The Board of Directors would like to provide a statement addressing feedback we have received from Co-op owners during recent Board meetings.
First, we would like to address the storefront tabling policy. The Co-op recently updated the tabling policy to introduce specific eligibility criteria. The criteria focus strictly on organizations which primarily serve Humboldt County across set categories, mirroring the style of criteria we utilize for Co-op giving programs. We are aware of feedback suggesting that these changes were implemented to intentionally exclude pro-Palestinian tabling. The Board would like to take this opportunity to clarify the process, purpose, and intent behind these changes to prevent further misunderstanding.
The tabling policy was changed by Co-op management in response to ongoing operational difficulties, including but not limited to disruption of operations and staff time, communication issues and conflict, and complaints from shoppers. Tabling was temporarily suspended while a new policy was drafted. The initial policy criteria restricted tabling to active participants in Co-op giving programs. However, after receiving feedback that this was too restrictive, the Board invited owners to share their ideas during a dedicated agenda item at the June Board meeting. The Board also contacted other food co-ops to gain insight into common tabling practices at comparable organizations. We shared these findings with staff, who used the input to expand the eligibility criteria. As the tabling policy is an operational policy, separate from Co-op governance policies, the role of the Board is to make recommendations to Co-op management and ensure that operational policies do not conflict with governance policies or strategic directions.
These changes were designed to address operational issues arising from tabling activities and to better align our tabling practices with our focus on serving the local community. While these changes were not made for the exclusive purpose of restricting tabling on political or international topics, frequent customer complaints about these subjects did factor in the overall decision-making. With that said, the intent behind these changes has never been to target specific organizations or viewpoints, or to dismiss the significance of such matters, and we would like to offer our sincere apologies if this is how it was received.
For our path forward, the Board will continue to accept feedback and ideas about tabling, which we can share with Co-op management. However, please know that we have reviewed the policy against the feedback we have received, and our recommendations to staff remain unchanged. The new policy has, in practice, successfully addressed many of the operational challenges which previously existed while still enabling an avenue for community support. The Board feels this is the best policy for the Co-op at this time.
The second subject we would like to address is our election process. We received feedback during our last Board meeting that there was a lack of transparency in both changes made to the nomination process as well as decisions regarding individual nominations.
The purpose of the Elections Committee, as stated in the committee charter, is “to recruit and nominate qualified candidates with the skills, experience and dedication to serve both on the Board of Directors and in Board Committees.” During the past year, the Elections Committee has devoted time to reviewing and updating election policies and procedures in the interest of better realizing this purpose.
As part of this work, the committee has updated its process for selecting the candidate slate for ownership vote. The revised format introduces an interview process to evaluate each applicant’s potential for Board leadership, and address any concerns regarding suitability or motives. Before revising this process, the committee researched election practices at other food co-ops and consulted with a cooperative attorney to ensure compliance and effectiveness.
In applying this updated process, the committee chose 4 out of 6 applicants for the candidate slate. The 2 applicants not chosen were given the opportunity to appeal to the Board, which was not utilized. Regarding decisions on individual candidates, while the Board values transparency wherever feasible, the Elections Committee is also bound by confidentiality rules designed to protect both the organization and the privacy of the individuals involved. As such, specific candidate vetting details cannot be disclosed publicly. With that said, we understand the desire for increased transparency, and we are taking this feedback to better understand how we can communicate these decisions in the future.
In addition to these changes, the Board has removed the policy language requiring that ballots include a write-in candidate. The purpose of this change is to protect the integrity of our elections by ensuring that every candidate that appears on a ballot has gone through an identical vetting process and is fully qualified to serve. The write-in policy enabled the circumvention of this process, potentially posing undue risk to the Co-op.
All changes made to the election process were discussed and voted upon in public forums with the ultimate goal of positioning the Co-op to better serve our community. However, we recognize that these are big changes, and that the purpose and intent of these changes could have been better communicated with our owners. Because this was the first year the new process was implemented, the Elections Committee will evaluate its effectiveness following the election and identify opportunities to refine the process for future elections. The committee’s goal is to continue developing a process that is fair, consistent, transparent, and provides owners with a meaningful opportunity to participate in the election of their Board representatives.
In addition to these changes, the Board removed the board policy language requiring that ballots include a write-in candidate. The purpose of this change is to protect the integrity of our elections. If there are very few candidates and any withdraw mid-election, a write-in could potentially become the highest vote-getter with even just one vote. It also ensures that every candidate that appears on a ballot has gone through an identical vetting process and is fully qualified to serve.
