Cooperative Principles, VFC-Style
Rory Bowman
informed judgement, as a past officer and consulting architect, that
VFC would not achieve its previously-stated goals and that owner
equity was clearly at risk. All of this was politely and obliquely
stated on a single page, but since I was paying for printing and
postage anyway, I appended a list of the cooperative principles to the
reverse: the full text, as may be found at http://www.ica.coop/coop/principles.html
To anyone who is familiar with VFC, this text is sad recounting of
several broken promises, but the "short version" was repeated in their
one-page "News Message" at http://www.vancouverfood.coop/cgi-bin/dada/mail.cgi/archive/vfcnews/20081005201045/
What can they possibly mean?
1) voluntary and open membership
Anyone is welcome to give money to VFC but VFC gets to decide if and
when that money is returned. Although RCW 24.06.070 clearly indicates
that share payments are the property of the shareholder and redeemable
after six months, section 9.3 of bylaws unilaterally adopted by the
board in violation of earlier share agreements gives the board the
option to retain owner equity at their discretion. As in the old song,
"Hotel California," you can check in any time you want but your money
may never leave.
2) deomocratic member control
Key incorporators worked hard to avoid any sort of election, worked
harder to campaign against perceived enemies among candidates, and
then systematically alienated elected board members until four of nine
had left, whereupon they appointed one of their choosing and then
terminated a fifth without any hearing or right of appeal. Rather than
operate at the odd number suggested by their own bylaws, the current
board is now recruiting non-owners for the board to unnecessarily
stack membership in their favor against future elections. Owners are
not allowed directory access to information on other owners and
various opportunities for owners to interact with each other (such as
potlucks and online forums) have been systematically eliminated and
shut down for criticism of VFC decisions. Board meetings have been
shortened from two or more hours to one hour, with owner comments
restricted to a ten-minute ghetto whereafter they are ignored, with
the board going into "executive session" for real decisions. No
substantive owner input is desired and whatever sneaks through seems
roundly ignored, as evidenced by their handling of such issues as
unilateral adoption of bylaws and attempted blackout of all
information regarding the owners meeting called for August 27, 2008.
3) member economic participation
"Economic participation" in most food cooperatives would normally take
the form of using cooperative structures to arrange the purchase of
food by promoting suppliers, identifying vendors and making a modest
profit by providing members access to nutritious foods. Economic
participation for VFC involves asking others to raise money for them
through donated auction items and giving them $180 per share, without
bothering the board any further.
Most member ideas and member-originated projects are rejected by VFC's
centralized and disheartening "committee" system, which fundamentally
runs through and answers to one founder. Quality volunteers with
skills and abilities are consistently alienated and decide to move
onto other things, as evidenced by an enormous drain of talented
volunteers from every level of the organization for several years.
Members are wanted for their money and as labor to perform predefined
tasks, not for any substantive participation.
4) autonomy and independence
The concept behind this principle is that a democratic organization
seeks to maintain its autonomy, but VFC has repeatedly entered into a
variety of overt and covert alliances which undermine their ability to
operate autonomously. Rather than listen to owner desires for a more
modest store, VFC has sought grant money from the Food Co-Op 500,
spending that money and more for advice that the ownership is not
allowed to question. One result of this is an insanely unrealistic
goal for a $2 million, 6000-square-foot store, which cannot be built
in less than ten years. Another example of compromised autonomy is a
series of unauthorized discussions one founder repeatedly has with
"angel investors" and real estate developers, the most disastrous of
which was the Janauary 2008 "Moxie Village" discussions which derailed
progress on the business plan and tore the board apart. Lack of
democratic control and transparency repeatedly endangers the autonomy
and independence of VFC behind the backs of VFC members and owners.
5) education, training and information
VFC has done a little bit to promote awareness of itself and the
concept of a cooperative in a general sense, through its website and
community "tabling," such as at the farmer's market. They have done
almost nothing, however, to promote a greater understanding of the
cooperative model within the VFC ownership, or to educate the
ownership as to their business model or plans for the future. People
simply do not know what the play is, or what is going on with VFC: as
was expressed repeatedly at the August 27, 2008, member meeting. There
is neither interest nor commitment to owner education and training
within VFC, and various attempts to promote resources by members on
owner forums have been repeatedly ignored or silenced.
6) co-operations among co-operatives
With three profitable and well-established cooperatives right across
the river, Vancouver is in a unique position to benefit from the
experience and expertise of others, but VFC has generally ignored this
resource, except to accept donations of money and goods. Board members
tend not to be members of other cooperatives, and VFC rarely even
visits or arranges tours. Offers of practical mentoring relationships
have been ignored, and VFC board members do not attend or visit board
meetings at other food cooperatives. Within the county, VFC has made
no effort to reach out to other cooperatives such as agricultural
producers or childcare cooperatives, or even to interact with clear
and nearby allies, such as the Yelm Food Cooperative, founded after
VFC and open for almost two full years now.
7) concern for the community
For all of its talk about "concern for community" and local farmers,
VFC has done very little to address issues of access to nutritious
food or promote local vendors. Except for a few "meet the farmers"
events which aimed to support a select number of local CSA farms, VFC
has done little to promote local food security beyond simple rhetoric.
Where are the educational presentations or hands-on alliances with
hunger groups? Where is it using its resources to better understand
the food challenges that Clark County residents and producers face?
Most of what it does is self-serving "photo opp" stuff, focusing on
trendy issues without any appreciation for real issues of economic
marginalization and hunger in Clark County.
Cooperative principles, VFC? Give me a break.
The full statement on "the cooperative identity" may be found at http://www.ica.coop/coop/principles.html
.
Reading it, how much of it has ever applied to VFC?