I would be curious to know whether anyone was nominated but didn't make the ballot due to faling the vetting/approval process. It would be appropriate for a record to be published of any decisions rejecting nominees.

I absolutely agree with you Coastal. That would be interesting and insightful.

What will the grass roots campaign be taking back. MEC is just a gear store now. It produces gear that the public buys.

MEC is more than a gear store. That's a rather simplistic view of what the co-op does. It is involved in the community. For example, they have funded $15 000 to revitalize the Bridal trail. I know other shops have sponsored trails days but how many give out such high amounts of money?

A grass roots campaign can take the power out of the hands of the board that has seemingly managed to hand itself through member apathy. This is why the board wants 500 signatures for a resolution to move ahead, they want more power for themselves.

This is exactly the sort of check on the sweeping powers of MEC's board that is essential for the health of democratic organizations. But there is no Rule requiring the board to disclose if there were candidates rejected. Someone rejected and also sufficiently motivated could file a member grievance, but there is no Rule compelling the board to disclose any such proceeding.

I know there was more to this year's nomination activities than is apparent to the members, but disclosure is up to the people involved, and I wasn't involved.

If you need so badly to discuss whether MEC is a cooperative, why don't you open a separate topic for that? Rather than continue diverting the discussion of this year's election and resolutions.

Thanks

If you know anyone involved in a rejected nomination I would encourage you to encourage him or her to tell the story.

I've sent the board this question and I will report back what I find out.

So far as I know, nominee rejection was not part of it. There may also be failed nominations I don't know about. The immediate problem is the typical MEC information vacuum.

Normally when a board proposes Rule changes, they post together both the original and the changed version of each and every change. I regard it as highly unusual that this board has not done so with their proposed special resolution #1.

As I pointed out earlier, there is at least one important change (new Rule 19.13) they have said nothing about. Using generalities to urge members to approve the changes while not hosting counter-arguments, not providing advance notice of changes before voting starts, and not fully disclosing every one of the changes, is either an intolerable level of incompetence or deliberate manipulation of the membership. Neither is acceptable. In my opinion, people who do this sort of thing should not be MEC directors.

So, in total 7 people who put their names forward as nominees did not meet the new criteria.

This is from the MEC nomination process page:

The Nomination Process

The Call for Nominations commenced on July 4, 2012. Members interested in running in the 2013 Board of Directors election had to submit a Notice of Intention to Run to our Governance Office by September 4, 2012.

Those members who submitted a Notice of Intention to Run will undergo a screening process with our third-party external election consultant, Watson Inc., during September and October.

Following the screening process, the election consultant will provide a report to the EMCC. This report will outline the extent to which interested members exhibit the desired skills, experience, values, and other attributes outlined in the Nominee Criteria for 2013 (PDF). Using this information, the Board will then select members who are eligible to run in the 2013 Election.

In accordance with MEC's Rules of Co-operation, members will also need to obtain five membership nominations. The deadline for submitting nomination forms is October 24, 2012. Nomination forms, together with certain declaration forms, will be provided to eligible members following the Notice of Intention to Run deadline.

Its quite related Mr thread police and if you note I made no mention of how it is being run in that post only that its a gear store and no grass roots campaign is required to make a gear store run more like a gear store.

Resolution number one is about concentrating powers in the board of directors and making it more difficult for members to change the direction. If MEC is just a gear store then this is a good thing, it allows qualified business people to run the business. If people want MEC to be more than a gear store then membership needs to change the direction of MEC and voting against this resolution would help. Although that ship sailed when the resolution was passed that the board could reject unqualified applicants from running for the board.

But the real fight is to get people to care about the direction it is headed whether you like where it is going or not. And I for one care about the direction of the store and like where it is going and so voted yes for resolution 1.

Thanks for getting this information. Hopefully some of these 7 will come forward with their stories.

Several circumstances would stand in the way. They just might not want to, or know how to do so. They may have been unsuitable candidates to begin with and knew it. There may have been non-disclosure agreements involved.

I should've added that in addition to the 7 people who didn't fit the board criteria, 3 people dropped out (who may or may not have fit the criteria).


I hope resolution 1 fails so that a member resolution can be brought forth next year without 500 signatures so that any member who wishes to do so may run for the board.