I have heard from a source at Honest Weight that one Board member claims that I turned in a Board application but withdrew it. Here, for accuracies sake, is the chronology of the application. I turned in my application on the 28th of March. Applications were originally due the 27th of March but Board member Ned Depew told me the application deadline had been extended. It was to him I gave my application.
On the 29th I head from Morgaen Hansen, Honest Weight Membership Coordinator, and then Erin Shaw, member of the Board, Secretary of the Board, and, along with Karen Roth, coordinator of applications for the four Board positions open at Honest Weight (a "perceived conflict of interest", a phrase that has become a favourite of some management and some of the Board, perhaps since Shaw was running for the Board herself?), that there was a problem with the application. I was not, they said a member, therefore I couldn't run for the Board. I responded that since I had not received a cheque refunding my membership I was still, at least in my opinion, a member. I was given the application back by Shaw and told by her that I could resubmit it and run if I had my membership in order by the 31st of March.
I received the refund cheque from Honest Weight on the 30th. I put it into my application packet and turned my application in at the front desk on the 30th. This is when Frye and Kuchera intercepted it, with aid from someone or someones, I suspect, from the back and called me to the back to try to bully me into withdrawing it. Frye, as I reported earlier, had a change of heart and decided to bring my case to the Board suggesting, by doing, this, that he and Kuchera were working on their own behest and/or on the behest of powerful others.
The Board then made a decision to reject my application without even inviting me to appear on the 7th of April, a few days before Board elections. Depew said it was because I wasn't a member on the 28th and that Shaw had made a mistake when she told me I had to have membership in order on the 31st. Again, my argument is that since I was not refunded my membership share fee and the cheque had been returned to Honest Weight on the 30th I still was a member.
Regardless, it is clear that I was punished by the Board by being not allowed to run for mistakes I did not make. This and the Board's choice to choose to ignore the mote in their own eye, the fact that two of their members did not give me the correct information, and to stake out a legalistic bureaucratic position in a supposedly cooperative setting--Karen Roth had offered a more cooperative and humane approach when she notified me by email saying she didn't see why, given that members of the Board had made mistakes in the information they provided me, they couldn't make an exception in my case and let me run--reveals to me and should reveal to others anyone with quite clearly that certain members of the Board and, I suspect, certain members of the management team, didn't want me to run and were looking for any which way they could to stop me from participating in Honest Weight style "democracy". This, reveals, a lot, in my opinion, about the "character" of at least some members of the Board and a lot about the current "character" of Honest Weight, a corporation is a "person" after all or so many modern western legal systems tell us.
I have once again put in a request for a refund of my share payment. I no longer want to be a member of a bureaucracy with such a "character". No bourgeois smiley face in the face of the bourgeois kick in the gut displays of power for me. I am interested in how long it will take to get my refund this time since I put a sentence on the "Share Refund Request Form" that in my book I am a member until I cash the refund cheque. At this moment I cannot see anything on the horizon that would make me rejoin Honest Weight in the future (if I am not "fired" for "insubordination first I intend to continue working at Honest Weight until I to return to Texas in 2016 or 2017 after I have my retirement fully vested with the state of New York) given that I am choosy about the "characters" I keep. I am certainly not going to run for the Board for as the Schleitheim confession of 1529, one of the founding manifestos of Anabaptism counsels, be careful who you yoke yourself to. Now I realise that not everyone on the Board or at Honest Weight are complicit to the same degree in the banality I have spoken about before, a banality I think is so evident at the Corpop not to mention across the globe. Some don't know what happened. Some actively participated in what happened. Some, participants or not, presumably agreed with what happened. Some, participants or not, did not agree with what happened. Some may even respond to the inequalities of power at the Corpop these actions of the powers that be reveal. Others simply chose or choose to look the other way.
No comments:
Post a Comment