When realities collide

Today marks the second rejection of the draft Rule Book by the State based Authority under the current legislation. The issue is that of intent, the legislation cannot comprehend the ability of members to decide in their own interest based on the good advice or not of paid employees and a board. It is constrained by technology and practices that pre-date electronic communications and the sophistication of record keeping and security now offered by financial institutions.

It is wedded to the idea of a board with executive authority and little means of real accountability other than through convoluted, expensive and difficult processes.

Pollee Co-op Ltd. has previously stated in the rules they wish for all decisions to be

made by deliberative polls taking 30 days rather than a show of hands. This rule is

inconsistent and does not comply with s.194 of the Act. Also, we note that online voting

is not allowed in general meetings (although small co-ops can vote by resolution by

circulation of document: s184 and postal ballots are allowed under Part 8 Division 4 of

the Act).

Accordingly, please amend clause 32 to comply with the Act….(it goes on for 5 pages.)

Response

Hello Kaitlin,

I see we are at a stalemate.

I cannot conceive of a cooperative of members who do not have full democratic right in the choice of what is done in the cooperative's name and as it's business.

This model acknowledges the right of a board to engage in leadership and demonstrate the highest ethical standards in making recommendations, in bringing business to the board for consideration and in making a decision.

What this model allows, by default, is the right of members to reject the recommendations and proposed choice of the board. It guarantees the ability to stop boards and those charismatic characters who sometimes disgrace the role of CEO, from engaging in corrupt practices and/or committing criminal acts such as theft and fraud.

The act is designed for a culture that had barely finished riding horse drawn buggies to work, this is a new age of expanded possibility and one of these is in the field of representation.

A board is a body of "representative members" which may have some appointees, such as executive directors there for expertise, but not a vote.

It exercises its power as a franchise given by the entire membership, a necessity before the age of instantaneous communication, presence and record, that paradigm shift all consumers, business and the financial sector has readily embraced for its power to liberate the consumer from the dollar in facilitating our one great liberty, the freedom of purchase choice.

This same transaction process /system enables whatever number of members who want to engage, contribute, then vote to decide what the cooperative does when given a choice in an issue. All moderated and assisted by a new class of information worker who's life task is to make for better discussions, more engagement, hence more votes...

Even in the worst case scenario, after a month-long (30 day) period of engagement, if not one additional member voted, come the board meeting, those board and cooperative members will make a decision. It will be the expression of executive authority decided by a valid and legal quorum.

I am determined in this matter Kaitlyn (reviewers), I ask for the members of this co-operative to agree to a rulebook / constitution with codes of practice and conduct, to engage in the process of far better, more open and honest decision making, by the members, in their and the co-operative's interest. If they agree that is their, our, choice and as such the Department should recognize this co-operative's right to trade as a legal entity.

I do not see those same member's rights enshrined in the current legislation, other than through difficult and often corrupted processes and what few there are seem to be poorly regulated with little sign of life or interest. To the point that it's almost criminal, with intent?

My work brings me into contact with what happens when your current legislation is so easily abused and used for ill intent, I have seen the millions wasted, the projects thwarted, the loss of which destroys the present and future lives of members and their families. It is an unfortunate culture now mired in legal costs that desperately favour executives with virtually unchallengeable powers, protected by by lawyers and secrecy and sadly, too often, some perverse interpretation of "the Model Rulebook"

This model makes the whole process of accountability self regulating, it is transparent and accountable, to every member and should you need it, The Department and trading partners. It's based on the passive consent or the active will of the majority vote cast by a number of members in the range 3 individuals - 100% of the register over the period of any poll (30 days). A decision will always be made.

This is the case for change.