... and that it would be fiscally irresponsible for Council to leave such decisions to the Membership.

Without providing any context any initial thoughts/comments?

Whatever the hell is going on it doesn't sound very democratic.

... and that it would be fiscally irresponsible for Council to leave such decisions to the Membership.

Without providing any context any initial thoughts/comments?

I cheated and googled it. That's really fucked up. I was expecting it to be from the UAW or something.

... and that it would be fiscally irresponsible for Council to leave such decisions to the Membership.

Without providing any context any initial thoughts/comments?

I cheated and googled it. That's really fucked up. I was expecting it to be from the UAW or something.

But what if it was a home for the mentally infirm? The it would make perfect sense

;)

... and that it would be fiscally irresponsible for Council to leave such decisions to the Membership.

Without providing any context any initial thoughts/comments?

Crack that one and you crack the whole thing wide open. If you don't fight that, there is no sense fighting anything.

I don't know how to crack that. I have tried and tried, but without much success. It is very simple, and would be very powerful. But if you state it simply, people reject it by saying "the world isn't that simple." If you try many different approaches and logical arguments, people start seeing it as all too complex and get frustrated and confused. I have to believe that there is something causing people to hold onto a lie here, and we just haven't quite come up with an effective and consistent way to break it.

In that statement we have two things that are juxtaposed to one another: "fiscal responsibility" and "decisions of the membership." It is presented as though the first were some neutral law of the universe or something, and the second were unimportant and not worthwhile - not solid, not trustworthy. So it sounds as though "being responsible" were being juxtaposed with "being irresponsible," with fiscal meaning responsible and decisions made by the membership being irresponsible. The word "irresponsible" has come to imply "immoral, dangerous, criminal, lazy, haphazard" so it is a loaded term.

"Fiscal" means "involving financial matters." The word "financial" means "matters involving financiers." To say that this means money is not quite right - it is about capital, but more than that it is about those who invest capital - "stakeholders" in modern bullshit corporate speak (and liberal non-profit organizational speak, as well.)

So really "fiscal" and "financial" are not words describing some neutral impersonal force that must be respected and obeyed. It is deceptive and misleading language to disguise the fact that "fiscal" and "financial" refers to the interests of certain human beings.

"Responsibility to" means "answerable to," or "having a duty towards."

"Fiscal responsibility" then means "answerable to those who have invested capital." It does not mean "handling money honestly," which is what people imply when they use the phrase. It means "place one group of people over another, answer to them, do their bidding as a duty."

Now let's look at the second half of the sentence - "leave such decisions to the Membership." The use of the words "leave" and "such" are not accidental, nor is the use of "membership" rather than "members."

First, how is the word "leave" being used here? The word has many definitions, but the only one that would even remotely make sense in this context is this one: "go and leave behind, either intentionally or by neglect or forgetfulness." Notice the word "delegate" was not used. The word "trust" was not used. The word "honor" was not used.

Now the word "such," which is a little easier because it has one meaning - "of so extreme a degree or extent."

Why "membership" rather than "members?" Because "membership" is singular. It makes the people seem less important and smaller than they are.

Here, then, is what is really being communicated:

We who are in power (implied) answer only to the few, those who have invested capital. We also have duty to disguise that fact, for the sake of the few. Big issues are not to be trusted to the people, and it would be neglectful and immoral to allow the people any say over this, because that might be contrary to the needs and desires of the few. We have a duty to suppress democracy because it is a threat to those with money, and we will lie about that so that people can’t tell that this is what we are doing.

Mike, the reply I always get to trying any line of reasoning like that is a smug, knowing, patronizing sigh followed by the very worldly statement:

Everyone wants to let the people decide, until it affects them.

In other words, you are saying that my answer was too complicated. Here is the short version:

"People with money matter, those without do not."


Mike, the reply I always get to trying any line of reasoning like that is a smug, knowing, patronizing sigh followed by the very worldly statement:

Everyone wants to let the people decide, until it affects them.

And then you do what? Sigh in return and give up? Or call them on their lie?

... and that it would be fiscally irresponsible for Council to leave such decisions to the Membership.

Without providing any context any initial thoughts/comments?

Crack that one and you crack the whole thing wide open. If you don't fight that, there is no sense fighting anything.

I don't know how to crack that. I have tried and tried, but without much success. It is very simple, and would be very powerful. But if you state it simply, people reject it by saying "the world isn't that simple." If you try many different approaches and logical arguments, people start seeing it as all too complex and get frustrated and confused. I have to believe that there is something causing people to hold onto a lie here, and we just haven't quite come up with an effective and consistent way to break it.

In that statement we have two things that are juxtaposed to one another: "fiscal responsibility" and "decisions of the membership." It is presented as though the first were some neutral law of the universe or something, and the second were unimportant and not worthwhile - not solid, not trustworthy. So it sounds as though "being responsible" were being juxtaposed with "being irresponsible," with fiscal meaning responsible and decisions made by the membership being irresponsible. The word "irresponsible" has come to imply "immoral, dangerous, criminal, lazy, haphazard" so it is a loaded term.

"Fiscal" means "involving financial matters." The word "financial" means "matters involving financiers." To say that this means money is not quite right - it is about capital, but more than that it is about those who invest capital - "stakeholders" in modern bullshit corporate speak (and liberal non-profit organizational speak, as well.)

So really "fiscal" and "financial" are not words describing some neutral impersonal force that must be respected and obeyed. It is deceptive and misleading language to disguise the fact that "fiscal" and "financial" refers to the interests of certain human beings.

"Responsibility to" means "answerable to," or "having a duty towards."

"Fiscal responsibility" then means "answerable to those who have invested capital." It does not mean "handling money honestly," which is what people imply when they use the phrase. It means "place one group of people over another, answer to them, do their bidding as a duty."

Now let's look at the second half of the sentence - "leave such decisions to the Membership." The use of the words "leave" and "such" are not accidental, nor is the use of "membership" rather than "members."

First, how is the word "leave" being used here? The word has many definitions, but the only one that would even remotely make sense in this context is this one: "go and leave behind, either intentionally or by neglect or forgetfulness." Notice the word "delegate" was not used. The word "trust" was not used. The word "honor" was not used.

Now the word "such," which is a little easier because it has one meaning - "of so extreme a degree or extent."

Why "membership" rather than "members?" Because "membership" is singular. It makes the people seem less important and smaller than they are.

Here, then, is what is really being communicated:

We who are in power (implied) answer only to the few, those who have invested capital. We also have duty to disguise that fact, for the sake of the few. Big issues are not to be trusted to the people, and it would be neglectful and immoral to allow the people any say over this, because that might be contrary to the needs and desires of the few. We have a duty to suppress democracy because it is a threat to those with money, and we will lie about that so that people can’t tell that this is what we are doing.

I think you do good in breaking this down.

If the wording was slightly different, eg it would be 'inappropriate' (for example) to leave such decisions to the members, in a certain context it wouldn't be nearly so powerful and revealingl a statement. Perhaps the 'council' has been elected by the members specifically to represent them in making such decisions. Perhaps it would be impractical to hold a membership-wide referendum on every decision. There is a time for 'committee' or 'council' but as you say, reducing a mass of people to 'membership' portrays something important about the attitude the 'council' has towards its members.

Particularly in any kind of cooperative situation where the council only exists at the behest of the members.

"Everyone wants to let the people decide, until it affects them."

That is an interesting statement, one of hundreds of dishonest platitudes in everyday use, applied to every situation, that support capital over labor, or profits over people, or more accurately - those who have money over those who don't.

"Everyone (those who do not consider themselves to be in the category of 'the people,' that is) pays lip service to fairness and justice and democracy, until and unless that might impact their selfish desires or their status."

Notice that using "everyone" is dishonest, otherwise it makes no sense in that sentence. Isn't "everyone" the same as "the people?" How would everyone let everyone do anything? Everyone means "everyone who matters" and that "veryone is assumed to be in power - otherwise how could they "let" people do anything?

Calling a few people "everyone" is an interesting thing, no? Remember the "everyone" over at PI? Or the "everyone" at DU?

And what does "the people" mean? The rabble, the unworthy, those not included in "everyone."

There is an implied "if you had money you would feel the same way, because that is just the way that people are - human nature, you know."

This is a drama that plays out everyday in all of our activities. It is inescapable, relentless, suffocating. It is the only place that it matters. Those little comments are the foundation stones that support the entire structure of capitalism, and they are a knife to the heart of all of us and nothing in our individual lives will work if we roll over for that.

"I don't want you to feel like I ripped you off." Notice how the issue of whether or not the speaker actually ripped you off is neatly dodged, and the burden is placed on you?

"Don't get me wrong, I agree with you, but...." means don't get me right - don't recognize that I do not agree with you at all, and in fact would murder you if I could get away with it.

In other words, you are saying that my answer was too complicated. Here is the short version:

"People with money matter, those without do not."


Mike, the reply I always get to trying any line of reasoning like that is a smug, knowing, patronizing sigh followed by the very worldly statement:

Everyone wants to let the people decide, until it affects them.

And then you do what? Sigh in return and give up? Or call them on their lie?

Thats the end of the conversation in their minds lol

EDIT: and there's no mistaking the pains the highers up go to convince everyone that NIMBYism is The Way The World Works. Its pretty fucking ridiculuous, and literally every upscale community is a microcosm of the same phenomenon.

And what's the context?

This is from our local CoOp. There have been a string of bad decisions over the last few years primarily from an ineffective and corrupt council. I won't go into this here just to say that it's been breathtaking watching this thing unfold and watching the imperious and stubborn assholes in council continue despite all warnings and ignoring all of the core members of the CoOp.

So now the CoOp has had a few bad months, in fact several it's just now catching up, and the Council has been mulling over options as to how to make up the deficit. Essentially the proposals being considered are punitive to workers and/or members with the management team and Council getting off the hook DESPITE the fact that they are the ones who have made the "fiscally irresponsible" decisions WITHOUT the consent, in fact much dissent, of the members. What a joint. Welcome to the most "progressive" institution in the "most enlightened" city in America:

http://www.greenstar.coop/images/stories/welcomesubhead.jpg



Proposed Changes to Discounts and Retirement Benefits

Tackling another challenging topic, Council received three formal proposals from its Finance Committee for addressing the Co-op’s current financial problems (see Council News in November GreenLeaf). The Committee has proposed that the Co-op switch from its long-standing practice of granting a 2% discount on purchases by members, at the register, to a patronage rebate system like that used by many other food co-ops. Under the proposed system, Council would decide, at the end of each fiscal year and based on total net income (after expenses), how much of a rebate members would receive on their past purchases.



A second proposal is that the Co-op discontinue its two-year-old policy of making “guaranteed” employer contributions to employees’ 401(k) retirement accounts, based on a percentage of sales, and instead make contributions based on a percentage of net profit.



The third proposal is that Council exempt CAP (Co-op Advantage Program) sale items from all member discounts (regular member, working member, staff and senior). CAP sale items are the primary special deals offered by GreenStar, as stipulated pursuant to a contractual arrangement with the Co-op’s main supplier. When member discounts are applied to these reduced-margin sales, the impact on the Co-op’s margin (and “bottom line”) is multiplied.



Finance Committee chair Art Godin said that steps such as these should be taken quickly, to avoid or reduce the projected operating deficit in the currently-proposed 2008 budget. As Council was not intending to act on these proposals in November, Art asked Council to defer action on the 2008 budget as well (which it did). While some on Council expressed support for the proposals, others asserted that those affecting member discounts must or should be subject to Membership approval, and that supporting employees’ retirement is a basic component of being a responsible employer. In response, some said that the Co-op’s current course is unsustainable, and that it would be fiscally irresponsible for Council to leave such decisions to the Membership. Also, a couple of alternatives to the committee’s proposals were suggested: reducing the member discount (say, to 1%) rather than making it dependent on an annual Council decision, and limiting CAP sales to members (thus applying this particular “benefit-reduction” mechanism to non-members only. Council will resume consideration of these issues in December.

http://www.greenstar.coop/council/counc ... -2007.html (http://www.greenstar.coop/council/council-news/council-news-december-2007.html)

... and that it would be fiscally irresponsible for Council to leave such decisions to the Membership.

Without providing any context any initial thoughts/comments?

I cheated and googled it. That's really fucked up. I was expecting it to be from the UAW or something.

Did you really look it up?

You wanna come down to the meeting on Tuesday and get thrown out with me?

Pretty amazing what's happening at good ole' fuzzy Green$tar.

Maybe we need an asshole gallery for locals such as Joe Romano. Ultimate liberal dipshit who is some sort of groovy pastor and marketing dude who gets a nifty salary from the CoOp. He's also got quite the digs with a small theatre in his not so humble priestly abode.

Vintage Joe right here:

http://www.greenstar.coop/greenleaf/all ... rally.html (http://www.greenstar.coop/greenleaf/all-greenleaf-articles/how-to-entertain-naturally.html)

http://www.greenstar.coop/greenleaf/all ... -fair.html (http://www.greenstar.coop/greenleaf/all-greenleaf-articles/playing-fair.html)

Deranged.

... and that it would be fiscally irresponsible for Council to leave such decisions to the Membership.

Without providing any context any initial thoughts/comments?

I cheated and googled it. That's really fucked up. I was expecting it to be from the UAW or something.

Did you really look it up?

You wanna come down to the meeting on Tuesday and get thrown out with me?

Pretty amazing what's happening at good ole' fuzzy Green$tar.

Maybe we need an asshole gallery for locals such as Joe Romano. Ultimate liberal dipshit who is some sort of groovy pastor and marketing dude who gets a nifty salary from the CoOp. He's also got quite the digs with a small theatre in his not so humble priestly abode.

Vintage Joe right here:

http://www.greenstar.coop/greenleaf/all ... rally.html (http://www.greenstar.coop/greenleaf/all-greenleaf-articles/how-to-entertain-naturally.html)

http://www.greenstar.coop/greenleaf/all ... -fair.html (http://www.greenstar.coop/greenleaf/all-greenleaf-articles/playing-fair.html)

Deranged.

Read your links. Unitarian Amway.

This is a classic example of something I often rant about. Contrast the mission and policy statements at the site with the actual operations as described in the newsletters. Reading through the newsletters, there is no hint whatsoever that the people running it are not running a corporate for-profit enterprise.

When the people in leadership of a coop or non-profit run it as though they were officers of for-profit corporation - with the identical mindset and ethics, operational considerations and organizational structure - they are really no different than for profit CEO's - they are sucking a salary and enjoying a lifestyle from the proceeds of the organization with little or no commitment to anything other than their own little fiefdom and well being. The non-profit status, the mission statement and the policies then all become merely marketing tools - a way to fool people into giving them money.

Unitarian Amway.

Holy shit. You nailed it.

That's the guy, that's the motherfuckin' guy.

How in the hell do people like this get in positions to make decisions that have a very real impact on quite a few people.

How in the hell do people like this get in positions to make decisions that have a very real impact on quite a few people.

When everyone embraces or acquiesces to the corporate model for operations and organizational structure, it is inevitable that this kind of people gravitate into leadership.

There is no commitment to any of the principles outlined on the coop page - it is just window dressing, stuff people say because it sounds good and makes them feel good.

If people don't challenge corporate-think, with all of the free market and individualism assumptions, corporate-think steamrolls everything else.

Can't believe they are considering selling produce from China - 180 degrees opposed to the "buy local" stuff in the mission statement. Can't believe that because they can't manage the coop they want to cut employee compensation and benefits - 180 degrees opposed to what they say in their mission statement. Can't believe they are trying to decide whether or not to cut the membership out of the loop on major decisions - 180 degrees opposed to the mission statement.

What is this "reality" people talk about that inevitably leads to decisions that are diametrically opposed to the principles of the organization, that over-ride them and destroy them? It can only be a shared commitment to a particular corporate free-market hierarchical way of looking at the world - the very way of looking at the world that causes the problems that the coop is supposedly a response to.

Oh, sure, we are committed to doing the right thing - until that becomes "fiscally irresponsible." How is that different than attempts to "green" the for-profit corporations? The non-profit organization has an imprimatur of being the good guys, but they have less accountability, less obligation to perform.

You have to think of it from the point of view of Mr. Asshole there - what he sees is what these organizations really are, not what they claim to be in order to suck in gullible people. What drives the non-profits is the same thing that drives the for-profits - actual individual people who want to create a job for themselves, make good money, have status and power, and who use the organization to do that. At least in a for-profit they are actually producing something, growing something, making something.

People think "oh if we could just get rid of the assholes then things would be great." But the organizational model, the marketing and sales model, the free-market assumptions all exist solely for the purpose of supporting and advancing assholes.

Modern non-profits are a less accountable, more dishonest and less productive version of the asshole sanctuaries we know as the for-profit corporations. Same mindset, same organizational principles, same operating principles, same assumptions and same beliefs about the market economy and the importance of "fiscal responsibility" being placed ahead of human needs.

I just got this in my email and it seems rather appropriate on this thread regarding management/control of what, in theory, is a people/member-oriented group.

I also find it promising that the member survey results showed Economic justice/poverty as the biggest priority.


An Open Letter to the Southeastern Michigan Peace Community: (The signers below are all present or former members of the Interfaith Council for Peace and Justice (ICPJ) in Ann Arbor.)

If you have not done so already, many of you will soon be receiving a year-end request for financial support from ICPJ. While ICPJ has had a long and productive history of being in the forefront of peace and justice issues in our community for over 40 years, sadly, this is no longer the case. We urge you to reject the present support request for the following reasons:

1) ICPJ is no longer interfaith. Since its inception, ICPJ has been welcoming of all faiths and has striven to be responsive to the special peace concerns inherent in differing beliefs. However, over the last few years, ICPJ has been unresponsive to our Muslim colleagues, and as a result, out of the approximately 300 members of ICPJ, an examination of the membership rolls of ICPJ found but a single Muslim. There is no Muslim (or other non-Christian/Jewish) representation on the Steering Committee or among the officers of ICPJ--these bodies are exclusively Christian and Jewish. Even the Catholic participation has been significantly reduced.

2) ICPJ is unresponsive to the priorities of its membership. In a December 2006 survey (129 respondents), the members designated the following six items as “one of the most important areas” for ICPJ action over the next two years: (in order) Economic justice/poverty (83%), Iraq War (75%), Cost of war vs. social spending (71%), Hunger issues (66%), Israeli/Palestinian conflict (61%), Racial justice (60%) and Universal access to healthcare (59%). All other issues drew less than 50% of the vote. When asked how many members would be willing to work on these issues, the priorities (in order) were: Israeli/Palestinian conflict (34 members), Economic justice/poverty (30), Hunger issues & Racial justice (tie at 24) and Iraq War & Cost of war vs. social spending (tie at 22). As you will note below, these priorities have been ignored by the current leadership of ICPJ.

3) ICPJ is no longer a significant activist organization. In calendar year 2007, ICPJ has issued six action alerts to its community (see http://www.icpj.net/category/action-alert/ for details). They were:

a) Newsflash: Easter Bunny Choose Fair Trade Chocolate (March 28, 2007)

b) Curate! Don’t Proliferate! Say No to New Nukes! (May 2, 2007)

c) Demand Accountability: Extradite “Goni” (May 22, 2007)

d) Message to Michigan: Don’t Cut Social Services (May 30, 2007)

e) Now is the time: Call Congress to Close the SOA/WHINSEC (June 19, 2007)

f) Call Sen. Stabenow to Fund Food Stamps (September 26, 2007)



While no one doubts that these are all worthy efforts, even the “Easter Bunny Chocolates”, it is difficult to discern how, in toto, they satisfy the membership’s stated priorities. You will look in vain for any rigorous action related to the Iraq war, the cost of war vs. social spending, or the Israeli/Palestinian conflict. In a time of unprecedented turmoil within the body politic, in a time when the current President of the United States has borrowed from our children and grandchildren more money that all previous presidents combined, in a time when Gulf War II is approaching the date (July 21, 2008) when it will be of greater duration than our involvement in WWI and WW2 combined*listed above are what the current ICPJ leadership has seen as its action priorities.

4) ICPJ is a secretive, top-down organization overly concerned with fundraising. Please note the action items from agenda from the last (11/13/07) two-hour ICPJ Steering Committee meeting (which is typical of the agendas from each of the monthly meetings this year): a. Hiring Committee update, b. Finance report, c. Fundraising report, d. Draft Code of Conduct, e. By-laws Committee, f. Program Review Committee, g. Executive [secret] session. Note that not one of these items relates to the priorities of the membership delineated in Item 2. Two of the items relate to the financial status of ICPJ. Four of the items relate to the structure of ICPJ. The last item is a secret meeting from which members are excluded. These “Executive Sessions”, once described as dealing with “personnel issues”, are now used to simply discuss items that the Steering Committee wishes, for whatever reasons, to conceal from its members. And these meetings are supplemented by private, no-members-allowed, meetings of the ICPJ officers and staff. It is unknown what occurs there. As former Attorney General Nicholas Katzenbach wrote recently (11/20/07) in the New York Times, “Secrecy always increases the risk of foolish mistakes.”

Also please note the report of the “By-laws Committee” above. The history of the ICPJ by-laws has been chronicled elsewhere (contact Bill Thomson at wthomson@umich.edu for details). Suffice it to say that a committee of 11 individuals, comprising well over 50 years of ICPJ experience, worked diligently to construct a new set of By-Laws for ICPJ, presenting its report in Februrary, 2005. This report was essentially dismissed, resulting in a fiasco at the last Annual Meeting in which it was unclear if the membership or the Steering Committee elected the President of the organization. (This item seems to us a fundamental issue to be clearly delineated in any by-laws worthy of the name.) The new By-Laws committee, as far as we can determine, consists of two individuals with perhaps 1 or 2 total years of experience with ICPJ.

5) ICPJ is not using its resources wisely or to the benefit of the peace and justice community. Through the end of October this year, ICPJ received $77,455.05 in income. Of that amount, $53,201.48 (68.7%) went directly to staff salaries, and $8,797.58 (11.4%) went to the work of ICPJ Task Forces. We believe that this ratio is seriously askew. For this money, we have thus far received from ICPJ: 1) six “Action Alerts” (see Item 3 above), 2) ten movies, 3) five “Better World” breakfasts, 4) approximately nine presentations(nuclear weapons, poverty, Latin America), 5) eight jointly-sponsored events which, according to ICPJ Director Chuck Warpehoski, would have occurred anyway (“but not as well”) without ICPJ assistance, and 6) the Crop Walk and the Food Stamp Challenge. We can and should do better.

6) ICPJ is dangerously inbred. This is not a new issue, but the ICPJ leadership continues along its established path of recruiting friends to serve on the Steering Committee and in its elected offices. The Nominating Committee, from whom all nominations flow, is composed if identical individuals from year to year. This has resulted in an almost exclusively Christian and Jewish membership and power structure. Nominations are presented to the Annual Meeting without notification to the membership, and the membership is not allowed to question prospective officers or Steering Committee members, nor even to hear a list of qualifications. We are merely presented names (many of them unknown to the experienced peace and justice community) and asked for a vote.

Sadly, we see little hope for substantive changes in ICPJ under the current leadership, and we believe that the only way we can effect a change in the direction of ICPJ to its peace and justice roots is to withhold our financial support. Thus we are asking you to join us in suspending our financial support to the organization until ICPJ's priorities conform to the priorities of the membership and until the present procedures are replaced with ones that are open, transparent, and democratic and allow the ICPJ membership to participate fully in the election of members of the Steering Committee and the President, with proposals for new committee members coming from the membership as well as from the Steering Committee.

We maintain our love for ICPJ and its core values, and we greatly hope that ICPJ can arise from its current status to once again being a leading peace and justice organization in southeast Michigan and beyond.


Peace with Justice,

(signed)

Lee A. Booth – Former Member of ICPJ

Philip A. Booth – Former Member of ICPJ

Louie Leedle – Former Member of ICPJ

Thomas Saffold, former ICPJ Steering Committee President

Farouq Shafie, former ICPJ Steering Committee Member

Ellen Teller – Former Member of ICPJ

Bill Thomson – Current Member of ICPJ