate the language of the united front. It is what we are trying to do. Who do we invite to make sure is here? Are we trying to broaden it out? Deepen or broaden or both? Part of the process is dictating strategy, that dictates how resources get allocated around that. IN the USA at this moment, in the absence of any vehicle, this is the next best thing. Some of us work in alliances or regionally, but this process brings out the conflicts in our movements. We need to list the political frustrations. What are the political conversations we want to have? If there is a next face to face, how do we have the discussion on “what does it take to win” or make this a revolutionary process. If that is what we want to cover, have people come prepared whether they want to have that conversation or not. We need political summation out of this process, a process that figures out there are multiple sources and experiences. Can we develop a process that honors all? Part of the piece- I feel organizations in the NPC and the re-invention process—people need to come out of this meeting to call the questions on how to move forward. What are we going to be able to do to do that. The easy answer is to postpone. Call to question, timeline to decide, to see if people are in this re-evaluation process. There needs to be a proposal. People have talked about PMAs, the next two years. What are some thoughts on what people are thinking? Is that a tactic people want to utilize? If we have a forum in 2013 or not, we could have other mechanisms that happen on a more local and thematic and regional level. Or consulta process….people are waiting for a response, to know what is coming out of this. People want to know. If we are going forward, need a deliberate process of assessment of who is on the body and who is not, and the forces of motion to bring the missing on. The body needs to represent the forces in motion we say we want to have here. Meet out expectation.
Marian- I don’t think we are a united front, they come around a particular angle. We have not had the opportunity to do that. Uniting around space? Come on now. We need political subject matters to discuss. We don’t all agree but we can come out with a unity. We need some type of basic unity, or what kind of other world can come out of this. Politically, in Detroit, what do we need to discuss out of here to help create changes? Education, healthcare, food access---if we don’t discuss that I can do that elsewhere, then I am at the wrong table. I want political unity to know where the USSF is going. Then organization can decide everything. The objective situation will make us have these meetings, but what can we do to understand politically? Back up the organizational mess, let’s have those discussions.
Maureen- I believe the position we find all of us in now is we have been involved in a tremendous effort to bring in 850 organizations together in this city for 6 days. The real success story was the journey to get there. The fact we didn’t have a conversation locally about post-social forum events—we didn’t have that. The folks here, we have been involved with something. We have got something to offer. Given the context of the times we are in, unemployment is high. The TV says we may have to get used to it, it is a whole new context over here. We are at a nexus point where the definition of the USSF is….maybe we need to write it down, what we think the USSF is supposed to be. Now after the convergence, what does it mean? The issues in Detroit might come to a city near you. We might be in the space where things align so what are we going to do? At some point, in the next 60 days, define what the USSF is, what did it mean to you, what do you think it is, how will it impact this time and the next part of history? --- now we have personal ties between us, those of us who have been working the social forum. So where can we take that, to the next level?
Emily- I want to speak to the question of how much of a unified front we have—we have a statement of what we believe, principles, and everyone who participates in the NPC should be on board to these goals. They do speak to jobs, health, oppression, imperialism, etc. There is a big base, a general analysis, a condemnation of neoliberalism there, so we have a basic agreement about what exists and what we are opposed to. On one level we have agreement about what we want to see—good jobs, healthcare, education. But what does that mean? To what extent is the government involved? Creating caring capitalism with social responsibility and corporations? DO we change their power? I am happy to work with those with differing approaches and beliefs. We are a big tent, things are so bad, there’s a long way to go before we within the left can part our ways. The political discussion we need- what is our theory about how social change is made? Our theory about revolution? That would be a great discussion. What do we believe?
Will- what we believe was made by the first organizers of the first USSF, we wanted to amend it in little ways to include other groups, but we never did that for 2010. Perhaps we should write a new “what we believe” statement of where we are, are we united or not? It seems part of what we are talking about was first about proving ourselves—people of low income, poc, can put on a social forum. Then it was how to make it relevant on a local and national level—the strategy of how we do it. From the USSF we have developed a CAN DO ATTITUDE. How do we build movement in the USA, and is the USSF the vehicle to do it? Is this the vehicle or what do we need to do to take the next step to achieve this? What will it be, what is worth our energy and time? That is part of the evolution of proving we can do it. Now, what do we want to do in these times?
Adele- this body is not representative of all the organizations or the broader community. We said that a few times. We are missing steps. We have to engage the communities and bodies that we say are not represented here. We had those discussions. Is it the tour or certain representatives? The field organizers that build the relationships and have the conversations and bring them back? There has to be more to a political discussion if we are saying we are not representative of the local community.
TDKA- we seem to operate as a united front, but haven’t found the direction to move in yet. I meant that the papers of belief should come from different organizations. We could bring it together and have people look at it and discuss it. Now we have people rush to say what they need to get it in, it may not be coherent.
Will- Is that a consensus of our discussion, or are some of us quiet right now? What I am hearing is some step of exploration about what the NPC will become, it may define positions, what the USSF is, some sort of asking different participants to provide a sort of self-definition. Was there disagreement on that point, is there anyone who hasn’t spoken? People have mentioned similar things.
________- Who and when and what will be the decision to move forward? At what point will there be a transition to whoever is going to carry the political discussion forward? At what point is a decision to be made about that?
Will- that is a major point of tomorrow’s discussion. I think tomorrow is about the next step, even more explicitly about what we want to do leaving this meeting.
Walda- What is the collective political action? We are asked to say collectively what we are going to do with these actions. Are we comfortable with that or not? How to decide if it is appropriate for this body or a body? Is it appropriate for the USSF process to do that? It seems we need to make some clarity about that before we leave tomorrow, or discuss in the future.
Cindy- Is there a body in the facilitation team that has a proposal on the next steps??? Can we figure it out and have a proposal tomorrow to have a substantive conversation about what is the next step, the timeline? We can’t shy away from coming up with the next step. The participants trusted us? This can be a historical era, we need to be clear about that.
This group said we need discussion and clariications
Does the broad tent allow us to move forward together? And what does that look like?
COMMUNICATIONS/MEDIA (Adrienne) How internal communications and external communications function, data policy, media strategies, media space, technology, open source, information, documentation, archiving
Synthesis of notes from yesterday relevant to this conversation:
· In the USSF, is there some collective sharing back? we could do this to discuss how social movements were advanced; there hasn't been anything concrete after the forum to talk about what's next. let's do a serious of phone calls that ask some particular questions about what was accomplished and what's next? · The stories are amazing; we didn't figure out how at the Forum we could say in real time that these different people came together. How are we creating the narrative about convergence? There has to be a way that we do that differently. · FRAMES – connecting local realities to global realities
Lessons Learned: -Local/alternative media strategy was productive approach-- limited impact of targeting mainstream media-- we do better at representing ourselves
**Don't use mainstream media coverage as measure of success
-use of networks
-Strength of relationship building--
*Good strategy is to reach out to relationships we started and bring USSF into ongoing movement efforts; vs. adding to workloads of groups with which we don't have relationships
- came up with interesting new models for creating our own media and strengthening our presence. writer's network wasn't as strong as i would have liked, but there is a lot to explore there.
- learned a lot about how to do a newspaper on-site (like Terra Viva)
-Digital divide is something we need to address - the lessons from the survey - a lot of folks are highly educated, privileged.
- Developing media strategy over a longer time-frame
-link to other relevant working groups (ICT/ Outreach/ Doc and Eval)
-Need to help people understand the politics of technology/ open source-- work earlier on to do this.
-recognize diversity in familiarity/comfort with technology; educate early on about anticipated differences, challengs with ICT; create facilitated spaces for discussion -There is value to having a space where people can articulate their views/differences without having to make a decision.
-We should do pre- and post- assessment of strengths of organizations/ movements in the local site hosting Forum
-Charging media registration fees--deterred some media coverage/ caused friction with media
-Media space volunteers needed more training/preparation
-Press conferences at set times/ no deviation/ planned speakers --all announced ahead of time
-Begin negotiating internet contract with Cobo much earlier
(jamie took responsibility for this decision)
-Train people in communications-- wiki, spokespersons, etc. Make training/ skills-building a priority; Do this in enough advance time
-Five websites was confusing. A single gateway would be helpful/ more navigable website. Keep in mind the digital divide problem.
-Need to ensure accountability of communications /spokespersons; Lack of political conversation impedes this
*Open space/ lack of capacity--meant that many people were speaking to media, etc. without coord. with comms. W-G
-Stand with Us communication strategy -highlights our need for more political unity as a body;
We need to clearly distinguish between our testing time and live time with online systems. Communicate better about software updates.
-Corporate mindset still guides some of our organizing work--i.e., mainstream media focus in guaging success
- how do we address the technological divide
- how educated were the surveys in-person? (we don't know the bias, but it's there)
- i didn't assume that technology would be a front of political struggle for the planning process
-How do we facilitate and help people understand differences so we can work together effectively?
-How do we assess the effectiveness of our communications strategy?
-Do we need a more formal/staffed structure to manage documentation/evaluation work?
-Assumptions that working groups are capable of selecting staff that have abilities necessary do do the work and that W-G can hold staff accountable.
-Assumptions: May First =ICT. If so, how do we feel about it?
-Assumptions: Communications not always given priority it needs in staffing and emphasis
-ICT was aiming to not concentrate control of technology in the hands of few people. (Thus 5 websites)
Positions: 1. USSF should make a political commitment to free and open source software
--we should use open source softwhere whenever feasible/appropriate/functional/ acceptable to the whole (recognizing our target audiences/users/ constituencies)
2. Don't pursue in mainstream media coverage or mainstream coverage should not be guage of our success or we pursue the constituency we want to bring to the Forum through the means /media they use AND we should invest in our own media OR we should pursue mainstream media and not create barriers to their coverage but not use this to define our success
3. Define media strategy in relations to ICT /outreach/ Documentation at least 18 months in advance of Forum-- hire staff earlier...
4. We need a process for ensuring accountability and political alignment in communications strategy/spokespersons/etc.
5. Privacy - do not want private info on our public spaces
6. We need a position on cost/benefit of transparency
7. we need a position on the mutual flow of transparency and information - folks expecting transparency and access to all ussf conversations and information, but not willing to engage in sharing their demographics, etc
RESOURCE DEVELOPMENT (George) how the social forum orients to raising money, managing money, and distributing money
fundraising, foundations, organizational investment, accounting, fiscal sponsorship, grassroots fundraising, controls, contracts, etc.
Synthesis of notes from yesterday relevant to this conversation: · political discussion needs to be about really building the space. whether we like it or not that means strong parameters. if you're on the NPC there has to be clear expectations and accountability if folks don't come thru. if we want to change this country that's what its going to take. we can't be all things to all people. we go back to the nonprofit industrial complex in this country. there are leaders who position themselves for reasons other than political movement building - it's funding related, other stuff. that discussion needs to happen. · a challenge is that we didn't have money. we became a funds allocation committee, though we didn't want to play that role. there were no assumptions about how we should spend that money. we went with our gut. we w GGJ, which was helpful. It happened with a few others. if they had resources, then we could help them out. some people on the plenaries thought we would cover their costs, but we never knew that. So these things affected meeting the objectives. · Half of the money had been cut to D2D. They had already identified who they were going to bring in. I would like to get a sense of if these pepoel were NGOs? Or grassroots. This put us in an awkward situation. It led to some tension. In the end, making some linkages..it helped to promote the world social forum. But I think there is room for improvement. · who funds NPC? And then who funds USSF? If you get money from corporate sponsors, there are some political positions that are difficult to take. The tension is always there. You asked a question (to jamie) about what the NPC versus what is happening at the forum. On the ground things are happening. But where money comes through, · Needs fundraising team that is working to build throughout
Participants: Rosalinda, Community to Community Genaro, Monica, Poor PEople's Human Rights Campaign Tara, Kensington Welfare Rights Sha, Grassroots Global Justice Sylvia,
Lessons Learned: Grassroots fundraising takes a lot of work. A lot of effort was put into building relationships with funders and making sure that moey would be there. So only so much was put towards grassroots fundraising. So it was a trade off and there wasn't as much support. The resource working group was not a big team...
When we look at resource mobilization through foundation, it is based on relationships and access people have been able to build. On the calls, it was all about what money was coming in from foundations.
Teams for grassroots mobilization and foundation support under the resource mobilization team.
There should be equal/shared weight between funder movement processes and grassroots fundraising.
Disproportionality in terms of how information is shared. Need to establish policies, principles, transparency re available resources. People are represented two times if they are part of a coalition. Some working groups required more resources than others. Creates hardships and resentments.
If we are going to be a real movement we have to share in a respecful manner. If poor people believe the process has integrity, they are going to get there. The process can be sustained by the people as it has been in other spaces.
Questions/ How were roles and procedures determined? Will there be a synopsis of what happened in 2007 re how money was raised and how it was managed? How did USSF participants mobilize resources to come? Is the financial management model sustainable Can we effectively raise foundation funding without impact of our political What is the role of the funders' network from here on out? What will we do with the remaining $141.00? Who decides?
Assumptions: We can manage money without some sort of system. Small group of people involved in managing the resources including decision making There would be money there Financial management infrastructure exists Clarity on roles, responsibilities, and processes/communication Political commitment to grassroots organizing to support national effort but hard to make the practice happen We understand the role and the relationship with the funders' network.
Position: We need clarity and transparency around who in the NPC is representing the Forum with the funding communities. Equal or shared weight between funder movement process and grassroots fundraising Integrity of sharing resources to get and stay there--equitable distribution Sharing burden for low income people to Participate. Sacrifice is better. We should help support Clarity, transparency, and policies and finances where money goes It has to be eventually 100% grassroots funded. Planning must be long term More intentional communications between NPC, etc #4 assumption above We must fund the revolution with the masters tools?
Discussion For the first SF, all put in $5,000 upfront. Groups paid for their own trips. Didn't even have have a third of needs by March 2007. Only had $100K in the bank. Orgs were in a different position financially then. Dynamics were different. Had to work from end of 2007 until now to say you have to work with us. Funder movement came about, and they were accompanying the USSF. In 2007, 60% through grassroots. This time foundation funding was about 60% and grassroots, 40%. Support for low income folks came through churches and other organizations
Funders Network on Transforming the Global Economy--Solidago, Veatch, Grassroots International, etc
Convened meeting in Fort Mason re pushing foundations to invest more in movement building. 20-30 people were at the meeting. From then the FM process began to get foundations to invest more in these processes. Chart of who was getting money from where. Challenged foundations to reinvest in grassroots work. Funders commited to work with the Resource Mobilization Team to work to raise money for grassroots efforts.
FM process didn't lie under the NPC. However, dialogue continued and they were pulled into suppporting the USSF. Needs to be a tripling of investment to move more resources into the work thes groups are doing.
Plan to write a report about people who got themselves to the forum based on the PPHER march. Where do we see prioritizing money for low income folks? How do we get groups to have conversations with each other when they aren't from the same movements? How can we start a conversation re this greater broader social movement? Getting key folks in a room together.
When we mobilize folks who have no money and they are poor and they mobilize themselves to get there. A million dollars spent, $80K to get folks there but I had to get myself there. You sacrificed three days of work, pushed your car to get there, working with other workers. I put money out and someone paid for someone else. How do we ensure an equitable distribution to fundraising for low income folks. No one acccounted for the number of foodstamps we used to feed people at the forum. TO continue building the movement and the trust and the process, how do I go back and say this process is real.