CHALLENGE -- Peoples' Elections in Carrboro

We have an amazing opportunity in Carrboro over the next 18 months. When as many as six positions on the Board of Aldermen could be up for grabs. Beginning with the Special Election on March 19.

If anyone, including your preferences, truly wants to serve, they will have more than ample opportunity. So, let’s use these series of Elections to do more than just engage in Carrboro politics as usual.

Let’s use these next 18 months to encourage the widest, broadest and deepest conversation possible about the state of our town, and the direction in which it is heading.

In that regard, I have a challenge to all those who make up the political establishment in Carrboro. Stand back. Let the people have that conversation. Without imposition by you. Let them make their own choices. Without direction from you.

Do not nominate, do not endorse, do not lobby, do not campaign. Do not close ranks to anoint an heir. Rather, step back. And encourage as many different people as possible, with as many different views as possible, to nominate themselves as candidates. And then campaign, only for themselves.

So that we can all encourage the most open debate possible about the future of our town. Without any in positions of influence giving any indication as to preference. So that the people of Carrboro can hear, can ask, can decide, without feeling they are being railroaded in any particular direction.

To those organizations which normally endorse, I say this: send out your questionnaires, hold your forums, publish the results. And then leave it at that. Let the people make up their own minds.

To the rest I suggest this: hold your tongues, and your pens. No letters to the media. No posts on blogs in support. Please move out of the way, and create space for those whose voices are not normally heard; let them ask their questions, let them create the conversation, rather than the ‘professional’ talking heads.

Carrboro prides itself on being a progressive town. So Carrboro, let’s demonstrate progress with the democratic process. Let’s give it back, lock, stock and barrel, to the people. Vox Pop in Carrboro.

Carrboro, 'Establishment' and Itch

Dan Coleman will be missed in Carrboro. I have a couple of sisters who lived in Australia. I've already written to Dan offering what help I can with his transition. But I know that he will enjoy his new adventure in Australia.

Which means. A vacancy will soon be opening on the Carrboro Board of Aldermen. And my mind turns to matters of political ‘establishment,’ the righteousness of challenge in a community, and what makes me itchy.

Now. Let's get clear. There is a political ‘establishment’ in Carrboro. This is not necessarily a bad thing. So, why the itch?

Well, I get itchy at any appearance of an 'establishment' coronation.

I get itchy at any sense that one has to be a part of an homogenous 'establishment' to make progress. That the primary attribute of a candidacy should be that one has worked one's way up the ladder of 'establishment,' allowing its members to get comfortable with one.

I get itchy at the suggestion that a community is, indeed, homogenous. When patently no community is homogenous.

I get itchy when members of an 'establishment' have attributed to them phrases like so-and-so "is a good fit." Like there is only one fit. Like one size fits all in our community. Any community, and especially Carrboro, is made up of many different shapes and sizes.

I get itchy when an 'establishment' gives one the impression that it feels that its role in government should be more that of pressure group than consensus-building mediator for the whole community.

I don't mind so much the idea that an ‘establishment’ within government challenges. We should, all of us, always be challenged to do better. Not least by our government.

But I get itchy when an 'establishment' within government itself is not regularly challenged. And I'm not sure government in Carrboro is challenged. Not outside of certain well-set parameters. And not by anyone outside the 'establishment.' Not in any serious way.

There is not any community, anywhere, which cannot find itself performing better as a consequence of regular, genuine and meaningful challenge.

The problem (and it is a self-defeating and self-perpetuating problem), the problem is that challenge won't be forthcoming from the ranks of the 'establishment.'

And yet, challenge won't make any progress unless it is embraced by that 'establishment,' for no better reason and often with no qualification other than the fact that it is well-meaning and well-articulated challenge.

I wonder if Carrboro has not become more of a playground for imports to engage in social engineering experimentation, rather than an engaged, an engaging and an all-inclusive community.

I wonder if more of Carrboro does not speak out simply because it feels overwhelmed.

I wonder if it is not time for a conversation in our community about whether it is, as a whole, at ease with the direction of the community.

And whether, perhaps, that conversation might not more easily be instigated by an Alderman less wedded to the establishment and to its prevailing social engineering.

What's the worst that can happen? A in-depth conversation takes place. The result is, actually, we're fine with the way things are going. Service rendered by conversation, and by Aldermen. And the community of Carrboro draws closer.

We all win.

Tyranny - In All Its Forms

When a national government abuses its temporary electoral advantage to introduce measures that oppress and intimidate ordinary folk, is this tyranny, or is it merely prudent security, in a time of upheaval and danger?

When a state government finds itself in control of both its executive and legislature, and uses the moment to introduce legislation which limits the ability of the opposing party to garner votes, is this tyranny, or is it merely the ebb and flow of fair political gamesmanship?

When an apartment complex, known for being a haven for newly-arrived immigrants, decides it would rather cater to college students, and so ‘upgrades,’ and charges the hard-up immigrants $5,000 each for the privilege, is this tyranny, and backdoor eviction, or is it merely responsible and necessary repair and maintenance?

When the co-op at which you work, which is supposed to support openness, transparency and democracy, manipulates the governance structure to close down channels of communication and inclusive decision-making, is this tyranny, or is it merely good business practice?

And when neighbors, who have been reported incessantly to the Police for holding crack parties in the early hours of the morning, attack your car in retaliation, is this tyranny, or is it merely an acceptable expression of frustration with their disadvantage?

For my sins, I class them all as tyranny. As steps which remove from good folk the voice to which they are entitled. And as such, I speak out equally against all of them.

For those sins, and as of today, I am driving a brand new car, which has engraved all over its hood and side, in foot high letters, the words “Bitch, snitch, faggot.”

A time for reflection.

The Middle Class Is Dead

As we approach President Obama’s Second Inauguration, why do I have this overwhelming feeling that the Middle Class is dead? In both the UK and the US. And that the major political parties in both countries are complicit?

It’s a feeling which has been nagging at me for some time now. But it began to crystallize this past week when I read a series of newspaper articles:

• We are told that the US economy is almost back to its ‘historic’ regular annual growth of 3%, with stocks about to break through to a new record. Yet, unemployment among we mere minions remains high.

• At the grocery co-op where I have now worked for seven years (silent scream), sales reach new heights, week-by-week, and talk of three new stores electrifies the air – but my annual pay raise remains a pittance.

• All around us, we are told that the union-created US Middle Class is dying. But the 1% continue to thrive.

• Daily we read of the billions of dollars in settlements that banks are having to pay in penalties for their various malfeasances leading up to, through and after the Great Banking Crash of 2008. Yet, bank stock prices shudder only a ripple. Huge bonuses are back. Dodd-Frank has no teeth. And no-one cares.

• I regularly read the culture sections of The New York Times, and various fashion and lifestyle magazines, just to see what are the trends. And what I see is fashion extolling the virtues of glamour – in the middle of a recession which still bites for ordinary working folk. Luxury cars. Property in the Hamptons, going for gazillions. Who is this aimed at? Because, for sure, it isn’t intended for me and my mates.

Then, my eye alights on a piece written by Adam Davidson in the NYTimes. Adam almost always comes up with cultural and economic analyses that start out spot-on, and then completely lose themselves in spot-off.

On this occasion, he is wondering what is causing the change in consumer buying habits. He has noticed that the predilection of the Middle Class in the Seventies and Eighties to buy in cheap and in bulk (Sam’s Club, Costco) is dwindling. To be replaced by a tendency to buy more expensive, more consumer-friendly and more specialized. He cites local and organic produce and Tide-Pods.

Right. We’re on my territory now. He has my attention. But then his reasoning goes all to heck. Adam claims that the reason is that the Middle Class, due to the recession, are still having to work long hours, and do not have time to buy in bulk any more. Nor to separate their own portions of food and detergent. So, it is worth the extra pennies to have someone else prepare the portions. And, at the same time, no-one can afford to be ill. So, we eat healthier.

Hmm.

No, Adam. Sorry mate. I know. I see it every day. I work in a store that specializes in organic and Do-It-Someone-Else portions. The folks doing the latter are not Middle Class. They are a step up. Not quite 1%. More 3-4%. Annual salaries of $200,000 - $400,000. In jobs which service the 1%. Primarily computer or web-related.

They don’t buy this stuff because they are overworked. They buy this stuff because they are nouveau riche ponces. And they are showing off. To themselves. And because they can.

Bulk-buying is dying because these new, hmm, what shall we call them, I know, Middle Upper Class. Or MUC (Muck). The new MUC wouldn’t be seen dead in Costco. Let alone Sam’s Club.

The folks who buy cheap are ordinary working folks. Because it’s all they can afford. And they don’t buy bulk, because they don’t have that much cash at any one time.

Well. Seeing as we’ve just got past the Twelve Days of Christmas, I’ll say this observation led to a personal epiphany. I’ll spare you the yelling, screaming and staining of the living room walls. And leap straight to the thoughts that followed.

And bear in mind I’m still thinking as I write. As Daniel Day-Lewis said in ‘Lincoln’ (may that terrible and contrived disaster win only Razzies) – “I’m too lazy to stop writing”:

The 1% drive the economies of the US and the UK. I’m not talking trickle-down. So keep your hair on. Bugger all trickles down. That’s the point. But what it is that the 1% does, accounts for most of the dollar amount in the economy. Frankly, in economic terms, Great Britain has been reduced to the City of London, surrounded by a rather quaint tourist attraction called ‘England.’

The same is true (at least for the moment) with the emerging economies in the rest of the world. BRIC, and the countries close behind them – Bangladesh, Thailand, Egypt, Turkey, et al.

These are the folks buying the $1.2 million Bugatti hatchbacks, for the wifeys to take the kids to the faux grocery store. These are the people shopping at Bal Harbor. Buying villas in the Caribbean. And driving the fashion world’s obsession with old-style glitter and glamour.

Now, these folks need services. And those (everything from computer services to fashion to airline pilots) are provided by the new MUC. These guys and gals can’t swim with the sharks. They can’t donate millions. Or buy jetliners. But they can ape the lifestyle.

So, they buy the expensive brand fashion copies from Saks Fifth. They do Porsche, not Bugatti. And they want all that personal service that makes them feel grand.

Enter the old Middle Class. We poor buggers who are still struggling to pay off student loans. Teachers losing their jobs through budget cuts. Doctors getting hit by Medicare belt-tightening. College graduates mowing lawns to pay the bills. And some, who have accepted this might be a permanent change. And are going self-employed. Dreaming up niches to serve the new MUC. But at a much lower pay grade. Personal physical and motivational training is a favorite.

After that, what’s left? Well, the working folks. The working class. But, I hear you say, what of aspiration? What of all this talk by political parties on both sides of the Atlantic about wanting to support folks in their aspiration to work hard, play fair, pay in, get out, climb up, better life for kids, landing on Mars?

Bollocks. Not going to happen any more. And the pols don’t want it, either.

In the US, the myth is that the Middle Class there was created by the unions. Not so much in the UK. But the end result on both sides of the pond was the same. Out of the bipolar societies that existed prior to the Industrial Revolution (rich, poor, and some grasshoppers), grew a Middle Class, which was needed to provide middle management to run industries. White collar. Skilled blue collar. And the services to support them. Family GP. Family lawyer. Family banker – yes, they used to exist. Etc.

The essence of the survival of the Middle Class was the recognition that they aspired to a lifestyle working folk could not afford, ever. But they couldn’t pay for it up front in cash, as did the rich. And so developed the whole concept of pay in now-get out later services. Especially for public services, like education, pensions and now, health.

But those days are over. Forget how we got here, or why. But the 1-4% don’t need pay-in. And they don’t want to pay the taxes to give it to others. But, I hear you say, surely they want to keep the Middle Class happy, because they represent market and labor? Not no more.

The 1-4% can find both elsewhere in the world. Industry is dying in the US. It was declared rigor mortis some time ago in the UK. The 1-4% no longer need overpaid, underworked white collar or skilled blue collar.

But surely the pay-in schemes still exist? Nope. They are under daily attack from budget cuts, at both national and local level. I owe an apology to FB mate, Chris Telesca, with whom I fenced the other day about Obamacare. After which I read that, under Obamacare, insurance premiums for the self-employed and middle-level payees (the classic Middle Class) are about to go up by double digit percentages. And this wasn’t foreseen – or worse still, deliberate?

Without a doubt, the next step in ‘fiscal prudence’ will be the re-introduction of means testing. Which will almost certainly reduce the provision of pay-in services only to the very needy. In turn, bringing the old Middle Class down to the level of other working folk. Which leads me now to re-label the old Middle Class as the new Upper Working Class.

What of the unions? The folks who created and surely would now protect the US Middle Class? Well. As goes manufacturing industry, so go the unions. And unions in the US are becoming ever more irrelevant. But don't the Democrats rely on them during Presidential Elections? Nope. Not any more. Two successful election efforts by Barack Obama put paid to that myth.

But hang on, what about all those political parties (cf. British Tory rebrand) yelling about Jobs, Family and Education for the Middle Class? Oh yes. You can have a college education. But unless you intend to sell out to MUC (at which point law firms, investment bankers et al will happily pay off your loan as a golden ‘hey there’), then you’re stuck in penury for most of the rest of your working life.

Jobs? Why would any government spend money from the dwindling public piggy bank to create uncompetitive jobs? When they can get election cash from the 1% in return for tax breaks to allow the 1% to export jobs to Myanmar?

Family? Ha. Take a good long look at how benefit reform is helping Middle Class families in the UK. For sure (and I applaud it), there may be better and more sensible coverage for the disadvantaged, without the welfare trap. But the Middle Class are getting razed.

Their ‘benefits’ are being taken away, one-by-one. Child benefit has already gone. And in the past few months, a new scheme began, under which every single employee is having to fork out a monthly amount for their own private pay-in pension plan, to supplement the state pension.

Expect this formula to become the template for benefit ‘reform’ in the US.

Ah ha. I hear you say. But what about the Democrats? They’ll fight for the Middle Class. They will continue to work to keep in place a system that allows social mobility from working to Middle Class. No, they won’t.

First, the money isn’t there. Secondly, the votes aren’t there. We just had the most polarized Presidential and Congressional Elections since 1864. All the talk was of the 1% buying the result. Well, that didn’t happen. But what did happen was that, against the flow, Romney got 47% of the vote. And Congress remained Republican – and Tea Party. This wasn’t the work of the 1%. This was the work of the 3-4%, silently, but determinedly, voting to maintain their newfound lifestyle.

The new MUC, risen from working folks and the old Middle Class, safe in their gated communities, educated but not worldly-wise, nouveau riche but not noblesse oblige. Guilty. Self-contained. Selfish. They don’t want to share. They don’t like giving back. They don’t like taxes. And they don’t give a fig for maintaining the Middle Class, or offering a leg-up for the working folks. And here’s the rub. They will only become more potent as a voting base.

I don’t care about Dems saying that Hispanics and Asians are natural Dem voters. No, they aren’t. Everything about their culture will have them working their asses off to see their offspring aspire to MUC. If you want to know what America might look like with third generation Hispanics and Asians, try Singapore, South Korea or Texas.

The Dems are going to be fighting hard to maintain any voting base they can find. And there is the dagger in the heart of the Middle Class. Why would Dems want to support and extend a new reality that has folks aspire to leave the working ranks and join the Republican MUC?

It is my view that you will see Dems increasingly working towards keeping their voters as a client base. As the British Labour Party did in the Seventies and Eighties. Oh. It will be wrapped up all pretty in language about re-discovering our purpose. Putting working folks first. But what will transpire is a Democratic Party focusing its advocacy on directing the reduced public purse towards those same working folk, and away from the Upper Working Class.

If you allow a situation where the UWC can no longer receive benefit or the leg-up needed to meet aspiration, they slip back down the salary scale, to find themselves shopping at Dollar General, with every other working person. And that’s where the Dems of the future will want to keep them.

So. Even though we may have a short-lived hiccup of Republican hand-wringing. Which we already have had in the UK. But Dave Cameron chose hugging a hoodie over wringing his hands. We will move to a bi-polar political situation where a right-wing, tax-hating Republican Party (or British Conservative Party) will regularly face off against a newly-energized, worker-loving/trapping social Democratic Party (or British Labour Party of old). And the Middle Class will be a footnote in the history books.

So. What to do? For myself. I learn from Occupy. Or my lesson with Occupy. Forget the system. Don’t waste time trying to bring it down. Who cares? Become self-sufficient, and live outside of the system as much as possible. Oh. And hope that your self-penned pop song does viral …

2020 Vision Goal #5: Weaver Street Market and Gentlefolks' Co-op

The new Orange County, NC smoking ban leaves the smoking workers and customers of the South-East's largest and most popular grocery co-op in something of a quandary.

Apparently, smokers might no longer be able to dash onto the sidewalk or back porch for a quick drag (pun intended). What to do? What to do?

I have the answer. According to the ban, one can continue to smoke near the co-op if it becomes a private club. So. Goal #5 for WSM 2020 Vision -- turn all WSM premises into private strip clubs.

I'm buying the baby oil, glitter and skintight, spandex, day-glo orange, muscle thongs as we speak ...

The Illusion of Great Expectation ??

I wrote recently of the truly enervating discussion Weaver Street Market Co-operative owners had with respect to Goal 2 ("Drive the growth of local and sustainable foods") of WSM's proposed 2020 Vision.

I meant what I said. The conversation was useful, inspiring and energizing. Until the backsliding began, engineered by the General Manager (Ruffin Slater) and his WSM corporate office management team, and those of the WSM Board whoe sole purpose seems to be to rubber stamp.

The first sign of this backtracking became apparent after most of we owners had left the discussion, and the Board continued the conversation in their regular Board Meeting.

I don't insist that my ideas are always the best. Far from it. But one of the suggestions which I had put forward seemed to resonate with most of the owners present. Placing the owners of WSM in the driving seat of the whole 2020 Vision process by establishing a Board Committe of owners, with special responsibility to oversee the design of, development of, implementation of and monitoring progress with the finally agreed 2020 Vision.

Even the Board Chair, worker-owner Curt Brinkmeyer, with whom I do not always agree, seemed excited by the idea. Those present saw this as a new opportunity meaningfully to re-engage with owners on a general level, and give them democratic control of our future on a specific level.

No sooner had we owners left than some on the Board began to minimize the suggestion, wondering aloud about scope, task and jurisdiction of any such Board Committee. Er. All of which seem to me to be very simply answered by the requirement that owners of a co-op are supposed democratically to decide what common needs the co-op serves, and how. A concept the simplicity of which and the necessity for which always seems to elude the WSM corporate office management team and the WSM Board, who regularly forget that they are servants, not masters.

Anyway, I was told of this backsliding by one owner who stuck around. I tried not to think about it. Hoped it would all pan out differently. Until I saw the write-up of the Goal 2 Discussion on the WSM web-site.

Look, the write-up appears to be very thorough and inclusive of owners, until you pay greater attention to the details. Let's follow the trail on just the idea about a Board Committee.

First, when we eventually find mention of this idea (after reams of write-up about Ruffin and his 45 minute presentation), we see that the Board Committee is now being reduced to no more than a clearing house for owners to volunteer their services. Much like volunteering to bag groceries at the moment in Carrboro. Completely gone is any suggestion that owners will be driving the 2020 Vision process from here on in. No. Now we are reduced merely to bagging the corporate office's plans.

Curt had mentioned to me that one of the prime areas in which he saw eminent need for such a Board Committee was to design and then implement ways of monitoring progress with 2020 Vision.

Well, right at the beginning of the write-up of the Goal 2 Discussion, where Ruffin is waxing lyrical about all of his ideas, we see that he/his corporate office management team/Chac (the Mayan God of Rain and Lightning, who seemed curiously absent on December 21 ... but I digress)/whoever have already decided for we owners what metrics will be used to determine progress with Goal 2, and they all relate primarily to sales.

So? Well, you don't need a Board Committee of owners to monitor sales. And Ruffin knows that. But. Reminding ourselves of another of my ideas (or just peruse some of the other suggestions that other owners made), you do need the more lateral, anecdotal monitoring of owners to determine, for example, if WSM is meeting expectations with the stated suggestion of using all of WSM's stores to be living educational laboratories for local product. And Ruffin knows that, too.

The 'so' element is that any Goal 2 suggestions that might lend themselves to anecdotal monitoring by owners are being sidetracked. And the means of that monitoring, a Board Committee, putting owners in charge of an important aspect of THEIR co-op, namely what WSM will look like in ten years' time, is being downgraded, and replaced by metrics that require only Ruffin and his financial team to undertake the monitoring.

Bloody sigh.

What can we do? Well. Turn up at the next owners discussion meeting (Goal 3 - Build three new stores), to be held before the WSM Board Meeting, at 6.15 pm, on February 13, 2013, and ask what is going to happen to the proposed 2020 Board Committee of owners.

In the meantime, a shining beacon of self-empowerment in our co-op is this week reported in the employee Market Messenger. Some workers in the WSM Food House have formed a Sustainability Committee. They are planting fruit bushes, and have implemented their own recycling program.

We haven't even got to the Goal 4 Discussion on zero waste/zero net energy use by WSM, and workers in our Food House are taking the initiative on their own. Demonstrating what we stakeholders in our co-op can achieve when we are given the opportunity to empower ourselves to achieve our own objectives in our own co-op. Without interference from nanny corporate office. Well done. And thank you.

Larry Page, Google And Me ...

Three days out from the end of the world, and I'm finally beginning to achieve my four and a half minutes of fame.

If you Google 'Weaver Street,' Google now lists me. Well, it lists my co-op blog, 'Weaver Street Geoff.'

Granted, sometimes you have to nudge it with 'Weaver Street G ...' But, I'm still ahead of 'Weaver Street' in Glasgow, and most importantly, 'Weaver Street Grocery.'

I'm just so all chest puffed out, I can barely see my feet. No. Hang on. That would be the seven chocolate eclairs ...

2020 Vision Goal 2 Owners' Discussion

Last evening, a group of Weaver Street Market Co-operative owners, together with WSM Board members, had a truly enlightening discussion about the proposed Goal 2 of the WSM 2020 Vision - "Drive the growth of local and sustainable foods."

I'm not going to write at length about what other folks suggested. That's their thunder. And it will be appearing on notes of the conversation in due course on WSM's web-site.

I addressed two matters.

After listening to a genuinely exciting presentation from Ruffin Slater, backed up by Dr. John O'Sullivan, from the North Carolina Sustainable Agriculture Research and Education Program, and some wonderful contributions from fellow owners, I did what sometimes I do, usefully or irritatingly, depending on your point of view!

I cut to the chase.

What we had heard from Ruffin was that no other retailer really does local. Organic, yes. That argument has been won. It was the niche of co-operatives for about 20 years. But not so much now. But local? No-one else seems to care. Ok. So. Let's make it our niche, I said.

I suggested that, if we were truly serious about spending the time and the money making local our niche. If we really wanted, in ten years' time, for folks to say, 'When I want local, I go to WSM.' Then we should turn each of our outlets into full-service, living educational laboratories for local.

No namby-pamby flirting around the edges,. The odd promo. Pretty labels for something lost on Aisle 4. No. Make the primary purpose of each of our outlets, backed up by the rest of our operation, to highlight all produce, meat, deli, hot bar, you name it, which is local.

Speaking as a card-carrying, if it ain't in a bag I don't eat it, bachelor, I pointed out that we should stop assuming that our customers and our workers instantly know why they should be buying local, how to do so, and/or when to do so.

Our outlets use vast amounts of room putting up pictures and end-gaps (or whatever those aisle-end boards are called) and displays, which look really cute. Let's substitute all of those with material promoting local. Explaining why. Directing people to what is seasonal. Ensure our new labels highlight everything local. And that accompanying displays are fully informative.

The issue was raised that folks have no problem buying local beer. I pointed out that each beer has oodles of info about where it is made, how and why it is a good buy. Why? Because folks take getting drunk seriously.

The reason there aren't labels the size of my fist all over local pears is because a lot of folks do not know why it is healthy to eat a pear, and why it is important to buy local pears. So, they don't take it seriously. Ok then. It should be up to WSM's educational and marketing machine to tell them.

Special offers and promo's should be geared to local. On a seasonal basis. All of which is regularly explained on our web-site, in The Beet, and in the newsletter, which we have, quite wrongly, reduced to no more than a coupon book.

This is what we should do - if we are serious.

Next up. Board Members spoke once more about being able sensibly to monitor the achievement of the Four Goals, proposed under WSM's 2020 Vision.

I made the point that we had just spent one and a half hours having an in-depth discussion about ideas for just one of the Goals. Every minute of that time had been usefully spent.

Again, if the Board are serious about monitoring progress with the Goals of 2020 Vision, I said that they should set up a standing Board Committee (or Committees), with the specific task of overseeing compliance by WSM with the Four Goals, reporting to the Board, and encouraging participation from owners and the community in the implementation of the Goals.

You will be delighted to know that no-one threw anything at me!

I also suggested that, as part of the educational program with local, but also to make money, WSM might want to consider adding a catering service to its repertoire.

In fact, as I stated at the end of the evening, my suggestion about getting fully invested in local wasn't just about altruism; it was also about grabbing for WSM a commercial niche, that it could then make its own. I still want my dividend at the end of the year!

Oh. And the pic about Fort Bragg? Well, John O'Sullivan had mentioned that even Fort Bragg, NC was interested in local. They produce 100,000 meals a day, and need to be concerned about food safety and security. So, I wondered out loud if we ought not to be building a WSM slap bang in the middle of Seal Team Six, Fort Bragg ... ??

Next discussion. Goal 3. "Invigorate downtowns." February 13, 2013.

Affordability, Viability and Purpose of WSM's Local Food Operation

This coming Wednesday, December 12, 2012, in the Carrboro Century Center, beginning at 6.15pm, there will be an open WSM owners' discussion on Goal 2 of WSM's preferred 2020 Vision.

WSM have also set up a Facebook Page, where owners and workers can make comment on the four Goals. I have already made comment on Goal 3 (at about #15), and posted some general commentary about this whole process on my WSM co-op blog.

Today, I posted a comment on the 2020 Vision Facebook Page on Goal 2, the one to be discussed this Wednesday. Again (funny thing life, innit?), it can be found at about #15. It is along the theme of the Subject Head above:

"The ambition of Goal 2 of WSM’s 2020 Vision is, in essence, to increase the sales of local and sustainable food, primarily through our own WSM outlets, and generally local food which has been processed in our own Food House in Hillsborough.

My comments below are set in the context of two themes which the WSM Board have stressed in their presentation of these Goals and in their commentary at the Goal 1 open session of owners:

I) Clear goals must be established, with clear processes also set in place to monitor the achievement of those goals.

II) The 2020 Vision process should be owner-driven, with the talents of our some 18,000 owners being tapped through the concept of CoOp-Sourcing.

My comments (some of these may overlap with Goal 1; but I was unable to attend the owners’ meeting on Goal 1 at such short notice):

1) AFFORDABILITY

The product of our local food operation is not cheap. I would invite WSM constantly to keep in mind the need for our co-op to be aware that one of our missions should be to ensure that local and sustainable food is within the reach of all in our communities, including those who work at WSM.

2) VIABILITY

WSM can only “produce more local food ourselves” if our Food House can handle it.

I know from my own personal experience that we have the hardest-working, most dedicated and most inspired workers in all of the departments of our Food House. But they are not the ones who set the policy that governs the structure and processes of our Food House.

Before we can set new goals for WSM’s local food operation, it is necessary first to determine if those goals set for, during and after the last expansion, in 2007/2008, which resulted in the creation of the Food House, have been met.

At that time, we, in the outlets, were told that the Food House would result in better conditions for our production work-mates; more local food; better quality food; a greater range of food; better and more consistent packaging and presentation; and less need for food preparation in our outlet kitchens.

I would suggest that any working group established to oversee Goal 2, which working groups have been suggested by both WSM management and our Board, should CoOp-Source our owners to find folks with the skills to undertake, with the co-operation of the operations staff and management, a full financial and narrative audit of the Food House, to ascertain if the goals of the last expansion, as they relate to WSM’s local food operation, have been met.

Are there lessons to be learned from the manner in which the Food House operation was put together? Is the Food House operation more efficient and cost-effective than the food production effort that existed before? Is the Food House operation fully commercial and competitive with other food production efforts? We are regularly told that WSM currently produces 25% of the food which it sells. But that means nothing unless we also know what % of food sold before the Food House was built was produced by WSM.

We, in the outlets, were promised that our relationship with the Food House would be commercial, with the outlets treating the Food House as they would any other vendor. Is that the case?

We were told that the food provided to us would be competitively priced. Is that the case?

Are there areas which could be improved? If so, how?

Once we have an historical context, and are fully satisfied that the Food House is operating now in the most effective, commercial and competitive manner possible, in terms of the needs of its end users, then we should address what specific goals we need to be setting our Food House folks, and whether they feel and we feel those goals can be met, and how. And, in the process, establish systems by which owners can monitor the achievement of those goals.

3) PURPOSE

This may seem a rather curious item. And may seem even more so as I progress.

For some, there is something of a veil of secrecy surrounding some of the machinations of our co-op. If the Goals of WSM’s 2020 Vision are to be successful, it is necessary for all of us to be open and transparent with each other. It is for that reason I welcome the 2020 Vision Facebook Page, allowing all of us to communicate freely.

In considering Goal 2, I think it important for owners to be clear in their minds whether WSM and its local food operation primarily serves the convenience of its consumers and workers or the needs, not least the seasonal fluctuations, of its producers.

I’m going to stick my neck out (and what I say is almost in direct contravention of point (2) above) and say that it took me about six years to work out that WSM’s local food operation does not exist to meet the demands of WSM’s end-users: its outlets, its workers and its consumers.

We are an operation, funded by consumers and workers, that was established to ensure the long-term viability of local farmers and food producers, by offering sustainable, successful and professional outlets, with a supporting food commissary.

I may not appreciate the rather undemocratic manner in which this operation was created over some 20 years. But, I do avidly support the concept.

However, Goal 2 is not going to work if we are not all in the same boat, all of us pulling in the same direction.

If there are those in our outlets who demand that the product of the Food House should meet their requirements, not the harvesting schedule of our local farmers (for example), then they need to be heard.

If there are consumers who want to say, um, I want the food I want, not the food that farmers can provide, then they need to be listened to.

Only when we have clear and established purpose, can we then proceed with setting targets under Goal 2.

4) COMMUNITY RESOURCES

Frankly, I have no idea what is meant by the phrase ‘We will mobilize community resources to achieve ambitious goals for local and sustainable food sales.’

If this means investing more of the money that WSM generates, then I trust that owners will only proceed if and when they have the active backing of the workers of WSM, since it is the workers who generate that extra money with the sweat of their brow.

I remain ambivalent about setting new ‘ambitious’ goals until we have achieved all of the ambitious goals we set for our local food production effort when we established the Food House.

If ‘community resources’ means more loans, then I will adamantly protest, until we have paid off all of the loans which were entertained when building the Food House - still some $6 million outstanding.

Of course, a natural extension of reviewing the goals we set for the Food House, along with considering targets under Goal 2, may be the creation of a formal business plan for the Food House.

Such a process, leading, as it should, to the entrenchment of the Food House as a sustainable, commercial and competitive enterprise within WSM, would lend itself to a situation where the Food House, of itself, could become an attractive vehicle for investment from sources other than WSM and its banks, and for sales from outlets other than WSM, both of which would, in turn, support the efforts of the committed folks within the Food House to improve and expand their operations and achieve the ambitions of Goal 2, specifically as they relate to WSM.

In the meantime, in this post on my WSM co-op blog, I have a tiny snip at some of the ... er .. non-local food we supply in WSM and the consequences.

You can find other less snippy, generally more helpful suggestions about how we can be a better co-op and a stronger business in other posts on the remainder of this blog ... "

2022 Vision - More Open Owners' Sessions

Well. It turns out that my information about an open session for owners to discuss WSM's 2022 Vision, and its four goals, was correct.

And, to their credit, the Board of WSM are now going to extend those sessions, over the next few Board Meetings, so as to have one session before each Board Meeting, to cover each of the four goals, which goals can be found on Page 4 of WSM's last Annual Report.

I would still prefer that the business of setting strategy in a co-op, which, by definition, is supposed to be democratically controlled by its owners, was being driven by its owners, rather than its corporate office management team.

But, some democracy is better than none. And it's only 'some' democracy if we take part.

Board Meetings are held generally held on the third Wednesday of each month (except January) in the conference room above Panzanella restaurant in Carrboro. The open sessions will begin at 6.00pm.

I'm not entirely sure what the precise schedule is going to be for the remaining sessions. But, you can confirm by writing to: board@weaverstreetmarket.coop.

I wasn't able to attend the first session. I learned of the session one day before it was being held. And had other plans. But I will be attending the remaining three.

It is no secret that I have a pretty dim view of the efforts of our Board to promote democracy in our co-op. Er ... one day's notice? I know I'm not the only owner who thinks this. The only way to change it is to turn up.

And don't feel restricted by what you want to discuss. The Board and the corporate office management team are the servants of the co-op, not its masters.

Nothing is set in stone, until we say it is. If you want different goals, say so. If you want different matters to be addressed by the suggested goals, say so. If you missed a session, and still want to talk about another goal, well, this is your co-op, say so.

At the next session, I, for one, will be wondering why we have to be holding these discussions in a manner that is guided by the Board and the corporate office management team, and why, for example, we can not have our own discussion groups, where we owners are the ones setting the agenda for the next ten years of our co-op.

I will be wondering why we need to be planning to make WSM ever larger and more complex, when, perhaps, we should be focusing our time, energy and money on getting the last expansion right.

I will be wondering if, perhaps, we might not become a more intimate co-op once again, if, over the next ten years, we thought about becoming a loose association of stand-alone co-op's, interacting democratically with other organizations of similar intent, rather than perpetuating an increasingly remote 'empire.'

But. Those are my thoughts. They aren't the only ones floating around the co-op. And they are by no means the best. This co-op belongs to all of us. Let's turn up to these open sessions, and remind ourselves of that fact.

2022 Vision - Open Owners' Session At Board Meeting

So. I heard from Snüff Shöck/Neil (one of my immediate work-mates, and one of the good co-operators), who heard it from Amy Lorang (WSM Elections Committee Chair, and another of the good co-operators), that at around 6.00pm this evening, Wednesday, November 28, the WSM Board, before its regular monthly meeting, will be holding an open session to allow all owners to offer input on WSM's 2022 Vision.

Blimey. Where to start?

First, I cannot attend. On such short notice, I already have plans. And with the infrequency of those, I don't intend to cancel. In any event, I've not made any secret of my views on what would be my preferred 2022 Vision for our co-op, as opposed to building more stores, and getting ever bigger.

However, I would urge as many owners reading this Note as possible to attend. Again, I take the view that defining the common needs of our co-op should actually look like owners telling the Board what to do. Not the other way round. But, in the regrettable absence of that approach, when the Board seeks our input, we need to give it.

For anyone attending, I would ask that someone re-raise my suggestion that we hold workshops on a Monday evening at Panzanella, to give we owners a more realistic and comprehensive opportunity to be setting the goals for our co-op. Did that idea just die?

Now. To the wider questions. Um. Why are we learning about this, in an 'ad hoc' fashion, one day before it is taking place? It doesn't exactly scream of a Board that desires participatory democracy.

And let's get this clear. This is not the fault of our excellent Owner Services Co-ordinator, Brenda Camp, who does a superb job. It is the task of the Board to promote democracy in our co-op.

And I believe they are failing in this task. The most striking demonstration of the apathy the Board has engendered in our co-op is the fact that the last two Elections for Board Director have been uncontested.

This is not because we owners feel that the Board and the WSM corporate office are doing a great job. It is because their negative attitude towards inclusion has frankly sapped the energy of too many owners.

There are a multitude of ways that the Board can enhance participatory democracy in our co-op. I know. I contributed in the WSM Task Force that discussed these matters, back in 2008, and which led to the formation of the Elections Committee.

Hmm. Maybe it's time I dusted off my newly re-minted worker-ownership, and considered standing for the Board again ... ??

Supporting Local And Sustainable Food - Really ??

Oh dear, oh dear, oh dear. Here we go again. 'Tis the season for some folly -- at The Weave.

Just when we thought it was safe to dive back into the local, sustainable, non-pesticide-infested produce, once again we're stocking fruit, that appears to be sprayed with more chemical than I ingest before a night of hey-ho-whoopsie.

Some combination of Thiabendazole, Imazalil, Pyrimethanil, Fludioxonil and Azoxystrobin on our Cuties fruit.

Now, I get that these 'harmless' chemicals may be required to keep the fruit mold-free, all the way from California.

But, um, how exactly is any part of this compatible with Goal 2 ("Drive the growth of local and sustainable foods") of the Four Goals we posted in our Annual Report (Page 4) barely, er, one month ago?

Wow. Talk about staying power. I saw Mitt Romney hang onto a policy position longer than that. I can't wait to see how the rest of the Four Goals pan out.

On which subject, where exactly are the discussion groups on the Four Goals which we were promised, to ensure that the process of designing, fleshing out and then implementing these Goals is democratic ... ??

*********

I made the same point about Cuties fruit last year, in a post on Facebook which never made it to my blog:

**IS WEAVER STREET MARKET ECO-CONSCIOUS ENOUGH?? [II]**

WSM is currently waxing lyrical about its range of Cuties Californian Fruit, especially the Clementines. Well, I want to wax lyrical too. So, I check 'em out.

Leaving aside the fact that the fruit leaves another heart-breaking carbon trail, all the way from California, I read the bottom of the box - only to discover that the Clementines have been sprayed with more chemicals than BP used to spray its oil spill.

Thiabendazole, Imazalil, Pyrimethanil, Fludioxonil and Azoxystrobin seem to be a few. I'm working off memory here - plus a little Googling!

That same Googling tells me these are anti-fungicides, that they are 'only' sprayed on the exterior of the fruits, and that it's ok, 'cos these chemicals are less toxic than the alternative.

C'mon, Weaver Street, co-op that I love, can we really not do better than this ... ??