As a Co-op member for 19 years, I am concerned that current Co-op leadership, both Board and management, have forgotten what a Co-op really is. The members obviously want Caldwell on the Board. It would be simple to have a current Board member resign, and then appoint Caldwell in order to uphold a democratic vote.
N
Nancy Niemczyk
10 years ago
If it is true that exceptions have been made in the past, one should certainly be made now. This feels undemocratic, which should be enough to give the board pause.
J
Julia Willis
10 years ago
As member-owners, we were allowed by you, the board, to vote on 3 directors. Two more seats opened up during voting - a fact not even mentioned at the annual meeting, much less discussed or voted on - and the board quietly appointed 2 new directors of your choosing who did not meet this requirement you have so far refused to waive for Caldwell Linker. These actions do not respect our co-op's stated democratic values. These actions continue the board's lack of honesty and transparency and cooperative values that have been a source of not only conflict in our food co-op, but further increasing inaccessibility to the co-op for people without means, people without privilege, people of color, people working to improve the communities we live in. Seating Caldwell Linker is the very least you can do to rebuild legitimacy of the board and its decisions.
M
Moriah Ella Mason
10 years ago
Featured
If Caldwell is not seated among the other winning candidates I will no longer be shopping at the food co-op. If the EEFC does not support democratic values how is it really a co-op?
F
Francis Bertonaschi
10 years ago
Once the Board has accepted a nominee to be on the ballot, they cannot then decide, after voting has been underway for 7 weeks, that the nominee is ineligible.
A
Amy Kreger
10 years ago
Featured
I fully expect the Board to waive the Board meeting requirement for Caldwell linker as it has waived this requirement for others in the past. The number of votes for Caldwell Linker clearly indicates the desire of co-operative member-owners for her to represent their concerns on the board and should be respected.
A
alina del pino
10 years ago
discounting membership votes is the deepest of travesties. SHAME on the self-appointed decision makers; get off your thrones!
J
Jackie Smith
10 years ago
We want to have a democratic and co-op that engages members. This slate of candidates has generated member participation and promises to bring the kind of energy so many members are missing in the current leadership.
J
Jane Critchfield
10 years ago
if the board has waived this requirement in the past what exactly is keeping them from doing it now? this decision making process is starting to mirror the way our government. makes decisions. i expect eefc to be better than that. try working WITH the new board members rather than against them. they won their seats on the board for a reason. coop members voted for them.
J
Jeff Jaeger
10 years ago
Democratic process must be honored in a true cooperative.
D
Debra Borowiec
10 years ago
WHAT is going on here? This is starting to look like the corruption in Harrisburg.
S
Sheila Caffrey
10 years ago
My continued membership depends on this.
T
Tirzah Mason
10 years ago
Nice try to undermine democracy and the values that underpin the entire coop. Just know it is not going to work. This coop is owned by its members, not the board which serves at the pleasure of the membership. You can all be replaced.
S
Susan Richter
10 years ago
This is ridiculous! If someone has THAT level of support, and they made an understandable mistake, they should be allowed to over-ride the rule, absolutely!
B
Billy Pepmeyer
10 years ago
Less Corporatization, More Co-Operation. And 2 board members leave and the board gets to appoint replacements? Shaky at best, corrupt at worst.
B
Blake Murphy
10 years ago
Featured
i work at EEFC, and am furious that my vote was thrown out over enforcement of an obscure rule.
J
Joni Rabinowitz
10 years ago
We need to review the policies about new members on the board. In addition to Caldwell's voters not being counted, we need a more democratic way to fill vacancies.
R
Rayden Sorock
10 years ago
Featured
Why not send a friendly reminder about not having attended a meeting prior to the vote? Combined with not being up front about 2 members planning to leave the board during the member meeting (and appointing new members with no vote) - this just comes across as mean spirited.
B
Benita J. Campbell
10 years ago
For once, just stop pursuing your corporate agenda and act with real cooperative values by honoring the will of members who historically and democratically voted for all three candidates and won 76 percent of the votes in the recent election.
E
etta cetera
10 years ago
don't be afraid of change especially when the members will it.
As a Co-op member for 19 years, I am concerned that current Co-op leadership, both Board and management, have forgotten what a Co-op really is. The members obviously want Caldwell on the Board. It would be simple to have a current Board member resign, and then appoint Caldwell in order to uphold a democratic vote.
If it is true that exceptions have been made in the past, one should certainly be made now. This feels undemocratic, which should be enough to give the board pause.
As member-owners, we were allowed by you, the board, to vote on 3 directors. Two more seats opened up during voting - a fact not even mentioned at the annual meeting, much less discussed or voted on - and the board quietly appointed 2 new directors of your choosing who did not meet this requirement you have so far refused to waive for Caldwell Linker. These actions do not respect our co-op's stated democratic values. These actions continue the board's lack of honesty and transparency and cooperative values that have been a source of not only conflict in our food co-op, but further increasing inaccessibility to the co-op for people without means, people without privilege, people of color, people working to improve the communities we live in. Seating Caldwell Linker is the very least you can do to rebuild legitimacy of the board and its decisions.
If Caldwell is not seated among the other winning candidates I will no longer be shopping at the food co-op. If the EEFC does not support democratic values how is it really a co-op?
Once the Board has accepted a nominee to be on the ballot, they cannot then decide, after voting has been underway for 7 weeks, that the nominee is ineligible.
I fully expect the Board to waive the Board meeting requirement for Caldwell linker as it has waived this requirement for others in the past. The number of votes for Caldwell Linker clearly indicates the desire of co-operative member-owners for her to represent their concerns on the board and should be respected.
discounting membership votes is the deepest of travesties. SHAME on the self-appointed decision makers; get off your thrones!
We want to have a democratic and co-op that engages members. This slate of candidates has generated member participation and promises to bring the kind of energy so many members are missing in the current leadership.
if the board has waived this requirement in the past what exactly is keeping them from doing it now? this decision making process is starting to mirror the way our government. makes decisions. i expect eefc to be better than that. try working WITH the new board members rather than against them. they won their seats on the board for a reason. coop members voted for them.
Democratic process must be honored in a true cooperative.
WHAT is going on here? This is starting to look like the corruption in Harrisburg.
My continued membership depends on this.
Nice try to undermine democracy and the values that underpin the entire coop. Just know it is not going to work. This coop is owned by its members, not the board which serves at the pleasure of the membership. You can all be replaced.
This is ridiculous! If someone has THAT level of support, and they made an understandable mistake, they should be allowed to over-ride the rule, absolutely!
Less Corporatization, More Co-Operation. And 2 board members leave and the board gets to appoint replacements? Shaky at best, corrupt at worst.
i work at EEFC, and am furious that my vote was thrown out over enforcement of an obscure rule.
We need to review the policies about new members on the board. In addition to Caldwell's voters not being counted, we need a more democratic way to fill vacancies.
Why not send a friendly reminder about not having attended a meeting prior to the vote? Combined with not being up front about 2 members planning to leave the board during the member meeting (and appointing new members with no vote) - this just comes across as mean spirited.
For once, just stop pursuing your corporate agenda and act with real cooperative values by honoring the will of members who historically and democratically voted for all three candidates and won 76 percent of the votes in the recent election.
don't be afraid of change especially when the members will it.