Accepted
DAVIS FOOD COOPERATIVE, INC.
BOARD OF DIRECTORS
March 8, 2010
Notice of Closed Session
A special meeting of the Board was called to order by Kevin Wolf at 6:10 pm. This session was closed to guests pursuant to Board Policy GP6(D), which requires discussions concerning issues of a sensitive nature be held confidentially.
Directors Present: Janie Booth, Julie Cross, Sam Citron, Theodora Consolacion, Stacie Hartung-Frerichs, Desmond Jolly, Steve Reynolds, Kevin Wolf, Jack Young
Guest: Eric Stromberg
Directors Absent: Michael Ulrich
Julie moves that we do not act upon the boycott resolution tonight and moves that, in open session, we schedule a special meeting on Monday March 15th to discuss the proper purpose of the proposed boycott with respect to the Davis Food Cooperative.
Desmond seconds
Motion passes unanimously
The closed session was adjourned at 6:47p.m.
/s/ Julie Cross, Secretary
__________________________________ ______________________
Secretary, Davis Food Cooperative, Inc. Date Approved
Call to Order
The regular monthly meeting was called to order at 7:00pm at the Davis Food Co-op Teaching Kitchen, 537 G Street, Davis, California, by Steve Reynolds, President.
Roll Call:
Directors Present: Janie Booth, Julie Cross, Sam Citron, Theodora Consolacion, Stacie Hartung-Frerichs, Desmond Jolly, Steve Reynolds, Kevin Wolf, Jack Young
Directors Absent: Michael Ulrich
Staff Present: Kenna Krueger, Eric Stromberg, Beth Tausczik
Guests Present: Alan Brownstein, Ed Rabin, Karen Firestein, Ken Firestein, Maggie Coulter, Barry Broad, Mikos Fabersonne, Elizabeth Broadman, Donna Mill, Julia Hunter-Blair, Gene Borak, Mary Wind, George Rooks, Frank Fox, Noreen Mazelis, Karen Berliner, Sandy Sokolow, Roy Levin, Galia Franco, Geoffrey Wildanger, Steve Weinbaum, Zipola Weinbaum
.
Roles:
Facilitator: Julie Cross
Time Keeper: Desmond Jolly
Notetaker: Nathan Milos
The Secretary determined that notice of the meeting was duly provided as required by Bylaw Art. VIII §6(C), and that a quorum of Directors was present under Art. VIII §6(B).
1.1 Welcome to Member-Owners and Introductions
Steve: This is the time in our agenda for member owner comments. We have a couple of rules; they’ve been passed out. 1) If you don’t have to talk, please don’t. 2) If somebody said what you were going to say, please don’t repeat it. 3) This is an issue that generates a lot of emotion, so please use language as kindly as possible and listen as well as possible. On behalf of the board, we are listening to our members. We’re a volunteer board and it sometimes takes us a long time to get to issues. I understand that that’s frustrating. I’d like to point out that we’re sure to disappoint everyone here, but we at least like to explain why we do what we do here.
1.2 Member-Owner comment period – Directors may also report comments from Member-Owners
Harriet Gadisman: I want to say that I haven’t bought anything at the Co-op since this whole boycott started. And I think a lot of people feel this way. I don’t think it’s fair to single out one country when so many have human rights violations.
[Harriet also presented me with the following statement to include in the minutes]: The proponents of the BDS position have got some of their points wrong. They condemn Israel for “human rights violations.” Israel is trying to defend herself against terrorists. There is no sovereign nation would take 3,000 bombs aimed and fired at their civilian population (as Israel has from Gaza) without stopping them.
I spent an entire year in Israel. I was at the University of Haifa where 50% of the students are Arabic and Islamic. My Islamic roommates had more freedom in Israel than they would have in any of the 25 or so Islamic countries surrounding Israel. In Israeli hospitals, Arab and Islamic citizens of Israel are treated side by side with Jewish Israeli patients. I know that Palestinians must have their own country, but the truth is that they are committed to nothing less than the destruction of Israel. Why does the Food Co-op need to divest or boycott JUST Israeli products, when so many OTHER countries have records of much WORSE human rights violations?
Gene Borak [reading selections from the following prepared statement]:
1. As a member of a group at Davis Congregation Bet Haverim that has been struggling for over two years now to allow alternative ‘voices’ to be aired in our Jewish congregation concerning the Israeli/Palestinian conflict, I am well aware of similar draconian forecasts, as outlined in Mr. Reynold’s email of organizational membership and financial ruin, being attempted to intimidate our Bet Havarim congregation membership and its Board. The draconian threats were resisted by the Congregation Board and never did materialize.
2. If, in fact as my personal phone conversation with a Dept. of Commerce representative, Kathleen Ryan, appeared to confirm, the US Dept of Commerce statute cited cannot be applied to claim this initiative is unlawful, the last barrier to the initiative appears now to have moved to the word proper as in “lawful and proper.” Proper, as I understand it, refers to policy and does give the Board a degree of discretion in making final policy decisions. However, quoting from the Co-op website, “The Davis Co-op adheres to the principles of the International Cooperative Alliance, last modified in 1995.” Principle 2 of this Alliance titled Democratic Member Control reads as follows: “Cooperatives are democratic organizations controlled by their members who ACTIVELY PARTICIPATE IN SETTING POLICY and making decisions…” This principle does not permit the Co-op board to make a policy decision while denying members the ability to actively participate in the process. This advisory initiative, under consideration, is clearly legitimate and the most democratic vehicle for the members to exercise this active-participation-in-setting-policy principle.
3. On a personal note, I make the Co-op my primary supermarket in spite of the fact that it probably will never be able to match the E. Covell Nugget in resources available for general ambiance, shopper comfort, product variety, and even, not infrequently, superior fresh organic produce. The Nugget undoubtedly will continue to increase its efforts to capture more organic food Co-op shoppers. I maintain loyalty to the Co-op as my primary destination for food purchases precisely because it continues to represent a populist ethos that I support which cannot be found in other Davis corporate business supermarkets. The Co-op board appears on the verge of denying its shareholders the opportunity to vote on this ADVISORY initiative which appears will meet all the objective requirements of the bylaws. In doing so, the board is seriously eroding Co-op long-standing populist principles. How significantly this will damage shopper loyalty and the future of the Davis Co-op enterprise needs to be seriously considered.
George Rooks [reading from a prepared statement]:
Thank you. I will be speaking very briefly. My name is George Rooks. I am a member of Congregation Bet Haverim where I chair a committee named Israel Matters. I also am a co-leader of the Davis Interfaith Coalition for Peace and Justice in the Middle East. It is more in this latter capacity that I am speaking tonight.
The Interfaith Coalition has been primarily responsible for the tabling outside the Co-op opposing the proposed boycott. Our coalition strongly disagrees with the content of the proposed resolution, but the thrust of our opposition is best expressed on the handout that we have been distributing for the last month.
We believe that the proposed resolution may cause irreparable harm to the financial viability of the Co-op; we believe that it is causing deep community division, which is counter to the principles of cooperatives, and we believe that the proposed resolution would take away the freedom of choice of Co-op members to buy what they want.
After we started tabling, shoppers continually asked us if the could sign a document expressing their disagreement with the proposed boycott, so we started a list of signatures. And, even though we started gathering signatures much later than our adversaries – and even though we suspended gathering signatures for almost two weeks last month, we still have hundreds of signatures that I would like to present to you tonight [hands list of signatures to Steve Reynolds, board President].
Finally, we would also like to thank the Board for its hard work in this difficult situation. We deeply appreciate that the board is attempting to exercise its fiduciary responsibility to protect the Co-op.
Maggie Coulter [reading from a prepared statement]:
We appreciate this opportunity to speak to the board and other members of the Co-op. We understand that opponents of our resolution were able to address the board on January 25th for at least 20 minutes. Unfortunately, we were not aware that the Board had changed its normal first Monday meeting from February 1 to January 25 or we would have been there. Had the Board’s February 5th meeting been open to shareholders, we would have been at that also.
We have a statement for the board, which we will all participate in giving during our 20 minutes and then will share remaining time in 3-minute intervals to give equal time to the opposition.
Brief History and Why the Co-op
As members of the Co-op, we take Co-op values very seriously. These are stated on the Davis Food Co-op website and include the ethical values of honesty, openness, social responsibility, and caring for others.
The combination of these values, the Co-op’s democratic principles, and the proud history of our Co-op honoring human-rights based boycotts made it obvious to us that the Co-op was the place to bring our human rights initiative.
It is absolutely true that we are asking Co-op shareholders to take action on a serious and unfortunately controversial matter. I say unfortunately, because it is truly unfortunate that there is any controversy about human rights. Human rights are guaranteed under international law for all people regardless of race, religion, ethnicity, gender, or political beliefs.
I don’t know how many of you attended the excellent debate held in Davis last night about this issue, but it was made clear repeatedly throughout the debate that boycott divestment and sanctions (BDS) are legitimate, non-violent and successful strategies for social change.
It was also repeatedly made clear that the request for BDS as a means of pressuring Israel to obey international law and to cease and rectify its violations of the human rights of the Palestinian people IS NOT a call for prejudice or discrimination against any people based on their religious, ethnic, cultural or other identity. It is directed explicitly at the state of Israel, a government entity, whose continuing policies and practices are in direct violation of international law and human rights.
Examples of such violations include: Israel is continuing its illegal policy of ethnic cleansing against the native peoples, it is killing, maiming and imprisoning non-violent community activists, and it is committing slow genocide against the 1.5 million people who are imprisoned in the Gaza strip.
I have done a lot of reading and have heard people speak about what is going on in Israel and the lands they occupy. This past weekend I heard testimony from a Norwegian doctor who went to Gaza to help tend to the wounded during Israel’s most recent assault which lasted for 22 days in Dec 08/Jan 09. His photographs and stories illustrate the savagery of that attack, which was against the civilian population and was in the planning stages for several months before it took place.
But I have done more than read and hear testimonies, I have lived in the West Bank for six months and I have visited Gaza. I have seen firsthand the human rights violations committed by Israel against the occupied Palestinians in the West Bank, I have seen the illegal colonies built by Israel on stolen Palestinian land, I have seen the chopped down olive trees, the massive apartheid wall.
I also visited Gaza six months after Israel’s attacks in Dec08/Jan09. I saw the destroyed homes, schools, government buildings, mosques, and ambulances – destruction done with my tax dollars. I talked to a boy who lost his leg and three of his siblings when Israel bombed his house.
The fact that our taxes go to support Israel’s human rights violations compels us to take effective action. While we continue to lobby Congress, we know, like many Americans, that our Congress isn’t paying much attention to human needs or rights either in this country or abroad.
We also use our power as consumers, as owners of a food store, and as members of our community to try to stop this ethnic cleansing, this genocide, this killing and harassment of non-violent activists, this stealing of land, and this legitimization of an apartheid regime.
Co-op Products
People ask us what products the Co-op carries that are made in Israel. These include couscous, cheese, chocolate, Dead Sea skin care products, and wine.
The three Israeli wines that the Co-op carries are made in the occupied Golan Heights in violation of the Fourth Geneva Convention. We are continuing research on the other products with a project in Israel started by Jewish-Israeli women peace activists. They are doing research on how Israel profits from its illegal colonies in the West Bank and the Golan Heights. These courageous women have signed on to the international call for boycott, divestment, and sanctions, as have other Israelis and Jews, Christians, and Muslims around the world.
The Co-op carries two brands of Palestinian olive oil that are produced by Palestinians in the occupied West Bank. These Palestinian products are not included in the boycott.
Berkeley Co-op
I want to close with a comment about the Consumers Cooperative of Berkeley, about which much has been written. I want to read a few words excerpted from an article by former Co-op employee Paul Rauber regarding the demise of the Berkeley Co-op:
“It is hard to gauge the cost to the organization of the political squabbling. Whenever a controversial stand was taken, like boycotting Coors beer or Chilean grapes, a number of members would swear never to shop at CCB again. This would seem like suicide for store dependent on the greatest possible volume – except that such stands also seemed to increase the solidarity of other shoppers…. The dangers of avoiding controversial stands proved to be as great as taking them…. What was it then that killed the Co-op? Too rapid expansion into areas without a firm member base, increasing reliance on non-members; an attempt to emulate aspects of the major chains beyond the organizations ability to do so…inability to control labor costs as a percent of sales; a spectacular failure of the Rochdale principle of cooperation between cooperatives; and plain bad luck.”
The history of CCB vindicates the importance of democratic decision making: the most costly errors came as a result of major decisions made in secret or those made by only a narrow majority.
What differentiates the Davis Co-op from a privately owned grocery store is that it is democratically controlled by the members. This enables members or shareholders to have a say in the policies of their store including what it sells.
We don’t know if our resolution will pass, but we want members to be able to vote on it. I think the Co-op’s obstructing this resolution from going on the ballot is a serious blow to the Co-op’s democracy and does not bode well for maintaining this essential distinction and selling point between the Co-op and Trader Joe’s.
The Resolution should be placed before a vote of the members.
Julie: I’ve been a long time member and I object to this attempted railroading of the Co-op.
Barry: The question of whether to boycott should be an individual one. I don’t buy products from China. Let’s talk about countries that allow honor killings, genocide (like Sudan and Morocco), slavery (about 100 countries including Cambodia, India, Pakistan, Iran, Iraq, Lebanon, etc.), if you want to talk about countries that limit basic democratic rights we could talk about those. You could go on and on and soon have no products at all. I don’t think the Davis Food Co-op needs to be the test case for this.
David Jaffey: I’m a member of Jewish Voice for Peace. I do differ with some of my Jewish friends about Israel. The Co-op can’t handle all of the countries with human rights, but Israel is an important one. I think the members should get a chance to vote. If the majority of co-ops members want to prevent this kind of action by a state, they should be allowed to
.
Karen Firestein [reading from a prepared statement]:
Good evening, I am Karen Firestein, Co-President of Congregation Bet Haverim of Davis. We would like to reaffirm our position opposing the boycott, which we expressed at the February Davis Food Co-op Board meeting. We would also like to thank the board for its hard work and for the diligence it demonstrated in dealing with this difficult and divisive issue. We understand that the board has adopted a resolution stating that the proposed anti-Israel boycott does not specify a lawful purpose and, accordingly, that under the co-op’s by-laws it should not be presented to its membership on the ballot. We support the Board in adopting this resolution.
It has been suggested that the board should permit the boycott resolution to go forward on the ballot with the understanding that the legality of the resolution can be evaluated after the vote on the resolution has taken place. We would hope that the board rejects this proposal. We do not see the merit of the Co-op experiencing the further divisiveness, controversy, and expense that placing this resolution on the ballot would engender when the resolution may not serve a lawful purpose in the first place.
We would add that in addition to the legal questions that have arisen with regard to this resolution, we would hope that the board carefully considers whether a resolution like this one serves a proper purpose. This Co-op adheres to the Principles of Cooperatives, which include Concern for community. We question whether the proposed resolution is compatible with the community harmony to which the Co-op is dedicated.
Mikos Fabersonne [reading from a prepared statement]:
In the face of controversy about this resolution, we understand the Board of Directors is considering declaring the resolution in violation of the criterion requiring service of a “proper purpose.” In my conversations with a couple of you, I have heard allegations that implementation of the shareholders resolution would violate the Co-op’s fundamental principles. Here we are talking about the principles of the International Cooperative Association, to which the Davis Food Co-op claims on its website to adhere:
“A co-operative is an autonomous association of persons united voluntarily to meet their common economic, social, and cultural needs and aspirations through a jointly-owned and democratically-controlled enterprise.
Co-operatives are based on the values of self-help, self-responsibility, democracy, equality, equity, and solidarity. In the tradition of their founders, co-operative members believe in the ethical values of honesty, openness, social responsibility, and caring for others.”
Our actions are clearly based out of social responsibility and the desire to care for others. Our goal in this shareholder initiative is to seek equity for the Palestinian people suffering under the Israeli occupation, an occupation whose perpetuation is enabled through our own government and our silence and inaction. It should be clear to all of you that it is about equality, equity and caring for others. But let me focus on one term, solidarity. What does it mean to be in solidarity? Solidarity is used to connote action in union or fellowship arising from common responsibilities and interests, as between members of a group or between classes, peoples, etc.: e.g., to promote solidarity among union members. The Co-op was in solidarity with agricultural workers in the 1960’s and 70’s when it supported the UFW boycotts, with the Latino brewery workers, when it supported the boycott against Coors, and with the South Africans when it supported the boycott and divestment movement against apartheid in the 1980’s and 90’s. The concept of solidarity is not a passing fad, as Julie and Eric implied in the March newsletter – where I might add we were denied the opportunity to print our case for the resolution. Respect for human rights requires eternal vigilance. If we dismiss it, then we risk what Pastor Martin Niemoller referred to in his remarks about not speaking up during the Nazi occupation of Europe, which most of us in this room have heard in one form or another:
“In Germany they came first for the communists and I didn’t speak up, because I wasn’t a communist. Then they came for the Jews and I didn’t speak up because I wasn’t a Jew. Then they came for the trade unionists and I didn’t speak up because I wasn’t a trade unionist. Then they came for the Catholics and I didn’t speak up because I was a Protestant. Then they came for me – and by that time, no one was left to speak up.”
But the other key principles are those I wish to focus upon during the remainder of my time. These define the Co-op as an entity based upon “democracy” and “democratic control” – one whose governance is based upon the ethics of honesty and openness. You, as members of the Co-op Board, if you continue to deny a place for the initiative on the ballot and the opportunity for members to express their opinion, you will be violating Principle 1: “Voluntary and Open Membership”: “Co-operatives are voluntary organizations, open to all persons able to use their services and willing to accept the responsibilities of membership, without gender, social, racial, political, or religious discrimination.”
Our resolution implements a purchasing policy directed against a state – a Jewish ethnocracy – that discriminates upon the basis of religion. Our resolution seeks to end these discriminatory practices; moreover, in reference to the Co-op criteria, it discriminates against no member or customer – it does not prevent Christians, Buddhists, Muslims, or Jews from shopping at the Co-op because of their religious preference or their race. In fact all of us in this campaign have stood up against such discrimination in the past in other human and civil rights movements by speaking out against racism, anti Semitism, sexism or homophobia.
In contrast, the Board’s pre-emptive action takes a position against my right and the rights of my fellow shareholders to express our political opinions in an open, democratic election using the process that is specifically provided for in the Bylaws.
It violates the second, third and fourth principles because it denies exercise of the initiative process provided for in the Co-op by-laws, a process recognized as an important form of democratic control over Co-op decisions related to the use of the Co-op’s capital in its purchasing decisions:
2nd PRINCIPLE:
DEMOCRATIC MEMBER CONTROL
Co-operatives are democratic
organisations controlled by their members, who actively participate
in setting their policies and making decisions. Men and women
serving as elected representatives are accountable to the membership.
In primary co-operatives members have equal voting rights (one
member, one vote) and co-operatives at other levels are organised in
a democratic manner.
3rd PRINCIPLE:
MEMBER ECONOMIC PARTICIPATION
Members contribute equitably to,
and democratically control, the capital of their co-operative.
4th PRINCIPLE:
AUTONOMY AND INDEPENDENCE
Co-operatives are autonomous,
self-help organisations controlled by their members. If they
enter into agreements with other organisations, including
governments, or raise capital from external sources, they do so on
terms that ensure democratic control by their members and
maintain their co-operative autonomy.
It violates
Principle 5: “EDUCATION, TRAINING AND INFORMATION” by stifling
the flow of information to members. The board has denied us the
opportunity to present our arguments in the newsletter, such as the
March edition to which I referred previously.
And it violates
Principle 7: “Concern for Community,” because it denies members
the opportunity to express their desire for a Co-op policy that can
contribute to global sustainability, whereas present U.S. foreign
policy and expenditures of U.S. taxpayer dollars in support of Israel
threaten such sustainability.
I should point out that you will not find such principles stated in the public documents on the website of Nugget Market – they talk about the goal of quality products and low-prices. Trader Joe’s says, “we’re as much about value as we are about great food.” And I seriously doubt that Safeway incorporates language similar to our Co-op principles in their Bylaws. As shoppers, we have no direct mechanism to influence the policies of private- or publicly-held food markets and chains as we do with our Co-op.
In conclusion, it should be clear to everyone in this room that the resolution meets the criterion of “proper purpose” under the Bylaws and Co-op Principles. By now, I hope it is also clear that keeping the initiative off the ballot would be behaving to the contrary. The board needs to live up to the stated principles, and place the initiative on the ballot…Period.
If you as board members do not wish to comply with these principles, then you should develop referendum language that asks us, in a shareholder election, to give up our rights. While it may be trendy to give up rights of free speech and habeas corpus, as Congress was willing to do with the passage of the Patriot Act and the Military Commissions Act during the Bush administration, and while these principles may seem “quaint” to some in Co-op management, as they did to former Attorney General Alberto Gonzales, I think they take the Co-op in the wrong direction – one towards authoritarianism rather than democracy.
Edward Rabin: My reason for joining the co-op is I like your selection of flour. I didn’t have a high philosophical principle. This proposal is an attempt to have one group of people to forbid another group from buying products they want. I believe that the pro-boycott members have all the rights to persuade people not to buy Israeli products, but I don’t think they have the right to keep me from buying the products that I want to. By all means urge people not to buy Israeli goods, but don’t force me to go elsewhere to do so,
Julie Hunter-Blair [reading from the following prepared statement]:
Because there is controversy over the initiative brought to the Co-op by The Davis Committee for Palestinian Rights, it is very important to understand what this initiative IS and what it is NOT.
We, the DCPR, support local efforts in Davis related to the international call for Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions (BDS), to pressure Israel to comply with international law, end its occupation, and end its violation of the human rights of the Palestinian people. The Committee’s efforts – and this is very important to understand – ARE NOT and WILL NOT be focused solely on the Davis Food Co-op.
However, we are members of the Co-op, and because we believe in its democratic nature, this seemed the logical place to promote a member-supported initiative, allowing the entire membership to have a voice in the matter. This kind of campaign is not possible at other grocery stores.
Some have questioned us, “Since this is about education can’t you do it another way?” While there is indeed an educational component to the global BDS movement, it does not stop there. This is a call to action – a non-violent response and an effective way not only to expose Israel’s continued human rights violations (with our own government’s complicity), but to apply both economic and moral pressure for change.
The global BDS movement is growing. We want the Co-op membership to be able to decide for themselves if they want their Co-op to become a part of this global, grassroots movement. Again, the initiative has always been about letting the shareholders decide. Controversy in a democratic process is not the same as promoting divisiveness. And controversy should not lead to threats that would shut down the democratic process. Unfortunately, that is what is happening here.
To quote from an e-mail written by Steve Reynolds to one of the organizers of the initiative: “…yes, there have been threats to the Co-op if the petition is allowed on the ballot. A significant number of long-time members have threatened to stop shopping if the petition is put on the ballot. They have also threatened to withdraw from membership.” Also in an e-mail Mr. Reynolds wrote that the Coop “has been threatened with litigation by both sides.”
The proponents of the initiative are NOT those making these threats. We have NOT changed our shopping habits, nor have we ever threatened to do so. We have never encouraged any of our supporters to do so. We have never threatened litigation. Neither have we threatened, nor promoted others to threaten, to pull member shares. (What we did do is involve the National Lawyers’ Guild when questions of legality arose; this was to clarify the Guild’s legal opinion to the Board in order directly to address this concern raised by the Board).
Which is to say that if the Co-op is in ANY way threatened by this initiative, this charge should be leveled squarely upon the opponents of the initiative, not us. We hope that will inform the entire membership of any real threats of litigation, and let us know if and how your decision-making will be affected by those threats.
Can you honestly tell us that these threats have nothing to do with your decision to disallow the initiative from appearing on the ballot? And if these threats have influenced you in any way, then we must conclude that the opponents have done an even deeper damage to the Co-op: they have suppressed the rights of the entire Co-op membership and have undermined its democratic nature. What differentiates the Co-op from other grocery stores, such as Nugget or Trader Joe’s, is that it is a Democratic Organization whose control ultimately rests in the hands of its members/shareholders.
Finally, to the opponents of this initiative: We are all members of The Davis Food Co-op. You are entitled to your opinion and to voice your opposition to our initiative. We are in no way trying to prevent your ability to vote; and we do not think that you should eliminate ours.
Kiri Akos: I was shocked to read a formal legalistic letter by the Board Of Directors that is far from the democratic ethos I expect from the Co-op. I think it is imperative to let members have their say. We will collectively make a decision and take all legal opinions not just one legal opinion into consideration. Please allow the members to have a vote.
Sandy Sokolow: I would like to speak against resurrecting this issue, which I believe was settled by legal counsel. I think that the people who wanted to boycott are wasting their breath and time.
Karen Berliner: The co-op needs to stay welcome to all. Open community organizations need to remain neutral to all. The Co-op is about community, the whole community. The Co-op got an electric cart when I requested one. The Co-op gave my son his first job and his first volunteer position. My daughter volunteered at the Co-op. The Co-op has always been non-judgmental. The Co-op helps support many families in Davis and outside of Davis. Not only does the proposed boycott completely chill the notion that everyone is welcome here. It challenges the Co-op financially. The Co-op thrives as an idea – community – not just as a business.
Mary Wind [reading selections from the following prepared statement]:
A direct attack on the democratic nature of the Co-op is now taking place. The Davis Food Co-op website proclaims that as a Co-op it is by definition: “a jointly-owned and democratically-controlled enterprise […] whose founders, cooperative members believe in the ethical values of honesty, openness, social responsibility, and caring for others.” Yet the actions we have repeatedly faced not only run counter to a democracy, if continued, they will eliminate the “democracy” of the Co-op. And this to many of us – is of grave concern. Let me provide three such examples.
1. The first article in the March 2010 Davis Co-op Newsletter is titled, “The Boycott Policy.” The authors open the article as follows, “Like everyone born in the Seventies, the Davis Food Co-op brought a lot of baggage into the Twenty-First century. And, again like everyone else our age, the Co-op is what it is today in part on that very baggage.” The article goes on to outline the boycott procedure, identify some of what it calls prime boycott examples, and keys into what the authors view as up-sides and down-sides of the current boycott process.
I find it fascinating that the authors chose the start the article with the loaded words, “a lot of baggage,” and then chose to close the article with the words: “Should the Co-op continue to permit members to bring boycott actions? That’s for our members to decide, by signing (or not) initiative petitions, voting for or against boycotts, or even by asking the board to amend our bylaws to limit or exclude boycott activity. After all, even people born in the Seventies have to change and grow in the new century!” On the one hand, the authors say that it’s for the members to decide through their democratic choice to either sign of not sign – only to let its final words be a suggestion that perhaps members ask the board to amend its bylaws to limit or exclude boycott activities.
From the first day we began this democratic process we have followed the procedures. We repeatedly requested to speak to the board, and were told, no. We provided the Co-op the petition signatures as we acquired them with no follow-up by the staff. Twice we requested to put an article in the newsletter. Twice we’ve been told no.
Yet, every time we have gone to the membership we have found an immediate positive response. Our initial petition resulted in over 640 member signatures, well over the 5% requirement for a resolution to be placed on the Spring ballot. We easily acquired over 100 every 8-hour period – rain or shine. Even after we were informed by the Co-op that we would no longer be allowed to gather signatures for our petition, we returned to the “free speech area” and immediately obtained signatures on over 100 letters requesting the resolution be put on the ballot with a proviso that it would not be put into effect until all legal issues were resolved. After handing these letters in – we again heard no response from the staff or board.
When we learned the board would be employing a new tactic – it would be calling the resolution “improper,” over 100 members quickly responded by signing individual letters requesting that they be allowed to vote on this resolution.
The democratic process is speaking loud and clear – over 850 times members have voiced that they believe they have the right to vote on this boycott. Yet the board and staff have continually chosen to shut out, deny, and ignore the voices of these 850 members – all the while listening to those who do not want to see this resolution on the ballot.
It appears that to follow the democratic process is now taboo. Democracy is too costly – even though by definition this co-op is to be democratic.
2. There is a direct attack on the existence of the free speech area. This area (a small blue outlined space in front of the store) has long provided a visual display of the Co-op’s democratic nature. People have reserved use of this area for various free speech activities. Yet we were recently informed by email that reservations for use of this area are not being taken for April 1st and beyond, because the Co-op is “re-evaluating the use of the patio” including for sales activities, as a result of member and customer comments. We were further informed that their decision would be an operational matter, so it wouldn’t necessarily involve the board. What is operational to the staff may not be viewed as such to the Co-op members.
The timing of this decision is fascinating. I am concerned that the members who agree with the current use of this area may well go unheard. If only we had known that we needed each of them to physically walk into the Co-op and state their continued support for its free speech use.
3. There is a draft being designed to further attack the boycott process. The current use of the terms “legal and proper” proposition have been shown to be not only highly subjective, but potentially used to stifle members’ ability to actually see a resolution on a ballot. In addition, we have learned that the board is in the process of drafting further change to the bylaws – a change that may make it even harder for member proposals to reach the ballot. It would not be a surprise to find that soon what the board does not want to go to member vote will not go to the members for vote.
The democracy in the definition of the Davis Co-op is being threatened, of step, procedure, and policy at a time.
Fascinating, as a nation we herald that we are proudly democratic. We state this in the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution, which for over 200 years has been the foundation of today’s decisions. What is good enough for the nation is now being deemed “baggage” for the Davis Food Co-op.
If things continue to proceed as they are now, I expect to see the Co-op either change its website or simply change its By-laws, policies, and procedures such that while the website will state the Co-op is democratic – this is in reality, will be in name only.
If this comes to be, it will be a sad day for the Davis community.
David Simpson: I remember the South Africa campaign, and one of the unfortunate results of that campaign was that the most vulnerable institutions were asked to take a risk. If I were a board member, I would understand those of you who thought you couldn’t allow this boycott because of financial risks. What I don’t understand is why you don’t give other people the option to express an opinion.
David Thompson: I grew up in Lancashire. I’m one of six living members who voted for the Cooperative principles. I regret what happens around the world in so many ways, but the concern I have most is the duty of the Directors of the board at DFC. Since 1860 cooperatives have talked about steering away from religion and politics, because they make it difficult for the organization to meet the needs of their members. Cooperatives have a duty to work together to do things that can’t happen in other organizations. There are cooperatives all over the world. We don’t take up the thing of kicking out different products or people based upon these various characteristics. The duty of the Directors is to uphold the principles upheld in 1861.
Agenda Review
Amend Agenda by
Adding 3.3 resignation of Michael Ulrich
Motion: Julie moves to accept the agenda as amended
Sam seconded
Motion carried unanimously
2.2
Julie moves to schedule a special meeting on Monday March 15th to discuss the proper purpose of the proposed boycott with respect to the Davis Food Cooperative.
Jack seconds
2.3 Break
Recess at 7:46; reconvene at 8:01.
Announcements:
Julie: Sat March 20th is Big Tomato Day Grand Re-opening
Introducing Christina Breska and Dina Biscotti potential candidates
3.1 Retreat Action Item Update
Discussion:
Stacie: I had three things that I wanted from Directors. 1) I want an okay on Boundary policy changes. Please bring redlined versions in April. 2) Do we want a first reading of Ends in April?
Jack: How does that relate to Kevin and Teddy’s work?
Kevin: I don’t think we can survey Ends until we’ve rewritten the Ends.
Julie: I don’t mind a first reading if we use the Ends we agreed on at the retreat, or we could have a working group look at what we came up with what Kevin is proposing.
Steve: Let’s do it in April so the present board can complete this.
Stacie: The third thing: were there any other action items we felt we needed to follow up on formally in a meeting?
[There is a general consensus that there are no further items to follow up on]
3.2 Update on voter pamphlet
Discussion:
Desmond: I checked with Doug and I’m told that were ready to go, but the voter pamphlet can’t be drafted until the process is further along. We do have a candidate packet. I did have some reservations about the order in which the policies are laid out. I thought we could put it in a more logical flow for the candidate. The roles of the individual director ought to come up front, and those other policies subsequently.
Stacie: I think you should set up an election task force meeting and announce it to the board.
Jack: I want to remind everybody that there needs to be a non-board member/ non-candidate on every task force.
Desmond: For the benefit of other people, the elections task force oversees the election. It doesn’t take stands. It just oversees the process to ensure it flows smoothly.
Julie: We have a new member orientation coming up, which is an ideal time to ask members to volunteer.
Jack: I’d like to point out that’s how we got Sam.
Stacie: I think if you have comments on this, give them to Doug and Desmond.
Jack: Desmond where are we on the issue of these questions we’ve added? Will the answers appear on the web, or are they used to guide the 350 words?
Desmond: The assumption is that this year they aren’t mandatory, and that they are guides.
Julie: Once we have our slate of candidates if you asked the candidates and told them we’d post the answers on the Davis Wiki, I think they’d say yes.
3.3 Resignation of Michael Ulrich
Julie: We are accepting the resignation of Michael Ulrich. The bylaws are ambiguous about how to replace someone who was a staff member when they were elected. Our bylaws say that we ought to replace a staff member with a staff member. I move that the board appoint Teddy Consolacion, because there is not an available staff member.
Steve moves to accept the resignation of Michael Ulrich, thank him for his service, and extend his super worker discount a year.
Julie seconds.
Motion passes unanimously.
Julie moves to appoint Teddy to the vacant seat on the board given that there is no staff member interested in serving.
Sam seconds.
Teddy abstains.
Motion carries
4.1 E1.6 Finance – Monitoring
Discussion:
Eric: Highlights: An expansion will prohibit patronage refund and limit contributions. There are conflicts, but they aren’t fatal flaws. This is a very easy End to benchmark. We’ve had a history of growth in average sale, but with the economic downturn we are still above average for all supermarkets. The trade area is worth noting; we typically average 10% and 11% of the Davis trade area – the Bay Area Whole Foods captures 6% of the Bay area with 12 stores. We’re in the upper quartile in market share. The debt to equity ratio is also interesting – the market standard is 2:1 we are at a comfortable 1:1. We didn’t want to borrow to the limit, and we did not do that. All of our benchmarks were at or above market standard.
Jack: Could you give us a thumbnail sketch of where we’re at with the loan?
Eric: We will pay the last phase out of cash. The bid for the last phase came in below the original projection.
Jack: 1.6a hasn’t really been talked about other than your objectives in 4.
Eric: Our intention is to pay as much as we can in cash, and use member loans to pay this down.
Steve: I think this is a good report. My hobbyhorse is member equity, loans, and investments. Do the prepayment penalties phase out over time?
Eric: Yes, after five years.
Kenna: The smartest thing for us to do is to pay off the equipment loan because it’s a higher interest rate. The key point here is that we were originally looking at $3.9 million for the renovation, but it’s going to come in at $3.4 million.
Stacie: I don’t think this End is going to go away, so I’d like to see this in a graph over time.
Jack: I like what you said. The problem I’m starting to see is that we have these conversations, but when the monitoring report comes around again we lose the conversation.
Julie: Nathan, attach this conversation to the approved 4.1 monitoring report to pull out next year.
Motion: Stacie moves to accept report
Seconded Desmond
Motion carried unanimously
4.2 E1.7 Education - Review from 2008/09
Discussion:
Stacie: The point of putting this in the packet was to see Eric’s report to us last year. If we have any comments for Eric, let’s give them to him now.
Kevin: What do you think about making this review a master list of what the Co-op does in education? Year to year, you could just cross off things that have been discontinued or add new things. I’d like to know everything that goes on. Can we use this report to provide that level of information?
Eric: We could have pages and pages.
Kevin: I don’t want full details. I’d like to see a list not necessarily with data.
Janie: Julie provided us with an exhaustive document in the strategic plan.
Kevin: Yeah I want that list. Please bring those background documents when you make your report.
Desmond: I was happy to see the Green Peace ranking. I wondered if we could make use of that in terms of marketing. We’re the top ranked store in the nation. I would be boasting about it.
Stacie: One of the Ends we’re looking to subsume within other Ends is this one. It’s maybe worth keeping tabs on which parts of education would be subsumed within which Ends.
Sam: I think we could go further than we’ve traditionally gone in terms of information we give to our shoppers about individual products. I think members like to vote with their dollars. I think we could make further use of our website for this.
Jack: We used to have this exhaustive system where Beth would have to go counting among the shelves; our new POS system has a capability to compile this.
Sam: I sent out an email recently it referenced good choices – it specifically listed 30 criteria I hadn’t thought about. I’ll forward it to you, Eric.
4.3 B5 Investments – Monitoring
Discussion:
Eric: The Co-op is not in the business of investing. The majority of what we invest is with other cooperatives as a condition of doing business and as a gesture of solidarity. Not much has changed since last year. Sacramento did pay off their loan in full.
Motion: Stacie moves to accept report
Seconded Steve
Motion carried unanimously
Janie: Eric have you had any requests for loans from Co-ops.
Eric: No
Jack: The FDIC Limit has been raised to $250,000
4.4 B6 Asset Protection – Monitoring
Discussion:
Eric: Highlights: The Co-op has excellent insurance, and we review all of our policies annually. We review the value of the equipment and the building. We have good practices of processing and disbursement of funds. We have with our new POS system very robust data security. We maintain identity theft insurance should customers’ data be compromised. The insurance we maintain for the 401k is in place to cover mistakes by plan supervisors. We’ve got a really good safety record, which keeps our worker’s compensation insurance low. We do keep in our employee handbook a statement that says that promotional gifts and samples are the possession of the Co-op.
Jack: The 401k language appears a little unclear to me. I really wasn’t aware that the board had the responsibility for that 401k, are we covered under that insurance?
Kenna: The insurance covers the organization, so it does cover the board.
Jack: What’s the deal with key man insurance? If you [Eric] were to die in a fiery crash, we would have a big problem. Basically the Co-op could take out a life insurance policy for you. I’d like a little analysis into key man insurance.
Kenna: I haven’t heard of this before. What are we actually insuring? Would we receive some sort of payment?
Jack: Yes.
Member: I’m wondering if the Co-op has legal insurance.
Eric: Yes, provided we act in a legal manner.
Member: Can you give us details of the coverage?
Kenna: $1 million is the limit.
Stacie: With the evaluation of the assets, you do that for insurance purposes not in comparison to the balance sheet?
Kenna: It does have a relation to the balance sheet, but we have a higher value of insurance because some of the fixtures are old and it would cost considerably more to replace them.
Julie moves to accept the report
Stacie seconds
Motion carried unanimously
4.5 GP8 - Board Renewal and Continuity – Monitoring
Discussion:
Janie: We are in compliance in terms of having a budget for training and development. We have $250 for books. We had training for new directors, and we will have another training. We’re in compliance in terms of offering opportunities for future trainings. We are out of compliance with D – having a non-director on task forces.
Julie: I mentioned that there is an orientation tomorrow night; I will recruit for task forces for any one who emails me.
Steve: I think that Kevin’s attendance of the retreat last year really paid off.
Stacie: Do you we want the non-director task force member policy duplicated in our policies?
Janie: I thought it was awkward in this policy.
Julie: I think once we’re in compliance it might not matter.
Stacie moves to accept
Jack Seconds
Motion carried unanimously
4.6 GP9 - Trusteeship and Relationship to Members – Monitoring
Discussion:
Jack: I got this out the day after the board packet went out. This policy really needs work; it’s internally vague and redundant. It lacks context and maybe even contradicts itself. I’m happy to move this to next month.
Janie: I’d be willing to work on it via email.
Steve: Can we take it next month and work on the rewrite at the same time?
Jack: E is wrong; we are in compliance there.
Kevin: Clarification – we do a monitoring report and a 1st reading of GP9?
Jack: If we change E to report compliance, and someone wants to move to adopt this, we can be on our way.
Julie: I thought it was a valid report with that change.
Motion: Julie moves to accept the report with the change to E
Seconded Steve
Opposed: Sam
Motion carried
4.7 Review of Food Policy (1.5 and B5) in relation to Alcohol License
Discussion:
Stacie: Eric asked us to weigh in on the potential of buying a liquor license for the Co-op. I wanted to put the pertinent policies in our packet.
Eric: I thought this was a good time to discuss policy. A full liquor license does not come around often, they are finite, and one has come up in Yolo County. I would not put liquor on the shelves without member input.
Steve: One thing we would want to look at is what our return of investment would be. My thought is we would devote some shelf space to it and cut down on some wine. If it doesn’t work, we can always sell it.
Eric: I don’t view it as a return on investment. It’s member service question.
Julie: In the context of our policies, there are some grounds to offer hard liquor.
Sam: I don’t pretend to know much about this, but I would just say that I have some doubts that we would be able to make the kind of use of liquor license that say some company with no scruples and would sell across the board would have.
Janie: If we bought it, could Trader Joe’s not buy it?
Eric: I think they’re actually transferring a current one. But if it does have higher value to someone else, we can sell it to someone who wants it.
Member: Can a liquor license be purchased and hoarded?
Eric: Yes.
Stacie: I think buying a license would be a good strategy, especially because it retains its value over time.
Desmond: I don’t drink liquor, but I think, from a competitive standpoint, it might be in the interest of the Co-op.
Teddy: Has anybody raised any objections, previously? Are there arguments why we wouldn’t have liquor?
Eric: We hear from some members who are opposed to alcohol of any kind.
Jack: This came up when I was on the board, and it was a complete nonstarter – they had no interest in getting one at all.
Sam: Could you remind me of the price?
Eric: It’s $55,000.
Sam: How is it determined who gets it? Do we know the other parties who are interested?
Eric: No.
Sam: Potentially there could be a bidding war, so any expectations that it would appreciate over time could be nullified if we overpay?
Eric: Yes, but we’ll do our research.
4.8 Political Merchandise – analysis
Discussion:
Eric: We had a member who felt uncomfortable because of strong liberal bias in the Davis Food Co-op. Her complaints were based on less than 10 items. Her complaint was that it constituted an unwelcome environment and that we had a political agenda. I would want to say that I do not want any product to make someone feel uncomfortable. I’ve added a list to our policy that states we will not advocate offensive or partisan products.
Sam: I had a smile when I saw for the first time a T-shirt that says “Yes Co-op; No Corporation” noting that we are both a Co-op and a Corporation.
Steve: I think this is a good response to her concern.
Kevin: Eric how would interpret the Bush-isms calendar?
Eric: I would argue for it, it wasn’t advocating for or against a political candidate running for office.
Julie: We did have a conversation with other Co-ops to find out what other Co-ops were doing. Most have done something similar to this.
Member: Can members actually ask for an analysis of certain products?
Stacie: The board asked Eric to put this on the agenda.
Member: So it is possible for members to come with a concern?
Stacie: Yes.
Julie: Anytime you have a concern, you can talk to the general manager.
Member: Is it possible to add things that aren’t under international law?
Stacie: The board could do that.
Member: Is the list you’ve created a finite list?
Eric: If you have a specific request, you can email me.
Kevin: You can always add to it.
Sam: Will we inform the member who came to us of this action specifically?
Julie: I had emailed with her and she had planned on being here.
Eric: I’ll write her a letter.
4.9 Bylaws - date to determine number of members in good standing
Discussion:
Julie: When the bylaws were changed in the last election, we set up a conflict. One section says that the date to determine the number of members called for is the last day of the month, and in other place it specifies the first day of the month. We can, by unanimous action, change this, and tell the members. The other option would be to pass a resolution to use one of those dates and offer an amendment in the next election.
Janie: I think this falls under a typographical error. I think that Julie’s suggestion – to move it to the first day of the month – is a good one.
Desmond: If we can do this without prejudice, let’s do it.
Sam: If it was changed via election, wouldn’t the voters perhaps have a clearer sense of what they wanted and shouldn’t that action prevail.
Stacie: It has to be unanimous, if we say it’s nonsensical or a typographical error.
Steve: I’m willing to be convinced about the intended purpose. I think what people really wanted was that the day be the same day.
Sam: I agree, but we should consider which day. I would say it makes sense to look at the one closer in time to the actual filing of the petition.
Kevin: Doesn’t it make sense to use the first day of the month, so they know how many signatures they need.
Janie: I think using the first day provides the members more grace.
Kevin moves Whereas, Article XII, Section 5 of the Bylaws authorize the Board of Directors to amend the Bylaws without a shareholder vote by unanimous consent if the word(s) proposed to be changed constitute a typographical error and/or a nonsensical statement of which the real intended import is clear; and
Whereas, Article IX, Section 4 of the Bylaws set the date of record for determining the number of shareholder signatures needed on any member petition as the first day of the month preceding the month the petition is filed; and
Whereas, Article X, Section 2 of the Bylaws set the date of record for determining the number of shareholder signatures needed on any member petition as the last day of the month preceding the date on which petitions are submitted; and
Whereas the Board has determined that the revision of Article X, Section 2, which set the date of record as the last day of the month, and which was submitted to and adopted by the membership in May 2009, contained a typographical error which resulted in a nonsensical statement;
Now therefore, resolved, that Article X, Section 2 of the Bylaws is hereby corrected to set the date of record for determining the number of shareholder signatures needed on any member petition as the first day of the month preceding the date on which petitions are submitted.
Jack Seconds
Abstain: Sam
Motion fails
Sam: legal counsel might consider that we are bound by the members’ vote.
Janie: We have the duty to correct typographical errors, and that supercedes member vote.
Kevin moves that GM provide us with a clarification for the spring ballot on this bylaw about what it means to have a petition filed and the date
Julie seconds
Motion passes unanimously
Sam: Is it our policy with ballot initiatives to accept them on an ongoing basis one or a few pages at a time? For example if there is a petition…
Stacie: That’s what we’re getting clarification on
Julie moves that the board direct the election committee for purposes of the Spring 2010 election to the use the last day of the month prior to the petition being submitted as the date of record for determining the number of shareholder signatures
Sam seconds
Kevin offers a substitute motion that the board direct the election committee for purposes of the Spring 2010 election to the use the first day of the month prior to the petition being submitted as the date of record for determining the number of shareholder signatures
Janie seconds
In Favor: Janie, Stacie, Kevin, Jack, Kevin, Teddy, and Desmond
Opposed: Sam and Steve
Motion carries
4.10 B4 Patronage refund analysis, recommendation and strategic planning - Second Reading
Discussion:
Jack: Section A.v. is the change. We do not have in our policies any language around the patronage refund. We are asking that management provide to the board the estimate for the first meeting in October to give a ballpark of where we’re at.
Eric: We’ll kind of know by then. We won’t have the final numbers, but we’ll have a ballpark.
Jack: Then at the November meeting, we adopt the patronage refund language.
Stacie: Paragraph 5 would then put 6 as the next paragraph?
Jack: It’s all the same.
Stacie: If we like this language, it will be in the third reading.
Eric: In some years there is no allowance for a patronage refund. The language here makes it sound as though I’d be advising a patronage refund each year.
Steve: What I’d be looking for is “a refund is not reasonable this year for X reasons, and there’s a good chance we’ll have it next year or not.”
Jack: Would everybody be okay if Julie and I tweak this a little bit, to respond to Eric’s comments – we don’t want the assumption of a patronage refund?
Jack: Part 2 concerns the strategic plan. This one is done right: in item 4, the underlined parts are the changes. The second paragraph here is a SWOT analysis. As a numbers guy, I’m probably more acutely aware that the numbers are the products of business decisions and plans. It’s easy to compare year to year in business plans – we currently have no qualitative way to do this. A SWOT analysis is a common way to do this.
Eric: I’m not sure that specifying SWOT as the method is the way I’d like to go. Some business models accept it, and some don’t. I haven’t had time to come up with an alternative.
Desmond: I personally like SWOT, but I was wondering whether you wanted to see a SWOT every year or every five years?
Jack: Good point. Every year.
Kevin: We want some method for comparing year to year.
Eric: I don’t know if SWOT analysis is good for every year.
Kevin: I don’t care what method it is, but I think seeing the same analysis every year is good. I think we could wait on this and hear about an alternative method from Eric.
Sam: Is it not the board’s proper role for us to set the metrics?
Kevin: No, it’s almost always staff’s responsibility to do strategic planning.
Stacie: You might find something better, but SWOT is not that difficult. I kind of like it because it’s easy.
Eric: My biggest concern is that we’ve done it in the past, and had board members say, I don’t accept it – that’s not the way I do SWOT.
Jack: By June of this year, I want this done. I don’t care what it is, so long as there is a qualitative way for boards to look at this.
Steve: I think that as a board member, I want just a metric we can compare year to year, it would be nice to say we’ve been using SWOT for five years, so I’ve included it for comparative purposes, but I’ve also done X analysis. Hopefully in future there’ll be less second-guessing on what a SWOT analysis is.
Stacie: We’ll do a patronage refund 3rd reading on the agenda and a different agenda item for this 2nd part.
6.0 Consent Calendar
Consent Calendar
Presented: Consent Calendar Items
6.2 Accept January 2010 and February Special Meeting Minutes
6.3 Monitoring Chart
6.4 Board Calendar
6.5 Task Force Report
6.6 Board Member representing the Co-op Report (events, electeds,
service providers, vendors with whom you meet in the role of Board Member)
6.7 GP10 - Binding Initiative and Boycott - First Reading
6.9 CCMA Planning
6.10 Draft Board Budget 2010 - 2011
6.12 Draft Annual Meeting Agenda
6.13 Update on 2011 Event
Retained by unanimous consent:
Removed by objection: 6.8 GP6 - Directors Code of Conduct - First Reading is moved
to next month
Motion: Jack moves to adopt the consent calendar as amended
Steve Seconds
Vote: Motion is adopted unanimously.
Meeting Evaluation
What Went Well?
Stacie: I’m sorry that I included some April items this month.
Eric: I’m still assuming I’ll do End 1.7 for April.
Kevin: When we do have a controversial meeting, it might be good to clarify that we’ll have alternating people reading.
Janie: We also need to ask people who they are and what they’re taking photos for.
Eric: We’ve had the discussion with the Davis Enterprise before that meetings are open to co-op members and I’ve asked them to let us know in advance if they are coming.
Jack: What if the CFO and CEO of Nugget come in and say it’s an open meeting?
Eric: It isn’t. Does anybody have any concerns about a photo in the Enterprise?
[No one opposes it]
Desmond: I think the meeting went pretty well; people were civil and we got to hear from both sides.
Jack: I heard three different sides – people talking for the initiative, against the initiative, and for the Co-op.
Upgrades
Next Meeting –
Facilitator: Kevin
Time Keeper: Janie
Recorder: Nathan
There being no further business to come before the meeting, it was adjourned at 10:03 p.m. by a motion made by Stacie, seconded by Julie, and passed unanimously.