From the Open-Publishing Calendar
From the Open-Publishing Newswire
Indybay Feature
Co-op Members Decry Fraudulent Ballot Argument
“Arevalo’s argument was written to support the Board’s proposed amendment, but they have listed it as an opposing argument,” said Co-op member Ellen Schwartz. “The Board has received two other legitimate opposing arguments, one from me and one from David Mandel. Instead they are using one that is blatantly false.”
Co-op Members Decry Fraudulent Ballot Argument
by Maggie Coulter
The ongoing controversy about members’ democratic rights continues with a new twist at the Sacramento Natural Foods Co-op. This week the Co-op Board placed a ballot argument on its website that many of its members are calling a fake. Charles Steven Arevalo is listed as its author.
The ballot argument addresses a Board-proposed Bylaws amendment, which would prohibit the Co-op from using criteria related to “political opinion” or “national origin” in making purchasing or any other decisions. The Board's amendment was drafted in apparent response to members, who were trying to put a proposed human rights-based boycott initiative on the Co-op's ballot.
“After refusing to allow Sacramento Natural Foods Co-op Members to vote on either the Human Rights or Restore Co-op Democracy initiatives, the Co-op Board proposed amending the Bylaws try to make sure the human rights issue would never come up again,” explained Maggie Coulter, one of the initiative’s sponsors. “But their Bylaws amendment would prohibit the Co-op from making many, if not most, of the purchasing decisions it now makes. The Co-op buys according to its values and values are clearly a matter of “political opinion.”
“Arevalo’s argument was written to support the Board’s proposed amendment, but they have listed it as an opposing argument,” said Co-op member Ellen Schwartz. “The Board has received two other legitimate opposing arguments, one from me and one from David Mandel. Instead they are using one that is blatantly false.”
In mid-June, Schwartz submitted a 562-word ballot argument in accordance with the Election Code, which specified no word limit. In July, the Board posted a 275-word limit on the Co-op website with a statement that any argument submitted in excess of this would be rejected. On July 12, a 275-word ballot argument was submitted by Co-op member David Mandel in clear opposition to the proposed Bylaws amendment. (Arevalo’s argument is 63 words.)
“To resort to this form of deceit is a new low for the Board,” said Co-op member Josh Cadji. “They clearly don’t trust Members to be able to think for themselves. Rather than follow their Bylaws and principles, the Co-op Board is engaging in fraudulent tactics by posting this fake argument. Their actions undermine the integrity of the Co-op; what they are doing is truly shameful.”
“This [Arevalo's] ballot argument completely fails to address the issues, which means Co-op members are being denied the chance to make an informed decision,” says Co-op member Ellen Levy. “If the Board has any interest in holding a fair election, they will immediately replace this with a legitimate ballot argument.”
Board President Steve Maviglio has emailed Co-op members who have complained about the fake argument, stating that posting it is accordance with the Co-op’s Election Code. The code directs that only one argument in support and one opposed will be put on the ballot and that the first one submitted will be accepted. While Schwartz' argument was submitted first, it is unclear at this point whether Mandel's or Arevalo's argument was submitted second.
“Regardless of the timing, Arevalo's ballot argument is not in opposition to the amendment,” explained Coulter. “For example, Arevalo’s argument erroneously says people should vote no on the amendment if they ‘think the Co-op should stop carrying products from small California farms because of the policies of California's government.’ In reality, the proposed amendment would prohibit the Co-op from prioritizing purchases from local farms because this is a matter of not only ‘political opinion’ but also ‘national origin’. So if members want the Co-op to stop prioritizing local products, they should vote yes.”
“The Board has falsely tried to claim that its amendment is about non-discrimination,” explained Coulter. “But California Law already prohibits discrimination in employment and the Co-op’s Bylaws prohibit discrimination in membership. This amendment puts the Co-op as we know it in jeopardy; members should read it carefully and get the facts. A good source is http://www.CoopDemocracy.org.”
Disclosure: Maggie Coulter is a long time Co-op member, human rights activist, and organic gardener. She is the sponsor of the Human Rights Initiative.
by Maggie Coulter
The ongoing controversy about members’ democratic rights continues with a new twist at the Sacramento Natural Foods Co-op. This week the Co-op Board placed a ballot argument on its website that many of its members are calling a fake. Charles Steven Arevalo is listed as its author.
The ballot argument addresses a Board-proposed Bylaws amendment, which would prohibit the Co-op from using criteria related to “political opinion” or “national origin” in making purchasing or any other decisions. The Board's amendment was drafted in apparent response to members, who were trying to put a proposed human rights-based boycott initiative on the Co-op's ballot.
“After refusing to allow Sacramento Natural Foods Co-op Members to vote on either the Human Rights or Restore Co-op Democracy initiatives, the Co-op Board proposed amending the Bylaws try to make sure the human rights issue would never come up again,” explained Maggie Coulter, one of the initiative’s sponsors. “But their Bylaws amendment would prohibit the Co-op from making many, if not most, of the purchasing decisions it now makes. The Co-op buys according to its values and values are clearly a matter of “political opinion.”
“Arevalo’s argument was written to support the Board’s proposed amendment, but they have listed it as an opposing argument,” said Co-op member Ellen Schwartz. “The Board has received two other legitimate opposing arguments, one from me and one from David Mandel. Instead they are using one that is blatantly false.”
In mid-June, Schwartz submitted a 562-word ballot argument in accordance with the Election Code, which specified no word limit. In July, the Board posted a 275-word limit on the Co-op website with a statement that any argument submitted in excess of this would be rejected. On July 12, a 275-word ballot argument was submitted by Co-op member David Mandel in clear opposition to the proposed Bylaws amendment. (Arevalo’s argument is 63 words.)
“To resort to this form of deceit is a new low for the Board,” said Co-op member Josh Cadji. “They clearly don’t trust Members to be able to think for themselves. Rather than follow their Bylaws and principles, the Co-op Board is engaging in fraudulent tactics by posting this fake argument. Their actions undermine the integrity of the Co-op; what they are doing is truly shameful.”
“This [Arevalo's] ballot argument completely fails to address the issues, which means Co-op members are being denied the chance to make an informed decision,” says Co-op member Ellen Levy. “If the Board has any interest in holding a fair election, they will immediately replace this with a legitimate ballot argument.”
Board President Steve Maviglio has emailed Co-op members who have complained about the fake argument, stating that posting it is accordance with the Co-op’s Election Code. The code directs that only one argument in support and one opposed will be put on the ballot and that the first one submitted will be accepted. While Schwartz' argument was submitted first, it is unclear at this point whether Mandel's or Arevalo's argument was submitted second.
“Regardless of the timing, Arevalo's ballot argument is not in opposition to the amendment,” explained Coulter. “For example, Arevalo’s argument erroneously says people should vote no on the amendment if they ‘think the Co-op should stop carrying products from small California farms because of the policies of California's government.’ In reality, the proposed amendment would prohibit the Co-op from prioritizing purchases from local farms because this is a matter of not only ‘political opinion’ but also ‘national origin’. So if members want the Co-op to stop prioritizing local products, they should vote yes.”
“The Board has falsely tried to claim that its amendment is about non-discrimination,” explained Coulter. “But California Law already prohibits discrimination in employment and the Co-op’s Bylaws prohibit discrimination in membership. This amendment puts the Co-op as we know it in jeopardy; members should read it carefully and get the facts. A good source is http://www.CoopDemocracy.org.”
Disclosure: Maggie Coulter is a long time Co-op member, human rights activist, and organic gardener. She is the sponsor of the Human Rights Initiative.
Add Your Comments
Latest Comments
Listed below are the latest comments about this post.
These comments are submitted anonymously by website visitors.
TITLE
AUTHOR
DATE
Co-op Members Decry Fraudulent Ballot Argument
Fri, Jul 22, 2011 2:21AM
We are 100% volunteer and depend on your participation to sustain our efforts!
Get Involved
If you'd like to help with maintaining or developing the website, contact us.
Publish
Publish your stories and upcoming events on Indybay.
Topics
More
Search Indybay's Archives
Advanced Search
►
▼
IMC Network