first I would like to rspond about the harrassment and racist issue, since I have been asked a direct question.
about harrassment yes, there are episodes of it which unfortunately happen a lot especially in weekend nights. i guess this is a common problem indeed with lots of horeca places.
personally i do not think that the best respons would be just to ban everyone. people need to be educated to a more respectful culture and the so called "power of definition" concept leaves me very dubious about achieving this difficult task.
what I do see happening amongst ACU, which I think is the problem brought up in the call out, is that these episodes do not really get discussed on contents, but more on who's the "perpetrator" and who's the "victim" (terms that are not my favourite, but I will use them to simplify).
if the perpetrator is someone we don't know, easy to target, then it is easy to ban him/her.
otherwise often people hides the head in the sand and pretends that it ain't that bad.
if we want to make a real difference in the outside world, we cannot ignore this. we have to start amongst ourselves in the first place to create a space where people feel safe and respected. and not grant special statuses just because you work there, which was my point also about political believes.
same goes for racist or desrespectful behaviour on similar issues. to say the very least, I would expect people that made borderline remarks which really offended others to apologize and show an opening towards this learning process, instead of just going on like nothing happened.
this is not how it goes, though, leaving a heavy trail of unsolved frustrations and the feeling that we can't really rely on our group for real support.
many people had this experience, including myself, and I wouldn't feel sure to go to a meeting to ask for help either, since i know that immediately people would take sides not on the issue itself but on personal likes and dislikes.
just to mention an example, I have been called a fascist on the ACU google group and nobody seemed bothered by it..on the other hand, when a much smaller remark was made about some of the above mentioned "high" people, all hell broke loose.
exactly, issues are not pointed out on contents, but on "who" you are within the ACU..that speaks by itself.
to respond to michiel, i want to point out that your explanation falls exactly in my previous description..everything seems pretty straight forward, clear, reasonable how you put it so that suddenly people start dobting what is it all about, then?
but how you put it, ain't really how things went and are.
there is a real, huge problem with the ACU finances, which despite financial meetings and all are still as non transparent as they can get.
sure, at least we get to see "some" papers now and then. but they do not explain much because they miss any detailed information over the expenses and neither we get proper explanations from you or other people that are busy with the administration.
and you say it yourself, balans we don't get at all, which means we miss half the info to begin with.
I totally agree with the DIY concept, that is why the finances group was created. but first of all, this group was not open to all that wanted to join. and moreover, despite asking for months access to REAL financial information, all these people got around to do is put the dagstaat in the computer, which is the basic step number one. they had no access to any "higher" level of information, nor the actual program of Cash, where they could get this information directly.
the idea of putting the Cash program in the ACU office died out after six months of you not being able to find out who had the passwords to install it.
key of the safe and the payments books where given to whom? who is the new finances group?
it puzzles me how things always seem to be open, and transparent, but when I go to take a closer look on them, it turnes out WE actually didn't really decide much at all.
besides, we had several experience on how financial information has been purspusefully misused, in and outside meetings.
it would be a long list, but I will bring up a small example that can also make people understand the adversity to ACU meetings.
It is about a dispute that came out over the red bons (monthly cards for free meals given to volunteers, that ACU pays back to the kitchen crew. I work in the kitchen crew btw).
just after we started talking about transparency in the ACU finances, and when we were almost getting somewhere, the bashing of the people involved with the beginning critics was initiated.
issues totally non relevant with the transparency topic were brough up in what i would describe as a very convenient manner for some. attention was suddenly directed to this new topics and, strangely enough!, away from the financial issues of the ACU.
the discussion degenerated for months, to the point of me being publically accused of "stealing" money from ACU by claming huge amount of bons money back from ACU. the person in question, throwing this accusation, was plently supported by you (michiel) during the meeting where this revelation came out. but what I know for a fact is that, as ACU administrator, you were in possensions (at your home) of all the invoices that I present at the end of every year which would definetly disprove this accusation. if put on the table. but nothing wast put on the table and despite my effords to come out "clean", the doubt floated for a long time around the kitchen people. which served a double purpose:
- it distracted attention and drained energy away from other topics;
- it discredited our credibility in front of the collective and that diminished the value of any claim we made.
I bring this up because it is a perfect example of how information (or withold of information) can be used in a dishonest manipulative way. how lack of transparency creates fractures and can support lies.
also a perfect example on why people "fear" meetings and to voice dissent. you never know what's coming up next and how you will be hit back. (I think by now I developed an elefant skin so not much will affect me...what else can they throw at me that hasn't been said already? ;-)
as a book keeper (which I am) all I can say is this: when you talk finances, papers on the table are all that matters . there are no more or less, maybes, or I think and in this case...there are numbers, which are accountable for.
and when you withold information to play internal political games of credit and discretid, I cannot consider you a honest, transparent administrator.
most of all, what I see as a real joke is how the issue about technics is presented.
for all outsiders, I want to clarify that people in ACU are not crazy. we do not think we should dance in the dark or play acustic music. there are certain expenses that cannot be avoided if we want to have a venue that guests concerts or dance nights, which are basically our main source of income. so that is not the topic here.
the real issue is the status that technics have within the ACU and how they can freely access money while everyone else have to go through meetings to do the same, or invest big sums into new equipment.
at least most people feels like we SHOULD do that, since it seems the only way to decide things together as a group.
this problem, and the attitude of technics, have been on top of the list for meeting agenda points for years.
as i said, we tried to make tons of appointments with them. even discussed a fixed budget for basic expenses (tape, screw, light bulbs) which nobody want to take over and over at meetings.
BUT we also have been very clear that investments in new equipment have to be brought up and discuss on forehand for several good reasons.
first, we have to decide together if we can efford them or maybe we want to spend the money in other ways. second, it helps understanding what is actually happening in other sections of the ACU. third, it should improve contact and communication between the groups.
this has been plainfully denied as not being an option. we can't expect it. or promised and not done.
nevertheless that little profit we make is basically eaten up by lights and sound equipment.
true, the expenses are not incredibly high compared to Tivoli..but for us they still are.
besides, technics crew are strongly supporting the people holding the administration. in every conflictual issue of a certain relevance they packed together as a front, cause certainly when this administration gets out of that hands, privileges are over for them. not that they will be "punished", simply they will have to go through the same procedure as everyone else and learn to make decisions together.
for someone that want to voice a dissent to this status quo and work on a more equalitarial level, it is very hard to face a compact group of people that presents such a wall against you.
I hope that this will clarify some more.
I feel the discussion better continue in person, so I hope to see many people on the 6th.
take care,
Margherita
response
first I would like to rspond about the harrassment and racist issue, since I have been asked a direct question.
about harrassment yes, there are episodes of it which unfortunately happen a lot especially in weekend nights. i guess this is a common problem indeed with lots of horeca places.
personally i do not think that the best respons would be just to ban everyone. people need to be educated to a more respectful culture and the so called "power of definition" concept leaves me very dubious about achieving this difficult task.
what I do see happening amongst ACU, which I think is the problem brought up in the call out, is that these episodes do not really get discussed on contents, but more on who's the "perpetrator" and who's the "victim" (terms that are not my favourite, but I will use them to simplify).
if the perpetrator is someone we don't know, easy to target, then it is easy to ban him/her.
otherwise often people hides the head in the sand and pretends that it ain't that bad.
if we want to make a real difference in the outside world, we cannot ignore this. we have to start amongst ourselves in the first place to create a space where people feel safe and respected. and not grant special statuses just because you work there, which was my point also about political believes.
same goes for racist or desrespectful behaviour on similar issues. to say the very least, I would expect people that made borderline remarks which really offended others to apologize and show an opening towards this learning process, instead of just going on like nothing happened.
this is not how it goes, though, leaving a heavy trail of unsolved frustrations and the feeling that we can't really rely on our group for real support.
many people had this experience, including myself, and I wouldn't feel sure to go to a meeting to ask for help either, since i know that immediately people would take sides not on the issue itself but on personal likes and dislikes.
just to mention an example, I have been called a fascist on the ACU google group and nobody seemed bothered by it..on the other hand, when a much smaller remark was made about some of the above mentioned "high" people, all hell broke loose.
exactly, issues are not pointed out on contents, but on "who" you are within the ACU..that speaks by itself.
to respond to michiel, i want to point out that your explanation falls exactly in my previous description..everything seems pretty straight forward, clear, reasonable how you put it so that suddenly people start dobting what is it all about, then?
but how you put it, ain't really how things went and are.
there is a real, huge problem with the ACU finances, which despite financial meetings and all are still as non transparent as they can get.
sure, at least we get to see "some" papers now and then. but they do not explain much because they miss any detailed information over the expenses and neither we get proper explanations from you or other people that are busy with the administration.
and you say it yourself, balans we don't get at all, which means we miss half the info to begin with.
I totally agree with the DIY concept, that is why the finances group was created. but first of all, this group was not open to all that wanted to join. and moreover, despite asking for months access to REAL financial information, all these people got around to do is put the dagstaat in the computer, which is the basic step number one. they had no access to any "higher" level of information, nor the actual program of Cash, where they could get this information directly.
the idea of putting the Cash program in the ACU office died out after six months of you not being able to find out who had the passwords to install it.
key of the safe and the payments books where given to whom? who is the new finances group?
it puzzles me how things always seem to be open, and transparent, but when I go to take a closer look on them, it turnes out WE actually didn't really decide much at all.
besides, we had several experience on how financial information has been purspusefully misused, in and outside meetings.
it would be a long list, but I will bring up a small example that can also make people understand the adversity to ACU meetings.
It is about a dispute that came out over the red bons (monthly cards for free meals given to volunteers, that ACU pays back to the kitchen crew. I work in the kitchen crew btw).
just after we started talking about transparency in the ACU finances, and when we were almost getting somewhere, the bashing of the people involved with the beginning critics was initiated.
issues totally non relevant with the transparency topic were brough up in what i would describe as a very convenient manner for some. attention was suddenly directed to this new topics and, strangely enough!, away from the financial issues of the ACU.
the discussion degenerated for months, to the point of me being publically accused of "stealing" money from ACU by claming huge amount of bons money back from ACU. the person in question, throwing this accusation, was plently supported by you (michiel) during the meeting where this revelation came out. but what I know for a fact is that, as ACU administrator, you were in possensions (at your home) of all the invoices that I present at the end of every year which would definetly disprove this accusation. if put on the table. but nothing wast put on the table and despite my effords to come out "clean", the doubt floated for a long time around the kitchen people. which served a double purpose:
- it distracted attention and drained energy away from other topics;
- it discredited our credibility in front of the collective and that diminished the value of any claim we made.
I bring this up because it is a perfect example of how information (or withold of information) can be used in a dishonest manipulative way. how lack of transparency creates fractures and can support lies.
also a perfect example on why people "fear" meetings and to voice dissent. you never know what's coming up next and how you will be hit back. (I think by now I developed an elefant skin so not much will affect me...what else can they throw at me that hasn't been said already? ;-)
as a book keeper (which I am) all I can say is this: when you talk finances, papers on the table are all that matters . there are no more or less, maybes, or I think and in this case...there are numbers, which are accountable for.
and when you withold information to play internal political games of credit and discretid, I cannot consider you a honest, transparent administrator.
most of all, what I see as a real joke is how the issue about technics is presented.
for all outsiders, I want to clarify that people in ACU are not crazy. we do not think we should dance in the dark or play acustic music. there are certain expenses that cannot be avoided if we want to have a venue that guests concerts or dance nights, which are basically our main source of income. so that is not the topic here.
the real issue is the status that technics have within the ACU and how they can freely access money while everyone else have to go through meetings to do the same, or invest big sums into new equipment.
at least most people feels like we SHOULD do that, since it seems the only way to decide things together as a group.
this problem, and the attitude of technics, have been on top of the list for meeting agenda points for years.
as i said, we tried to make tons of appointments with them. even discussed a fixed budget for basic expenses (tape, screw, light bulbs) which nobody want to take over and over at meetings.
BUT we also have been very clear that investments in new equipment have to be brought up and discuss on forehand for several good reasons.
first, we have to decide together if we can efford them or maybe we want to spend the money in other ways. second, it helps understanding what is actually happening in other sections of the ACU. third, it should improve contact and communication between the groups.
this has been plainfully denied as not being an option. we can't expect it. or promised and not done.
nevertheless that little profit we make is basically eaten up by lights and sound equipment.
true, the expenses are not incredibly high compared to Tivoli..but for us they still are.
besides, technics crew are strongly supporting the people holding the administration. in every conflictual issue of a certain relevance they packed together as a front, cause certainly when this administration gets out of that hands, privileges are over for them. not that they will be "punished", simply they will have to go through the same procedure as everyone else and learn to make decisions together.
for someone that want to voice a dissent to this status quo and work on a more equalitarial level, it is very hard to face a compact group of people that presents such a wall against you.
I hope that this will clarify some more.
I feel the discussion better continue in person, so I hope to see many people on the 6th.
take care,
Margherita