Tom Franks’ recent Open Letter explained why we resigned from the Brattleboro Food Co-op Board, so I won’t repeat what he said. But I do want to thank those shareholders who voted for me, apologize to you for not serving out my full term, and further explain my actions.
I’ve learned during my life, often the hard way, that compromise is sometimes essential in order to focus on what’s really important. But there are times when compromise just isn’t an option. When it came to listening to six employees, who are also shareholders, express their concerns, Tom and I had no doubt that the right thing to do was to listen. They felt that the grievance process was flawed and the Board was their only reasonable alternative. I am still dismayed that our actions could result in lawyers being consulted and charges of misconduct being brought against us. I want to emphasize that our “offending” actions were only that we listened and then recommended that the full Board also listen. Also, it’s important to note, the union was supportive to these employees reaching out to the Board. I personally buy into the concept of our Board “speaking with one voice” but I cannot buy into “listening with one ear”.
I truly hope some good comes out of all this hoopla. The employees of our Co-op are the “engine” or maybe better said, the “heart” of our organization and they are what make things actually work. The Policy Governance tool that our Board abides by is a wonderful tool but like all tools, it has its limitations and weaknesses. One potential weakness is that the Board can become too far removed from the employees and their concerns, which I believe has happened to us. It would be a mistake for the Board to start micro-managing the organization but it is an equally serious mistake to become too distant from the concerns of employees.
When Patty and I relocated from Pennsylvania one of the significant reasons we picked the Brattleboro area was because of our Co-op and the community atmosphere associated with it. I believe strongly in the cooperative concept. As a shareholder, I will place renewed effort into actively supporting our Co-op in meeting the needs of our community, shareholders, and its employees, in-line with cooperative values and principles.
Thank you for taking the time to read this.
Mike Szostak,
Guilford
Hear hear
Thank you both for your statements and your actions. The cooperative principles need to return to the BFC, with free speech seemingly at the forefront now.
Sorry to hear it worked out
Sorry to hear it worked out that way for you guys. As a shareholder, it’s disheartening to learn about the hostility behind the scenes. I appreciate what the coop provides for downtown Bratt, but the internal conflicts seem to dampen the good vibes that make coops special.
I appreciate you for standing up for your beliefs, and hope everything works out for the best.
Thank you Mike
Thank you Mike. I know you personally, and i trust you implicitly, and so i find your words here to be immensely important. I do not know Tom as well, but his intelligence and compassion also come through loud and clear.
I have been committed to co-ops and cooperative living for all of my adult life, and we too came to Brattleboro knowing that the Brattleboro Food Co-op was a gem, a model, and a source of pride. I gave full commitment to the co-op, in word and in deed.
I still do, but it has been sorely tested.
The traumas of the past few years have been tough – a workplace murder which was swept away as an inexplicable act when there were indications from the get-go that it was not, a unionization drive that was met with far less than accepting arms by management and Board, and a new store building which, although possibly necessary and certainly well-meaning, still gave many people mixed feelings.
Many of us were trying to get over all that. I myself was starting to feel more connected to my co-op again.
But this news saddens me all over again. It is beyond comprehension that lawyers were consulted and charges were brought against you two for what you evidently did.
What did you do? Well, it seems that you went against the agreements of Board membership.
But what did you actually do? You listened to employees who sought you out, and you tried to open lines of communication. You tried to fulfill one of the most important responsibilities of being board members – any board member of any organization in light of the Board’s responsibility for the health of the organization – which to be available to listen when there are stakeholders in the organization needing to be heard. This is all the more important when we realize that employee issues were at the heart of those recent traumas.
And for that, two kind and committed Board members are directly or indirectly forced to step down.
It makes me sad.
Thank you, Mike Szostak
After years of stilted “official communiques;” it is so refreshing to hear you come forth with real, heartfelt discussion. I find it disturbing that you and Tom Franks have been threatened with legal consequences for opening up the window for fresh air and sunlight.
Co-Op Board Issue
Echoing the sentiments of those who have given thoughtful responses & spoken up for the integrity of these two board members, when I saw the first letter, and though not knowing Tom Franks well, but being aware of his forthrightness and good works, I was already sympathetic. When the second board member revealed himself as Mike Szostak, one of our Guilford folks, and a stellar dude, I knew this was honest and serious stuff.
I’ve been on easily a dozen boards over many years, and I don’t know much about this fancy governance stuff, but the jargon alone could send me screaming into the night. I try to follow whatever rules govern a board, and some (school board being a major example) do live with a lot of regulations. But I, also, come down on the side of those arguing that it was, or could gave been, useful for the two board members to meet with employees.
I would have thought it best if the two board members had informed the body first; they could have done that, met with the employees, and given a brief report back to the full board, without revealing the identities of the employees. Or, maybe there were reasons that wouldn’t have been possible? There are things we don’t necessarily know.
As a just plain otherwise uninvolved member, I do wish the co-op would get itself straightened out; the ongoing turmoil is unsettling, and it gives one twinges to think about going there.
Uh Oh
I imagine that the Board consulted lawyers to determine if a violation had occurred that could jeopardize the results of the voting or in any way the validity of the contract. Labor regulations can fill a book the size of Webster’s Third International. In print that small, too.
Mike and Tom are both probably aware that the grievance procedure is at the heart of labor agreements. It is in the grievance procedure where much about power and justice is proscribed. One has to assume that they knew the workers were not warmly embracing the grievance procedure language proposed in the final draft of the contract. I can’t fault the two Board members for dearly wanting an agreement that would make everyone happy.
The bottom line is, however, that the Board itself agreed to stay out of the negotiations. When Tom and Mike recommended to the workers that they press their case on the grievance procedure to the Board they were in effect saying that the Board would in fact get involved in the negotiations. Just meeting with the workers at all implied to them that it was possible to make an end run around the negotiating team. If the workers could hope to get the Board to force management’s negotiators to change their position then the union might just as well negotiate with the Board directly. According to Mike, he and Tom knew they were running afoul of the policy. I assume that is what Mike means by making a “compromise.” He thought that talking to the staff before the contract was voted in was more important than waiting until after when he could have interacted freely. OK. They spoke with the workers and were held accountable for it. They were chastised.
Mike and Tom’s motives, from what we hear them saying, were good and the issues real. It was just the wrong approach. It’s always easy to see in hindsight but what they should have done was put an item on the Board agenda to talk about what the Board would/should do if it is notified that something in the labor contract is contrary to co-op principles or ideals. Should they simply refer the matter to management? Should they look to see if the information has merit? What if they look and the assertion does have merit? This is where one gets to reexamine Board policy. Again, easy in hindsight, the union might have negotiated that the contract state that (a) altho they agree to the language for the purpose of getting the contract signed in a timely manner they accept the grievance process with reservations and b) there shall be a joint committee set up to study that issue in greater depth. There should be in the contract already an agreement that it can be amended at any time if all parties agree.
I haven’t read the final language on grievances. If the workers think it is inadequate they need to track the grievances and use cases that illustrate why. If they are the injured party they need to speak up. No one can stop them from being heard. Mike states it that the workers felt that the Board’s intervention was the only alternative. Alternative to what?
An underlying issue, which I suspect Mike has correctly identified, is the relationship among the different stakeholders, particularly and especially workers and management. Size plays a role in that. When the co-op had a staff of ten everyone knew each other well. Board included. Everyone felt the effect of everyone else. When the staff hit a hundred that wasn’t and couldn’t be true any longer. The growth from ten to a hundred, tho, was one at a time over a dozen years. Hard to see the changes. And then the new store. The old store felt like one big room that we all shared. The new store is an arrangement of compartments that keeps things separated. Like everything else tho the more time one spends in it the more the demarcations dissolve.
In reality and by comparison the Board of the co-op is hugely closer and more engaged with the business they direct than the Boards of anywhere else I know of. How well do the workers at Price Chopper know the Board of Directors of their corporation? The Co-op Board are all members, shop there, often do member labor hours, table occasionally and in general are quite frequently inside the place.
All this said it will prove worthwhile for the public to have heard Mike and Tom’s grievances. There is a lot that the Board can and should do to build a strong and sustainable and all-inclusive co-op community. With each discussion like this we get a chance to look at what we have done and examine how its working.
citation please?
Spoon, please tell us where/from whom you have this knowledge that it was about 6 employees who weren’t happy with something in the union contract? Or is this all behind your “I imagine” firstfoot and nothing you’ve been actually informed about by someone?
above
I’ll post my reply here since other people might be asking the same question. The information is in the second paragraph, third line of his post above.
Spoon, As one of the
Spoon,
As one of the employees who met with Mike & Tom, as well as a member of the bargaining committee, your assumptions about the nature of our meeting and concerns are mistaken. At this moment I’m not willing to be more specific, as I’m pressed for time, but the issues brought up went beyond the grievance policy, the union, or contract negotiations.
It is all he reveals
Check paragraph 2 line 4 of Mikes statement. He says they wanted to talk about grievances. That is all that is there and nothing anywhere else. In any case I don’t know why the subject of the conversation would be material. From what we are told by both former Board members is that the objection from the remainder of the Board, or at least the majority of them, was speaking to the workers at all.
False info
Spoon, your claim that the grievance was about the union contract is entirely false. I have the story behind why the employees went to the board and your supposition is wrong.
Upon more careful reading
Actually, my statement written above is that the “conversation” with the workers was about the grievance procedure. Yes, I was mistaken. The former Board member’s statement used the word ‘process’ not ‘procedure.’ Also, I made no statement that their conversation was about the contract as a whole. Tom said nothing about that.
Now we have heard from one worker present at the conversation who states that it went “beyond the grievance policy, the union or the contract negotiations.” Does this new information change anything about the thrust of Tom’s grievance against the Board?
Since you “have the story behind why the employees went to the board” why don’t you set it out so all the readers can better understand Tom and Frank’s case?
Not mine to say
“Since you “have the story behind why the employees went to the board” why don’t you set it out so all the readers can better understand Tom and Frank’s case?”
Because, Spoon, there’s a very good reason why the employees wanted this issue to be confidential. When the workers involved want that known to the public, it’s their news to tell, not mine.
confidentiality
You make it sound like the workers have an agreement among themselves that none of them will talk about it in public til the whole makes the decision to do so.
Implications setting in again
I don’t know where you’re implying that from now. I said they wanted it to be confidential, and that it’s not my news. Period.
the contract
P.S. Here’s where you implicated that the contract was the issue:
“It’s always easy to see in hindsight but what they should have done was put an item on the Board agenda to talk about what the Board would/should do if it is notified that something in the labor contract is contrary to co-op principles or ideals. Should they simply refer the matter to management? Should they look to see if the information has merit? What if they look and the assertion does have merit? This is where one gets to reexamine Board policy. Again, easy in hindsight, the union might have negotiated that the contract state that (a) altho they agree to the language for the purpose of getting the contract signed in a timely manner they accept the grievance process with reservations and b) there shall be a joint committee set up to study that issue in greater depth. There should be in the contract already an agreement that it can be amended at any time if all parties agree.”
There is a big difference...
between wanting to talk about the grievance policy, and wanting to talk about grievances. To talk about “the grievance policy” is to talk about how grievances are or should be handled. To talk about “grievances,” is to discuss specific complaints.
Nothing that Mike Szostak wrote contradicts anything written by Joelle.
Open Letter
“The Policy Governance tool that our Board abides by is a wonderful tool but like all tools, it has its limitations and weaknesses. One potential weakness is that the Board can become too far removed from the employees and their concerns, which I believe has happened to us.”
This appears to be what has happened. The board is tied up and gone too far from the employees. There’s trouble when a board micromanages. Now I see there’s a problem when the board is so terribly bound up and cannot connect with the employees.
At this point is it possible to have transparency on what has transpired?
It looks like we need more information about the grievance procedure. Who does an employee need to process a grievance with? What if the grievance includes someone who is in the chain of process, then where does the employee go next? How does the employee remain safe, heard, and the problem resolved? I imagine these are some of the burning questions.
Hi Robyn, You get the idea.
Hi Robyn,
You get the idea. Thanks for commenting.
I’m not sure what transparency looks like just yet. We were quite candid with Mike & Tom, and some of the issues brought up are quite personal, or involve former employees. I would like to strike a balance somewhere in between being able to convey the seriousness of our concerns while preserving our privacy. I’m leaving the Co-op in a month, but others would have to live with the consequences of airing out dirty laundry all over again, you know? I’m hopeful about the creation of our Labor-Management Committee, but I’ve never been so convinced that the Union is the only backbone employees can rely upon.
Everything is
It’s a fine thing for people of my generation to have proclaimed that “everything is political”. But it’s a far different thing to actually live in such a world. I find it terribly ironic, and sad, that there is always so much news and information thrown out into the public sphere about the politics at the Co-op. Is it now any wonder that some people just want a place to shop for food and not find themselves having to pay allegiance to one side or the other? Are people that just want to shop for a potato a dying breed?
Nothing to stop us...
from shopping for a potato, a tomato, a schtickle , a pickle, a pumpernickel, and taking an interest in the civic life of our community at the same time. A co-op particularly is owned by it’s members and is founded on democratic principles. A great concept, a wonderful think to have in Brattleboro.
then
you either have a very poor understanding of what civic life is, or your turning a grocery store into a matter of civic life only proves my point (that EITHER just buying a potato there is impossible OR that those that just want that and nothing more are a dying breed – i’m NOT sure which, i’m just thinking out loud in civic life here). i’m not denying the concept of a co-op. i am questioning how the politics of the Brattleboro Food Co-op seems to be constantly pushed out at people as a sort of neverending concern. you obviously find that invigorating…or something. i find it questionable and unnecessarily invasive, and this patting itself on the back because it calls itself “democratic” does nothing more than suggest that you must accept being part of the politics as part of the deal of shopping there. you’re saying that yourself.
of course you can buy a potato while you’re discussing the problems with the union or Mr. Gyori’s management style, but I’m sorry, you fail to understand my point. and i fail to know how to explain it any further. i certainly don’t want to start another long thread. i hope at least you and others understand that “buying a potato” is a metaphor.
Coop
I’ve only interacted once with Mr.Franks and it was a very fair exchange. I don’t know Mr. Szostak but he sounds honorable as well.
The premise is that they are dealing with honorable people on the Coop board, they are not.
The Coop lost it trustworthiness when the vote was to REHAB the old building, not build a new Coop and they went ahead anyway, without a vote.
I lived on the 3rd floor facing the building project in a 135+ year old building.
I tried for TWO years to get someone to listen to me especially as someone adjacent to the project (they cordoned off my side of the building). No one would (listen) and in fact they came after me punitively.
I was left up there for four entire months while jackhammering went on from 7am to 11pm on three projects. I was left up there while they cap blasted 3-4 times daily stopping traffic and not allowing people into the building (which was a construction site on the side I lived) while they blasted but they left me up there.
My hearing is permanently altered, my entire life altered because as a human I did not matter and suffered physical harm while they avoided dealing with me. They had an agenda long before the vote and were determined to carry it out no matter what (or who) got in their way.
Then came the character assassination meant to marginalize me.
What a charming group.
Mr.Franks and Mr.Szostak are experiencing the true nature of these sociopaths (and when someone behaves the way they have with no remorse or conscience they are sociopaths, that’s the definition).
The Union is needed more than ever. If Richard had a way to voice his concerns and grievances he would NOT have gone after Michael Martin. The nature of Mr.Martin’s behavior led Richard to believe he had no other options. Those who defend the board’s chicanery are as guilty as the criminals who are still in operation and still attacking anyone who questions them even though the effects their violations have had are profound, literally ruining lives (Richard Gagnon and Meg McCarthy) and demanding servitude to their ill will or suffer shunning and vilification.
The people running this harmful show have their pawns doing their bidding (Stockholm syndrome) and won’t stop until someone confronts them and makes them answer for their literal crimes. They are responsible for the deaths, they are responsible for the traffic jams and ill will in this community. They keep you marginalized and your voice minimized, they break laws with impunity (connie snow dir. of the land trust LIED on a Fed Grant for the project saying there would be NO uninhabitable apartments to expedite her process and told me to my face with stone cold hubris as I sat there begging for help to get out of the construction zone aka my home).
This is NOT the Coop you began in Brattleboro (you are not protecting an innocent entity created for the public good), this is a corporate takeover of something that is held dearly, NOT at all what it used to be, started out as or you think it is behind that steel door of “one voice” of the board. They are committing acts they do not want you to know about or influence.
There is no excuse, no rationalization for their behavior and they need to be called to task. They are not decent people doing decent work but using those who still think this is their original Coop.
The Coop, the land trust and all who headed this project are guilty of harming me and all those who have suffered at their hand.
Barbara
Holy crap! We just wanted to
Holy crap! We just wanted to address the culture of our workplace! & policy governance has probs! That’s it! I’m very sorry for your suffering. I wish a better resolution had been found for you. But this whole conversation is driving me bonkers! I think it’s really uncool to invoke the murder willy-nilly, like it’s a plot device. Can we please not do that? The pain you’ve endured does not require the backdrop of other people’s trauma for us to acknowledge it.
“Those who defend the board’s chicanery are as guilty as the criminals who are still in operation and still attacking anyone who questions them even though the effects their violations have had are profound, literally ruining lives”
Do you really believe that? I sure don’t. I have my frustrations with the Board, but they are not responsible for murder. Come on. Most of them, rightly or wrongly, see employee well-bring as beyond their purview. Like us bargaining committee folks, they’re just shareholders who spend a lot of time in boring/contentious meetings trying to make the Co-op better. I can only speak for myself, but I don’t feel “attacked” by anyone. At worst, the Board ignores us. There’s no “chicanery”, just…status quo.
It just gets sillier and sillier.
Only in Brattleboro, the town where murderers become martyrs and the victim vilified, would this tempest in a thimble become such a cause celebre. The facts are simple: employees voted for a union to represent them. A contract was approved between the union and the coop. The contract specifies EXACTLY how grievances are to be handled. A few rogue employees decided to bypass the union grievance procedure and speak directly to the Board. That is a legally impermissible breach of contract, and every Board member should know this. As a result, the union could well bring charges with the NLRB. Questions?
"Rogue employees" is quite
“Rogue employees” is quite the assertion from an anonymous person who has no idea what they’re talking about. We approached the Board with the Union’s blessing, and AGAIN, this was not about the grievance procedure.
Some of you people are so incredibly rude and over-confident.
Anonymity, confidentiality and potatoes
I cannot believe a statement that this is all so simple from an anonymous source. The main problem with this thread is people trying to explain what is going on while being unwilling to say who they are and what their source is.
Some say it this about the contract while others say it is not.
When confidentiality and anonymity meet on the internet you get goo. I like the Vermont Digger policy that all comments need to be signed.
And as to ‘civic life’ and buying potatoes: Our town is full of issues that affect us from trash disposal and energy to food and taxes… and more. These issues are not the totality of civic life but they attract the attention of people who want to be involved in solutions – and disagreements about what the solutions are. Saying these conversations are unimportant and get in the way of wanting to “just buy a potato’ is like saying the discussion about solid waste gets in the way of “just throwing my stuff out”. The Co-op is a member organization with a unionized workforce. Every shareholder has a right to their views and such discussions are part of civic life.
Now please pass the potatoes.
Andy Davis
Do you like them mashed or boiled?
This does get philosophical fairly quick. I am guilty of two things. Bringing up the idea, and reading (at least some of) the thread, which certainly isn’t having the matter shoved at me. I helped shove it into my face.
You offer an interesting comparison of grocery shopping to waste disposal. Again, if you feel that everything is a political issue that demands citizen involvement, I would agree with you that my point is completely meaningless if not foolish. If I dare bring up the fact that I now shop almost exclusively at Aldis, I suspect then I’m almost ipso facto “guilty” of voting for corporate ownership of my food distribution, etc etc ad absurdum. And if I see the Brattleboro Food Co-op more of a co-op in name only, please forgive me and at least allow me my pecadilloes. (Locally grown of course, they’re a taste treat.)
I request that you do a simple thought experiment though, and follow Mr. Spoon’s waxing poetic some months ago in regards to the co-op movement in general, dreaming where else it might go. Given that the Brattleboro Food Co-op has become so rife with politics, and voting, and voting on procedures for voting, imagine if we were then surrounded by cooperatives, each of which demanded, according to your point of view, our steadfast “civic” involvement because we “are all owners”. I had thought/hoped this “you’re either on the bus or off the bus” disappeared when Ken Kesey shot himself into outer space (the likely destination of such thinking in my perspective). The Co-op is only “civic” based on a political stance, not because it is a civic matter per se. As I said before, as for buying locally and offering organic food and educating the consumer, or if you wish, people in healthy eating, Hannafords, and even Aldis to an extent, gets that too but neither are asking me to be involved in their internal politics. I appreciate that. I like that.
If I may also be allowed to speak for everyone, we’re not that big, Mr Davis, to think in the broad terms that you glibly describe. You are doing nothing more than redefining the meaning of civic life, but only abstractly. I think that is not fair. Life’s too short, and too difficult. As a rabbi once said to me “Your generation loves meetings. Why you’d all want to vote whether or not to go to the bathroom.” Indeed.
Mashed or boiled... it depends on the rest of the meal
Thanks for the personalized reply.
I was only saying it is OK to be involved in some local issues. No one was advocating for cooperative totalitariansim.
Reductio ad absurdum lives.
I get involved in a few things and I also have a family, a career and a few wonderful hobbies and pastimes. I like meetings that are well run, civil and that accomplish things.
As I said before, this thread has gotten out of hand because it veered off into the ozone of people guessing what was going on at the Co-op. I wasn’t trying to be glib. What is ‘glib’ anyway?
Andy
glib is in the ear of the beholder
no time to respond further. it’s time for my meds.
Off topic, but… a note from management.
Andy,
We do not allow any anonymous comments. Each one is signed. T’is impossible to comment anonymously here.
BTW, Google just changed their policy to follow the one we use. They have learned that real names do not guarantee any sort of quality or civility. Pen names are fine, and there are legitimate reasons people use them (someone living alone, or avoiding a stalker or ex, for example).
Judge comments by their quality, and associate them with the author’s chosen name.
There are other long discussions of this elsewhere, so let’s stay on topic here. We can debate site policy on the other threads…
Speaking Out
It’s been my experience that when people start to speak out, it’s because something is going on. When something is going on, there seems to be a natural tendency on the part of human beings to look. That in itself is not a bad thing. What if you needed to be rescued and everyone was too polite to help you? The Co-op has a stated commitment to its shareholders and to the community, which makes people expect more of them. Since outside scrutiny is never fun, I think it would be in everyone’s best interests to resolve differences quickly and openly.
Anonymity is 'on topic' in this case
Hi, Chris
I do believe that ‘anonymity’ is ‘on topic’ in this case. This thread is full of speculation, rumor and guesswork. You are literally correct that a ‘nom de plume’ is actually a ‘name’ and anonymity literally means ‘without a name’. However, I believe when people put their actual name on their writing they tend to write about what they know to be true.
What I meant by the common combination of anonymity and confidentiality on the internet becoming ‘goo’ is that online discussion becomes a thing in itself and not based on actual information.
Is iBrattleboro entertainment or a discussion about real things in the community? Maybe some of both. We still do not know why the Co-op employees first contacted two Co-op board members.
Keep up the good work.
Andy
Watch out for the voting process
I’ve been in the vote-count room several times, and the behavior is unprofessional and the tally occasionally inaccurate.
Since the territorialism is so ingrained, it will take a lot of work to fix that, and heads need to roll.
and the ballot design
is specifically structured to ensure that incumbents who choose to run again win. I tried to address this years ago and got the usual territorialism.
New blood is desperately needed at the Co-op.
sponsorship
My big issue with the board voting process is that the board recommends candidates.
how to be a board candidate at the co-op
From the pdf of how to become a board member:
“According to Co-op bylaws, candidates for the Board shall be nominated by the Board, by a nominating committee of the Board, or by petition signed by at least ten shareholders. (Bylaws, Section 5.4)”
Yeah
And that’s not right.
what is not right?
It looks like there are two ways to get on the ballot — via the board process or by petition signed by 10 shareholders. Whatever way they access the ballot, it appears the candidates stand for the same election by the shareholders. Are you saying that isn’t how it is done in practice? Or do you mean that the two ways of getting on the ballot is not right and another way would be better?
BS
I tried to make the ballot fair.
I tried to make the count fair.
Twice I failed due to the extraordinary territorialism that infects and permeates the institution.
what is not right? your failure to count the bouncing balls.
Right
Lisa, that the Board endorses candidates is my issue. Why should the Board endorse candidates? It only serves to promote the same old, same old. And it marginalizes other candidates who don’t get the Official Stamp of Approval. I’ve seen it happen way too many times now.
And thank you for the lovely compliments.
Interesting
Interesting. Not sure where this vitriol is coming from since my comment was not in response to your post but was directed to annikee’s comment. I have followed her posts on here for years and always respect her perspective. I also know that she used to work at the co-op so when she chimed in I was trying to get clear about what she meant. That’s it. No bouncing balls here that need following.
no good deed goes unpunished......
I am afraid these two Board members crossed the line of involving themselves in the management of the company.
Micro-managing is a huge bozo no-no for any Board member, whether a profit or non-profit. And it seems very strange particularly when a Union is involved.
I am sure they had good intentions, but the road to hell is paved with good intentions.
I find it unusual that the Union would endorse this type of contact with employees directly discussing management policy with Board members. Clearly the Board labor lawyers saw it that way and I imagine the Union lawyers would see this too.
I see the employees are also considered shareholders in the original post. But the fact is they were acting as employees and not shareholders. Based on the post, their discussions with the Board regarded employment issues, not shareholder issues.
The Road to Hell
The road to heaven is also paved with good intentions, Fishboy.
The Vitrol is Fully Warranted
as the “sponsornship”.
It’s not the selection of “preferred” candidates.
It’s the deliberate asterisk next to their names. Any judge or cognitive scientist will testify that the practice is exceptionally prejudicial, and pretending otherwise while not addressing The Mann who raises the issue as an example of rigging an election is, at best, an ostrich with her head firmly in the sand, ergo immune to the threat of change.
If one falls back on “oh, this is too rude for me”, you enable the Willful Electoral Rigging that has been the status quo for over five years. Give yourself a medal.
There are far more efficacious means towards a true democratic paradigm.
And that, my friend, is the bouncing ball you refuse to follow because it is not thrown by annikee. Your refusal is tightly bound to your parochialism, a stain I maintain spoils the original spirit of cooperativeness. “No bouncing balls need following”? Only if you willfully ignore them.
Your spiteful refusal to address me directly is what leads me to leave this useless forum.
The beatings will continue until morale improves.
Do tell
I cashed in my membership several years ago and had refused being in the counting ballots club any longer before then. What is up with the rigged ballots? How are they rigged?
Hopeful for some positive change
Being new to Brattleboro and missing the co-op in my former town dearly, I have been trying to follow this whole saga in order to make an informed decision about where to spend my money and honestly, this is bewildering. I’ve been a member of many co-ops and although they have all had their challenges, I’ve not seen anything like this. In my experience, co-ops have been healthy places, and assets to the communities they are in. As members, (shareholders is such an unpleasant term,) we have been willing to spend a little more to contribute to something that gives back to our community in many ways – by providing healthy food for purchase, classes, sponsorship for other great projects, and more. What is going on in Brattleboro? It’s infamous – I’ve heard the rumors from people who live far from Bratt and know several people who won’t go in there when they come into town because of it. This stuff really gets around.
In my experience, Brattleboro is full of amazing people, cooperative people, kind people, hardworking people who want to do good things. Where is the disconnect?
I’ve had very nice exchanges with several of the employees and I know good people who have or do serve on the board. We have an amazing community. How do we put two and two and two together here? Is it too late? It seems like an awful lot of us are invested in this.