[Imc] Re: IMC digest, IMC shows

[Mike Lehman]

I think that everyone involved has done a great job, including you
Jenny. The fact that new people have been drawn in by the music fest and
the great new facility is exactly why we did this, for those who missed
hearing "why?" at some point.

I know that Paul K. feels a little frustrated. I think it is because of
the high standards that he has, along with the rest of the crew, for
putting on a good show. When things are starting out there can be all
kinds of things happen; I actually feel that less problems have occured
than I expected. And I know that Paul has been under a lot of emotional
distress lately for reasons totally unrelated to the IMC. Combined with
the stress of having a date certain when the room HAD to open, along
with the limited resources available, everyone is pretty burnt out and
it shows. But a great job was done and there is NOTHING to be ashaned of
or feel second rate about.

Remember, the worst is over. The future is bright. I see no reason to
question this project, although we'll run it by everybody, once again,
all in one package, at next Sunday's Steering group meeting.

Which leads me to why I was upset at last Sunday's meeting. Adding the
stress and burden of coming up with the final plan, on top of everything
else, was ill-timed, even though it was not ill-intentioned. It ended up
causing a crisis of confidence at a very sensitive time. AFAIK, everyone
was aware of the circumstances of this project. I think Sascha did an
excellent job of recapping all the quite obvious decisionmaking that
went into this project over the last four months in his e-mail today. 

Yes, we do need structure. We have been following this structure, making
decsions within its framework, with consensus all along. I question the
need to reinvent the wheel with every specific decision. Which was the
cause of MY concerns. Since all the previous decisions had been made
within our framework, doing what we did Sunday in calling everything to
a screeching halt was effectively a call for undoing those past
decsions, even though it wasn't meant that way. If every time we turn
around, we stand the chace of overturning the good work done, properly
consensed to, by the group, we will leave ourselves far more open to
being dominated by a small group (which seeems to be the fear) than
being patient and fully discussing the situation and concerns BEFORE we
effectively undo previous decisions. I don't think this calls for more
structure, but a little more respect for what we do have.

Keep up the good work. Paul and others should take the time to step back
a little, take a break. We need all of you too much for the longrun, as
Paul so saliently put it. I know that I was doing exactly that the first
year, trying to balance school work, IMC, and other stuff. In important
ways, I have had to step back from some of my previous responsibilities,
the back room being one of them, but it happened anyway. We do have a
dynamic and multi-talenetd group of people. We do great things and will
keep doing them. New people are coming in all the time, even before the
back-back room happened. Let's move on and finish what needs done now
and let things slide that can't be dealt with or can be put off. It'll
be OK, really.

Mike Lehman



Jennifer Stewart wrote:
> 
> I do not have a negative attitude toward the shows that have
> gone on in the past four days. Except for a problem with the Absinthe
> Blind show, the other 3 shows went on without a hitch, thanks to many
> people who helped out, including Sascha, Brian, Eric, Amy, Zack, Matt,
> Clint, John Herrington, Molly, and Paul Kotheimer. We've made almost $500
> in profit for the IMC in the past four shows and the music has been great.
> A lot of new people have come into the IMC and have commented that they
> were glad that they did. Quite a few people asked how they could
> get involved. Hopefully the next two shows will go smoothly as
> well.
> 
> I thought that the ad-hoc shows group was here to deal with shows issues.
> Therefore, I was very surprised and frustrated when proposals to run shows
> were brought up in the sunday steering meeting. It seems that people are
> frustrated with how shows are being run and whether or not there should
> even be shows for various reasons. If someone else wants to "run" shows,
> please step forward and let the steering group and show group know. I felt
> like I have been doing a good job overall and I also have been trying
> very hard to get the word out about the IMC (making fliers, distributing
> fliers, posting shows on internet sites etc.), but I feel very criticized
> by certain members of the IMC and won't be doing any more shows after the
> ones I have already booked in May. I feel like the shows are being
> portrayed in a negative light by certain members of the IMC and it really
> defeats the purpose of shows in the first place: encouraging people to get
> involved, witness great performances, and have fun.
> --Jenny
SNIP
> > Message: 4
> > Date: Mon, 11 Mar 2002 17:58:27 -0600 (CST)
> > From: Sascha Meinrath <meinrath at uiuc.edu>
> > To: <imc at ucimc.org>
> > Subject: [Imc] Back-Back room info:
> >
> > Hi all,
> >
> > This Wednesday the Space Group will hold a special meeting at 6:30 to
> > draft up a plan and budget for the back room performance space.  Here's a
> > bit of background:
> >
> > On December 5th, 2001 the back room was first brought up as an idea for
> > expansion (along with other "space issues" mentioned in the notes from
> > that meeting including production room shelves, a new window sign, a water
> > line to the fridge, etc. etc. etc.) at the Space Group meeting (see
> > http://lists.cu.groogroo.com/mailman/archive/imc/2001-December/002007.html.
> >
> > During the 12/5/01 Finance Group meeting, the initial proposal for shows
> > booking was brought to that group (see
> > http://lists.cu.groogroo.com/mailman/archive/imc/2001-December/002008.html).
> >
> > During the December 9, 2001 Steering Group meeting, as part of the Space
> > Group update, the back room was first mentioned as an expansion project
> > (see
> > http://lists.cu.groogroo.com/mailman/archive/imc/2001-December/002019.html)
> > A looking for city grants to help defray the costs of improvements in the
> > performance area was brought up as a possible funding source (refer to the
> > Arts Venue items of the 12/5/01 Finance Group Notes).
> >
> > The Back room does not appear in the Steering Group notes on December
> > 16th (this meeting was taken up with issues of website abuse).  The IMC
> > steering group did not meet again until January 6, 2002 where the Back
> > Room was once again brought up as being available for IMC use at the end
> > of the month (see
> > http://lists.cu.groogroo.com/mailman/archive/imc/2002-January/002110.html).
> >
> > During the January 13, 2002 Steering Group meeting another update on the
> > Back room was made under the Space group update (see
> > http://lists.cu.groogroo.com/mailman/archive/imc/2002-January/002142.html)
> > stating that we should be able to get the back area in exchange for labor.
> >
> > On January 27, 2002, the Landlords officially said that it would be O.K.
> > for us to expand into the Back space.  I sent out an announcement to the
> > IMC list (see
> > http://lists.cu.groogroo.com/mailman/archive/imc/2002-January/002176.html)
> > and asked for people who wished to volunteer to step forward.
> >
> > On February 2, 2002 I sent out a status report (see
> > http://lists.cu.groogroo.com/mailman/archive/imc/2002-February/002197.html).
> > And let folks know another work day was planned for February 9th.
> >
> > The February 3, 2002 Steering Group report of the Space Group (see
> > http://lists.cu.groogroo.com/mailman/archive/imc/2002-February/002200.html)
> > updates the Steering Group on the Back room project which receives "kudos"
> > from the Steering Group.  A steering group participant asks for
> > suggestions concerning the new performance space and is referred to the
> > Space Group.
> >
> > Paul R. sends out an agenda for the February 10, 2002 meeting where
> > performance space/back-back room is one of the agenda items (see
> > http://lists.cu.groogroo.com/mailman/archive/imc/2002-February/002230.html).
> >
> > During the February 10, 2002 Steering Group Meeting a progress report is
> > made on the Back room (see
> > http://lists.cu.groogroo.com/mailman/archive/imc/2002-February/002258.html)
> > and a call for volunteers for the next work party is made.  Goal of having
> > the space usable by the second week in March is first made explicitly.
> >
> > The Space Group met on February 20, 2002 to discuss paint color schemes
> > (see
> > http://lists.cu.groogroo.com/mailman/archive/imc/2002-February/002314.html
> > -- the issue having been brought up in the Steering Group meeting and
> > referred to the Space Group).  And a call for a February 23rd workday is
> > made.
> >
> > During the February 24, 2002 Steering Group meeting the Tech working group
> > states it is "Working on back-back-room configurations & revamping sound
> > throughout the Center -- will use Allen Hall funding to help pay for the
> > upgrades."  Space Group provides a status report of the building of the
> > space. (see
> > http://lists.cu.groogroo.com/mailman/archive/imc/2002-February/002342.html)
> >
> > The March 3rd workday was announced on the 26th of February (see
> > http://lists.cu.groogroo.com/mailman/archive/imc/2002-February/002345.html).
> >
> > A tentative agenda for the March 3, 2002 Steering Group is sent out on
> > March 2, 2002 that has the back room as an item (see
> > http://lists.cu.groogroo.com/mailman/archive/imc/2002-March/002355.html).
> > And Space Group gave an update on the back room at the March 3, 2002
> > Steering Group Meeting (see
> > http://lists.cu.groogroo.com/mailman/archive/imc/2002-March/002361.html).
> >
> > Now, hopefully by now you're asking why all this information is here.
> > The main reason is that although there has been ample debate concerning
> > the back-back room, loads of discussion about it, and much meeting time
> > devoted to it, the IMC Steering Group has never explicitly stated that we
> > want to add it as a part of the IMC, and are concerned about how the
> > project has come into being.
> >
> > So I am hereby asking that we add this explicit agenda item to our meeting
> > next Sunday so that we can rebuild an active consensus around this issue
> > and move forward with the mission of the IMC -- to provide a venue for
> > voices not heard in the dominant media.
> >
> > If you would like to be part of the budget proposal and plan for the back
> > room performance space, please come to the space meeting this Wednesday.
> >
> > In solidarity,
> >
> > --Sascha
> >SNIP
> > Message: 6
> > Date: Mon, 11 Mar 2002 19:53:07 -0600 (CST)
> > From: Paul Kotheimer <herringb at prairienet.org>
> > To: Sascha Meinrath <meinrath at uiuc.edu>
> > Cc: imc at ucimc.org
> > Subject: Re: [Imc] Back-Back room info:
> >
> > hi all and Space Committee
> >
> > i can't attend this super-important Space Committee meeting.  i have a
> > report and a number of recommendations:
> >
> > REPORT
> >
> > i am one of a number of volunteers who has chosen to overwork myself
> > rather than see the Grand Ballroom grand opening flop.  i have stood
> > around in the cold while people bicker cluelessly.  i have vented my rage
> > at the situation by shouting at the top of my lungs (usually at home when
> > nobody can hear me).  i have watched while a lack of level-headed
> > decision-making taxes our trust, drains our energy, and drives creative
> > volunteers away. and i've been a part of the problem.
> >
> > i have had a good mind to call it quits and let "MY" portion of the Grand
> > Ballroom flop a number of times.  it has been painful to be a part of this
> > process. consensus can only happen when one has choices.  "pain or pain"
> > is not really a choice.
> >
> > speaking for myself as an individual, i do not consent to anything by
> > default. i resent when assignments fall to me by default.  i prefer to be
> > invited to teach.
> >
> > the thing i've learned by this process is this:  the idea that the IMC has
> > to do lots and lots and lots over a short period of time is an ILLUSION.
> > actually, what the IMC has to do is lots and lots over a LONG period of
> > time. and in order for us to do lots and lots over a LONG period of time,
> > we have to be careful not to end up doing what SEEMS like lots and lots
> > over a SHORT period of time, only to have the organization fall apart in
> > the long-term.  in three words:  LET'S GO   S--L--O---W----E----R!
> >
> >
> > ...and thereby have our organization last
> >
> > RECOMMENDATIONS COMING SOON
> >
> > paulkotheimer:)