Headed for the Mountains
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: , , Canada.
Interest: The outdoors,travel, maps, languages,natural history etc.
Posts: 329
|
|
LinkBack | Thread Tools |
MEC Elections
Quote fron Dru on his thread about REI:
Obviosly the challenge is to prevent the same thing happening to MEC. In that case, this becomes a case study of how not to operate. Member activism seems like the key...
Sooooo...I assume everyone has received their copy of MEC's pamphlet entitled "Get out and VOTE" ? They've made the process idiot-proof,with online, phone or snail mail options. Now there's really no excuse NOT to vote. No ...not even for you people who posted on that Seinfeld thread
[}
]
For whom will you vote, and why?
Clear, concise, and civil opinions encouraged.
What do you think, sgRant? I think you know the inside scoop...but pulllease could you edit for length before posting?
Thanks,
GH
Obviosly the challenge is to prevent the same thing happening to MEC. In that case, this becomes a case study of how not to operate. Member activism seems like the key...
Sooooo...I assume everyone has received their copy of MEC's pamphlet entitled "Get out and VOTE" ? They've made the process idiot-proof,with online, phone or snail mail options. Now there's really no excuse NOT to vote. No ...not even for you people who posted on that Seinfeld thread
[}
]For whom will you vote, and why?
Clear, concise, and civil opinions encouraged.
What do you think, sgRant? I think you know the inside scoop...but pulllease could you edit for length before posting?
Thanks,
GH
| Sponsored Links | |||
|
Advertisement |
|
||
Summit Master
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Vancouver, , .
Posts: 2,674
Now just when did I ever go on and on ad on........
I write the following without having any idea who the candidates are this year.
A bit of history is that MEC didn't have elections at all until I declined MEC's entreaties to stand down from a list of four people after three vacancies back in '83 or so. Directors were chosen from a small circle of "insiders", by acclamation. MEC has a rich and possibly interesting history of political strife that is entirely missing from the sanitized "happy" histories published to date. You know, your "open" and communicative coop that strives to involve and inform the members.
Only a tiny fraction of MEC members vote in the elections. There is no evidence their preferences are not representative of those who don't vote.
Educating yourself sufficiently to make a "fully" informed choice of directors, even if you had complete and accurate information available, is overly time consuming relative to the importance of MEC in our lives. Try making the same choices for your food coop, building materials coop, Vancity, etc, and see if you have a life left. I don't know the answer to that.
I feel that directors who make most of their income from being MEC directors are a threat to true member/board control. There is excessive potential for them to just slide along rubberstamping management proposals, to make life simple and pleasant, and perhaps even hope they might get hired some day. Anyone who doesn't go along with virtually everything the management proposes may be in for a rough time, and of course you can forget about any hope of getting hired. Fortunately such transitions are rare.
In any case, the managers of coops, since they're paid full time to concern themselves with the organization, are far more influential in the direction of the coops than the members as represented by the elected directors. They're like city mandarins compared to transient politicians. Along with this, and all else being equal, directors living far from MEC's Vancouver base just can't be as effective as local directors. Unless they're just going along with things, which is easy from any time zone.
Representatives of gear distributors and manufacturers have quite a different set of priorities from the MEC members. Those reps probably have greater influence on the buying staff than do the members. The buffers/connections between these groups are the management on one side, and the board on the other.
MEC's "state" at any given time is a balance of the relative interests and influences of all these people.
At any given time, the newest members will feel MEC is just as it should be.
An even smaller fraction of MEC members attend the AGM. There has in the past been evidence their preferences are not representative of those who don't attend. The reason is that the employees and non-employee members have non-identical sets of vested interests, and the employees are far more heavily represented at the AGM than the non-employee members. For example, the environmental funding initiative, now a pillar of MEC's public image, was defeated at the first AGM it was proposed at -- an AGM stacked by employees who felt MEC should stick to selling stuff and stay away from controversy. I don't know if the employees are as involved in MEC politics as they used to be, or better understand conflict of interest. If they're still into that stuff, they'll go bananas over this post.
I understand MEC now has a rule that the board can kick off the board any director the majority of the directors feels is a troublemaker. Such a rule could well have been used to boot off the person who initiated the environmental funding, which was not well regarded by the board of the time. I find it unacceptable that MEC could adopt such a rule, yet depict itself as some sort of paragon of virtue. I'd really like to know what the board is so afraid of.
I'm not going to endorse specific candidates, but I hope this has been helpful and as usual, non-controversial.
----------------------------------------
Meet you at DYE-II?
I write the following without having any idea who the candidates are this year.
A bit of history is that MEC didn't have elections at all until I declined MEC's entreaties to stand down from a list of four people after three vacancies back in '83 or so. Directors were chosen from a small circle of "insiders", by acclamation. MEC has a rich and possibly interesting history of political strife that is entirely missing from the sanitized "happy" histories published to date. You know, your "open" and communicative coop that strives to involve and inform the members.
Only a tiny fraction of MEC members vote in the elections. There is no evidence their preferences are not representative of those who don't vote.
Educating yourself sufficiently to make a "fully" informed choice of directors, even if you had complete and accurate information available, is overly time consuming relative to the importance of MEC in our lives. Try making the same choices for your food coop, building materials coop, Vancity, etc, and see if you have a life left. I don't know the answer to that.
I feel that directors who make most of their income from being MEC directors are a threat to true member/board control. There is excessive potential for them to just slide along rubberstamping management proposals, to make life simple and pleasant, and perhaps even hope they might get hired some day. Anyone who doesn't go along with virtually everything the management proposes may be in for a rough time, and of course you can forget about any hope of getting hired. Fortunately such transitions are rare.
In any case, the managers of coops, since they're paid full time to concern themselves with the organization, are far more influential in the direction of the coops than the members as represented by the elected directors. They're like city mandarins compared to transient politicians. Along with this, and all else being equal, directors living far from MEC's Vancouver base just can't be as effective as local directors. Unless they're just going along with things, which is easy from any time zone.
Representatives of gear distributors and manufacturers have quite a different set of priorities from the MEC members. Those reps probably have greater influence on the buying staff than do the members. The buffers/connections between these groups are the management on one side, and the board on the other.
MEC's "state" at any given time is a balance of the relative interests and influences of all these people.
At any given time, the newest members will feel MEC is just as it should be.
An even smaller fraction of MEC members attend the AGM. There has in the past been evidence their preferences are not representative of those who don't attend. The reason is that the employees and non-employee members have non-identical sets of vested interests, and the employees are far more heavily represented at the AGM than the non-employee members. For example, the environmental funding initiative, now a pillar of MEC's public image, was defeated at the first AGM it was proposed at -- an AGM stacked by employees who felt MEC should stick to selling stuff and stay away from controversy. I don't know if the employees are as involved in MEC politics as they used to be, or better understand conflict of interest. If they're still into that stuff, they'll go bananas over this post.
I understand MEC now has a rule that the board can kick off the board any director the majority of the directors feels is a troublemaker. Such a rule could well have been used to boot off the person who initiated the environmental funding, which was not well regarded by the board of the time. I find it unacceptable that MEC could adopt such a rule, yet depict itself as some sort of paragon of virtue. I'd really like to know what the board is so afraid of.
I'm not going to endorse specific candidates, but I hope this has been helpful and as usual, non-controversial.
----------------------------------------
Meet you at DYE-II?
Summit Master
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Vancouver, , .
Posts: 2,674
I'd like to illustrate a couple of the points in my other post, without adding to its bulk.
First is board accountability.
Two or three years ago, MEC fired over 50 managers. Certainly one of the biggest events in the coop's history. I heard about it by reading an article in the newspaper. So far as I know, MEC said nothing about it until a brief mention in the catalog about a year later.
Let's look at this. 50 managers is a lot of people. Presumably the circumstances leading to their redundancy did not develop overnight. Presumably this extended and large redundancy cost members a fortune in salaries in the meantime. Presumably a mass firing of this magnitude was an indication of significant problems in the organization.
Being member-controlled and member-owned, and claiming thirst for member participation, why did the board leave the members in the dark about this event and the background? Is there any chance it's our right to know if our coop has become threatened?
More to the point, the circumstances resulting in such a mass termination could only have resulted from incompetence. Incompetence in directing the coop lands on the board's doorstep. What mechanism do the members have to determine which directors perhaps should never be elected again?
Absolutely none. You can't take action on things you don't know about. Unless you're a former director, you have no way to determine which directors make bad decisions, or sleep at the controls. Even if you knew, and despite the practice not being prohibited in MEC's rules, it's my opinion, based on experience, that the board will not allow a candidate to criticize another candidate, or the board itself. Perhaps especially a candidate who is an incumbent. In fact, it is my opinion that if you attempt to do so, you will be amazed at what gets thrown at you, including but not confined to the expertise of one of the most expensive law firms in the country. At members' expense, of course.
See if you're willing to risk losing your house to do what you think needs doing at MEC. The board "controls the press" as in the means of communicating with members, and deserved or not, has a stock of credibility that no member can challenge.
And should you know the inside story, and somehow manage to get elected, you're up against the rule that the board can unseat a director. It sounds like a recipe to be unable to adapt to change.
In the absence of real information and debate, the elections, and by default, member control, are largely a sham. It is my opinion that MEC is not really accountable to the members. That's just the nature of the beast, as sanctioned by default by the provincial acts that govern such organizations.
My other point is about who makes merchandising decisions.
You'd think these would be determined purely by the principle that the purpose of a coop is to serve the members. Yes, to survive the coop must be aware of the larger business community, but the core role and ostensible reason for its existence is member service.
Just one example. MEC's catalog used to devote more space to more costly products within any category, and listed those products in descending order of cost. They still do the latter. This is a difficult point to get across. If the primary purpose is service to members, the products given most prominence should be the ones offering greatest value to the members. I do not equate cost to value. The most expensive products may well not be the best value for the members. A Hummer may be a more expensive and even capable product than a Jeep Liberty, but that doesn't in any way prove the Hummer is better value. MEC has always pushed Hummer outdoor gear harder.
Pushing expensive products reflects the mindset of the business community: that growth is good, that more is better. More sales of more expensive products makes for more gross sales, higher pay, more muscle in the marketplace. But, more expensive products take more money out of members' pockets, usually weigh more, take more effort to maintain and use more resources to manufacture. The members might well be served better by the cheaper lines. The members' interests should trump the business interests.
Listing the most expensive products first reflects the psychology and influence of the chain of the manufacturers, their representatives, and then the management and buyers. Despite the high-sounding mission statement and core values and all that window dressing, MEC is driven by sales more than it is driven by member service. In my opinion, of course. Once you see this relationship, it's easy to see where the balance of power lies at MEC.
----------------------------------------
Meet you at DYE-II?
First is board accountability.
Two or three years ago, MEC fired over 50 managers. Certainly one of the biggest events in the coop's history. I heard about it by reading an article in the newspaper. So far as I know, MEC said nothing about it until a brief mention in the catalog about a year later.
Let's look at this. 50 managers is a lot of people. Presumably the circumstances leading to their redundancy did not develop overnight. Presumably this extended and large redundancy cost members a fortune in salaries in the meantime. Presumably a mass firing of this magnitude was an indication of significant problems in the organization.
Being member-controlled and member-owned, and claiming thirst for member participation, why did the board leave the members in the dark about this event and the background? Is there any chance it's our right to know if our coop has become threatened?
More to the point, the circumstances resulting in such a mass termination could only have resulted from incompetence. Incompetence in directing the coop lands on the board's doorstep. What mechanism do the members have to determine which directors perhaps should never be elected again?
Absolutely none. You can't take action on things you don't know about. Unless you're a former director, you have no way to determine which directors make bad decisions, or sleep at the controls. Even if you knew, and despite the practice not being prohibited in MEC's rules, it's my opinion, based on experience, that the board will not allow a candidate to criticize another candidate, or the board itself. Perhaps especially a candidate who is an incumbent. In fact, it is my opinion that if you attempt to do so, you will be amazed at what gets thrown at you, including but not confined to the expertise of one of the most expensive law firms in the country. At members' expense, of course.
See if you're willing to risk losing your house to do what you think needs doing at MEC. The board "controls the press" as in the means of communicating with members, and deserved or not, has a stock of credibility that no member can challenge.
And should you know the inside story, and somehow manage to get elected, you're up against the rule that the board can unseat a director. It sounds like a recipe to be unable to adapt to change.
In the absence of real information and debate, the elections, and by default, member control, are largely a sham. It is my opinion that MEC is not really accountable to the members. That's just the nature of the beast, as sanctioned by default by the provincial acts that govern such organizations.
My other point is about who makes merchandising decisions.
You'd think these would be determined purely by the principle that the purpose of a coop is to serve the members. Yes, to survive the coop must be aware of the larger business community, but the core role and ostensible reason for its existence is member service.
Just one example. MEC's catalog used to devote more space to more costly products within any category, and listed those products in descending order of cost. They still do the latter. This is a difficult point to get across. If the primary purpose is service to members, the products given most prominence should be the ones offering greatest value to the members. I do not equate cost to value. The most expensive products may well not be the best value for the members. A Hummer may be a more expensive and even capable product than a Jeep Liberty, but that doesn't in any way prove the Hummer is better value. MEC has always pushed Hummer outdoor gear harder.
Pushing expensive products reflects the mindset of the business community: that growth is good, that more is better. More sales of more expensive products makes for more gross sales, higher pay, more muscle in the marketplace. But, more expensive products take more money out of members' pockets, usually weigh more, take more effort to maintain and use more resources to manufacture. The members might well be served better by the cheaper lines. The members' interests should trump the business interests.
Listing the most expensive products first reflects the psychology and influence of the chain of the manufacturers, their representatives, and then the management and buyers. Despite the high-sounding mission statement and core values and all that window dressing, MEC is driven by sales more than it is driven by member service. In my opinion, of course. Once you see this relationship, it's easy to see where the balance of power lies at MEC.
----------------------------------------
Meet you at DYE-II?
| Sponsored Links | |||
|
Advertisement |
|
||
Summit Master
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Vancouver, BC, Canada.
Interest: Backpacking, scrambling, skiing, mountain biking, skim boarding, running
Posts: 3,164
sqRant makes a number of interesting and compelling points based on experience. As he points out, the reality is that even the few "average" members who care have very little information to make a reasoned decision.
Operating on that basis, I exercised my franchise on the premise that the Board should exercise a supervisory role over the operation of the MEC's business. The MEC is now a huge business and I cannot see how anyone can hope to provide meaningful oversight without a strong background in financial or business management. Without that, they are at the mercy of the management staff.
I put little stock in biographies emphasizing a love for the outdoors, community service and so on. While I agree that these are fine personal attributes - and that the MEC should pursue environmental and other values that might conflict with a purely profit focussed orientation - overseeing a big business still requires an understanding and competence to deal with fundamental business issues.
As far as member service goes, a common gripe is lack of inventory of advertised products. For example, what are they doing advertising new products in the catelogue - distributed at major expense - that they never have in stock in reasonable quantities? Last year they had some new soft-shell Cloudveil pants in the catelogue that they never had in stock in the range of sizes advertised. When I inquired in January when they might get some in a mens small, I was advised that 2 pair were on back order with an expected delivery in ... August. That's pathetic.
So my votes went to the candidates whose bios indicated some real experience in business and/or financial management.
----------------------------------------
"Aging ... it beats the alternative"
Operating on that basis, I exercised my franchise on the premise that the Board should exercise a supervisory role over the operation of the MEC's business. The MEC is now a huge business and I cannot see how anyone can hope to provide meaningful oversight without a strong background in financial or business management. Without that, they are at the mercy of the management staff.
I put little stock in biographies emphasizing a love for the outdoors, community service and so on. While I agree that these are fine personal attributes - and that the MEC should pursue environmental and other values that might conflict with a purely profit focussed orientation - overseeing a big business still requires an understanding and competence to deal with fundamental business issues.
As far as member service goes, a common gripe is lack of inventory of advertised products. For example, what are they doing advertising new products in the catelogue - distributed at major expense - that they never have in stock in reasonable quantities? Last year they had some new soft-shell Cloudveil pants in the catelogue that they never had in stock in the range of sizes advertised. When I inquired in January when they might get some in a mens small, I was advised that 2 pair were on back order with an expected delivery in ... August. That's pathetic.
So my votes went to the candidates whose bios indicated some real experience in business and/or financial management.
----------------------------------------
"Aging ... it beats the alternative"
High on the Mountain Top
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Ladner, BC, Canada.
Interest: this and that, here and there
I may be boring, but i\'m never really bored... and that\'s all that matters. Isn\'t it?
Posts: 1,206
i voted cuz I wanna win a prize.
----------------------------------------
The tougher the climb, the better the food tastes. -Lupin-
----------------------------------------
The tougher the climb, the better the food tastes. -Lupin-
Off the Beaten Path
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Raincouver, British Columbia, Canada.
Posts: 869
Voting time is here again. I got my pamphlet in the mail today and have voted already. MEC is always a topic of discussion here so have your say and vote.
High on the Mountain Top
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: North Vancouver, BC, Canada.
Interest: hiking on and off trails , maintaining certain trails. recumbent bike on log/mining roads, and KVR, and for excercise in absolute comfort.
Posts: 1,363
sgRant Said it all but I'll add a wee bit.
I joined a long time ago and have watched the store and employees go from selling quality goods from quality hikers to a store that sells fashions by people who have a job and repeat what they hear rather than experienced knowledge. To be fair there are some good people still in the coop and it is nice to have gear at reasonable prices.
I joined a long time ago and have watched the store and employees go from selling quality goods from quality hikers to a store that sells fashions by people who have a job and repeat what they hear rather than experienced knowledge. To be fair there are some good people still in the coop and it is nice to have gear at reasonable prices.
Join Date: Jun 2003
Posts: 412
It seems that majority of those candidates care more about their MBA_ed resumes than about the Co-op or the members.
Now, one of the candidates has few unusual ideas:
- strive for lower prices and better service
- Carry less trendy and more functional gear
- have Directors who actively use MEC gear outside in wild places
Now, one of the candidates has few unusual ideas:
- strive for lower prices and better service
- Carry less trendy and more functional gear
- have Directors who actively use MEC gear outside in wild places
Join Date: Jun 2004
Posts: 61
Thats easy one who will get MEC back on track, Less urban Street fashion and more Outdoor oreintated clothing and gear!
High on the Mountain Top
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Vancouver, BC, Canada.
Interest: Mountaineering, Backcountry Skiing, Hiking, Rock Climbing, Photography
Posts: 1,521
- Carry less trendy and more functional gear
I'll be voting for this guy and nobody else based mainly on this statement. No other candidate even mentioned the issue of selling trendy products. All the other candidates look more or less the same to me. They seem to think of MEC as a sustainability think tank and not a gear store.
I'll be voting for this guy and nobody else based mainly on this statement. No other candidate even mentioned the issue of selling trendy products. All the other candidates look more or less the same to me. They seem to think of MEC as a sustainability think tank and not a gear store.
Headed for the Mountains
Join Date: May 2006
Location: North Vancouver, BC, Canada.
Interest: Saving the world.
Posts: 373
Quote:
quote:Originally posted by scottN
- Carry less trendy and more functional gear
I'll be voting for this guy and nobody else based mainly on this statement. No other candidate even mentioned the issue of selling trendy products. All the other candidates look more or less the same to me. They seem to think of MEC as a sustainability think tank and not a gear store.
- Carry less trendy and more functional gear
I'll be voting for this guy and nobody else based mainly on this statement. No other candidate even mentioned the issue of selling trendy products. All the other candidates look more or less the same to me. They seem to think of MEC as a sustainability think tank and not a gear store.
Thanks for the heads up on the voting.
Scaling New Heights
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: , , Canada.
Posts: 62
Quote:
quote:Now, one of the candidates has few unusual ideas:
- strive for lower prices and better service
- Carry less trendy and more functional gear
- have Directors who actively use MEC gear outside in wild places
- strive for lower prices and better service
- Carry less trendy and more functional gear
- have Directors who actively use MEC gear outside in wild places
I could be wrong, but I think that the same candidate was on the MEC board previously. Wasn't he the one who resigned, on principle, over the closure of Serratus?
I notice that this information is not in his nomination statement.
Orange Pekoe.
Join Date: Jun 2003
Posts: 412
I just got the Spring/Summer catalog today and I found this politically correct/doublespeak sentence:
Q:
Like you, your Board members love outdoor adventure: to hike, backpack, ski, climb, and paddle.
endQ
Q:
Like you, your Board members love outdoor adventure: to hike, backpack, ski, climb, and paddle.
endQ
| Thread Tools | |
|
Show Printable Version Show Printable Version
Email this Page Email this Page
|
|
|
| Posting Rules | |
Your Privacy Choices