MEC ballot criticized as undemocratic - Page 3 - ClubTread Community

User Tag List

Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools
post #31 of (permalink) Old 03-25-2013, 12:49 PM
High on the Mountain Top
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Langley, BC, Canada.
Interest: Too many to list.
Posts: 1,094
Default

Quote:
quote:Originally posted by brett

Quote:
quote:Originally posted by Matt

Not too long ago I was reading reading an article claiming that research had shown that people aren't smart enough to vote for what is best for them.
Change your word "smart" to "informed" and I'll agree.
http://news.yahoo.com/people-arent-s...185601411.html
Matt is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
post #32 of (permalink) Old 03-25-2013, 01:45 PM
Headed for the Mountains
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Vancouver, , Canada.
Posts: 326
Default

Quote:
quote:Originally posted by willis

There is a statement of board nominee criteria which was adopted after it passed in 2012 by member resolution. It is no wonder then that the current board nominees are all corporate types because those are the only types that can be nominated.

http://www.mec.ca/media/Images/pdf/B...9831164450.pdf
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.
Coastal is offline  
post #33 of (permalink) Old 03-25-2013, 02:11 PM
Off the Beaten Path
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: n van, bc, Canada.
Interest: Collecting shoe boxes, trafficking sea shells, growing vegetables, and tracking the \"wood ape\" aka yetti
Posts: 830
Default

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

Quote:
quote:Originally posted by Coastal

Quote:
quote:Originally posted by willis

There is a statement of board nominee criteria which was adopted after it passed in 2012 by member resolution. It is no wonder then that the current board nominees are all corporate types because those are the only types that can be nominated.

http://www.mec.ca/media/Images/pdf/B...9831164450.pdf
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.
the743 is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
post #34 of (permalink) Old 03-25-2013, 02:19 PM
Hittin' the Trails
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Location: , , .
Posts: 49
Default

Quote:
quote:Originally posted by the743

When I went over the candidates, all I could think was [V]. It seems like their interests are not the representation of co-op values, but, instead, to use MEC as a bump for their future careers. The fact that some of them do outdoors activities is more of a conjunct than a core criterion that makes me want to spoil my ballot. I didn't spoil my ballot, but voted for the person who seemed to qualify the least for a business position.

I am repulsed that non-grassroots members can join the board of directors, as they will likely never meet the criteria to be selected to run for the board of directors.

I'm quite glad that other people have noticed this too. There's a grassroots campaign waiting to happen... It's just, how do we get it started?
What will the grass roots campaign be taking back. MEC is just a gear store now. It produces gear that the public buys.
Greg1920 is offline  
post #35 of (permalink) Old 03-25-2013, 03:25 PM
Headed for the Mountains
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Vancouver, B.C., .
Interest: Hiking, backpacking, skiing, cycling
Posts: 475
Default

Quote:
quote:Originally posted by Greg1920

Quote:
quote:Originally posted by the743

When I went over the candidates, all I could think was [V]. It seems like their interests are not the representation of co-op values, but, instead, to use MEC as a bump for their future careers. The fact that some of them do outdoors activities is more of a conjunct than a core criterion that makes me want to spoil my ballot. I didn't spoil my ballot, but voted for the person who seemed to qualify the least for a business position.

I am repulsed that non-grassroots members can join the board of directors, as they will likely never meet the criteria to be selected to run for the board of directors.

I'm quite glad that other people have noticed this too. There's a grassroots campaign waiting to happen... It's just, how do we get it started?
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.
willis is offline  
post #36 of (permalink) Old 03-25-2013, 04:34 PM
Summit Master
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Vancouver, , .
Posts: 2,674
Default

Quote:
quote:Originally posted by Coastal

Quote:
quote:Originally posted by willis

There is a statement of board nominee criteria which was adopted after it passed in 2012 by member resolution. It is no wonder then that the current board nominees are all corporate types because those are the only types that can be nominated.

http://www.mec.ca/media/Images/pdf/B...9831164450.pdf
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.
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.
sgRant is offline  
post #37 of (permalink) Old 03-25-2013, 04:36 PM
Summit Master
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Vancouver, , .
Posts: 2,674
Default

Quote:
quote:Originally posted by Greg1920

Quote:
quote:Originally posted by the743

When I went over the candidates, all I could think was [V]. It seems like their interests are not the representation of co-op values, but, instead, to use MEC as a bump for their future careers. The fact that some of them do outdoors activities is more of a conjunct than a core criterion that makes me want to spoil my ballot. I didn't spoil my ballot, but voted for the person who seemed to qualify the least for a business position.

I am repulsed that non-grassroots members can join the board of directors, as they will likely never meet the criteria to be selected to run for the board of directors.

I'm quite glad that other people have noticed this too. There's a grassroots campaign waiting to happen... It's just, how do we get it started?
What will the grass roots campaign be taking back. MEC is just a gear store now. It produces gear that the public buys.
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
sgRant is offline  
post #38 of (permalink) Old 03-25-2013, 05:01 PM
Headed for the Mountains
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Vancouver, , Canada.
Posts: 326
Default

Quote:
quote:Originally posted by sgRant

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 know anyone involved in a rejected nomination I would encourage you to encourage him or her to tell the story.
Coastal is offline  
post #39 of (permalink) Old 03-25-2013, 05:04 PM
Headed for the Mountains
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Vancouver, B.C., .
Interest: Hiking, backpacking, skiing, cycling
Posts: 475
Default

Quote:
quote:Originally posted by Coastal

Quote:
quote:Originally posted by willis

There is a statement of board nominee criteria which was adopted after it passed in 2012 by member resolution. It is no wonder then that the current board nominees are all corporate types because those are the only types that can be nominated.

http://www.mec.ca/media/Images/pdf/B...9831164450.pdf
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've sent the board this question and I will report back what I find out.
willis is offline  
post #40 of (permalink) Old 03-25-2013, 05:20 PM
Summit Master
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Vancouver, , .
Posts: 2,674
Default

Quote:
quote:Originally posted by Coastal

Quote:
quote:Originally posted by sgRant

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 know anyone involved in a rejected nomination I would encourage you to encourage him or her to tell the story.
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.
sgRant is offline  
post #41 of (permalink) Old 03-25-2013, 05:29 PM
Summit Master
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Vancouver, , .
Posts: 2,674
Default

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.
sgRant is offline  
post #42 of (permalink) Old 03-25-2013, 06:01 PM
Headed for the Mountains
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Vancouver, B.C., .
Interest: Hiking, backpacking, skiing, cycling
Posts: 475
Default

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.
willis is offline  
post #43 of (permalink) Old 03-26-2013, 10:20 AM
Hittin' the Trails
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Location: , , .
Posts: 49
Default

Quote:
quote:Originally posted by sgRant

Quote:
quote:Originally posted by Greg1920

Quote:
quote:Originally posted by the743

When I went over the candidates, all I could think was [V]. It seems like their interests are not the representation of co-op values, but, instead, to use MEC as a bump for their future careers. The fact that some of them do outdoors activities is more of a conjunct than a core criterion that makes me want to spoil my ballot. I didn't spoil my ballot, but voted for the person who seemed to qualify the least for a business position.

I am repulsed that non-grassroots members can join the board of directors, as they will likely never meet the criteria to be selected to run for the board of directors.

I'm quite glad that other people have noticed this too. There's a grassroots campaign waiting to happen... It's just, how do we get it started?
What will the grass roots campaign be taking back. MEC is just a gear store now. It produces gear that the public buys.
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
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.
Greg1920 is offline  
post #44 of (permalink) Old 03-26-2013, 12:27 PM
Summit Master
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Vancouver, , .
Posts: 2,674
Default

Quote:
quote:Originally posted by willis

So, in total 7 people who put their names forward as nominees did not meet the new criteria.
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.
sgRant is offline  
post #45 of (permalink) Old 03-26-2013, 01:21 PM
Headed for the Mountains
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Vancouver, B.C., .
Interest: Hiking, backpacking, skiing, cycling
Posts: 475
Default

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.
willis is offline  
Reply

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Show Printable Version
Email this Page Email this Page



Posting Rules  
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On

 
For the best viewing experience please update your browser to Google Chrome
 

Search Engine Optimization by vBSEO 3.6.1