| Author |
Topic |
Vancouver
1808 Posts |
Posted - 03/06/2012 : 6:43 PM
|
The Short Version:
In this year's Annual General Meeting and Election of Directors information package, the members are asked by the board to approve a "special" resolution that would change MEC's Rules so that the board could bar from running for election, any candidate the board doesn't like.
I think you should vote, and vote against this resolution.
The Long Version:
There are other members who have posted their concerns about this matter, and I suggest you also read their contributions.
After extensive meddling in elections for MEC directors, members opposed to that meddling proposed a critical rule change that still stands:
10.17 The Co-operative, and its employees, agents, contractors, suppliers, directors, officers, election auditor and nominations committee, must not endorse or indicate preference for any candidate.
In the meantime, the board has also gradually raised the nomination requirements and added a Rule that allows a 2/3 majority of directors to kick off the board any director they don't like.
Even in the event someone is elected, any of their proposals would still need approval by a board majority. One would think that the cumulative protection from these provisions, which I see as excessive, paranoid and unnecessary, would be sufficient to handle any perceived threat from non-conforming and destructive viewpoints.
If this were not enough, the board is now proposing a Rule change that would allow the board to simply refuse any candidate to stand for election if the board sufficiently disagrees with the views of the candidate.
Here is what the circular mailed to members basically says:
This special resolution, if passed, will amend Rule 11 of our Rules of Co-operation. It will change and strengthen the nominations committee mandate and ensure MEC can provide a qualified and balanced election ballot each year.
The on-line version of this basically says the same thing: http://www.mec.ca/media/Images/Applications/Elections/Election2012/2012-Resolution-QA-en.pdf
And here is the Rule change:
Current Text
11. Appointment and duties of the nominations committee
11.01 The directors must appoint a nominations committee.
11.02 The nominations committee must:
a. receive the nominations of candidates, b. ensure that the number of candidates at least equals the expected number of vacant positions as determined by Rule 10.06, c. inform the election auditor of the names of all candidates immediately after the close of nominations, and d. designate a representative to attend any drawing of lots.
11.03 The nominations committee may nominate candidates.
New Text
11. Appointment and duties of the nominations committee
11.01 The directors must appoint a nominations committee. The nominations committee will:
a. under guidance from the Board, determine and communicate to members in advance of each annual election the desired qualifications, experience and other attributes needed for directors of the Co-operative; b. identify, recruit and nominate members having the qualifications, experience and other attributes necessary to stand for election; c. conduct such other matters as are set out in this or other sections of the Rules or as may be assigned by the Board.
11.02 The nominations committee will receive and review all candidate nominations to ensure each complies with the Act and the Rules. Any non-compliant nomination will be rejected and returned to the nominee with reasons for rejection.
11.03 The nominations committee will manage the process for the election of directors and ensure that each election is conducted in accordance with the Act and the Rules, and as such, will be responsible for determining the nominees for director who will be included in, and named in the ballot for, each election of directors. In doing so, the nominations committee will select those nominees who meet the desired qualifications, experience and other attributes for directors, and decline any nominations for nominees who do not meet the desired qualifications, experience and other attributes for directors, as per its authority set out in the Rules and Board policy.
11.04 Upon determination of the nominees to be included in each election, the nominations committee will provide a list of such nominees to the election auditor.
11.05 The nominations committee will appoint a person to attend and witness any drawing of lots required in connection with an election of directors.
Now, can you tell from what was mailed to members and what's on the online Q&A that the Rule change allows the board to completely block candidates they don't like? The fact this is the most serious effect of the Rule change, and that if anything, it is obfuscated in the materials offered to members, is, to me, an extremely bad sign. At best, they don't know what they're doing.
Possible proof is that I think this Rule change also requires amending Rule 10.17, and I see no proposal to do that.
This means any voices not in agreement with the status quo not only risk not being elected by the members, (which is fair) and not only do they also risk later removal from the board by the other directors, but in addition they may be blocked from running for election to begin with. So the members would never hear their alternative points of view.
This is important. For example, MEC's environmental funding was initially proposed by two directors who were seen as radicals working against MEC's best interests. Environmental funding was heavily opposed by the majority of the directors and MEC's management. It required a groundswell of support from the members for belated approval. Had the board been able to bar candidates, it could have prevented such a measure from being put before the membership by preventing the two directors from running for the board.
If MEC faces specific threats sufficiently serious to justify these draconian measures crippling democratic principles, then surely the board should share those concerns with the membership.
Being able to prevent people running for election means the sitting board believes it knows better than the members what's best for MEC. I find this extraordinarily presumptuous. It is unhealthy for a cooperative to shield itself to this degree from change. And as a cooperative supposedly based on democratic principles, I think these measures set a bad example for the larger community. I'm amazed the provincial statutes governing cooperatives allow such nonsense.
It's relevant at this time to point out that in MEC's first decade or so, directors were not elected. Every year, sitting directors and perhaps senior management would get together like a cozy old-boys club, and nominate enough acquaintances to fill the vacant seats. Because there had never been an election, the general membership was basically unaware of how people became MEC directors. One of the candidates who later supported the environmental funding, first ran when the board already had three nominees for three board vacancies. The person refused the board's pressure to step aside, which forced an election and caused the fact of elections to become known to the membership. MEC's sanitized history omits such unpleasant stories. My concern is that Rule changes since then, including this latest proposal, move us back closer to the days of the board being a closed shop.
The situation could be even worse. It is possible that for whatever reasons, the board has a longer term goal of eliminating elections. All they have to do is cull enough nominees to match the number of vacancies, declare those people as acclamations, and therefore determine there's no need for an election. I agree this is far-fetched, but I would never have expected to see a resolution proposed as the one before us.
We have vague warnings from the board that these measures are needed to keep MEC out of the hands of unspecified undesirables, but the unfortunate irony is that they pave the way for MEC to fall into the hands of people who seem to have disregard for democracy. Which is a characteristic quite unsuitable for serving on a coop board, and as such makes them, if anything, the ones who should be disqualified.
But due to MEC's high credibility, most members will automatically vote for the resolution. This means a lot of MEC members who don't normally vote on these things are going to have to vote this time, and vote against it.
If MEC is worried the current system is causing incompetent or unsuitable directors to be elected, then surely the solution is to stop restricting election activities to posi-speak by candidates about themselves, and open up the elections to a real debate on issues and candidate suitability.
I'll go farther stating my opinions. In the current absence of compelling justification, directors who are responsible for this trashing of democratic rights should be voted off the board whenever they come up for reelection. It seems to me the real threat to MEC is not unspecified boogeymen.
|
Edited by - sgRant on 03/11/2012 7:02 PM
|
|
 Trail running, bike hucking, fast packing, beer drinking collector of pine cones on a day pass
AKA
Dances with Trees
Forest Gnome Cabin
Canada
13035 Posts |
Posted - 03/06/2012 : 8:55 PM
|
| Thanks for the post, Steve. I'll keep this in mind when I take the time to vote |
|
|
Van, BC
Canada
2784 Posts |
Posted - 03/06/2012 : 9:00 PM
|
I was wondering what was going on behind their somewhat odd "it's not politics" campaign...
-Ryan |
|
|
| Eryne
Intermediate Member
|
Chilliwack, BC
Canada
570 Posts |
Posted - 03/06/2012 : 9:50 PM
|
| Why is the board so resistant to your candidacy? |
|
|
Burnaby, BC
Canada
535 Posts |
Posted - 03/06/2012 : 10:32 PM
|
| Maybe Harper and Crispy Clark are planning on taking over MEC. Sounds like the type of sleight of hand and then outright bullying they are accustomed to. |
|
|
Vancouver
1808 Posts |
Posted - 03/06/2012 : 11:29 PM
|
quote:
Originally posted by Eryne
Why is the board so resistant to your candidacy?
I trust you meant "WAS so resistant". I'm not running for election, and hope never to do so again. Which is partly why I'm free to say what I think about this matter even if I offend some people.
The board WAS so resistant partly because I was most certainly not part of the old boys club. They didn't want me on the board, but also didn't want to have an election because that would let the cat out of the bag and there would always thereafter be elections. I had also recently been fired from MEC for insubordination and they feared I would use a board position to exact revenge. However, the board that tried to exclude me included a director whom I have on good authority, had been fired as an MEC employee for slugging a fellow employee.
There has been a director who was a former CEO of MEC. During his tenure staffing grew beyond needs to the point where the next CEO terminated over 52 salaried employees and a number of hourly employees. Should the members know about this when deciding whether to vote for that person to be on the board? I don't see why not, IF the person has ample opportunity to respond to criticism.
The issue of how to regard former MEC employees running for election to MEC's board is a difficult matter. It is a place where employee and member interests cannot easily be separated. It is clear that there are member issues and there are employee-employer issues. But employee-employer issues may be relevant to the member issue of suitability to be a director.
Former employees can have a knowledge of and commitment to MEC exceeding that of other members. A fired employee is even trickier to resolve. Was the person fired for good reason or not? Should being fired from MEC be more significant than being fired from any other job?
|
Edited by - sgRant on 03/06/2012 11:32 PM |
|
|
Vancouver
1808 Posts |
Posted - 03/07/2012 : 12:00 AM
|
quote:
Originally posted by burndug
Maybe Harper and Crispy Clark are planning on taking over MEC. Sounds like the type of sleight of hand and then outright bullying they are accustomed to.
I was thinking more of places where those in power decide who is going to be on the ballot. |
|
|
| Eryne
Intermediate Member
|
Chilliwack, BC
Canada
570 Posts |
Posted - 03/07/2012 : 11:26 AM
|
I see.
I wonder what the other side has to say about it. |
|
|
Calgary, Alberta
Andorra
3787 Posts |
Posted - 03/07/2012 : 6:12 PM
|
Even if they had a perfectly legitimate reason to not want him to be on the board (entirely plausible with a one-sided story), I think his point stands. A democracy does not ban candidates from election - it lets them run, and it lets others comment on the reasons that candidate should not win. There may well have been good reasons he shouldn't be on the board, but I can't think of any reasons a person shouldn't be able to run for the board.
|
|
|
| Eryne
Intermediate Member
|
Chilliwack, BC
Canada
570 Posts |
Posted - 03/07/2012 : 6:33 PM
|
I don't think MEC is a democracy.
I am pretty sure it is a cooperative corporation.
As such, I think it is acceptable for board members to meet some requirements before they are allowed to run, since it costs the cooperative money for each candidate in an election.
As a member, I expect MEC to have requirements that potential board members must meet in order to run. I don't want the board to be filled with poorly qualified people. The ideal board will be composed of people who know about business, ethics, being outside, and cooperation.
That being said, if sgrant meets those qualifications, zhe should be allowed to run. |
|
|
Vancouver
1808 Posts |
Posted - 03/07/2012 : 7:12 PM
|
quote:
Originally posted by Eryne
I don't think MEC is a democracy.
I am pretty sure it is a cooperative corporation.
As such, I think it is acceptable for board members to meet some requirements before they are allowed to run, since it costs the cooperative money for each candidate in an election.
As a member, I expect MEC to have requirements that potential board members must meet in order to run. I don't want the board to be filled with poorly qualified people. The ideal board will be composed of people who know about business, ethics, being outside, and cooperation.
That being said, if sgrant meets those qualifications, zhe should be allowed to run.
Sheesh. Please try to keep this straight. These are controversial and sensitive issues.
I already said I was not running and I'm not considering running. I was never barred from running. IF this resolution passes, people like me, or anyone else, COULD be barred from running.
ANY of the three examples of questionable board candidates may or may not have been perfectly suitable directors. Since all three, including me, became directors, the performances are on record. My service was sufficient to convince the directors and managers that my intentions were positive, and my record includes important measures to ensure MEC's success. For example, despite not having financial qualifications, while I was not a sitting director, I was invited to continue on the board's finance committee.
Enough about me. I question requiring directors to have any particular qualifications. I expect that a valid election would put the candidates' qualifications before the members and let the members decide.
I particularly object to the conventional wisdom that directors should have business experience or education. Plenty of people with that expertise have been total disasters in business. In addition, it is not the board's responsibility to run MEC. The board hires/fires a CEO, and it's the CEO's responsibility to ensure the coop has the expertise it needs. It's the management who need to have business skills.
The board's role should be more like a guide, determining if MEC is meeting the needs of the members, and of course selecting a CEO who has the business skills, familiarity with coop principles and perhaps some background or knowledge of self-propelled outdoor recreation.
Biasing MEC's board toward business interests will, and has, shifted the focus of the organization toward growth and away from member service. Sales figures continue to grow while sales per member per year decline. I would go so far as to say that some of the "business people" I observed as fellow directors were quite unsuitable to be directors. |
|
|
Vancouver
1808 Posts |
Posted - 03/07/2012 : 7:19 PM
|
quote:
Originally posted by Eryne
I see.
I wonder what the other side has to say about it.
If "it" refers to the proposed special resolution, then anyone need only to look up the links I provided to see what "the other side has to say about it.
If "it" refers to my candidacy or board service, I repeat that what I described was relevant history, not a current candidacy. If you look at the list of current candidates, I'm not on it. Ok? And I feel my life will be enhanced by avoiding MEC politics as much as possible. I'm only speaking out on this issue because it offends me too much to remain silent. |
|
|
| Eryne
Intermediate Member
|
Chilliwack, BC
Canada
570 Posts |
Posted - 03/07/2012 : 8:27 PM
|
| Sure. |
|
|
Vancouver
1808 Posts |
Posted - 03/07/2012 : 10:33 PM
|
quote:
Originally posted by Eryne
Sure.
I'll ask you a question. Municipal governments must, to a great extent, exercise sound "business" principles. Would you be ok if the councilors in office decided who was going to be able to run in the next election?
And I'll repeat a point I tried to make above:
MEC's environmental programs are now a core part of what makes MEC what it is. But at the time they were first proposed, they were put forward by two people who were regarded as misguided radicals. We did not have business qualifications. We faced determined resistance from the other directors and MEC's management and staff.
Had the board had the powers being requested by this board, the other person and I would not have even been able to put our ideas before the members to see if we could get elected. The lesson from this is that it is essential that the status quo NOT be able to perpetuate itself, and that healthy organizations have to be open to change. I agree you don't want a board of genuine crazies, but that is basically impossible to end up with. I think you have to trust democracy, and not meddle with it. |
|
|
Maple Ridge, BC
Canada
344 Posts |
Posted - 03/07/2012 : 11:53 PM
|
| I love this board. The level of balance in any discussion on here is unheard of. Disagreement without offence, and with supportive evidence. I will certainly look into this. I'm a recent MEC member. How do I vote? |
|
|
Vancouver
1808 Posts |
Posted - 03/08/2012 : 12:14 AM
|
quote:
Originally posted by Cherry Pirate
I love this board. The level of balance in any discussion on here is unheard of. Disagreement without offence, and with supportive evidence.
You must be new here 
quote:
I will certainly look into this. I'm a recent MEC member. How do I vote?
So far as I know, MEC members eligible to vote got a pamphlet in the mail. It's green and doesn't look like election material. In fact, it says on it: "IT'S NOT POLITICS". I'm not sure what MEC thinks it is. If you didn't get a mailing, call the coop or ferret out the voting/election information on the MEC website.
I think you could also vote on the resolution at MEC's annual general meeting. But votes there will be swamped by the online votes.
For everyone, Special Resolutions at MEC require a 75% majority to pass. However, most members are quite content to believe MEC can do no wrong, and so most of those who are going to vote probably have already voted in favor of the proposal. That's why it's important that people who don't normally vote, oppose this change. |
Edited by - sgRant on 03/08/2012 12:15 AM |
|
|
Vancouver
1808 Posts |
|
Vancouver
1808 Posts |
Posted - 03/09/2012 : 11:57 PM
|
| Today I posted a toned-down version of my opening post on the MEC facebook page. Now, I can't see it. Can anyone else see it? |
|
|
Burnaby, BC
Canada
1293 Posts |
Posted - 03/10/2012 : 4:42 PM
|
But fiddling with the nomination process sure made REI what it is today!  |
|
|
Finally stopping that crazy suffering that is ice, climbing to concentrate on great ski tours!
3503 Posts |
Posted - 03/10/2012 : 5:26 PM
|
quote:
Originally posted by sgRant
Today I posted a toned-down version of my opening post on the MEC facebook page. Now, I can't see it. Can anyone else see it?
They have timeline, so of course, I can't see shit on their page. |
|
|
Finally stopping that crazy suffering that is ice, climbing to concentrate on great ski tours!
3503 Posts |
Posted - 03/11/2012 : 4:40 PM
|
| Lame response to my post on the MEC FB page today. C'mon guys, if you think this stinks, then stir the pot! |
|
|
|
Topic |
|
|
|
Is MEC Planning to End Elections?
