Some of the statistics scattered around in this article are just plain silly, considering that the sampling is infinitesimal, and that this is what Fairbank, Maslin, Maullin, Metz & Associates do. Who would hire them if they were going to find anything other than that the project their clients have in mind, is just what the people want. I’m no journalist, but I wonder that you did not think to ask who paid for this survey. If the city did, then voters are entitled to know who authorized it, how much was spent and from what funding source did the money come. Please reassure us readers that the city did not close almost every pool in the city and shutter the neighborhood community centers but have enough money in the coffers to fund anything as ridiculous as this survey. Dare I ask if anyone at SACPRESS checked on the survey questions, and how these questions were posed? Also interesting was the fact that the article states that those polled were equally divided between Democrat and Republicans. Were there no American Independents, no Greens or other third parties? It doesn’t matter because this is just one more of the not-facts sited in this article, and used as window dressing to make this survey sound like something that should be taken seriously. But what we should take seriously is whether the city council and the mayor are ignoring the actual votes of the people and allowing themselves to be influenced by this kind of flim-flam. Also possibly a more troubling question--what kind of journalism is it which does not question its sources, and which allows the public to be misled?

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.

"spend some time reading the Bylaws... It says specifically member initiatives need to be reviewed to make sure they comply with the law, the Coops principles, and the bylaws." Yes the bylaws do say this as quoted BUT as regards amendments to the Bylaws proposed for the ballot. Initiatives are a separate section and no such prescription is made for Initiatives, because the Co-op founders wanted to preserve this small reservation for Direct Democracy. So please don't all be so sanctamonious when you haven't yourself read Carefully these Bylaws.

Wow, I was right when I said you should not disagree with Mr. Maviglio. Actually I am not associated with BDS although I share their concern for the indigenous people of Palestine and the decades-long occupation by the state of Israel with American taxpayer funding. But BDS seems to be the BIG smear mechanism, and also it seems, guilt by association. Mr. M. is mostly right in that I have only taken sporadic interest in the governance of the Co-op since I first joined in 1985. Partly that was due to often working and living out of the region, in San Francisco and in LA for long periods of time, but I kept my membership up and did in fact attend many member meetings. I am sad that I could not have done more, but many of us have to wait till retirement to do the things we always wanted to do. I certainly never expected to be attacked for this; after all I am not a professional political hack with obviously lots of time to grind out these sad little attacks on anyone with an opinion contrary to his own. This is the problem in a nutshell of why I decided I had to run for the board. Here is the Board President leveling anyone and everyone in his path, belittling their opinions and their membership, even by god, the amount of money they spend. Precisely this lofty distance and open distain from some members of the board, toward the general membership is just what will bring the Co-op down, not some insignificant Dead Sea salts. You can take this as notice that I may be old, and I may have missed many Co-op activities over the 25 years that I have been a member, because of work and family, but I will not be silenced by your insults.

Membership at the Co-op confers one vote, regardless of whether that membership is an individual, a household or a partnership. One membership can be composed of two catagories, a primary member and a (non-voting) secondary member for the proposes of work and membership discounts. Usually it doesn't matter which partner is the named member, except when it comes to the vote, or as we learned in this election, if you want to express an opinion. It must be noted that membership in our Co-op has become more expensive since the fiasco of the Elk Grove store, so most families choose to share their membership and one vote. Mr. Mandel was not the primary member on the member roles although he and his partner have been members of the Co-op for as long as I can remember. However, Mr. Mandel was told that he could not submit his argument because he was a “household shopper” (non-voting) rather than a primary member. Therefor he had to take out a new membership in his own name. Really quite simple! Mr. Maviglio knows this very well, and it is really quite undignified of a member of the board and in fact the Chair of the board to use such a distortion of fact as an argument. As to our “many names”-- yes we are a loose coalition of many groups, and individuals with many interests and many names, but the one name we share is Member/Owners. The other thing that we share is our increasing frustration with the Board's direction toward corporatization and away from democratic principles, and respect for the opinions of its members, and for the Co-op own bylaws. It is our contention that it is this arrogance of power on the part of some on the board which has escalated a simple initiative drive into this imbroglio, which Mr. Maviglio then also blames on us—for disagreeing with him. Yes we are a diverse coalition, but it must make people wonder why such a large organization as the Co-op, has to stoop to such low tactics to quiet its member’s right to free, fair and open discussion.