Works In Progress - August 2003 - Member-Owned Co-op, or What? Two local farmers argue for greater membership participation in major decisions at the Olympia Food Coop

Recently I found out that the Coop was thinking about buying scanners. I heard that a couple of my friends were going to a forum that night on the subject to share their opinions and get some information. The news I got was that the decision had already been made and the Coop was going to take out an $80,000 plus loan to pay for them. So a few of us who did not like the decision, nor the lack of notification and inclusiveness in making that decision, got together and arranged for a meeting with the board of the Coop. The day before our meeting we were informed by a board member that the scanners had been purchased.

That happened fast, especially since I have this feeling that not many people knew that scanners were even being considered in the first place. And an $80,000 loan, which will cost much more than that with interest, is an awful lot of money to spend without involving the membership. So myself and four others went to the board meeting to share our opinions and brought three proposals. First that the scanner decision be put off until members can get more information and make a vote. Second was to have a written policy for a process to go through before any kind of new technology is invested into at the Coop. The last was to have the next issue of the Coop Newsletter dedicated to the scanner issue so people can hear all sides, from staff to members and pros and cons. The only answer we heard that night was that the newsletter idea was not possible because there is currently, and no plans to find, an editor; so no Coop newsletter. ( I am saddened by this as well so hopefully some of us can get together to get the link between members and the Coop in print again soon!) A couple of days later we got a call from a board member and were told that scanners were still going forth as planned. He also said that there would be a technology protocol put into place for the future.

So why does the staff want computers? It was a staff decision and it is not every day that they can come to consensus on such an issue. To get their views, which vary from individual to individual, talk to them. I do want to mention and respond to some reasons that I have heard from staff personally and in a report from a couple of staff on scanners. Any quotations are from this report. One reason is better tracking of products "sales activity by category, subcategory, and individual item. This can help us make merchandising decisions that can improve the Coops margin (bottom line) quickly." Another reason is more free time since they will not be marking or marking down prices. And also less bookkeeping since it will all be computerized. Then there is accuracy, "with the scanner system, cashiers will no longer need to distinguish which category an item belongs to." Also "We feel certain that there is still a wide margin of error in the system we currently use, particularly in the frozen, bulk, and produce departments." I do not disagree that these are problems at the Coop, but with the premise that computers are the answer.

A computer can keep a record of products, yet everything must still be put into the computer initially. I am a local farmer that sells a small amount to the Coop, and every time we sell some produce it will have to be priced in the computer with a correlating number. And this file will have to be gone into again every time a price change occurs, which is very frequent with produce. Again from the staff's own report, "We would develop staff operating procedures and job descriptions that would support the new system." It will take lots of energy to learn the system, and to train new staff. Other systems could be set up to deal with these issues that use people as the solution and not computers. And then the money could be used to support some local folks and not be diverted out of the community into corporate hands. If there are errors in bulk, frozen, and produce currently are computers our only answer? If anything these computers will further disconnect staff from understanding and being a part of the system that will keep track of all the products.

It does break down to philosophical differences on where we want to go as a Coop. If I had my druthers our big financial expenditures would go into starting other cooperatives locally that could sell products through the Coop. This reinvestment into local production will help us build a more sustainable community and strengthen our ties to each other. It also is emphasizing more small-scale production to be sold at the Coop and a move from out of region products. I am sure there are lots of local people who would eagerly participate in projects such as these.

But the issue of the scanners is not just the decision made, but the process used to make the decision. Obviously I do not agree with the scanner idea, but if there had been genuine participation by everyone involved I would feel differently. Currently a big issue in Olympia is the convention center. Most people want a voice, a vote, in the decision. After all these will be the city's biggest financial expenditure for the next few years, and people should be able to decide where their money goes. The scanner situation is very similar, we at the Coop should be able to decide if we want to take out a loan to pay a computer company and a bank (remember the interest) or do we want to invest it locally. I remember hearing lots about alcohol and if it should be sold at the Coop; there was even a vote even if it was not binding. So next time you are in the Coop or see a board member talk with them about scanners, and how important it is for us all to be a part of where the Coop is going. Not only do we need a binding vote on the issue, but more continuity in how these bigger decisions are made at the Coop in the future.

Don Grower:

Why has the Co-op purchased a new scanner system for our stores without proper notification of its membership and without the membership's involvement in the decision-making process? Every member will be affected by this decision, the ramifications extreme! A $100,000 loan from (unknown) lender to purchase high-tech equipment from (unknown) out of region (nonmember) corporation. This non-member decision will adversely affect all members, staff, and local wholesalers, as well as the exploited people and their lands that this technology depends on.

The $100,000 purchase and installation of scanners at the co-ops supports out of region corporations that have no connection to the membership or our community. When these machines break down, when new parts are needed, when repair people need to be called, when more software (and hardware) are needed later on down the line to make the whole interfacing of systems work, our money will be spent out of region.

This technology supports a system in which the 'bar-code' becomes the standard and local becomes obsolete. Local members who produce crafts, tinctures, oils, soaps, vegetables or other foods will have the door of opportunity shut that much more tightly while the large out of region corporation (non-member) will have that same door open that much wider because the scanner technology supports big business. As a local farmer selling food to the Co-op, I already feel the corporate squeeze by the present system. When the scanners go in, it won't be long before the already few local producers won't be seen at the Co-op at all. It sure goes against the idea of supporting what's local.

It should also be noted that the use of the scanner system is part of a marketing system crafted to make dumber consumers. It will limit our interactions with the cashier and disconnect us from the cash cost of individual items. There won't be any need to write the price down; when you get home and look at that pound of butter, you won't find the price. It might become like a Bayview experience. Of course, as dumber consumers we won't need the bare bones connection to price, we'll just need to consume. I somehow had the notion that being a member of the Co-op, I might be groomed as a more educated consumer, not the opposite. Is that why the membership was not involved in the purchase decision?

Then there is the out of region toll far away and usually out of sight. As North Americans we represent about 5% of the world's population and consume by theft about 50% of the world's resources. The ruling elite of our country are able to extract these resources through rape, torture and murder of mostly defenseless populations around the world. The theft of resources include but are not limited to things such as oil, gold, cotton, copper, trees, water, and, of course, slaves. We participate by believing our standard of living is justifiable, "we deserve all our high-tech gadgetry because we deserve more free time - it helps ease our load." We deserve it more than others, even if our high-tech gadgetry is stained with the blood of millions who slave away for a wage we would never work for. Nor would we knowingly expose ourselves to such toxic materials as we find in the high-tech industry. That is left to people with darker skin than most of us in countries far away, predominantly done by women and children.

We support this insane behavior by not seriously questioning our behavior and in turn the Co-op's behavior in the decision to leave its members out of the process.

All technology should be questioned thoroughly in these times. It is true the co-op already has high-tech equipment like computers. Should it be questioned? It is nice that they are in the back room where 95% of us members never see them. There is not one member who will be able to escape the new scanner system if they are installed. We as members need to be in on the decision-making process.

True peace & justice issues usually revolve around class issues, the 'haves' and the 'have-nots'. If the Co-op staff and membership want to support peace & justice issues, then a truly comprehensive dialogue which would include the membership in the decision-making process to install a scanner system would take place. Is it more effective to march with signs in the streets a couple of times a year, or maybe critically question our lifestyles.

father, farmer, member

Don Grower

p.s. - this is being posted in the WIP 'cause the Co-op newsletter is defunct (according to the Board of Trustees) and no plans to get it going again.