Recent Changes for "Davis Food Co-op/Election 2009" - Davis Wikihttp://daviswiki.org/Davis_Food_Co-op/Election_2009Recent Changes of the page "Davis Food Co-op/Election 2009" on Davis Wiki.en-us Davis Food Co-op/Election 2009http://daviswiki.org/Davis_Food_Co-op/Election_20092009-06-16 18:55:51DougWalter(quick edit) <div id="content" class="wikipage content"> Differences for Davis Food Co-op/Election 2009<p><strong></strong></p><table> <tr> <td> <span> Deletions are marked with - . </span> </td> <td> <span> Additions are marked with +. </span> </td> </tr> <tr> <td> Line 4: </td> <td> Line 4: </td> </tr> <tr> <td> <span>-</span> ||Election page is up to date through 6/<span>8</span>/09|| </td> <td> <span>+</span> ||Election page is up to date through 6/<span>15</span>/09|| </td> </tr> </table> </div> Davis Food Co-op/Election 2009http://daviswiki.org/Davis_Food_Co-op/Election_20092009-06-16 18:55:36DougWalterFinal tallies differ slightly from draft <div id="content" class="wikipage content"> Differences for Davis Food Co-op/Election 2009<p><strong></strong></p><table> <tr> <td> <span> Deletions are marked with - . </span> </td> <td> <span> Additions are marked with +. </span> </td> </tr> <tr> <td> Line 7: </td> <td> Line 7: </td> </tr> <tr> <td> <span>- =Davis Food Co-op election results as of 6/8/2009=<br> - These results are not final until the mail arrives through 6/10/09 (five days after the close of the election on 6/5). If there are ballots with a postmark of June 5, 2009 or earlier, and the envelopes are signed by a member in good standing, then their votes shall be added to the totals. 837 ballots were counted on Monday, with 8,208 shareholders in good standing eligible to vote, so turnout was 10.2%.</span> </td> <td> <span>+ =Davis Food Co-op election results as of 6/15/2009=<br> + These results were accepted by vote of the Board of Directors on 6/15/09. 838 ballots were counted in total, with 8,208 shareholders in good standing eligible to vote, so turnout was 10.2%.</span> </td> </tr> <tr> <td> Line 11: </td> <td> Line 11: </td> </tr> <tr> <td> <span>-</span> Desmond Jolly – 58<span>7</span> votes<br> <span>-</span> Julie A. Cross (staff) – 46<span>6</span> votes </td> <td> <span>+</span> Desmond Jolly – 58<span>8</span> votes<br> <span>+</span> Julie A. Cross (staff) – 46<span>7</span> votes </td> </tr> <tr> <td> Line 16: </td> <td> Line 16: </td> </tr> <tr> <td> <span>-</span> Kevin Wolf – 34<span>1</span> votes </td> <td> <span>+</span> Kevin Wolf – 34<span>4</span> votes </td> </tr> <tr> <td> Line 25: </td> <td> Line 25: </td> </tr> <tr> <td> <span>-</span> (required two-thirds of votes cast to pass, in order to amend Articles of Incorporation)<br> <span>-</span> Yes – 42<span>5</span> (57.1<span>2</span>%)<br> <span>-</span> No – 319 (42.8<span>8</span>%) </td> <td> <span>+</span> (required two-thirds of votes cast to pass, in order to amend <span>[http://www.davisfood.coop/bylaws.html</span> Articles of Incorporation<span>]</span>)<br> <span>+</span> Yes – 42<span>6</span> (57.1<span>8</span>%)<br> <span>+</span> No – 319 (42.8<span>2</span>%) </td> </tr> <tr> <td> Line 31: </td> <td> Line 31: </td> </tr> <tr> <td> <span>-</span> No – 46<span>7</span> </td> <td> <span>+</span> No – 46<span>8</span> </td> </tr> <tr> <td> Line 35: </td> <td> Line 35: </td> </tr> <tr> <td> <span>-</span> No – 42<span>3</span> </td> <td> <span>+</span> No – 42<span>4</span> </td> </tr> <tr> <td> Line 38: </td> <td> Line 38: </td> </tr> <tr> <td> <span>-</span> Yes – 69<span>5</span> </td> <td> <span>+</span> Yes – 69<span>6</span> </td> </tr> <tr> <td> Line 42: </td> <td> Line 42: </td> </tr> <tr> <td> <span>-</span> Yes – 45<span>4</span> </td> <td> <span>+</span> Yes – 45<span>5</span> </td> </tr> <tr> <td> Line 46: </td> <td> Line 46: </td> </tr> <tr> <td> <span>-</span> Yes – 62<span>0</span> </td> <td> <span>+</span> Yes – 62<span>1</span> </td> </tr> <tr> <td> Line 50: </td> <td> Line 50: </td> </tr> <tr> <td> <span>-</span> Yes – 6<span>59</span> </td> <td> <span>+</span> Yes – 6<span>60</span> </td> </tr> <tr> <td> Line 54: </td> <td> Line 54: </td> </tr> <tr> <td> <span>-</span> Yes – 63<span>8</span> </td> <td> <span>+</span> Yes – 63<span>9</span> </td> </tr> </table> </div> Davis Food Co-op/Election 2009http://daviswiki.org/Davis_Food_Co-op/Election_20092009-06-09 11:52:32DougWalterpreliminary (definitive) results <div id="content" class="wikipage content"> Differences for Davis Food Co-op/Election 2009<p><strong></strong></p><table> <tr> <td> <span> Deletions are marked with - . </span> </td> <td> <span> Additions are marked with +. </span> </td> </tr> <tr> <td> Line 4: </td> <td> Line 4: </td> </tr> <tr> <td> <span>-</span> ||Election page is up to date through <span>5</span>/<span>4</span>/09|| </td> <td> <span>+</span> ||Election page is up to date through <span>6</span>/<span>8</span>/09|| </td> </tr> <tr> <td> Line 7: </td> <td> Line 7: </td> </tr> <tr> <td> <span>- There's going to be a ["Davis Food Co-op"] election and details will be published here, and the Voters Pamphlet will be available for download. There will also be cross-linking between this easy to edit &amp; open page, and the restricted election.html page on the Co-op's official site. Here is the '''modified''' (on May 4, by the Board) 2009 Election Calendar:</span> </td> <td> <span>+ =Davis Food Co-op election results as of 6/8/2009=<br> + These results are not final until the mail arrives through 6/10/09 (five days after the close of the election on 6/5). If there are ballots with a postmark of June 5, 2009 or earlier, and the envelopes are signed by a member in good standing, then their votes shall be added to the totals. 837 ballots were counted on Monday, with 8,208 shareholders in good standing eligible to vote, so turnout was 10.2%.<br> + <br> + Directors elected to '''three''' year terms:<br> + Desmond Jolly – 587 votes<br> + Julie A. Cross (staff) – 466 votes<br> + Sam Citron – 347 votes<br> + <br> + Elected to '''one year''' terms as Alternate Directorss:<br> + Kevin Wolf – 341 votes<br> + Teddy Consolacion – 187 votes<br> + <br> + Declared candidates also receiving votes:<br> + Zach Norwood – 115 votes<br> + Michael Simpson (staff) – 111 votes<br> + <br> + <br> + Proposition One – Additional Non-voting Shares '''FAILS'''<br> + (required two-thirds of votes cast to pass, in order to amend Articles of Incorporation)<br> + Yes – 425 (57.12%)<br> + No – 319 (42.88%)<br> + <br> + Proposition Two – Staff Directors '''FAILS'''<br> + Yes – 306<br> + No – 467<br> + <br> + Proposition Three – Alternate Directors '''FAILS'''<br> + Yes – 311<br> + No – 423<br> + <br> + Proposition Four – Method of Removal of Directors '''PASSES'''<br> + Yes – 695<br> + No – 50<br> + <br> + Proposition Five – Member Initiative '''PASSES'''<br> + Yes – 454<br> + No – 284<br> + <br> + Proposition Six – Election Calendar '''PASSES'''<br> + Yes – 620<br> + No – 112<br> + <br> + Proposition Seven – Termination of Membership '''PASSES'''<br> + Yes – 659<br> + No – 76<br> + <br> + Proposition Eight – Elections '''PASSES'''<br> + Yes – 638<br> + No – 78<br> + <br> + There's was a ["Davis Food Co-op"] election. Details were be published on-line, and the Voters Pamphlet is still available for download. There will also be cross-linking between this easy to edit &amp; open page, and the restricted election.html page on the Co-op's official site. Here is the '''modified''' (on May 4, by the Board) 2009 Election Calendar:</span> </td> </tr> </table> </div> Davis Food Co-op/Election 2009http://daviswiki.org/Davis_Food_Co-op/Election_20092009-06-02 14:45:06ZacharyNorwoodletter link <div id="content" class="wikipage content"> Differences for Davis Food Co-op/Election 2009<p><strong></strong></p><table> <tr> <td> <span> Deletions are marked with - . </span> </td> <td> <span> Additions are marked with +. </span> </td> </tr> <tr> <td> Line 207: </td> <td> Line 207: </td> </tr> <tr> <td> </td> <td> <span>+ ------<br> + ''2009-06-02 2:44:13'' [[nbsp]] Here's a link to my [http://daviswiki.org/ZacharyNorwood/letters#head-5f2ccc2510c734cd3beb576c611f4203c47b9dbc open letter] regarding this election.<br> + --["Users/ZacharyNorwood" Zach]</span> </td> </tr> </table> </div> Davis Food Co-op/Election 2009http://daviswiki.org/Davis_Food_Co-op/Election_20092009-05-31 11:15:06ZacharyNorwood(quick edit) <div id="content" class="wikipage content"> Differences for Davis Food Co-op/Election 2009<p><strong></strong></p><table> <tr> <td> <span> Deletions are marked with - . </span> </td> <td> <span> Additions are marked with +. </span> </td> </tr> <tr> <td> Line 206: </td> <td> Line 206: </td> </tr> <tr> <td> <span>-</span> ''2009-05-31 10:51:13'' [[nbsp]] A friend reminded me of the potential pitfalls of '''vote dilution''' raised last election, citing concerns that something similar could happen again this year. I'll rehash that for those who have forgotten. Whenever you can cast more than one vote, there’s a tendency for voters to use all their votes, leaving the election vulnerable to any group that concentrates their votes on a particular candidate. In a situation like this year's election, if everyone used their three votes, but a sizable, organized group only used one vote, this group would be guaranteed to field their candidate. To give a purely hypothetical example, if 40% of 500 voters voted for candidates A, B, and C, giving each 200 votes, and 35% voted randomly among A-G, while the remaining 25% voted just for A, giving him or her a concentrated 125 votes, then the outcome would favor A, because he or she would receive an overall total of 350 votes compared to the next best 200. Now since three seats are open, this is potentially less a problem, but Prop 2 changes the logic of how these three seats will be fielded. Even with this logic factored in, the vulnerability still exists, and Prop 2 itself is vulnerable to <span>being determined by a</span> voter bloc. Basically it boils down to this: '''anytime there is a concentrated bloc of votes in a system where people generally tend to use all their votes, especially if they aren't fully informed about competing factions, the outcome will favor the voter bloc'''. If people are concerned, they can always submit a new ballot, stating the date on outside of the envelope along with a note indicating that this new ballot "supersedes" the old one. I honestly don’t know enough about the odds involved, so I can’t be overly concerned. --["Users/ZacharyNorwood" Zach] </td> <td> <span>+</span> ''2009-05-31 10:51:13'' [[nbsp]] A friend reminded me of the potential pitfalls of '''vote dilution''' raised last election, citing concerns that something similar could happen again this year. I'll rehash that for those who have forgotten. Whenever you can cast more than one vote, there’s a tendency for voters to use all their votes, leaving the election vulnerable to any group that concentrates their votes on a particular candidate. In a situation like this year's election, if everyone used their three votes, but a sizable, organized group only used one vote, this group would be guaranteed to field their candidate. To give a purely hypothetical example, if 40% of 500 voters voted for candidates A, B, and C, giving each 200 votes, and 35% voted randomly among A-G, while the remaining 25% voted just for A, giving him or her a concentrated 125 votes, then the outcome would favor A, because he or she would receive an overall total of 350 votes compared to the next best 200. Now since three seats are open, this is potentially less a problem, but Prop 2 changes the logic of how these three seats will be fielded. Even with this logic factored in, the vulnerability still exists, and Prop 2 itself is vulnerable to <span>determination by</span> voter bloc. Basically it boils down to this: '''anytime there is a concentrated bloc of votes in a system where people generally tend to use all their votes, especially if they aren't fully informed about competing factions, the outcome will favor the voter bloc'''. If people are concerned, they can always submit a new ballot, stating the date on outside of the envelope along with a note indicating that this new ballot "supersedes" the old one. I honestly don’t know enough about the odds involved, so I can’t be overly concerned. --["Users/ZacharyNorwood" Zach] </td> </tr> </table> </div> Davis Food Co-op/Election 2009http://daviswiki.org/Davis_Food_Co-op/Election_20092009-05-31 11:14:20ZacharyNorwood <div id="content" class="wikipage content"> Differences for Davis Food Co-op/Election 2009<p><strong></strong></p><table> <tr> <td> <span> Deletions are marked with - . </span> </td> <td> <span> Additions are marked with +. </span> </td> </tr> <tr> <td> Line 206: </td> <td> Line 206: </td> </tr> <tr> <td> <span>-</span> ''2009-05-31 10:51:13'' [[nbsp]] A friend reminded me of the potential pitfalls of '''vote dilution''' raised last election, citing concerns that something similar could happen again this year. I'll rehash that for those who have forgotten. Whenever you can cast more than one vote, there’s a tendency for voters to use all their votes, leaving the election vulnerable to any group that concentrates their votes on a particular candidate. In a situation like this year's election, if everyone used their three votes, but a sizable, organized group only used one vote, this group would be guaranteed to field their candidate. To give a purely hypothetical example, if 40% of 500 voters voted for candidates A, B, and C, giving each 200 votes, and 35% voted randomly among A-G, while the remaining 25% voted just for A, giving him or her a concentrated 125 votes, then the outcome would favor A, because he or she would receive an overall total of 350 votes compared to the next best 200. Now since three seats are open, this is potentially less a problem, but Prop 2 changes the logic of how these three seats will be fielded. Even with this logic factored in, the vulnerability still exists. Basically it boils down to this: '''anytime there is a concentrated bloc of votes in a system where people generally tend to use all their votes, especially if they aren't fully informed about competing factions, the outcome will favor the voter bloc'''. If people are concerned, they can always submit a new ballot, stating the date on outside of the envelope along with a note indicating that this new ballot "supersedes" the old one. I honestly don’t know enough about the odds involved, so I can’t be overly concerned. --["Users/ZacharyNorwood" Zach] </td> <td> <span>+</span> ''2009-05-31 10:51:13'' [[nbsp]] A friend reminded me of the potential pitfalls of '''vote dilution''' raised last election, citing concerns that something similar could happen again this year. I'll rehash that for those who have forgotten. Whenever you can cast more than one vote, there’s a tendency for voters to use all their votes, leaving the election vulnerable to any group that concentrates their votes on a particular candidate. In a situation like this year's election, if everyone used their three votes, but a sizable, organized group only used one vote, this group would be guaranteed to field their candidate. To give a purely hypothetical example, if 40% of 500 voters voted for candidates A, B, and C, giving each 200 votes, and 35% voted randomly among A-G, while the remaining 25% voted just for A, giving him or her a concentrated 125 votes, then the outcome would favor A, because he or she would receive an overall total of 350 votes compared to the next best 200. Now since three seats are open, this is potentially less a problem, but Prop 2 changes the logic of how these three seats will be fielded. Even with this logic factored in, the vulnerability still exists<span>, and Prop 2 itself is vulnerable to being determined by a voter bloc</span>. Basically it boils down to this: '''anytime there is a concentrated bloc of votes in a system where people generally tend to use all their votes, especially if they aren't fully informed about competing factions, the outcome will favor the voter bloc'''. If people are concerned, they can always submit a new ballot, stating the date on outside of the envelope along with a note indicating that this new ballot "supersedes" the old one. I honestly don’t know enough about the odds involved, so I can’t be overly concerned. --["Users/ZacharyNorwood" Zach] </td> </tr> </table> </div> Davis Food Co-op/Election 2009http://daviswiki.org/Davis_Food_Co-op/Election_20092009-05-31 11:13:22ZacharyNorwood(quick edit) <div id="content" class="wikipage content"> Differences for Davis Food Co-op/Election 2009<p><strong></strong></p><table> <tr> <td> <span> Deletions are marked with - . </span> </td> <td> <span> Additions are marked with +. </span> </td> </tr> <tr> <td> Line 206: </td> <td> Line 206: </td> </tr> <tr> <td> <span>-</span> ''2009-05-31 10:51:13'' [[nbsp]] A friend reminded me of the potential pitfalls of '''vote dilution''' raised last election, citing concerns that something similar could happen again this year. I'll rehash that for those who have forgotten. Whenever you can cast more than one vote, there’s a tendency for voters to use all their votes, leaving the election vulnerable to any group that concentrates their votes on a particular candidate. In a situation like this year's election, if everyone used their three votes, but a sizable, organized group only used one vote, this group would <span>have you guaranteed seat</span>. To give a purely hypothetical example, if 40% of 500 voters voted for candidates A, B, and C, giving each 200 votes, and 35% voted randomly among A-G, while the remaining 25% voted just for A, giving him or her a concentrated 125 votes, then the outcome would favor A, because he or she would receive an overall total of 350 votes compared to the next best 200. Now since three seats are open, this is potentially less a problem, but Prop 2 changes the logic of how these three seats will be fielded. Even with this logic factored in, the vulnerability still exists. Basically it boils down to this: '''anytime there is a concentrated bloc of votes in a system where people generally tend to use all their votes, especially if they aren't fully informed about competing factions, the outcome will favor the voter bloc'''. If people are concerned, they can always submit a new ballot, stating the date on outside of the envelope along with a note indicating that this new ballot "supersedes" the old one. I honestly don’t know enough about the odds involved, so I can’t be overly concerned. --["Users/ZacharyNorwood" Zach] </td> <td> <span>+</span> ''2009-05-31 10:51:13'' [[nbsp]] A friend reminded me of the potential pitfalls of '''vote dilution''' raised last election, citing concerns that something similar could happen again this year. I'll rehash that for those who have forgotten. Whenever you can cast more than one vote, there’s a tendency for voters to use all their votes, leaving the election vulnerable to any group that concentrates their votes on a particular candidate. In a situation like this year's election, if everyone used their three votes, but a sizable, organized group only used one vote, this group would <span>be guaranteed to field their candidate</span>. To give a purely hypothetical example, if 40% of 500 voters voted for candidates A, B, and C, giving each 200 votes, and 35% voted randomly among A-G, while the remaining 25% voted just for A, giving him or her a concentrated 125 votes, then the outcome would favor A, because he or she would receive an overall total of 350 votes compared to the next best 200. Now since three seats are open, this is potentially less a problem, but Prop 2 changes the logic of how these three seats will be fielded. Even with this logic factored in, the vulnerability still exists. Basically it boils down to this: '''anytime there is a concentrated bloc of votes in a system where people generally tend to use all their votes, especially if they aren't fully informed about competing factions, the outcome will favor the voter bloc'''. If people are concerned, they can always submit a new ballot, stating the date on outside of the envelope along with a note indicating that this new ballot "supersedes" the old one. I honestly don’t know enough about the odds involved, so I can’t be overly concerned. --["Users/ZacharyNorwood" Zach] </td> </tr> </table> </div> Davis Food Co-op/Election 2009http://daviswiki.org/Davis_Food_Co-op/Election_20092009-05-31 11:12:10ZacharyNorwood(quick edit) <div id="content" class="wikipage content"> Differences for Davis Food Co-op/Election 2009<p><strong></strong></p><table> <tr> <td> <span> Deletions are marked with - . </span> </td> <td> <span> Additions are marked with +. </span> </td> </tr> <tr> <td> Line 206: </td> <td> Line 206: </td> </tr> <tr> <td> <span>-</span> ''2009-05-31 10:51:13'' [[nbsp]] A friend reminded me of the potential pitfalls of '''vote dilution''' raised last election, citing concerns that something similar could happen again this year. I'll rehash that for those who have forgotten. Whenever you can cast more than one vote, there’s a tendency for voters to use all their votes, leaving the election vulnerable to any group that concentrates their votes on a particular candidate. In a situation like this year's election, if everyone used their three votes, but a sizable, organized group only used one vote, this group would <span>win</span>. To give a purely hypothetical example, if 40% of 500 voters voted for candidates A, B, and C, giving each 200 votes, and 35% voted randomly among A-G, while the remaining 25% voted just for A, giving him or her a concentrated 125 votes, then the outcome would favor A, because he or she would receive an overall total of 350 votes compared to the next best 200. Now since three seats are open, this is potentially less a problem, but Prop 2 changes the logic of how these three seats will be fielded. Even with this logic factored in, the vulnerability still exists. Basically it boils down to this: '''anytime there is a concentrated bloc of votes in a system where people generally tend to use all their votes, especially if they aren't fully informed about competing factions, the outcome will favor the voter bloc'''. If people are concerned, they can always submit a new ballot, stating the date on outside of the envelope along with a note indicating that this new ballot "supersedes" the old one. --["Users/ZacharyNorwood" Zach] </td> <td> <span>+</span> ''2009-05-31 10:51:13'' [[nbsp]] A friend reminded me of the potential pitfalls of '''vote dilution''' raised last election, citing concerns that something similar could happen again this year. I'll rehash that for those who have forgotten. Whenever you can cast more than one vote, there’s a tendency for voters to use all their votes, leaving the election vulnerable to any group that concentrates their votes on a particular candidate. In a situation like this year's election, if everyone used their three votes, but a sizable, organized group only used one vote, this group would <span>have you guaranteed seat</span>. To give a purely hypothetical example, if 40% of 500 voters voted for candidates A, B, and C, giving each 200 votes, and 35% voted randomly among A-G, while the remaining 25% voted just for A, giving him or her a concentrated 125 votes, then the outcome would favor A, because he or she would receive an overall total of 350 votes compared to the next best 200. Now since three seats are open, this is potentially less a problem, but Prop 2 changes the logic of how these three seats will be fielded. Even with this logic factored in, the vulnerability still exists. Basically it boils down to this: '''anytime there is a concentrated bloc of votes in a system where people generally tend to use all their votes, especially if they aren't fully informed about competing factions, the outcome will favor the voter bloc'''. If people are concerned, they can always submit a new ballot, stating the date on outside of the envelope along with a note indicating that this new ballot "supersedes" the old one<span>. I honestly don’t know enough about the odds involved, so I can’t be overly concerned</span>. --["Users/ZacharyNorwood" Zach] </td> </tr> </table> </div> Davis Food Co-op/Election 2009http://daviswiki.org/Davis_Food_Co-op/Election_20092009-05-31 10:56:44ZacharyNorwood(quick edit) <div id="content" class="wikipage content"> Differences for Davis Food Co-op/Election 2009<p><strong></strong></p><table> <tr> <td> <span> Deletions are marked with - . </span> </td> <td> <span> Additions are marked with +. </span> </td> </tr> <tr> <td> Line 206: </td> <td> Line 206: </td> </tr> <tr> <td> <span>-</span> ''2009-05-31 10:51:13'' [[nbsp]] A friend reminded me of the potential pitfalls of '''vote dilution''' raised last election, citing concerns that something similar could happen again this year. I'll rehash that for those who have forgotten. Whenever you can cast more than one vote, there’s a tendency for voters to use all their votes, leaving the election vulnerable to any group that concentrates their votes on a particular candidate. In a situation like this year's election, if everyone used their three votes, but a sizable, organized group only used one vote, this group would win. To give a purely hypothetical example, if 40% of 500 voters voted for candidates A, B, and C, giving each 200 votes, and 35% voted randomly among A-G, while the remaining 25% voted just for A, giving him or her a concentrated 125 votes, then the outcome would favor A, because he or she would receive an overall total of 350 votes compared to the next best 200. Now since three seats are open, this is potentially less a problem, <span>and</span> Prop 2 changes the logic of how <span>people will vote, even if they use all three,</span> b<span>ut</span> the vulnerability still exists. Basically it boils down to this: '''any<span>one getting</span> a concentrated bloc of votes in a system where people generally tend to use all their votes, especially if they aren't fully informed about competing factions, the outcome will favor the voter bloc'''. If people are concerned, they can always submit a new ballot, stating the date on outside of the envelope along with a note indicating that this new ballot "supersedes" the old one. --["Users/ZacharyNorwood" Zach] </td> <td> <span>+</span> ''2009-05-31 10:51:13'' [[nbsp]] A friend reminded me of the potential pitfalls of '''vote dilution''' raised last election, citing concerns that something similar could happen again this year. I'll rehash that for those who have forgotten. Whenever you can cast more than one vote, there’s a tendency for voters to use all their votes, leaving the election vulnerable to any group that concentrates their votes on a particular candidate. In a situation like this year's election, if everyone used their three votes, but a sizable, organized group only used one vote, this group would win. To give a purely hypothetical example, if 40% of 500 voters voted for candidates A, B, and C, giving each 200 votes, and 35% voted randomly among A-G, while the remaining 25% voted just for A, giving him or her a concentrated 125 votes, then the outcome would favor A, because he or she would receive an overall total of 350 votes compared to the next best 200. Now since three seats are open, this is potentially less a problem, <span>but</span> Prop 2 changes the logic of how <span>these three seats will</span> b<span>e fielded. Even with this logic factored in,</span> the vulnerability still exists. Basically it boils down to this: '''any<span>time there is</span> a concentrated bloc of votes in a system where people generally tend to use all their votes, especially if they aren't fully informed about competing factions, the outcome will favor the voter bloc'''. If people are concerned, they can always submit a new ballot, stating the date on outside of the envelope along with a note indicating that this new ballot "supersedes" the old one. --["Users/ZacharyNorwood" Zach] </td> </tr> </table> </div> Davis Food Co-op/Election 2009http://daviswiki.org/Davis_Food_Co-op/Election_20092009-05-31 10:54:12ZacharyNorwood(quick edit) <div id="content" class="wikipage content"> Differences for Davis Food Co-op/Election 2009<p><strong></strong></p><table> <tr> <td> <span> Deletions are marked with - . </span> </td> <td> <span> Additions are marked with +. </span> </td> </tr> <tr> <td> Line 206: </td> <td> Line 206: </td> </tr> <tr> <td> <span>-</span> ''2009-05-31 10:51:13'' [[nbsp]] A friend reminded me of the potential pitfalls of '''vote dilution''' raised last election, citing concerns that something similar could happen again this year. I'll rehash that for those who have forgotten. Whenever you can cast more than one vote, there’s a tendency for voters to use all their votes, leaving the election vulnerable to any group that concentrates their votes on a particular candidate. In a situation like this year<span>s'</span> election, if everyone used their three votes, but a sizable, organized group only used one vote, this group would win. To give a purely hypothetical example, if 40% of 500 voters voted for candidates A, B, and C, giving each 200 votes, and 35% voted randomly among A-G, while the remaining 25% voted just for A, giving him or her a concentrated 125 votes, then the outcome would favor A, because he or she would receive an overall total of 350 votes compared to the next best 200. Now since three seats are open, this is potentially less a problem, and Prop 2 changes the logic of how people will vote, even if they use all three, but the vulnerability still exists. Basically it boils down to this: '''anyone getting a concentrated bloc of votes in a system where people generally tend to use all their votes, especially if they aren't fully informed about competing factions, the outcome will favor the voter bloc'''. If people are concerned, they can always submit a new ballot, stating the date on outside of the envelope along with a note indicating that this new ballot "supersedes" the old one. --["Users/ZacharyNorwood" Zach] </td> <td> <span>+</span> ''2009-05-31 10:51:13'' [[nbsp]] A friend reminded me of the potential pitfalls of '''vote dilution''' raised last election, citing concerns that something similar could happen again this year. I'll rehash that for those who have forgotten. Whenever you can cast more than one vote, there’s a tendency for voters to use all their votes, leaving the election vulnerable to any group that concentrates their votes on a particular candidate. In a situation like this year<span>'s</span> election, if everyone used their three votes, but a sizable, organized group only used one vote, this group would win. To give a purely hypothetical example, if 40% of 500 voters voted for candidates A, B, and C, giving each 200 votes, and 35% voted randomly among A-G, while the remaining 25% voted just for A, giving him or her a concentrated 125 votes, then the outcome would favor A, because he or she would receive an overall total of 350 votes compared to the next best 200. Now since three seats are open, this is potentially less a problem, and Prop 2 changes the logic of how people will vote, even if they use all three, but the vulnerability still exists. Basically it boils down to this: '''anyone getting a concentrated bloc of votes in a system where people generally tend to use all their votes, especially if they aren't fully informed about competing factions, the outcome will favor the voter bloc'''. If people are concerned, they can always submit a new ballot, stating the date on outside of the envelope along with a note indicating that this new ballot "supersedes" the old one. --["Users/ZacharyNorwood" Zach] </td> </tr> </table> </div> Davis Food Co-op/Election 2009http://daviswiki.org/Davis_Food_Co-op/Election_20092009-05-31 10:53:27ZacharyNorwood <div id="content" class="wikipage content"> Differences for Davis Food Co-op/Election 2009<p><strong></strong></p><table> <tr> <td> <span> Deletions are marked with - . </span> </td> <td> <span> Additions are marked with +. </span> </td> </tr> <tr> <td> Line 206: </td> <td> Line 206: </td> </tr> <tr> <td> <span>-</span> ''2009-05-31 10:51:13'' [[nbsp]] A friend reminded me of the potential pitfalls of '''vote dilution''' raised last election, citing concerns that something similar could happen again this year. I'll rehash that for those who have forgotten. Whenever you can cast more than one vote, there’s a tendency for voters to use all their votes, leaving the election vulnerable to any group that concentrates their votes on a particular candidate. In a situation like this years' election, if everyone used their three votes, but a sizable, organized group only used one vote, this group would win. To give a purely hypothetical example, if 40% of 500 voters voted for candidates A, B, and C, giving each 200 votes, and 35% voted randomly among A-G, while the remaining 25% voted just for A, giving him or her a concentrated 125 votes, then the outcome would favor A, because he or she would receive an overall total of 350 votes compared to the next best 200. Now since three seats are open, this is potentially less a problem, and Prop 2 changes the logic of how people will vote, even if they use all three, but the vulnerability still exists. Basically it boils down to this: '''anyone getting a concentrated bloc of votes in a system where people generally tend to use all their votes, especially if they aren't fully informed about competing factions, the outcome will favor the voter bloc'''. --["Users/ZacharyNorwood"] </td> <td> <span>+</span> ''2009-05-31 10:51:13'' [[nbsp]] A friend reminded me of the potential pitfalls of '''vote dilution''' raised last election, citing concerns that something similar could happen again this year. I'll rehash that for those who have forgotten. Whenever you can cast more than one vote, there’s a tendency for voters to use all their votes, leaving the election vulnerable to any group that concentrates their votes on a particular candidate. In a situation like this years' election, if everyone used their three votes, but a sizable, organized group only used one vote, this group would win. To give a purely hypothetical example, if 40% of 500 voters voted for candidates A, B, and C, giving each 200 votes, and 35% voted randomly among A-G, while the remaining 25% voted just for A, giving him or her a concentrated 125 votes, then the outcome would favor A, because he or she would receive an overall total of 350 votes compared to the next best 200. Now since three seats are open, this is potentially less a problem, and Prop 2 changes the logic of how people will vote, even if they use all three, but the vulnerability still exists. Basically it boils down to this: '''anyone getting a concentrated bloc of votes in a system where people generally tend to use all their votes, especially if they aren't fully informed about competing factions, the outcome will favor the voter bloc'''. <span>If people are concerned, they can always submit a new ballot, stating the date on outside of the envelope along with a note indicating that this new ballot "supersedes" the old one. </span>--["Users/ZacharyNorwood"<span>&nbsp;Zach</span>] </td> </tr> </table> </div> Davis Food Co-op/Election 2009http://daviswiki.org/Davis_Food_Co-op/Election_20092009-05-31 10:51:13ZacharyNorwoodComment added. <div id="content" class="wikipage content"> Differences for Davis Food Co-op/Election 2009<p><strong></strong></p><table> <tr> <td> <span> Deletions are marked with - . </span> </td> <td> <span> Additions are marked with +. </span> </td> </tr> <tr> <td> Line 205: </td> <td> Line 205: </td> </tr> <tr> <td> </td> <td> <span>+ ------<br> + ''2009-05-31 10:51:13'' [[nbsp]] A friend reminded me of the potential pitfalls of '''vote dilution''' raised last election, citing concerns that something similar could happen again this year. I'll rehash that for those who have forgotten. Whenever you can cast more than one vote, there’s a tendency for voters to use all their votes, leaving the election vulnerable to any group that concentrates their votes on a particular candidate. In a situation like this years' election, if everyone used their three votes, but a sizable, organized group only used one vote, this group would win. To give a purely hypothetical example, if 40% of 500 voters voted for candidates A, B, and C, giving each 200 votes, and 35% voted randomly among A-G, while the remaining 25% voted just for A, giving him or her a concentrated 125 votes, then the outcome would favor A, because he or she would receive an overall total of 350 votes compared to the next best 200. Now since three seats are open, this is potentially less a problem, and Prop 2 changes the logic of how people will vote, even if they use all three, but the vulnerability still exists. Basically it boils down to this: '''anyone getting a concentrated bloc of votes in a system where people generally tend to use all their votes, especially if they aren't fully informed about competing factions, the outcome will favor the voter bloc'''. --["Users/ZacharyNorwood"]</span> </td> </tr> </table> </div> Davis Food Co-op/Election 2009http://daviswiki.org/Davis_Food_Co-op/Election_20092009-05-30 15:47:51ZacharyNorwood(quick edit) <div id="content" class="wikipage content"> Differences for Davis Food Co-op/Election 2009<p><strong></strong></p><table> <tr> <td> <span> Deletions are marked with - . </span> </td> <td> <span> Additions are marked with +. </span> </td> </tr> <tr> <td> Line 187: </td> <td> Line 187: </td> </tr> <tr> <td> <span>-</span> '''No''' on Prop 1 (goes against the equalitarian spirit of [http://www.ica.coop/coop/principles.html democratic control] of equity, especially if the new class of shareholders gets dividends while the old class does not, <span>and if the old class of shareholders no longer receive benefits proportional to their transaction</span>s. My main concern is that this change will become a disincentive to expanding the membership base—we need to focus energy on expanding the normal class of shareholders, not allowing a certain elect group to compensate for dwindling membership contributions, or compensating for expansions beyond the means of regular membership investments. Some argue that voting ''no'' on this will "harm the Co-op" members—to that I say it will only take away a potential advantage for an ''elect'' group of shareholders--'''super shareholders'''--who can afford to make additional substantial investments, exploiting an opportunity to capitalize on dividend returns by stave-off interest from the renovation loan. But this move is not a general benefit for all members, any more than it would be a benefit for all Californians to scrap the welfare to work program to bail out our state's debt. Such a stratagem would solve short-term financial losses, thereby benefiting certain classes, but it would not benefit those most in need of work. In the same way, those members most in need of dividend returns—those who do not have disposable income for investments passed the $300 mark—will no longer get dividends, or be financially incentivized to make regular financial contributions. I’m also concerned that this new elect group of '''super shareholders''' will create a tacit powerbase that can push forward their own agendas, given their comparatively greater financial clout at the Co-op. All around, this goes against the spirit of member equality. There are alternatives for increasing capital investments from the membership, such as putting more time and energy into expanding the active membership base and how much they contribute, annually, as well as creating intra-shareholder fundraiser drives, when extra equity is needed for some membership-initiated change (not to mention avoiding changes to the store that outpace membership investments.) </td> <td> <span>+</span> '''No''' on Prop 1 (goes against the equalitarian spirit of [http://www.ica.coop/coop/principles.html democratic control] of equity, especially if the new class of shareholders gets dividends while the old class does not, <span>that is, if the old class of shareholders no longer receives benefits proportional to their transactions, while the new 'over-class' doe</span>s. My main concern is that this change will become a disincentive to expanding the membership base—we need to focus energy on expanding the normal class of shareholders, not allowing a certain elect group to compensate for dwindling membership contributions, or compensating for expansions beyond the means of regular membership investments. Some argue that voting ''no'' on this will "harm the Co-op" members—to that I say it will only take away a potential advantage for an ''elect'' group of shareholders--'''super shareholders'''--who can afford to make additional substantial investments, exploiting an opportunity to capitalize on dividend returns by stave-off interest from the renovation loan. But this move is not a general benefit for all members, any more than it would be a benefit for all Californians to scrap the welfare to work program to bail out our state's debt. Such a stratagem would solve short-term financial losses, thereby benefiting certain classes, but it would not benefit those most in need of work. In the same way, those members most in need of dividend returns—those who do not have disposable income for investments passed the $300 mark—will no longer get dividends, or be financially incentivized to make regular financial contributions. I’m also concerned that this new elect group of '''super shareholders''' will create a tacit powerbase that can push forward their own agendas, given their comparatively greater financial clout at the Co-op. All around, this goes against the spirit of member equality. There are alternatives for increasing capital investments from the membership, such as putting more time and energy into expanding the active membership base and how much they contribute, annually, as well as creating intra-shareholder fundraiser drives, when extra equity is needed for some membership-initiated change (not to mention avoiding changes to the store that outpace membership investments.) </td> </tr> </table> </div> Davis Food Co-op/Election 2009http://daviswiki.org/Davis_Food_Co-op/Election_20092009-05-30 15:45:36ZacharyNorwood(quick edit) <div id="content" class="wikipage content"> Differences for Davis Food Co-op/Election 2009<p><strong></strong></p><table> <tr> <td> <span> Deletions are marked with - . </span> </td> <td> <span> Additions are marked with +. </span> </td> </tr> <tr> <td> Line 187: </td> <td> Line 187: </td> </tr> <tr> <td> <span>-</span> '''No''' on Prop 1 (goes against the equalitarian spirit of [http://www.ica.coop/coop/principles.html democratic control] of equity, especially if the new class of shareholders gets dividends while the old class does not, and if the old class of shareholders no longer receive benefits proportional to their transactions. My main concern is that this change will become a disincentive to expanding the membership base—we need to focus energy on expanding the normal class of shareholders, not allowing a certain elect group to compensate for dwindling membership contributions, or compensating for expansions beyond the means of regular membership investments. Some argue that voting ''no'' on this will "harm the Co-op" members—to that I say it will only take away a potential advantage for an ''elect'' group of shareholders--'''super shareholders'''--who can afford to make additional substantial investments, exploiting an opportunity to capitalize on dividend returns by stave-off interest from the renovation loan. But this move is not a general benefit for all members, any more than it would be a benefit for all Californians to scrap the welfare to work program to bail out our state's debt. Such a stratagem would solve short-term financial losses, thereby benefiting certain classes, but it would not benefit those most in need of work. In the same way, those members most in need of dividend returns—those who do not have disposable income for investments passed the $300 mark—will no longer get dividends, or be financially incentivized to make regular financial contributions. I’m also concerned that this new elect group of '''super shareholders''' will create a tacit powerbase that can push forward their own agendas, given their comparatively greater financial clout at the Co-op. All around, this goes against the spirit of <span>vot</span>er equality. There are alternatives for increasing capital investments from the membership, such as putting more time and energy into expanding the active membership base and how much they contribute, annually, as well as creating intra-shareholder fundraiser drives, when extra equity is needed for some membership-initiated change (not to mention avoiding changes to the store that outpace membership investments.) </td> <td> <span>+</span> '''No''' on Prop 1 (goes against the equalitarian spirit of [http://www.ica.coop/coop/principles.html democratic control] of equity, especially if the new class of shareholders gets dividends while the old class does not, and if the old class of shareholders no longer receive benefits proportional to their transactions. My main concern is that this change will become a disincentive to expanding the membership base—we need to focus energy on expanding the normal class of shareholders, not allowing a certain elect group to compensate for dwindling membership contributions, or compensating for expansions beyond the means of regular membership investments. Some argue that voting ''no'' on this will "harm the Co-op" members—to that I say it will only take away a potential advantage for an ''elect'' group of shareholders--'''super shareholders'''--who can afford to make additional substantial investments, exploiting an opportunity to capitalize on dividend returns by stave-off interest from the renovation loan. But this move is not a general benefit for all members, any more than it would be a benefit for all Californians to scrap the welfare to work program to bail out our state's debt. Such a stratagem would solve short-term financial losses, thereby benefiting certain classes, but it would not benefit those most in need of work. In the same way, those members most in need of dividend returns—those who do not have disposable income for investments passed the $300 mark—will no longer get dividends, or be financially incentivized to make regular financial contributions. I’m also concerned that this new elect group of '''super shareholders''' will create a tacit powerbase that can push forward their own agendas, given their comparatively greater financial clout at the Co-op. All around, this goes against the spirit of <span>memb</span>er equality. There are alternatives for increasing capital investments from the membership, such as putting more time and energy into expanding the active membership base and how much they contribute, annually, as well as creating intra-shareholder fundraiser drives, when extra equity is needed for some membership-initiated change (not to mention avoiding changes to the store that outpace membership investments.) </td> </tr> </table> </div> Davis Food Co-op/Election 2009http://daviswiki.org/Davis_Food_Co-op/Election_20092009-05-30 15:43:50ZacharyNorwood(quick edit) <div id="content" class="wikipage content"> Differences for Davis Food Co-op/Election 2009<p><strong></strong></p><table> <tr> <td> <span> Deletions are marked with - . </span> </td> <td> <span> Additions are marked with +. </span> </td> </tr> <tr> <td> Line 187: </td> <td> Line 187: </td> </tr> <tr> <td> <span>-</span> '''No''' on Prop 1 (goes against the equalitarian spirit of [http://www.ica.coop/coop/principles.html democratic control] of equity, especially if the new class of shareholders gets dividends while the old class does not, and if the old class of shareholders no longer receive benefits proportional to their transactions. My main concern is that this change will become a disincentive to expanding the membership base—we need to focus energy on expanding the normal class of shareholders, not allowing a certain elect group to compensate for dwindling membership contributions, or compensating for expansions beyond the means of regular membership investments. Some argue that voting ''no'' on this will "harm the Co-op" members—to that I say it will only take away a potential advantage for an ''elect'' group of shareholders<span>&nbsp;</span>who can afford to make additional substantial investments, exploiting an opportunity to capitalize on dividend returns by sta<span>ting</span>-off interest from the renovation loan. But this move is not a general benefit for all members, any more than it would be a benefit for all Californians to scrap the welfare to work program to bail out our state's debt. Such a stratagem would solve short-term financial losses, thereby benefiting certain classes, but it would not benefit those most in need of work. In the same way, those members most in need of dividend returns—those who do not have disposable income for investments passed the $300 mark—will no longer get dividends, or be financially incentivized to make regular financial contributions. I’m also concerned that this new elect group of '''super shareholders''' will create a tacit powerbase that can push forward their own agendas, given their comparatively greater financial clout at the Co-op. All around, this goes against the spirit of voter equality. There are alternatives for increasing capital investments from the membership, such as putting more time and energy into expanding the active membership base and how much they contribute, annually, as well as creating intra-shareholder fundraiser drives, when extra equity is needed for some membership-initiated change (not to mention avoiding changes to the store that outpace membership investments.) </td> <td> <span>+</span> '''No''' on Prop 1 (goes against the equalitarian spirit of [http://www.ica.coop/coop/principles.html democratic control] of equity, especially if the new class of shareholders gets dividends while the old class does not, and if the old class of shareholders no longer receive benefits proportional to their transactions. My main concern is that this change will become a disincentive to expanding the membership base—we need to focus energy on expanding the normal class of shareholders, not allowing a certain elect group to compensate for dwindling membership contributions, or compensating for expansions beyond the means of regular membership investments. Some argue that voting ''no'' on this will "harm the Co-op" members—to that I say it will only take away a potential advantage for an ''elect'' group of shareholders<span>--'''super shareholders'''--</span>who can afford to make additional substantial investments, exploiting an opportunity to capitalize on dividend returns by sta<span>ve</span>-off interest from the renovation loan. But this move is not a general benefit for all members, any more than it would be a benefit for all Californians to scrap the welfare to work program to bail out our state's debt. Such a stratagem would solve short-term financial losses, thereby benefiting certain classes, but it would not benefit those most in need of work. In the same way, those members most in need of dividend returns—those who do not have disposable income for investments passed the $300 mark—will no longer get dividends, or be financially incentivized to make regular financial contributions. I’m also concerned that this new elect group of '''super shareholders''' will create a tacit powerbase that can push forward their own agendas, given their comparatively greater financial clout at the Co-op. All around, this goes against the spirit of voter equality. There are alternatives for increasing capital investments from the membership, such as putting more time and energy into expanding the active membership base and how much they contribute, annually, as well as creating intra-shareholder fundraiser drives, when extra equity is needed for some membership-initiated change (not to mention avoiding changes to the store that outpace membership investments.) </td> </tr> </table> </div> Davis Food Co-op/Election 2009http://daviswiki.org/Davis_Food_Co-op/Election_20092009-05-30 15:42:38ZacharyNorwood(quick edit) <div id="content" class="wikipage content"> Differences for Davis Food Co-op/Election 2009<p><strong></strong></p><table> <tr> <td> <span> Deletions are marked with - . </span> </td> <td> <span> Additions are marked with +. </span> </td> </tr> <tr> <td> Line 187: </td> <td> Line 187: </td> </tr> <tr> <td> <span>-</span> '''No''' on Prop 1 (goes against the equalitarian spirit of [http://www.ica.coop/coop/principles.html democratic control], especially if the new class of shareholders gets dividends while the old class does not. My main concern is that this change will become a disincentive to expanding the membership base—we need to focus energy on expanding the normal class of shareholders, not allowing a certain elect group to compensate for dwindling membership contributions, or compensating for expansions beyond the means of regular membership investments. Some argue that voting ''no'' on this will "harm the Co-op" members—to that I say it will only take away a potential advantage for an ''elect'' group of shareholders who can afford to make additional substantial investments, exploiting an opportunity to capitalize on dividend returns by stating-off interest from the renovation loan. But this move is not a general benefit for all members, any more than it would be a benefit for all Californians to scrap the welfare to work program to bail out our state's debt. Such a stratagem would solve short-term financial losses, thereby benefiting certain classes, but it would not benefit those most in need of work. In the same way, those members most in need of dividend returns—those who do not have disposable income for investments passed the $300 mark—will no longer get dividends, or be financially incentivized to make regular financial contributions. I’m also concerned that this new elect group of '''super shareholders''' will create a tacit powerbase that can push forward their own agendas, given their comparatively greater financial clout at the Co-op. All around, this goes against the spirit of voter equality. There are alternatives for increasing capital investments from the membership, such as putting more time and energy into expanding the active membership base and how much they contribute, annually, as well as creating intra-shareholder fundraiser drives, when extra equity is needed for some membership-initiated change (not to mention avoiding changes to the store that outpace membership investments.) </td> <td> <span>+</span> '''No''' on Prop 1 (goes against the equalitarian spirit of [http://www.ica.coop/coop/principles.html democratic control]<span>&nbsp;of equity</span>, especially if the new class of shareholders gets dividends while the old class does not<span>, and if the old class of shareholders no longer receive benefits proportional to their transactions</span>. My main concern is that this change will become a disincentive to expanding the membership base—we need to focus energy on expanding the normal class of shareholders, not allowing a certain elect group to compensate for dwindling membership contributions, or compensating for expansions beyond the means of regular membership investments. Some argue that voting ''no'' on this will "harm the Co-op" members—to that I say it will only take away a potential advantage for an ''elect'' group of shareholders who can afford to make additional substantial investments, exploiting an opportunity to capitalize on dividend returns by stating-off interest from the renovation loan. But this move is not a general benefit for all members, any more than it would be a benefit for all Californians to scrap the welfare to work program to bail out our state's debt. Such a stratagem would solve short-term financial losses, thereby benefiting certain classes, but it would not benefit those most in need of work. In the same way, those members most in need of dividend returns—those who do not have disposable income for investments passed the $300 mark—will no longer get dividends, or be financially incentivized to make regular financial contributions. I’m also concerned that this new elect group of '''super shareholders''' will create a tacit powerbase that can push forward their own agendas, given their comparatively greater financial clout at the Co-op. All around, this goes against the spirit of voter equality. There are alternatives for increasing capital investments from the membership, such as putting more time and energy into expanding the active membership base and how much they contribute, annually, as well as creating intra-shareholder fundraiser drives, when extra equity is needed for some membership-initiated change (not to mention avoiding changes to the store that outpace membership investments.) </td> </tr> </table> </div> Davis Food Co-op/Election 2009http://daviswiki.org/Davis_Food_Co-op/Election_20092009-05-30 15:22:33ZacharyNorwood(quick edit) <div id="content" class="wikipage content"> Differences for Davis Food Co-op/Election 2009<p><strong></strong></p><table> <tr> <td> <span> Deletions are marked with - . </span> </td> <td> <span> Additions are marked with +. </span> </td> </tr> <tr> <td> Line 187: </td> <td> Line 187: </td> </tr> <tr> <td> <span>-</span> '''No''' on Prop 1 (goes against the equalitarian spirit of [http://www.ica.coop/coop/principles.html democratic control], especially if the new class of shareholders gets dividends while the old class does not. My main concern is that this change will become a disincentive to expanding the membership base—we need to focus energy on expanding the normal class of shareholders, not allowing a certain elect group to compensate for dwindling membership contributions, or compensating for expansions beyond the means of regular membership investments. Some argue that voting ''no'' on this will "harm the Co-op" members—to that I say it will only take away a potential advantage for an ''elect'' group of shareholders who can afford to make additional substantial investments, exploiting an opportunity to capitalize on dividend returns by stating-off interest from the renovation loan. But this move is not a general benefit for all members, any more than it would be a benefit for all Californians to scrap the welfare to work program to bail out our state's debt. Such a stratagem would solve short-term financial losses, thereby benefiting certain classes, but it would not benefit those most in need of work. In the same way, those members most in need of dividend returns—those who do not have disposable income for investments passed the $300 mark—will no longer get dividends, or be financially incentivized to make regular financial contributions. I’m also concerned that th<span>e s</span>elect group of '''super shareholders''' will create a tacit powerbase that can push forward their own agendas, given their comparatively greater financial clout at the Co-op. All around, this goes against the spirit of voter equality. There are alternatives for increasing capital investments from the membership, such as putting more time and energy into expanding the active membership base and how much they contribute, annually, as well as creating intra-shareholder fundraiser drives, when extra equity is needed for some membership-initiated change (not to mention avoiding changes to the store that outpace membership investments.) </td> <td> <span>+</span> '''No''' on Prop 1 (goes against the equalitarian spirit of [http://www.ica.coop/coop/principles.html democratic control], especially if the new class of shareholders gets dividends while the old class does not. My main concern is that this change will become a disincentive to expanding the membership base—we need to focus energy on expanding the normal class of shareholders, not allowing a certain elect group to compensate for dwindling membership contributions, or compensating for expansions beyond the means of regular membership investments. Some argue that voting ''no'' on this will "harm the Co-op" members—to that I say it will only take away a potential advantage for an ''elect'' group of shareholders who can afford to make additional substantial investments, exploiting an opportunity to capitalize on dividend returns by stating-off interest from the renovation loan. But this move is not a general benefit for all members, any more than it would be a benefit for all Californians to scrap the welfare to work program to bail out our state's debt. Such a stratagem would solve short-term financial losses, thereby benefiting certain classes, but it would not benefit those most in need of work. In the same way, those members most in need of dividend returns—those who do not have disposable income for investments passed the $300 mark—will no longer get dividends, or be financially incentivized to make regular financial contributions. I’m also concerned that th<span>is new </span>elect group of '''super shareholders''' will create a tacit powerbase that can push forward their own agendas, given their comparatively greater financial clout at the Co-op. All around, this goes against the spirit of voter equality. There are alternatives for increasing capital investments from the membership, such as putting more time and energy into expanding the active membership base and how much they contribute, annually, as well as creating intra-shareholder fundraiser drives, when extra equity is needed for some membership-initiated change (not to mention avoiding changes to the store that outpace membership investments.) </td> </tr> </table> </div> Davis Food Co-op/Election 2009http://daviswiki.org/Davis_Food_Co-op/Election_20092009-05-30 15:21:48ZacharyNorwood(quick edit) <div id="content" class="wikipage content"> Differences for Davis Food Co-op/Election 2009<p><strong></strong></p><table> <tr> <td> <span> Deletions are marked with - . </span> </td> <td> <span> Additions are marked with +. </span> </td> </tr> <tr> <td> Line 187: </td> <td> Line 187: </td> </tr> <tr> <td> <span>-</span> '''No''' on Prop 1 (goes against the equalitarian spirit of [http://www.ica.coop/coop/principles.html democratic control], especially if the new class of shareholders gets dividends while the old class does not. My main concern is that this change will become a disincentive to expanding the membership base—we need to focus energy on expanding the normal class of shareholders, not allowing a certain elect group to compensate for dwindling membership contributions, or compensating for expansions beyond the means of regular membership investments. Some argue that voting ''no'' on this will "harm the Co-op" members—to that I say it will only take away a potential advantage for an ''elect'' group of shareholders who can afford to make additional substantial investments, exploiting an opportunity to capitalize on dividend returns by stating-off interest from the renovation loan. But this move is not a general benefit for all members, any more than it would be a benefit for all Californians to scrap the welfare to work program to bail out our state's debt. Such a stratagem would solve short-term financial losses, thereby benefiting certain classes, but it would not benefit those most in need of <span>dividend returns or </span>work. In the same way, those members most in need of dividend returns—those who do not have disposable income for investments passed the $300 mark—will no longer get dividends, or be financially incentivized to make regular financial contributions. I’m also concerned that the select group of '''super shareholders''' will create a tacit powerbase that can push forward their own agendas, given their comparatively greater financial clout at the Co-op. All around, this goes against the spirit of voter equality. There are alternatives for increasing capital investments from the membership, such as putting more time and energy into expanding the active membership base and how much they contribute, annually, as well as creating intra-shareholder fundraiser drives, when extra equity is needed for some membership-initiated change (not to mention avoiding changes to the store that outpace membership investments.) </td> <td> <span>+</span> '''No''' on Prop 1 (goes against the equalitarian spirit of [http://www.ica.coop/coop/principles.html democratic control], especially if the new class of shareholders gets dividends while the old class does not. My main concern is that this change will become a disincentive to expanding the membership base—we need to focus energy on expanding the normal class of shareholders, not allowing a certain elect group to compensate for dwindling membership contributions, or compensating for expansions beyond the means of regular membership investments. Some argue that voting ''no'' on this will "harm the Co-op" members—to that I say it will only take away a potential advantage for an ''elect'' group of shareholders who can afford to make additional substantial investments, exploiting an opportunity to capitalize on dividend returns by stating-off interest from the renovation loan. But this move is not a general benefit for all members, any more than it would be a benefit for all Californians to scrap the welfare to work program to bail out our state's debt. Such a stratagem would solve short-term financial losses, thereby benefiting certain classes, but it would not benefit those most in need of work. In the same way, those members most in need of dividend returns—those who do not have disposable income for investments passed the $300 mark—will no longer get dividends, or be financially incentivized to make regular financial contributions. I’m also concerned that the select group of '''super shareholders''' will create a tacit powerbase that can push forward their own agendas, given their comparatively greater financial clout at the Co-op. All around, this goes against the spirit of voter equality. There are alternatives for increasing capital investments from the membership, such as putting more time and energy into expanding the active membership base and how much they contribute, annually, as well as creating intra-shareholder fundraiser drives, when extra equity is needed for some membership-initiated change (not to mention avoiding changes to the store that outpace membership investments.) </td> </tr> </table> </div> Davis Food Co-op/Election 2009http://daviswiki.org/Davis_Food_Co-op/Election_20092009-05-30 15:21:09ZacharyNorwood(quick edit) <div id="content" class="wikipage content"> Differences for Davis Food Co-op/Election 2009<p><strong></strong></p><table> <tr> <td> <span> Deletions are marked with - . </span> </td> <td> <span> Additions are marked with +. </span> </td> </tr> <tr> <td> Line 187: </td> <td> Line 187: </td> </tr> <tr> <td> <span>-</span> '''No''' on Prop 1 (goes against the equalitarian spirit of [http://www.ica.coop/coop/principles.html democratic control], especially if the new class of shareholders gets dividends while the old class does not. My main concern is that this change will become a disincentive to expanding the membership base—we need to focus energy on expanding the normal class of shareholders, not allowing a certain elect group to compensate for dwindling membership contributions, or compensating for expansions beyond the means of regular membership investments. Some argue that voting ''no'' on this will "harm the Co-op" members—to that I say it will only take away a potential advantage for an ''elect'' group of shareholders who can afford to make additional substantial investments, exploiting an opportunity to capitalize on dividend returns <span>from pa</span>y<span>ing </span>off interest from the renovation loan. But this move is not a general benefit for all members, any more than it would be a benefit for all Californians to scrap the welfare to work program to bail out our state's debt. Such a stratagem would solve short-term financial losses, thereby benefiting certain classes, but it would not benefit those most in need of dividend returns or work. In the same way, those members most in need of dividend returns—those who do not have disposable income for investments passed the $300 mark—will no longer get dividends, or be financially incentivized to make regular financial contributions. I’m also concerned that the select group of '''super shareholders''' will create a tacit powerbase that can push forward their own agendas, given their comparatively greater financial clout at the Co-op. All around, this goes against the spirit of voter equality. There are alternatives for increasing capital investments from the membership, such as putting more time and energy into expanding the active membership base and how much they contribute, annually, as well as creating intra-shareholder fundraiser drives, when extra equity is needed for some membership-initiated change (not to mention avoiding changes to the store that outpace membership investments.) </td> <td> <span>+</span> '''No''' on Prop 1 (goes against the equalitarian spirit of [http://www.ica.coop/coop/principles.html democratic control], especially if the new class of shareholders gets dividends while the old class does not. My main concern is that this change will become a disincentive to expanding the membership base—we need to focus energy on expanding the normal class of shareholders, not allowing a certain elect group to compensate for dwindling membership contributions, or compensating for expansions beyond the means of regular membership investments. Some argue that voting ''no'' on this will "harm the Co-op" members—to that I say it will only take away a potential advantage for an ''elect'' group of shareholders who can afford to make additional substantial investments, exploiting an opportunity to capitalize on dividend returns <span>b</span>y<span>&nbsp;stating-</span>off interest from the renovation loan. But this move is not a general benefit for all members, any more than it would be a benefit for all Californians to scrap the welfare to work program to bail out our state's debt. Such a stratagem would solve short-term financial losses, thereby benefiting certain classes, but it would not benefit those most in need of dividend returns or work. In the same way, those members most in need of dividend returns—those who do not have disposable income for investments passed the $300 mark—will no longer get dividends, or be financially incentivized to make regular financial contributions. I’m also concerned that the select group of '''super shareholders''' will create a tacit powerbase that can push forward their own agendas, given their comparatively greater financial clout at the Co-op. All around, this goes against the spirit of voter equality. There are alternatives for increasing capital investments from the membership, such as putting more time and energy into expanding the active membership base and how much they contribute, annually, as well as creating intra-shareholder fundraiser drives, when extra equity is needed for some membership-initiated change (not to mention avoiding changes to the store that outpace membership investments.) </td> </tr> </table> </div> Davis Food Co-op/Election 2009http://daviswiki.org/Davis_Food_Co-op/Election_20092009-05-30 15:20:01ZacharyNorwoodlink <div id="content" class="wikipage content"> Differences for Davis Food Co-op/Election 2009<p><strong></strong></p><table> <tr> <td> <span> Deletions are marked with - . </span> </td> <td> <span> Additions are marked with +. </span> </td> </tr> <tr> <td> Line 187: </td> <td> Line 187: </td> </tr> <tr> <td> <span>-</span> '''No''' on Prop 1 (goes against the equalitarian spirit of <span>democratic control</span>, especially if the new class of shareholders gets dividends while the old class does not. My main concern is that this change will become a disincentive to expanding the membership base—we need to focus energy on expanding the normal class of shareholders, not allowing a certain elect group to compensate for dwindling membership contributions, or compensating for expansions beyond the means of regular membership investments. Some argue that voting ''no'' on this will "harm the Co-op" members—to that I say it will only take away a potential advantage for an ''elect'' group of shareholders who can afford to make additional substantial investments, exploiting an opportunity to capitalize on dividend returns from paying off interest from the renovation loan. But this move is not a general benefit for all members, any more than it would be a benefit for all Californians to scrap the welfare to work program to bail out our state's debt. Such a stratagem would solve short-term financial losses, thereby benefiting certain classes, but it would not benefit those most in need of dividend returns or work. In the same way, those members most in need of dividend returns—those who do not have disposable income for investments passed the $300 mark—will no longer get dividends, or be financially incentivized to make regular financial contributions. I’m also concerned that the select group of '''super shareholders''' will create a tacit powerbase that can push forward their own agendas, given their comparatively greater financial clout at the Co-op. All around, this goes against the spirit of voter equality. There are alternatives for increasing capital investments from the membership, such as putting more time and energy into expanding the active membership base and how much they contribute, annually, as well as creating intra-shareholder fundraiser drives, when extra equity is needed for some membership-initiated change (not to mention avoiding changes to the store that outpace membership investments.) </td> <td> <span>+</span> '''No''' on Prop 1 (goes against the equalitarian spirit of <span>[http://www.ica.coop/coop/principles.html democratic control]</span>, especially if the new class of shareholders gets dividends while the old class does not. My main concern is that this change will become a disincentive to expanding the membership base—we need to focus energy on expanding the normal class of shareholders, not allowing a certain elect group to compensate for dwindling membership contributions, or compensating for expansions beyond the means of regular membership investments. Some argue that voting ''no'' on this will "harm the Co-op" members—to that I say it will only take away a potential advantage for an ''elect'' group of shareholders who can afford to make additional substantial investments, exploiting an opportunity to capitalize on dividend returns from paying off interest from the renovation loan. But this move is not a general benefit for all members, any more than it would be a benefit for all Californians to scrap the welfare to work program to bail out our state's debt. Such a stratagem would solve short-term financial losses, thereby benefiting certain classes, but it would not benefit those most in need of dividend returns or work. In the same way, those members most in need of dividend returns—those who do not have disposable income for investments passed the $300 mark—will no longer get dividends, or be financially incentivized to make regular financial contributions. I’m also concerned that the select group of '''super shareholders''' will create a tacit powerbase that can push forward their own agendas, given their comparatively greater financial clout at the Co-op. All around, this goes against the spirit of voter equality. There are alternatives for increasing capital investments from the membership, such as putting more time and energy into expanding the active membership base and how much they contribute, annually, as well as creating intra-shareholder fundraiser drives, when extra equity is needed for some membership-initiated change (not to mention avoiding changes to the store that outpace membership investments.) </td> </tr> </table> </div> Davis Food Co-op/Election 2009http://daviswiki.org/Davis_Food_Co-op/Election_20092009-05-30 15:18:32ZacharyNorwood(quick edit) <div id="content" class="wikipage content"> Differences for Davis Food Co-op/Election 2009<p><strong></strong></p><table> <tr> <td> <span> Deletions are marked with - . </span> </td> <td> <span> Additions are marked with +. </span> </td> </tr> <tr> <td> Line 187: </td> <td> Line 187: </td> </tr> <tr> <td> <span>-</span> '''No''' on Prop 1 (goes against the e<span>g</span>alitarian spirit of democratic control, especially if the new class of shareholders gets dividends while the old class does not. My main concern is that this change will become a disincentive to expanding the membership base—we need to focus energy on expanding the normal class of shareholders, not allowing a certain elect group to compensate for dwindling membership contributions, or compensating for expansions beyond the means of regular membership investments. Some argue that voting ''no'' on this will "harm the Co-op" members—to that I say it will only take away a potential advantage for an ''elect'' group of shareholders who can afford to make additional substantial investments, exploiting an opportunity to capitalize on dividend returns from paying off interest from the renovation loan. But this move is not a general benefit for all members, any more than it would be a benefit for all Californians to scrap the welfare to work program to bail out our state's debt. Such a stratagem would solve short-term financial losses, thereby benefiting certain classes, but it would not benefit those most in need of dividend returns or work. In the same way, those members most in need of dividend returns—those who do not have disposable income for investments passed the $300 mark—will no longer get dividends, or be financially incentivized to make regular financial contributions. I’m also concerned that the select group of '''super shareholders''' will create a tacit powerbase that can push forward their own agendas, given their comparatively greater financial clout at the Co-op. All around, this goes against the spirit of voter equality. There are alternatives for increasing capital investments from the membership, such as putting more time and energy into expanding the active membership base and how much they contribute, annually, as well as creating intra-shareholder fundraiser drives, when extra equity is needed for some membership-initiated change (not to mention avoiding changes to the store that outpace membership investments.) </td> <td> <span>+</span> '''No''' on Prop 1 (goes against the e<span>qu</span>alitarian spirit of democratic control, especially if the new class of shareholders gets dividends while the old class does not. My main concern is that this change will become a disincentive to expanding the membership base—we need to focus energy on expanding the normal class of shareholders, not allowing a certain elect group to compensate for dwindling membership contributions, or compensating for expansions beyond the means of regular membership investments. Some argue that voting ''no'' on this will "harm the Co-op" members—to that I say it will only take away a potential advantage for an ''elect'' group of shareholders who can afford to make additional substantial investments, exploiting an opportunity to capitalize on dividend returns from paying off interest from the renovation loan. But this move is not a general benefit for all members, any more than it would be a benefit for all Californians to scrap the welfare to work program to bail out our state's debt. Such a stratagem would solve short-term financial losses, thereby benefiting certain classes, but it would not benefit those most in need of dividend returns or work. In the same way, those members most in need of dividend returns—those who do not have disposable income for investments passed the $300 mark—will no longer get dividends, or be financially incentivized to make regular financial contributions. I’m also concerned that the select group of '''super shareholders''' will create a tacit powerbase that can push forward their own agendas, given their comparatively greater financial clout at the Co-op. All around, this goes against the spirit of voter equality. There are alternatives for increasing capital investments from the membership, such as putting more time and energy into expanding the active membership base and how much they contribute, annually, as well as creating intra-shareholder fundraiser drives, when extra equity is needed for some membership-initiated change (not to mention avoiding changes to the store that outpace membership investments.) </td> </tr> </table> </div> Davis Food Co-op/Election 2009http://daviswiki.org/Davis_Food_Co-op/Election_20092009-05-30 15:17:55ZacharyNorwood(quick edit) <div id="content" class="wikipage content"> Differences for Davis Food Co-op/Election 2009<p><strong></strong></p><table> <tr> <td> <span> Deletions are marked with - . </span> </td> <td> <span> Additions are marked with +. </span> </td> </tr> <tr> <td> Line 187: </td> <td> Line 187: </td> </tr> <tr> <td> <span>-</span> '''No''' on Prop 1 (goes against the egalitarian spirit of democratic control, especially if the new class of shareholders gets dividends while the old class does not. My main concern is that this change will become a disincentive to expanding the membership base—we need to focus energy on expanding the normal class of shareholders, not allowing a certain elect group to compensate for dwindling membership contributions, or compensating for expansions beyond the means of regular membership investments. Some argue that voting ''no'' on this will "harm the Co-op" members—to that I say it will only take away a potential advantage for an ''elect'' group of shareholders who can afford to make additional substantial investments, exploiting an opportunity to capitalize on dividend returns from paying off interest from the renovation loan. But this move is not a general benefit for all members, any more than it would be a benefit for all Californians to scrap the welfare to work program to bail out our state's debt. Such a stratagem would solve short-term financial losses, thereby benefiting certain classes, but it would not benefit those most in need of dividend returns or work. In the same way, those members most in need of dividend returns—those who do not have disposable income for investments passed the $300 mark—will no longer get dividends, or be financially incentivized to make regular financial contributions. I’m also concerned that the select group of '''super shareholders''' will create a tacit powerbase that can push forward their own agendas, given their comparatively greater financial clout at the Co-op. All around, this goes against the spirit of voter equality. There are alternatives for increasing capital investments from the membership, such as putting more time and energy into expanding the active membership base and how much they contribute, annually, as well as creating intra-shareholder fundraiser drives, when extra equity is needed for some membership-initiated change.) </td> <td> <span>+</span> '''No''' on Prop 1 (goes against the egalitarian spirit of democratic control, especially if the new class of shareholders gets dividends while the old class does not. My main concern is that this change will become a disincentive to expanding the membership base—we need to focus energy on expanding the normal class of shareholders, not allowing a certain elect group to compensate for dwindling membership contributions, or compensating for expansions beyond the means of regular membership investments. Some argue that voting ''no'' on this will "harm the Co-op" members—to that I say it will only take away a potential advantage for an ''elect'' group of shareholders who can afford to make additional substantial investments, exploiting an opportunity to capitalize on dividend returns from paying off interest from the renovation loan. But this move is not a general benefit for all members, any more than it would be a benefit for all Californians to scrap the welfare to work program to bail out our state's debt. Such a stratagem would solve short-term financial losses, thereby benefiting certain classes, but it would not benefit those most in need of dividend returns or work. In the same way, those members most in need of dividend returns—those who do not have disposable income for investments passed the $300 mark—will no longer get dividends, or be financially incentivized to make regular financial contributions. I’m also concerned that the select group of '''super shareholders''' will create a tacit powerbase that can push forward their own agendas, given their comparatively greater financial clout at the Co-op. All around, this goes against the spirit of voter equality. There are alternatives for increasing capital investments from the membership, such as putting more time and energy into expanding the active membership base and how much they contribute, annually, as well as creating intra-shareholder fundraiser drives, when extra equity is needed for some membership-initiated change<span>&nbsp;(not to mention avoiding changes to the store that outpace membership investments</span>.) </td> </tr> </table> </div> Davis Food Co-op/Election 2009http://daviswiki.org/Davis_Food_Co-op/Election_20092009-05-30 15:16:29ZacharyNorwood(quick edit) <div id="content" class="wikipage content"> Differences for Davis Food Co-op/Election 2009<p><strong></strong></p><table> <tr> <td> <span> Deletions are marked with - . </span> </td> <td> <span> Additions are marked with +. </span> </td> </tr> <tr> <td> Line 187: </td> <td> Line 187: </td> </tr> <tr> <td> <span>-</span> '''No''' on Prop 1 (goes against the egalitarian spirit of democratic control, especially if the new class of shareholders gets dividends while the old class does not. My main concern is that this change will become a disincentive to expanding the membership base—we need to focus energy on expanding the normal class of shareholders, not allowing a certain elect group to compensate for <span>a dwindling membership base</span>. Some argue that voting ''no'' on this will "harm the Co-op" members—to that I say it will only take away a potential advantage for an ''elect'' group of shareholders who can afford to make additional substantial investments, exploiting an opportunity to capitalize on dividend returns from paying off interest from the renovation loan. But this move is not a general benefit for all members, any more than it would be a benefit for all Californians to scrap the welfare to work program to bail out our state's debt. Such a stratagem would solve short-term financial losses, thereby benefiting certain classes, but it would not benefit those most in need of dividend returns or work. In the same way, those members most in need of dividend returns—those who do not have disposable income for investments passed the $300 mark—will no longer get dividends, or be financially incentivized to make regular financial contributions. I’m also concerned that the select group of '''super shareholders''' will create a tacit powerbase that can push forward their own agendas, given their comparatively greater financial clout at the Co-op. All around, this goes against the spirit of voter equality. There are alternatives for increasing capital investments from the membership, such as putting more time and energy into expanding the active membership base and how much they contribute, annually, as well as creating intra-shareholder fundraiser drives, when extra equity is needed for some membership-initiated change.) </td> <td> <span>+</span> '''No''' on Prop 1 (goes against the egalitarian spirit of democratic control, especially if the new class of shareholders gets dividends while the old class does not. My main concern is that this change will become a disincentive to expanding the membership base—we need to focus energy on expanding the normal class of shareholders, not allowing a certain elect group to compensate for <span>dwindling membership contributions, or compensating for expansions beyond the means of regular membership investments</span>. Some argue that voting ''no'' on this will "harm the Co-op" members—to that I say it will only take away a potential advantage for an ''elect'' group of shareholders who can afford to make additional substantial investments, exploiting an opportunity to capitalize on dividend returns from paying off interest from the renovation loan. But this move is not a general benefit for all members, any more than it would be a benefit for all Californians to scrap the welfare to work program to bail out our state's debt. Such a stratagem would solve short-term financial losses, thereby benefiting certain classes, but it would not benefit those most in need of dividend returns or work. In the same way, those members most in need of dividend returns—those who do not have disposable income for investments passed the $300 mark—will no longer get dividends, or be financially incentivized to make regular financial contributions. I’m also concerned that the select group of '''super shareholders''' will create a tacit powerbase that can push forward their own agendas, given their comparatively greater financial clout at the Co-op. All around, this goes against the spirit of voter equality. There are alternatives for increasing capital investments from the membership, such as putting more time and energy into expanding the active membership base and how much they contribute, annually, as well as creating intra-shareholder fundraiser drives, when extra equity is needed for some membership-initiated change.) </td> </tr> </table> </div> Davis Food Co-op/Election 2009http://daviswiki.org/Davis_Food_Co-op/Election_20092009-05-30 15:11:28ZacharyNorwood <div id="content" class="wikipage content"> Differences for Davis Food Co-op/Election 2009<p><strong></strong></p><table> <tr> <td> <span> Deletions are marked with - . </span> </td> <td> <span> Additions are marked with +. </span> </td> </tr> <tr> <td> Line 189: </td> <td> Line 189: </td> </tr> <tr> <td> <span>-</span> '''Yes''' on Prop 2 (I’m ''provisionally'' in support of Proposition 2, because right now there is a gross imbalance of power between the staff and membership in terms of operational influence, and the board has systematically turned a blind eye to operational changes, even if those changes—listed in my open letter—are patently inconsistent with cooperative values and principles.<span><br> - </span> Did ''you'' vote for renovation? If so, did “renovation” mean for you a disproportionate expansion of processed foods, additional open refrigeration, imported household goods, etc.? Did ''you'' lobby for an open freezer? How about the $2000 peanut-butter chocolate machine? What about the new operating hours and food buffets? These are all ''operational'' changes. Yet I’ve received e-mails from two different sitting chairs on the board stating, explicitly, that ''the board does not get involved with operations'', and that operations fall under the purview of staff. But if staff are not responding to membership remonstrations while adding major additions to the store without membership oversight, who’s going to assure operations are in line with cooperative principles? Until the situation changes, I provisionally support removing staff from the board. Staff already exercises inordinate influence on operations and directorship without being held accountable for changes inconsistent with cooperative principles and values. Pragmatically speaking, staff board members represent managerial expediency more than membership opinion and cooperative principles. Some staff speak openly about ways to implement cooperative values, but in terms of pragmatic consequence, such speech is more rhetorical than actual. The ''actual'' changes to the store—the bottom-line reorientation and operational Transformation—are inconsistent with cooperative values, as i see it, and these changes speak louder than words. My position remains flexible, however. As said above, I only “provisionally” support Proposition 2, because I don’t think prohibiting staff directorship would be necessary if the Co-op reverted to its fundamentals, its basic identity as a Co-op and not a competition-oriented corporate-styled grocery. I would be the first person to lobby for staff directorship if the Co-op were functioning like Co-ops should.) </td> <td> <span>+</span> '''Yes''' on Prop 2 (I’m ''provisionally'' in support of Proposition 2, because right now there is a gross imbalance of power between the staff and membership in terms of operational influence, and the board has systematically turned a blind eye to operational changes, even if those changes—listed in my open letter—are patently inconsistent with cooperative values and principles. Did ''you'' vote for renovation? If so, did “renovation” mean for you a disproportionate expansion of processed foods, additional open refrigeration, imported household goods, etc.? Did ''you'' lobby for an open freezer? How about the $2000 peanut-butter chocolate machine? What about the new operating hours and food buffets? These are all ''operational'' changes. Yet I’ve received e-mails from two different sitting chairs on the board stating, explicitly, that ''the board does not get involved with operations'', and that operations fall under the purview of staff. But if staff are not responding to membership remonstrations while adding major additions to the store without membership oversight, who’s going to assure operations are in line with cooperative principles? Until the situation changes, I provisionally support removing staff from the board. Staff already exercises inordinate influence on operations and directorship without being held accountable for changes inconsistent with cooperative principles and values. Pragmatically speaking, staff board members represent managerial expediency more than membership opinion and cooperative principles. Some staff speak openly about ways to implement cooperative values, but in terms of pragmatic consequence, such speech is more rhetorical than actual. The ''actual'' changes to the store—the bottom-line reorientation and operational Transformation—are inconsistent with cooperative values, as i see it, and these changes speak louder than words. My position remains flexible, however. As said above, I only “provisionally” support Proposition 2, because I don’t think prohibiting staff directorship would be necessary if the Co-op reverted to its fundamentals, its basic identity as a Co-op and not a competition-oriented corporate-styled grocery. I would be the first person to lobby for staff directorship if the Co-op were functioning like Co-ops should.) </td> </tr> </table> </div> Davis Food Co-op/Election 2009http://daviswiki.org/Davis_Food_Co-op/Election_20092009-05-30 15:10:44ZacharyNorwoodfew updates <div id="content" class="wikipage content"> Differences for Davis Food Co-op/Election 2009<p><strong></strong></p><table> <tr> <td> <span> Deletions are marked with - . </span> </td> <td> <span> Additions are marked with +. </span> </td> </tr> <tr> <td> Line 187: </td> <td> Line 187: </td> </tr> <tr> <td> <span>- '''No''' on Prop 1 (goes against the egalitarian spirit of democratic control, especially if the new class of shareholders gets dividends while the old class does not. My main concern is that this change will become a disincentive to expanding the membership base—we need to focus energy on expanding the normal class of shareholders, not allowing a certain elect group to compensate for a dwindling membership base.)</span> </td> <td> <span>+ '''No''' on Prop 1 (goes against the egalitarian spirit of democratic control, especially if the new class of shareholders gets dividends while the old class does not. My main concern is that this change will become a disincentive to expanding the membership base—we need to focus energy on expanding the normal class of shareholders, not allowing a certain elect group to compensate for a dwindling membership base. Some argue that voting ''no'' on this will "harm the Co-op" members—to that I say it will only take away a potential advantage for an ''elect'' group of shareholders who can afford to make additional substantial investments, exploiting an opportunity to capitalize on dividend returns from paying off interest from the renovation loan. But this move is not a general benefit for all members, any more than it would be a benefit for all Californians to scrap the welfare to work program to bail out our state's debt. Such a stratagem would solve short-term financial losses, thereby benefiting certain classes, but it would not benefit those most in need of dividend returns or work. In the same way, those members most in need of dividend returns—those who do not have disposable income for investments passed the $300 mark—will no longer get dividends, or be financially incentivized to make regular financial contributions. I’m also concerned that the select group of '''super shareholders''' will create a tacit powerbase that can push forward their own agendas, given their comparatively greater financial clout at the Co-op. All around, this goes against the spirit of voter equality. There are alternatives for increasing capital investments from the membership, such as putting more time and energy into expanding the active membership base and how much they contribute, annually, as well as creating intra-shareholder fundraiser drives, when extra equity is needed for some membership-initiated change.)</span> </td> </tr> <tr> <td> Line 190: </td> <td> Line 190: </td> </tr> <tr> <td> <span>-</span> Did you vote for renovation? If so, did “renovation” mean for you a disproportionate expansion of processed foods, additional open refrigeration, imported household goods, etc.? Did you lobby for an open freezer? How about the $2000 peanut-butter chocolate machine? What about the new operating hours and food buffets? These are all <span>operational</span> changes. Yet I’ve received e-mails from two different sitting chairs on the board stating, explicitly, that the board does not get involved with operations, and that operations fall under the purview of staff. But if staff are not responding to membership remonstrations while adding major additions to the store without membership oversight, who’s going to assure operations are in line with cooperative principles? Until the situation changes, I provisionally support removing staff from the board. Staff already exercises inordinate influence on operations and directorship without being held accountable for changes inconsistent with cooperative principles and values. Pragmatically speaking, staff board members represent managerial expediency more than membership opinion and cooperative principles. Some staff speak openly about ways to implement cooperative values, but in terms of pragmatic consequence, such speech is more rhetorical than actual. The <span>actual</span> changes to the store—the bottom-line reorientation and operational Transformation—are inconsistent with cooperative values<span>. T</span>hese changes speak louder than words. My position <span>on this matter i</span>s flexible, however. As said above, I only “provisionally” support Proposition 2, because I don’t think prohibiting staff directorship would be necessary if the Co-op reverted to its fundamentals, its basic identity as a Co-op and not a competition-oriented corporate-styled grocery. I would be the first person to lobby for staff directorship if the Co-op were functioning like Co-ops should.) </td> <td> <span>+ </span> Did <span>''</span>you<span>''</span> vote for renovation? If so, did “renovation” mean for you a disproportionate expansion of processed foods, additional open refrigeration, imported household goods, etc.? Did <span>''</span>you<span>''</span> lobby for an open freezer? How about the $2000 peanut-butter chocolate machine? What about the new operating hours and food buffets? These are all <span>''operational''</span> changes. Yet I’ve received e-mails from two different sitting chairs on the board stating, explicitly, that <span>''</span>the board does not get involved with operations<span>''</span>, and that operations fall under the purview of staff. But if staff are not responding to membership remonstrations while adding major additions to the store without membership oversight, who’s going to assure operations are in line with cooperative principles? Until the situation changes, I provisionally support removing staff from the board. Staff already exercises inordinate influence on operations and directorship without being held accountable for changes inconsistent with cooperative principles and values. Pragmatically speaking, staff board members represent managerial expediency more than membership opinion and cooperative principles. Some staff speak openly about ways to implement cooperative values, but in terms of pragmatic consequence, such speech is more rhetorical than actual. The <span>''actual''</span> changes to the store—the bottom-line reorientation and operational Transformation—are inconsistent with cooperative values<span>, as i see it, and t</span>hese changes speak louder than words. My position <span>remain</span>s flexible, however. As said above, I only “provisionally” support Proposition 2, because I don’t think prohibiting staff directorship would be necessary if the Co-op reverted to its fundamentals, its basic identity as a Co-op and not a competition-oriented corporate-styled grocery. I would be the first person to lobby for staff directorship if the Co-op were functioning like Co-ops should.) </td> </tr> </table> </div> Davis Food Co-op/Election 2009http://daviswiki.org/Davis_Food_Co-op/Election_20092009-05-30 14:54:08ZacharyNorwoodposted my arguments re: propositions <div id="content" class="wikipage content"> Differences for Davis Food Co-op/Election 2009<p><strong></strong></p><table> <tr> <td> <span> Deletions are marked with - . </span> </td> <td> <span> Additions are marked with +. </span> </td> </tr> <tr> <td> Line 182: </td> <td> Line 182: </td> </tr> <tr> <td> </td> <td> <span>+ ------<br> + It will be helpful if you have the voters’ pamphlet before you while reading through my arguments. If you don’t have it, you can get it here:<br> + <br> + [http://www.davisfood.coop/Voters_Pam_5_09_web.pdf Voters' Pamphlet 09]<br> + <br> + '''No''' on Prop 1 (goes against the egalitarian spirit of democratic control, especially if the new class of shareholders gets dividends while the old class does not. My main concern is that this change will become a disincentive to expanding the membership base—we need to focus energy on expanding the normal class of shareholders, not allowing a certain elect group to compensate for a dwindling membership base.)<br> + <br> + '''Yes''' on Prop 2 (I’m ''provisionally'' in support of Proposition 2, because right now there is a gross imbalance of power between the staff and membership in terms of operational influence, and the board has systematically turned a blind eye to operational changes, even if those changes—listed in my open letter—are patently inconsistent with cooperative values and principles.<br> + Did you vote for renovation? If so, did “renovation” mean for you a disproportionate expansion of processed foods, additional open refrigeration, imported household goods, etc.? Did you lobby for an open freezer? How about the $2000 peanut-butter chocolate machine? What about the new operating hours and food buffets? These are all operational changes. Yet I’ve received e-mails from two different sitting chairs on the board stating, explicitly, that the board does not get involved with operations, and that operations fall under the purview of staff. But if staff are not responding to membership remonstrations while adding major additions to the store without membership oversight, who’s going to assure operations are in line with cooperative principles? Until the situation changes, I provisionally support removing staff from the board. Staff already exercises inordinate influence on operations and directorship without being held accountable for changes inconsistent with cooperative principles and values. Pragmatically speaking, staff board members represent managerial expediency more than membership opinion and cooperative principles. Some staff speak openly about ways to implement cooperative values, but in terms of pragmatic consequence, such speech is more rhetorical than actual. The actual changes to the store—the bottom-line reorientation and operational Transformation—are inconsistent with cooperative values. These changes speak louder than words. My position on this matter is flexible, however. As said above, I only “provisionally” support Proposition 2, because I don’t think prohibiting staff directorship would be necessary if the Co-op reverted to its fundamentals, its basic identity as a Co-op and not a competition-oriented corporate-styled grocery. I would be the first person to lobby for staff directorship if the Co-op were functioning like Co-ops should.)<br> + <br> + '''No''' on Prop 3 (This is not an uncontroversial change, as some candidates maintain. That the board unanimously supports it demonstrates complacency with the bottom-line reorientation. First, alternate directors get needed 'training.' Though the nature of this training should be more basic than it is now, some type of training is helpful. Second, and more importantly, alternate directors allow for greater diversity of opinion on the board. Getting rid of alternate non-voting directors disempowers rival positions, making the board more homogeneously minded. This is the last thing the Co-op needs now.)<br> + <br> + '''Yes''' on 4 (seems to clarify and simply removal process)<br> + <br> + '''Yes''' on 5 (makes it easier to organize member initiatives)<br> + <br> + '''No''' on 6 (why make it harder to submit materials and initiatives by changing the deadlines?)<br> + <br> + '''No''' on 7 (I'm skeptical of the “health concerns” stipulation in C—though I may be exaggerating this concern, I think it could be used to challenge health/safety of superworkers who are unwittingly not compliant with ‘health risks,’ a term that goes undefined. I’m all for clarification of this bylaw, but adding a new, undefined term is inconsistent with this end. If ‘health risks’ were defined, I’d say yes for this, but it’s not, as far as I’m aware. Does this mean I'm opposed to clarifying policies that may negatively impact the store? Not at all, so long as all terms are defined.)<br> + <br> + '''Yes''' on 8 (more information is good here)<br> + <br> + I’m open to challenge/debate regarding any of these props. Do let me know if any you hold differing views.<br> + --["Users/ZacharyNorwood" Zach]</span> </td> </tr> </table> </div> Davis Food Co-op/Election 2009http://daviswiki.org/Davis_Food_Co-op/Election_20092009-05-30 09:32:29ZacharyNorwood(quick edit) <div id="content" class="wikipage content"> Differences for Davis Food Co-op/Election 2009<p><strong></strong></p><table> <tr> <td> <span> Deletions are marked with - . </span> </td> <td> <span> Additions are marked with +. </span> </td> </tr> <tr> <td> Line 117: </td> <td> Line 117: </td> </tr> <tr> <td> <span>-</span> * My intention is to highlight a development within the electorate that is tantamount to disempowerment, but I’m not trying to place blame. When I say aggregation amongst Co-op Housing is a type of gerrymandering of Co-op housing, I mean in terms of pragmatic consequences. Perhaps the word 'gerrymandering' is too strong, because it implies conscious intent. I do wonder, though, how such an arrangement could be left unchecked for so long. A house of 10 or more should get more than 1 vote. That they do not is disempowerment, in my book. When I recently talked at a general meeting at the Tri-Co-ops, I asked everyone who was a full voting member to raise their hands, and only one or two people did so. If you called every co-op housing development and determined how many people are actual voting members, I think you'd be surprised with the results. So we should not equivocate between ''household membership aggregation'' and individual ''new members''. The Tri-Co-ops may bring in new members over the years, but that doesn’t mean all their households have voting power. And I should clarify what I meant by "present political climate." By that I do not mean the ongoing background conflict resulting from apparently failed mediation. That is out of my purview. I meant more generally the reality of living in a supposedly liberal state that’s becoming more conservative by the minute. Also, I should clarify what I mean by dwindling electorate. I should have said dwindling 'active electorate.' That only 15% of the membership votes in major elections is problematic, by any standard. And this number would decrease dramatically if you estimated the number of nonvoting aggregated household members. --["Users/ZacharyNorwood" Zach] </td> <td> <span>+</span> * My intention is to highlight a development within the electorate that is tantamount to disempowerment, but I’m not trying to place blame. When I say aggregation amongst Co-op Housing is a type of gerrymandering of Co-op housing, I mean in terms of pragmatic consequences. Perhaps the word 'gerrymandering' is too strong, because it implies conscious intent. I do wonder, though, how such an arrangement could be left unchecked for so long. A house of 10 or more should get more than 1 vote. That they do not is disempowerment, in my book. When I recently talked at a general meeting at the Tri-Co-ops, I asked everyone who was a full voting member to raise their hands, and only one or two people did so. If you called every co-op housing development and determined how many people are actual voting members, I think you'd be surprised with the results. So we should not equivocate between ''household membership aggregation'' and individual ''new members''<span>&nbsp;coming from households over time</span>. The Tri-Co-ops may bring in new members over the years, but that doesn’t mean all their households have voting power. And I should clarify what I meant by "present political climate." By that I do not mean the ongoing background conflict resulting from apparently failed mediation. That is out of my purview. I meant more generally the reality of living in a supposedly liberal state that’s becoming more conservative by the minute. Also, I should clarify what I mean by dwindling electorate. I should have said dwindling 'active electorate.' That only 15% of the membership votes in major elections is problematic, by any standard. And this number would decrease dramatically if you estimated the number of nonvoting aggregated household members. --["Users/ZacharyNorwood" Zach] </td> </tr> </table> </div> Davis Food Co-op/Election 2009http://daviswiki.org/Davis_Food_Co-op/Election_20092009-05-29 17:12:01KevinWolfComment added. <div id="content" class="wikipage content"> Differences for Davis Food Co-op/Election 2009<p><strong></strong></p><table> <tr> <td> <span> Deletions are marked with - . </span> </td> <td> <span> Additions are marked with +. </span> </td> </tr> <tr> <td> Line 162: </td> <td> Line 162: </td> </tr> <tr> <td> </td> <td> <span>+ ------<br> + ''2009-05-29 17:12:01'' [[nbsp]] Answers to April's questions from Kevin Wolf, 758-4211<br> + <br> + ADVOCACY What guidelines would you have for yourself (and other directors) for advocacy around issues you feel strongly about?<br> + <br> + Hopefully board members care about issues and advocate for them. We owe thanks to Jack Young for working for over a year to bring the Non-voting Voluntary Share measure to the ballot. Julie is advocating against it. I am advocating for it. I like Doreen's description though of what makes a good board member - put the time in and be open minded. As a board member, I advocated for us to meet with the owner of the West Davis shopping center. After our meeting with him, I encouraged the board to not continue discussing the issue because the terms he offered were unreasonable.<br> + <br> + GOVERNANCE<br> + Which aspects of Policy Governance are you comfortable with? When might you feel tempted to bend the rules and how will you deal with such situations?<br> + <br> + I learned to like Policy Governance though my preliminary expectations weren't positive. PG done well and the board really provides the long term thinking and leadership that the organization needs. What I have learned is that management has not been as good as needed at writing the interpretations and benchmarks for the board's Ends Policies. The board does not write the interpretations and benchmarks. Without these being written clearly and with good measurements, the board will not be able to evaluate well how the General Manager is doing in advancing their vision and goals for the the business. In the last few months, the interpretations and benchmarks have been improving and I am hopeful that this problem will be resolved.<br> + <br> + LEADERSHIP<br> + What aspects of board work interest you most? Where might you provide leadership?<br> + <br> + I want to learn more about and become better at Policy Governance. If elected, I will be the board's representative to the international PG training this summer. I also want to help improve member linkage and would like to see all board task forces scheduled for regular monthly meetings with the membership invited to attend.<br> + <br> + One of my skills is in helping groups reach consensus, or near consensus (see http://wolfandassociates.com). I think that the board has worked well together this last year and I believe I helped with that process. I would like to continue doing that.<br> + <br> + --["Users/KevinWolf"]</span> </td> </tr> </table> </div> Davis Food Co-op/Election 2009http://daviswiki.org/Davis_Food_Co-op/Election_20092009-05-23 10:37:30ZacharyNorwood(quick edit) <div id="content" class="wikipage content"> Differences for Davis Food Co-op/Election 2009<p><strong></strong></p><table> <tr> <td> <span> Deletions are marked with - . </span> </td> <td> <span> Additions are marked with +. </span> </td> </tr> <tr> <td> Line 117: </td> <td> Line 117: </td> </tr> <tr> <td> <span>-</span> * My intention is to highlight a development within the electorate that is tantamount to disempowerment, but I’m not trying to place blame. When I say aggregation amongst Co-op Housing is a type of gerrymandering of Co-op housing, I mean in terms of pragmatic consequences. Perhaps the word 'gerrymandering' is too strong, because it implies conscious intent. I do wonder, though, how such an arrangement could be left unchecked for so long. A house of 10 or more should get more than 1 vote. That they do not is disempowerment, in my book. When I recently talked at a general meeting at the Tri-Co-ops, I asked everyone who was a full voting member to raise their hands, and only one or two people did so. If you called every co-op housing development and determined how many people are actual voting members, I think you'd be surprised with the results. So we should not equivocate between ''household membership aggregation'' and individual ''new members''. The Tri-Co-ops may bring in new members over the years, but that doesn’t mean all their households have voting power. And I should clarify what I meant by "present political climate." By that I do not mean the ongoing background conflict resulting from apparently failed mediation. That is out of my purview. I meant more generally <span>beyond</span> reality of living in a supposedly liberal state that’s becoming more conservative by the minute. Also, I should clarify what I mean by dwindling electorate. I should have said dwindling 'active electorate.' That only 15% of the membership votes in major elections is problematic, by any standard. And this number would decrease dramatically if you estimated the number of nonvoting aggregated household members. --["Users/ZacharyNorwood" Zach] </td> <td> <span>+</span> * My intention is to highlight a development within the electorate that is tantamount to disempowerment, but I’m not trying to place blame. When I say aggregation amongst Co-op Housing is a type of gerrymandering of Co-op housing, I mean in terms of pragmatic consequences. Perhaps the word 'gerrymandering' is too strong, because it implies conscious intent. I do wonder, though, how such an arrangement could be left unchecked for so long. A house of 10 or more should get more than 1 vote. That they do not is disempowerment, in my book. When I recently talked at a general meeting at the Tri-Co-ops, I asked everyone who was a full voting member to raise their hands, and only one or two people did so. If you called every co-op housing development and determined how many people are actual voting members, I think you'd be surprised with the results. So we should not equivocate between ''household membership aggregation'' and individual ''new members''. The Tri-Co-ops may bring in new members over the years, but that doesn’t mean all their households have voting power. And I should clarify what I meant by "present political climate." By that I do not mean the ongoing background conflict resulting from apparently failed mediation. That is out of my purview. I meant more generally <span>the</span> reality of living in a supposedly liberal state that’s becoming more conservative by the minute. Also, I should clarify what I mean by dwindling electorate. I should have said dwindling 'active electorate.' That only 15% of the membership votes in major elections is problematic, by any standard. And this number would decrease dramatically if you estimated the number of nonvoting aggregated household members. --["Users/ZacharyNorwood" Zach] </td> </tr> </table> </div> Davis Food Co-op/Election 2009http://daviswiki.org/Davis_Food_Co-op/Election_20092009-05-23 10:37:05ZacharyNorwood(quick edit) <div id="content" class="wikipage content"> Differences for Davis Food Co-op/Election 2009<p><strong></strong></p><table> <tr> <td> <span> Deletions are marked with - . </span> </td> <td> <span> Additions are marked with +. </span> </td> </tr> <tr> <td> Line 117: </td> <td> Line 117: </td> </tr> <tr> <td> <span>-</span> * My intention is to highlight a development within the electorate that is tantamount to disempowerment, but I’m not trying to place blame. When I say aggregation amongst Co-op Housing is a type of gerrymandering of Co-op housing, I mean in terms of pragmatic consequences. Perhaps the word 'gerrymandering' is too strong, because it implies conscious intent. I do wonder, though, how such an arrangement could be left unchecked for so long. A house of 10 or more should get more than 1 vote. That they do not is disempowerment, in my book. When I recently talked at a general meeting at the Tri-Co-ops, I asked everyone who was a full voting member to raise their hands, and only one or two people did so. If you called every co-op housing development and determined how many people are actual voting members, I think you'd be surprised with the results. So we should not equivocate between ''household membership aggregation'' and individual ''new members''. The Tri-Co-ops may bring in new members over the years, but that doesn’t mean all their households have voting power. And I should clarify what I meant by "present political climate." By that I do not mean the ongoing background conflict resulting from apparently failed mediation. That is out of my purview. Also, I should clarify what I mean by dwindling electorate. I should have said dwindling 'active electorate.' That only 15% of the membership votes in major elections is problematic, by any standard. And this number would decrease dramatically if you estimated the number of nonvoting aggregated household members. --["Users/ZacharyNorwood" Zach] </td> <td> <span>+</span> * My intention is to highlight a development within the electorate that is tantamount to disempowerment, but I’m not trying to place blame. When I say aggregation amongst Co-op Housing is a type of gerrymandering of Co-op housing, I mean in terms of pragmatic consequences. Perhaps the word 'gerrymandering' is too strong, because it implies conscious intent. I do wonder, though, how such an arrangement could be left unchecked for so long. A house of 10 or more should get more than 1 vote. That they do not is disempowerment, in my book. When I recently talked at a general meeting at the Tri-Co-ops, I asked everyone who was a full voting member to raise their hands, and only one or two people did so. If you called every co-op housing development and determined how many people are actual voting members, I think you'd be surprised with the results. So we should not equivocate between ''household membership aggregation'' and individual ''new members''. The Tri-Co-ops may bring in new members over the years, but that doesn’t mean all their households have voting power. And I should clarify what I meant by "present political climate." By that I do not mean the ongoing background conflict resulting from apparently failed mediation. That is out of my purview<span>. I meant more generally beyond reality of living in a supposedly liberal state that’s becoming more conservative by the minute</span>. Also, I should clarify what I mean by dwindling electorate. I should have said dwindling 'active electorate.' That only 15% of the membership votes in major elections is problematic, by any standard. And this number would decrease dramatically if you estimated the number of nonvoting aggregated household members. --["Users/ZacharyNorwood" Zach] </td> </tr> </table> </div> Davis Food Co-op/Election 2009http://daviswiki.org/Davis_Food_Co-op/Election_20092009-05-23 10:34:28ZacharyNorwood(quick edit) <div id="content" class="wikipage content"> Differences for Davis Food Co-op/Election 2009<p><strong></strong></p><table> <tr> <td> <span> Deletions are marked with - . </span> </td> <td> <span> Additions are marked with +. </span> </td> </tr> <tr> <td> Line 117: </td> <td> Line 117: </td> </tr> <tr> <td> <span>-</span> * My intention is to highlight a development within the electorate that is tantamount to disempowerment, but I’m not trying to place blame. When I say aggregation amongst Co-op Housing is a type of gerrymandering of Co-op housing, I mean in terms of pragmatic consequences. Perhaps the word 'gerrymandering' is too strong, because it implies conscious intent. I do wonder, though, how such an arrangement could be left unchecked for so long. A house of 10 or more should get more than 1 vote. That they do not is disempowerment, in my book. When I recently talked at a general meeting at the Tri-Co-ops, I asked everyone who was a full voting member to raise their hands, and only one or two people did so. If you called every co-op housing development and determined how many people are actual voting members, I think you'd be surprised with the results. So we should not equivocate between ''household membership aggregation'' and individual ''new members''. The Tri-Co-ops may bring in new members over the years, but that doesn’t mean <span>their entire household has</span> voting power. And I should clarify what I meant by "present political climate." By that I do not mean the ongoing background conflict resulting from apparently failed mediation. That is out of my purview. Also, I should clarify what I mean by dwindling electorate. I should have said dwindling 'active electorate.' That only 15% of the membership votes in major elections is problematic, by any standard. And this number would decrease dramatically if you estimated the number of nonvoting aggregated household members. --["Users/ZacharyNorwood" Zach] </td> <td> <span>+</span> * My intention is to highlight a development within the electorate that is tantamount to disempowerment, but I’m not trying to place blame. When I say aggregation amongst Co-op Housing is a type of gerrymandering of Co-op housing, I mean in terms of pragmatic consequences. Perhaps the word 'gerrymandering' is too strong, because it implies conscious intent. I do wonder, though, how such an arrangement could be left unchecked for so long. A house of 10 or more should get more than 1 vote. That they do not is disempowerment, in my book. When I recently talked at a general meeting at the Tri-Co-ops, I asked everyone who was a full voting member to raise their hands, and only one or two people did so. If you called every co-op housing development and determined how many people are actual voting members, I think you'd be surprised with the results. So we should not equivocate between ''household membership aggregation'' and individual ''new members''. The Tri-Co-ops may bring in new members over the years, but that doesn’t mean <span>all their households have</span> voting power. And I should clarify what I meant by "present political climate." By that I do not mean the ongoing background conflict resulting from apparently failed mediation. That is out of my purview. Also, I should clarify what I mean by dwindling electorate. I should have said dwindling 'active electorate.' That only 15% of the membership votes in major elections is problematic, by any standard. And this number would decrease dramatically if you estimated the number of nonvoting aggregated household members. --["Users/ZacharyNorwood" Zach] </td> </tr> </table> </div> Davis Food Co-op/Election 2009http://daviswiki.org/Davis_Food_Co-op/Election_20092009-05-23 10:32:55ZacharyNorwood(quick edit) <div id="content" class="wikipage content"> Differences for Davis Food Co-op/Election 2009<p><strong></strong></p><table> <tr> <td> <span> Deletions are marked with - . </span> </td> <td> <span> Additions are marked with +. </span> </td> </tr> <tr> <td> Line 117: </td> <td> Line 117: </td> </tr> <tr> <td> <span>-</span> * <span>Di</span>v<span>isive</span>, <span>maybe, but that’s not my intention. Uninformed? No. The facts are on the ground. My intention is to highlight a development within the electorate that is tantamount to disempowerment.</span> I’m not trying to place blame. <span>So w</span>hen I say aggregation amongst Co-op Housing is a type of gerrymandering of Co-op housing, I mean in terms of pragmatic consequences. Perhaps the word 'gerrymandering' is too strong, because it implies conscious intent. I do wonder, though, how such an arrangement could be left unchecked for so long. A house of 10 or more should get more than 1 vote. That they do not is disempowerment, in my book. When I recently talked at a general meeting at the Tri-Co-ops, I asked everyone who was a full voting member to raise their hands, and only one or two people did so. If you called every co-op housing development and determined how many people are actual voting members, I think you'd be surprised with the results. So we should not equivocate between ''household membership aggregation'' and individual ''new members''. The Tri-Co-ops may bring in new members over the years, but that doesn’t mean their entire household has voting power. And I should clarify what I meant by "present political climate." By that I do not mean the ongoing background conflict resulting from apparently failed mediation. That is out of my purview. Also, I should clarify what I mean by dwindling electorate. I should have said 'active electorate.' That only 15% of the membership votes in major elections is problematic, by any standard. And this number would decrease dramatically if you estimated the number of nonvoting aggregated household members. --["Users/ZacharyNorwood" Zach] </td> <td> <span>+</span> * <span>My intention is to highlight a de</span>v<span>elopment within the electorate that is tantamount to disempowerment</span>, <span>but</span> I’m not trying to place blame. <span>W</span>hen I say aggregation amongst Co-op Housing is a type of gerrymandering of Co-op housing, I mean in terms of pragmatic consequences. Perhaps the word 'gerrymandering' is too strong, because it implies conscious intent. I do wonder, though, how such an arrangement could be left unchecked for so long. A house of 10 or more should get more than 1 vote. That they do not is disempowerment, in my book. When I recently talked at a general meeting at the Tri-Co-ops, I asked everyone who was a full voting member to raise their hands, and only one or two people did so. If you called every co-op housing development and determined how many people are actual voting members, I think you'd be surprised with the results. So we should not equivocate between ''household membership aggregation'' and individual ''new members''. The Tri-Co-ops may bring in new members over the years, but that doesn’t mean their entire household has voting power. And I should clarify what I meant by "present political climate." By that I do not mean the ongoing background conflict resulting from apparently failed mediation. That is out of my purview. Also, I should clarify what I mean by dwindling electorate. I should have said<span>&nbsp;dwindling</span> 'active electorate.' That only 15% of the membership votes in major elections is problematic, by any standard. And this number would decrease dramatically if you estimated the number of nonvoting aggregated household members. --["Users/ZacharyNorwood" Zach] </td> </tr> </table> </div> Davis Food Co-op/Election 2009http://daviswiki.org/Davis_Food_Co-op/Election_20092009-05-23 10:30:37ZacharyNorwood(quick edit) <div id="content" class="wikipage content"> Differences for Davis Food Co-op/Election 2009<p><strong></strong></p><table> <tr> <td> <span> Deletions are marked with - . </span> </td> <td> <span> Additions are marked with +. </span> </td> </tr> <tr> <td> Line 117: </td> <td> Line 117: </td> </tr> <tr> <td> <span>-</span> * Divisive, maybe, <span>the</span> that’s not my intention. Uninformed? No. The facts are on the ground. My intention is to highlight a development within the electorate that is tantamount to disempowerment. I’m not trying to place blame. So when I say aggregation amongst Co-op Housing is a type of gerrymandering of Co-op housing, I mean in terms of pragmatic consequences. Perhaps the word 'gerrymandering' is too strong, because it implies conscious intent. I do wonder, though, how such an arrangement could be left unchecked for so long. A house of 10 or more should get more than 1 vote. That they do not is disempowerment, in my book. When I recently talked at a general meeting at the Tri-Co-ops, I asked everyone who was a full voting member to raise their hands, and only one or two people did so. If you called every co-op housing development and determined how many people are actual voting members, I think you'd be surprised with the results. So we should not equivocate between ''household membership aggregation'' and individual ''new members''. The Tri-Co-ops may bring in new members over the years, but that doesn’t mean their entire household has voting power. And I should clarify what I meant by "present political climate." By that I do not mean the ongoing background conflict resulting from apparently failed mediation. That is out of my purview. Also, I should clarify what I mean by dwindling electorate. I should have said 'active electorate.' That only 15% of the membership votes in major elections is problematic, by any standard. And this number would decrease dramatically if you estimated the number of nonvoting aggregated household members. --["Users/ZacharyNorwood" Zach] </td> <td> <span>+</span> * Divisive, maybe, <span>but</span> that’s not my intention. Uninformed? No. The facts are on the ground. My intention is to highlight a development within the electorate that is tantamount to disempowerment. I’m not trying to place blame. So when I say aggregation amongst Co-op Housing is a type of gerrymandering of Co-op housing, I mean in terms of pragmatic consequences. Perhaps the word 'gerrymandering' is too strong, because it implies conscious intent. I do wonder, though, how such an arrangement could be left unchecked for so long. A house of 10 or more should get more than 1 vote. That they do not is disempowerment, in my book. When I recently talked at a general meeting at the Tri-Co-ops, I asked everyone who was a full voting member to raise their hands, and only one or two people did so. If you called every co-op housing development and determined how many people are actual voting members, I think you'd be surprised with the results. So we should not equivocate between ''household membership aggregation'' and individual ''new members''. The Tri-Co-ops may bring in new members over the years, but that doesn’t mean their entire household has voting power. And I should clarify what I meant by "present political climate." By that I do not mean the ongoing background conflict resulting from apparently failed mediation. That is out of my purview. Also, I should clarify what I mean by dwindling electorate. I should have said 'active electorate.' That only 15% of the membership votes in major elections is problematic, by any standard. And this number would decrease dramatically if you estimated the number of nonvoting aggregated household members. --["Users/ZacharyNorwood" Zach] </td> </tr> </table> </div> Davis Food Co-op/Election 2009http://daviswiki.org/Davis_Food_Co-op/Election_20092009-05-23 10:28:29ZacharyNorwood(quick edit) <div id="content" class="wikipage content"> Differences for Davis Food Co-op/Election 2009<p><strong></strong></p><table> <tr> <td> <span> Deletions are marked with - . </span> </td> <td> <span> Additions are marked with +. </span> </td> </tr> <tr> <td> Line 117: </td> <td> Line 117: </td> </tr> <tr> <td> <span>-</span> * Divisive, maybe, the that’s not my intention. Uninformed? No. The facts are on the ground. My intention is to highlight a development within the electorate that is tantamount to disempowerment. I’m not trying to place blame. So when I say aggregation amongst Co-op Housing is a type of gerrymandering of Co-op housing, I mean in terms of pragmatic consequences. Perhaps the word 'gerrymandering' is too strong, because it implies conscious intent. I do wonder, though, how such an arrangement could be left unchecked for so long. A house of 10 or more should get more than 1 vote. That they do not is disempowerment, in my book. When I recently talked at a general meeting at the Tri-Co-ops, I asked everyone who was a full voting member to raise their hands, and only one or two people did so. If you called every co-op housing development and determined how many people are actual voting members, I think you'd be surprised with the results. So we should not equivocate between ''household membership aggregation'' and individual ''new members''. The Tri-Co-ops may bring in new members over the years, but that doesn’t mean their entire household has voting power. And I should clarify what I meant by "present political climate." By that I do not mean the ongoing background conflict resulting from apparently failed mediation. That is out of my purview. --["Users/ZacharyNorwood" Zach] </td> <td> <span>+</span> * Divisive, maybe, the that’s not my intention. Uninformed? No. The facts are on the ground. My intention is to highlight a development within the electorate that is tantamount to disempowerment. I’m not trying to place blame. So when I say aggregation amongst Co-op Housing is a type of gerrymandering of Co-op housing, I mean in terms of pragmatic consequences. Perhaps the word 'gerrymandering' is too strong, because it implies conscious intent. I do wonder, though, how such an arrangement could be left unchecked for so long. A house of 10 or more should get more than 1 vote. That they do not is disempowerment, in my book. When I recently talked at a general meeting at the Tri-Co-ops, I asked everyone who was a full voting member to raise their hands, and only one or two people did so. If you called every co-op housing development and determined how many people are actual voting members, I think you'd be surprised with the results. So we should not equivocate between ''household membership aggregation'' and individual ''new members''. The Tri-Co-ops may bring in new members over the years, but that doesn’t mean their entire household has voting power. And I should clarify what I meant by "present political climate." By that I do not mean the ongoing background conflict resulting from apparently failed mediation. That is out of my purview<span>. Also, I should clarify what I mean by dwindling electorate. I should have said 'active electorate.' That only 15% of the membership votes in major elections is problematic, by any standard. And this number would decrease dramatically if you estimated the number of nonvoting aggregated household members</span>. --["Users/ZacharyNorwood" Zach] </td> </tr> </table> </div> Davis Food Co-op/Election 2009http://daviswiki.org/Davis_Food_Co-op/Election_20092009-05-23 10:25:44ZacharyNorwood(quick edit) <div id="content" class="wikipage content"> Differences for Davis Food Co-op/Election 2009<p><strong></strong></p><table> <tr> <td> <span> Deletions are marked with - . </span> </td> <td> <span> Additions are marked with +. </span> </td> </tr> <tr> <td> Line 117: </td> <td> Line 117: </td> </tr> <tr> <td> <span>-</span> * Divisive, maybe, the that’s not my intention. Uninformed? No. The facts are on the ground. My intention is to highlight a development within the electorate that is tantamount to disempowerment. I’m not trying to place blame. So when I say aggregation amongst Co-op Housing is a type of gerrymandering of Co-op housing, I mean in terms of pragmatic consequences. Perhaps the word 'gerrymandering' is too strong, because it implies conscious intent. I do wonder, though, how such an arrangement could be left unchecked for so long. A house of 10 or more should get more than 1 vote. That they do not is disempowerment, in my book. When I recently talked at a general meeting at the Tri-Co-ops, I asked everyone who was a full voting member to raise their hands, and only one or two people did so. <span>That is how </span>I<span>&nbsp;became in</span>f<span>ormed to the extent of the problem.</span> I <span>challenge you to call every co-op housing development and determine how many people are actual voting members. I </span>think you<span>’ll be surprised with the results. It’s important that we do</span> not equivocate between ''household membership aggregation'' and individual ''new members''. The Tri-Co-ops may bring in new members over the years, but that doesn’t mean their entire household has voting power. And I should clarify what I meant by "present political climate." By that I do not mean the ongoing background conflict resulting from apparently failed mediation. That is out of my purview. --["Users/ZacharyNorwood" Zach] </td> <td> <span>+</span> * Divisive, maybe, the that’s not my intention. Uninformed? No. The facts are on the ground. My intention is to highlight a development within the electorate that is tantamount to disempowerment. I’m not trying to place blame. So when I say aggregation amongst Co-op Housing is a type of gerrymandering of Co-op housing, I mean in terms of pragmatic consequences. Perhaps the word 'gerrymandering' is too strong, because it implies conscious intent. I do wonder, though, how such an arrangement could be left unchecked for so long. A house of 10 or more should get more than 1 vote. That they do not is disempowerment, in my book. When I recently talked at a general meeting at the Tri-Co-ops, I asked everyone who was a full voting member to raise their hands, and only one or two people did so. If<span>&nbsp;you called every co-op housing development and determined how many people are actual voting members,</span> I think you<span>'d be surprised with the results. So we should</span> not equivocate between ''household membership aggregation'' and individual ''new members''. The Tri-Co-ops may bring in new members over the years, but that doesn’t mean their entire household has voting power. And I should clarify what I meant by "present political climate." By that I do not mean the ongoing background conflict resulting from apparently failed mediation. That is out of my purview. --["Users/ZacharyNorwood" Zach] </td> </tr> </table> </div> Davis Food Co-op/Election 2009http://daviswiki.org/Davis_Food_Co-op/Election_20092009-05-23 10:22:32ZacharyNorwood(quick edit) <div id="content" class="wikipage content"> Differences for Davis Food Co-op/Election 2009<p><strong></strong></p><table> <tr> <td> <span> Deletions are marked with - . </span> </td> <td> <span> Additions are marked with +. </span> </td> </tr> <tr> <td> Line 117: </td> <td> Line 117: </td> </tr> <tr> <td> <span>- * Divisive, maybe, the that’s not my intention. Uninformed? No. The facts are on the ground. My intention is to point out a failure to avoid allowing disempowerment, even if it is a passive development. Aggregation amongst Co-op Housing is a type of gerrymandering of Co-op housing, in terms of the pragmatic consequences. A house of 10 or more should not get one vote. That is disempowerment, in my book. Regardless of what the Tri-Co-ops has done in the past, when I recently talked at a general meeting at the Tri-Co-ops, I asked everyone who was a full voting member to raise their hands, and only one or two people did so. Also, one should not equivocate between ''household membership aggregation'' and individual ''new members''. The Tri-Co-ops may bring in new members over the years, but that doesn’t mean their entire household has voting power. And I should clarify what I meant by "present political climate." By that I do not mean the ongoing background conflict resulting from apparently failed mediation. That is out of my purview. --["Users/ZacharyNorwood" Zach]</span> </td> <td> <span>+ * Divisive, maybe, the that’s not my intention. Uninformed? No. The facts are on the ground. My intention is to highlight a development within the electorate that is tantamount to disempowerment. I’m not trying to place blame. So when I say aggregation amongst Co-op Housing is a type of gerrymandering of Co-op housing, I mean in terms of pragmatic consequences. Perhaps the word 'gerrymandering' is too strong, because it implies conscious intent. I do wonder, though, how such an arrangement could be left unchecked for so long. A house of 10 or more should get more than 1 vote. That they do not is disempowerment, in my book. When I recently talked at a general meeting at the Tri-Co-ops, I asked everyone who was a full voting member to raise their hands, and only one or two people did so. That is how I became informed to the extent of the problem. I challenge you to call every co-op housing development and determine how many people are actual voting members. I think you’ll be surprised with the results. It’s important that we do not equivocate between ''household membership aggregation'' and individual ''new members''. The Tri-Co-ops may bring in new members over the years, but that doesn’t mean their entire household has voting power. And I should clarify what I meant by "present political climate." By that I do not mean the ongoing background conflict resulting from apparently failed mediation. That is out of my purview. --["Users/ZacharyNorwood" Zach]</span> </td> </tr> </table> </div> Davis Food Co-op/Election 2009http://daviswiki.org/Davis_Food_Co-op/Election_20092009-05-23 10:16:55ZacharyNorwoodre: <div id="content" class="wikipage content"> Differences for Davis Food Co-op/Election 2009<p><strong></strong></p><table> <tr> <td> <span> Deletions are marked with - . </span> </td> <td> <span> Additions are marked with +. </span> </td> </tr> <tr> <td> Line 117: </td> <td> Line 117: </td> </tr> <tr> <td> </td> <td> <span>+ * Divisive, maybe, the that’s not my intention. Uninformed? No. The facts are on the ground. My intention is to point out a failure to avoid allowing disempowerment, even if it is a passive development. Aggregation amongst Co-op Housing is a type of gerrymandering of Co-op housing, in terms of the pragmatic consequences. A house of 10 or more should not get one vote. That is disempowerment, in my book. Regardless of what the Tri-Co-ops has done in the past, when I recently talked at a general meeting at the Tri-Co-ops, I asked everyone who was a full voting member to raise their hands, and only one or two people did so. Also, one should not equivocate between ''household membership aggregation'' and individual ''new members''. The Tri-Co-ops may bring in new members over the years, but that doesn’t mean their entire household has voting power. And I should clarify what I meant by "present political climate." By that I do not mean the ongoing background conflict resulting from apparently failed mediation. That is out of my purview. --["Users/ZacharyNorwood" Zach]</span> </td> </tr> </table> </div> Davis Food Co-op/Election 2009http://daviswiki.org/Davis_Food_Co-op/Election_20092009-05-23 10:08:13DougWalterMight have been impolite <div id="content" class="wikipage content"> Differences for Davis Food Co-op/Election 2009<p><strong></strong></p><table> <tr> <td> <span> Deletions are marked with - . </span> </td> <td> <span> Additions are marked with +. </span> </td> </tr> <tr> <td> Line 116: </td> <td> Line 116: </td> </tr> <tr> <td> <span>-</span> * I disagree strongly about "disempowerment," and think the changes you sketch appeal to no more than a relative handful of DFC shoppers. The DFC electorate has '''not''' "dwindled": turnout in the last 20 years varies in a relatively narrow range, and has stayed consistent through a steady growth in membership. <span>It's divisive and unin</span>f<span>ormed of you to argue a</span>b<span>out the "gerrymandering" of housing co-ops, since</span> the Tri-Co-ops have chafed under this arrangement for decades; they've provided a steady stream of new memberships when they establish new Davis households. I'm for increasing participation, but it's pretty clear that most people do not choose to participate, in contrast to you. --["Users/DougWalter"] </td> <td> <span>+</span> * I disagree strongly about "disempowerment," and think the changes you sketch appeal to no more than a relative handful of DFC shoppers. The DFC electorate has '''not''' "dwindled": turnout in the last 20 years varies in a relatively narrow range, and has stayed consistent through a steady growth in membership. <span>You argue about the "gerrymandering" o</span>f<span>&nbsp;housing co-ops, </span>b<span>ut</span> the Tri-Co-ops have chafed under this arrangement for decades; they've provided a steady stream of new memberships when they establish new Davis households. I'm for increasing participation, but it's pretty clear that most people do not choose to participate, in contrast to you. --["Users/DougWalter"] </td> </tr> </table> </div> Davis Food Co-op/Election 2009http://daviswiki.org/Davis_Food_Co-op/Election_20092009-05-23 10:02:07DougWalterdwindling is a myth in the making <div id="content" class="wikipage content"> Differences for Davis Food Co-op/Election 2009<p><strong></strong></p><table> <tr> <td> <span> Deletions are marked with - . </span> </td> <td> <span> Additions are marked with +. </span> </td> </tr> <tr> <td> Line 116: </td> <td> Line 116: </td> </tr> <tr> <td> </td> <td> <span>+ * I disagree strongly about "disempowerment," and think the changes you sketch appeal to no more than a relative handful of DFC shoppers. The DFC electorate has '''not''' "dwindled": turnout in the last 20 years varies in a relatively narrow range, and has stayed consistent through a steady growth in membership. It's divisive and uninformed of you to argue about the "gerrymandering" of housing co-ops, since the Tri-Co-ops have chafed under this arrangement for decades; they've provided a steady stream of new memberships when they establish new Davis households. I'm for increasing participation, but it's pretty clear that most people do not choose to participate, in contrast to you. --["Users/DougWalter"]</span> </td> </tr> </table> </div> Davis Food Co-op/Election 2009http://daviswiki.org/Davis_Food_Co-op/Election_20092009-05-23 09:55:31ZacharyNorwoodclarifying potential depth of aggregation <div id="content" class="wikipage content"> Differences for Davis Food Co-op/Election 2009<p><strong></strong></p><table> <tr> <td> <span> Deletions are marked with - . </span> </td> <td> <span> Additions are marked with +. </span> </td> </tr> <tr> <td> Line 115: </td> <td> Line 115: </td> </tr> <tr> <td> <span>-</span> * Thanks for sharing your perspective, Ben. The Co-op Housing arrangements are the more salient examples of a general trend, in my estimation. Most households I’m acquainted with, including my own, have become aggregated into a 4 member/1 vote situation. <span>My girlfriend has yet to follow my advice to 'disaggregate' into individual shareholder status herself, which speaks to the momentum of habit against change. I think people will slowly</span> wake up to the fact that being a part of a household but not voting has a marked impact on the overall outcome of elections, especially when the DFC electorate has dwindled so significantly. So from my standpoint, household aggregation is a generalized trend not restricted to Co-op housing, and it needs to be addressed, especially if the co-op wishes to increase Democratic Control and revenues through shareholder participation. <span>Income level li</span>ke<span>l</span>y<span>&nbsp;also factors into the equation</span>, b<span>ut that’s another topic</span>. --["Users/ZacharyNorwood" Zach] </td> <td> <span>+</span> * Thanks for sharing your perspective, Ben. The Co-op Housing arrangements are the more salient examples of a general trend, in my estimation. Most households I’m acquainted with, including my own, have become aggregated into a 4 member/1 vote situation. <span>People need to</span> wake up to the fact that being a part of a household but not voting has a marked impact on the overall outcome of elections, especially when the DFC electorate has dwindled so significantly. So from my standpoint, household aggregation is a generalized trend not restricted to Co-op housing, and it needs to be addressed, especially if the co-op wishes to increase Democratic Control and revenues through shareholder participation. <span>But let there be no mista</span>ke<span>&nbsp;about it: Co-op housing aggregation, if left unchecked, is tantamount to a t</span>y<span>pe of gerrymandering in the present political climate</span>, <span>and could </span>b<span>e interpreted as going against a number of [wiki:WikiPedia:Rochdale_principles Rochdale Principles]</span>. --["Users/ZacharyNorwood" Zach] </td> </tr> </table> </div> Davis Food Co-op/Election 2009http://daviswiki.org/Davis_Food_Co-op/Election_20092009-05-22 19:06:53ZacharyNorwood <div id="content" class="wikipage content"> Differences for Davis Food Co-op/Election 2009<p><strong></strong></p><table> <tr> <td> <span> Deletions are marked with - . </span> </td> <td> <span> Additions are marked with +. </span> </td> </tr> <tr> <td> Line 115: </td> <td> Line 115: </td> </tr> <tr> <td> <span>-</span> * Thanks for sharing your perspective, Ben. The Co-op Housing arrangements are the more salient examples of a general trend, in my estimation. Most households I’m acquainted with, including my own, have become aggregated into a 4 member/1 vote situation. My girlfriend has yet to follow my advice to 'disaggregate' into individual shareholder status herself, which speaks to the momentum of habit against change. I think people will slowly wake up to the fact that being a part of a household but not voting has a marked impact on the overall outcome of elections, especially when the DFC electorate has dwindled so significantly. So from my standpoint, household aggregation is a generalized trend not restricted to Co-op housing, and it needs to be addressed, especially if the co-op wishes to increase revenues through shareholder participation. Income level likely also factors into the equation, but that’s another topic. --["Users/ZacharyNorwood" Zach] </td> <td> <span>+</span> * Thanks for sharing your perspective, Ben. The Co-op Housing arrangements are the more salient examples of a general trend, in my estimation. Most households I’m acquainted with, including my own, have become aggregated into a 4 member/1 vote situation. My girlfriend has yet to follow my advice to 'disaggregate' into individual shareholder status herself, which speaks to the momentum of habit against change. I think people will slowly wake up to the fact that being a part of a household but not voting has a marked impact on the overall outcome of elections, especially when the DFC electorate has dwindled so significantly. So from my standpoint, household aggregation is a generalized trend not restricted to Co-op housing, and it needs to be addressed, especially if the co-op wishes to increase<span>&nbsp;Democratic Control and</span> revenues through shareholder participation. Income level likely also factors into the equation, but that’s another topic. --["Users/ZacharyNorwood" Zach] </td> </tr> </table> </div> Davis Food Co-op/Election 2009http://daviswiki.org/Davis_Food_Co-op/Election_20092009-05-22 19:00:59ZacharyNorwood(quick edit) <div id="content" class="wikipage content"> Differences for Davis Food Co-op/Election 2009<p><strong></strong></p><table> <tr> <td> <span> Deletions are marked with - . </span> </td> <td> <span> Additions are marked with +. </span> </td> </tr> <tr> <td> Line 115: </td> <td> Line 115: </td> </tr> <tr> <td> <span>-</span> * Thanks for sharing your perspective, Ben. The Co-op Housing arrangements are the more salient examples of a general trend, in my estimation. Most households I’m acquainted with, including my own, have become aggregated into a 4 member/1 vote situation. My girlfriend has yet to follow my advice to 'disaggregate' into individual shareholder status herself, which speaks to the momentum of habit against change. I think people will slowly wake up to the fact that being a part of a household but not voting has a marked impact on the overall outcome of elections, especially when the DFC electorate has dwindled so significantly. So from my standpoint, household aggregation is a generalized trend not restricted to Co-op housing, and it needs to be addressed, especially if the co-op wishes to increase revenues through shareholder participation. --["Users/ZacharyNorwood" Zach] </td> <td> <span>+</span> * Thanks for sharing your perspective, Ben. The Co-op Housing arrangements are the more salient examples of a general trend, in my estimation. Most households I’m acquainted with, including my own, have become aggregated into a 4 member/1 vote situation. My girlfriend has yet to follow my advice to 'disaggregate' into individual shareholder status herself, which speaks to the momentum of habit against change. I think people will slowly wake up to the fact that being a part of a household but not voting has a marked impact on the overall outcome of elections, especially when the DFC electorate has dwindled so significantly. So from my standpoint, household aggregation is a generalized trend not restricted to Co-op housing, and it needs to be addressed, especially if the co-op wishes to increase revenues through shareholder participation<span>. Income level likely also factors into the equation, but that’s another topic</span>. --["Users/ZacharyNorwood" Zach] </td> </tr> </table> </div> Davis Food Co-op/Election 2009http://daviswiki.org/Davis_Food_Co-op/Election_20092009-05-22 19:00:03ZacharyNorwood(quick edit) <div id="content" class="wikipage content"> Differences for Davis Food Co-op/Election 2009<p><strong></strong></p><table> <tr> <td> <span> Deletions are marked with - . </span> </td> <td> <span> Additions are marked with +. </span> </td> </tr> <tr> <td> Line 115: </td> <td> Line 115: </td> </tr> <tr> <td> <span>-</span> * Thanks for sharing your perspective, Ben. The Co-op Housing arrangements are the more salient examples of a general trend, in my estimation. Most households I’m acquainted with, including my own, have become aggregated into a 4 member/1 vote situation. My girlfriend has yet to follow my advice to 'disaggregate' into individual shareholder status herself, which speaks to the momentum of habit against change. I think people will slowly wake up to the fact that being a part of a household but not voting has a marked impact on the overall outcome of elections, especially when the DFC electorate has dwindled so significantly. So from my standpoint, household aggregation is a generalized trend not restricted to Co-op housing. --["Users/ZacharyNorwood" Zach] </td> <td> <span>+</span> * Thanks for sharing your perspective, Ben. The Co-op Housing arrangements are the more salient examples of a general trend, in my estimation. Most households I’m acquainted with, including my own, have become aggregated into a 4 member/1 vote situation. My girlfriend has yet to follow my advice to 'disaggregate' into individual shareholder status herself, which speaks to the momentum of habit against change. I think people will slowly wake up to the fact that being a part of a household but not voting has a marked impact on the overall outcome of elections, especially when the DFC electorate has dwindled so significantly. So from my standpoint, household aggregation is a generalized trend not restricted to Co-op housing<span>, and it needs to be addressed, especially if the co-op wishes to increase revenues through shareholder participation</span>. --["Users/ZacharyNorwood" Zach] </td> </tr> </table> </div> Davis Food Co-op/Election 2009http://daviswiki.org/Davis_Food_Co-op/Election_20092009-05-22 18:58:37ZacharyNorwood(quick edit) <div id="content" class="wikipage content"> Differences for Davis Food Co-op/Election 2009<p><strong></strong></p><table> <tr> <td> <span> Deletions are marked with - . </span> </td> <td> <span> Additions are marked with +. </span> </td> </tr> <tr> <td> Line 115: </td> <td> Line 115: </td> </tr> <tr> <td> <span>-</span> * Thanks for sharing your perspective, Ben. The Co-op Housing arrangements are the more salient examples of a general trend, in my estimation. Most households I’m acquainted with, including my own, have become aggregated into a 4 member/1 vote situation. My girlfriend has yet to follow my advice to 'disaggregate' into individual shareholder status herself, which speaks to the momentum of habit against change. I think people will slowly wake up to the fact that being a part of a household but not voting has a <span>significant</span> impact on the overall outcome of elections, especially when the DFC electorate has dwindled so significantly. So from my standpoint, household aggregation is a generalized trend not restricted to Co-op housing. --["Users/ZacharyNorwood" Zach] </td> <td> <span>+</span> * Thanks for sharing your perspective, Ben. The Co-op Housing arrangements are the more salient examples of a general trend, in my estimation. Most households I’m acquainted with, including my own, have become aggregated into a 4 member/1 vote situation. My girlfriend has yet to follow my advice to 'disaggregate' into individual shareholder status herself, which speaks to the momentum of habit against change. I think people will slowly wake up to the fact that being a part of a household but not voting has a <span>marked</span> impact on the overall outcome of elections, especially when the DFC electorate has dwindled so significantly. So from my standpoint, household aggregation is a generalized trend not restricted to Co-op housing. --["Users/ZacharyNorwood" Zach] </td> </tr> </table> </div> Davis Food Co-op/Election 2009http://daviswiki.org/Davis_Food_Co-op/Election_20092009-05-22 18:57:40ZacharyNorwoodre: Ben <div id="content" class="wikipage content"> Differences for Davis Food Co-op/Election 2009<p><strong></strong></p><table> <tr> <td> <span> Deletions are marked with - . </span> </td> <td> <span> Additions are marked with +. </span> </td> </tr> <tr> <td> Line 115: </td> <td> Line 115: </td> </tr> <tr> <td> </td> <td> <span>+ * Thanks for sharing your perspective, Ben. The Co-op Housing arrangements are the more salient examples of a general trend, in my estimation. Most households I’m acquainted with, including my own, have become aggregated into a 4 member/1 vote situation. My girlfriend has yet to follow my advice to 'disaggregate' into individual shareholder status herself, which speaks to the momentum of habit against change. I think people will slowly wake up to the fact that being a part of a household but not voting has a significant impact on the overall outcome of elections, especially when the DFC electorate has dwindled so significantly. So from my standpoint, household aggregation is a generalized trend not restricted to Co-op housing. --["Users/ZacharyNorwood" Zach]</span> </td> </tr> </table> </div> Davis Food Co-op/Election 2009http://daviswiki.org/Davis_Food_Co-op/Election_20092009-05-22 17:55:36BenPearl <div id="content" class="wikipage content"> Differences for Davis Food Co-op/Election 2009<p><strong></strong></p><table> <tr> <td> <span> Deletions are marked with - . </span> </td> <td> <span> Additions are marked with +. </span> </td> </tr> <tr> <td> Line 114: </td> <td> Line 114: </td> </tr> <tr> <td> </td> <td> <span>+ *I'd like to put out there that I joined the DFC in 2001 or 2 (can't quite remember), and have retained my individual vote/status through 'two tours of duty' living in Davis Co-ops. That said, living Co-ops are a relative anomaly among households in Davis and the DFC membership (although good for discussion, in that they are a somewhat exaggerated form of the normal house). -- ["Users/BenPearl" Ben]</span> </td> </tr> </table> </div> Davis Food Co-op/Election 2009http://daviswiki.org/Davis_Food_Co-op/Election_20092009-05-22 10:09:12ZacharyNorwood(quick edit) <div id="content" class="wikipage content"> Differences for Davis Food Co-op/Election 2009<p><strong></strong></p><table> <tr> <td> <span> Deletions are marked with - . </span> </td> <td> <span> Additions are marked with +. </span> </td> </tr> <tr> <td> Line 120: </td> <td> Line 120: </td> </tr> <tr> <td> <span>-</span> * The cooperative principle of Democratic Control bars me from making decisions based solely on my own passionate interests. I may feel strongly about changes taking place at the co-op, but the entire cooperative community would have to come to support my views not by blunt persuasion, but by exercising their own reason. I’ve assured already that none of my views are solely held by me—before I publicly write anything, I first deliberate on the matter for some time, then I test my positions by sharing them with a number of members, from whom I invite criticism. So while it may seem my views are comparatively strong, they have actually been tempered by numerous members whose views I faithfully represent, independent<span>&nbsp;of</span> my own. --["Users/ZacharyNorwood" Zach] </td> <td> <span>+</span> * The cooperative principle of Democratic Control bars me from making decisions based solely on my own passionate interests. I may feel strongly about changes taking place at the co-op, but the entire cooperative community would have to come to support my views not by blunt persuasion, but by exercising their own reason. I’ve assured already that none of my views are solely held by me—before I publicly write anything, I first deliberate on the matter for some time, then I test my positions by sharing them with a number of members, from whom I invite criticism. So while it may seem my views are comparatively strong, they have actually been tempered by numerous members whose views I faithfully represent, independent<span>ly from</span> my own. --["Users/ZacharyNorwood" Zach] </td> </tr> </table> </div> Davis Food Co-op/Election 2009http://daviswiki.org/Davis_Food_Co-op/Election_20092009-05-22 10:07:35ZacharyNorwood(quick edit) <div id="content" class="wikipage content"> Differences for Davis Food Co-op/Election 2009<p><strong></strong></p><table> <tr> <td> <span> Deletions are marked with - . </span> </td> <td> <span> Additions are marked with +. </span> </td> </tr> <tr> <td> Line 113: </td> <td> Line 113: </td> </tr> <tr> <td> <span>-</span> * Heya Doug. Yes, my point is not about eligibility, but about allowing a structure to persist that disempowers households. People can join a household without being a voting member, and yet they think themselves "members." Although people are eligible to become voting members, they often aggregate into households where only one person—the shareholder of the household—votes, while the rest do not. I don’t think it’s accidental that this trend has been overlooked. An example given in my pamphlet is the Tri Co-op Housing arrangement on campus, consisting of three separate cooperative housing units, each with multiple students taking advantage of "household membership," yet each household only gets one vote. The implications of this <span>arrangement should be clear</span>. --["Users/ZacharyNorwood" Zach] </td> <td> <span>+</span> * Heya Doug. Yes, my point is not about eligibility, but about allowing a structure to persist that disempowers households. People can join a household without being a voting member, and yet they think themselves "members." Although people are eligible to become voting members, they often aggregate into households where only one person—the shareholder of the household—votes, while the rest do not. I don’t think it’s accidental that this trend has been overlooked. An example given in my pamphlet is the Tri Co-op Housing arrangement on campus, consisting of three separate cooperative housing units, each with multiple students taking advantage of "household membership," yet each household only gets one vote. The implications of this <span>"one vote per Co-op housing unit" should be clear, from the standpoint of political empowerment</span>. --["Users/ZacharyNorwood" Zach] </td> </tr> </table> </div> Davis Food Co-op/Election 2009http://daviswiki.org/Davis_Food_Co-op/Election_20092009-05-22 10:06:16ZacharyNorwood(quick edit) <div id="content" class="wikipage content"> Differences for Davis Food Co-op/Election 2009<p><strong></strong></p><table> <tr> <td> <span> Deletions are marked with - . </span> </td> <td> <span> Additions are marked with +. </span> </td> </tr> <tr> <td> Line 113: </td> <td> Line 113: </td> </tr> <tr> <td> <span>-</span> * Heya Doug. Yes, my point is not about eligibility, but about allowing a structure to persist that disempowers households. People can join a household without being a voting member, and yet they think themselves "members." Although people are eligible to become voting members, they often aggregate into households where only one person—the shareholder of the household—votes, while the rest do not. I don’t think it’s accidental that this trend has been overlooked. --["Users/ZacharyNorwood" Zach] </td> <td> <span>+</span> * Heya Doug. Yes, my point is not about eligibility, but about allowing a structure to persist that disempowers households. People can join a household without being a voting member, and yet they think themselves "members." Although people are eligible to become voting members, they often aggregate into households where only one person—the shareholder of the household—votes, while the rest do not. I don’t think it’s accidental that this trend has been overlooked<span>. An example given in my pamphlet is the Tri Co-op Housing arrangement on campus, consisting of three separate cooperative housing units, each with multiple students taking advantage of "household membership," yet each household only gets one vote. The implications of this arrangement should be clear</span>. --["Users/ZacharyNorwood" Zach] </td> </tr> </table> </div> Davis Food Co-op/Election 2009http://daviswiki.org/Davis_Food_Co-op/Election_20092009-05-22 09:57:56ZacharyNorwoodre: Doug <div id="content" class="wikipage content"> Differences for Davis Food Co-op/Election 2009<p><strong></strong></p><table> <tr> <td> <span> Deletions are marked with - . </span> </td> <td> <span> Additions are marked with +. </span> </td> </tr> <tr> <td> Line 112: </td> <td> Line 112: </td> </tr> <tr> <td> <span>-</span> * Everyone in a California household '''is''' able to join the Co-op and vote, regardless of how many other household members are already shareholders. One shareholder, one vote is the way we implement [http://www.davisfood.coop/whatis.html#principles Democratic Member Control]. Many food (and other) cooperatives don't allow "household members," or only allow one additional shopper per membership; we decided long ago to allow as many "members" as live in the household of a consumer shareholder. --[Users/Doug<span>&nbsp;</span>Walter] </td> <td> <span>+</span> * Everyone in a California household '''is''' able to join the Co-op and vote, regardless of how many other household members are already shareholders. One shareholder, one vote is the way we implement [http://www.davisfood.coop/whatis.html#principles Democratic Member Control]. Many food (and other) cooperatives don't allow "household members," or only allow one additional shopper per membership; we decided long ago to allow as many "members" as live in the household of a consumer shareholder. --[<span>"</span>Users/DougWalter<span>"</span>]<span><br> + * Heya Doug. Yes, my point is not about eligibility, but about allowing a structure to persist that disempowers households. People can join a household without being a voting member, and yet they think themselves "members." Although people are eligible to become voting members, they often aggregate into households where only one person—the shareholder of the household—votes, while the rest do not. I don’t think it’s accidental that this trend has been overlooked. --["Users/ZacharyNorwood" Zach]</span> </td> </tr> </table> </div> Davis Food Co-op/Election 2009http://daviswiki.org/Davis_Food_Co-op/Election_20092009-05-21 22:20:43DougWalterMembership is available to all under terms of the Bylaws <div id="content" class="wikipage content"> Differences for Davis Food Co-op/Election 2009<p><strong></strong></p><table> <tr> <td> <span> Deletions are marked with - . </span> </td> <td> <span> Additions are marked with +. </span> </td> </tr> <tr> <td> Line 112: </td> <td> Line 112: </td> </tr> <tr> <td> <span>- </span> </td> <td> <span>+ * Everyone in a California household '''is''' able to join the Co-op and vote, regardless of how many other household members are already shareholders. One shareholder, one vote is the way we implement [http://www.davisfood.coop/whatis.html#principles Democratic Member Control]. Many food (and other) cooperatives don't allow "household members," or only allow one additional shopper per membership; we decided long ago to allow as many "members" as live in the household of a consumer shareholder. --[Users/Doug Walter]</span> </td> </tr> </table> </div> Davis Food Co-op/Election 2009http://daviswiki.org/Davis_Food_Co-op/Election_20092009-05-21 21:45:41TeddyConsolacion <div id="content" class="wikipage content"> Differences for Davis Food Co-op/Election 2009<p><strong></strong></p><table> <tr> <td> <span> Deletions are marked with - . </span> </td> <td> <span> Additions are marked with +. </span> </td> </tr> <tr> <td> Line 134: </td> <td> Line 134: </td> </tr> <tr> <td> </td> <td> <span>+ ------<br> + ''2009-05-21'' [[nbsp]]<br> + Hello April,<br> + <br> + ''ADVOCACY''<br> + ''What guidelines would you have for yourself (and other directors) for advocacy around issues you feel strongly about? ''<br> + <br> + Having never served on the DFC BOD before, I do not have specific guidelines to offer for specific situations, but for myself, I do have two guidelines for contentious issues. First, respect is paramount. Communication is a difficult process in the best-case scenario, and issues that elicit strong emotional reactions are only going to be more complex to navigate. I believe that meaningful and productive communication can really only be achieved by being respectful of other perspectives. Second, balance is essential. Because directors are elected and represent the members, directors should act in the best interest of the members. With a diverse membership group as the DFC, "best interest of members" is a balancing act alone. In addition, the directors must also act to ensure the financial stability of the DFC. Thus, directors are always balancing the best interests of members with the best interest for the financial stability of DFC (which at times may be one in the same or at other times at odds) within the value systems of the cooperative principles. Truly a difficult challenge for all directors, and one that I am fully willing to meet.<br> + <br> + ''GOVERNANCE''<br> + ''Which aspects of Policy Governance are you comfortable with? When might you feel tempted to bend the rules and how will you deal with such situations?''<br> + <br> + I do not have a problem with the structure of Policy Governance and do not foresee myself wanting to change (or bend) the rules.<br> + <br> + ''LEADERSHIP''<br> + ''What aspects of board work interest you most? Where might you provide leadership?''<br> + <br> + I am interested in growing membership and member linkage. My background is in research psychology where I have designed studies, developed surveys, analyzed data, and summarized the results for varying audiences. I believe these skills can benefit the DFC BOD understand the barriers and incentives behind exercising their membership rights or getting more involved with the cooperative.<br> + <br> + ''MEMBER LINKAGE''<br> + ''How do we facilitate participation by members with varying levels of commitment, time, and experience? What methods of member linkage would you like to explore? ...What subgroup of members might you feel most influenced by and accountable to?''<br> + <br> + Because self-selection is often a problem when it comes to surveys, the ability to infer that a sample (i.e., people who fill out the survey) reflects the larger population (i.e., all DFC members) may be questionable. One way to deal with self-selection is to randomly choose a sample of members (there are formulas to compute how many people are needed to reflect the population) and send a survey to their home. With an adequate response rate of random members, opinions and attitudes from this group should vary in levels of commitment, time and experience. I think that the type of information the DFC BOD want to examine should determine what methods are utilized. Surveys are great at gathering quick measures of attitudes ("trends") while focus groups are great at delving into the "why's" of whatever trends exist. As a director, I know that I am accountable and will always listen to the members' input. --["Users/TeddyConsolacion" Teddy Consolacion]</span> </td> </tr> </table> </div> Davis Food Co-op/Election 2009http://daviswiki.org/Davis_Food_Co-op/Election_20092009-05-21 01:36:37TeddyConsolacionRespose to R&amp;D and DP <div id="content" class="wikipage content"> Differences for Davis Food Co-op/Election 2009<p><strong></strong></p><table> <tr> <td> <span> Deletions are marked with - . </span> </td> <td> <span> Additions are marked with +. </span> </td> </tr> <tr> <td> Line 38: </td> <td> Line 38: </td> </tr> <tr> <td> <span>-</span> * I apologize for missing the May BOD meeting. I planned on attending but was ill with either a severe cold or mild flu the entire weekend prior to the meeting. I chose to remain at home rather than expose the board of directors and present members to my virus. I erred on the side of public health safety. I do not underestimate the steep learning curve to comprehend fully all of the duties and expectations that accompany a director position, and I am dedicated to investing that time. In the meantime, I have read the minutes for the April meeting (as soon as May is posted, I will read those) to familiarize myself with the topics addressed as well as reading the helpful articles, bylaws and policies posted on the DFC website. I do plan on attending the June 1 meeting. -Teddy<span>&nbsp;</span>Consolacion </td> <td> <span>+</span> * I apologize for missing the May BOD meeting. I planned on attending but was ill with either a severe cold or mild flu the entire weekend prior to the meeting. I chose to remain at home rather than expose the board of directors and present members to my virus. I erred on the side of public health safety. I do not underestimate the steep learning curve to comprehend fully all of the duties and expectations that accompany a director position, and I am dedicated to investing that time. In the meantime, I have read the minutes for the April meeting (as soon as May is posted, I will read those) to familiarize myself with the topics addressed as well as reading the helpful articles, bylaws and policies posted on the DFC website. I do plan on attending the June 1 meeting. -<span>-["Users/</span>TeddyConsolacion<span>" Teddy Consolacion]</span> </td> </tr> <tr> <td> Line 44: </td> <td> Line 44: </td> </tr> <tr> <td> </td> <td> <span>+ ------<br> + ''2009-05-20'' [[nbsp]] Hello RocksandDirt, The range of issues addressed in the proposals vary quite widely. Only the first three proposals out of eight contain arguments for and against (two are already mentioned above). I hope you are able to spend some time to familiarize yourself with them all and to vote. --["Users/TeddyConsolacion" Teddy Consolacion]</span> </td> </tr> <tr> <td> Line 82: </td> <td> Line 84: </td> </tr> <tr> <td> </td> <td> <span>+ ''2009-05-20'' [[nbsp]]<br> + Hello Doreen,<br> + <br> + ''Are you willing and able to give the time it takes to do this volunteer work? How will you fit your Board duties into your schedule?''<br> + <br> + I am familiar with the time commitment associated with Board duties, and I am fully willing and able to accept that at least an additional 10 hours of my month will be dedicated to them. Primarily, my evenings will be when I am able to attend to Board duties.<br> + <br> + ''Are you willing and able to stay open-minded (sometimes also known as non-judgemental)? What prior opinions do you have that might prevent you from being fully open-minded?''<br> + <br> + I am always willing to listen and understand alternative perspectives from my own because it is one of the best ways for me to delve into the depths of any particular issue. By encouraging alternative perspectives from my own, I hope to create an open atmosphere where people can approach me and discuss any opinions I have. --["Users/TeddyConsolacion" Teddy Consolacion]<br> + <br> + ------</span> </td> </tr> <tr> <td> Line 97: </td> <td> Line 111: </td> </tr> <tr> <td> <span>- <br> - <br> - ------</span> </td> <td> </td> </tr> </table> </div> Davis Food Co-op/Election 2009http://daviswiki.org/Davis_Food_Co-op/Election_20092009-05-20 15:37:38ZacharyNorwood(quick edit) <div id="content" class="wikipage content"> Differences for Davis Food Co-op/Election 2009<p><strong></strong></p><table> <tr> <td> <span> Deletions are marked with - . </span> </td> <td> <span> Additions are marked with +. </span> </td> </tr> <tr> <td> Line 59: </td> <td> Line 59: </td> </tr> <tr> <td> <span>-</span> * Yes, but not at the expense of running roughshod over cooperative principles and values. Was the board open-minded when they sent out a tendentious flyer in favor of renovation? I bring this up not for the sake of chastening those involved, but simply as an illustration of a timely lapse in open-mindedness when it counted most. Is it open-minded to accept changes to the store that are not energy efficient, wasteful, or outside the general mission of providing healthy foods? Though I’m certain there are plausible sounding arguments in support of the open freezer being energy-efficient, or the food bars not really being wasteful, even though vast amounts of food are thrown out, I would think agreeing with these arguments would be a lapse in judgment, not an act of open-mindedness. So having an open mind is an important ideal, but we have to ask ourselves what we’re being open-minded ''about.'' We cannot be open-minded to the extent that we rationalize away the basic values and purpose of a cooperative organization. I’m afraid in this context, ''open-minded'' can come to mean ''conciliation''. Being persuaded by sp<span>urious arguments,</span> not scrutinizing them in relation to cooperative principles--<span>&nbsp;</span>that’s not open-mindedness, that’s narrowmindedness. --["Users/ZacharyNorwood" Zach] </td> <td> <span>+</span> * Yes, but not at the expense of running roughshod over cooperative principles and values. Was the board open-minded when they sent out a tendentious flyer in favor of renovation? I bring this up not for the sake of chastening those involved, but simply as an illustration of a timely lapse in open-mindedness when it counted most. Is it open-minded to accept changes to the store that are not energy efficient, wasteful, or outside the general mission of providing healthy foods? Though I’m certain there are plausible sounding arguments in support of the open freezer being energy-efficient, or the food bars not really being wasteful, even though vast amounts of food are thrown out, I would think agreeing with these arguments would be a lapse in judgment, not an act of open-mindedness. So having an open mind is an important ideal, but we have to ask ourselves what we’re being open-minded ''about.'' We cannot be open-minded to the extent that we rationalize away the basic values and purpose of a cooperative organization. I’m afraid in this context, ''open-minded'' can come to mean ''conciliation''. Being persuaded by sp<span>ecious arguments and</span> not scrutinizing them in relation to cooperative principles--that’s not open-mindedness, that’s narrowmindedness. --["Users/ZacharyNorwood" Zach] </td> </tr> </table> </div> Davis Food Co-op/Election 2009http://daviswiki.org/Davis_Food_Co-op/Election_20092009-05-20 14:15:55EdWins(quick edit) <div id="content" class="wikipage content"> Differences for Davis Food Co-op/Election 2009<p><strong></strong></p><table> <tr> <td> <span> Deletions are marked with - . </span> </td> <td> <span> Additions are marked with +. </span> </td> </tr> <tr> <td> Line 100: </td> <td> Line 100: </td> </tr> <tr> <td> <span>- ''2009-05-19 20:56:37'' [[nbsp]] Addendum: Oops, wiki didn’t keep the “bold” referred to above. The following phrases were in “bold”. “independent oversight body”, “ultimately monitor their own performance…”, and “staff-based power struggles”. --["Users/DallasKassing"]</span> </td> <td> <span>+ </span> </td> </tr> </table> </div> Davis Food Co-op/Election 2009http://daviswiki.org/Davis_Food_Co-op/Election_20092009-05-20 13:12:00ZacharyNorwood(quick edit) <div id="content" class="wikipage content"> Differences for Davis Food Co-op/Election 2009<p><strong></strong></p><table> <tr> <td> <span> Deletions are marked with - . </span> </td> <td> <span> Additions are marked with +. </span> </td> </tr> <tr> <td> Line 112: </td> <td> Line 112: </td> </tr> <tr> <td> <span>-</span> * There are many approaches to running a board. I’ve been sitting on boards since I graduated from college, and as an undergraduate, I was an officer in many honor societies that functioned with bylaws, a constitution, and rules of orders. Although most of these boards were academic, they all followed "rules of orders" differently, with different styles, degrees of frankness, flexibility, etc. I’ve been on a board where people dress<span>&nbsp;professionally and spea</span>k about matters of business. This was stifling to me, but I adapted without conforming at the level of principle. I’m not sure why there’s such a fixation on this particular brand of governance, which is corporate in style. The website you link, for example, says that "The [policy governance] model covers all legitimate intentions of '''corporate governance codes''' (including Sarbanes-Oxley), but in a far more comprehensive, theory-based manner" (emphasis added). Why corporate? The co-op may be incorporated, but that does not mean it has to act like a corporation. On the contrary, it needs to act in every way like a co-operative. Even so, I have and will act in accordance with policy governance, as it presently exists, but I would urge the board to reconsider how it markets this style of organization to the members, many of whom may be alienated by its corporate nature. --["Users/ZacharyNorwood" Zach] </td> <td> <span>+</span> * There are many approaches to running a board. I’ve been sitting on boards since I graduated from college, and as an undergraduate, I was an officer in many honor societies that functioned with bylaws, a constitution, and rules of orders. Although most of these boards were academic, they all followed "rules of orders" differently, with different styles, degrees of frankness, flexibility, etc. I’ve been on a board where people dress<span>ed professionally and spo</span>k<span>e only</span> about matters of business. This was stifling to me, but I adapted without conforming at the level of principle. I’m not sure why there’s such a fixation on this particular brand of governance, which is corporate in style. The website you link, for example, says that "The [policy governance] model covers all legitimate intentions of '''corporate governance codes''' (including Sarbanes-Oxley), but in a far more comprehensive, theory-based manner" (emphasis added). Why corporate? The co-op may be incorporated, but that does not mean it has to act like a corporation. On the contrary, it needs to act in every way like a co-operative. Even so, I have and will act in accordance with policy governance, as it presently exists, but I would urge the board to reconsider how it markets this style of organization to the members, many of whom may be alienated by its corporate nature. --["Users/ZacharyNorwood" Zach] </td> </tr> </table> </div> Davis Food Co-op/Election 2009http://daviswiki.org/Davis_Food_Co-op/Election_20092009-05-20 13:10:55ZacharyNorwood(quick edit) <div id="content" class="wikipage content"> Differences for Davis Food Co-op/Election 2009<p><strong></strong></p><table> <tr> <td> <span> Deletions are marked with - . </span> </td> <td> <span> Additions are marked with +. </span> </td> </tr> <tr> <td> Line 112: </td> <td> Line 112: </td> </tr> <tr> <td> <span>-</span> * There are many approaches to running a board. I’ve been sitting on boards since I graduated from college, and as an undergraduate, I was an officer in many honor<span>s</span> societies that functioned with bylaws, a constitution, and rules of orders. Although most of these boards were academic, they all followed "rules of orders" differently, with different styles, degrees of frankness, flexibility, etc. I’ve been on a board where people dress professionally and speak about matters of business. This was stifling to me, but I adapted without conforming at the level of principle. I’m not sure why there’s such a fixation on this particular brand of governance, which is corporate in style. The website you link, for example, says that "The [policy governance] model covers all legitimate intentions of '''corporate governance codes''' (including Sarbanes-Oxley), but in a far more comprehensive, theory-based manner" (emphasis added). Why corporate? The co-op may be incorporated, but that does not mean it has to act like a corporation. On the contrary, it needs to act in every way like a co-operative. Even so, I have and will act in accordance with policy governance, as it presently exists, but I would urge the board to reconsider how it markets this style of organization to the members, many of whom may be alienated by its corporate nature. --["Users/ZacharyNorwood" Zach] </td> <td> <span>+</span> * There are many approaches to running a board. I’ve been sitting on boards since I graduated from college, and as an undergraduate, I was an officer in many honor societies that functioned with bylaws, a constitution, and rules of orders. Although most of these boards were academic, they all followed "rules of orders" differently, with different styles, degrees of frankness, flexibility, etc. I’ve been on a board where people dress professionally and speak about matters of business. This was stifling to me, but I adapted without conforming at the level of principle. I’m not sure why there’s such a fixation on this particular brand of governance, which is corporate in style. The website you link, for example, says that "The [policy governance] model covers all legitimate intentions of '''corporate governance codes''' (including Sarbanes-Oxley), but in a far more comprehensive, theory-based manner" (emphasis added). Why corporate? The co-op may be incorporated, but that does not mean it has to act like a corporation. On the contrary, it needs to act in every way like a co-operative. Even so, I have and will act in accordance with policy governance, as it presently exists, but I would urge the board to reconsider how it markets this style of organization to the members, many of whom may be alienated by its corporate nature. --["Users/ZacharyNorwood" Zach] </td> </tr> </table> </div> Davis Food Co-op/Election 2009http://daviswiki.org/Davis_Food_Co-op/Election_20092009-05-20 13:10:00ZacharyNorwood(quick edit) <div id="content" class="wikipage content"> Differences for Davis Food Co-op/Election 2009<p><strong></strong></p><table> <tr> <td> <span> Deletions are marked with - . </span> </td> <td> <span> Additions are marked with +. </span> </td> </tr> <tr> <td> Line 112: </td> <td> Line 112: </td> </tr> <tr> <td> <span>-</span> * There are many approaches to running a board. I’ve been sitting on boards since I graduated from college, and as an undergraduate, I was an officer in many honors societies that functioned with bylaws, a constitution, and rules of orders. <span>While most of my board experience is academic, every board</span> followed "rules of orders" differently, with different styles, degrees of frankness, flexibility, etc. I’ve been on a board where people dress professionally and speak about matters of business. This was stifling to me, but I adapted without conforming at the level of principle. I’m not sure why there’s such a fixation on this particular brand of governance, which is corporate in style. The website you link, for example, says that "The [policy governance] model covers all legitimate intentions of '''corporate governance codes''' (including Sarbanes-Oxley), but in a far more comprehensive, theory-based manner" (emphasis added). Why corporate? The co-op may be incorporated, but that does not mean it has to act like a corporation. On the contrary, it needs to act in every way like a co-operative. Even so, I have and will act in accordance with policy governance, as it presently exists, but I would urge the board to reconsider how it markets this style of organization to the members, many of whom may be alienated by its corporate nature. --["Users/ZacharyNorwood" Zach] </td> <td> <span>+</span> * There are many approaches to running a board. I’ve been sitting on boards since I graduated from college, and as an undergraduate, I was an officer in many honors societies that functioned with bylaws, a constitution, and rules of orders. <span>Although most of these boards were academic, they all</span> followed "rules of orders" differently, with different styles, degrees of frankness, flexibility, etc. I’ve been on a board where people dress professionally and speak about matters of business. This was stifling to me, but I adapted without conforming at the level of principle. I’m not sure why there’s such a fixation on this particular brand of governance, which is corporate in style. The website you link, for example, says that "The [policy governance] model covers all legitimate intentions of '''corporate governance codes''' (including Sarbanes-Oxley), but in a far more comprehensive, theory-based manner" (emphasis added). Why corporate? The co-op may be incorporated, but that does not mean it has to act like a corporation. On the contrary, it needs to act in every way like a co-operative. Even so, I have and will act in accordance with policy governance, as it presently exists, but I would urge the board to reconsider how it markets this style of organization to the members, many of whom may be alienated by its corporate nature. --["Users/ZacharyNorwood" Zach] </td> </tr> </table> </div> Davis Food Co-op/Election 2009http://daviswiki.org/Davis_Food_Co-op/Election_20092009-05-20 13:08:58ZacharyNorwood(quick edit) <div id="content" class="wikipage content"> Differences for Davis Food Co-op/Election 2009<p><strong></strong></p><table> <tr> <td> <span> Deletions are marked with - . </span> </td> <td> <span> Additions are marked with +. </span> </td> </tr> <tr> <td> Line 112: </td> <td> Line 112: </td> </tr> <tr> <td> <span>-</span> * There are many approaches to running a board. I’ve been sitting on boards since I graduated from college, and as an undergraduate, I was an officer in many honors societies that function with bylaws, a constitution, and rules of orders. While most of my board experience is academic, every board followed "rules of orders" differently, with different styles, degrees of frankness, flexibility, etc. I’ve been on a board where people dress professionally and speak about matters of business. This was stifling to me, but I adapted without conforming at the level of principle. I’m not sure why there’s such a fixation on this particular brand of governance, which is corporate in style. The website you link, for example, says that "The [policy governance] model covers all legitimate intentions of '''corporate governance codes''' (including Sarbanes-Oxley), but in a far more comprehensive, theory-based manner" (emphasis added). Why corporate? The co-op may be incorporated, but that does not mean it has to act like a corporation. On the contrary, it needs to act in every way like a co-operative. Even so, I have and will act in accordance with policy governance, as it presently exists, but I would urge the board to reconsider how it markets this style of organization to the members, many of whom may be alienated by its corporate nature. --["Users/ZacharyNorwood" Zach] </td> <td> <span>+</span> * There are many approaches to running a board. I’ve been sitting on boards since I graduated from college, and as an undergraduate, I was an officer in many honors societies that function<span>ed</span> with bylaws, a constitution, and rules of orders. While most of my board experience is academic, every board followed "rules of orders" differently, with different styles, degrees of frankness, flexibility, etc. I’ve been on a board where people dress professionally and speak about matters of business. This was stifling to me, but I adapted without conforming at the level of principle. I’m not sure why there’s such a fixation on this particular brand of governance, which is corporate in style. The website you link, for example, says that "The [policy governance] model covers all legitimate intentions of '''corporate governance codes''' (including Sarbanes-Oxley), but in a far more comprehensive, theory-based manner" (emphasis added). Why corporate? The co-op may be incorporated, but that does not mean it has to act like a corporation. On the contrary, it needs to act in every way like a co-operative. Even so, I have and will act in accordance with policy governance, as it presently exists, but I would urge the board to reconsider how it markets this style of organization to the members, many of whom may be alienated by its corporate nature. --["Users/ZacharyNorwood" Zach] </td> </tr> </table> </div> Davis Food Co-op/Election 2009http://daviswiki.org/Davis_Food_Co-op/Election_20092009-05-20 13:08:39ZacharyNorwood(quick edit) <div id="content" class="wikipage content"> Differences for Davis Food Co-op/Election 2009<p><strong></strong></p><table> <tr> <td> <span> Deletions are marked with - . </span> </td> <td> <span> Additions are marked with +. </span> </td> </tr> <tr> <td> Line 112: </td> <td> Line 112: </td> </tr> <tr> <td> <span>-</span> * There are many approaches to running a board. I’ve been sitting on boards since I graduated from college, and as an undergraduate, I was an officer in many honors societies. While most of my board experience is academic, every board followed "rules of orders" differently, with different styles, degrees of frankness, flexibility, etc. I’ve been on a board where people dress professionally and speak about matters of business. This was stifling to me, but I adapted without conforming at the level of principle. I’m not sure why there’s such a fixation on this particular brand of governance, which is corporate in style. The website you link, for example, says that "The [policy governance] model covers all legitimate intentions of '''corporate governance codes''' (including Sarbanes-Oxley), but in a far more comprehensive, theory-based manner" (emphasis added). Why corporate? The co-op may be incorporated, but that does not mean it has to act like a corporation. On the contrary, it needs to act in every way like a co-operative. Even so, I have and will act in accordance with policy governance, as it presently exists, but I would urge the board to reconsider how it markets this style of organization to the members, many of whom may be alienated by its corporate nature. --["Users/ZacharyNorwood" Zach] </td> <td> <span>+</span> * There are many approaches to running a board. I’ve been sitting on boards since I graduated from college, and as an undergraduate, I was an officer in many honors societie<span>s that function with bylaws, a constitution, and rules of order</span>s. While most of my board experience is academic, every board followed "rules of orders" differently, with different styles, degrees of frankness, flexibility, etc. I’ve been on a board where people dress professionally and speak about matters of business. This was stifling to me, but I adapted without conforming at the level of principle. I’m not sure why there’s such a fixation on this particular brand of governance, which is corporate in style. The website you link, for example, says that "The [policy governance] model covers all legitimate intentions of '''corporate governance codes''' (including Sarbanes-Oxley), but in a far more comprehensive, theory-based manner" (emphasis added). Why corporate? The co-op may be incorporated, but that does not mean it has to act like a corporation. On the contrary, it needs to act in every way like a co-operative. Even so, I have and will act in accordance with policy governance, as it presently exists, but I would urge the board to reconsider how it markets this style of organization to the members, many of whom may be alienated by its corporate nature. --["Users/ZacharyNorwood" Zach] </td> </tr> </table> </div> Davis Food Co-op/Election 2009http://daviswiki.org/Davis_Food_Co-op/Election_20092009-05-20 13:08:09ZacharyNorwood(quick edit) <div id="content" class="wikipage content"> Differences for Davis Food Co-op/Election 2009<p><strong></strong></p><table> <tr> <td> <span> Deletions are marked with - . </span> </td> <td> <span> Additions are marked with +. </span> </td> </tr> <tr> <td> Line 112: </td> <td> Line 112: </td> </tr> <tr> <td> <span>-</span> * There are many approaches to running a board. I’ve been sitting on boards since I graduated from college, and <span>while most of them were academic, they all</span> followed "rules of orders" differently, with different styles<span>&nbsp;and</span> degrees of frankness. I’ve been on a board where people dress professionally and speak about matters of business. This was stifling to me, but I adapted without conforming at the level of principle. I’m not sure why there’s such a fixation on this particular brand of governance, which is corporate in style. The website you link, for example, says that "The [policy governance] model covers all legitimate intentions of '''corporate governance codes''' (including Sarbanes-Oxley), but in a far more comprehensive, theory-based manner" (emphasis added). Why corporate? The co-op may be incorporated, but that does not mean it has to act like a corporation. On the contrary, it needs to act in every way like a co-operative. Even so, I have and will act in accordance with policy governance, as it presently exists, but I would urge the board to reconsider how it markets this style of organization to the members, many of whom may be alienated by its corporate nature. --["Users/ZacharyNorwood" Zach] </td> <td> <span>+</span> * There are many approaches to running a board. I’ve been sitting on boards since I graduated from college, and <span>as an undergraduate, I was an officer in many honors societies. While most of my board experience is academic, every board</span> followed "rules of orders" differently, with different styles<span>,</span> degrees of frankness<span>, flexibility, etc</span>. I’ve been on a board where people dress professionally and speak about matters of business. This was stifling to me, but I adapted without conforming at the level of principle. I’m not sure why there’s such a fixation on this particular brand of governance, which is corporate in style. The website you link, for example, says that "The [policy governance] model covers all legitimate intentions of '''corporate governance codes''' (including Sarbanes-Oxley), but in a far more comprehensive, theory-based manner" (emphasis added). Why corporate? The co-op may be incorporated, but that does not mean it has to act like a corporation. On the contrary, it needs to act in every way like a co-operative. Even so, I have and will act in accordance with policy governance, as it presently exists, but I would urge the board to reconsider how it markets this style of organization to the members, many of whom may be alienated by its corporate nature. --["Users/ZacharyNorwood" Zach] </td> </tr> </table> </div> Davis Food Co-op/Election 2009http://daviswiki.org/Davis_Food_Co-op/Election_20092009-05-20 13:05:58ZacharyNorwood(quick edit) <div id="content" class="wikipage content"> Differences for Davis Food Co-op/Election 2009<p><strong></strong></p><table> <tr> <td> <span> Deletions are marked with - . </span> </td> <td> <span> Additions are marked with +. </span> </td> </tr> <tr> <td> Line 108: </td> <td> Line 108: </td> </tr> <tr> <td> <span>-</span> * The cooperative principle of Democratic Control bars me from making decisions based solely on my own passionate interests. I may feel strongly about changes taking place at the co-op, but the entire cooperative community would have to come to support my views not by blunt persuasion, but by exercising their own reason. I’ve assured already that none of my views are solely held by me—before I publicly write anything, I first deliberate on the matter for some time, then I test my positions by sharing them with a number of members, from whom I invite criticism. So while it may seem my views are <span>rather</span> strong, they <span>actually</span> tempered by numerous members whose views I faithfully represent, independent of my own. --["Users/ZacharyNorwood" Zach] </td> <td> <span>+</span> * The cooperative principle of Democratic Control bars me from making decisions based solely on my own passionate interests. I may feel strongly about changes taking place at the co-op, but the entire cooperative community would have to come to support my views not by blunt persuasion, but by exercising their own reason. I’ve assured already that none of my views are solely held by me—before I publicly write anything, I first deliberate on the matter for some time, then I test my positions by sharing them with a number of members, from whom I invite criticism. So while it may seem my views are <span>comparatively</span> strong, they <span>have actually been</span> tempered by numerous members whose views I faithfully represent, independent of my own. --["Users/ZacharyNorwood" Zach] </td> </tr> </table> </div> Davis Food Co-op/Election 2009http://daviswiki.org/Davis_Food_Co-op/Election_20092009-05-20 12:51:39TeddyConsolacion <div id="content" class="wikipage content"> Differences for Davis Food Co-op/Election 2009<p><strong></strong></p><table> <tr> <td> <span> Deletions are marked with - . </span> </td> <td> <span> Additions are marked with +. </span> </td> </tr> <tr> <td> Line 38: </td> <td> Line 38: </td> </tr> <tr> <td> <span>-</span> * I apologize for missing the May BOD meeting. I planned on attending but was ill with either a severe cold or mild flu the entire weekend prior to the meeting. I chose to remain at home rather than expose the board of directors and present members to my virus. I erred on the side of public health safety. I do not underestimate the steep learning curve to comprehend fully all of the duties and expectations that accompany a director position, and I am dedicated to investing that time. In the meantime, I have read the minutes for the April meeting (as soon as May is posted, I will read those) to familiarize myself with the topics addressed as well as reading the helpful articles, bylaws and policies posted on the DFC website. I do plan on attending the June 1 meeting. -<span>{"Users/</span>TeddyConsolacion<span>" Teddy Consolacion]</span> </td> <td> <span>+</span> * I apologize for missing the May BOD meeting. I planned on attending but was ill with either a severe cold or mild flu the entire weekend prior to the meeting. I chose to remain at home rather than expose the board of directors and present members to my virus. I erred on the side of public health safety. I do not underestimate the steep learning curve to comprehend fully all of the duties and expectations that accompany a director position, and I am dedicated to investing that time. In the meantime, I have read the minutes for the April meeting (as soon as May is posted, I will read those) to familiarize myself with the topics addressed as well as reading the helpful articles, bylaws and policies posted on the DFC website. I do plan on attending the June 1 meeting. -Teddy<span>&nbsp;</span>Consolacion </td> </tr> </table> </div> Davis Food Co-op/Election 2009http://daviswiki.org/Davis_Food_Co-op/Election_20092009-05-20 12:50:05TeddyConsolacionFormat <div id="content" class="wikipage content"> Differences for Davis Food Co-op/Election 2009<p><strong></strong></p><table> <tr> <td> <span> Deletions are marked with - . </span> </td> <td> <span> Additions are marked with +. </span> </td> </tr> <tr> <td> Line 38: </td> <td> Line 38: </td> </tr> <tr> <td> <span>-</span> *I apologize for missing the May BOD meeting. I planned on attending but was ill with either a severe cold or mild flu the entire weekend prior to the meeting. I chose to remain at home rather than expose the board of directors and present members to my virus. I erred on the side of public health safety. I do not underestimate the steep learning curve to comprehend fully all of the duties and expectations that accompany a director position, and I am dedicated to investing that time. In the meantime, I have read the minutes for the April meeting (as soon as May is posted, I will read those) to familiarize myself with the topics addressed as well as reading the helpful articles, bylaws and policies posted on the DFC website. I do plan on attending the June 1 meeting. -{"Users/TeddyConsolacion" Teddy Consolacion] </td> <td> <span>+ </span> *<span>&nbsp;</span>I apologize for missing the May BOD meeting. I planned on attending but was ill with either a severe cold or mild flu the entire weekend prior to the meeting. I chose to remain at home rather than expose the board of directors and present members to my virus. I erred on the side of public health safety. I do not underestimate the steep learning curve to comprehend fully all of the duties and expectations that accompany a director position, and I am dedicated to investing that time. In the meantime, I have read the minutes for the April meeting (as soon as May is posted, I will read those) to familiarize myself with the topics addressed as well as reading the helpful articles, bylaws and policies posted on the DFC website. I do plan on attending the June 1 meeting. -{"Users/TeddyConsolacion" Teddy Consolacion] </td> </tr> </table> </div> Davis Food Co-op/Election 2009http://daviswiki.org/Davis_Food_Co-op/Election_20092009-05-20 12:49:12TeddyConsolacionAdded response to JC question <div id="content" class="wikipage content"> Differences for Davis Food Co-op/Election 2009<p><strong></strong></p><table> <tr> <td> <span> Deletions are marked with - . </span> </td> <td> <span> Additions are marked with +. </span> </td> </tr> <tr> <td> Line 37: </td> <td> Line 37: </td> </tr> <tr> <td> </td> <td> <span>+ <br> + *I apologize for missing the May BOD meeting. I planned on attending but was ill with either a severe cold or mild flu the entire weekend prior to the meeting. I chose to remain at home rather than expose the board of directors and present members to my virus. I erred on the side of public health safety. I do not underestimate the steep learning curve to comprehend fully all of the duties and expectations that accompany a director position, and I am dedicated to investing that time. In the meantime, I have read the minutes for the April meeting (as soon as May is posted, I will read those) to familiarize myself with the topics addressed as well as reading the helpful articles, bylaws and policies posted on the DFC website. I do plan on attending the June 1 meeting. -{"Users/TeddyConsolacion" Teddy Consolacion]</span> </td> </tr> </table> </div> Davis Food Co-op/Election 2009http://daviswiki.org/Davis_Food_Co-op/Election_20092009-05-20 12:41:20ZacharyNorwoodmoved comment to clarify authorship <div id="content" class="wikipage content"> Differences for Davis Food Co-op/Election 2009<p><strong></strong></p><table> <tr> <td> <span> Deletions are marked with - . </span> </td> <td> <span> Additions are marked with +. </span> </td> </tr> <tr> <td> Line 57: </td> <td> Line 57: </td> </tr> <tr> <td> </td> <td> <span>+ * Yes, but not at the expense of running roughshod over cooperative principles and values. Was the board open-minded when they sent out a tendentious flyer in favor of renovation? I bring this up not for the sake of chastening those involved, but simply as an illustration of a timely lapse in open-mindedness when it counted most. Is it open-minded to accept changes to the store that are not energy efficient, wasteful, or outside the general mission of providing healthy foods? Though I’m certain there are plausible sounding arguments in support of the open freezer being energy-efficient, or the food bars not really being wasteful, even though vast amounts of food are thrown out, I would think agreeing with these arguments would be a lapse in judgment, not an act of open-mindedness. So having an open mind is an important ideal, but we have to ask ourselves what we’re being open-minded ''about.'' We cannot be open-minded to the extent that we rationalize away the basic values and purpose of a cooperative organization. I’m afraid in this context, ''open-minded'' can come to mean ''conciliation''. Being persuaded by spurious arguments, not scrutinizing them in relation to cooperative principles-- that’s not open-mindedness, that’s narrowmindedness. --["Users/ZacharyNorwood" Zach]</span> </td> </tr> <tr> <td> Line 60: </td> <td> Line 61: </td> </tr> <tr> <td> <span>- </span> </td> <td> </td> </tr> <tr> <td> Line 62: </td> <td> Line 62: </td> </tr> <tr> <td> <span>- <br> - * Yes, but not at the expense of running roughshod over cooperative principles and values. Was the board open-minded when they sent out a tendentious flyer in favor of renovation? I bring this up not for the sake of chastening those involved, but simply as an illustration of a timely lapse in open-mindedness when it counted most. Is it open-minded to accept changes to the store that are not energy efficient, wasteful, or outside the general mission of providing healthy foods? Though I’m certain there are plausible sounding arguments in support of the open freezer being energy-efficient, or the food bars not really being wasteful, even though vast amounts of food are thrown out, I would think agreeing with these arguments would be a lapse in judgment, not an act of open-mindedness. So having an open mind is an important ideal, but we have to ask ourselves what we’re being open-minded ''about.'' We cannot be open-minded to the extent that we rationalize away the basic values and purpose of a cooperative organization. I’m afraid in this context, ''open-minded'' can come to mean ''conciliation''. Being persuaded by spurious arguments, not scrutinizing them in relation to cooperative principles-- that’s not open-mindedness, that’s narrowmindedness. --["Users/ZacharyNorwood" Zach]<br> - </span> </td> <td> </td> </tr> </table> </div> Davis Food Co-op/Election 2009http://daviswiki.org/Davis_Food_Co-op/Election_20092009-05-20 12:38:53ZacharyNorwood(quick edit) <div id="content" class="wikipage content"> Differences for Davis Food Co-op/Election 2009<p><strong></strong></p><table> <tr> <td> <span> Deletions are marked with - . </span> </td> <td> <span> Additions are marked with +. </span> </td> </tr> <tr> <td> Line 123: </td> <td> Line 123: </td> </tr> <tr> <td> <span>-</span> * Would you say Fox News is "fair and balanced"? Is the O'Reilly show's "no spin zone" really free of spin? I ask these questions because they highlight potential ironies between appearance and reality. Roughly 50% of the co-op was opposed to renovation, and since that time, many more have voiced concerns about changes that seem inconsistent with cooperative values. When the staff is challenged on these matters, often<span>&nbsp;</span>times one receives a litany of rationalizations, and if you do not agree, you are branded as uncooperative and limited in perspective. I don’t think this is characteristic of a cooperative. I value open-mindedness very much, as I stated above, but not to the extent where I compromise cooperative values, like sustainability, energy efficiency, lower prices, taking out the middleman, Democratic control, etc. No amount of rationalization can justify changes to the store that flout cooperative values, so we need to be wary of branding people who challenge the co-op as somehow obdurate and close minded, while those in power who have already made changes can tout themselves as open-minded and prudent. --["Users/ZacharyNorwood" Zach] </td> <td> <span>+</span> * Would you say Fox News is "fair and balanced"? Is the O'Reilly show's "no spin zone" really free of spin? I ask these questions because they highlight potential ironies between appearance and reality. Roughly 50% of the co-op was opposed to renovation, and since that time, many more have voiced concerns about changes that seem inconsistent with cooperative values. When the staff is challenged on these matters, oftentimes one receives a litany of rationalizations, and if you do not agree, you are branded as uncooperative and limited in perspective. I don’t think this is characteristic of a cooperative. I value open-mindedness very much, as I stated above, but not to the extent where I compromise cooperative values, like sustainability, energy efficiency, lower prices, taking out the middleman, Democratic control, etc. No amount of rationalization can justify changes to the store that flout cooperative values, so we need to be wary of branding people who challenge the co-op as somehow obdurate and close minded, while those in power who have already made changes can tout themselves as open-minded and prudent. --["Users/ZacharyNorwood" Zach] </td> </tr> </table> </div> Davis Food Co-op/Election 2009http://daviswiki.org/Davis_Food_Co-op/Election_20092009-05-20 12:37:36ZacharyNorwoodre April <div id="content" class="wikipage content"> Differences for Davis Food Co-op/Election 2009<p><strong></strong></p><table> <tr> <td> <span> Deletions are marked with - . </span> </td> <td> <span> Additions are marked with +. </span> </td> </tr> <tr> <td> Line 109: </td> <td> Line 109: </td> </tr> <tr> <td> </td> <td> <span>+ * The cooperative principle of Democratic Control bars me from making decisions based solely on my own passionate interests. I may feel strongly about changes taking place at the co-op, but the entire cooperative community would have to come to support my views not by blunt persuasion, but by exercising their own reason. I’ve assured already that none of my views are solely held by me—before I publicly write anything, I first deliberate on the matter for some time, then I test my positions by sharing them with a number of members, from whom I invite criticism. So while it may seem my views are rather strong, they actually tempered by numerous members whose views I faithfully represent, independent of my own. --["Users/ZacharyNorwood" Zach]</span> </td> </tr> <tr> <td> Line 112: </td> <td> Line 113: </td> </tr> <tr> <td> </td> <td> <span>+ * There are many approaches to running a board. I’ve been sitting on boards since I graduated from college, and while most of them were academic, they all followed "rules of orders" differently, with different styles and degrees of frankness. I’ve been on a board where people dress professionally and speak about matters of business. This was stifling to me, but I adapted without conforming at the level of principle. I’m not sure why there’s such a fixation on this particular brand of governance, which is corporate in style. The website you link, for example, says that "The [policy governance] model covers all legitimate intentions of '''corporate governance codes''' (including Sarbanes-Oxley), but in a far more comprehensive, theory-based manner" (emphasis added). Why corporate? The co-op may be incorporated, but that does not mean it has to act like a corporation. On the contrary, it needs to act in every way like a co-operative. Even so, I have and will act in accordance with policy governance, as it presently exists, but I would urge the board to reconsider how it markets this style of organization to the members, many of whom may be alienated by its corporate nature. --["Users/ZacharyNorwood" Zach]</span> </td> </tr> <tr> <td> Line 115: </td> <td> Line 117: </td> </tr> <tr> <td> </td> <td> <span>+ * Given my academic training, I can lend a legal-styled exactness to bylaws, and I can also spot legal loopholes that allow the co-op to operate inconsistently with cooperative principles. At the same time, I would wish to make all bylaws and technical information accessible to the membership at large. In fact, one of my primary leadership responsibilities, if elected, would be to engage the membership such that they are more in touch with their own responsibility to control democratically. My long-standing interest, and where I will provide the best leadership, is in the area of cooperative values as they apply to agriculture and availability of goods. I would wish to embody the cooperative principles vis-à-vis Food Ends, and assure that these principles are realized on the floor in every way possible. --["Users/ZacharyNorwood" Zach]</span> </td> </tr> <tr> <td> Line 120: </td> <td> Line 123: </td> </tr> <tr> <td> </td> <td> <span>+ * Would you say Fox News is "fair and balanced"? Is the O'Reilly show's "no spin zone" really free of spin? I ask these questions because they highlight potential ironies between appearance and reality. Roughly 50% of the co-op was opposed to renovation, and since that time, many more have voiced concerns about changes that seem inconsistent with cooperative values. When the staff is challenged on these matters, often times one receives a litany of rationalizations, and if you do not agree, you are branded as uncooperative and limited in perspective. I don’t think this is characteristic of a cooperative. I value open-mindedness very much, as I stated above, but not to the extent where I compromise cooperative values, like sustainability, energy efficiency, lower prices, taking out the middleman, Democratic control, etc. No amount of rationalization can justify changes to the store that flout cooperative values, so we need to be wary of branding people who challenge the co-op as somehow obdurate and close minded, while those in power who have already made changes can tout themselves as open-minded and prudent. --["Users/ZacharyNorwood" Zach]</span> </td> </tr> </table> </div> Davis Food Co-op/Election 2009http://daviswiki.org/Davis_Food_Co-op/Election_20092009-05-20 12:00:12ZacharyNorwood(quick edit) <div id="content" class="wikipage content"> Differences for Davis Food Co-op/Election 2009<p><strong></strong></p><table> <tr> <td> <span> Deletions are marked with - . </span> </td> <td> <span> Additions are marked with +. </span> </td> </tr> <tr> <td> Line 63: </td> <td> Line 63: </td> </tr> <tr> <td> <span>-</span> * Yes, but not at the expense of running roughshod over cooperative principles and values. Was the board open-minded when they sent out a tendentious flyer in favor of renovation? I bring this up not for the sake of chastening those involved, but simply as an illustration of a timely lapse in open-mindedness when it counted most. Is it open-minded to accept changes to the store that are not energy efficient, wasteful, or outside the general mission of providing healthy foods? Though I’m certain there are plausible sounding arguments in support of the open freezer being energy-efficient, or the food bars not really being wasteful, even though vast amounts of food are thrown out, I would think agreeing with these arguments would be a lapse in judgment, not an act of open-mindedness. So having an open mind is an important ideal, but we have to ask ourselves what we’re being open-minded ''about.'' We cannot be<span>&nbsp;so</span> open-minded to the extent that we rationalize away the basic values and purpose of a cooperative organization. I’m afraid in this context, ''open-minded'' can come to mean ''conciliation''. Being persuaded by spurious arguments, not scrutinizing them in relation to cooperative principles-- that’s not open-mindedness, that’s narrowmindedness. --["Users/ZacharyNorwood" Zach] </td> <td> <span>+</span> * Yes, but not at the expense of running roughshod over cooperative principles and values. Was the board open-minded when they sent out a tendentious flyer in favor of renovation? I bring this up not for the sake of chastening those involved, but simply as an illustration of a timely lapse in open-mindedness when it counted most. Is it open-minded to accept changes to the store that are not energy efficient, wasteful, or outside the general mission of providing healthy foods? Though I’m certain there are plausible sounding arguments in support of the open freezer being energy-efficient, or the food bars not really being wasteful, even though vast amounts of food are thrown out, I would think agreeing with these arguments would be a lapse in judgment, not an act of open-mindedness. So having an open mind is an important ideal, but we have to ask ourselves what we’re being open-minded ''about.'' We cannot be open-minded to the extent that we rationalize away the basic values and purpose of a cooperative organization. I’m afraid in this context, ''open-minded'' can come to mean ''conciliation''. Being persuaded by spurious arguments, not scrutinizing them in relation to cooperative principles-- that’s not open-mindedness, that’s narrowmindedness. --["Users/ZacharyNorwood" Zach] </td> </tr> </table> </div> Davis Food Co-op/Election 2009http://daviswiki.org/Davis_Food_Co-op/Election_20092009-05-20 11:56:32AprilKamen <div id="content" class="wikipage content"> Differences for Davis Food Co-op/Election 2009<p><strong></strong></p><table> <tr> <td> <span> Deletions are marked with - . </span> </td> <td> <span> Additions are marked with +. </span> </td> </tr> <tr> <td> Line 117: </td> <td> Line 117: </td> </tr> <tr> <td> <span>-</span> One of the most important tasks for directors is to remain linked to members whose interests they represent. Some methods of linkage include: studying responses to member surveys, focus groups, and key informants. It can be argued, however, that the responses derived in these ways are only representative of a subgroup of members who are willing to participate in these ways. How do we facilitate participation by members with varying levels of commitment, time, and experience? What methods of member linkage would you like to explore? </td> <td> <span>+</span> One of the most important tasks for directors is to remain linked to members whose interests they represent. Some methods of linkage include: studying responses to member surveys, f<span>acilitating f</span>ocus groups, and <span>consulting with </span>key informants. It can be argued, however, that the responses derived in these ways are only representative of a subgroup of members who are willing to participate in these ways. How do we facilitate participation by members with varying levels of commitment, time, and experience? What methods of member linkage would you like to explore? </td> </tr> </table> </div> Davis Food Co-op/Election 2009http://daviswiki.org/Davis_Food_Co-op/Election_20092009-05-20 11:53:36ZacharyNorwoodres <div id="content" class="wikipage content"> Differences for Davis Food Co-op/Election 2009<p><strong></strong></p><table> <tr> <td> <span> Deletions are marked with - . </span> </td> <td> <span> Additions are marked with +. </span> </td> </tr> <tr> <td> Line 51: </td> <td> Line 51: </td> </tr> <tr> <td> </td> <td> <span>+ * Time is not an issue for me. I certainly have academic deadlines, but since I’m in the writing stage of my dissertation, I can take time out for the co-op. --["Users/ZacharyNorwood" Zach]<br> + </span> </td> </tr> <tr> <td> Line 60: </td> <td> Line 62: </td> </tr> <tr> <td> </td> <td> <span>+ <br> + * Yes, but not at the expense of running roughshod over cooperative principles and values. Was the board open-minded when they sent out a tendentious flyer in favor of renovation? I bring this up not for the sake of chastening those involved, but simply as an illustration of a timely lapse in open-mindedness when it counted most. Is it open-minded to accept changes to the store that are not energy efficient, wasteful, or outside the general mission of providing healthy foods? Though I’m certain there are plausible sounding arguments in support of the open freezer being energy-efficient, or the food bars not really being wasteful, even though vast amounts of food are thrown out, I would think agreeing with these arguments would be a lapse in judgment, not an act of open-mindedness. So having an open mind is an important ideal, but we have to ask ourselves what we’re being open-minded ''about.'' We cannot be so open-minded to the extent that we rationalize away the basic values and purpose of a cooperative organization. I’m afraid in this context, ''open-minded'' can come to mean ''conciliation''. Being persuaded by spurious arguments, not scrutinizing them in relation to cooperative principles-- that’s not open-mindedness, that’s narrowmindedness. --["Users/ZacharyNorwood" Zach]</span> </td> </tr> <tr> <td> Line 90: </td> <td> Line 94: </td> </tr> <tr> <td> </td> <td> <span>+ * I hope people scrutinize the pros and cons of this proposition independently, without being swayed by those who've already prejudged in favor or against. Regarding Dallas' arguments, they seem uncannily similar to those I’ve read from Darius and others. If disenfranchisement is so important, why not give everyone in a household willing to pay membership fees voting power? Why is only one person in a household given a vote, when all patronize the co-op? This is an example of general membership disenfranchisement that no one seems to pay attention to. I won’t get off topic, though. Here's my argument in support of Prop 2:<br> + <br> + I’m ''provisionally'' in support of Proposition 2, because right now there is a gross imbalance of power between the staff and membership in terms of operational influence, and the board has systematically turned a blind eye to operational changes, even if those changes—listed in my open letter—are patently inconsistent with cooperative values and principles. I've received e-mails from two different sitting chairs on the Co-op board stating, explicitly, that the board does not get involved with operations, and that operations fall under the purview of the staff. But if the staff is not responding to membership remonstrations and is adding major additions to the store without membership oversight, who's going to assure operations are in line with cooperative principles? This is why I provisionally support removing staff from the board, because they already exercise inordinate influence on operations and the board without being held accountable for changes inconsistent with cooperative principles and values. Pragmatically speaking, staff board members represent managerial expediency more than membership opinion and cooperative principles. Some staff speak openly about ways to implement cooperative values, but in terms of pragmatic consequence, such speech is more rhetorical than actual. The actual changes to the store—the bottom-line reorientation and operational Transformation—are inconsistent with cooperative values. These changes speak louder than words. My position on this matter is flexible, however. As said above, I only "provisionally" support Proposition 2, because I don’t think prohibiting staff directorship would be necessary if the Co-op reverted to its fundamentals, its basic identity as a Co-op and not a competition-oriented corporate-styled grocery. I would be the first person to lobby for staff directorship if the Co-op were functioning like Co-ops should.<br> + --["Users/ZacharyNorwood" Zach]<br> + <br> + </span> </td> </tr> </table> </div> Davis Food Co-op/Election 2009http://daviswiki.org/Davis_Food_Co-op/Election_20092009-05-20 11:29:04AprilKamen <div id="content" class="wikipage content"> Differences for Davis Food Co-op/Election 2009<p><strong></strong></p><table> <tr> <td> <span> Deletions are marked with - . </span> </td> <td> <span> Additions are marked with +. </span> </td> </tr> <tr> <td> Line 92: </td> <td> Line 92: </td> </tr> <tr> <td> </td> <td> <span>+ <br> + ------<br> + <br> + I work at the Co-op and I was an alternate director 2007-2008. Here are my questions for candidates:<br> + <br> + ADVOCACY<br> + It seems that many people run for the board of directors when there are certain issues that they feel strongly about. There are many perspectives/interests to consider in an organization as large as ours and matters are often more complex than they appear at first. What guidelines would you have for yourself (and other directors) for advocacy around issues you feel strongly about?<br> + <br> + GOVERNANCE<br> + Our Co-op Board uses Policy Governance. Here is a link to more information about this governance method: [http://www.carvergovernance.com]. Which aspects of Policy Governance are you comfortable with? When might you feel tempted to bend the rules and how will you deal with such situations?<br> + <br> + LEADERSHIP<br> + I think that a well-balanced board has members with diverse interests in the governance process. Some directors are especially interested in law and lead bylaws revision task forces, some are most interested in financial matters, some are interested in food policy, and some are passionate about member linkage, etc. What aspects of board work interest you most? Where might you provide leadership?<br> + <br> + MEMBER LINKAGE<br> + One of the most important tasks for directors is to remain linked to members whose interests they represent. Some methods of linkage include: studying responses to member surveys, focus groups, and key informants. It can be argued, however, that the responses derived in these ways are only representative of a subgroup of members who are willing to participate in these ways. How do we facilitate participation by members with varying levels of commitment, time, and experience? What methods of member linkage would you like to explore?<br> + <br> + I don't believe anyone can claim to be equally linked to all members at the Co-op. People often have networks and circles of friends whose values and interests tend to be much like their own. I don't think this is problematic, as long as directors can step back and acknowledge when their own limited perspective is influencing the discussion, remain open to different views, and act in the best interest of the Co-op as a whole. A well-balanced board brings a variety of perspectives to the discussion. What subgroup of members might you feel most influenced by and accountable to? --["Users/AprilKamen"]</span> </td> </tr> </table> </div> Davis Food Co-op/Election 2009http://daviswiki.org/Davis_Food_Co-op/Election_20092009-05-19 22:54:50NickSchmalenbergerboldly <div id="content" class="wikipage content"> Differences for Davis Food Co-op/Election 2009<p><strong></strong></p><table> <tr> <td> <span> Deletions are marked with - . </span> </td> <td> <span> Additions are marked with +. </span> </td> </tr> <tr> <td> Line 86: </td> <td> Line 86: </td> </tr> <tr> <td> <span>- The argument includes three phrases in bold type, presumably the highlights or focus points. The board is an independent oversight body, with or without staff. With passage of this change, it would merely be independent of staff. The claim that they ultimately monitor their own performance… is false. The board’s only personnel evaluation is of the General Manager. In that case, the staff directors do not vote, however their discussion input is valuable, given their dual roles. It is easy to imagine situations where this could be heated, but in a well-run meeting, each can have a say, and move on, in cooperative democracy. Similarly, staff-based power struggles have no place in a well-run meeting. The problem there is not with staff, it’s with the board chair. Power struggles are certainly not limited to staff, it’s something encountered in all forms of governance by all kinds of people. This argument is using staff as a scapegoat for poor meeting-management.</span> </td> <td> <span>+ The argument includes three phrases in bold type, presumably the highlights or focus points. The board is an '''independent oversight body''', with or without staff. With passage of this change, it would merely be independent of staff. The claim that they '''ultimately monitor their own performance'''… is false. The board’s only personnel evaluation is of the General Manager. In that case, the staff directors do not vote, however their discussion input is valuable, given their dual roles. It is easy to imagine situations where this could be heated, but in a well-run meeting, each can have a say, and move on, in cooperative democracy. Similarly, '''staff-based power struggles''' have no place in a well-run meeting. The problem there is not with staff, it’s with the board chair. Power struggles are certainly not limited to staff, it’s something encountered in all forms of governance by all kinds of people. This argument is using staff as a scapegoat for poor meeting-management.</span> </td> </tr> </table> </div> Davis Food Co-op/Election 2009http://daviswiki.org/Davis_Food_Co-op/Election_20092009-05-19 20:56:37DallasKassingComment added. <div id="content" class="wikipage content"> Differences for Davis Food Co-op/Election 2009<p><strong></strong></p><table> <tr> <td> <span> Deletions are marked with - . </span> </td> <td> <span> Additions are marked with +. </span> </td> </tr> <tr> <td> Line 90: </td> <td> Line 90: </td> </tr> <tr> <td> </td> <td> <span>+ ------<br> + ''2009-05-19 20:56:37'' [[nbsp]] Addendum: Oops, wiki didn’t keep the “bold” referred to above. The following phrases were in “bold”. “independent oversight body”, “ultimately monitor their own performance…”, and “staff-based power struggles”. --["Users/DallasKassing"]</span> </td> </tr> </table> </div> Davis Food Co-op/Election 2009http://daviswiki.org/Davis_Food_Co-op/Election_20092009-05-19 20:19:02DallasKassingComment added. <div id="content" class="wikipage content"> Differences for Davis Food Co-op/Election 2009<p><strong></strong></p><table> <tr> <td> <span> Deletions are marked with - . </span> </td> <td> <span> Additions are marked with +. </span> </td> </tr> <tr> <td> Line 78: </td> <td> Line 78: </td> </tr> <tr> <td> </td> <td> <span>+ ------<br> + ''2009-05-19 20:19:02'' [[nbsp]] Regarding Proposition 2, which would prohibit members who are also staff from becoming directors: A rebuttal to the argument for.<br> + <br> + First of all, this is clearly discriminatory, depriving a subgroup of members of a membership right. There is no problem this is solving, no specific cause noted,<br> + only vague fears and allusions to poorly-run meetings.<br> + <br> + The argument for this bylaw change cites possible conflict-of-interest. If we want to eliminate groups with possible conflict-of-interest, we could start with attorneys, businesspeople, carnivores, and keep going indefinitely. Why single out staff? There are policies to handle conflicts-of-interest we have been using for years. Each director signs a conflict-of-interest declaration, not just staff directors.<br> + <br> + The argument includes three phrases in bold type, presumably the highlights or focus points. The board is an independent oversight body, with or without staff. With passage of this change, it would merely be independent of staff. The claim that they ultimately monitor their own performance… is false. The board’s only personnel evaluation is of the General Manager. In that case, the staff directors do not vote, however their discussion input is valuable, given their dual roles. It is easy to imagine situations where this could be heated, but in a well-run meeting, each can have a say, and move on, in cooperative democracy. Similarly, staff-based power struggles have no place in a well-run meeting. The problem there is not with staff, it’s with the board chair. Power struggles are certainly not limited to staff, it’s something encountered in all forms of governance by all kinds of people. This argument is using staff as a scapegoat for poor meeting-management.<br> + <br> + As a former director and president during a time of much turmoil, including a store remodel, a change in General Manager, and the institution of Policy Governance, I worked with several staff directors. They volunteer to hours of extra work and meeting time. They bring a depth of knowledge of the store, the organization, and cooperative principles. They are a great asset to the board and should remain so. Please vote NO on Proposition 2.<br> + --["Users/DallasKassing"]</span> </td> </tr> </table> </div> Davis Food Co-op/Election 2009http://daviswiki.org/Davis_Food_Co-op/Election_20092009-05-18 16:24:32DonWiskerando(quick edit) <div id="content" class="wikipage content"> Differences for Davis Food Co-op/Election 2009<p><strong></strong></p><table> <tr> <td> <span> Deletions are marked with - . </span> </td> <td> <span> Additions are marked with +. </span> </td> </tr> <tr> <td> Line 27: </td> <td> Line 27: </td> </tr> <tr> <td> <span>-</span> The wiki ["Davis Food Co-op/Election 2008" was heavily used] for Q&amp;A and debate in the 2008 election as a public forum by the candidates and general public. The [http://www.davisfood.coop/election.html Co-op Election "Central"] page links to this page, so this can be used the same way this year. You are encouraged to submit questions below, and perhaps candidates will respond. Please contact the elections committee through the Co-op Election "Central" page if you need help editing or posting to this page. </td> <td> <span>+</span> The wiki ["Davis Food Co-op/Election 2008" was heavily used] for Q&amp;A and debate in the 2008 election as a public forum by the candidates and general public. The [http://www.davisfood.coop/election.html Co-op Election "Central"] page links to this page, so this can be used the same way this year. You are encouraged to submit questions below, and perhaps candidates will respond. Please contact the elections committee through the <span>[http://www.davisfood.coop/election.html </span>Co-op Election "Central"<span>]</span> page if you need help editing or posting to this page. </td> </tr> </table> </div> Davis Food Co-op/Election 2009http://daviswiki.org/Davis_Food_Co-op/Election_20092009-05-18 15:21:19SamCitronComment added. <div id="content" class="wikipage content"> Differences for Davis Food Co-op/Election 2009<p><strong></strong></p><table> <tr> <td> <span> Deletions are marked with - . </span> </td> <td> <span> Additions are marked with +. </span> </td> </tr> <tr> <td> Line 64: </td> <td> Line 64: </td> </tr> <tr> <td> </td> <td> <span>+ ------<br> + ''2009-05-18 15:21:19'' [[nbsp]] Hi Doreen,<br> + <br> + Excellent questions.<br> + <br> + ARE YOU WILLING AND ABLE TO GIVE THE TIME IT TAKES TO DO THIS VOLUNTEER WORK? HOW WILL YOU FIT YOUR BOARD DUTIES INTO YOUR SCHEDULE?<br> + <br> + I fortunately have a fairly flexible schedule most afternoon and evenings. Ten hours per month is indeed a significant time commitment, but not one that is excessive for as worthwhile an organization as DFC.<br> + <br> + ARE YOU WILLING AND ABLE TO STAY OPEN-MINDED? WHAT PRIOR OPINIONS DO YOU HAVE THAT MIGHT PREVENT YOU FROM BEING FULLY OPEN-MINDED?<br> + <br> + Yes, indeed. I have no set agenda and simply desire to assist the Board in any way I can to make an excellent co-op even better. Naturally I would like to have an impact, but I believe it is important to listen before one speaks and to carefully consider all points of view, especially those that may differ markedly from my own. I readily embrace diversity of viewpoints and believe that good decision-making requires careful consideration of all relevant information and opposing points of view, as well as analysis of potential unintended consequences.<br> + <br> + While I sincerely believe that I am open-minded and that none of my beliefs are set in stone, I do believe that we can do more to enhance member and community linkages, bring more value to coop shoppers and would-be coop shoppers, and to get better data to hone our strategic planning efforts. --["Users/SamCitron"]</span> </td> </tr> </table> </div> Davis Food Co-op/Election 2009http://daviswiki.org/Davis_Food_Co-op/Election_20092009-05-18 15:15:00DonWiskerando(quick edit) <div id="content" class="wikipage content"> Differences for Davis Food Co-op/Election 2009<p><strong></strong></p><table> <tr> <td> <span> Deletions are marked with - . </span> </td> <td> <span> Additions are marked with +. </span> </td> </tr> <tr> <td> Line 27: </td> <td> Line 27: </td> </tr> <tr> <td> <span>-</span> The wiki ["Davis Food Co-op/Election 2008" was heavily used] for Q&amp;A and debate in the 2008 election as a public forum by the candidates and general public. The [http://www.davisfood.coop/election.html Co-op Election "Central"] page links to this page, so this can be used the same way this year. You are encouraged to submit questions below, and perhaps candidates will respond. Please contact the elections committee if you need help editing or posting to this page. </td> <td> <span>+</span> The wiki ["Davis Food Co-op/Election 2008" was heavily used] for Q&amp;A and debate in the 2008 election as a public forum by the candidates and general public. The [http://www.davisfood.coop/election.html Co-op Election "Central"] page links to this page, so this can be used the same way this year. You are encouraged to submit questions below, and perhaps candidates will respond. Please contact the elections committee <span>through the Co-op Election "Central" page </span>if you need help editing or posting to this page. </td> </tr> </table> </div> Davis Food Co-op/Election 2009http://daviswiki.org/Davis_Food_Co-op/Election_20092009-05-18 15:14:31DonWiskerando(quick edit) <div id="content" class="wikipage content"> Differences for Davis Food Co-op/Election 2009<p><strong></strong></p><table> <tr> <td> <span> Deletions are marked with - . </span> </td> <td> <span> Additions are marked with +. </span> </td> </tr> <tr> <td> Line 27: </td> <td> Line 27: </td> </tr> <tr> <td> <span>-</span> The wiki ["Davis Food Co-op/Election 2008" was heavily used] for Q&amp;A and debate in the 2008 election as a public forum by the candidates and general public. The [http://www.davisfood.coop/election.html Co-op Election "Central"] page links to this page, so this can be used the same way this year. You are encouraged to submit questions below, and perhaps candidates will respond. </td> <td> <span>+</span> The wiki ["Davis Food Co-op/Election 2008" was heavily used] for Q&amp;A and debate in the 2008 election as a public forum by the candidates and general public. The [http://www.davisfood.coop/election.html Co-op Election "Central"] page links to this page, so this can be used the same way this year. You are encouraged to submit questions below, and perhaps candidates will respond.<span>&nbsp;Please contact the elections committee if you need help editing or posting to this page.</span> </td> </tr> </table> </div> Davis Food Co-op/Election 2009http://daviswiki.org/Davis_Food_Co-op/Election_20092009-05-18 11:05:38DoreenComment added. <div id="content" class="wikipage content"> Differences for Davis Food Co-op/Election 2009<p><strong></strong></p><table> <tr> <td> <span> Deletions are marked with - . </span> </td> <td> <span> Additions are marked with +. </span> </td> </tr> <tr> <td> Line 42: </td> <td> Line 42: </td> </tr> <tr> <td> </td> <td> <span>+ ------<br> + ''2009-05-18 11:05:38'' [[nbsp]] Writing as an individual Co-op member (not a representative of the Board), I would like to ask the candidates some questions in order to assist in my own voting choices and perhaps also help others in their voting choices. I would also like to acknowledge that I am the current Board President and have been on the Board for 4 years. My questions revolve around two major themes: Time and Open-mindedness. Here are the questions and what I mean by them.<br> + <br> + 1. Time<br> + <br> + Are you willing and able to give the time it takes to do this volunteer work? How will you fit your Board duties into your schedule?<br> + <br> + Based on my experience, I'd say this position requires 4 hours during the week of our meeting and then about 2 hours each of the other 3 weeks. We really need people who have some time in their schedules and have the willingness/desire to contribute in this way. That means not just coming to the monthly Board meeting but by doing other work such as: reading/responding to emails; producing written work such as policy revisions, motions, articles, opinions, and/or email correspondence; and participating in training sessions, retreats, task force meetings and member linkage activities. It's great to have a Director with a lot of experience and knowledge but that doesn't help us if you don't have the time.<br> + <br> + <br> + 2. Open-mindedness<br> + <br> + Are you willing and able to stay open-minded (sometimes also known as non-judgemental)? What prior opinions do you have that might prevent you from being fully open-minded?<br> + <br> + It's very important to be open to and respectful of other people's points of view. We need to hear all perspectives on an issue and be willing to compromise, cooperate and change our minds. We've all had to do it. In my experience, everyone on the Board has a valuable opinion, is very smart, cares a lot about the Co-op and is making the best decisions possible. Once you start asking questions first, you'll see that there are usually sound reasons behind most of what we do (though, of course, there's always room for improvement). No one person has all the answers or is the one that's going to fix everything. Also, because we use a style of governance called Policy Governance, it's important to be patient and open to learning a new way of doing things. Policy Governance is really different and takes a while to learn and gain skill with it.<br> + <br> + <br> + Basically I feel that these are two important qualities in an excellent Director. It dosen't matter to me what your positions are on any issues. Whether or not you want a second store, no GMO's, or more commercial foods, we have a process that allows for all points of view and facilitates the best possible decisions. I only need to know if you are willing to commit the time needed and stay open-minded.<br> + <br> + <br> + Sincerely,<br> + Doreen --["Users/Doreen"]</span> </td> </tr> </table> </div> Davis Food Co-op/Election 2009http://daviswiki.org/Davis_Food_Co-op/Election_20092009-05-09 12:02:48ZacharyNorwood <div id="content" class="wikipage content"> Differences for Davis Food Co-op/Election 2009<p><strong></strong></p><table> <tr> <td> <span> Deletions are marked with - . </span> </td> <td> <span> Additions are marked with +. </span> </td> </tr> <tr> <td> Line 36: </td> <td> Line 36: </td> </tr> <tr> <td> <span>-</span> * Dear Julie, I actually came by at six o'clock and discovered there was a closed session until 7:30, so I couldn’t make it due to prior arrangements. If I am elected to the board, I’ll of course reschedule prior commitments so I can assure attendance on Mondays. That said, I attended meetings last year, have years of board experience independent from the Co-op, am familiar with Robert's rules of orders, and most importantly, I have been reading the minutes for every session over the past year, so I have managed to keep up and am familiar with the complications of Co-op operations, policy governance, and so forth. I’ve also been attending task force meetings on Food Ends for some time now, where I’ve had the opportunity to learn more about policy governance. I think it’s problematic, however, to make the case that interested layman unfamiliar with the complications of a Co-operative grocery are somehow less capable of serving on the board of directors. That doesn’t sound very cooperative, does it? In fact, it says in the bylaws that interested candidates do not need to be<span>&nbsp;completely</span> familiar with the minutia of Co-op operations to serve on the board, even though they are encouraged to read the bylaws and other policies, which I have done. --["Users/ZacharyNorwood" Zach] </td> <td> <span>+</span> * Dear Julie, I actually came by at six o'clock and discovered there was a closed session until 7:30, so I couldn’t make it due to prior arrangements. If I am elected to the board, I’ll of course reschedule prior commitments so I can assure attendance on Mondays. That said, I attended meetings last year, have years of board experience independent from the Co-op, am familiar with Robert's rules of orders, and most importantly, I have been reading the minutes for every session over the past year, so I have managed to keep up and am familiar with the complications of Co-op operations, policy governance, and so forth. I’ve also been attending task force meetings on Food Ends for some time now, where I’ve had the opportunity to learn more about policy governance. I think it’s problematic, however, to make the case that interested layman unfamiliar with the complications of a Co-operative grocery are somehow less capable of serving on the board of directors. That doesn’t sound very cooperative, does it? In fact, it says in the bylaws that interested candidates do not need to be familiar with the minutia of Co-op operations to serve on the board, even though they are encouraged to read the bylaws and other policies, which I have done. --["Users/ZacharyNorwood" Zach] </td> </tr> </table> </div> Davis Food Co-op/Election 2009http://daviswiki.org/Davis_Food_Co-op/Election_20092009-05-09 10:54:15JulieCrossComment added. <div id="content" class="wikipage content"> Differences for Davis Food Co-op/Election 2009<p><strong></strong></p><table> <tr> <td> <span> Deletions are marked with - . </span> </td> <td> <span> Additions are marked with +. </span> </td> </tr> <tr> <td> Line 40: </td> <td> Line 40: </td> </tr> <tr> <td> </td> <td> <span>+ ------<br> + ''2009-05-09 10:54:15'' [[nbsp]] There are two pretty essential issues on the ballot for you to decide: if you want to permit some member to buy additional shares in the Co-op, and whether you want to prohibit Co-op staff running for election to the Board. I helped put both of those things on the ballot, because they are decisions reserved to the membership (rather than management or the Board.) Then I wrote the arguments against the propositions, because I think both of them are poor choices. (I won’t spend the bandwidth repeating those arguments here, since they’re on our web page and in the printed ballot.) You also have the opportunity to elect three Directors. I’m one of them, and my platform is the dull-but-essential: fiscal responsibility, adherence to governing documents and sensible, consistent governance. --["Users/JulieCross"]</span> </td> </tr> </table> </div> Davis Food Co-op/Election 2009http://daviswiki.org/Davis_Food_Co-op/Election_20092009-05-08 16:19:29ZacharyNorwoodqe <div id="content" class="wikipage content"> Differences for Davis Food Co-op/Election 2009<p><strong></strong></p><table> <tr> <td> <span> Deletions are marked with - . </span> </td> <td> <span> Additions are marked with +. </span> </td> </tr> <tr> <td> Line 39: </td> <td> Line 39: </td> </tr> <tr> <td> <span>-</span> * I’m definitely not running on a platform of ''more of the same'', but I can’t speak for the rest. The overarching issue for me is that the Co-op is starting to slouch towards 'standard corporate grocery-dom,' and is slowly deviating from [http://www.ica.coop/coop/principles.html international cooperative principles]. The democratic control principle, especially, is at risk of collapsing, because power at the co-op, partially due to last year's infighting, has centralized within the management while membership engagement has dwindled. Anywhere from 11 to 15% of the "membership" (a fuzzy term, ''de facto'') participates in elections, and this number becomes much less if you consider all the households that only count as one vote despite having numerous subsidiary 'members' (people who have cards for superworker discounts yet have no voting power, or people without cards who nevertheless patronize the co-op directly or indirectly through another household member). So realizing cooperative principles on-the-floor, generally, and the democratic control principle, in particular, are my overarching concerns, but many others stem from <span>it</span>. What's yours? --["Users/ZacharyNorwood" Zach] </td> <td> <span>+</span> * I’m definitely not running on a platform of ''more of the same'', but I can’t speak for the rest. The overarching issue for me is that the Co-op is starting to slouch towards 'standard corporate grocery-dom,' and is slowly deviating from [http://www.ica.coop/coop/principles.html international cooperative principles]. The democratic control principle, especially, is at risk of collapsing, because power at the co-op, partially due to last year's infighting, has centralized within the management while membership engagement has dwindled. Anywhere from 11 to 15% of the "membership" (a fuzzy term, ''de facto'') participates in elections, and this number becomes much less if you consider all the households that only count as one vote despite having numerous subsidiary 'members' (people who have cards for superworker discounts yet have no voting power, or people without cards who nevertheless patronize the co-op directly or indirectly through another household member). So realizing cooperative principles on-the-floor, generally, and the democratic control principle, in particular, are my overarching concerns, but many others stem from <span>them</span>. What's yours? --["Users/ZacharyNorwood" Zach] </td> </tr> </table> </div> Davis Food Co-op/Election 2009http://daviswiki.org/Davis_Food_Co-op/Election_20092009-05-08 16:09:22ZacharyNorwood(quick edit) <div id="content" class="wikipage content"> Differences for Davis Food Co-op/Election 2009<p><strong></strong></p><table> <tr> <td> <span> Deletions are marked with - . </span> </td> <td> <span> Additions are marked with +. </span> </td> </tr> <tr> <td> Line 39: </td> <td> Line 39: </td> </tr> <tr> <td> <span>-</span> * I’m definitely not running on a platform of ''more of the same'', but I can’t speak for the rest. The overarching issue for me is that the <span>c</span>o-op is starting to slouch towards <span>your standard corporate grocery,</span> and is slowly deviating from [http://www.ica.coop/coop/principles.html international cooperative principles]. The democratic control principle, especially, is at risk of collapsing, because power at the co-op, partially due to last year's infighting, has centralized within the management while membership engagement has dwindled. Anywhere from 11 to 15% of the "membership" (a fuzzy term, ''de facto'') participates in elections, and this number becomes much less if you consider all the households that only <span>get</span> one vote despite having numerous subsidiary 'members' (people who have cards<span>&nbsp;allowing</span> for superworker discounts yet have no voting power, or people without cards who nevertheless patronize the co-op directly or indirectly through another household member). So <span>the democratic control principle is my o</span>ve<span>rarching concern</span>, but many others stem from it. What's yours? --["Users/ZacharyNorwood" Zach] </td> <td> <span>+</span> * I’m definitely not running on a platform of ''more of the same'', but I can’t speak for the rest. The overarching issue for me is that the <span>C</span>o-op is starting to slouch towards <span>'standard corporate grocery-dom,'</span> and is slowly deviating from [http://www.ica.coop/coop/principles.html international cooperative principles]. The democratic control principle, especially, is at risk of collapsing, because power at the co-op, partially due to last year's infighting, has centralized within the management while membership engagement has dwindled. Anywhere from 11 to 15% of the "membership" (a fuzzy term, ''de facto'') participates in elections, and this number becomes much less if you consider all the households that only <span>count as</span> one vote despite having numerous subsidiary 'members' (people who have cards for superworker discounts yet have no voting power, or people without cards who nevertheless patronize the co-op directly or indirectly through another household member). So <span>realizing cooperati</span>ve<span>&nbsp;principles on-the-floor, generally, and the democratic control principle, in particular, are my overarching concerns</span>, but many others stem from it. What's yours? --["Users/ZacharyNorwood" Zach] </td> </tr> </table> </div> Davis Food Co-op/Election 2009http://daviswiki.org/Davis_Food_Co-op/Election_20092009-05-08 16:05:49ZacharyNorwoodre: RocksandDirt <div id="content" class="wikipage content"> Differences for Davis Food Co-op/Election 2009<p><strong></strong></p><table> <tr> <td> <span> Deletions are marked with - . </span> </td> <td> <span> Additions are marked with +. </span> </td> </tr> <tr> <td> Line 39: </td> <td> Line 39: </td> </tr> <tr> <td> </td> <td> <span>+ * I’m definitely not running on a platform of ''more of the same'', but I can’t speak for the rest. The overarching issue for me is that the co-op is starting to slouch towards your standard corporate grocery, and is slowly deviating from [http://www.ica.coop/coop/principles.html international cooperative principles]. The democratic control principle, especially, is at risk of collapsing, because power at the co-op, partially due to last year's infighting, has centralized within the management while membership engagement has dwindled. Anywhere from 11 to 15% of the "membership" (a fuzzy term, ''de facto'') participates in elections, and this number becomes much less if you consider all the households that only get one vote despite having numerous subsidiary 'members' (people who have cards allowing for superworker discounts yet have no voting power, or people without cards who nevertheless patronize the co-op directly or indirectly through another household member). So the democratic control principle is my overarching concern, but many others stem from it. What's yours? --["Users/ZacharyNorwood" Zach]</span> </td> </tr> </table> </div> Davis Food Co-op/Election 2009http://daviswiki.org/Davis_Food_Co-op/Election_20092009-05-08 12:03:10RocksandDirtComment added. <div id="content" class="wikipage content"> Differences for Davis Food Co-op/Election 2009<p><strong></strong></p><table> <tr> <td> <span> Deletions are marked with - . </span> </td> <td> <span> Additions are marked with +. </span> </td> </tr> <tr> <td> Line 37: </td> <td> Line 37: </td> </tr> <tr> <td> </td> <td> <span>+ ------<br> + ''2009-05-08 12:03:10'' [[nbsp]] As of yet, I've not paid any attention to the co-op's annual election and management issues questions....Is there an overarching concern (like last years concerns about finanncial direction)? or is more of a nitty gritty run the company sort of election and year ahead of us? --["Users/RocksandDirt"]</span> </td> </tr> </table> </div> Davis Food Co-op/Election 2009http://daviswiki.org/Davis_Food_Co-op/Election_20092009-05-07 18:38:31ZacharyNorwood(quick edit) <div id="content" class="wikipage content"> Differences for Davis Food Co-op/Election 2009<p><strong></strong></p><table> <tr> <td> <span> Deletions are marked with - . </span> </td> <td> <span> Additions are marked with +. </span> </td> </tr> <tr> <td> Line 33: </td> <td> Line 33: </td> </tr> <tr> <td> <span>-</span> * Thanks for sharing. While it’s true we disagree about what happened last year, our main disagreement—at least in my mind—was whether I correctly interpreted the letter from the election committee. From my standpoint, saying "the election committee has no plan to initiate a Q&amp;A on the Davis Wiki. You are free to start one yourself if you like" meant two things: (a) that there would be no Q&amp;A link-in like last election, and (b) that if some type of Wiki link-in was desired, candidates would have to do it on their own initiative. Saying in the newsletter that members can read the opinions of others on the Wiki is not the same as taking members' questions from the annual meeting and posting them on the Wiki, with the expectation that candidates will actually respond and potentially even debate with each other. This happened organically last election, followed by the board lauding the use of the Wiki and saying it should be used in the same way. It's still possible that it will be used in the same way, but the e-mail to me indicated otherwise. Hence my concern. --["Users/ZacharyNorwood" Z] </td> <td> <span>+</span> * Thanks for sharing. While it’s true we disagree about what happened last year, our main disagreement—at least in my mind—was whether I correctly interpreted the letter from the election committee. From my standpoint, saying "the election committee has no plan to initiate a Q&amp;A on the Davis Wiki. You are free to start one yourself if you like" meant two things: (a) that there would be no Q&amp;A link-in like last election, and (b) that if some type of Wiki link-in was desired, candidates would have to do it on their own initiative. Saying in the newsletter that members can read the opinions of others on the Wiki is not the same as taking members' questions from the annual meeting and posting them on the Wiki, with the expectation that candidates will actually respond and potentially even debate with each other. This happened organically last election, followed by the board lauding the use of the Wiki and saying it should be used in the same way<span>&nbsp;for future elections</span>. It's still possible that it will be used in the same way, but the e-mail to me indicated otherwise. Hence my concern. --["Users/ZacharyNorwood" Z] </td> </tr> </table> </div> Davis Food Co-op/Election 2009http://daviswiki.org/Davis_Food_Co-op/Election_20092009-05-07 18:37:03ZacharyNorwood <div id="content" class="wikipage content"> Differences for Davis Food Co-op/Election 2009<p><strong></strong></p><table> <tr> <td> <span> Deletions are marked with - . </span> </td> <td> <span> Additions are marked with +. </span> </td> </tr> <tr> <td> Line 33: </td> <td> Line 33: </td> </tr> <tr> <td> <span>-</span> * Thanks for sharing. While it’s true we disagree about what happened last year, our main disagreement—at least in my mind—was whether I correctly interpreted the letter from the election committee. From my standpoint, saying "the election committee has no plan to initiate a Q&amp;A on the Davis Wiki. You are free to start one yourself if you like" meant two things: (a) that there would be no Q&amp;A link-in like last election, and (b) that if some type of Wiki link-in was desired, candidates would have to do it on their own initiative. --["Users/ZacharyNorwood" Z] </td> <td> <span>+</span> * Thanks for sharing. While it’s true we disagree about what happened last year, our main disagreement—at least in my mind—was whether I correctly interpreted the letter from the election committee. From my standpoint, saying "the election committee has no plan to initiate a Q&amp;A on the Davis Wiki. You are free to start one yourself if you like" meant two things: (a) that there would be no Q&amp;A link-in like last election, and (b) that if some type of Wiki link-in was desired, candidates would have to do it on their own initiative<span>. Saying in the newsletter that members can read the opinions of others on the Wiki is not the same as taking members' questions from the annual meeting and posting them on the Wiki, with the expectation that candidates will actually respond and potentially even debate with each other. This happened organically last election, followed by the board lauding the use of the Wiki and saying it should be used in the same way. It's still possible that it will be used in the same way, but the e-mail to me indicated otherwise. Hence my concern</span>. --["Users/ZacharyNorwood" Z] </td> </tr> </table> </div> Davis Food Co-op/Election 2009http://daviswiki.org/Davis_Food_Co-op/Election_20092009-05-07 18:27:06ZacharyNorwoodre: Doug <div id="content" class="wikipage content"> Differences for Davis Food Co-op/Election 2009<p><strong></strong></p><table> <tr> <td> <span> Deletions are marked with - . </span> </td> <td> <span> Additions are marked with +. </span> </td> </tr> <tr> <td> Line 33: </td> <td> Line 33: </td> </tr> <tr> <td> </td> <td> <span>+ * Thanks for sharing. While it’s true we disagree about what happened last year, our main disagreement—at least in my mind—was whether I correctly interpreted the letter from the election committee. From my standpoint, saying "the election committee has no plan to initiate a Q&amp;A on the Davis Wiki. You are free to start one yourself if you like" meant two things: (a) that there would be no Q&amp;A link-in like last election, and (b) that if some type of Wiki link-in was desired, candidates would have to do it on their own initiative. --["Users/ZacharyNorwood" Z]</span> </td> </tr> </table> </div> Davis Food Co-op/Election 2009http://daviswiki.org/Davis_Food_Co-op/Election_20092009-05-07 18:21:41ZacharyNorwoodfixed Doug's post <div id="content" class="wikipage content"> Differences for Davis Food Co-op/Election 2009<p><strong></strong></p><table> <tr> <td> <span> Deletions are marked with - . </span> </td> <td> <span> Additions are marked with +. </span> </td> </tr> <tr> <td> Line 32: </td> <td> Line 32: </td> </tr> <tr> <td> <span>-</span> * Zach and I have been disagreeing privately about what was or was not done last year. I don't think the situation changed, and I think he's misinterpreting what happened last year when some candidates posted materials on the ["Davis Food Co-op/Election 2008" 2008 page]. I also want to point to [http://www.davisfood.coop/newsletter/dfcnews-may-09.pdf page 3 of the May newsletter] where I wrote:<span><br> -</span> "It’s true that plenty of members don’t vote. A lot don’t feel they’ve had the time to become informed—but that can’t apply to you, since you read our newsletter! You can read materials about the election that we’ll mail to your address of record, you can pick them up in the store, or you can peruse the online version at www.davisfood.coop. You can read the opinions of others at the Co-op election page on http://daviswiki.org, and on the election bulletin board in the store." --[Users/DougWalter] </td> <td> <span>+</span> * Zach and I have been disagreeing privately about what was or was not done last year. I don't think the situation changed, and I think he's misinterpreting what happened last year when some candidates posted materials on the ["Davis Food Co-op/Election 2008" 2008 page]. I also want to point to [http://www.davisfood.coop/newsletter/dfcnews-may-09.pdf page 3 of the May newsletter] where I wrote:<span>&nbsp;&nbsp;</span> "It’s true that plenty of members don’t vote. A lot don’t feel they’ve had the time to become informed—but that can’t apply to you, since you read our newsletter! You can read materials about the election that we’ll mail to your address of record, you can pick them up in the store, or you can peruse the online version at www.davisfood.coop. You can read the opinions of others at the Co-op election page on http://daviswiki.org, and on the election bulletin board in the store." --[<span>"</span>Users/DougWalter<span>"</span>] </td> </tr> </table> </div> Davis Food Co-op/Election 2009http://daviswiki.org/Davis_Food_Co-op/Election_20092009-05-07 15:50:06DougWalterMy comment and link to current newsletter <div id="content" class="wikipage content"> Differences for Davis Food Co-op/Election 2009<p><strong></strong></p><table> <tr> <td> <span> Deletions are marked with - . </span> </td> <td> <span> Additions are marked with +. </span> </td> </tr> <tr> <td> Line 32: </td> <td> Line 32: </td> </tr> <tr> <td> </td> <td> <span>+ * Zach and I have been disagreeing privately about what was or was not done last year. I don't think the situation changed, and I think he's misinterpreting what happened last year when some candidates posted materials on the ["Davis Food Co-op/Election 2008" 2008 page]. I also want to point to [http://www.davisfood.coop/newsletter/dfcnews-may-09.pdf page 3 of the May newsletter] where I wrote:<br> + "It’s true that plenty of members don’t vote. A lot don’t feel they’ve had the time to become informed—but that can’t apply to you, since you read our newsletter! You can read materials about the election that we’ll mail to your address of record, you can pick them up in the store, or you can peruse the online version at www.davisfood.coop. You can read the opinions of others at the Co-op election page on http://daviswiki.org, and on the election bulletin board in the store." --[Users/DougWalter]</span> </td> </tr> </table> </div> Davis Food Co-op/Election 2009http://daviswiki.org/Davis_Food_Co-op/Election_20092009-05-07 13:24:38ZacharyNorwood(quick edit) <div id="content" class="wikipage content"> Differences for Davis Food Co-op/Election 2009<p><strong></strong></p><table> <tr> <td> <span> Deletions are marked with - . </span> </td> <td> <span> Additions are marked with +. </span> </td> </tr> <tr> <td> Line 31: </td> <td> Line 31: </td> </tr> <tr> <td> <span>-</span> ''2009-04-21 20:11:50'' [[nbsp]] I would be happy to answer questions. I hope other candidates would be willing to engage in debate as well. I think the Davis Wiki should be utilized every election to increase democratic engagement, and so I was dismayed to see the Wiki taken out of the loop—or so it seemed, at first. I assumed this based on an e-mail from the election committee, on 4/20, stating that "the election committee has no plan to initiate a Q&amp;A on the Davis Wiki. You are free to start one yourself if you like." In response to this, I thought, "well, last year there was a Q&amp;A session undertaken by non-candidates and a flyer was sent out to members encouraging participation on the Davis Wiki. Why not this year? Even the board, after the election, stated unequivocally that the Davis Wiki should be used in the same fashion this election, given its success, so why should the election committees say the Wiki won’t be used?" I interpreted what was said in the e-mail as indicating there would not be a Q&amp;A link-in with the Davis Wiki nor any flyer sent out, unless candidates initiate the process themselves. I then posted these concerns here on 4/21. The situation changed on 5/7, when it was indicated by the committee that a flyer will, after all, be sent out with a link to the Davis Wiki, and on 5/7 a PDF version of this flyer was e-mailed to candidates sporting a link to the Davis Wiki. This is a step in the right direction, despite its comparatively more ''laissez-faire'' linkage. I’ve learned, in addition, that perhaps Doreen, the present chair of the board, will post questions to the Wiki for all the candidates. I welcome her efforts. Hopefully we can take the 'self-help' principle seriously enough to make the Wiki active every election, but for <span>elections to come,</span> would be even better if some official infrastructure were in place to assure utilization of the Wiki or some type of forum for online debate. --["Users/ZacharyNorwood" Zach] </td> <td> <span>+</span> ''2009-04-21 20:11:50'' [[nbsp]] I would be happy to answer questions. I hope other candidates would be willing to engage in debate as well. I think the Davis Wiki should be utilized every election to increase democratic engagement, and so I was dismayed to see the Wiki taken out of the loop—or so it seemed, at first. I assumed this based on an e-mail from the election committee, on 4/20, stating that "the election committee has no plan to initiate a Q&amp;A on the Davis Wiki. You are free to start one yourself if you like." In response to this, I thought, "well, last year there was a Q&amp;A session undertaken by non-candidates and a flyer was sent out to members encouraging participation on the Davis Wiki. Why not this year? Even the board, after the election, stated unequivocally that the Davis Wiki should be used in the same fashion this election, given its success, so why should the election committees say the Wiki won’t be used?" I interpreted what was said in the e-mail as indicating there would not be a Q&amp;A link-in with the Davis Wiki nor any flyer sent out, unless candidates initiate the process themselves. I then posted these concerns here on 4/21. The situation changed on 5/7, when it was indicated by the committee that a flyer will, after all, be sent out with a link to the Davis Wiki, and on 5/7 a PDF version of this flyer was e-mailed to candidates sporting a link to the Davis Wiki. This is a step in the right direction, despite its comparatively more ''laissez-faire'' linkage. I’ve learned, in addition, that perhaps Doreen, the present chair of the board, will post questions to the Wiki for all the candidates. I welcome her efforts. Hopefully we can take the 'self-help' principle seriously enough to make the Wiki active every election, but for <span>future elections, I think it</span> would be even better if some official infrastructure were in place to assure utilization of the Wiki or some type of forum for online debate. --["Users/ZacharyNorwood" Zach] </td> </tr> </table> </div> Davis Food Co-op/Election 2009http://daviswiki.org/Davis_Food_Co-op/Election_20092009-05-07 13:23:38ZacharyNorwood(quick edit) <div id="content" class="wikipage content"> Differences for Davis Food Co-op/Election 2009<p><strong></strong></p><table> <tr> <td> <span> Deletions are marked with - . </span> </td> <td> <span> Additions are marked with +. </span> </td> </tr> <tr> <td> Line 31: </td> <td> Line 31: </td> </tr> <tr> <td> <span>-</span> ''2009-04-21 20:11:50'' [[nbsp]] I would be happy to answer questions. I hope other candidates would be willing to engage in debate as well. I think the Davis Wiki should be utilized every election to increase democratic engagement, and so I was dismayed to see the Wiki taken out of the loop—or so it seemed, at first. I assumed this based on an e-mail from the election committee, on 4/20, stating that "the election committee has no plan to initiate a Q&amp;A on the Davis Wiki. You are free to start one yourself if you like." In response to this, I thought, "well, last year there was a Q&amp;A session undertaken by non-candidates and a flyer was sent out to members encouraging participation on the Davis Wiki. Why not this year? Even the board, after the election, stated unequivocally that the Davis Wiki should be used in the same fashion this election, given its success, so why should the election committees say the Wiki won’t be used?" I interpreted what was said in the e-mail as indicating there w<span>ill</span> not be a Q&amp;A link-in with the Davis Wiki nor any flyer sent out, unless candidates initiate the process themselves. I then posted these concerns here on 4/21. The situation changed on 5/7, when it was indicated by the committee that a flyer will, after all, be sent out with a link to the Davis Wiki, and on 5/7 a PDF version of this flyer was e-mailed to candidates sporting a link to the Davis Wiki. This is a step in the right direction, despite its comparatively more ''laissez-faire'' linkage. I’ve learned, in addition, that perhaps Doreen, the present chair of the board, will post questions to the Wiki for all the candidates. I welcome her efforts. Hopefully we can take the 'self-help' principle seriously enough to make the Wiki active every election, but for elections to come, would be even better if some official infrastructure were in place to assure utilization of the Wiki or some type of forum for online debate. --["Users/ZacharyNorwood" Zach] </td> <td> <span>+</span> ''2009-04-21 20:11:50'' [[nbsp]] I would be happy to answer questions. I hope other candidates would be willing to engage in debate as well. I think the Davis Wiki should be utilized every election to increase democratic engagement, and so I was dismayed to see the Wiki taken out of the loop—or so it seemed, at first. I assumed this based on an e-mail from the election committee, on 4/20, stating that "the election committee has no plan to initiate a Q&amp;A on the Davis Wiki. You are free to start one yourself if you like." In response to this, I thought, "well, last year there was a Q&amp;A session undertaken by non-candidates and a flyer was sent out to members encouraging participation on the Davis Wiki. Why not this year? Even the board, after the election, stated unequivocally that the Davis Wiki should be used in the same fashion this election, given its success, so why should the election committees say the Wiki won’t be used?" I interpreted what was said in the e-mail as indicating there w<span>ould</span> not be a Q&amp;A link-in with the Davis Wiki nor any flyer sent out, unless candidates initiate the process themselves. I then posted these concerns here on 4/21. The situation changed on 5/7, when it was indicated by the committee that a flyer will, after all, be sent out with a link to the Davis Wiki, and on 5/7 a PDF version of this flyer was e-mailed to candidates sporting a link to the Davis Wiki. This is a step in the right direction, despite its comparatively more ''laissez-faire'' linkage. I’ve learned, in addition, that perhaps Doreen, the present chair of the board, will post questions to the Wiki for all the candidates. I welcome her efforts. Hopefully we can take the 'self-help' principle seriously enough to make the Wiki active every election, but for elections to come, would be even better if some official infrastructure were in place to assure utilization of the Wiki or some type of forum for online debate. --["Users/ZacharyNorwood" Zach] </td> </tr> </table> </div> Davis Food Co-op/Election 2009http://daviswiki.org/Davis_Food_Co-op/Election_20092009-05-07 13:22:47ZacharyNorwoodupdated information, updated comment <div id="content" class="wikipage content"> Differences for Davis Food Co-op/Election 2009<p><strong></strong></p><table> <tr> <td> <span> Deletions are marked with - . </span> </td> <td> <span> Additions are marked with +. </span> </td> </tr> <tr> <td> Line 31: </td> <td> Line 31: </td> </tr> <tr> <td> <span>-</span> ''2009-04-21 20:11:50'' [[nbsp]] I would be happy to answer questions. I hope other candidates would be willing to engage in debate as well. I think the Davis Wiki should be utilized every election to increase democratic engagement, and I<span>’m dismayed the Co</span>-<span>op has, as far as I’m aware, taken the wiki out of the loop. I’m assuming this based on an e-mail from the election committee</span> stating that "the election committee has no plan to initiate a Q&amp;A on the Davis Wiki. You are free to start one yourself if you like." <span>Last year, however, if members recall, not only was there</span> a Q&amp;A session undertaken by non-candidates<span>, </span>b<span>ut a flyer was sent out to memb</span>ers encouraging participation on the Davis Wiki. Even the board, after the election, stated unequivocally that the Davis Wiki should be used in the same fashion this election, given its success<span>&nbsp;last election.</span> I<span>’m interpreting</span> what was said in the e-mail as indicating there will not be a Q&amp;A link-in with the Davis Wiki nor any flyer sent out, unless candidates initiate the process themselves. I <span>coul</span>d b<span>e misunderstand</span>ing <span>what was said, as</span> D<span>ou</span>g<span>&nbsp;indicates, so</span> I<span>&nbsp;await further clarification</span>. --["Users/ZacharyNorwood" Zach] </td> <td> <span>+</span> ''2009-04-21 20:11:50'' [[nbsp]] I would be happy to answer questions. I hope other candidates would be willing to engage in debate as well. I think the Davis Wiki should be utilized every election to increase democratic engagement, and <span>so </span>I<span>&nbsp;was dismayed to see the Wiki taken out of the loop—or so it seemed, at first. I assumed this based on an e</span>-<span>mail from the election committee, on 4/20,</span> stating that "the election committee has no plan to initiate a Q&amp;A on the Davis Wiki. You are free to start one yourself if you like." <span>In response to this, I thought, "well, last year there was</span> a Q&amp;A session undertaken by non-candidates<span>&nbsp;and a flyer was sent out to mem</span>bers encouraging participation on the Davis Wiki.<span>&nbsp;Why not this year?</span> Even the board, after the election, stated unequivocally that the Davis Wiki should be used in the same fashion this election, given its success<span>, so why should the election committees say the Wiki won’t be used?"</span> I<span>&nbsp;interpreted</span> what was said in the e-mail as indicating there will not be a Q&amp;A link-in with the Davis Wiki nor any flyer sent out, unless candidates initiate the process themselves. I <span>then posted these concerns here on 4/21. The situation changed on 5/7, when it was indicate</span>d b<span>y the committee that a flyer will, after all, be sent out with a link to the Davis Wiki, and on 5/7 a PDF version of this flyer was e-mailed to candidates sport</span>ing <span>a link to the</span> D<span>avis Wiki. This is a step in the ri</span>g<span>ht direction, despite its comparatively more ''laissez-faire'' linkage.</span> I<span>’ve learned, in addition, that perhaps Doreen, the present chair of the board, will post questions to the Wiki for all the candidates. I welcome her efforts. Hopefully we can take the 'self-help' principle seriously enough to make the Wiki active every election, but for elections to come, would be even better if some official infrastructure were in place to assure utilization of the Wiki or some type of forum for online debate</span>. --["Users/ZacharyNorwood" Zach] </td> </tr> <tr> <td> Line 34: </td> <td> Line 34: </td> </tr> <tr> <td> <span>-</span> * Dear Julie, I actually came by at six o'clock and discovered there was a closed session until 7:30, so I couldn’t make it due to prior arrangements. If I am elected to the board, I’ll of course reschedule prior commitments so I can assure attendance on Mondays. That said, I attended meetings last year, have years of board experience independent from the Co-op, am familiar with Robert's rules of orders, and most importantly, I have been reading the minutes for every session over the past year, so I have managed to keep up and am familiar with the complications of Co-op operations, policy governance, and so forth. I’ve also been attending task force meetings on Food Ends for some time now, where I’ve had the opportunity to learn more about policy governance. I think it’s problematic, however, to make the case that interested layman unfamiliar with the complications of a Co-operative grocery are somehow less capable of serving on the board of directors. That doesn’t sound very cooperative, does it? In fact, it says in the bylaws that interested candidates do not need to be completely familiar with the minutia of Co-op operations to serve on the board, even though they are encouraged to read the bylaws and other policies, which I have do<span>ne. Regarding the meeting, what did I miss that informs the Wiki link-in situation? If someone isn't willing to tell me now, I'll have to wait until the minutes are posted onli</span>ne. --["Users/ZacharyNorwood" Zach] </td> <td> <span>+</span> * Dear Julie, I actually came by at six o'clock and discovered there was a closed session until 7:30, so I couldn’t make it due to prior arrangements. If I am elected to the board, I’ll of course reschedule prior commitments so I can assure attendance on Mondays. That said, I attended meetings last year, have years of board experience independent from the Co-op, am familiar with Robert's rules of orders, and most importantly, I have been reading the minutes for every session over the past year, so I have managed to keep up and am familiar with the complications of Co-op operations, policy governance, and so forth. I’ve also been attending task force meetings on Food Ends for some time now, where I’ve had the opportunity to learn more about policy governance. I think it’s problematic, however, to make the case that interested layman unfamiliar with the complications of a Co-operative grocery are somehow less capable of serving on the board of directors. That doesn’t sound very cooperative, does it? In fact, it says in the bylaws that interested candidates do not need to be completely familiar with the minutia of Co-op operations to serve on the board, even though they are encouraged to read the bylaws and other policies, which I have done. --["Users/ZacharyNorwood" Zach] </td> </tr> </table> </div> Davis Food Co-op/Election 2009http://daviswiki.org/Davis_Food_Co-op/Election_20092009-05-06 10:42:10ZacharyNorwood <div id="content" class="wikipage content"> Differences for Davis Food Co-op/Election 2009<p><strong></strong></p><table> <tr> <td> <span> Deletions are marked with - . </span> </td> <td> <span> Additions are marked with +. </span> </td> </tr> <tr> <td> Line 34: </td> <td> Line 34: </td> </tr> <tr> <td> <span>-</span> * Dear Julie, I actually came by at six o'clock<span>,</span> and discovered there was a closed session until 7:30, so I couldn’t make it due to prior arrangements. If I am elected to the board, I’ll <span>reschedule my</span> commitments so I can assure attendance on Monday<span>,</span> b<span>ut right now I regularly scheduled commitments on Mondays. That said, I attended meetings last year, and I’ve </span>be<span>en reading the minutes ever since, so I</span> keep up and am familiar with the complications of Co-op operations, policy governance, and so forth. I’ve also been attending task force meetings on Food Ends for some time now, where I’ve had the opportunity to learn more about policy governance. I think it’s problematic, however, to make the case that interested layman unfamiliar with the complications of a Co-operative grocery are somehow less capable of serving on the board of directors. That doesn’t sound very cooperative, does it? In fact, it says in the bylaws that interested candidates do not need to be completely familiar with the minutia of Co-op operations to serve on the board, even though they are encouraged to read the bylaws and other policies, which I have done. Regarding the meeting, what did I miss that informs the Wiki link-in situation? If someone isn't willing to tell me now, I'll have to wait until the minutes are posted online. --["Users/ZacharyNorwood" Zach] </td> <td> <span>+</span> * Dear Julie, I actually came by at six o'clock and discovered there was a closed session until 7:30, so I couldn’t make it due to prior arrangements. If I am elected to the board, I’ll <span>of course reschedule prior</span> commitments so I can assure attendance on Monday<span>s. That said, I attended meetings last year, have years of</span> b<span>oard experience independent from the Co-op, am familiar with Ro</span>be<span>rt's rules of orders, and most importantly, I have been reading the minutes for every session over the past year, so I have managed to</span> keep up and am familiar with the complications of Co-op operations, policy governance, and so forth. I’ve also been attending task force meetings on Food Ends for some time now, where I’ve had the opportunity to learn more about policy governance. I think it’s problematic, however, to make the case that interested layman unfamiliar with the complications of a Co-operative grocery are somehow less capable of serving on the board of directors. That doesn’t sound very cooperative, does it? In fact, it says in the bylaws that interested candidates do not need to be completely familiar with the minutia of Co-op operations to serve on the board, even though they are encouraged to read the bylaws and other policies, which I have done. Regarding the meeting, what did I miss that informs the Wiki link-in situation? If someone isn't willing to tell me now, I'll have to wait until the minutes are posted online. --["Users/ZacharyNorwood" Zach] </td> </tr> </table> </div> Davis Food Co-op/Election 2009http://daviswiki.org/Davis_Food_Co-op/Election_20092009-05-06 10:39:34ZacharyNorwoodre: Julie <div id="content" class="wikipage content"> Differences for Davis Food Co-op/Election 2009<p><strong></strong></p><table> <tr> <td> <span> Deletions are marked with - . </span> </td> <td> <span> Additions are marked with +. </span> </td> </tr> <tr> <td> Line 34: </td> <td> Line 34: </td> </tr> <tr> <td> <span>- ------<br> - ''2009-05-06 10:24:47'' [[nbsp]] As one of the three candidates who attended the May Board Meeting on Monday (incumbent Kevin Wolf and new candidates Sam Citron were the other two), I wonder where the other candidates were? Running an ~$18 million business is fairly complicated, and it might be helpful for you to know what's going on. --["Users/JulieCross"]</span> </td> <td> <span>+ * Dear Julie, I actually came by at six o'clock, and discovered there was a closed session until 7:30, so I couldn’t make it due to prior arrangements. If I am elected to the board, I’ll reschedule my commitments so I can assure attendance on Monday, but right now I regularly scheduled commitments on Mondays. That said, I attended meetings last year, and I’ve been reading the minutes ever since, so I keep up and am familiar with the complications of Co-op operations, policy governance, and so forth. I’ve also been attending task force meetings on Food Ends for some time now, where I’ve had the opportunity to learn more about policy governance. I think it’s problematic, however, to make the case that interested layman unfamiliar with the complications of a Co-operative grocery are somehow less capable of serving on the board of directors. That doesn’t sound very cooperative, does it? In fact, it says in the bylaws that interested candidates do not need to be completely familiar with the minutia of Co-op operations to serve on the board, even though they are encouraged to read the bylaws and other policies, which I have done. Regarding the meeting, what did I miss that informs the Wiki link-in situation? If someone isn't willing to tell me now, I'll have to wait until the minutes are posted online. --["Users/ZacharyNorwood" Zach]</span> </td> </tr> </table> </div> Davis Food Co-op/Election 2009http://daviswiki.org/Davis_Food_Co-op/Election_20092009-05-06 10:24:47JulieCrossComment added. <div id="content" class="wikipage content"> Differences for Davis Food Co-op/Election 2009<p><strong></strong></p><table> <tr> <td> <span> Deletions are marked with - . </span> </td> <td> <span> Additions are marked with +. </span> </td> </tr> <tr> <td> Line 34: </td> <td> Line 34: </td> </tr> <tr> <td> </td> <td> <span>+ ------<br> + ''2009-05-06 10:24:47'' [[nbsp]] As one of the three candidates who attended the May Board Meeting on Monday (incumbent Kevin Wolf and new candidates Sam Citron were the other two), I wonder where the other candidates were? Running an ~$18 million business is fairly complicated, and it might be helpful for you to know what's going on. --["Users/JulieCross"]</span> </td> </tr> </table> </div> Davis Food Co-op/Election 2009http://daviswiki.org/Davis_Food_Co-op/Election_20092009-05-06 09:36:53JulieCrossComment added. <div id="content" class="wikipage content"> Differences for Davis Food Co-op/Election 2009<p><strong></strong></p><table> <tr> <td> <span> Deletions are marked with - . </span> </td> <td> <span> Additions are marked with +. </span> </td> </tr> <tr> <td> Line 32: </td> <td> Line 32: </td> </tr> <tr> <td> </td> <td> <span>+ ------<br> + ''2009-05-06 09:36:53'' [[nbsp]] As one of the three candidates who attended the May Board Meeting on Monday (incumbent Kevin Wolf and new candidates Sam Citron were the other two), I wonder where the other candidates were? Running an ~$18 million business is fairly complicated, and it might be helpful for you to know what's going on. --["Users/JulieCross"]</span> </td> </tr> </table> </div> Davis Food Co-op/Election 2009http://daviswiki.org/Davis_Food_Co-op/Election_20092009-05-05 20:02:41ZacharyNorwoodexpanded my comment <div id="content" class="wikipage content"> Differences for Davis Food Co-op/Election 2009<p><strong></strong></p><table> <tr> <td> <span> Deletions are marked with - . </span> </td> <td> <span> Additions are marked with +. </span> </td> </tr> <tr> <td> Line 31: </td> <td> Line 31: </td> </tr> <tr> <td> <span>- ''2009-04-21 20:11:50'' [[nbsp]] I would be happy to answer questions. I hope other candidates would be willing to engage in debate as well. I think the wiki should be utilized every election to increase democratic engagement, and I’m dismayed the Co-op has taken the wiki out of the loop. --["Users/ZacharyNorwood" Zach]</span> </td> <td> <span>+ ''2009-04-21 20:11:50'' [[nbsp]] I would be happy to answer questions. I hope other candidates would be willing to engage in debate as well. I think the Davis Wiki should be utilized every election to increase democratic engagement, and I’m dismayed the Co-op has, as far as I’m aware, taken the wiki out of the loop. I’m assuming this based on an e-mail from the election committee stating that "the election committee has no plan to initiate a Q&amp;A on the Davis Wiki. You are free to start one yourself if you like." Last year, however, if members recall, not only was there a Q&amp;A session undertaken by non-candidates, but a flyer was sent out to members encouraging participation on the Davis Wiki. Even the board, after the election, stated unequivocally that the Davis Wiki should be used in the same fashion this election, given its success last election. I’m interpreting what was said in the e-mail as indicating there will not be a Q&amp;A link-in with the Davis Wiki nor any flyer sent out, unless candidates initiate the process themselves. I could be misunderstanding what was said, as Doug indicates, so I await further clarification. --["Users/ZacharyNorwood" Zach]</span> </td> </tr> </table> </div> Davis Food Co-op/Election 2009http://daviswiki.org/Davis_Food_Co-op/Election_20092009-05-05 13:43:45DougWalterUpdated link to Candidate packet with new calendar <div id="content" class="wikipage content"> Differences for Davis Food Co-op/Election 2009<p><strong></strong></p><table> <tr> <td> <span> Deletions are marked with - . </span> </td> <td> <span> Additions are marked with +. </span> </td> </tr> <tr> <td> Line 24: </td> <td> Line 24: </td> </tr> <tr> <td> <span>-</span> For more information on eligibility, please read the [http://www.davisfood.coop/Candidate_Packet_<span>3_3</span>_09.pdf Candidate's Packet], "''Y<span>ou can</span> b<span>ecom</span>e a Candidate...''" (a PDF file). You will need to fill out a [http://www.davisfood.coop/Declare_Candidacy_3_3_09.pdf Declaration of Candidacy] form (a PDF file) to run. </td> <td> <span>+</span> For more information on eligibility, please read the [http://www.davisfood.coop/Candidate_Packet_<span>5_5</span>_09.pdf Candidate's Packet], "''Y<span>es, I want to</span> be a Candidate...''" (a PDF file). You will need to fill out a [http://www.davisfood.coop/Declare_Candidacy_3_3_09.pdf Declaration of Candidacy] form (a PDF file) to run. </td> </tr> </table> </div>