This page last updated August 2nd, 2003.
Intro to Web Site:
I feel that my statements in the Gazette don’t really say the main thing. They are written in haste, etc. I am saying that the Co-Op has a shadow government that evades the responsibility and denies us the benefits and the fundamental right of good government. A proportional representation system could go a long way toward consensual and legitimate management, and toward shaping a new future for an essentially leaderless collective that now has a turnover in membership of 25% per year.
Fill in your EMail address above to join the Yahoo group EMANCIPATION. Any member may post a message to all members, i.e., the group is unmoderated. (That is, providing that it is a serious comment and relevant to the subject of Co-Op government.)
Candidate’s statement for the Board of Directors.
Uh, spring again– time to run for the Board of Directors. For at least the fourth time. But don’t fret, the directors have no power, so might as well vote for me, right? But first of all, please consult http://foody.org/coop/coop44.html for the most lively thing about the Co-Op. If I offer you nothing else. You won’t regret it.
To me, democracy means nothing more or less than “fair and equal representation.” The meeting one Tuesday evening a month of 30-60 self-selected and ever changing members is unworthy, demeaning and profoundly irresponsible. Oligarchy, monarchy or even autocracy would be good names for its results. And all the decisions are made in just 90 minutes. How could such an ever changing group seriously discuss anything, much less follow up on it? You could say Well, the Board of Directors are really in power, because they were elected. But you see they gave up their power long ago. What we have is a circular responsibility with nobody visibly in charge; therefore no transparency and no accountability. The managers show a lot of reverence for the general meeting as the wise body making all the decisions, and well they might because in the end they always seem to get their way: the pension plan, spenddown of the mortgage rather than redistribution to the membership, ludicrous mismanagement of the scanning computers, removal of the cheese case, and most recently expansion of the Co-Op and in particular, firing of the construction committee over an atrium which, according to Josh Karpf and Doyle Warren, cost us $277,000 in delays and lost plans. And always, furiously opposing anything that even hints at democracy.
Anyone who disagrees with them is “against the coordinators” and the purpose of the general meetings is to be “harmonious.” These are monstrous constructions because they denigrate the very name of democracy. Legislators with legitimate power are, and should be, obstreperous. The four Gazettes are almost devoid of intellectual content, at least regarding Co-Op government, containing reviews of CDs and plaudits for favored members. No columns. No opinion. No artwork of any kind except the in-house cartoonists. If we are a social experiment we deserve better than this.
Prick the brittle crust and the murk oozes out every time. The Chair Pool Committee of seven members claims we follow Robert’s rules of order except for what is covered in our own abbreviated Meeting Rules. But that is ridiculous and unworkable. If they were a modification of Robert’s rules they would cite which rules they were modifying, and how--they are nothing of the sort. So the Committee consults on the rules, which well they might, because they make them up, and no one can challenge them.
Then we have the Personnel Committee, which presumably would do hiring. For some reason, they are elected for life rather than for any specific term, the only such committee I know. And they support the staff rather than criticize or, heaven forefend, hire them.
If the general meeting can’t select its own chairperson it can’t set its own agenda either. Another seven workslots are needed to do that. Many on all three committees are skilled in conflict resolution and other worthy sciences, but all this emotional management just eases the understandable pain of being publicly duped. The meetings begin with a “warmup” and end with a “wrapup,” such cuddly terms!
I like to say, “I shout because I care.” And I do care. I think we deserve a party-system proportional representation government. They call us members and owners, unless we want or believe something that is against their policy; then we don’t count.
Though powerless, the platform to educate and proselytize is valuable. I am not a cold, scheming hater of warmth and feeling, I am a keen observer of the Co-Op and its methods. I think I love the Co-Op as much or as little as anyone else, but I also love democracy. We have a noble group of senior grocers, but as directors, visionaries, planners, or leaders of any kind of a social experiment (where’s the five-year plan? the one-year plan? even the annual report?) . . . I’d rather have someone else–us. And that is the purpose of having a board of directors, or some other fair and equal government, that is legitimate, accountable to the membership and capable of shaping policy without the conflicting burden of managing the Co-Op.
Sincerely, Albert :) HOBCES@YAHOO.COM. [736 words.]
I want to clarify my declaration for the Board of Directors which appeared in the last (May 16th) Gazette. Since editor Eric Lewis would not allow a letter in the same issue (a ruling I find rather puzzling and inconsistent), here it is now:
My government reform proposal is a fundamental change, rather than a bandage. Everything I have said flows from the thought of a representative assembly replacing the infuriating general meeting as we know it. The Board of Directors should also remain, but meet at a time different from the general meetings, propose and vote and set policy as it sees fit. But still the Board would not ignore the “advice of the membership,” because elected representatives would carry much more weight than the “assembled happenstance” we have now. Such delegates, I can assure you, would not long tolerate a committee to set their agenda or a committee to chair them. I can also assure you that more than 30-60 members would be represented in such an assembly, and it is more than likely that all of the issues mentioned in my statement would have been resolved in a much more open and accountable manner.
For the first time, there would be representatives whose views could be known and for whom we could vote in a proportional manner, a situation so totally different from what we have now as to be almost unrecognizable. Contentious, perhaps, but the voting choices would represent issues and principles and viewpoints from which all members would have a fair and equal chance to select. We have vegetarians, orthodox Jews, blacks, ‘GLBTs,’ young mothers, welfare recipients, women, rich and poor, radical, neoliberal, and conservative, working, disabled, unemployed and homeless people. In proportional representation minorities will have a voice in the legislature of about sixty members, a manageable size. Voting could be at frequent intervals, as little as two months, through the entrance door, by mail or by phone, a manageable task. Representatives would be empowered by real members and could devote enough time to be knowledgeable and capable, not a manageable assignment for individual members.
Management preferred to have squad representatives to reflect the solidarity of the squad, seemingly a high-minded proposal but the number of representatives would be enormous. Then they proposed the unfair and unequal exclusion of about forty percent of the membership. Hardly a proposal to inspire support. So long as we have one-person-one-workslot, we are a social experiment and we deserve better than smoke-and-mirrors management. Much, much better. No, the managers will have to want this government and we all have to work together to convince them that it is in their interest. Reach me at HOBCES@YAHOO.COM or come to a general meeting if you don’t believe me! I am also listed, unfortunately, in the phone book.
To accomplish this government, we must organize. A petition should be circulated so that a special meeting can be called to vote on a referendum.
Respectfully submitted, Albert Solomon. [493 Words]
Management uses the idea that we are all owners against item pricing, a Pollyanna idea that suggests we cannot have different interests; therefore cannot defraud ourselves. They then defraud us by replacing item pricing with an “absurdly evasive” (Carl Biers) plan which is an insult to our intelligence as well as to democracy. The most recent decision where they have done the same thing is to divide squads without consulting us. Before that, the decision against payment at checkout was done, they say, by asking squad leaders and checkout workers. What is missed in all of this is that we are the ones who do checkout and we are the ones who will do item pricing if that is what is to be done.
I did not get to speak, but my plan would have been to 1) Immediately begin item pricing for a trial of at least three months, 2) Immediately have a referendum on the same subject, and 3) Fine each of the seven overseers $500 for their incredible insouciance. Paul Sheridan did get to speak and was so upset as to be unconsolable. We’ll see what the rotating Gazette writer, Dr. Marjorie Ordene, had to say about it, if anything. Many members at the meeting seemed blandly satisfied with the idea that item pricing was impractical. In fact, Joe Holtz claims that we tried it for three months before we stopped it.
The problem is that no one knew. He then decided all by himself that it had to stop. Again, it is we who do it and we who should decide. To do so, we need to be told that a big change is coming, and to vote on it. Believe me, if we want item pricing we can do it, and it won’t cost us a penny. Where are all those people who used to be trainers for the scanners? Did we have to hire extra staff to do that work? And Joe, we don’t have to reprice items either; we didn’t do that before. Oh and about people shopping more often-- you are putting the cart before the horse. If we want item pricing enough, we will shop less often! Trust us.
If we think it is too great a burden, believe us Joe, we will be the first to stop it. Joe, you could have been a hero. Just say “This is a big change; put it to a referendum!” But no, you remained that nattering, evasive whiner we all know and love. And the same goes for the squad divisions, item pricing, the pension plan, the expansion, the cheese case, and things that matter to us all along the line. When will it end?
Agree? Disagree? I am at HOBCES@YAHOO.COM, I am listed in the phone book, and I am a candidate for the Board of Directors.
In solidarity, and happy June :) --Albert Solomon. [482 Words.]
It is interesting to notice, in the May 16 issue, my writing underneath the words of our Glorious Leader, applauding democracy and openness and ignoring all the woes and brouhaha surrounding his outrageous decisions, including the firing of th efirst construction committee. In the next issues, his members are fairly pleading for mercy from his bland optimism and betrayal on the issue of item pricing.
The Glorious Leader's Chief Booster is Israel David Fishman, who opposes me for the Board of Directors. Often his praise becomes embarrassing, as when he suggested the managers should receive $1,000 each for the Expansion--or as I call it, the Explosion.
But Fishman does not limit himself to praise--he once called someone a fascist and then, of course, apologized. By the time you read this, the Board elections will already be over but I intend to tell them that anyone who believes that people who care about the Co-Op and spend a lot of time on it deserve to run it, then they need to vote for Fishman. I believe we need a real democracy and that is what we are crying for.
I hope and pray that people like Elizabeth Tobier, David Faden, Mina Jones, Diane Aronson, Anne Monroe Howe, Carol Meyer, Diane Oratowski, Sylvia Lowenthal and others who wrote to recent issues of the Gazette will come to understand that a true representative assembly will not long tolerate the kind of fraud and cover-up our system is so able to produce.
My answer to the question will I vote against the General Meeting is that at every meeting I will propose tha the Board have its own meetings, outside the GM. I regard the disemboweling of the Board as both illegal and dysfunctional, but I also support a fair, popularly elected Assembly of Delegates which will work with the Board as the General Happenstance does now.
With a chart in every issue of the Gazette, listing every vote of every delegate for the past year, we will have a check on our government such as few others enjoy, plus we will have an intersting pastime, similar to the stock market, to see how our delegate and others express or thwart our desires and needs.
Oddly, the government I advocate and desire will not be a very big change from what we have now. The Management will be able to influence and manipulate the government maybe even more than they do now. But their machinations will be much easier to know about and all of us will have a chance to grow according to our wishes.
My email address is HOBCES@YAHOO.COM. My web site is ANGELFIRE.COM/MT/MICROZYMA, and I heartily recommend you look up me as the Andy Kauffman Wannabe and others on Josh Karpf's astonishing website at FOODY.ORG/COOP/COOP01.HTML.
In cooperation, Albert B. Solomon.
Albert B. Solomon No. 12058, 718-768-9079 HOBCES@YAHOO.- COM,
Ken Garson and John Urda. Standing there. Rapturous in their own virtue. Giving up power to the membership (the needy, the disenfranchised). Selfless. Unassuming. Noble.
I, on the other hand, got 241 votes for, presumably, making trouble and being, in Ellen Weinstat's words, "oppositional" (for which my heart thanks everyone who put up with my ranting, whining and pleading). Out of 935 votes, not counting those that were "invalid." That is just over a third of the votes for my worthy opponent. And something odd going on with the Abstain and Blank votes would have given me a really respectable showing.
In the mean time the rulers are grabbing power right and left. The labeling law. Today they did it again. Big time. He is just daring everyone to stop him. In his nattering, temporizing, complicating, weasely, prevaricating way he is going on and on with how Henry Singer just kept thinking of little touches to put on the budget, so that it didn't appear till the day of the meeting (how far will you bend, Ken and John?). Didn't he know, and didn't Joe tell him, that he was supposed to submit the budget thirty days before the meeting, that we had changed the meeting from May to June to make that possible, and that this was the second year that this had happened! Carl Arnold, the noble Carl Arnold, who has given us so much, stood up and said This can't happen again. But it can, Carl. How about proposing a rule that the next time it happens there will be a $500 fine for each of the Seven Silver Rulers, and that Henry Singer will be fired? How about making a rule that all the GM resolutions have a penalty clause so they can be enforced? How about finding meaningful and simple ways to make the government truly more transparent and accountable, and take it out of the hands of the Rulers and their Cronies?
Do you think that some of these are worthy ideas, sir, or is harmony and quietism all that is really worthy? Why don't you make a choice, you who have always done so much and never seem to quit? How about making a rule that Israel has to pull out of Palestine before any discussions are required? (Just joshing.)
Any comments? Want to join a discussion list? Send an EMail to EMANCIPATION-SUBSCRIBE@YAHOOGROUPS.COM, see my website at WWW.ANGELFIRE.COM/MT/MICROZYMA.HTML, first and third links, and see Josh Karpf's website at FOODY.ORG/COOP/COOP45.HTML.
I went to the sushi bar in the 99-degree weather to see if I could get sick on rotten fish and collect insurance. But no such luck; the fish was perfect.
In cooperation, :) Albert B. Solomon [473 Words]
Revisions made with Joan Minieri, Editor, before printing: For "The labelling law." substitute "Item pricing." That's just minor, but dig this: The section in blue now looks like this: "Mr. Holtz told us the budget would be late again. It didn't appear till the day of the meeting (how far will you bend, Ken and John?). Didn't Mr. Singer know, and didn't Joe tell him, that he was supposed to submit the budget thirty days before the meeting, that we had changed the meeting from May to June to make that possible, and that this was the second year that this had happened! Infuriating." Quite a difference, no? But I wanted the letter to be printed and not delayed while Mr. Holtz possibly went on vacation--not that I really expected he would want to dignify my bughood with any response at all! Ms. Minieri had all kinds of possible allegations in mind, including that someone was lying, that Mr. Singer was willfully incompetent, or just vague innuendo.
Nevertheless, this was by far the best and most cooperative conversation I've had with an editor in the ten or so times I've been called by one of them. She actually called back a second time after we thought we had resolved it. This is a lot better than I usually get; it's usually a terse revision already made, not suggested--take it or leave it. The first time an editor called me it was really a shock, believe me! Most uncompromising and inexplicable call: When Diane Aronson wouldn't let me say that Ellen Weinstat had "demoted" herself from General Coordinator to Office Coordinator. I thought of it, as I do many things, as a neutral word . . . but that is the way I use English; not that I'm saying there is anything good or bad about it. Only there is some issue of free speech, that is one's manner of speaking being a part of free speech too, rather than the manner of speaking (system of diction) of a particular style manual: Theirs. But this is a Co-Op for Ghodssakes!! If this had been a cooperative decision of the staff of Diane's Gazette, I wonder if it would have come out the same way???
In fairness, I should add that Ms. Aronson is outspoken against Management's unfairness and deceit on the recent item pricing decision.
I asked Joan if she thought the Gazette should be reorganized. She said she would want the Gazette to be what the members wanted it to be, a very encouraging answer. She said she was not a professional editor in private life, which also seemed encouraging. And most important, I told her how much I respected the Gazette and its policies, but that didn't stop me from bitterly opposing what was repressive, uncooperative and unscrupulous, and she respected that too.
Robert Berkman has another plaintive letter in this Gazette. In the previous letter (in the June 27th issue) he puts down the labeling issue in favor of his own grievance--a treacherous business, gentle reader, I can assure you, since every member takes his own piece of the Co-Op (note dissident spelling) very personally and that is a good thing and she should be commended, respected, and given her space to do that--not demeaned.
This taut and biting satire is probably my most colorful letter, printed in December 2002, posted on EMANCIPATION a month or two ago but not posted here until today. --AS08-02-03. Happy August!
The Empress
This is the story of the Empress of the Four-Lobed Gulag and how she quelled a nascent rebellion. The Commoner Robert was bringing a complaint to the Council of the Common Horde. "Oh Eric," she told her High Chancellor, "such a trifle is beneath my notice." But Eric prevailed, and so they made an Imperial Progress to the Council where Robert was stapling five theses to a board: "Lack of Community, No Accountability, Murky Mission, Inconsistent Continuity, and Nebulous Censorship." The High Chancellor asked for an equal time to speak and then Empress Stephanie asked for the same, saying that it had been promised to her. Lord Ken had a vote, which took time, and as the populace favored her Stephanie was pleased. In a soft voice which smote sweetly on the common ear, Her Serene Majesty addressed the silenced horde, taking up even more of the commoner's forty-five minutes.
By this time Robert had left with his board between his legs, feeling disheartened by a straw vote where not one person voted his way. Stephanie and Eric began smiling brightly, for many could not speak, including an old knight who had once challenged the Gulag, where writers were forced to work in minute, isolated cubicles. But the knight Albert did propose to extend the discussion, which was only seconded by one timid voice. But the actual vote showed substantial support: twenty-three for, sixteen against, seven abstentions. Note 08-02-03: This should have been sixteen for, twenty-three against, seven abstentions.
Later, during the pyjama party, Grocery Lord Allen complained that, for some reason, he had not received many answers. Albert, finally getting to speak, saw no mystery but a brilliant job of filibustering, aided by the Chair.
The Empress and her Chancellor were literally beaming, bathing the silent commoners in their celestial light. They recessed to the Imperial Court, satisfied that serenity and tranquility had been restored to the Empire. Clearly the "four principles of activity and four functions" had prevailed over the five theses.
I am told that later Albert was heard to say if Robert had brought a proposal rather than a discussion, he might have gotten as many as sixteen votes, a serious blow to the Empire. But no vote was taken on the main question, and there was very little real discussion. Chancellor Eric was heard to say that discussions at the Council were a waste of time but later, I heard that his parliamentary advisers told him that discussions were highly valued there. According to the old knight Commoner Robert, too, could have benefited from attending more Horde meetings or listening to his advisors who had.
For the common horde ----- Albert Solomon.
This is my statement for the Board of Directors. I am not endorsed by the Management, nor would I want to be--although at some future time they may want to endorse me just to shut me up. This will be my sixth time running for the Board. If you want a lapdog who will rubber-stamp the General Meeting, don't vote for me.
Arrogance. Subterfuge. Hysteria. Delusion. Deceit. Those are the evils of our government. They are not mortal sins, they are getting better, but over the years they have accumulated into a delusion. The delusion is that you or I have anything to do with running the Co-Op, even if we go to these meetings. The "rulers" are running the Co-Op through subterfuge. We elect a board of directors. You expect that since you voted for them, they have some authority in the Co-Op. They gave it up twenty years ago. So your vote is wasted. But anyone can go to the meetings and vote, you say. But they have no coherency and cannot carry through a sustained effort (except me), so the management, who can, run the Co-Op. It wouldn't be so bad if they trusted the membership, but they don't seem to.
If they had asked us about a pension plan for them we probably would have said Yes, but they had to have a huge fight about it and not let members suggest other plans. If they had asked us to give up item pricing in a proper referendum, we probably would, but Mr. Holtz had to deceive and bilk the General Meeting and the membership to attain his ends. Why? Because he's a bad person? No: Because the system allows him to do it and he's been doing it so long he doesn't know any other way. (Although after all these years I can't believe he doesn't get a charge out of how much he upsets people.)
We would have a striking, distinctive atrium on our shopping floor if it hadn't been for management's arrogance, where they made an unseemly display by firing their own hand-picked committee to replace some well-meaning but admittedly cantankerous people. And that cost all of us $250,000 because of delays and discarded plans (and another $100,000 for a nonfunctioning scanning program).
The government is a deceit and a tragedy because it manufactures consent. Because you voted for a board member, or because there is a monthly Meeting, you think you had a say, or that "it was what people wanted." The people at these meetings don't represent you, you didn't appoint them, they appointed themselves, and although the meetings are conducted in public they have nothing to do with your or my will or empowerment. They are good people, but they are misguided if they think that because they decided to go to the meetings they have a right to run the Co-Op.
My solution to all this is better, more open government, not only through good-will but mainly through structural change. To wit, a proportional-representation system where each of us could choose or change our representative every two months at the Entrance Desk, by mail, or on the phone. These people, unlike now, would be visible and accountable to those who elected them. The system might be chaotic, but it would be worth it as a noble and blessed social experiment rather than as a cozy elitist management monarchy.
The Gazette also needs to be reformed to make it as glorious and blessed and special and unique as the rest of our institution can and should be. My plan for that would mandate that the four squads display their squad numbers prominently on their mastheads, and the editors, or really squad leaders, of each squad be elected yearly by referendum. We don't need professionalism in smoothing and diluting our words, we need radical free speech in at least one of the four squads.
I found a new expression for myself (from A. J. Hoberman describing Stan Brakhage): "Furiously individualistic!" Or hysterically individualistic, or deliriously individualistic. I don't know which it is, but I think I could do you and the Co-Op (note dissident spelling) a lot of good if I were on the Board. So, if you want to be a part of this blessed work, vote for me or at least EMail me with a good word (HOBCES@YAHOO.COM). Together, we can and will succeed.
Please help me ------- :) -------------- Albert B. Solomon
This page last revised August 2nd, 2003. Sorry for the crude HTML, but I am trying to get better.
My Favorite Things About Angelfire
My Favorite Web sites
Josh Karpf's astonishing satires on GMs since 1992.
Free Web Building Help
Angelfire HTML Library
htmlGEAR - free polls, guestbooks, and more!