Tag Cloud
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.
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!).
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.