After the Reval, many of us will be taking a portion of the world’s unworkability and gifting in such a way as to impact the circumstances that keep the unworkable conditions in place. I’d like to illustrate how my own project planning is going, to offer an example of one funding effort and the unworkability it addresses. I hope it assists you in your reflections.
The Projects and Their Process
A fund that I’ll be setting up has three projects at present:
(1) The Gender Equality Project will be funding women’s groups around the world (starting with Canada as a trial run, to get our grounding) to end gender inequality and gender persecution.
(2) The Vancouver Project explores ways of correcting imbalances within the community by seeing to the needs of single mothers, the elderly, sick, disabled and dying.
(3) The Youth Project Development Division will work specifically with youth artists, healers, inventors, etc., to bring their projects and dreams to fruition.
It’ll be a while before they’re all fully up and functioning. There’ll be much work in setting up offices, hiring staff, and creating procedures. And time out for a vacation.
Here’s how Archangel Michael asked us to proceed. He’s speaking at a time when we were just beginning to develop our ideas. They had not yet gelled into the specific projects they are now:
“The work is not simply for Lightworkers. It is to bring those who think that they are alone, isolated and forgotten to the warmth of Gaia’s hearth fire.
“Begin at home and get your feet wet. Begin with the disenfranchised adults – women, then men, then children, because the children will benefit right off the bat regardless.
“Then extend yourself to what you have thought of as the marginalized populations – yes, criminals and those who have been locked up because people label them mentally ill. Then spread your wings across the globe.” (1)
The Decision Makers and Their Process
This may be more detail than many people want. I’m writing specifically to financial wayshowers and showing the level of planning that can be done before abundance arrives.
In the judicial world of legal decision-making, the individuals who make the funding decisions would be considered tribunal members. I’m borrowing the term from the Immigration and Refugee Board (where I worked) and calling them “Members.”
Each Member is an independent decision maker, whose decisions cannot be overturned unless the Members are shown to have violated the law or the decision is shown to be patently unreasonable.
It isn’t enough to say that a decision is not the one I’d have made. If it’s reasonably open to the decision maker to have made the decision they did, then it wouldn’t be reviewed or overturned.
So as to preserve their independence, no discussion of a Member’s decision will be permitted until it’s made and, even then, no discussion will be permitted that constitutes gossiping, sidebarring, negative criticism, etc.
To allow sidebarring would be to jeopardize the Member’s ability to make the tough calls. Members might fashion their decisions under those circumstances so as to avoid criticism rather than to accord with the facts and claims of the case in question.
Discussion of the legal principles underlying a decision, of a “best practices” standard the decision sets, or of a well-carried-out interpretation of country conditions are examples of collegial discussions that forward the action rather than impeding it.
There will be Professional Development Days where country conditions are discussed, trends in decision-making, or the legal fine points of decision-making, credibility analysis, or the law.
(Concluded in Part 2.)
(1) Archangel Michael in a personal reading with Steve Beckow, through Linda Dillon, Aug. 6, 2013.