If you'd like to see more transparency at Mountain Equipment Co-operative, this is a quick, easy and urgent way to help. This group needs 500 signature before the deadline on Nov 16th. It only takes a minute to complete your submission.

The form is here:
https://www.dropbox.com/s/szg324ri7z...%20V5.pdf?dl=0

Some quick background:
There is a contentious new property development in Calgary on the Paskapoo Slopes. Given the environmental impact, a number of MEC members are very surprised and disappointed that MEC is lining up to be one of the first tenants. More info can be found here:
https://www.facebook.com/savepaskapooslopes/

As a result, these members are now trying to bring forward a special resolution that will require the co-op to be slightly more transparent about when and where it is opening new facilities. The proposed rule changes would not limit the ability of the co-op to open new locations wherever it wants - it would simply require the co-operative to have a brief comment period before making these decisions.

You may also be interested in this recent article:
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/repor...ticle26852082/

While I'm all for more transparency. Don't get me started on the the whole "Save the Slopes" effort, it was one of the most blatant cases of NIMBY I've seen in a long time (as in people who had no issues with bulldozing parts of the slope 5 years earlier when building their $2million homes were suddenly up in arms over developing the "K-Country in the city"). In exchange for allowing developing 100 acres of mostly old farmland, 160 acres of forest (the actual slopes) are transferred to the city and protected as a park. The city was never in a position to spend the estimated $70m to buy the land, and denying the proposal would have just kicked the can down the road another 5 years for some other developer to buy the land and propose another development.

Kelly, that's an interesting perspective that I hadn't heard before. Fortunately the resolution does not take any sides on that specific matter. It would just require a short period of consultation before the co-op enters into contracts to build/buy/lease new facilities. That way members can share input before these long-term decisions are made.

I've noticed MEC has gone mainstream in recent years and is feeling more and more like REI. They are also building a brand new store in Vancouver from scratch that, similar to this proposal, breaks with their traditions. It will be interesting to see how this plays out.

At some point there may be an opportunity for a new player to gain a foothold in the space they are leaving behind.

I'm concerned that, as the proposal is written, all it will do is result in a 7-30 day flame war on the MEC site (since only moderation for vulgarity is allowed). It may also complicate property negotiations as this is information that competitors would now have access to and could act upon. As well, at what point does interest in a location become "specific", the moment they start thinking about potentially acquiring a site? the moment they express actual interest in a site? the moment they start negotiations? the moment they are ready to sign?

MEC is a great clothing and shoe store. Decent bike shop too.

MEC is pretty lame for mountain equipment and mountain clothing.

Yeah.

I think the corporatists and consumers won this battle, I don't see the co-op ever returning to it's original purpose.

I agree, I think that ship has sailed and it's no longer the "go to" place to get good quality gear for a fair price. It's now more of a lifestyle/outdoor fashion store.

I don't think there is a need to define when interest becomes specific. The wording indicates that the co-op would need to share "specific information" (address and approx size,) at least 7 days before entering into a contract.

If that's the case, then the resolution is completely pointless. In a typical commercial lease or purchase, all the groundwork and negotiations are typically complete long before the last week before the contract is signed. You might have legal teams dotting the i's and crossing the t's or finagling terms and conditions, but the agreement will have been long made (deposits are likely to have been paid). If it's a new build, most of the design work will be done as well. So all you'll have is a week long flame war that has no bearing on the outcome

Eh, they've become everything the founders hated about REI while REI has leapfrogged ahead of MEC in every department. If it weren't for the brutal exchange rate I'd be shopping across the border more often.

As it is locally, with Valhalla price matching MEC and offering a much wider selection of actual mountain gear, there's no longer any need to suffer shopping there unless in a dire emergency IMO.

A little bit of CPR required here, but yes MEC, or REI North as I call it has deteriorated into something far from it's original roots.

I now personally go out of my way to source products elsewhere, often because they don't maintain the stock that they used to; gotta make room for the road bikes and yoga wear.

I agree. Six months to a year or even more sometimes would make far more sense. There needs to be much more time to do the research and debate the merits in order to kibosh any kind of deal

Surprised to see this post get revived. A quick update:

The proposed resolution was far from perfect and the comments in this thread were useful. The entire thing was a rush. The deadline for submitting special resolutions is 150 days before the AGM. The membership was not aware of this issue until something like 160 days before the AGM and so there was a hasty effort to see if a special resolution could be brought forward. In the end, a decision was made to not move forward with the special resolution effort.

Even this opens a can of worms. Sure you're making your membership aware of your future plans for opening new stores (although in all honesty its not like MEC is opening dozens of new stores), but you're also letting Atmosphere, SAIL, Cabella's and all your other competitors know as well. Some leasing agreements require confidentiality prior to certain dates, as well you may be looking at multiple locations, many of which may be discarded as they are further investigated. In all honesty, this is why you elect a Board of Directors. to make business decisions on behalf of the shareholders (which is what membership in the Co-op gets you). If the board isn't making the kinds of decisions you agree with, then you either need to advocate for new board membership (which I know is a challenge in of itself based on current MEC bylaws), or take your money elsewhere.

Good point, alerting competition is pretty much guaranteeing failure and you cannot get around confidentiality clauses either