I think this is my 3rd post this evening, so my last
I just wanted to say to Bill that I find the details here very interesting and I am glad (in this case) that Woj followed his provocative nature to draw you out.
Than you Bill for sharing and thank you Woj for provoking.
Jerry
On 10/20/06, Bill Bartlett <billbartlett at aapt.net.au> wrote:
> At 10:40 AM -0400 20/10/06, Wojtek Sokolowski wrote:
>
> >Bill:
> >To achieve this we amended the model rules removing any provision for
> >expelling members. We made provision that all members were
> >automatically entitled to a place in the governing board. We then
> >provided that any member of the Board who wasn't delinquent on rent
> >could veto any resolution of the Board. We figured that would make
> >numbers games pretty pointless and so far it has. (Though numbers
> >games still go on as a sideshow, they aren't threatening as they can
> >be in organisations where going up against someone with the numbers
> >can be suicide.)
> >
> >
> >[WS:] Could you explain how these provisions achieved the stated rationale
> >of promoting cooperation and provide secure environment? In my experience,
> >they tend to work to the opposite end: they protect disruptive individuals
> >at the expense of the collective.
>
> Its complicated, but the collective is made up of individuals who do
> deserve some protection. This is good for the collective in the sense
> that individuals who don't have a sense of security can do desperate
> things. Such insecurity is the material basis for many of the ills of
> our society.
>
> >Take, for example, expulsion. In our coop, expelling members is possible,
> >but extremely difficult. We have one member who has some sort of informal
> >subletting agreement with her relatives/friends who in turn use the facility
> >for illegal drug dealing. Other members, mostly elderly people, are
> >harassed and intimidated by these thugs. Since most of it is going indoors
> >(all you see is foot traffic in and out), the police really do not give a
> >shit, so there is not much than can be done about the situation law
> >enforcement wise. As a result of this situation, we already lost three
> >members who gave up their membership and moved out for that specific reason.
> >So could you explain to me how the inability to expel this particular member
> >contributed to the spirit of cooperation?
>
> In our circumstances, expulsion is completely inappropriate. My
> co-operative has most of the usual legal remedies available to a
> landlord, including eviction. The law here does permit a tenant to be
> evicted for egregious anti-social behaviour.
>
> Of course we would have to be in a position to defend our actions in
> court if the tenant resisted. In fact we have come up against this
> issue a couple of times, and the co-op has had to issue warnings.
>
> But the expulsion remedy would be a way of avoiding the usual legal
> protections available to a tenant, thus depriving a tenant of the
> minimum legal rights that even a slum landlord must respect. Since
> the co-operative's aims are to improve the security of its tenants,
> rather than erode them, it is necessary in my view to completely
> disavow the expulsion loophole. So that's what this co-op has done,
> right from the start.
>
> Actually, there are a couple of local instances where another
> co-operative have actually used expulsion as a way of getting rid of
> dissenters. Earlier this year, a woman in a neighbouring co-op was
> expelled after she was accused of making complaints to the corporate
> regulator about deceptive financial reports being presented to
> meetings of the co-operative. She couldn't afford to defend the
> action in the Supreme Court (which has jurisdiction in such matters)
> because she was not confident of taking action unrepresented. I did
> offer to help, but she was intimidated and gave up. (The Supreme
> Court is a union "closed shop" for the legal fraternity, those not in
> the union, are not allowed to represent anyone in court) She lost her
> house, although she did manage to negotiate a limited extension on
> her tenancy in exchange for a letter of resignation.
>
> They wouldn't have had any valid grounds for eviction though and if
> they had tried it it then any legal challenge would have been a lot
> less onerous for the tenant.
>
> You might think that she was just a trouble-maker, but that isn't the
> point. People are entitled to be trouble-makers and, as the Late High
> Court Judge Lionel Murphy famously said, much progress in human
> affairs can be credited to trouble makers. Obviously, our
> neighbouring co-op has taught any potential trouble-makers a fearful
> lesson. The ruling clique demands absolute obedience.
>
> There is no basis in our co-op for that kind of political rule by a
> ruling clique (whether it is a majority faction or minority faction).
> Everyone has to at least be listened to, because anyone can just say
> no to anything they feel strongly about. And there's no point in
> forming factions and playing a political numbers game, because a
> single member's vote can block all your scheming. That could be
> misused of course, but the thinking was that people would only be
> likely to exercise such a veto to protect themselves against a
> decision which materially affected them. The whole idea is to force
> the decision making Board to try to take everyone's interests into
> account in solving problems. Rather than taking the usual easy way
> out.
>
> That's promoting co-operation, because the alternative (standard
> practice in a class society) is to look after the interests of the
> powerful at the expense of the powerless. In other words, competition.
>
> Not sure I've explained it completely, but its a starting point.
>
> >
> >Or take the veto principle. Giving an individual the right to veto the
> >decisions made collectively seems to me like individualism and
> >libertarianism going wild, rather than a mechanism promoting cooperation. I
> >can understand a mechanism that allows members, acting collectively, to veto
> >a Board's decision, but giving that right to every individual who can
> >exercise at a drop of a hat looks to me like the end of the collective.
>
> Keep in mind that a co-operative is a purely economic organisation.
> In the final analysis, advancing the best interests of the
> co-operative as a whole should also be in the interests of its
> individual members. The idea of the veto is to try to make sure that
> happens in practice. What you are suggesting is that this would allow
> an individual to sabotage the co-operative. But why would any
> rational person do that, if it meant sabotaging their own interests
> in the process?
>
> Also, keep in mind that our rules provide some exceptions, i.e. a
> person not in compliance with their tenancy obligations loses that
> right of veto. So it can't be used as a shield to protect yourself
> against the co-op taking a decision to enforce the collective rights
> (as set out in the tenancy agreement) against a tenant.
>
> >It is one thing when the collective is small, everyone knows everyone, and
> >there are many informal mechanisms that prevent people from violating shared
> >norms. But this is not going to work in a large urban cooperative such as
> >ours (200+ dwelling units).
>
> Maybe not. It would be cumbersome anyhow.
>
> > Most of our members (and I think this holds for
> >most coops) are interested primarily in inexpensive housing and a peaceful
> >and quiet neighborhood, not in the cooperative principle. They elect the
> >Board to do whatever it takes to achieve that goal, and they vote with their
> >hands and eventually feet if the Board fails to do so.
>
> Your co-operative has a responsibility to educate its members and
> others about co-operative principles of course and it should do so.
> But sure, members are there for the economic benefits primarily,
> that's how it ought to be as well. A co-operative is an economic
> organisation, if it was made up of ideologues who wanted to make it
> into a primarily evangelical organisation, then everything would go
> to hell in a hand-basket very quickly.
>
> But this business of just electing a board and expecting them to do
> everything without you worrying seems a very irresponsible and
> frankly dangerous attitude. If circumstances dictate that you have to
> manage it with elected representatives then fair enough. But its
> quite another thing to take the position that your responsibility as
> a co-operative member ends with voting for someone else to do
> everything and you'll just leave if they bugger it up.
>
> That's just asking for trouble.
>
> Bill Bartlett
> Bracknell Tas
> ___________________________________
> http://mailman.lbo-talk.org/mailman/listinfo/lbo-talk
>
-- Jerry Monaco's Philosophy, Politics, Culture Weblog is Shandean Postscripts to Politics, Philosophy, and Culture http://monacojerry.livejournal.com/
His fiction, poetry, weblog is Hopeful Monsters: Fiction, Poetry, Memories http://www.livejournal.com/users/jerrymonaco/
Notes, Quotes, Images - From some of my reading and browsing http://www.livejournal.com/community/jerry_quotes/