No Secrecy on DOL Meeting

Submitted by Rebecca Tell

I think it would be a good idea if the board hears this message from a lot of people today.  Please help?  Here’s their contact info.

To the board, and particularly Deb,

I am calling on you to immediately cancel the  meeting scheduled for this week between coop representatives and the DOL.
The votes of the membership on Monday night show a clear mandate to the Board to reorient toward protection of the member labor program including member labor on the floor of the coop. Given these marching orders the newly changed board MUST be given a chance to discuss BEFORE THE DOL MEETING what should be said there and who should represent us. Specifically I call on you to remove Joan Marie Dowling and John Vero from the representative team.
The membership needs to hear from you today about this. We need to know if the meeting is cancelled, and if not, when it will be, who will attend and what they are authorized to say. Secrecy on this is completely unacceptable.
Sincerely,
Rebecca Tell
Advertisements

22 thoughts on “No Secrecy on DOL Meeting

  1. I second! Yes, this should be more effectively discussed with our 650 plus members before the Board yet again takes it upon itself to represent the Coop …

    With people like Nate on the Board, I have renewed faith, even tho the membership voted more than 50 percent to remove several members.

    Like

  2. Susan Longtin

    Way to go working members/owners of Honest Weight! We certainly made our wishes known. Deb et al almost got the 75%. That is a message as well. I only hope we can rid ourselves of that consulting firm! From what I read and heard, they are bad news.

    Liked by 1 person

  3. Colleen Putnam

    Why did we bother to have ANOTHER “election”? Voting laws don’t mean anything? Seriously, why bother.

    Maybe the President should see his “win” as a vote of no confidence and we should ask, no insist, he resign: “He won by one of the slimmest margins of any incumbent president in nearly a century: about 3.6%, or just half of his 7.3% winning margin in 2008.” Or, how about the time I was really unhappy with that other guy, Bush — “His 2004 re-election was by 2.5 percentage points. That actually represented an improvement for Bush, who took office after losing the popular vote by half a percentage point.” I would have loved to kick him to the curb, but that’s not the way it works in a democracy.

    http://articles.latimes.com/2012/nov/30/news/la-pn-how-big-was-obamas-win-20121130

    Like

  4. Ron

    In the UK, Aus, NZ, and Canada votes of no confidence lead to new elections. Make no mistake about it. These are votes of no confidence, significant votes of no confidence.

    By the way, the analogy is faulty and frankly quite silly but not in an Alice kind of way, Obama won. These four candidates lost. They lost respectively by 67%, 65%, 62%, and 55%. They just didn’t lose by 75%, a, in my opinion, ludicrously high threshold. Or to turn it around they got 33%, 35%, 38%, and 45% of the vote. If you want to call that “winning” I suppose you can. But I suspect even some of the Republican candidates wouldn’t call those percentages a victory,not even a pyrhic victory.

    Like

    1. Colleen Putnam

      Yes, the threshold is high in corporations law. For a reason. And, I’ve seen Monday’s numbers. My point was — it is what it is — it sends a message from members to the board (of which some I agree with, despite the nasty looks I get for pointing out the flaws in the PROCESS). It does not mean that those numbers should be a call for directors to remove themselves. That is not what a close election means at all.
      Let’s move forward — TOGETHER!!!

      Like

    1. Colleen Putnam

      I meant close to the 75%. I’ve made my point – that’s all, just a different view for all to consider. I’m a big picture kinda gal. Peace ~

      Like

      1. Ron

        Not feeling well and while I was laying in the bath I thought you probably meant the close to the 75%. I am a big picture boy too. I like to walk up to the big picture window in steps. I guess I like to get to reductivism via inductivism. More Weber than Marx.

        Like

      2. Ron

        Not feeling well and while I was laying in the bath I thought you probably meant the close to the 75%. I am a big picture boy too. I like to walk up to the big picture window in steps. I guess I like to get to deductivism (idiot spell correct) via inductivism. I am more Weber than Marx, more pieces of the puzzle than one single puzzle piece.

        Like

  5. Ron

    I have said this elsewhere but let me be clear and explicit here about one step that must be taken.
    Writ of Particulars, Deb Dennis
    1. Sent a draft letter to the Department of Labour that could cause irreparable harm to Honest Weight
    2. Ended the member labour programme without a membership vote in violation of the by-laws
    3. Was either part of a group that bullied Board member Ned Depew or did nothing to stop the bullying
    4. Got the support of only 33% of voters at the Special Membership Meeting
    Deb Dennis should and must resign

    Writ of Particulars, Leif Hartmark
    1. Ended the member labour programme without a membership vote in violation of the by-laws
    2. Was either part of a group that bullied Board member Ned Depew or did nothing to stop the bullying
    3. Got the support of only 35% of voters at the Special Membership Meeting
    Leif Hartmark should and must resign

    Writ of Particulars, Roman Kuchera
    1. Ended the member labour programme without a membership vote in violation of the by-laws
    2. Was either part of a group that bullied Board member Ned Depew or did nothing to stop the bullying
    3. Got the support of only 38% of voters at the Special Membership Meeting
    Roman Kuchera should and must resign

    Writ of Particulars, Rossana Coto-Bates
    1. Ended the member labour programme without a membership vote in violation of the by-laws
    2. Was part of the group that drafted the letter to the DoL
    3. Took part in a video that was put up on Youtube that likely violated state law.
    4. Was either part of a group that bullied Board member Ned Depew or did nothing to stop the bullying.
    5. Got only 42% of voters at the Special Membership Meeting
    Rossana Coto-Bates should and must resign

    Liked by 1 person

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s