SCN: Re: OPS: w3m ...

[Joe Mabel]

Then, not to put to fine a point on it, Andrew and I are entirely correct 
to say that the SCN board has made suc a decision.  If they are now 
considering reversing it, all to the good, but I don't think I'm at all 
"mistaken" in what I said.
JM

-----Original Message-----
From:	Rod Clark [SMTP:bb615 at scn.org]
Sent:	Wednesday, February 23, 2000 11:38 PM
To:	AH
Cc:	Gianni Truzzi; scn at scn.org
Subject:	Re: SCN: Re: OPS: w3m ...

Andrew Higgins wrote:
> 2c Joe Mabel wrote:
> 2c > If SCN's decision not to fundraise from corporations and to focus on 
a
> 2c > volunteer
> 2c > staff leads directly to this sort of consequence, I think this 
consequence
> 2c > calls that decision into question.
>
> On Wed, 23 Feb 2000, Gianni Truzzi wrote:
> 2c Allow me to correct this mistaken belief. The Board of SCNA has NOT 
made
> 2c any such decision. In fact, we expect to begin soliciting corporate 
and
> 2c foundation funding rather vigorously in the coming months. However, 
that
> 2c kind of fundraising effort has taken a back seat to other efforts for
> 2c which it would be prerequisite. It's simply been a matter of 
allocating
>
> This "mistaken" belief was first espoused by a member of the Board, and
> made to sound like a policy decision.
>
> http://www.scn.org/volunteers/scn-l/msg00022.html
>
> Perhaps if we had published minutes it could be made more clear how this
> confusion arose...

Andrew,

   There's never been any confusion that (until the very recent
City education grant) almost all of SCN's revenues have come
from small personal contributions to CPSR and then to SCNA, and
from small contributions by users for new accounts.

   The City grant was a big departure for SCN, but still we
don't depend on it for providing core services. Those still come
from the sum of all the small personal contributions.

   This is not accidental, and CPSR set it up that way for a
reason. That reason was to avoid any possibility of anything
other than a competely free and independent viewpoint that would
take into account only the interests of the membership and not
of any partner organizations, government agencies, underwriting
businesses or any other entities at all.

   There is a proposal for SCN, called SCN II, that Gianni
drafted recently and that he mentioned during the Annual
Meeting, that would add greatly to the range of possible funding
sources. In the process, it would make membership contributions
relatively much less important because they could not reasonably
be expected to rise to meet the funding levels necessary to
provide greatly improved services to underserved consituencies
and otherwise greatly increase SCN's activities.

   The SCN II proposal has been circulated in draft form and I
hope that you'll soon have a chance to study and comment on it.
Since this is an important new initiative, we all should be
interested in shaping it to provide the best chance for SCN to
grow and at the same time to keep a stable, dependable funding
base and keep its independence. I believe the SCN II proposal
can adequately addresses these concerns, and also believe that
everyone in the Association who is concerned should have the
chance to contribute something to this discusion as we go
forward.

Rod Clark

* * * * * * * * * * * * * *  From the Listowner  * * * * * * * * * * * *
.	To unsubscribe from this list, send a message to:
majordomo at scn.org		In the body of the message, type:
unsubscribe scn
==== Messages posted on this list are also available on the web at: ====
* * * * * * *     http://www.scn.org/volunteers/scn-l/     * * * * * * *


* * * * * * * * * * * * * *  From the Listowner  * * * * * * * * * * * *
.	To unsubscribe from this list, send a message to:
majordomo at scn.org		In the body of the message, type:
unsubscribe scn
==== Messages posted on this list are also available on the web at: ====
* * * * * * *     http://www.scn.org/volunteers/scn-l/     * * * * * * *