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.)

Footnotes

(Concluded from Part 1.)

Reaching a Decision

How will they reach a decision in the larger and more complex funding requests? The legal test or standard of proof they’ll be applying is “a balance of probabilities.” That translates into “more likely credible than not.”

So not “credible beyond the shadow of a doubt,” which is a much higher standard of proof but, to use other words, “probably credible,” “more than a fifty-percent chance of being credible,” etc.

Credibility is assessed by looking for implausibilities, improbabilities, impossibilities, inconsistencies and contradictions in the submitted request and its back-up documentation or any oral testimony that may be gathered or heard. If the evidence is plausible, probable, possible, consistent and uncontradicted, it’s assumed, on a balance of probabilities, to be credible.

With grants over $50,000, we may in the beginning use compliance testing, go teams, researchers, etc., to verify a group’s bona fides.

Compliance testing ensures that a product or service meets a defined set of industry standards as well as requirements and demands specific to that product or service.

In the case of companies or groups, it may be used to guard against fraud, misrepresentation, criminal activity, duplicate submissions, etc.

Go teams are an element of compliance testing. They’ll go out sparingly (only in the case of large or significant requests or requests upon which doubt has been cast) into the field, where needed, to confirm that circumstances are as they’re represented as being.

Researchers will supply the Members with research pertinent to a funding request – background information on the circumstances of gender inequality or persecution in that country or region, the group making the funding request, or any other circumstances the Members should know to allow them to reach their decisions in a clear, timely, and well-informed manner.

When it comes to gifting in countries that have had repressive regimes, that have social mores and values that have to be known and respected, or that have laws and regulations that have to be observed, the researchers will alert the Member. In some and perhaps even many circumstances, special provisions may need to be made to protect individuals and groups at risk. For instance, gifting an Afghani women’s organization with $50,000 might be akin to signing a death warrant for its members. A risk-free way will need to be found.

We won’t be tracking the use of the funds once they leave our hands. Archangel Michael has asked us not to spend time on that, but instead to ask for a report on how the money was spent if the group comes to us a second time.

This is the Mother’s money, he’s told us. If it’s asked for and gained under false pretenses, it’ll still have a transformative effect on the recipient anyways.

We know we’ll probably be scammed perhaps 10-15% of the time.

Any widescale provision for the wellbeing of a group is open to being scammed. Unemployment insurance, car insurance, medical insurance – in the past, there’s always been someone scamming something – or so it seems.

We accept that as a “cost of doing business,” rather than wasting our time excessively worrying about it.

But there’ll be less and less of that as our vibrations rise. I’m led to believe, those recipients who perform well will be handling a stream of funds that will go far past the original sum earned from currency exchanges.

Review and Expedited Streams

For us there will be two streams of requests: the “review” stream and the “expedited” stream.

A Registrar will receive all requests and channel them into one stream or the other. The “expedited” requests have been judged by the Registrar’s staff to be straightforward and non-controversial. They require a simple signature from the Member and little or no research will accompany the file.

The “review” stream comes to the Member’s desk with research attached and may require compliance testing or a go-team visit.

The funding decision will be made after study of the background research and the results of compliance testing and/or go-team visit, due reflection, and consulting the heart. “When your heart says contribute,” Archangel Michael has said, “then that is the litmus test.” (1)

For amounts over $50,000, a short written decision will be produced that gives the Member’s reasons for accepting the claims of the requester and gifting the funds.

It will acknowledge what the pertinent background research says, the testing done, and the grounds for reaching the decision.

Decisions will be stored in a database to allow for review and for statistical analysis. The principles of law that apply in the Canadian judicial system, which is very robust, will be the standard the projects follow.

Archangel Michael has asked us to act consciously as wayshowers and to make our arrangements capable of being used as industry standards elsewhere. So no $500,000 salaries for executives who do nothing. But generous salaries, with the employee having a say in setting amounts.

He further stipulated that we not simply reproduce the old Third-Dimensional environment of hierarchy, control, dog-eat-dog suspicion, etc. If we did, he said, he’d shut us down.

Compensation will include such things as a six-hour work day, a benefits plans covering medical, pharmaceutical, dental and hospital bills, a generous severance package, debt retirement, etc.

Footnotes