MEC Election: Why I'm voting for Steve Jones

We Mountain Equipment Co-op members are voting from now through May 23 to elect 3 directors. I'm voting for Steve Jones because he pushes strongly to restore democratic member control, which the incumbent board has been undermining for several years now – see:

• theglobeandmail.com/report-on-business/mec-governance-changes-sparks-dissent-among-long-time-loyalists/article26852082
  
  
• votermedia.blogspot.ca/2015/03/mec-ramps-up-suppression-of-member.html
  

I'm also voting for:
- Tamara Paton: "I want MEC – and our Board – to feel less corporate and more co-operative."; and
- Robert Henderson: "I’m a nature lover with 6 years of board experience in large stakeholder-driven organizations."

Vote now through May 23: https://elections.mec.ca/vote/

MEC Election: Why I'm voting for Steve Jones

We Mountain Equipment Co-op members are voting from now through May 25 to elect 3 directors. I'm voting for Steve Jones because he pushes strongly to restore democratic member control, which the incumbent board has been undermining for several years now – see:

• theglobeandmail.com/report-on-business/mec-governance-changes-sparks-dissent-among-long-time-loyalists/article26852082
  
  
• theglobeandmail.com/report-on-business/mountain-equipment-co-op-eases-board-applicant-rules/article32383675
  
  
• votermedia.blogspot.ca/2015/03/mec-ramps-up-suppression-of-member.html
  

I'm also voting for:
- Patricia Eagar, the only female candidate not recommended by the incumbent board; and
- Bob Brent, who advocates change in the election system.

Vote now through May 25: elections.mec.ca/vote/#candidates/13

A global software users' co-op could #BuyTwitter

Nathan Schneider's September 29 article in The Guardian has sparked an enthusiastic movement to change Twitter from a corporation into a co-op; or if not Twitter itself, then "co-owning a major platform utility" – see campaign page. Campaign supporters are concerned that Twitter's perennial lack of profitability and declining stock price may lead to it being acquired, followed by cost cutting and revenue boosting measures that could undermine its considerable public benefits.

I'd like to share some ideas with the #BuyTwitter movement. I'm a semi-retired financial economist working on democratic reform of corporations, governments and co-ops (linkedin.com/in/marklatham).

Below is an outline for building a global software users' co-op that can finance its own growth, to the point where it can either buy Twitter or fund a substitute and attract enough users. The strategy has 5 key components:

1. Ownership structure: Retail consumers' co-op.

2. Bundling of users: Use large group purchases to get better deals. All co-op members can use all software licenses purchased.

3. Bundling of software: Each member pays the same low fixed monthly user fee, e.g. $5. Co-op buys rights to use various software that members value: low-priced or freemium software/services like password manager, anti-virus; info like ConsumerReports.org; discounts etc.

4. Buy from market-share challengers, not leaders. Challengers will charge bundled users much less than market-share leaders would.

5. Members vote to allocate pooled funds among competing software channels. This system has been developed and tested for providing coverage of student union elections at the University of British Columbia.

Details are in the paper Global Software Users' Co-op at votermedia.org/publications.

@MEC ramps up suppression of member #democracy

Is Mountain Equipment "Co-op" still a co-op?

Co-ops are democratic organizations controlled by their members (see fundamental principles of co-ops). Look at the evidence that MEC has become an undemocratic organization controlled by its entrenched board:

In 2012, the board persuaded unsuspecting MEC members to give it the power to disqualify any member from running in board elections. Supposedly this was to improve the quality of candidates, but that excuse can easily be used to eliminate candidates that challenge the board.

In 2013, the board used that power to prevent former MEC board member Anders Ourom from running. It's notable that in 2015, when Anders did not put his name forward to run, board experience is now considered sufficient to qualify: "...the minimum qualifications (experience sitting on a board or ...)".

In 2014, 27 MEC members wanted to run in the board election. The board blocked 2 of them, and the board chair claimed that this power increased the board's accountability to members (on page 2 of the minutes).

This year, 23 MEC members wanted to run, and the board blocked 7 of them.

As the notoriously corrupt Boss Tweed used to say: “I don't care who does the electing, so long as I get to do the nominating.”

With such a censored ballot, it's no wonder that MEC's voter turnout remains below 1/10 of 1%. Russell Brand was right on target in this video: “It's not that I'm not voting out of apathy. I'm not voting out of absolute indifference and weariness and exhaustion from the lies, treachery, deceit of the political class”.

Of course, Russell was talking about UK national politics. But don't look to MEC for democratic governance.

@Coast_Capital credit union members could set Board pay by median vote

In April 2013, Coast Capital Savings Credit Union members approved by 79.7% majority a special resolution that “...the members of Coast Capital establish the remuneration for the directors of the credit union...” The resolution, put forward by a group of members called Compensation Watch, did not specify a process for members to do that.

In April 2014, Compensation Watch and the Coast Capital Board put forward two duelling resolutions to specify how Board pay would be determined. However, neither resolution got the 2/3 member voting approval required for implementation. Details are in my previous blog post and in this Victoria Times-Colonist article: "Credit union votes fail to resolve board pay dispute".

So I am proposing another way that we Coast Capital members could determine our Board's pay: Vote using a menu of possible total Board pay pay levels, and set pay at the median voted amount. For example, we could submit it to member vote like this:

How much should we Coast Capital members pay our Board, as annual total compensation?

□ $200,000
□ $300,000
□ $400,000
□ $500,000
□ $600,000
□ $700,000
□ $800,000

I've fleshed out the proposal, with an example, in this 3-page pdf.

I emailed it to the Board on May 8, and promptly got this reply: "Your email has been received and will be forwarded to the Board of Directors. Please expect a response in due course." No further response yet, but when it comes I'll post an update in this blog.

@Coast_Capital vote results: Board oligarchy maintains its power

At the Coast Capital Savings Credit Union Annual General Meeting on Wednesday April 30, results were announced for the member votes in the director election and on the 8 special resolutions. Unfortunately, none of the democratic reform candidates were elected, and the 4 member resolutions did not get the 2/3 vote required. The Board used its control of information sent to members, to maintain its grip on power for a while longer. On the plus side, the Board's 4 undemocratic resolutions also failed to get 2/3 voting approval. Details are in these links:

- Director election results

- Resolution vote results

- Compensation Watch post: A sad day for democracy

- Times-Colonist article: Credit union votes fail to resolve board pay dispute

- Coast Capital news release

- My previous summary post: Vote for Member #Democracy @Coast_Capital Credit Union

Coast Capital members will continue to work for democratic reform. I will still be involved, but perhaps not as vocal on this blog and twitter; so to hear what's going on, I recommend the Compensation Watch blog. You can "Follow" them to get an email when they post something.

Hear @Coast_Capital vote results at AGM Wed April 30

Coast Capital Savings Credit Union's Annual General Meeting of members is this week:

DATE: Wednesday April 30.

TIME: Registration & refreshments from 4:30pm. Meeting starts 5pm. Cutoff to register 5:15pm, but members can still enter the meeting.

PLACE: Sheraton Guildford Hotel, 15269 – 104 Avenue, Surrey. Free parking for members attending AGM.

WEBCAST: Live at this link.

It should be an exciting AGM this year, because we'll hear the results of the battle for the hearts and minds of Coast Capital members, between the incumbent Board and some challengers (whom I support). You can see what it's all about in my March 16 blog post.

See you there!

@MEC pretends to be a #democracy -- AGM report

Mountain Equipment Cooperative announced its director election results at the 2014 Annual General Meeting yesterday (April 24). While claiming to be improving the election process, the incumbent board now exercises great control over who gets elected. Not only do they put their candidate recommendations on the ballot, but they also prevent some candidates from being on the ballot at all.

For this year's election to fill 4 director seats, the board recommended these 8 candidates:

Ellen Pekeles
Dale Mills
Gord Howe
Doug Brownridge
Daniel Blanche
Tamara Paton
Jonathan Gallo
Bill Gibson

They also allowed onto the ballot these 6 candidates, whom they did not recommend:

Jake Burlet
Pat Maher
Stephanie Bird
Bob Brent
Alex Beaskow
Tom Webb

These 4 were announced at the AGM as having been elected:

Ellen Pekeles
Tamara Paton
Jonathan Gallo
Daniel Blanche

As you can see, only "recommended" candidates were elected. I've documented elsewhere how boards can and do use on-ballot recommendations to ensure that the only candidates who get elected are those that do not challenge the incumbent board. This reduces the board's accountability to members, which opens the door to corruption.

The board chair claimed at the AGM that these recent election rule changes are "good governance" recommended by "experts". The "expert" he cited is often hired and paid by boards, and often gives advice to increase boards' power. I emphasized the obvious self-serving bias in a letter to FICOM, the regulator for B.C. credit unions: It is natural for directors and their payees to say: "To improve governance, we should give more power to directors."

But the MEC board has gone much further than the credit unions I wrote to FICOM about. As we saw last year, they used their new power to prevent a highly qualified candidate from even getting onto the ballot. So we only get to choose among candidates who don't rock their boat.

I thank Melissa Fong for sharing this quote from Noam Chomsky in a recent tweet:

"The smart way to keep people passive and obedient is to strictly limit the spectrum of opinion, but allow very lively debate within that spectrum."

One of the fundamental principles of co-ops is: "Co-operatives are democratic organizations controlled by their members". Which raises the question:

Is MEC a co-op?

Vote for Member #Democracy @Coast_Capital Credit Union

SUMMARY:                         [中文]

To control excess director pay and restore member democracy at Coast Capital Savings Credit Union, I recommend voting:

AGAINST the Board's resolutions (numbered 1, 2, 3, 4)
and
FOR the member resolutions (numbered 5, 6, 7, 8)

(Resolutions booklet here.) In the director election I recommend voting for three candidates not recommended by the Board. I'm voting for Lisa Barrett, Bruce Batchelor and John Fryer.

Vote now through April 8: You can fill in the paper ballot and submit it at any branch. Or vote online at coastcapitalsavings.com: log in, then click Online Voting tab at lower left. (Joint account members and business members can't vote online, so must use the paper ballots.)

Please spread the word to your friends who may be among Coast Capital's 500,000 members in southwestern British Columbia.

REASONS:

In 2007, the Board persuaded members to let the Board set its own pay based on a pay "philosophy" document. By 2011, the Board had raised its pay to more than double that of Vancity Credit Union's Board -- details here. (Vancity is similar to Coast Capital in size and location. Both have about 500,000 members.)

Members were unaware of this dramatic rise in director pay, until in 2013 two members created the Coast Capital Compensation Watch website, and gathered over 400 member signatures to put this resolution on the ballot:

"Be it resolved that, the members of Coast Capital Savings Credit Union establish the remuneration for the Directors of the credit union and that the amount paid to each Director is published in the Annual Report."

The Board put the member resolution and its supporting statement on pages 10 and 11 of this 12-page booklet, most of which was designed to persuade members to vote against the resolution. Examples of the Board's spin:

Page 5: "...you are being asked to vote on a special resolution brought forward by a member named Phil Embley..."
-- No mention of the over 400 members who signed petitions in support of bringing the resolution to members' vote.

Page 5: "...every three years the Board Governance Committee works with an independent external compensation consultant who reviews director compensation..."
-- Of course, the "independent" consultant is selected by the Board.

Page 8: "Coast Capital advises our members that some of the facts alleged in the [resolution's supporting] statement are inaccurate and misleading."
-- They gave no specific backup to this accusation, in spite of the many pages of their arguments in the booklet where they could have done so.

Page 9: "Vote “Against” if you agree with the 2007 member-approved approach to establishing director compensation"

Fortunately, members were able to see through the Board's spin, and voted 79.7% in favour of the member resolution! Voter turnout in 2013 set a new record of over 23,000 compared with less than 14,000 in 2012 and less than 20,000 in 2011.

Recognizing that excess pay indicated a lack of Board accountability to members, a group of concerned members (including me) worked with Phil and Scott at Compensation Watch to review Coast Capital's governance rules. We were dismayed to learn how the Board had written the director election rules to give themselves effective control of who gets elected, while maintaining a facade of democracy: They put their chosen candidates first on the ballot (in bold face, flagged as "recommended"), and prohibit campaigning. Candidates are not allowed to mention their candidacy on the web or by email or in the media, else they will be disqualified -- see 2014 Campaign Regulations (especially rules 4, 5, 6, 7). For data and analysis of how recommendations on a ballot affect elections, see my letter to the B.C. Financial Institutions Commission.

So we drafted four resolutions to help re-establish member democracy:

• 12-year director term limit.
• Disclose pay of top 3 executives.
• Allow director election campaigning.
• Set specific pay for directors, at Vancity's pay levels.

Several of us also offered to run for election to the Board, even though in 2014 we would still be subject to the ban on campaigning.

As in 2013, we had to gather signatures from at least 300 members to get these resolutions on the ballot. We got over 400 signatures on each. Here's a photo of me helping deliver them on January 24:

This year, the Board realized it would take more than spin to sway member votes their way, so they drafted four resolutions with the same headings as our four, and placed them ahead of ours on the ballot. Again, they drafted the member voting information booklet with many pages of their spin. Here's a link to the booklet and some rebuttal to their arguments:

Page 3: "Four individuals are bringing forward disruptive Special Resolutions ... which will threaten our great products and services."
-- All four of our resolutions are already in effect at successful financial institutions. Vancity's pay levels attract well qualified directors, who run for election with campaigning allowed. 12-year term limits are a well accepted practice, as is disclosure of executive pay. Each resolution is well supported by the statements on pages 6, 8, 10 and 12 of the booklet. On the contrary, a lack of accountability can threaten the success of a financial institution, as the 2008 financial crisis showed us, so we should strengthen accountability of Coast Capital's Board to us, the members. Similarly, a "democratic deficit" in the UK Co-operative Group was a causal factor in their 2013 scandal.

Page 3: "These individuals are aligned with a small special interest group known as Coast Capital Compensation Watch. Their name is misleading. This group is not the voice of your credit union. It represents the views of only a few supporters – not Coast Capital’s 512,000 members."
-- 79.7% of voting members said that last year's Compensation Watch resolution represented their views better than the arguments of a small group known as Coast Capital's Board. That small group seems to have a special interest in increasing its pay and its grip on power. More members voted for the 2013 Comp Watch resolution than ever voted to elect any of the current directors.

Page 5: "The Individual Resolutions are unnecessary and costly."
-- These resolutions were made necessary by the Board's unreasonable pay increases and unfair election rules. Compare 2011 Vancity Board pay of $366,000 to Coast Capital Board pay of $750,000 and other comparisons here. Also, the resolution proponents have taken care to time their submissions to coincide with director elections, so as not to require a costly extra mailing to all members.

Page 7: "We're already implementing term limits this year."
-- The Board's Term Limit resolution was drafted after the members' Term Limit resolution, in response to it, so there's no "already" about it. It even refers to the members' resolution, giving itself the power to override if both are passed. How can they even be allowed to put their resolution first on the ballot? And the Board's resolution would ignore the 20-plus years that two directors have already served: "... only an individual’s years of service as a Director of the Credit Union beginning on or after April 30, 2014 will be counted..." (page 16) So those two directors would have served at least 32 years each before their "12 year limit" resolution would term them out!

Page 9: "We already do this."
-- The members' resolution calls for disclosing the top three executives' pay individually, to the extent permissible by law. Coast Capital is only disclosing the sum of the top nine executives' pay, which hides information by lumping it together, as explained in the supporting statement on page 8 of the booklet.

Page 11: "Keep our elections democratic."
-- It amazes me that anyone could consider it democratic to silence election candidates and control voter information as tightly as this Board now does -- see 2014 Campaign Regulations (especially rules 4, 5, 6, 7). Even the organizations I criticized in the paper We Want Our Co-ops Back do not silence candidates as Coast Capital does.

Page 13: "Your Board also commissioned an independent member task force to review the credit union’s philosophy that sets Director pay."
-- The Compensation Task Force process was orchestrated by another "independent" consultant chosen by the Board and Board-overseen staff. It concluded by proposing another pay "philosophy" that would continue to give the Board leeway in setting its own pay -- more on that at this Comp Watch page.

[About the author of this post: Mark Latham is a Vancouver-based financial economist (cv: linkedin.com/in/marklatham) specializing in governance reform of co-ops, democracies and corporations. He was appointed by the Chairman of the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission to represent individual investors on the SEC’s post-financial-crisis Investor Advisory Committee.]

[Last updated on 2014-04-06.]

Vote for #Accountability @Coast_Capital Savings Credit Union

This post has been superseded by a subsequent post which includes more recent info, so I recommend reading that instead.

But if you would like to read this older post, it continues below:

@Coast_Capital Credit Union: 4 member resolutions go to vote in March @Comp_Watch

Over 400 members of Coast Capital Savings Credit Union signed petitions to require a member vote on these four resolutions:

1. Set Specific Pay for Directors
2. Disclose Pay of Top 3 Executives
3. Set 12 Year Term Limit for Directors
4. Reform Director Election Processes

This surpasses the 300 signatures needed to have a vote of all Coast Capital members on the resolutions, on the election ballot March 14 - April 8.

A big thank-you to Phil Embley and Scott Kristjanson at Coast Capital Compensation Watch for spearheading this drive to reform our credit union! I joined Scott at Coast HQ to submit the signatures, so he posted my smiling face on the Comp Watch website announcement here.

Members please vote YES on these resolutions March 14 - April 8!

@Coast_Capital members please sign these #democracy reform resolutions @Comp_Watch

This is the last week for Coast Capital Savings Credit Union members to sign these 4 resolutions for restoring the board's accountability. We need 300 signatures to get them onto the March 2014 ballot, so that all members can vote on them. We have over 200, so getting close.

This is important because the Coast Capital board has been taking advantage of its power to overpay itself with members' funds. In 2011 they paid themselves more than double the pay of Vancity Credit Union's board -- details at coastcapitalcompensationwatch.wordpress.com/facts.

Members: Please print, sign, and return:

ALL 4 RESOLUTIONS IN THIS PDF FILE

You can scan (or photograph) your signed resolutions and email them to compensationwatch@gmail.com, or fax to 604-542-9369, or mail to address on the form.

Please forward this to friends in Metro Vancouver and Vancouver Island who may be members. Thank you!

@modo_carcoop: Vote now to elect 3 directors; but there's no online campaign forum

Vancouver's Modo The Car Co-op members are voting in the annual election of directors from January 4 through January 22. We will choose 3 of these 5 candidates:

• Aaron Burns
• Arpal Dosanjh
• Joel DeYoung
• Simon Abou-Attoun
• William Azaroff

I thank all five for offering to serve as directors of our co-op!

This year, Modo has launched online voting for the first time, an important step forward now that we have grown beyond 9,000 members. Each candidate has written a few paragraphs about themselves, and made a 2-minute video -- see www.modo.coop/modo-board-of-directors-2014-nominees-and-voting

It's great that busy members need not attend the AGM to vote, and we now have time for informed comparison of candidates. Unfortunately, there's not enough online support for informed comparison of candidates. We should have a campaign forum, linked from the election page, where members can ask candidates questions and discuss their answers. For example, see the director election campaign forum at Canadian Internet Registration Authority.

How about setting that up for next year?

The Modo AGM on January 22 should be fun. Free registration; all are welcome; only members can vote:

• Co-op Fair 6-7pm: Meet other local co-ops (500 Granville St)
• AGM 7-9pm: Complete the director election process (500 Granville St)
• After-Party 8:30pm-midnight: Enjoy! (200 - 470 Granville St)

Related links FYI:

• my previous posts about Modo
• ideas for improving member democracy: We Want Our Co-ops Back

@modo_carcoop Special General Meeting had a close call 15-14 vote #coop #democracy

This is my report on the Special General Meeting of Modo the Car Co-op, held recently on September 23, 2013. We voted on eight resolutions proposed by the Modo Board, for changing the co-op's rules:

• Resolution 1: Correction of oversights or typographical errors; clarification; and removal of obsolete or redundant items
• Resolution 2: Create a Nominations Committee and define its accountabilities
• Resolution 3: Create alternatives to in-person voting at annual meetings for elections
• Resolution 4: Create an option to use alternative voting systems in elections
• Resolution 5: Permit the co-op to pay interest on members’ shares
• Resolution 6: Permit an organization to become a Business Member of the co-op, and to appoint a Delegate to represent it
• Resolution 7: Authorize the Board to invest funds with reference to an Investment Policy
• Resolution 8: Change the name of the co-op to Modo Co-operative

Brief Summary of Meeting:

• We passed each of the 8 resolutions by more than the required 2/3 super-majority vote.
• On Resolution 7, I proposed an amendment to require a member approval vote on future changes to the Investment Policy. Amendments are decided by simple majority vote. With 14 in favour and 15 opposed, we did not adopt my amendment. We then unanimously approved the Board's original Resolution 7.
• There was significant opposition to Resolution 6 (letting businesses that use Modo become voting members of Modo), but it passed by a vote of 25 in favour, 7 opposed.

Discussion of Resolutions 3 and 7:

@modo_carcoop Investment Policy should be approved by Members #coop #democracy

Two weeks ago I blogged about the upcoming (Sept 23) Special General Meeting of Modo the Car Co-op, to vote on the Modo Board's proposed rule changes. I supported Resolution 2 (to create a nominations committee) and Resolution 3 (to enable voting via internet) as changes that would strengthen member democracy.

Recently I studied Resolution 7, which would authorize the Board to invest Modo funds with reference to an investment policy. It would change the existing Rule 10.02:

"Without the approval of the Members by special resolution, the Directors shall not invest a total of more than $25,000 of the funds of the Association in securities or classes of securities other than those in which trustees are permitted to invest trust funds under the Trustee Act."

To become:

"The funds of the Association shall be invested in accordance with an Investment Policy approved by the Directors that defines permitted investments and sets investment limits for permitted investments." [emphasis added]

To maintain democratic accountability to us Modo members on how our accumulated funds are invested, I recommend changing the word "Directors" to "Members" in the above proposed new rule. [Update 2013-09-20: amended wording in second comment below] So the Board could propose future changes to the investment policy, but those changes would need to be approved by a vote of the members.

@modo_carcoop meeting Sept 23 to vote on rule changes #coop #democracy

Vancouver-based Modo the Car Co-op is having a Special General Meeting of members on Monday September 23, to vote on eight resolutions proposed by the Modo board, for changing the co-op's rules:

A. “HOUSEKEEPING” CHANGES

• Resolution 1: Correction of oversights or typographical errors; clarification; and removal of obsolete or redundant items

B. NOMINATIONS AND ELECTIONS PROCESS

• Resolution 2: Create a Nominations Committee and define its accountabilities
• Resolution 3: Create alternatives to in-person voting at annual meetings for elections
• Resolution 4: Create an option to use alternative voting systems in elections

C. OTHER SUBSTANTIVE CHANGES

• Resolution 5: Permit the co-op to pay interest on members’ shares
• Resolution 6: Permit an organization to become a Business Member of the co-op, and to appoint a Delegate to represent it
• Resolution 7: Authorize the Board to invest funds with reference to an Investment Policy
• Resolution 8: Change the name of the co-op to Modo Co-operative

Full details (text of new rules, reasons etc) are accessible only to Modo members (like me) logged in at bookit.modo.coop.

As you can see from my posts on this blog for the past year and a half, I've been very critical of the boards of some large co-ops, which have persuaded their members to approve rule changes that shift power from members to the board. The boards have not described it to members as a power transfer, but in substance that's what it is. The changes undermine Co-operative Principle #2 -- democratic member control -- and open the door to corrupt abuse of power by boards. Mountain Equipment Co-op (MEC) is a prime example.

So I'm happy to report that, as far as I can tell, the rule changes proposed by Modo's board would strengthen, not weaken, member democracy.

Will #FICOMBC support @Vancity Credit Union board entrenchment? #democracy

Today I submitted this letter to the B.C. Financial Institutions Commission (FICOM), with my comments on their draft Governance Guideline for Credit Unions. Main points:

Accountability requires competition in board elections.
=> So boards should not be able to disqualify competitors based on subjective assessments.

Lack of accountability opens the door to corruption.
=> Only competitive elections can prevent favouritism in the use of members' funds.

Board control of information can bias elections.
=> Boards should not be allowed to put their recommendations on board election ballots.
=> Without that, Vancity members would have elected Lisa Barrett instead of Allen Garr.

Please don't let the foxes design the hen house.
=> The public interest should take precedence over lobbying by credit union insiders.

Will next week's B.C. election have any effect on FICOM's final Governance Guideline? Just asking...

Reports on member rebellion @Coast_Capital AGM

At the Coast Capital Savings Credit Union's Annual General Meeting of members on April 30, it was announced that members had voted over 79% to take back control of directors' pay. The board had recommended voting "NO", so members have learned to be skeptical of board recommendations. Two recent write-ups on this:

- Press release from the proponent (Coast Capital Compensation Watch)

- Vancouver Sun article

For background and context:

- My article in the Vancouver Observer: We want our co-ops back

- Posts on Coast Capital in this blog

@MEC slides from #democracy to #oligarchy -- AGM report

Mountain Equipment Corporation Cooperative held its 2013 Annual General Meeting on April 25. Unfortunately, the outreach efforts of us 600 MEC Members for a Democratic Co-op were not enough to counter the MEC board's control of information flowing to members. The board's resolution on rule changes passed by a vote of 91% to 9%. For an overview of how the vote was biased, see my article in the Vancouver Observer: "We want our co-ops back"

So in addition to last year's new power to reject director candidates from standing for election, the board can now reject any member resolution for any reason, without submitting it to member vote. The new rule changes reduce the board's accountability to members in several other ways detailed in my March 14 blog post.

Many members were shocked to see how quickly the board took advantage of its new power by rejecting 2013 director election nominee Anders Ourom. His qualifications include:

• MEC Director (1981-1986, 1988-1992)
• MEC Board Chair (1989-1991)
• President, Climbers' Access Society of B.C. (1995-2004)
• Lawyer, Advising Societies and Co-operatives (1995 - present)
• Legal Advisor, MEC Rules Revision Projects (1997-1998, 2001-2002)

Apparently the board decided that MEC members needed to be benevolently protected from having the option to vote for Anders this year. In the AGM's Reports Q&A section, I stepped up to the mike and asked this question:

Stand up for member #democracy: attend AGMs @MEC @Coast_Capital @Vancity

You can help reclaim member democracy by attending these upcoming Annual General Meetings:

Mountain Equipment Co-op (MEC):

Thursday, April 25, 2013
Doors open at 5:30pm
Meeting at 6:00pm
Roundhouse Community Arts & Recreation Centre
181 Roundhouse Mews, Vancouver
Please bring your MEC membership card or 2 pieces of ID

Coast Capital Savings Credit Union:

Tuesday, April 30, 2013
Registration and light refreshments from 4:30pm to 5pm
Meeting begins at 5pm
Executive Airport Plaza Hotel & Conference Centre
7311 Westminster Highway, Richmond, BC

Vancity Credit Union:

Tuesday, May 7, 2013
Registration at 6pm
Meeting at 7pm
Italian Cultural Centre, 3075 Slocan Street, Vancouver

(Vancity director election voting ends April 26. Here's why I'm voting for Williams, Barrett & Yaron.)

Reclaiming member democracy in co-ops and credit unions can be a first step toward making our elected leaders accountable to voters in corporations and democracies too -- see recent Vancouver Observer article "We want out co-ops back."