...can be fun and save money; thanks for the article & post.

Anyone have a good "at home" salsa recipe?

Hmm, I wonder if they were referring to John Hinckley Jr., the guy who shot President Ronald Reagan in 1981, and, whose father was the president of the board of directors for World Vision. Oh yea, the Hinckley’s were good friends with George H.W. Bush, who just so happened to be Vice-President under Reagan at the time of the shooting. Three months prior to the Reagan assassination attempt, Mark David Chapman gunned down and killed rock music icon, John Lennon. Chapman was an employee of Word Vision at a refugee camp in Laos.

Don't forget the part about how they put all those home-made explosives in the World Trade center.  The key phrase in your post is "appears to be."  I'd like to see a conclusive "is" statement in this story and at least a pretense of fact checking. 

EDIT: Okay, that was a bit snarky on my part. Sorry. I get the frustration of the Co-op process.  I just don't get the World Visions stuff.  Seems pretty "appears to be."

So if the salsa people were quietly saving up for a Hummer, they'd be a valid vendor, but not if they are supporting an organization that feeds and educates hundreds of thousands of children every year. Amazing.

This sort of controversy, is part of what makes the co-op an oppressive place to me. There is a legalism and paranoia in some there as deadly as that in any church.

Sucks to have Christian competitors when you're trying to save the world.

World Vision is a relatively liberal, mainstream humanitarian aid agency.  They've been doing disaster relief work around the world for many decades, and countless people have volunteered through them.  They haven't got much of a political agenda, though they support and tailor their work to the UN's Millenium Development Goals.

That doesn't mean that the CIA hasn't attempted to use WV's work to its own ends.  The CIA is, after all, probably the creepiest organization in the world.  But WV wouldn't be alone in having to deal with that.  The CIA frequently attempts to infiltrate humanitarian organizations, such that most international humanitarian organizations (including World Vision) have written policy banning their staff from interacting with, communicating with, collaborating with, or having any contact with the CIA.

Though misleading, this post is an entertaining read.  I never in my life would have dreamed that G. Bush would have organized the attempted assassination of Ronald Reagan.  I suppose it makes sense... just like I suppose it makes sense that Reagan kept Bush as his VP for so long after the event.  He must be a forgiving fellow.  Thanksgiving dinner at the White House must have been mighty awkward, though.

The Canaanite's Call

I am the author of the original piece in WIP: Whirled Vision at the Olympia Food Co-op: Salsa Not-So-Socially-Conscious.

Salsa So Fresh is, in my view, the proverbial canary in the coal mine, indicating to us that something could be improved within our own food co-op.

The two areas in which I believe the Co-op could do better are:

1) A stronger commitment to internal democracy beyond staff, i.e. more participatory decision-making that includes members.

2) A deeper theory and practice of anti-oppression work, more actively focused on economic justice and more explicitly oriented toward facilitating structural change in society, including at our co-op.

So, am I saying that the Co-op is made up of bad people?

Not at all.

Am I saying that the system could use some improvement?

Yes, I am.

I will reiterate on my statement that Salsa So Fresh is the canary in the coalmine for the Co-op. My experiences with what was initially a small piece of feedback have taught me a lot about how things work at the Co-op. Consensus decision-making for staff does not per se offer members a "place at the table". In addition anti-oppression workshops have emphasized staff buy-in to a model which may be in danger of emphasizing identity concerns over a concrete program for structural change. Hence the contradictions between a stated principle for anti-Oppression work and the acceptance of a product that benefits a not-very-progressive relief organization.

Structural change must ultimately come to include all of society. However, since that is a long-term goal which may be beyond our immediate grasp, one good strategy concerns the development of counter-institutions like the Co-op.

If what we are working towards is society grounded in more participatory decision-making and co-operative economics, why not start with creating structural change at the Co-op?

The initial request was that Co-op buyers meet with Salsa So Fresh and suggest that different hunger relief organizations would be more in line with the principles of the Olympia Food Co-op. I suggested Oxfam and/or other organizations of this nature.

Since Co-op staff were not at all clear or proactive in this regard, all efforts failed. We could have had a locally-made salsa that benefitted more aid programs and/or failing to get Salsa So Fresh on board, we could have made our own, which I offered to help facilitate.

All efforts failed, and it seems that the current Co-op system where staff members do enjoy participatory democracy but member-owners really do not is a significant part of the discrepancies around principle.

We can "change the system" at the Co-op, and I think we should. Is there something wrong with that?

where all members can participate in regular open meetings at which any and all issues can be discussed, and then have information about those issues shared via on-line and print media. Where staff and members share power together, and accountability within a transparent decision-making process is a high priority.

I am now rather disillusioned with the Co-op's current decision-making process after getting a lot of runaround from people I trusted. All this effort led only to the ratification of a decision that seems to be based more on "personal politics" within the staff collective, rather than reflecting any sort of truly consistent and progressive principle, per se.

I do want to point out that I sat through endless appeals, avoidances, and fruitless meetings. I certainly offered compromises like having Co-op staff suggest "better" aid groups like Oxfam and Via Campesina to Salsa So Fresh, and failing that to support an alternative local salsa producer group, maybe staffed by immigrants and using organic ingredients. I don't think that a real will to do the right thing was ever there, quite honestly.

So, while I do think it is wrong that the Co-op trumpets anti-Oppression training at the same time as it has effectively sanctioned funding World Vision, a group with a not-very-progressive track record, the bigger point concerns the Co-op itself.

I support the Co-op in strengthening its guiding principles and in increasing participatory decision-making. I don't believe that a rational and inclusive dialogue amongst all the stakeholders would permit the current decision to hold.

I have great faith in the people of Olympia, including the staff-people at the Co-op. It is the system itself which needs to change, a system which primarily enfranchises the staff collective, and through the consensus process allows even just one person from that particular circle to dominate the process at the expense of everything else.

As we improve the system, the many, many good people who work within that system will be able to accomplish more good things in accordance with their very positive intentions. Wanting to make the Co-op better is a good thing, and it is something which we are fully capable of doing. Is that somehow wrong?

Rick,

I noticed that you completely ignored the previous request for you to "cite anything in his post which 'invalidates the whole organization.'" You may be the one who normally zeroes in on ad hominems and logical fallacies, but this time it is you who seems to be acting irrationally. Please support your statement, or else retract it.

Austin

Oh my God! The Co-op falls short of it's professed goals!?! And who doesn't? Give it a rest.

This is why words such as 'participatory, consensus, Non-oppressive training, collective' send me screaming for the hills. The Co-op does more to promote a progressive agenda with every transaction than Mr. Kelley does in 20,000 words.

Here's a solution. If you object to the pennies that go to World Vision with purchase of each tub of Salsa So Fresh then DON"T BUY THE DAMNED FASCIST SALSA!

After we get out of Iraq, ensure everyone health care, break the corporate stranglehold on our media, house everyone who wants a home, guarantee a living wage, etc... then I'll get on the Co-op reform bandwagon. Oh who am I kidding. I've got better things to do.

I'm sure Mr. Kelley doesn't work for the makers of "Salsa So Fresh" but this is a marketing team (do they even have one?) dream.

Hi Rick-

I'm going to persist on this, because I really do think you unfairly put words in my mouth. Please explain why you think that I invalidated "the whole organization" with the quote you cited:

"I will reiterate on my statement that Salsa So Fresh is the canary in the coalmine for the Co-op. My experiences with what was initially a small piece of feedback have taught me a lot about how things work at the Co-op."

If this is the best you can do in supporting your unfair and untruthful characterization of my words, then you owe me an apology.

Austin

Guglielmo,

You asked for ideas about changing the bylaws. This has not been part of my agenda, so any ideas I have would be quite tentative. Truth is, I haven't done anything at all regarding the Co-op in the last year and a half. Previous to that I spent many months on meetings, appeals, phone calls and et cetera, trying to raise the issue of World Vision with the Co-op and with Salsa So Fresh. After that, I wrote my article for Works In Progress, and that has been it. Even though I do feel that I learned through personal experience how the Co-op could function better, I have done nothing more to make that happen. It is not "my" job, as I am only one person, and the Co-op is a community project, so it's not really for me to decide alone.

That said, here's some tentative ideas which I might suggest:

1) Develop a proposal for regular meetings, open to all members, including staff, at which any and all policy issues can be discussed. Make the meetings accountable by publishing minutes on-line and in print. This would function specifically as a general membership meeting that works as a complement to the already existing Board meetings.

2) Consider changing the current initiative process to make it easier for members to initiate proposals for policy changes at the Co-op.

3) Study proposals for how more members could participate more actively in the staffing and running of the Co-op, in a way that clearly respects the needs of full-time staff, too.

Once again, these are tentative ideas- it should be up to the community as a whole to work out the details.

The point here is that it shouldn't be taken as a personal affront to suggest that a system might benefit from adjustment- each of us plays our role within the existing system, and each of us should be respected- very much including people of faith (or not), Co-op staff, members, and even those with criticisms. We all deserve respect, and at the same time, improving our social agreements could be of benefit to us all. Indeed, dissent and change are essential to many of the most noble things we can uphold, including within our most beloved institutions.

In the last 7 years a number of members have agitated for their own particular issues with the co-op.  Often times these issues have been distractions from the Co-op's core mission, and often the agitators themselves are poorly informed or misinformed about their own issues.

The remarkable thing is not that the co-op fails to immediately satisfy their concerns every time that they have a concern, which would be near impossible, but that the co-op actually does take their concerns seriously and commits a ridiculous amount of staff time to listening to and addressing their concerns.  There may be other institutions out there that claim to care about their membership so much, but I know of no others who commit such resources to actually prove it.

Unfortunately, when a person with a distracting and misinformed concern doesn't get a "win" for their particular issue, they will often deride the process. 

Austin, the co-op has too many members to include the membership in a consensus decision over what kind of salsa the co-op buys.  If that is the kind of world you want, a world where everyone has the right to block any tiny decision made by anyone, well I'd say you've got your work cut out for you.  Because the best of world class organizers will never make that happen.  More likely it would take an army of world class brain-washers.

I am incredibly grateful that I have the privilege to be a member and to shop at a grocery store that takes your concerns so seriously.  But really, I wish you wouldn't waste the staff time at our co-op with such a non-issue. 

The Canaanite's Call

I was surprised by your previous statements condoning World Vision as (apparently) a "good" charity with a history of decent politics. Did you actually read the WIP article, and if so what did you think of the individual allegations?

Just because something is printed in WIP doesn't automatically mean it's true, accurate or even the right thing. How did your lawsuit in Federal Court go?

You can blow out a candle / But you can't blow out a fire / Once the flames begin to catch / The wind will blow it higher

Phil,

Here is a quick reply, as I don't have a lot of time at the moment. Firstly, I want to clarify that my agenda here and now is not focussed on World Vision per se, nor on what happened to me at the Co-op two years ago. Rather, I have been more focussed on making the point that what I learned from my previous experience is that increasing member participation could be a helpful thing.

That said, I want to respond briefly on World Vision and say, sure, there is not ironclad proof that the whole organization is in bed with the CIA. However, as someone who was quite active in the 80's Central America solidarity, I can say without a doubt that they were part of Reagan's right wing evangelical force which was indeed a significant part of the counerinsurgency strategy. Not a very noble or progressive track-record, in my view. As for World Vision now, certainly they have a huge PR machine working, and they have tried to make themselves over as a "legitimate" mainstream aid group. Whether they really are as great as they say is, I think, questionable.

It was my position that strongly urging Salsa So Fresh to find a better aid group like say, Via Campesina or Oxfam would have been very appropriate and helpful. I can't really claim that Co-op staff were very strong and clear on this point. Quite the opposite in specific instances. However, I am mostly over this- that was two years ago.

It really is challenging trying to figure out how to support growth within non-profit organizations which are mission-driven. In the business world, these efforts are protected by the concept of "private property" and, barring illegality, are pretty much sacrosanct.

Community organizations like the Co-op are in a different category- in some ways they function like a business and in other ways they do not. There certainly are food co-ops, even big ones, where everyone participates in running the store. Other places function as collectively-run food stores with little community participation, beyond shopping. There is no one "right" model. However I do feel that increasing member involvement at the Olympia Food Co-op need not be a bad thing, nor "against" anyone's interests. Rather, I think it could be good for all concerned.

Other people may have different perspectives on this, and that's OK. As I said previously, this is not really a priority for me now. I have stated my opinions, and I imagine some people will think about them. That is good enough for me.

Austin