16 February,12012 at 7:00 pm
4824 Baltimore Avenue
Meeting began at 7:03 pm with quorum.

Summary:

Jenna Peters-Golden led an anti-oppression discussion revolving around safe space, a-ha stories, and lessons learned/action steps/ideas on how to make Mariposa a more active and engaged space. We resolved to host a joint board meeting between past and present board members after the March election, as well as some lessons for the new board. The staff thanked the board for a great year. We also discussed the member participation requirement at length, ultimately tabling the matter (post-meeting note: the future board will have to deal with this issue). Elections were discussed, and we will again provide voting for at-large delegates by paper ballot in advance of the election. Lastly, the proposed collaboration between Mariposa Co-op and Mill Creek Farm has been tabled due to Mill Creek’s limited resources at this time.

Board Attendees

Benjamin Jordan (Kat & Ben), Treasurer

Daniel Flaumenhaft (Magpie), at-large delegate

Jakey Greenberg (Dangerous Unicorn Ranch), at-large delegate

Joe McNulty (Sassafras), Facilities/ Expansion committee delegate

Karena Thurston (Plantopia), Secretary, Communications committee

Morgan Andrews (Morgão), at-large delegate

Mica Lopez (Oyaya), at-large delegate

Peter Collopy (Peter Collopy), Convener

Sarah Szymanski (The Mitten), Member Accountability committee delegate

Steve Beuret (Beuret), at-large delegate

Thomasin Parnes (Boat), Staff, Staff Collective committee delegate, FJAR & MAT committees

Clare Hyre (New Dominion), FJAR committee delegate

Non-board Attendees

Genevieve Blake Tung (Genevieve Tung), Scribe

Nancy Wygant (Musubi)

Jenna Peters-Golden (Glowerhouse)

Facilitators:

Guide: Jenna Peters-Golden

Shepherd: Peter Collopy

Agenda Approval (Peter)

Mill Creek farm added at last minute.

Test for concensus to approve the agenda: unanimous approval

Anti-oppression discussion (Jenna)

Jenna led the group through an exercise to generate conversation. Three “stations” were set up, each around a question. Board members spent six minutes per station discussing the question, then rotated to a different station/question. The questions:

What could a safe space feel like? And what would it take? In this case, “safe space” means a physical space and/or meetings, conversations, and other interactive “gears and cogs” that make up Mariposa; spaces in which you feel respected, seen, heard, etc. The goal is to think about what this means for yourself and/or other people—people whose well-being means a great deal to you. If something is already working please say so, but also be expansive and think about moving forward.

What are “a-ha” stories relating to identity & (anti-)oppression from this last year? A-ha stories mean experiences that were troubling, confusing, upsetting, or positive—think about stories you’ve heard, bearing witness to experiences, experiences that stand out in your mind when you think about anti-oppression and safe spaces

What are lessons learned, action steps & *ideas* to make Mariposa a more active & engaged space? The goal is to generate ideas and recall things you’ve heard people talking about.

Board members were encouraged to take notes to preserve the conversation.

Afterwards, many members expressed that the exercise was a positive experience. Everyone shared answers generated in conversation, as follows:

What could a Safe Space feel like? What would it take?

- A welcoming presence; for example, its nice to walk in and hear “hello” and acknowledgement.
- Ladders for short people; good signage to make it easy to see your options
- Having clear rules about what constitutes respectful and disrespectful behavior
- Thinking about safe spaces may also be a aha moment! Talking about safe spaces and things that feel impossible or difficult may help to identify constraints and allow you to work backwards and untangle problems. Making a shift may be possible.

Aha! Stories

- Board members who stepped down, and some others who felt that their skills were not being valued
- Actualizing things that people had understood intellectually but hadn’t felt before
- A lack of clarity in instances involving oppression
- Understanding that encounters with oppression are a common experience, but also an opportunity for growth
- Some instances or types of oppression are more visible than others, even to the people being oppressed. Some may self-silence.
- The work that this board has done in terms of trying to improve its understanding of oppression, and working together, has been helpful.

Action Steps, Ideas, Lessons Learned

- A FJAR library and more anti-oppression training
- Taking opportunities like the Baltimore Dollar stroll for engagement with the broader community
- Informative signage
- Member activities and programs
- Greeter who can keep an eye out for people who are new to the co-op
- Recognizing our general potential to learn and be learned from
- Taking time for opportunities to break out of our routine and do something differently
- Not being afraid to step out of our agenda to address something that needs to be addressed.

Next Step #1:
Clare volunteered to collect participants’ notes on this exercise and distribute them to the board list.

Jenna also gave a concluding nugget of wisdom: the less time you have to talk about anti-oppression, the more stressful the conversation will be. Investing more time will help untangle big knots, and make things more achievable.

Mica reported that there are two anti-oppression workshops (one presented by AORTA and one led by Tyrone). One will be a general working session for all members of the co-op on broad anti-oppression topics and last about 2 hours; as second session will be held for staff, board members, committee members, etc. specifically looking at racism and white privilege and how these things fit into work in the co-op; the group will be looking at structures in place and opportunities and threats in the year ahead. This second session will be 3-4 hours and will serve as a visioning session for future events, including the board retreat.

Peter suggested an agenda amendment to move up the conversation about a Joint Board Meeting and lessons for new board members.

Test for consensus to approve the agenda amendment: UNANIMOUS APPROVAL.

Joint board meeting and lessons for new board members (Peter)

Peter asked Szymanski and Mica for their opinions about having a joint board meeting shortly after the March election, and how this would fit in with a new board orientation.

Szymanski stated that this would be a good idea, allowing for less focus on logistics at the board retreat.
Mica suggested creating a more formal report coming out of the proposed joint meeting to document (and potentially share with the membership) the conversation between the two boards.

Next Step #2:
Peter concluded that this idea of a joint meeting in mid- to late-march is a good idea and he will work on scheduling.

To develop lessons for the new board, current board members turned to the person next to them to brainstorm suggestions. Then everyone shared their ideas with the larger group:

Clare suggested making sure that new board members are given space to enter into the board’s conversation as they feel ready; encouraging participation and answering as many questions for people right off the bat, to help new members to feel secure and understand the process.

Thomasin recalled how useful it has been to start board meetings with warm-up exercises, and how the recent anti-oppression training exercises have both been really helpful and positively affected the energy of the rest of the meeting. Also, when there have been opportunities for board members to hang out outside of the monthly meetings, it allows for trust building.

Mica and Jakey suggested that new board members don’t need to feel like they have to make things happen; there is no need to force things that don’t fit at that place and time. New board members should not rush into important things–things that are more nuanced take time. Things should be done in really quality ways.

Ben suggested getting the board retreat scheduled early, and also suggested two good topics to discuss at the retreat: solid finance training, and training around policy writing.

Peter suggested clarifying the ambiguity of at-large delegate responsibilities; it might make sense to have a break-out session where the at-large delegates come up with standards for what they do, e.g. attending all the membership meeting and spending time at the membership desk.

Karena suggested prioritizing time for activities such as anti-oppression training, warm-up exercises, etc. to help energize the board and break from business-as-usual, which can start to feel more like an obligation after the newness wears off and more time is spent sifting through emails between meetings.

Morgan suggested having food before board meetings, so people don’t have to rush. Providing food could be a rotation for board members, and would also allow some hang-out time before the formal meeting.

Steve and Szymanski cautioned that a new board could feel pretty bewildered. The board spends some time muddling through and other times being more proactive; both of those modes are necessary. It is helpful to remember that the board is still a fairly new thing, without a lot of history behind it, so it is probably to be expected that there will be low-level angst about “are we doing this right.” Recognize that and go with it. Don’t obsess.

Szymanski also suggested that new board members shouldn’t take things as fixed, when so much is in development and improving.

Daniel and Joe suggested activities where the board is divided into smaller groups; sometimes this can be really helpful, but sometimes the board needs to discuss things as a whole. For example, work on the policy/governance side is more a matter of tuning and fixing problems rather than starting from scratch, which allows time to work on personal relationships and interactions.

Clarifying Questions:
>Szymanski asked if the policy currently written as a draft, will it eventually be shared with the membership on a website or similar? Peter answered that it is basically up to date (as of last month) but heretofore this hasn’t been someone’s responsibility. He would suggest that if it doesn’t feel overwhelming, it be connected to the Secretary role because its connected to the maintenance and organization of documents. As long as it is assigned to someone, that would be an improvement. In each case, someone has maintained it because they wanted it done.

Discussion:
>Jenna identified three major categories of lessons for new board members: 1. collective memory and addressing frequently asked questions about policies and structures, 2. The tension and balance between pushing yourselves and being generous with yourselves, while having high expectations, and 3. energy! Lots of lessons were about how to have time with each other and improve the quality of between-board and meeting time.

The group concluded with a breathing exercise.

January Minutes Approval (Karena)
Corrections:
>Morgan asked to confirm that Joshua is no longer on the board; this was confirmed by the group.
>Peter asked to confirm if the board approved the statement on the member labor system. Szymanski recalled that the board did approve the statement.

Test for consensus to confirm approval of the statement on the member labor system: APPROVED
3 ABSTENSIONS: (Morgan, Jakey and Clare)

Test for consensus to approve the minutes with the correction noted above: APPROVED
1 STAND ASIDE: Clare (was absent)

Staff Report (Thomasin)

The staff says “Thank you!” to the board this evening. Thank you for the immense amount of work done this year, and the improvements in the relationship between the Staff and the board—the positive gestures and respect and trust for the staff from this board has been very delightful.

The store is going to open! (Applause). Mariposa must open the new store soon to avoid financial harm. To facilitate opening, the operations committee will be considering 5 new hires shortly. All are overqualified for the job but excited to get to work. The staff was looking for people with a little more experience than might otherwise seek out in the future because they want people who can help with new and unfamiliar tasks.

The last hurdle to opening is the health inspection, which should happen in the next week. If that goes smoothly, the staff can begin to receive all the perishables.

The International Year of the Co-op event last week was amazing and very well attended. This new local co-op alliance, and the recent city council resolution about co-ops, have been great things to celebrate. Stevie reports that the NCBA meeting in Santa Monica was good and he participated and assisted with committee work and work on the budget. He’ll be in touch about putting together an annual report for the general membership meeting on March 10th.

Discussion:

>Steve proclaimed: “[w]e have an awesome staff!” (Applause)

Participation Requirement (Peter)

Some background information: in the membership policy that the board passed almost 2 years ago, there was a requirement mandating participation in lieu of member labor. In May 2011, the board decided to remove this policy and revisit it before May 2012. The board (in May 2011) asked the member participation working group to come up with a recommendation for implementation of this policy. Unfortunately that working group broke apart, and now the board has no recommendation. Nancy, who was involved in the original group working on this proposal, wanted to bring this to the board to readdress the issue.

Nancy described the thinking that went into the policy for those who were not a part of those discussions: if shopping is open to non-members and members aren’t required to work (and thereby be engaged with the co-op), then it seems the core of what membership is turns on investing equity and potentially being involved in governance. Especially since Mariposa is expanding so rapidly and bringing so many new people in to membership, for people to effectively latch on to the idea of being potentially involved in governance, they need information on how the co-op works and what its values are, and should be able to learn how they can get engaged in being an owner-member. The hope was that it would make sense for members to show up a couple times a year to some kind of workshop or training to share information and build community. For example, when new members join they attend an orientation; other meetings could be about the nature of consensus decision making, what it means to be a co-op, what issues are important to Mariposa (e.g., the kinds of foods it sells), where the food comes from, the way that Mariposa is trying to be engaged in the community in terms of economic justice, anti-oppression, etc. so that people have a sense of how the co-op is structured and how new members can be involved. There would ideally be a wide variety of these programs going on to appeal to lots of members and their diverse interests.

Clarifying Questions:

>Clare asked: how can we tap into things that are already happening? The co-op may need to create extra programming, but we could also check on what programs are already occurring to streamline that work.

>Morgan asked: What if there is a reason that a member chooses to be non-working because he or she doesn’t have the time to put in? How much of a time commitment do we want to ask for someone who doesn’t want to put in that time (working)? Nancy replied that, in previous conversations, it came to two workshops a year, assuming each workshop is an hour or two. Alternatively, members could attend the general membership meetings. There were some people who wanted the commitment to be more; there were others who wanted it to be just one event; they ended up consensing on 2 events per year.

>Mica asked: has MAT talked about this at all, in terms of a division in when you are considered a member or not? Szymanski answered that they have just been getting through keeping track of working groups. With participation requirements, new questions will be raised about who is keeping track of participation, and how participation is reported or recorded.

>Ben asked: are we working towards a resolution? Peter answered that there is no resolution on paper, but the board could easily re-activate the previous proposal. Ben asked if the point of this conversation was to decide if the board should come up with a proposal and Peter answered yes, and if the board chose to move forward, to delegate that task to a few people.

Discussion:

>Thomasin directed a comment to members of the education committee: Esteban just offered an update on the incredible amount of activities and partnerships coming up over the next few months that we can advertise to members. Clare is working on a calendar.

>Karena recalled that before the participation working group stopped meeting, the biggest obstacle was how to implement the policy. Once a requirement was put in place, the group had no idea how to track or manage a group of non-working members and what events they were attending to maintain accountability.

>Daniel described how, when the board passed the new membership policy setting up the optional workshift system and a participation requirement, the original thought was that they would be replacing workshifts for everyone with some small amount of participation. There were not enough activities for new non-working members to participate in to make that shift directly. The board temporarily delayed implementation. Unfortunately, re-imposing that requirement becomes much harder now because the board will be saying to new members: “you don’t have a workshift, but you have something else to do instead.” Parallel to that, everyone agrees participation is a good thing. We’re working to get things done within Mariposa and neighborhood organizations, and the Philadelphia area co-op organization has been approaching Mariposa about doing things together. The energy the co-op would put into devising a participation system, and enforcing that system, would be better directed towards building participation in other ways. Stating that we “recommend” that people attend events would probably get just as many people involved as creating a mandate and then going through the bureaucratic process of expelling members for non-compliance.

>Morgan made an initial proposal: To be a nonworking member, you have to go to orientation and pay your equity on schedule, and you are “supposed” to attend at least two events per year, such as meetings and trainings. The orientation is great (“it rocks”) and hooks people, and when the co-op tells new members about its many great workshops, new members will get hooked. The majority of the membership will do what they are supposed to do, reap the benefits, and want to participate without any enforcement aspect.

>Nancy reflected that, within Mariposa, there has been a history of “soft” requirements with no consequences for non-compliance (such as recording purchases made during after-hours shopping), which allowed the co-op to sink itself into a fairly deep hole. Having experimented with that strategy sufficiently, Mariposa should either decide that it wants to have a firm expectation with consequences, or say “there are workshops and if you want to come, that’s good.”

>Morgan suggested that there is no negative consequence to the rest of the co-op if members don’t show up to membership meetings or workshops, so it will balance itself out.

>Peter stated that, in his personal opinion, because this is a decision that effects the requirements underlying membership, the board should not make the decision. The membership should make this decision.

Morgan’s proposal was re-formulated: for working members, the discount requires fulfilling work hours; for non-working members you must attend an orientation, pay your equity on time, and you are “supposed” come to two events per year.

Peter made a friendly amendment to limit the proposal to only the third part (about non-working members). The amendment was taken and proposal restated as follows: “non-working members are supposed to come to two events per year.”

>Thomasin noted that it seems confusing and not intuitive that the board would craft a policy that members are “supposed” to do something. What is the goal here?

>Steve recalled that, when the board argued this proposal out ten months ago, it came out with a solution in the middle. When it came down to consensing on a final proposal, the board parked it and stepped away. Everyone was pretty consensed on the general make-up of the requirement. Now it seems like we are dismissing it entirely, and that doesn’t feel right. Since Mariposa is 1,200 people-strong now, his concern is that the co-op is going to develop into a large voting membership and a tiny knot of “co-op geeks” that are really tied-up in things. The board made a decision and staked out a territory, and he is reluctant to drop that.

>Jakey replied by noting that Mariposa has put on several hundred members since the board last had this discussion. That is a large number. This conversation echoes what happened with proxy shoppers. It seems like the right thing to do, and makes sense on some level, but there is a risk of an extreme backlash from people who might feel they were lured into membership with the non-working status who will now experience a feeling of “bait-and-switch.” Members may be disappointed. It would be difficult to implement without engendering ill-will.

>Mica commented that these are really important ideas and would like to distill and bring before the membership. It is not a bait and switch; Mariposa has put a lot of energy into opening the new store, but it has always abided by the principles of cooperative organization. It could be really powerful if the board is able to build this requirement without coercing people using a carrot approach. For example, if a member organizes and is rewarded for creating an event, it may encourage people to take on greater accountability and create opportunities for leaders within the co-op.

>Daniel reflected on how the board passed the policy with a time to implement. The board then made a decision to suspend for a year. Basically, what Morgan’s proposal would do would replace that section with a slightly different version. Peter’s proposal is to have the members change the policy with something slightly different. Either way it would be a change to an existing policy, not doing something new.

>Peter noted that the policy manual indicates that the board did not technically suspend the policy (meaning it would go into effect automatically without additional action); rather the board removed the policy from the text. At this juncture, the board could decide to put the policy back into the text, or it could choose to put something else in its place.

>Morgan suggested that the board could change the language of his proposal from “supposed to” to “get to,” such that it would read “non-working members get to come to at least two events per year for free.”

>Jakey asked: at what point does the board discuss whether it is appropriate for it to make this decision? Peter answered that this doesn’t need to be a proposal, it is just a matter of putting it on a general membership meeting agenda (for the summer or fall of 2012).

>Jenna suggested that, procedurally, it appears that the board can do anything it wants. A test for consensus could help move things along.

>Thomasin reiterated that they did not understand how the suggested language could be policy. Morgan replied that the proposal “doesn’t mean anything by itself,” but would have to be viewed in light of how it works in combination with the other surrounding statements (i.e., requirements). It is about how Mariposa positions itself out in the community.

>Peter clarified that the board has the option of passing proposals that do not create policies—technically called resolutions. These are primarily used to thank staff who are leaving, but they could be used for other purposes. It is common for legislative bodies. This is how he is interpreting Morgan’s proposals—non-binding resolutions recommending participation to co-op members:

“Members who are not members of working groups are supposed to attend two or more co-op endorsed events per year.”

>Thomasin suggested a friendly amendment: “strongly encouraged” or some other articulation instead of “supposed to.” Morgan modified this to “are encouraged”?

Test for consensus to approve the non-binding resolution “Members who are not members of working groups are encouraged to attend two or more co-op endorsed events per year.”:

3 STAND ASIDE: (Steve, Ben and Mica)
1 BLOCK: (Joe)

The non-binding resolution did not pass.

Joe commented that the fact that this issue still generating this much conversation makes the Test for Consensus feel like it is being rushed. There should be some kind of encouragement for member participation, but he would agree with Peter that this might be a membership decision.

Peter announced that the matter is tabled.

Jakey suggested that the board stand up and take a moment to process emotions from the previous discussion.

Test for consensus to approve a proposal to add 10 minutes to the meeting: UNANIMOUS APPROVAL

The board took a moment to stretch and get water. Then the board quickly played “Telephone” before coming back to business.

Elections (Peter)

Peter provided update on preparation for the March elections. There are several nominees who are known to be, or sound, fantastic.

The Mariposa website page featuring descriptions of candidates was projected.

The convener slate has two people: a convener and a co-convener. The co-convener position doesn’t yet exist, but if the board votes for it, it will. If Szymanski becomes convener, another delegate slot will open. Most of the committees have submitted information on who will be representing them. The staff committee is going to nominate someone as well. Many other people have been nominated for or nominated themselves as at-large delegates; some are also running as committee delegates (using the at-large seat as a “back-up” plan). There should be about 10 people running for 5 seats. Please check out all of the candidate statements online. Many people who are running for at-large seats are new to Mariposa but have extensive experience from other organizations.

Last year, Mariposa used computers as ballot stations, including advance voting on the computer in the store basement. Very few people took advantage of this service. We could do that again with the limitation that, for one week, there will be no store. Last year, advance voting happened thanks to Joshua doing all the work and Peter helping. It is unclear if this is worth the effort. Are there people who want to help make that happen? The task mostly involves training cashiers, who will be on the front lines of helping people to cast their ballots.

Discussion:

>Jakey stated they felt very strongly that this should happen and would like to help make it happen. This would be a great way to help people who have to work during this election. It is really important that the co-op offer that option.

>Mica suggested that, in the worst case scenario, they could use paper ballots. Doing something as an alternative is important. In fact, paper ballots might work better, because the basement is creepy. In the future, people may be able to vote online at the Member Services desk.

>Jakey volunteered to design a ballot and create a “phone book” of candidate bios. Advance ballots also need to have space for the name and house name of person casting them, to ensure that votes are cast by Mariposa members.

Next step #3: Design paper ballots and book of candidate biographies
Person/committee responsible: Jakey
Deadline: unspecified

Mill Creek Farm (Peter)

A while ago, Mariposa sent a letter to the Mill Creek Farm board regarding a proposed collaboration with them, including delegation of some Mill Creek staff functions to Mariposa. This would enable Mariposa to make productive use of extra staff time once the co-op gets over the hump of expansion. Mill Creek sent a letter back today. This letter indicates that Mill Creek has limited resources right now and doesn’t feel that they can do a lot of development around the partnership or pay for a consultant. However, they have a need for fundraising support and would be interested in making short-term arrangements for a shared-administrative staff for many tasks that Mariposa would be interested in. As far as fundraising support, the board may tell Mill Creek the co-op has had a good experience with Leah and provide her with a reference; however, there may be no need for Mariposa to be involved directly with that going forward. That is the state of that relationship. Peter has primarily been in conversation with Esteban and Joe on this, and would be happy to send another letter.

A quick addendum on the legal clinic: Joe McNulty and Peter have also been the face of Mariposa for liaisons with the Penn Law Entrepreneurship legal clinic. Each semester Mariposa is assigned a different third year law student who does work on the co-op’s behalf. This term Mariposa has asked them to identify issues for a partnership with Mill Creek Farm that would allow Mariposa to take advantage of Mill Creek’s 501(c)(3) status. However, Mill Creek might not be ready over the course of this semester, so Mariposa may not be able to take advantage of that legal help. We may have other legal questions going forward. Mariposa has the resources to make this happen on our end, but Mill Creek may need a little more time.

Checkouts: “Battery Check” and celebratory yelp.

Meeting adjourned at 9:11 pm.

15 December, 2011 at 7:00 pm
4824 Baltimore Avenue
Meeting began at 7:03 pm with quorum.

Summary:

The board approved Clare Hyre as the new FJAR delegate who will fill the void left by Tyneisha Bowens’ resignation.  The board discussed Tyneisha’s resignation in an executive session.  There were a lot of suggestions and recommendations that came out of this discussion that should be reviewed by everyone, and referenced by future board members as well.

All hands are needed on deck in January as we start to transition into the new store.  Everyone is encouraged to help out, including non-member friends and neighbors, so spread the word.

The Operations Committee appointments were approved.

The working group membership standards policy was approved, and Peter and Szymanski will be doing more work around this.

Board improvement was discussed and the board decided to work on creating a resolution that will be grounded in our mission and publicly displayed.

Board Attendees

Benjamin Jordan (Kat & Ben), Treasurer

Clare Hyre (New Dominion), FJAR committee delegate

Daniel Flaumenhaft (Magpie), at-large delegate

Jakey Greenberg (Dangerous Unicorn Ranch), at-large delegate

Joe McNulty (Sassafras), Facilities/ Expansion committee delegate

Karena Thurston (Plantopia), Secretary

Mica Lopez (Oyaya), at-large delegate

Peter Collopy (Peter Collopy), Convener

Sarah Szymanski (Julius Caesar), Member Accountability committee delegate

Steve Beuret (Beuret), at-large delegate

Thomasin Parnes (Boat), Staff, Staff Collective committee delegate, FJAR & MAT committees

Non-board Attendees

Genevieve Tung (Genevieve Tung), Scribe

Dan Ohlemiller (Fortress of Solitude), Staff

Esteban Kelly (Felicidade Sim), Staff

Facilitators:

Peter

Ben

Absent:
Morgan Andrews (Morgão), at-large delegate, excused absence

Introductions and Announcements
Peter asked everyone to participate in the ongoing new member campaign, and described the financial incentives for members who introduce new members to the co-op.

Agenda Approval: Peter
The proposed agenda was projected.

Clarifying Questions:

•  Mica asked if there would be any time to discuss “board improvements”?  Peter added that item to the end of the agenda, for discussion as time allowed.

Test for consensus: Unanimous approval.

Approving Clare Hyre’s appointment as Food Justice and Anti-Racism Working Group delegate
Tyneisha was the former FJAR delegate, and there have been previous discussions on who should replace her in that role.  Clare had worked with Tyneisha on the Rooted in Community Conference last summer; she also works for Weaver’s Way as an educator within high schools.  She has done a lot of work with co-ops and youth on issues of racism and food justice.  Tyneisha’s shoes are hard to fill, but Clare hopes to do a great job advocating for the things FJAR is focused on, including working on the youth membership initiative with Esteban.

Clarifying Questions:
Ben asked Clare if she wanted to be on the board?  Clare answered: Yes!

• Daniel asked if the board should be discussing Tyneisha’s resignation before discussing her replacement.  Peter indicated that, since the resignation has already occurred, if Clare is approved up front she can participate as a board member for the rest of the meeting.  Daniel stated that he thinks it is relevant to how the board views FJAR issues and whether the resignation is serious.  Jakey asked Daniel to clarify, and he indicated that the questions the board might want to ask Clare could be affected by discussing the resignation.  However, they probably won’t impact her acceptance on/by the board.

Discussion

• Esteban pointed out that the proposal is from FJAR, and reiterated that Clare is the person that FJAR has nominated for a board seat.  His understanding is that the board’s duty is to decide whether Clare is a good fit for the board; otherwise the board’s inquiry could be construed as overreaching into FJAR’s internal processes.  He asked the board to honor the democratic process that happened within the committee.
• Thomasin indicated that Clare’s board participation sounded great.
• Peter noted that this is the first mid-term board appointment, and asked Clare to leave during the board’s discussion as is customarily done during other elections.

Test for consensus: unanimous approval.  (Applause!)

November minutes approval: Karena
Karena noted that, in addition to other changes discussed previously, she had made two other corrections this week: adding and correcting names of non-board attendees, and removing the word “vote” from the minutes to reflect our consensus-based processes.

Discussion

• Karena informed everyone that, for future meetings, she will check in beforehand to confirm if anyone wants a paper copy of the minutes to avoid waste.

Test for consensus to approve the November minutes:

1 ABSENTION: Clare (did not attend the previous meeting).

Staff Report: Thomasin
As of the last meeting the board was waiting for a response from Rath Radelman to accept a job on staff; Rath has declined and is no longer working in the store.

The staff held a meeting today regarding cashier hiring.  Although they have received hundreds of applicants for the positions, they’ve had only one person who has come through the interview process who was qualified and who was also a good match; they are still working on it. The interns from Oberlin College will be arriving soon and working on membership coordination, etc.

They also started talking today about hiring temporary workers to assist with the transition.  This was strongly recommended by Weaver’s Way, and the hope is that this may help avoid employee burnout from overwork in the upcoming months.  These workers would not be collective track; they will be strictly temporary unless things really pick up after the opening of the new store and they want to stay on and are found to be a good fit.

They had a great meeting today with Weaver’s Way, and were able to learn a lot from hearing about their expansion process; they have been very generous with offering their people and expertise with regard to store set up, etc.  Their staff includes experienced merchandisers.

 The target opening date is now January 28, 2012.  The earlier date, January 14, was proving to be unrealistic.  The timelines have been updated accordingly, and everyone is getting concrete about specific tasks.  Esteban asked us to identify an “all hands on deck” period so everyone could be available.  This period will start on January 2 and continue until opening.  They’d like to inform the board about this to welcome any help.

Esteban added that, with regard to the meeting with Weaver’s Way and opening dates, the current soft opening is scheduled for a Saturday, and they (Weaver’s Way) strongly suggested that it be moved to a later day, such as Wednesday, so the grand opening can be on a Saturday.  A soft opening (with members-only shopping) before the general public is welcomed in will allow for any kinks to be worked out.  Please keep in mind that the January 28th date is a Saturday and is subject to adjustment.

Thomasin added that the staff is spread really thin right now and the strain is getting worse, however many people have stepped up with support, so thanks!  Thank you in particular for providing trays of baked goods!

 Clarifying Questions:

• Joe asked if, in terms of moving to new store, if a reminder go out to the membership to allow them to stock up.  Thomasin indicated that they were working on such a reminder.
• Karena asked if, given the “all hands on deck” and strain on staff, there could be a “signup” sheet for different tasks so more people could chip in.  Thomasin answered that, yes, they are working on that too, especially for tasks that aren’t part of the day-to-day, including a calendar for non-staff participants.
• Steve asked if the staff could make use of non-member volunteers.  Yes!
• Ben suggested that the board should get a gift for Weaver’s Way, and if it would be possible for people on committees to see if they can get January meetings to be in the new store.  Thomasin replied that it will depend on specific committees and their essential duties during that time, but that it would be nice if possible.

 Membership meeting report: Peter
Peter projected the agenda from the membership meeting.  He summarized the meeting, noting that the June and September minutes had been approved.  The “workshift changes” small groups discussion was very productive and successful.  The staff collected notes from all five small groups.  The membership approved the youth membership bylaws amendment, which opens the door to drafting a youth membership policy.  Clare and Esteban are working on it.  The membership approved most of the staff bylaws amendment, but didn’t approve removing the personnel committee from the bylaws.  That means there is now an operations committee in the bylaws, to which the board can appoint staff to and other people for up to one-year terms.  That is on the agenda today.  That operations committee can also hire people, with board approval, if the new-hires fall into a management role.  Finally, the membership approved the 2012 budget.

Discussion:

• Szymanski asked about how the budget discussion went, i.e., were people confused/ attentive/ enthusiastic/ etc.?  Ben asked other people to comment.  Jakey indicated that the budget presentation was at the very end, so the members were tired and ready to leave.  That said, they felt that Ben and Dan did a good job explaining the budget, and given the patience that the audience had at the time, things went well.
• Dan asked if there was a quorum at the time the budget was discussed.  Jakey replied that, while there was less than a quorum at the outset, they had retrieved people who were leaving to maintain a quorum for the budget discussion.
• Daniel pointed out that the board has come far in terms of its financial discussions.  While some quick explanations were needed, it went as well as it possibly could.
• Karena noted that the notes will go out tonight or early tomorrow morning for those who weren’t there.  She thanked Mica for taking notes.

Resignation of Tyneisha Bowens: Thomasin
The discussion of Tyneisha Bowens’ resignation was moved to an executive session status with staff members present to participate in the discussion.  The discussion of Tyneisha’s resignation will not be included in the notes.

Discussion (Next Steps):

•  Mica suggested the board make a commitment to undertaking a training and awareness process on privilege and oppression.
• Szymanski articulated a need for some form of support for when racist incidents occur, such as creating a caucus for groups to raise problems or demands to the co-op as a whole, to avoid losing sight of things that not everyone is aware of.
• Daniel raised the issue of retrieving Mariposa’s identity as a social justice organization against the backdrop of its day-to-day operations.
• Thomasin suggested that the group think critically about board makeup and what the board wants the organization to be.
• Karena raised the issue of emotional literacy and suggested talking about what that means and doing training on emotionally literacy, distinct from (and in addition to) anti-oppression training.
• Thomasin: during a long staff meeting, we discussed procedures and processes that we should take up as a staff, e.g., ideas on how to address issues or incidents of racism in the store.
• Peter asked who would like to bottom-line the next steps.  Esteban said that, for some of the training, he would like FJAR-allies to prioritize addressing these issues in their schedules.  FJAR can find trainers and make the next steps happen if the board is willing to step up.  Peter replied that, as far as scheduling is concerned, he would be happy to make that happen.
• Ben suggested that it would be helpful to use board funds to bring someone in to give a quick recap at the end of board meetings to help identify intra-board issues and help the group address them.  There is unspent money in the budget for such a resource.
• Szymanski raised the issue that, as far as applying intentionality regarding board makeup and recruiting delegates, it would be helpful to get advice on doing that without tokenizing people.  Does FJAR have a way they can work with the board on that?  Clare stated that FJAR could definitely work with all of the board on this problem.  Everyone on the board has a lot of good ideas, if we took time to come up with a plan, it would be good.
• Mica suggested that digesting last March’s meeting and looking at past examples would be instructive, so the board doesn’t have to imagine something abstract going forward.
• Karena suggested that future boards chart the annual calendar in March to include additional retreats and training dates so these don’t get lost by the wayside as everyone’s schedules fill up in the fall and throughout the holidays.

Esteban suggested that board members send future ideas to Peter.

Peter concluded that he was looking forward to continuing this conversation.

 Operations committee appointments: Thomasin
The staff presented a set of nominees they are asking the board to appoint to the Operations Committee:

Chakka: marketing and outreach

Dan: finance

Dana: membership coordination

Thomasin: grocery coordination

Rebecca: front end and personnel

Esteban: education coordinator

Bull: produce

Thomasin indicated that front-end coordination will be handled by Rebecca.  The staff doesn’t feel that it can go through a hiring process at this moment, so Rebecca will be handling this in the interim.

Discussion:

• Szymanski stated that this slate is what they had imagined the operations committee would be – a positive development.
• Daniel indicated that he generally agrees, and wanted to comment that operations (as normally considered) doesn’t include “education” as a department.  However, the conception of the Operations Committee includes the idea that there will be a need to have input from people in their role as “wise people,” as well as those who represent a specific department, and Esteban is very wise and it makes sense to have him on board.

Test for Consensus to approve these seven candidates: Approved

1 ABSTENTION: Clare

Working group membership standards: Peter
This has been changing rapidly over the past few days.

In the Membership and Shopping Policy, initially enacted on August 19, 2010 and chapter VI of the Policy Handbook, we changed article III, section 3, on Working Groups. Specifically, we removed the sentence

The standard for active membership and procedures for enforcement shall be determined for each working group by the Board of Delegates and recorded in the policy manual section of that working group.

We replaced it with

The standard for active membership and procedures for enforcement shall be determined for each working group by the Operations Committee if the group primarily performs tasks in the store or office and by the Membership Accountability Team if not. The Member Accountability Team shall record this standard and procedure in the policy manual section on that working group.

There has been discussion lately about reworking this section.  Peter worked on a redrafting of this policy that specifically referenced a number of hours worked.  In subsequent discussions, however, Daniel suggested the language should be run by an attorney in case there are any relevant labor law issues.  

There is no explicit number of hours stated, so it’s possible that the Operations Committee could work out the methods for which we set hours for in-store workshifts, and use that as a basis for non-store shifts to set comparable and fair standards.

In addition to changing this sentence in the membership policy, there have been private discussions on whether to delegate to some people (Peter and Szymanski) to address why the co-op would be on better footing with a working group system.  They had also discussed delegating to Peter the task of obtaining a legal opinion from the attorney Laddie Lushin, who is a supporter of co-ops.

Clarifying Questions:

• Steve asked to clarify the exact language of the proposal and to confirm that any legal input will happen later.  Peter replied yes, and specified that in addition to the proposal, the board delegates to Peter and Szymanski the task of composing for presentation a statement of purpose to bring before the board.  The following language was added to the proposed revision to the policy:
•  Daniel asked if the new language would replace existing policy text?  Peter confirmed that, yes, the new language would replace the old language (reprinted at the top of this section).  Daniel followed up by asking if the board could include in the proposal a reference to the policy it replaces?  Peter indicated he would communicate as such to Karena.

Discussion:

• Karena indicated that the language looked good and was delegated to the right people.
• Szymanski stated that they had been confused about the previous policy and was glad to be taking this up and developing processes for compiling descriptions and managing enforcement.  However, it’s unclear if this will be changed by the fact that it’s determined by the Operations Committee – who will be responsible for compilation?
• Daniel replied that, in practice, this is something the membership coordinator will end up keeping track of.
• Szymanski suggested that it is a good idea for MAT to take this up because the member coordinator is on the committee and we can work closely with them and with their input, whereas there is not always administrative staff on the board.
• Daniel stated that, although he was nervous about the legal issues with regard to the original version, he is now pretty happy with the proposed revisions.  The old policy didn’t make sense anymore because the co-op will no longer have the participation requirement and member labor was getting compensated with percentages—this is more consistent.

Test for consensus on the following:

The standard for active membership and procedures for enforcement shall be determined for each working group by the Operations Committee if the group primarily performs tasks in the store or office and by the Membership Accountability Team if not.  It shall be recorded in the policy manual section on that working group.

The board delegates to Peter and Szymanski composing for presentation to the board a statement of purpose of the working group system.  The board delegates to Peter consulting with Laddie Lushin on the legal ramification of our working group system.  Peter will communicate the section replacement info to Karena.

Approved.

1  ABSTENTION: Jakey

March membership meeting and elections: Peter

The process for board elections starts 60 days prior to the election with a call for nominations.  The co-op is supposed to have the election in March, so everyone has at least two weeks to prepare.  Peter recommends Saturdays for membership meetings.  He would prefer to have it early in the month to allow a new board to get active.  Peter recommends March 3, 2012, with March 10 as backup date.

There were no specific objections to those dates in particular.  Peter will email this out and allow everyone to consult their calendars.

Clarifying Questions:

• Joe asked if anyone present was in school or had knowledge of when academic spring breaks would be.  The group concluded that break-dates depend on the school. Peter will solicit feedback on the March 3 date.

 Board Improvement: Mica

Mica solicited ideas for ways to improve the board.

Discussion:

• Szymanski suggested that, since the board’s 2-hour monthly meetings were really packed, it might be good to find more time to address the many issues that arise at the board level.  Three hour board meetings may not be productive, but there could be alternatives, such as less formal gatherings of board members.
• Jakey suggested that, in the weeks leading up to the March gathering, board members wrote blurbs reflecting on their board experience.  These could be distributed before the meeting to generate excitement about the board and the elections.
• Ben asked if everyone is on a one-year term.  Peter explained that officers serve for one year, while at-large and committee delegates are on staggered 2 year terms.
• Szymanski asked if the board is going to be adding people.  Peter noted that Peter, Joe, Steve, Karena and Ben all had terms coming to a close.  Szymanski, Morgan and Mica will be continuing, and everyone else can run for re-election.
• Joe stated that he will be recommending that his committee no longer have a delegate.
• Szymanski asked if the board will seek to fill board seats that are currently vacant.  Peter answered that they would, unless there is an amendment to change that arrangement.
• Peter noted that Szymanski’s question brought up some issues about the election, such as the need for an election working group; some of the people who are the best equipped to deal with election issues are those with continuing terms.  He asked any interested board members to contact him.
• Mica stated that it would be good to see people signing off on a commitment stating that the board is committed to driving change and explicitly stating board responsibilities to that end, such as addressing racist/sexist/classist issues.  Individual sign-offs would recommit the board to its mission and anti-oppressive intent.

Peter displayed the mission statement and suggested it be hung on a wall.  Peter read the statement aloud.

•  Jakey asked Mica if they should create a letter that could be signed, or perhaps a poster-sized document that could be hung on a wall – more like a project charter – that would be publicly visible.
• Daniel suggested that it should be a resolution for the board – grounded in our mission statement.  He also offered support for Szymanski’s suggestion about spending more time together as a board.  However, he noted that if the board wants to be gathering more frequently, they should be prepared for not everyone to be available at the same time.  Also, larger groups give each person less time to speak, and intensify differences in ability to be heard.
• Steve seconded the idea that, if more frequent meetings are held, not everyone will be able to (or need to) attend.

Checkouts

Meeting adjourned at 9:12 pm.