Gosh. How do I do justice to the WSM owner discussion last evening
(Wednesday, February 13) about Goal 3 (building more WSM stores) without
going on for hours, and without the Board wanting their Valentine back? Of course, seeing as this is Chapel Hill, the answer ought to be – write a song.
There will be notes forthcoming
on the official Weaver Street Market web-site. But I’m not entirely
sure what will survive the collective censorship from above. So, I’ll
give my potted impression. Potted. Not potty.
The primary theme
from a group of about 10 owners (which is practically a mob scene from
‘Spartacus,’ in terms of co-op ownership engagement), many of whom were
concerned worker-owners from the Food House, was that we need much more
discussion about a Goal which could cost hundreds of thousands of
dollars, certainly more than one hour on an evening when Duke
slaughtered … handily … when UNC came second.
This is why I
proposed (at the Goal 2 discussion) that we create a Standing 2020 Vision Board Committee of Owners, which would be given the remit of
continuing the conversation about future plans for WSM over the next 10
years, and overseeing compliance.
The secondary theme, and this one was heavily plugged by the contingent
from the Food House. Hmm. Need to define ‘heavily plugged.’ They, to a
man and a woman, were firm but courteous in their heavy plugging. I
preferred Khrushchev, and banging the table with my shoe.
Anyway, their message was, whatever is decided, it should only be
implemented when all of the operations serving the existing three stores
and Panzanella are running much more smoothly. And if and when all the
homework has been done, to ensure that invigorating downtowns wherever,
and building more stores does not impose undue financial hardship and
work burden upon the existing structure, ownership and workforce.
For my part, and initially, I restricted (ok, moment’s pause while we
all have a jolly good belly-laugh at the thought of Geoff ‘restricting’
himself in any conversation involving the Board of Weaver Street Market
Co-operative – aaaaaand resume … ). I restricted myself to suggesting
that any useful owner approval of plans to invigorate and expand could
only be considered to have been given once four questions had been
satisfactorily answered:
1) Why do we need to invigorate
downtowns and build more stores, and why do we assume it is our purpose?
What is the justification?
2) What alternatives have been considered?
3) How much will this all cost, and how will it be funded?
4) Is there anything more deserving on which we could be spending this funding?
There was a rather scattered thread throughout the evening about
whether or not the WSM Mission Statement allowed, demanded, suggested,
ignored, whatever, this grand scheme to expand the Weaver Street Empire
(oops, allowing my Luddite petticoat to show).
I thought the best moment was when a senior worker-owner from the Food
House ventured that we might be placing too much authority on a
Statement which didn’t (er, actually) say that it was any part of our
Mission to sell food.
Neatly bringing us back to the point that
all of this is a question of interpretation. That we need the full
backing of a fully-informed ownership before taking this next huge step.
And that, if the Board are intent on clinging to a literal
interpretation of one phrase (‘WSM’s mission is a vibrant, sustainable
commercial center’), then the literal interpretation is for ‘a’ center,
not several. We have ‘a’ center. Mission accomplished. We don’t need any
more. At which point, I felt I was in the middle of a debate about the
Second Amendment. And I wanted Teddy.
There was a well-known
and highly-respected worker-owner from Hillsborough, who was unable to
attend due to ill-health, but who sent a message which was read out, and
which encapsulated all of the above much more clearly and with more
erudition than I can.
Finally leading one Board member to
exclaim that they had no idea there was so much resistance to the idea
of expanding. You will be delighted to know that I ‘restricted’ myself
(with the aid of a steel strap and thoughts of chocolate ice cream) from
exclaiming back that someone really needed to get out of the Board
basement. Wasn’t I a good boy?
The rest of the evening pretty
much came down to an expression of feel-good wish-wash from Board
members (spreading the message of local food; economy of scale; meeting
competitive threats; what’s going to happen next on ‘Downton Abbey’) and
some quite inappropriate zingers from me. I learned a long time ago
that, when there is not enough time for coherent analysis and
discussion, go the zinger route. So:
• It is our duty to make
local food available to the universe. Er. Farmer’s Markets do this
without needing to be a part of WSM.
• We need to survive. Um.
No. We need to serve the needs of our owners. We shouldn’t be scared to
say, right, need being served by someone else, let’s move on to
something else. Cf. organic strip clubs.
• We need economy of
scale. Er. UNFI provides us with purchasing power. Without demanding
that we become a branch of them. We co-operate with other entities to
achieve this. Without absorbing them, to create empire.
•
History has shown that small stand-alones are less successful than big,
beefy, butch chain stores. Um. I’m sorry. Isn’t this the argument that
Wal-Mart use? And isn’t this the antithesis of who we are supposed to
be? In any event, when they started showing me slides about missing
WSM’s, I began to channel Colin Powell.
• All funding for new
expansion will come from the communities where new stores are being
planned – just like the last expansion. Er. How come, then, we are still
$6 million in debt from the last expansion?
Well. That was my
take on the evening. So. Props to Ruffin and crew for even holding the
discussion. Even more props if they listened to what was said, and now
‘invigorate’ the conversation, and ‘expand’ it to more than one evening.
And loads of props to the owners who engaged. We need more like you.
All the time!
Just remember, if we do nothing, then nothing is what we deserve.
[As always, and as the new Employee Policy demands, I state that these
are my views, and they are in no way any kind of comprehensive account
of last night’s proceedings. Think Jon Stewart, not Anderson Cooper.
Just don’t think Piers Morgan. And you can find loads more Jon Stewart
on my co-op blog. Ta-ta for now.]