It had become a burning issue within a segment of the Davis Community, a proposed initiative that would authorize a Co-Op boycott of products made in Israel. Ultimately, the board has unanimously rejected such a boycott in a strongly worded resolution.
Among the reasons the resolution cites is that even the talk of the boycott has brought about disruption of the everyday business of the Davis Food Co-Op (DFC):
“We have already seen evidence of a tense and uneasy atmosphere at the DFC, a reduction in shoppers and sales, disruption to business operations, and distraction from other priorities associated or correlated with the initiative proposed.”
The board ultimately decided that they were unqualified to make such judgments as the judgment of foreign policy.
“The DFC is not qualified to pass judgment on the legitimacy or illegitimacy of actions or policies of any foreign government, particularly with respect to extraordinary actions by such governments that are invoked in the name of national security.”
The board therefore concluded:
“that in weighing and balancing the above factors, it is our judgment, in the best interests of the DFC, that the proposed member initiative is not “proper” within the definition of our bylaws”
and
“Therefore, and without prejudice to our determination regarding whether the proposed member initiative to boycott all Israeli products may be excluded from the ballot based on a failure to specify a lawful purpose, we hereby determine that the initiative may be excluded for failure to specify a proper purpose.”
In our view, weighing into to such a battle would have only brought forth division. The conflict between Israel and Palestine is completely divisive in both a political and a religious sense. What would the Co-Op gain by weighing in?
It would be one thing if it were a matter that the community was fairly united on, such as Apartheid in South Africa, a generation ago. But the present conflict is too polarizing, there is no consensus in the community.
And so while the sponsors of the initiative may be angry at the lack of action and what they are complaining about as a lack of democracy, many probably agree with the authors of the initiative, that what is sold at the Co-Op should not be dictated by a majority vote of the members and that Democracy may means being able to walk into the Co-Op and buy what they they want.
In reality, people can vote with their feet. If the majority of the people want to boycott Israeli products, they can choose themselves as individuals not to buy them.
The board of the Davis Food Co-Op has asked the Vanguard to print the resolution in its entirety passed by Directors Booth, Citron, Consolacion, Cross, Frerichs, Jolly, Reynolds, Wolf and Young on March 15, 2010.
FULL RESOLUTION
Whereas, the change to Article X, Section 2 of our bylaws that reduced the required percentage of member signatures needed to qualify a ballot measure for member vote, from 15% to 5%, included an inherent expectation that the “lawful and proper purpose” clause would be more stringently interpreted and enforced, and
Whereas, the wording of the initiative proposed demands that the Davis Food Cooperative (DFC) to accept the Global Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions for Palestine (BDS) Campaign’s characterization and judgment of Israeli actions as fact, would require us to accept the Global BDS Campaign’s tactics as our own, and would allow the Global BDS to determine our compliance with its principles and policies, whatever they may be, and
Whereas, the wording of the initiative proposed demands that this Board, which has a fiduciary duty to the DFC and its members, subject its authority and discretion in the management and operation of the DFC to BDS, a third party entity that owes no such duty to the DFC or its members, but rather has, as its primary goal, the furtherance of a political movement with aims not necessarily consistent with the aims and goals of the Board or the DFC; and
Whereas, the wording of the initiative proposed will necessarily restrict the business, operational, and managerial authority and discretion given to the Board under our bylaws and the laws of the State of California, and
Whereas, the wording of the initiative proposed is very broad and does not provide practical specificity about the scope of companies, products or items to be covered; leading to such ambiguities and difficulties such as inter alia whether the proposed boycott would cover: (1) products manufactured or distributed by a company whose principal place of business is in Israel versus any company that has any Israeli shareholders; (2) products manufactured or distributed by any company who has partnered or associated itself with an Israeli company, however that term is defined; (3) any item that contains components, which are Israeli or manufactured or distributed (in whole or in part) by Israeli companies, etc., and
Whereas, because of the broad and vague wording of the initiative proposed, it would require an unreasonable expenditure of time, money, and resources to determine the DFC’s obligations under the proposed boycott, including the ongoing identification all companies and products which are Israeli, including which products contain components which are Israeli, and
Whereas, we have already seen evidence of a tense and uneasy atmosphere at the DFC, a reduction in shoppers and sales, disruption to business operations, and distraction from other priorities associated or correlated with the initiative proposed;
Whereas, in response to the proposed initiative, there have already been threatened member resignations and requirement for the return of capital, and threats of permanent loss of members shoppers (and thus loss of sales) by entire groups within the community, etc., and
Whereas, our articles grant the cooperative no specific powers to engage in political activity of any kind, and
Whereas the Rochdale Principles, upon which the cooperative movement was founded, properly emphasize the basic principle of political (and religious) neutrality and the dangers of meddling in political (and religious) affairs, and adherence to Cooperative Principles is an End of the organization, and
Whereas modern cooperatives, particularly food cooperatives, that have failed to abide by this essential principle of political neutrality have been harmed by the divisiveness that such issues cause among members and shoppers, including: an unwelcoming atmosphere for all, reduction in shoppers and sales, member resignations and return of capital, staff layoffs, disrupted operations, distraction from priorities, and more, and
Whereas, the wording of the proposed initiative would require the DFC to violate another Cooperative Principle (cooperation among cooperatives), because the DFC would have to discontinue selling products from Israeli and Palestinian co-operatives, and
Whereas the DFC is not qualified to pass judgment on the legitimacy or illegitimacy of actions or policies of any foreign government, particularly with respect to extraordinary actions by such governments that are invoked in the name of national security, and
Whereas the proper purpose of a member initiative that suggests or recommends action is one that:
(a) is asserted in good faith, (b) supports our established cooperative principles, articles of incorporation, bylaws and ends; (c) provides benefits to our cooperative as a whole; and (d) is truthful and free of distortion and material omission, so as not to confuse or mislead voters; and the proper purpose for a member initiative that requires or demands action is one that in addition to the above,
(e) is for a purpose reserved to shareholders by our bylaws and in accordance with state law, and
Whereas, in addition to the factors set forth in the foregoing paragraph, in determining whether a proposed member initiative is “proper” under our bylaws, the Board must weigh and balance the following factors: (a) whether, and to what extent, the initiative furthers or inhibits our established cooperative principles, articles of incorporation, bylaws and ends, including without limitation the principles of political and religious neutrality, and cooperation among cooperatives;
(b) whether, and to what extent, the initiative provides benefits to our cooperative, and what the nature of such benefits are;
(c) whether, and to what extent, the initiative suggests versus demands/requires action from the Board or the DFC;
(d) whether the initiative unreasonably interferes with the operation of the DFC, or unreasonably causes loss of membership, capital, or sales;
(e) whether, and to what extent, the initiative interferes with the autonomy or independence of our cooperative;
(f) whether, and to what extent, the initiative interferes with or restricts the managerial discretion, authority, and independence of the Board, or others to whom such discretion and authority is delegated under our bylaws and the laws of the State of California;
(g) whether, and to what extent, the initiative subjects the authority or managerial discretion of the Board (or other DFC management) to third party entities: (i) who do not owe the cooperative any fiduciary duties, and (ii) whose goals may not necessarily coincide with those of the DFC; and
(h) whether, and to what extent, the initiative is sufficiently clear in language and scope to be reasonably understood, and to be practically implemented.
Finding, that in weighing and balancing the above factors, it is our judgment, in the best interests of the DFC, that the proposed member initiative is not “proper” within the definition of our bylaws;
Therefore, and without prejudice to our determination regarding whether the proposed member initiative to boycott all Israeli products may be excluded from the ballot based on a failure to specify a lawful purpose, we hereby determine that the initiative may be excluded for failure to specify a proper purpose.
—David M. Greenwald reporting
Putting something on the ballot is a way to bring out a much needed discussion. It is unfortunate that the DFC board will choose to exclude this initiative because it is deemed “divisive” when they will encourage patrons to take a stand on other political issues out of social responsibility. But I guess it’s okay to discuss things only if it’s PC in Davis. DFC is starting to sound like supporters of troops in Iraq—that by talking about something means we’re “un-American”. It seems to reason that open discussion is what is needed to bring understanding and peace to this region, not shoving issues under the carpet.
There are things going on in the Middle East that are not right. The sooner people understand and move to correct injustice, the faster peace will come about. I hope the people who proposed the initiative will get to put an article in the DFC newletter, at least. The treatment of Palestinians is central to the resentment of America in the Middle East. It is not unlike the treatment of native people all over the world.
Sue:
I’m all for discussion, but is this the right venue?
Also, as far as I know, we do not exactly import a lot of things from Israel and it is quite possible that the only things that would be affected are probably Jewish religious items – is that really where we want to go, to boycott Matzah and Wine and Yerzeit candles?
The DFC is totally qualified to pass judgment on the legitimacy or illegitimacy of actions or policies of any foreign government, particularly with respect to extraordinary actions by such governments that are invoked in the name of national security…
You said:
“It would be one thing if it were a matter that the community was fairly united on, such as Apartheid in South Africa, a generation ago. But the present conflict is too polarizing, there is no consensus in the community.”
Absent a vote, you can opine all you want and assert there is no consensus in the community.
Voting would be the democratic thing to do, unless you don’t want to know, or care, about what the community REALLY thinks.
So the Co-Op believes this issue is hurting it’s business? Maybe it needs to think again. Nugget has a better produce section, hand’s down. It has happy employees, a broader product selection, it’s prices seem somewhat the same, and no “hipper than thou” attitude. Then there’s Westlake, which while expensive, has a dedicated West Davis following for one very good reason. A following that the Co-Op decided (erroneously) would not shop elsewhere even after they made the decision to not build a mini-Co-Op where Westlake Market is now located. The currently expressed belief that their lagging sales are a function of this minor issue is just more of the same lack of awareness and common sense that’s causing the Co-Op sales to suffer.
Plankton: I agree. The coop atmosphere can feel strangely cultish and uninviting at times. Membership resolutions to boycott products because of political leanings – despite the Board’s appropriate and correct decisions to deal with them – only add to that feeling.
What a management distraction. All businesses need to focus 100% on keeping customers satisfied with product and service quality and price. The time spent dealing with this issue is time wasted. These agitators only serve to weaken the very institution that they are supposed to be striving to protect and strengthen in their role as members.
[i]”It had become a burning issue within a segment segment of the Davis Community.”[/i]
Not much of a segment. Really just a handful of morons who love Islamic fascism and hate Israel. I rarely comment on these idiots in Davis from the “peace coalition” because they are much like the swastika vandals on campus–they are trying to be outrageous to stir the pot and get attention. They should not to be taken too seriously. One cannot have a logical debate with them. They are just prejudiced idiots.
They won’t condemn the evils of the Palestinians or other terrorist groups or terrorist supporters, unless it serves their greater idiotic cause. Tens of thousands of terrorist attacks against Jews in the last 20 years and not once has the DPC issued a condemnation of these acts of anti-Semitism.
Does anyone in think the fake Peace Activists will condemn the Palestinians for honoring Dalal Mughrabi? Ms. Mughrabi, a mass murderer of Jewish children, was not honored by Hamas or Islamic Jihad or even Al Qaeda. She was honored by the group that Israel is being condemned for not making peace with, even though twice now Israel has agreed to full peace and the Palestinians have rejected their offers. (First, the Clinton plan; later, the Olmert Plan.)
Here is what the New York Times said ([url]http://www.nytimes.com/2010/03/12/world/middleeast/12westbank.html[/url]) a few days ago about what the PA has done: [quote] Dozens of Palestinian students from the youth division of Fatah, the mainstream party led by President Mahmoud Abbas, gathered here on Thursday [b]to dedicate a public square[/b] to the memory of a woman who in 1978 helped carry out the deadliest terrorist attack in Israel’s history.
The woman being honored, Dalal Mughrabi, was the 19-year-old leader of a Palestinian squad that sailed from Lebanon and landed on a beach between Haifa and Tel Aviv. They killed an American photojournalist, hijacked a bus and commandeered another, embarking on [b]a bloody rampage that left 38 Israeli civilians dead, 13 of them children[/b], according to official Israeli figures. Ms. Mughrabi and several other attackers were killed. [/quote]
Actually what the Co-op Board rejected was the right of Co-op shareholders to vote on a resolution; a right actually guaranteed to shareholders in the Co-op Bylaws. The bottom line is about democracy and owner control, a fundamental principles which has been rejected by the Co-op Board. (For those who want to read the resolution, it is at http://www.DavisBDS.org.)
On another note, this article is hardly “investigative” and should be accurately labeled as editorial or opinion.
“Actually what the Co-op Board rejected was the right of Co-op shareholders to vote on a resolution; a right actually guaranteed to shareholders in the Co-op Bylaws. The bottom line is about democracy and owner control, a fundamental principles which has been rejected by the Co-op Board.”
What are you saying – the Co-op Board must put every proposed resolution to a vote, so long as enough signatures on a petition were obtained for a proposed resolution:
1)No matter how unrelated the resolution is to the business of running the Co-op?
2)No matter if the resolution damages Co-op business in the process?
3)Whether or not the resolution is clearly defined or not?
4)Even if it would expend inordinate amounts of Co-op time to deal with constant resolutions unrelated to Co-op business?
Your logic escapes me here.
I shouldn’t give these anti-Semites like Marsha the time of day, but I can’t help myself.
[i]”For those who want to read the resolution …”[/i] [quote]Co-op shareholders should be able to vote on the resolution to boycott Israeli goods as a means to pressure Israel to restore and protect Palestinian human rights.[/quote]
A fair-minded observer — that is, someone who is not a hater of Israel — will note immediately a problem with that first statement. The hatemongers promoting it are not calling for any boycotts of any other countries. They are not proposing a boycott of Saudi Arabia, where a woman can be put to death for adultery if she is raped. They are not calling for a boycott of Egypt, which recently rounded up and convicted and executed a number of men for the crime of homosexuality. The Egyptian government also recently took away without any compensation all of the pigs owned by Coptic Christian ranchers and destroyed their property in the name of “public health.” Never mind that no one thought this would do anything for public health. Rather, it was an act of Islamic prejudice against the minority Christians. Notice also that there is no call for a boycott of goods from Syria, where there is no freedom of speech, no freedom of organization, no freedom of conscience. Syria is a brutal, socialist dictatorship run by a small minority religious faction (called Alawis or Alawites). The government is nearly as bad as the Saddam Hussein regime was. There are mass graves all over Syria in which thousands of people have been thrown, some alive, by the Assad dictatorship. Of all the countries in the region, including Israel’s one ally, Turkey, no country better protects and fosters human rights than Israel. In great and stark contrast to the PA government in the West Bank and the Hamas regime in Gaza, Israel never intentionally harms civilians. It is, of course, the policy of the Palestinian terrorists to put their own civilians in harms way, trying to get morons like Marsha Collins to falsely believe that the Jews are callous and indifferent to human rights. But Marsha and her friends are prejudiced idiots who fall for the propaganda of the terrorists. [quote] The democratic principles of the Co-op are at stake and the Board must stand up to preserve them, not cave in to threats.[/quote] It is ironic that the morons like Marsha and her friends consider the movement against an idiotic boycott “a threat,” because a boycott itself is always a form of a threat. The rest of the words on Marsha’s website make that perfectly clear.
[quote] These threats include boycott, shareholder withdrawal and lawsuit if the measure is simply put on the ballot. [/quote] Is it not humorous that the morons are worried about someone else boycotting them, when they are the ones calling for boycotts? [quote] Succumbing to these bullying tactics weakens the democratic foundation of Co-op principles. [/quote] It is even funnier that the group which has made common cause with fascism wants to tell everyone else what a “democratic foundation” is. How f###ing stupid are these people? [quote] The Co-op has a proud history of supporting human-rights-based boycotts through its democratic process.[/quote] When, Marsha, was the last time a boycott was called to protest another country’s human rights record when that country had the best human rights record of any country in its neighborhood and was one of the most democratic countries on the face of the planet? There are 1.338 billion people living in Communist China, where there is no promise at all of human rights, democracy, freedom of religion. Thousands of political prisoners are killed regularly in that country, yet Marsha does not call for a boycott of China. Why not? Maybe because the leaders of China are not Jews? [quote] It should be up to the full members to decide if they want to honor this boycott which provides members the opportunity to support a policy that seeks global sustainability, in place of the existing policy that wastes billions of U.S. tax dollars every year [b]to enable Israel’s military repression of the Palestinian people[/b]. [/quote] Never mind that the Hamas government and the PA governments are far more repressive to the Palestinian people than the IDF ever has been. Marsha ignores that. Marsha ignores the fact that the Palestinian people could have their own autonomous government if they wanted to. The fact that they rejected the Clinton Peace Plan and then rejected the Olmert Plan (which would have given them the equivalent of all of the land pre-1967, full control of Gaza and the West Bank, the removal of all non-contiguous Jewish settlements in the West Bank and a capital in Arab-populated East Jerusalem) makes one thing clear: the Palestinians prefer to keep fighting. They still think they can destroy Israel. They don’t want peace. Israel has twice signed on to full peace. (And of course Israel did all it could to live in peace with their neighbors prior to the massive attacks launched against them in 1967 and 1973; and the continual incursions and attacks by factions in Lebanon ever since.)
I realize that human rights and decency don’t mean anything to the anti-Semites who call themselves the Davis Peace Coalition. They will never condemn the actions of the Palestinian Parliament this week, for naming a public square for Dalal Mughrabi, the terrorist who killed 38 Jews, including 13 children. Marsha does not give a damn about that or about human rights. There one cause is to do what they can to promote the destruction of Israel and the rise of Islamic fascism.
Rich – well done.
I hate to mix unrelated topics, but I can’t help but put the Davis Peace Coalition in the same ward as the 9/11 conspiracy theorists. Smart, passionate people that have committed themselves so far down the path of their single-minded convictions of wrong- righteousness; there is no way for them to turn back to the world of rational thought.
I had developed an opinion that non-response is the better medicine because they never give quarter to any valid argument, and arguments only seem to provide them collateral for fixing themselves more strongly rooted to their corrupted beliefs. However, when they attempt to exploit and misuse our democratic structures to bring attention to their deprived cause, then I think we need to beat them back soundly… like you have.
Democracy and free speech are sure painful at times.
A little bit of history on some of the more significant causes of the demise of the Consumers Cooperative of Berkeley:
From Bob Neptune, past general manager of the Berkeley Co op:…. b) I believe a major reason for the alienation of many members was the decision of the Board of Directors of CCB to withdraw items of controversial nature from the shelves of the stores, because of the union stance of the supplier because of ecological reasons, or because of philosophical differences. Later, this position was modified to post the shelves with a notice that the product was controversial (with the pro and con arguments posted on a bulletin board), but not to withdraw the product from shelves. But the initial acts of withdrawing products and forcing customers who might want them to go to another store had a very negative response and caused the loss of members, and more important, the loss of patronage.
From Paul Rauber, former editor of the CCB:…..In time, a rather ponderous but indisputably democratic method for dealing with controversial products was instituted, involving a lot of committees and warnings and leading finally to a vote of the membership on whether the item should be withdrawn. The only time this procedure was actually completely followed through was in 1985, when the membership voted to boycott non-union Coors beer. When it came to Chilean and South African goods, a vote of the board was sufficient to keep them from sullying the shelves….
It is hard to gauge the cost to the organization of the political squabbling. Whenever a controversial stand was taken, like boycotting Coors beer or Chilean grapes, a number of members would swear never to shop at CCB again. This would seem like suicide for a store dependent on the greatest possible volume — except that such stands also seemed to increase the solidarity of other shoppers. Once the door was opened to politics and social issues, it was very difficult to pick and choose which ones to deal with. The dangers of avoiding controversial stands proved to be as great as taking them.
The co op is is the business of selling wholesome, healthy food at a reasonable price to it’s members. That is the only business it should be concerned with,
The co op is is the business of selling wholesome, healthy food at a reasonable price to it’s members. That is the only business it should be concerned with
I prefer apolitical food. It is easier to digest.
Sadly, because of the extreme power of grain farmers and sugar farmers and a few other well organized farm lobbying groups — especially rice in our region — most of the food you eat is political.
So lame. DFC sucks for a number of reasons. But the board’s decision to deny a boycott because the board claims that boycotts are illegal is disingenuous in the extreme. Ever hear of the 1st Amendment Co-Op? Well that’s what boycotts are. An expression of political speech which is the most protected form of speech under the Constitution. Drawing from the Enterprise article, which cited no laws, all I could infer was that the board is actually hiding from their own decision by using “the law” as a straw-man to cover it’s real motive to not support the boycott, whatever that may be. To hide behind a claim of a non-existent “law” which is actually nothing more than a set of “principals” (only advisory), is truly gutless and deceitful, thereby increasing the Co-Op suckage quotient. Now, I’m all for boycotting cowards and liars, so what do you say Davis?
To Plankton: What are you saying – the Co-op Board must put every proposed resolution to a vote, so long as enough signatures on a petition were obtained for a proposed resolution:
1)No matter how unrelated the resolution is to the business of running the Co-op?
2)No matter if the resolution damages Co-op business in the process?
3)Whether or not the resolution is clearly defined or not?
4)Even if it would expend inordinate amounts of Co-op time to deal with constant resolutions unrelated to Co-op business?
Your logic escapes me here.
This initiative resolution was falsely considered by the Board to be submitted as a binding initiative when ,in fact, it did not meet the strict Coop bylaw criteria and should have been considered an ADVISORY initiative. This unfortunately was never explicitly stated in the intiaitive language(an oversight as those who offered the initiative believed it to be advisory). The tenets of the International Cooperative Alliance(to which the Coop claims to adhere), priniciple 2 states: Members shall ACTIVELY PARTICIPATE IN POLICY-SETTING DECISIONS. This advisory initiative met all the objective requirements as well as the more subjective “proper” requirements to be on the Coop ballot. This advisory initiative was the most democratic vehicle for the Coop members to “actively participate in policy-setting decisions”. The lengthy resolution by the Board was their decision to make AFTER(according to the bylaws) after they had received member input through this advisory process and hopefully would have given it the consideration it deserved. THIS WAS THE PROCESS ACCORDING TO THE COOP BYLAWS. The reason why the Coop Board chose this, dare I say, cowardly and disingenuous strategy was IMO, due almost entirely to the intimidating threats of those who said that they would not shop any more at the Coop if this advisory initiative was even permitted to appear on the ballot. It was indeed a sad day for the Davis Coop.
“But the board’s decision to deny a boycott because the board claims that boycotts are illegal…”
Plankton: The Coop board claimed that the initiative was not lawful on the basis of a Dept. of Commerce regulation that prohibits boycotts that are connected with the official government boycott programs of foreign governments. A representative of the Dept. of Commerce, in a telephone conversation stated that the Coop boycott initiative could not be declared illegal using her department’s regulation. The advisory initiative was not unlawful nor was it not proper. “proper” refers to policy-setting decisions and principle 2 as noted above states that Coop members shall actively participate(not make the final decision) in policy-setting decisions.
“Your logic escapes me here.”
Elaine… Yes, if enough signatures are collected and the bylaws are not altered to prohibit certain member-launched initiatives,then advisory initiatives of different types would be allowed. There would be little time and energy consumed since all that would be needed would be certification of the signatures, ballot printing and perhaps space for a pro and con article in the Coop newsletter. The inescapable fact is that there have been precious few(the advisory initiative under consideration being perhaps the only one in decades) advisory initiatives that members have gathered signatures for to place on the ballot in recent memory. Given this fact, does the Coop membership really want to validate a precedent that dramatically place barriers to its long-standing membership rights as shareholders in the Coop?
Don Shor…. Are you asleep at the switch? Isn’t calling posters “morons!”
subject to deletion?