This is a petition to allow the full membership of the Berkeley Student Cooperative (BSC) to revoke via Referendum the Habitability Policies enacted by the Board of Directors (Board) on December 12, 2013.

This petition is in accordance with BSC Policy Section I.D.1; this policy, in part, states that “[a] petition by the Membership containing the signatures of at least fifteen percent of the total membership with not more than one third of the signers from any one house shall initiate a member referendum.”

As Board chose to vote on the collected Habitability Proposals in their entirety, as a single package (rather than considering each proposal individually), the referendum to repeal shall also affect the entire package of Habitability Proposals/Policy.

Why we need this Referendum:

On Dec 12, 2013, Board voted to enact 6 Policies to address habitability, including provisions to seize and centralize house workshift fines, randomize habitability inspections, and fine individual members for failed house inspections.

Maintaining habitability is an important and challenging issue for the coops. A matter of such importance and complexity is deserving of careful thought and concerted action.

However, the recent attempt to address this issue yielded policies that will have a profoundly negative effect on the culture, power structure, and vitality of the BSC, undercutting core strengths of the BSC that have served us for 80 years.

Additionally, these broad-stroked detrimental policies were passed largely without the knowledge or input of the membership. Some argue that the Fall 2013 General Membership Meeting was a sufficient gesture to provide the appropriate levels of access for offering input and receiving information. Similarly, some board members may argue that they are duty-bound to act in the interests of the BSC as an entity, rather than represent the popular perspectives of the constituent houses that elected them.

We argue that, far from flaunting the collective will and wisdom of the membership, these policies threaten the core values and strength of the coops. We believe that these policies could not have been passed in the climate of a fully informed and enfranchised membership. At the time of the vote, Board elected to close debate and not hear from even the handful of members who attended to voice dissent.

Finally, we believe that -- despite the policy's heavy-handed tactics and negative collateral implications – the newly enacted 'Habitability Policy' fails to effectively address the core, professed issue of reducing habitability-related concerns in the units.