STORYLINE Local Business

This storyline has only one article

Viewing thru of

Close timeline

Co-op candidate forum focuses on boycott

by Brandon Darnell, published on August 3, 2011 at 12:23 AM

Storyline: Local Business RSS Feed

1 of 2
close

No high resolution image exists...

Progress bar

1 of 2
Loading images
Slideshow image Slideshow image

Though the financial stability and the future expansion of the Sacramento Natural Foods Co-op factored into a board of directors candidates’ forum Tuesday night, it was dominated by another issue that has recently divided the co-op members.

The recent efforts to ban Israeli products from co-op shelves has led to discussion over whether a grocery store is the appropriate venue for a political boycott and the power the board of directors has over proposed boycotts. It has even spawned a lawsuit.

Five candidates are running for two open spots on the co-op board, and those elected will serve three-year terms.

Incumbent board members Alicia Dienst and Ann Richardson are up against Phyllis Ehlert, Cody Potter and Susan Bush. To read background on the candidates, click here.

Moderator Marcia Tennyson asked the candidates prepared questions that ranged from what they think are the values of the co-op to specific ones about the recent efforts to boycott Israel.

Candidates were asked what the most important responsibility of a co-op board member is, and they differed in their responses, with Ehlert saying the biggest responsibility is fiduciary.

She added that board members “should be above reproach and create trust among members.”

Richardson agreed that financial responsibility is priority No. 1.

“We clearly are a very successfully run business,” she said.

The co-op sells about $25 million worth of products annually, according to General Manager Paul Cultrera.

Bush focused on the need to represent the membership in its entirety.

“Except for one small part of the bylaws, this is not a direct democracy,” she said. “I am prepared to defend that part of the bylaws that says members have the right to petition and have that petition put on the ballot.”

Potter said he agreed with Bush, adding that it’s necessary to involve the members in the decision-making process.

“You’re representing them, and you have to put out surveys and ask them (questions), otherwise you’re only representing a fraction of the membership,” he said.

Dienst said she thinks the board is charged with developing a vision for the co-op to follow 10, 20 and 30 years down the road.

“In developing that vision, obviously board members have a substantial responsibility to connect to the membership,” she said.

The future of the co-op was hinted at, with mention of the lease on the current store expiring in two years. All candidates agreed that if the membership decides to relocate, it’s an issue that will need a lot of thought put into it.

The focus turned to the Israeli boycott issue on one of the questions about halfway through, and that topic dominated the rest of the debate.

Potter, bringing up the apartheid regime in South Africa, said boycotts are proven to have an effect, and he thinks the co-op should boycott Israeli goods to bring about change in what he thinks is an inhumane occupation in Palestine.

“I don’t think there’s anywhere in the bylaws that says we can’t boycott products (for political reasons),” he said.

Dienst and Richardson avoided commenting on the boycott directly, saying that their attorneys have advised them not to speak about it since the co-op is currently involved in a lawsuit on the issue.

Ehlert said she is opposed to the boycott.

“Our world is too complex for simple decisions,” she said, adding that any boycott should be done at the grassroots level, where members make their own purchasing decisions.

“Years ago, there was a grape boycott,” she said. “If you didn’t support them, you didn’t buy them.”

Bush disagreed, saying her view on the bylaws is that allowing members to petition the board to have a measure put on the annual ballot to the full membership is the only way members themselves have a direct representation in the store.

Throughout the debate, the approximately 45 people in the audience applauded, and some held up signs saying “No BDS,” referencing the group wishing to boycott, divest and sanction Israel. They were later told to only react when they agreed with something, with a silent thumbs-up, because the applause and noise was disruptive and took too much time away from the debate.

Ehlert said she thinks it is the role of the board of directors to filter some of the issues, since no set of bylaws can be written to anticipate every controversy that might come up.

Bush said the board should have a role in reviewing initiatives but anything over reviewing them is “usurping rights of the membership as they are enshrined in the bylaws.”

Questions from the audience also focused on the issues surrounding the boycott initiative, and Potter said he would support boycotting goods from other countries, such as China and Syria, that have human rights violation records.

He added that proposed boycotts of products from nations guilty of human rights violations “deserve serious discussion.”

Dienst said bringing the politics of foreign nations is “inside-out” from what the co-op is about.

“The co-op’s mission has been to provide natural food and sustainably produced food,” she said, adding that 80-90 percent of the products are locally produced.

Bush said the reason the focus has been on Israel is because the U.S. government supports the occupation of Palestine. She said that stance silences the voice of opposition in the United States.

Dienst disagreed, saying that their voices were being heard at the forum.

Richardson added to Dienst’s comments: “If we hadn’t been sued, you’d be hearing more about this issue tonight from us.”

Dienst urged co-op members to vote.

“Your involvement is critical,” she said. “It absolutely is.”

A video of the forum was recorded, and it will be available on YouTube through the Sacramento Natural Foods Co-op website later this week, according to Board Member Michelle Reynolds.

Ballots must be postmarked by Sept. 3, and votes will be counted by Sept. 10, with new board members taking office Oct. 4.

Brandon Darnell is a staff reporter for The Sacramento Press. Follow him on Twitter @Brandon_Darnell.

Liked this article? Share it with your friends:

Conversation Express your views, debate, and be heard with those in your area closest to the issue.RSS Feed

August 3, 2011 | 7:33 AM
I don't think the sac co-op should boycott. Purchasing decisions should be made by co-op shoppers. Cody Potter and Susan Bush are pro-boycott and I won't be voting for them.
10 3
REPLY
August 3, 2011 | 8:03 AM
Did you notice the references to "divided Co-op members"? That's what the Potter/Bush campaign is all about -- dividing members over a political issue irrelevant to the Co-op. I thought this was supposed to be a Co-op (as in cooperation)!
7 2
REPLY
August 3, 2011 | 5:03 PM
Thank you!
1 0
REPLY
August 3, 2011 | 7:47 AM
From this report, it looks like Susan Bush and Cody Potter have no idea what the Bylaws actually say. Maybe they should read the lawsuit they support against the Co-op and the judge's initial decision, as reported here on Sac Press. They only seem to be interested in negative attacks against the Coop and support boycotts and lawsuits.

7 3
REPLY
August 3, 2011 | 11:39 AM
Much as I dislike Israel's treatment of Palestine I don;t think boycotting their products is a good idea. The world is full of reprehensible regimes, even the US is not above inclusion, depending on where you stand on civil liberties/torture.
Better to educate and keep the standards of safety, freshness, environmental concern and quality of the products you provide rather than wasting time picking apart the world's political systems to determine suitability.
(Anyway, I'm still mad at the doomed Elk Grove SuperCoOp that should never have been built and that cost the members a boat load of money!).
3 1
REPLY
August 3, 2011 | 12:22 PM
There is still this misconception here on the comment boards that Ms. Coulter's goal is to remove Israeli products from the shelves of the co-op.

Her real goal is to create a link between the boycott actions of the co-op and her own anti-Israel activism in order to drive similar boycotts elsewhere. It is not about the 10 boxes (bags?) of matzo balls the co-op sells each week... it is about whether the co-op wants to be inexorably linked to all of Ms. Coulters future boycott schemes.
5 3
REPLY
August 3, 2011 | 5:58 PM
As much as I agree with the position that Israel is a defacto occupying army in Palestine opening practicing genocide I do not think the Co-op should boycott products from Israel. I will look to see that I personally am not buying any product from Israel ...but this is not something the Board should impose on all members.

Thanks for the very detailed article.. I now know who I will not be voting for.

btw.. why isn't the Co-op owning instead to leasing... a mortgage payment has far more future certainty than the whims of a landlord.
3 1
REPLY
August 3, 2011 | 7:49 PM
Thanks for your support of the Board. We don't own because we don't have that much capital. The Co-op has grown significantly (thanks to your support), but buying a grocery store is big business. Even most of the major supermarkets don't buy the property; they lease in malls.
2 1
REPLY
August 4, 2011 | 12:45 AM
Please note: As the Sac. Press report says, the issue isn't the board imposing a boycott on all members, but 1) denying them their right to learn about the issue under the longstanding policy that was jettisoned at first sign of pressure from the "criticism of Israel is anti-Semitism" crowd; then 2) denying the right of members to call for a vote on the issue, violating the bylaws that require it to do so when 100+ signatures are submitted. The board powers that be will try to confuse you by saying the "Election Code" allows them to ignore this clause of the bylaws, but that's nonsense. It would be like a government agency thinking it can ignore/violate the U.S. Constitution by writing a regulation that contradicts it.
2 3
REPLY
August 4, 2011 | 11:41 AM
Actually, David, your BDS organization tabled outside our store for six months before it has banned for harassing our customers. There also were multiple discussions on the Coop's Facebook pages, discussions at two member meetings, letters to the editor in the Coop's newsletter, and information on our website. So much for your inaccurate and bogus comment that "denying them their right to learn about the issue."

And for the 100th time, the Bylaws -- written well before you joined the Co-op and the BDS targeted our Co-op, require ALL measures (including those proposed by the Board itself) to be vetted for compliance with California law, our Bylaws, and the Cooperative Principles. This process has been in place for many, many years.

It's pretty sad that you and the BDS continue to launch a negative campaign, file lawsuits, and harass our customers. I'm pretty confident owners that patronize our Co-op (which you should actually try sometime) care more about food than Middle East politics.
5 3
REPLY
August 4, 2011 | 8:01 PM
I'll ignore the latest batch of Maviglio's pathetic, ugly and untrue personal swipes in favor of focusing on the core issue: No matter how many hundreds of times he says it, the bylaws neither require -- nor allow -- the board to vet initiatives submitted by the sufficient number of members. Don't like that? Fine, amend the bylaws, but that requires a vote of members. You can't just ignore the rules because they're inconvenient.

Confused? It's deliberate. Read the bylaws and see my previous comment.

Moreover, its disingenuous to say the process (as Maviglio misrepresents it) "has been in place for many, many years." According to the board, there hasn't been a member petition initiative in decades, if ever.

How sad that what could have been a constructive community debate leading to greater knowledge on a subject of great concern to many members degenerated into this ugly shouting match because Maviglio and the board majority wouldn't let it proceed according to the rules and continue to undermine fairness in the election process.

Please help start the co-op back on the road to responsible governance. Vote for Cody Potter and Susan Bush for the board, and vote no on Measure 2.
2 5
REPLY
August 5, 2011 | 9:33 PM
David, is the truth really "pathetic, ugly, and untrue"? Apparently you think so. And no how many times you say it, the Bylaws clearly state that initiatives are put to a vote of members under the procedures of the Election Code. And the Election Code has long had a review by the Coop's committee as part of the process -- even for the Board's own proposals.

I know it's inconvenient for you to understand that, but that's what it says. The reason is simple: so nothing gets on the ballot that's illegal, violates our Bylaws (like both of the initiatives you and BDS want), or the Cooperative Principles.

And you really ought to look in the mirror when it comes to "ugly shouting matches." Because until BDS targeted our store, we never had any. When BDS decided to use our store as a political soapbox (as they did in Davis before us), customer complaints soared, we've had to eject BDS members from our meetings because of their disruptive behavior, and BDS has filed a lawsuit against the store. In Davis, their sales dropped 20% because of this type of activity.

What's worse, actually, are David's outright lies about Measure 2. But then again, when facts get in the way of his stories, that's what he has to resort to. He likes to write about "food fights" and stand up and disrupt meetings. Talk about sad.

3 1
REPLY
August 3, 2011 | 7:32 PM
is this an episode of "Portlandia?"
2 0
REPLY
August 7, 2011 | 6:24 AM
LOL
0 0
REPLY
August 4, 2011 | 7:31 PM
What we currently have is a Board of bullies who would have tortured Cesar chavez's peaceful boycotts and Desmond Tutu's peaceful boycotts the same way they are harassing people who want real democracy. I am a member of nothing at all but the co-op and did not know these people until I bumped into them on the sidewalk, and they have never harasssed anyone. The Board is currently made up of bullies and those of you who have not really followed this, need to look a little harder at the issue of democracy -- the bad guys are not Susan and Cody -- they were also the ONLY candidates to speak up in favor of California farmworkers, which is a cause that has been crying for our attention for decades. At the meeting, the current Board members had NOTHING to say about any human rights issues that impacts us as consumers, including for the farmworkers. Watch them make up something now -- but watch the U-Tube tape to see the truth.
2 5
REPLY
August 4, 2011 | 10:22 PM
Yes, please watch the YouTube. You will see the Board members not say anything because they are being sued by BDS and its puppet candidates Susan Bush and Coddy Potter. How come Bush and Potter haven't distanced themselves from the lawsuit against the store?

2 2
REPLY
August 4, 2011 | 7:36 PM
Steven Maviglio has yelled, harassed, lied and distorted the issues at every step -- there has never been a man with less commitment to real democracy on the Board of Directors, ever. Watch the end of the U-Tube tape where you will see a Board member SHRIEKING at the top of her lungs at one very quiet question about the Bylaws change. EVERYthing is revealed in how they answered one very short question about how they perceive "democracy."
2 4
REPLY
August 4, 2011 | 10:21 PM
That's pretty hilarious "Italian" (or are you really Maggie Coulter?). Here's a guy who has been an elected member of the Legislature and served his whole career in public service and you viciously attack him with no evidence to back it up. Board members are volunteers who were peacefully helping the Coop become one of the best coops in the nation until your BDS folks decided to target the store for its political agenda.
2 2
REPLY
August 5, 2011 | 12:01 PM
Let's end this this battle of misleading and misquoting, and personal attacks. Everyone has advised me that it would too boring to quote the relevant bylaw sections as they relates to this issue. But with misinformation abounding the time has come for just that, and so here paraphrased and quoted (as marked) are the relevant sections of the Bylaws. Please download from the sacfoodcoop.com, or call the co-op and ask for a copy 455-2667 so that you can read along with me! Section 10 deals with what goes on the ballot. 10.02 is the Election Code, it is rather lengthy so again, please go website and read it. There is nothing in it about Board oversight of Member Initiatives. Next is 10-03 Board Elections, then 10-04 covers Recall of Directors, and then we have 10-5 Bylaws Amendments. Here is where the Board and all its misquoting minions go off the rails—in my opinion. Of course 10.05 mandates that the board should read and certify that a Bylaws Amendment meets all legal requirements, is clear and concise and that it does not affect other than that Bylaw that is being amended; it also mandates public discussion of the proposed Amendment in 10.05.b.3. Now we come to the section that actually covers Initiatives-- Section 10.06 Referendums and Initiatives. 10.06.a states that these (referendums and/or initiatives must be in line with the Election Code (10.2) Continuing now with 10.06.a This outlines the (3) three ways an initiative may be put on the ballot "10.06.a.1. A petition stating the action requested, must be signed by at least that number of Members which constitutes a quorum for the transaction of business as set forth in section 7.05.a (and) is received by the secretary of the board. 10.06.a.2 (If) A majority of the members present and voting at a duly called or regular meeting deem it necessary. Section 10.06.a.3 The board so directs. Section 10.06 (ends with) b. The results of any referendum and/or initiave shall be binding on the Board and Membership." These Bylaws, not unlike the founding documents of our Nation, are elegant in their clarity and simplicity, and folks: depending how you print them they are less than 10 pages long. I beg everyone to download and print them and for heaven's sake please read them yourselves. Don't let these online Rush Limbaughs tell you what they say!!! And yes there are other issues involved here as well, but let's untangle this misquoting and misinformation one issue at a time. Thank You if you have read this far, I do appreciate the time you and everyone has devoted to these contentious issues.
1 3
REPLY
August 5, 2011 | 3:57 PM
One word: Paragraphs.
3 1
REPLY
edited on  August 5, 2011 | 9:49 PM
Susan Bush and her supporters that are suing the Co-op are dead wrong about what the Bylaws say. And so that it's clear, here's exactly how they read (without Susan's editing):

From section 10.06 of the Bylaws: "Any official act, either proposed or taken, at a membership meeting or a Board of Directors meeting, shall be submitted to a referendum or initiative of the Membership UNDER THE PROCEDURES OUTLINED IN THE ELECTION CODE in any of the following situations..."

And so here's the Co-op's Election Code: "The Policy Committee reviews bylaws amendments as required in SNFC Bylaws section 10.05b. In addition, the Policy Committee will review all proposed ballot measures (initiatives and referendums) to ensure clarity and alignment with Federal Law, California Law, SNFC Bylaws and Articles of Incorporation, and the Rochdale Cooperative Principles".

If Susan were correct, the sentence in the Bylaws wouldn't have the words
"UNDER THE PROCEDURES OUTLINED IN THE ELECTION CODE" after the initiative section. They are there for a reason: to make sure that initiatives aren't an end-run around the Bylaws (which require 2/3 approval for changes) and are legal.

Exhibit A is a recent suggestion by the BDS that initiative could be to lower store prices or require the payment of dividends. The first would have a serious financial impact on the store, and the second is in direct violation of Bylaws.

Ultimately, because of the BDS lawsuit, a court will decide this. But the Board, GM, Policy Committee, and past five presidents of the Co-op disagree with the Bush/Potter/Coulter interpretation of this, as well as their attempt to divide our co-op.
2 1
REPLY
August 6, 2011 | 5:21 PM
Mind-boggling how Maviglio continues to think that if he repeats his illogical contortions enough, they'll become true. The Election Code, which purports to give the Policy Committee the right to vet proposed measures for referendum, cannot be used to change the pre-existing Bylaws, which permit members to propose measures by submitting signatures. The Bylaws section refers to the Election Code regarding only the "procedures" governing the holding of elections. Maviglio and his minions are trying to pretend they can simply write a new rule and use it to circumvent the bylaws. Sorry, that's cheating. Bylaws can be amended only by a vote of the members.
1 4
REPLY
August 8, 2011 | 9:34 PM
Exactly, David. So if you want the change the Bylaws to delete the sentence that requires compliance to the Election Code (which has been on the books since the Coop was founded), then by all means go ahead and try. In the meantime, to pretend it doesn't exist is inaccurate.

And name-calling? Really? I guess when the facts aren't on your side, this is the kind of negative campaigning you need to resort to. Sad.

3 1
REPLY
August 8, 2011 | 2:22 PM
Oh shut up all of you!
2 3
REPLY
August 9, 2011 | 3:24 PM
Let the patrons decide if they want to by Israeli products or not. Stay out of world politics!!
3 0
REPLY
Leave a Comment
User icon
Type your comment in the box below Edit your comment in the box below

Type tags into the box below. Use commas to separate your tags.

Please Log in or Sign up

Existing Members

Sign In Progress bar Forgot Password?

New Users Create an Account Here
Progress bar
Verification email has been sent. To validate your account open the link provided in the message.
There was a problem sending your verification email. Please contact support@sacramentopress.com
Progress bar Login background Tag cloud top Tag cloud background Tag cloud bottom Login manager background