A combination of The Ann Arbor News and The People’s Food Co-op Newsletter has put the boycot issue on paper, in the public awareness, and with statements from many perspectives.
I certainly never imagined I would be concerned and involved with this issue in this way.
The voting begins Saturday, and I hope that the ability to take action will help diffuse the conflicts and confrontations that have taken place and that seem to accompany the issue of how to achieve peace in the Middle East.
The Ann Arbor News article refers to nastiness, without being specific. I think this is most unfortunate, as I have been very specific in what I have been critical of. This article ran in the Co-op newsletter. Perhaps I should have taken an even stronger stand, but this is what seemed right to me.
UPDATE Thursday afternoon: The print version of the Ann Arbor News article leaves out much of the details of the conflict, including being asked to leave our meeting place because of verbal abuse, and the vague “nastiness” refered to in the on line version which I felt was deserving of more full coverage, and why I wrote the article that follows. I think this is unfortunate. It waters down the issue and the consequences, and makes the valid concerns of the members (which have at times even included the group who brought the boycott referendum to the Co-op) seem less significant.
The call for a boycott of Israeli goods has many beginnings, just as the conflict in the Middle East has an infinite number of facets and history interwoven over thousands of years. The immediate story for the Co-op is still fresh. At the beginning of this year the Co-op board of directors was approached by a local group asking that the co-op boycott Israeli products. The board declined to take on the question.
Similar to most Co-ops around the world, we have provisions in our by-laws to ensure that member owners can bring initiatives forward and have a means to be heard. The Boycott Israel Group (BIG) used that mechanism to have the question brought before the membership.
It has then fallen to the Board of Directors to manage the referendum vote. Once the petitions were validated, the board worked on setting guidelines for the off-cycle voting (the decision was made to vote in September rather than waiting until our normal elections in March). There were many unexpected complexities and nuances to this vote that this board didn’t expect. The process has been far from perfect. The volatility of the issue combined with 5 of the 7 board members being new in May, a process begun by one set of directors and then taken over by another, the lack of guiding policy, a by-law that the board had to interpret rather than providing straight forward guidance and the board being busy people who are giving volunteer time to the co-op have all contributed to what could be called a bumpy road. Even as we go to press, there are unexpected legal questions resulting in the board deciding to seek further legal counsel.
The ramifications of the boycott proposal have been many. It has been over 25 years since board meetings have been so well attended. But we have also heard from hundreds of members voicing concerns as well as questions about the proposed referendum We have had a great chance to connect and learn form our membership, yet it has most often been from members who are unhappy.
The boycott question has also brought conflict to our front door and to the board meetings, although the staff have both worked hard to help shoppers understand the process as well as help with situations that have been informational at times, and confrontational at others.In the process of debate and information sharing, swastikas have come to front doors of the co-op as well. The flyers and placards that include this inflammatory symbol have been decried by Members of the Boycott Israel Goods group, which coordinated the petition drive, as well as many other in the co-op community. Reverend Neimoller is famous for his words .. “but I didn’t speak up..” and the consequences of silence. For this short narrative it would be wrong to try and ignore this most negative consequence of a free debate.
So we must speak up to say that there is an ugly facet that has been introduced to this debate and democratic process. Yet it is the same motivation, to speak up, that has driven a group of co-op members to take the action to boycott Isreali goods.
What you have to now determine is if this is the form, the place, and the indeed the best approach for the People’s Food Co-op to be a part of bringing peace to the Middle East. The Board of Directors has placed that trust in the members to decide.
Posted to http://arborupdate.com/article/1538/pfc-boycott-vote-begins-on-saturday:
I think Linda Diane Feldt is a sincere and decent person but her letter and Murph’s comment are a bit misleading. Relating how “swastikas have come to front doors of the co-op,” Linda Diane invokes the famous dictum of Pastor Niemoller but, despite unfounded hyperbole to the contrary, no one in Ann Arbor is coming for the communists, socialists, trade unionists, or Jews.
Moreover, the man displaying the swastika—an acquaintance of mine—is himself a Jew, who lost family members under the Nazis during WWII but he is not part of B.I.G., the Green Party, or any other local peace organization I aware of. I would not myself display the swastika but his use of it, even if ill-advised, is not indefensible as more than one holocaust survivor (and the IDF) has noted parallels between Israeli and Nazi behavior.
Murph writes, “Feldt also discusses the tone of discourse presented to the Board.” But it is inaccurate and unfair to imply that the incident described in the blog post Murph links to is representative of the “discourse presented to the Board.” Linda Diane identifies one individual—“a pretty angry member”—as the culprit. I happen to know that this is the same Jewish man who carries the swastika and he is not a part of B.I.G., which has decried both of these behaviors Furthermore, I attended the regular August Board meeting and nothing like this happened then. Linda Wotring, Anne Remley, and most of the others who make up the core of B.I.G. are calm and courteous and have treated the Board with respect.
The above comment refers to a posting on arborupdate.com on this issue, which links to this blog. I wrote a long response on that blog comments section to the many comments the posting evoked – yet one more arena for discussion and a wide range of emotions and opinions.
I’ve written before about the difficulties of leadership during such a time, and when I would prefer to be a facilitator more than anything. But everyone has their lines and their points of imperative action. I’d rather be spending time on issues in which I have expertise, I have none in the area of the Middle Wast.
The flyers and sandwich boards with swastikas are, to my knowledge, used by two people locally and linked to larger international campaign which I have been told includes more blatant anti-semitism. I have not confirmed that, other than the link on the flyers which goes further into this divisive discourse.
The public conduct of most of the people invovled has been calm and courteous, and we’ve worked through some difficult points fairly well with respect. But I’ve been personally attacked and false claims have been made about me by people representing pro and con positions on the boycott. I find that painful. It has even gotten bizzare, with the claim from a boycott supporter that she thought my mother was a former terrorist.
When I called her for an explanation she apologized.
For the record, my mother was a life long democrat who ironically spent the last moments of her life casting a ballot for the Democrat candidates before dropping dead of a heart attack just a fw hours later. She was dedicated to the democrat process, if there hadn’t been an election she might have chosen to die earlier in the week.
So I can’t agree that all the upset is confined to one person, or that everyone is cordial and playing fair.
The question that matters – is the Co-op the place for this debate to take place and is this the best way to do it? Is still unanswered in any official way. But one of the ways that the membership let’s us know is not only by the vote result but the comments and reaction so far. The calls e-mail and conversations I have received are still overwhelmingly opposed to the boycott, to the fact that they are being asked to vote, and that shopping at the Co-op requires getting past people with all the variety of views on the proposal.
That is the overall “tone” represented by individual members who have chosen to speak up. But we have about 6,000 members who all have perspective. I hope we hear from as many as are willing to sepeak.
Please see my comment on Arborupdate
http://arborupdate.com/article/1538/pfc-boycott-vote-begins-on-saturday#c017615
http://tinyurl.com/38nns9
The referenced comment above concerns the process that the board will use to count the ballots. The board has been criticized for the process, yet no one has asked to see the procedures. Not only did we agree on written procedures at the June and July board meetings, but also endorsed the existing procedures that are outlined in a 2 page document as part of board policy.
As far as I can tell the board has no policy on observers, but does specify that only board members can access the totals and ballots while the counting goes on. The counting is also not done during a board meeting, but a seperate event with board volunteers, usually 2-4 at a time. So i imagine that a few members could sit and watch the process – but without actually being able to look over anyone’s shoulder.
The thinly veiled accusation that I and other board members would try and change the outcome by tampering with the counting is bizarre, inconsistent with our actions to date, and would have to involve a fairly large conspiracy to be successful.
It is a really bad idea to change processes and procedures after the voting has commenced. In the middle of a vote is not the time to change a process that I believe has been in place for about 10 years.
This board intends to release all of the information – how many votes total, how many ballots were validated, how many were not and why, and the exact numbers for and against.
What I’ve been told about vote totals for board members in the past is that the information is released if someone asks, but otherwise it is not in order to spare feelings of those who were not voted in. I believe we have an hisotrical record of vote numbers, and any member who wants that info can ask and have it. I don’t know where it is kept, but I’m told it exists. I’ve never heard of any memberbeing denied that info.
In this case, it is obvious that many people will ask so there is no question about releasing all the information in detail as soon as the board officially accepts the totals.
I am not going to participate in the debate on arborupdate.com. It is not a forum I’m all that comfortable with to begin with, anonymous posters eager to rip each other to shreds, escalating attacks and only limited exchange of ideas and education. I’ve learned some things I didn’t know about the issue, and appreciated the many perspectives, but the chance for dialogue is limited.
The Co-op is also being trashed for what is a truly bad article in the Jewish News, that contains inaccuracies as well as a peculiar inaccurate slant – perhaps best represented by the statement that the Co-op has had no contact with the group bringing the boycott. Huh? How many dozens of e-mails, phone calls, have we had with BIG? I’ve been part of two in person meetings. I’ve been part of well over a hundred contacts total I’m sure. That is just the most blatant misrepresentation.
It is a very poorly done article, and in need of correction. It isn’t the firstarticle to wildly distort the facts, or slant the reporting in one way. The facts on this issue are pretty easy to get, and board members and staff have spent the last 3 months correcting lots of misinformation with the press, our members, and other interested parties. I’ve been in touch with a couple hundred people at least. It is a continuous process.
To my knowledge, the two groups who have identified themselves as having a stake in the process (and supplied statements used in the newsletter) are both very happy with the PFC board – and all realizing it has been an imperfect process in thecontext of really bad timing (nearly complete board turnover, new manager, first off-cycle balloting, etc…). I was in contact with a BIG member just last night, who expressed concern and appreciation for what the board is doing and how we are handling the process.
So that is my comment — writing while balancing a concern about being misquoted, a desire to have a transparent process, trying to remain reasonable with continuing personal attacks, aware of the dual role of board president and private Co-op member, and also questioning why the people questioning the process need to remain anonymous.
The issue is a very volatile one, the process needn’t be.
Below is what I wrote on Arborupdate:
Linda Diane Feldt declines to post to this blog (see her comment of 9/12 at 8:42 AM) anymore and it seems that very few people are reading her blog. So, Bruce, I hope it is okay if I answer her here.
She writes:
>> As far as I can tell the board has no policy on observers, but does specify that only board members can access the totals and ballots while the counting goes on.
Would you please have that policy put on the PFC web site, ASAP?
>> The counting is also not done during a board meeting, but a seperate event with board volunteers, usually 2-4 at a time.
If Board member meet to do PFC business, such as counting ballots, then that is a Board meeting.
>> So i imagine that a few members could sit and watch the process – but without actually being able to look over anyone’s shoulder.
Doesn’t it defeat the purpose of observing the counting if the members can’t “look over anyone’s shoulder”? As I pointed out before, in that bastion of democracy and transparency, Texas a poll watcher may observe a broad range of polling activities including “Central counting station activities.” That’s a pretty wide scope. Now why can’t the PFC let members look over the shoulder of the vote counters? It seems to me that by refusing to be transparent about this the Board is setting itself up for a heap of trouble from either side, including a possible lawsuit, if this vote is close.
>> The thinly veiled accusation that I and other board members would try and change the outcome by tampering with the counting is bizarre, inconsistent with our actions to date, and would have to involve a fairly large conspiracy to be successful.
Read again, Linda Diane, there is no acccusation—thinly veiled or otherwise. In any case, PFC ballot fraud would not require a “fairly large conspiracy” but voter fraud and voter fraud conspiracies are not all that uncommon and I have no doubt that some local Zionists (and maybe staff who are concerned about losing their jobs due ot Zionist threats) would resort to fraud if they had the opportunity.
>> It is a really bad idea to change processes and procedures after the voting has commenced. In the middle of a vote is not the time to change a process that I believe has been in place for about 10 years.
Lack of transparency “is a really bad idea”—it goes against democracy and accountability—and no one will complain if you change policy toward greater openness. Heck, invite some Zionist members into observe. There is a Turkish saying: No matter how far you’ve gone done the wrong path, turn back. Your ‘we’ve always done it this way’ mantra wears thin and you begin to sound like George Bush “staying the course”.
>> What I’ve been told about vote totals for board members in the past is that the information is released if someone asks, but otherwise it is not in order to spare feelings of those who were not voted in.
I was there and in the open meeting two defeated Board candidates and others asked for the vote count and were refused. So someone did ask and the Board refused.