Anyway, we had a recent election at the Co-op for the self-proclaimed Staff Advocacy Team. I never received a single email or a single bit of information about this little clique whatsoever, during the last year and half. I gather, however, that six people, all who were part of the group of insiders who created the SAT in the first place, were nominated to become the officers of the SAT, all, intriguingly, with the apparent imprimatur of the Leadership Team at the Coop.
Today I was finally informed as to who "won" the "election" (I put quotation marks around "won" because most of us have no idea what winning meant in this "election", percentage of the vote? majority of the vote?). An epistle arrived in my email proclaiming proudly that 25% of the staff voted the SAT--actually this is pretty pathetic compared with those who vote even in US general elections and the number of staff signatures that were obtained by those who wanted to unionise the Co-op--and that four people had been elected to do whatever the SAT is supposed to do. Unfortunately, that which has been plaguing the Co-op for some time, a lack of transparency and communication, reared its ugly head again in this email once again. Only the winners were given in the missive unlike in "democratic" elections in say, Great Britain, where the vote counts of all candidates who are running are given. Others receiving votes apparently disappeared into the black hole of oblivion.
I wasn't going to vote in this virtually largely pre-decided "election" but I did in the end. Why? Because I decided to write in candidates who I thought would do a great job on the SAT (though I still don't quite understand what do it is they are going to do), a privilege the SAT clique did not even provide to lowly staff members like myself. I voted for Daniel Morrissey and Kirk Moore and then cast a protest vote for Zia McCabe of the Dandy Warhols (bohemian like me).
I am glad I voted in the end for it turned out to be yet another learning experience. Slowly but surely I am finally beginning to realise that the Co-op works by the sin of omission--no vote count totals for the Board candidates were provided to members like me either when that election announcement was made--as well as that of commission--the commissioning of the SAT by the powers that be. I find this a pity and it is why I intend never to vote again in a Co-op election. I will no longer provide any degree of legitimacy to what is happening at the Co-op, itself increasingly a misnomer since the "Co-op is a business and is not consistent with what a Co-op meant in the late 1960s and 1970. Still, it a great company to work for.
"In this town you need a bulletproof heart..." Oh and by the way, unlike the controlled and filtered HWFC website and discussion forums anyone can post here at anytime as long as they keep it clean and thoughtful.
