Dublin Food Co-op – Violence complaints still unresolved 6 months on

by Dave Sun Mar 16, 2014 12:08

Three years on from the incident that sparked this post, much has changed at Dublin Food Co-op - and much still needs to be done. For more, see...

by IamwhoeveryousayIam Tue Oct 04, 2011 07:23

@Bittersweet Symphony,

On the morning of the 12th March 2011, did YOU shove or push anyone in the Front Space of the Dublin Food Co-op, Newmarket, Dublin 8?

by Bittersweet Symphony Fri Sep 30, 2011 19:37

The only thing that moves any of us forward, is TRUTH!.
And clearly none of these so called committed ex members are prepared to be candid and honest about their true motives because they are afraid that their opinions and views might seem too far fetched and lets just use a word for clarities sake - Anarchist?.

I am here with an opinion, and will post at my will in regards to the above topic. I see clearly the truths, the violent behavior I can assure you is coming from the outside in, with these people who have nothing to do except spew vomit on the rest of us hard working individuals.
I have witnessed it first hand at some meetings recently, a real congregation of anti anything, that doesn't support their way of thinking. Their little friends at the meetings, and them working behind the scenes, with utter shite.

Last post from me, but I would advise you guys to take a chill pill, get focused on real issues, and really, go start your own coop, and stop ruining a long term business, built on love, not venom!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

by Indeed Sat Sep 24, 2011 01:05

@ Bittersweet Symphony

If you are a DFC member I ask you to please refrain from further comment on this matter.

Your comments show that you lack sufficient understanding both of the coop, of the matters at hand, and the full legal picture and represent possible exposure of your fellow members to risk (risk equates to financial exposure).

Furthermore the Dublin Food Cooperative does not have Traders, nor is volunteering enforced. It is registered as a cooperative, this is not a belief, but a fact. A cooperative operates under a group of international cooperative principles and its own specific rules and exists for the benefit of its members, all of its members.

by Dave Moore Tue Sep 20, 2011 21:57 davecorcra at yahoo dot ie

Your suggested way forward has nothing to do with co-operative principles or the well-being of Dublin Food Co-op. The taking of a legal case over the events of 12 March would do nothing to bring about any healing or change to the culture within the co-op in which this circumstance arose, a culture in which instances of hostility and harassment were too often tolerated or ignored. Prosecution and resolution are different things.

The fact that a number of once active members are no longer to be seen around the Co-op does not mean the issue of violence has gone away, just as the trauma of experiencing a violent incident doesn't melt away. While many good members have pulled back over the mishandling of events, many others have been unwilling to let the matter be forgotten. The membership, via June's General Meeting, called for a process to investigate and resolve the reports of violence. This, in a co-operative, is the democratic way things should proceed if the board does not do its job. Sadly, another part of the culture at Dublin Food Co-op is that directors often proceed to forget or disregard the decisions of the membership almost as soon as they are made. That tradition seems to be alive and well.

So the simple fact is that six months after the complaints of violent conduct were made, they are still unresolved and no communications have issued to the complainants beyond a simple initial acknowledgement. I do not believe that that this would be the case had the board taken and followed legal advice from the Co-op's solicitor on this matter and if the board had, as a body, faced up to its duty of care to the membership and the instructions it has received from the members' motion.

The duties and responsibilities of directors are many. Those of members, by contrast, are very limited in the Co-op's rules - too limited in my view, but that is a separate discussion. However, it is cheap and incorrect to suggest that the validity of my membership is in question or to muddy the circumstances of my withdrawal. I sought to attend the co-op to undertake volunteering duties the day after the meeting referred to (as indicated in my above email to the board) and met with a further incident of petty harassment. Though minor by comparison to the central issue here, it was nevertheless symptomatic of wider concerns.

You can, of course, continue calling for the violence issue to be dropped and keep littering comments with further falsehoods, misquotes and slurs on former co-op volunteers. None of this, though, changes the fact that a General Meeting of co-op members has already said that the violence complaints must be investigated and resolved. It is long past time for the board to act.

by Bittersweet Symphony Sun Sep 18, 2011 08:20

You did quite clearly resign from ALL duties. Membership also entails duties, responsibilities etc. It was clear that you were leaving the building with no intention of returning to the organization in any capacity, now you are saying that you are just waiting around to see what happens. You and the rest of the product group mates, constantly pushing the current CB to push the violence thing again and again, because you quite simply have nothing else to complain about. Stop tainting the image of our coop and our members please. The CB have done what they can with LEGAL advice given to them, they have to do everything to protocol, and time is an issue at the moment, to draw something up in our membership rules, that will protect us from situations like this in the future.

I suggest, THE PERSON, and not yourself, who is actually the victim, get themselves a solicitor, leave us all alone with these accusations , let the CB receive a solicitors letter, and let the coop solicitor, take it from there. Be careful what you accuse of, cause it sounds to me that a counter sue could be on the cards.

by Dave Moore Fri Sep 16, 2011 17:58 davecorcra at yahoo dot ie

Extract from e-mail sent to the Co-ordinating Body on 16/4/11

Withdrawal from Volunteering

Dear CB

I firmly believe that by failing to address the grave issue of violence on the premises, the Co-op was already badly damaged going into Thursday's resumed AGM. Things descended further as the meeting progressed and I felt the Co-op steadily moving further and further away from the values I hold and the principles I believe in

...

I have been deeply committed to seeking to improve systems, policies and procedures for the benefit of the Co-op's membership. In return, I have expected nothing more than a basic level of courtesy and safety within the walls of Dublin Food Co-op. Yet, I have spent weeks feeling uncomfortable and unsafe. In the circumstances of [harassment outside the premises] last night, I opted to leave the area rather than fulfil my planned volunteering. On further reflection, I am now withdrawing from all volunteering commitments with the Co-op with immediate effect. I do not expect to enter the premises again except to collect a few personal belongings.

Since a culture of denial persists, I must state what should be obvious: any co-operative which tolerates a perpetrator of violence in its midst while allowing some of its most committed members to feel marginalised, intimidated or forced out is not just chronically sick but has profoundly lost contact with the values of the movement.

Dave Moore

===

As my footnote states, I resigned only from my volunteering roles, not from the Co-op itself. Resignation from membership is provided for in the constitution and I have not availed of this facility. In the above mentioned meeting, I stated that I was considering my future with the Co-op. That is not a resignation.

by Bittersweet Symphony Fri Sep 16, 2011 17:42

About the Author: Dave Moore volunteered as Dublin Food Co-op’s web and eNewsletter editor, undertook membership administration and served on its Products Working Group until resigning all duties in April 2011, citing the unacceptable handling of the above complaint and wider harassment issues. He is now focused on other projects toward building alternative local food systems and can be reached via davecorcra [at] yahoo.ie

by Dave Moore Fri Sep 16, 2011 16:56 davecorcra at yahoo dot ie

First of all, I appreciate your second comment coming from a somewhat different place to the first.

Starting with violence, because this is what the thread is about, violence has to be completely unacceptable in a co-op. It can't be excused as 'normal behaviour in an abnormal circumstance' or put down to kinship loyalties or anything else. Arriving at venue in a rage, seeking someone out to vent it on and jabbing them in the ribs when they try to peaceably exit the situation would not be acceptable behaviour in any organisation that I'm familiar with. Nor would getting right into someone's face and screaming at them when they try to diffuse a violent situation. This is the reported behaviour at the centre of the complaints. There are no excuses for such actions.

Any subsequent written apologies that have been put forward to the board have, on my understanding, been weak, half-hearted and have not acknowledged that anything more than a heated exchange took place - and were thrown back by the board as unacceptable. If they were not acceptable to a board that has otherwise shown great weakness in dealing with this matter, I shudder to think how bad they must have been.

With regard to the idea that the stallholder with ingredients containing a raft of E-numbers simply misunderstood the environment, that doesn't stand up. All stallholders were advised in writing in May 2010 that all artificial additives were unacceptable in any products sold on Co-op premises. Why the notice? Because one Producer Member was found to have products containing such ingredients on his stall. Rightly, no individual example was made of the person - a clear and unambigous guideline was deemed enough. In answering a question on a form completed in September 2010, the same Producer Member indicated that no additives were present in any products intended be to offered for sale at the Co-op. In the Autumn, the same Producer Member then had to be verbally 'reminded' of the policy when more items containing additives appeared on view. When the same Producer Member was found, again, in March, to have not just one item on his stall containing artificial additives but six, plus an item almost certainly with GMO content (also forbidden), most people might think that more than an oversight had occurred, not least when a poster on the stall was advertising products with flavours corresponding to the powders with the artificial additives (and with no other means to produce such flavours present). Skipping over the defiance and pack of lies that followed when this situation was taken up by the Products Group, which we can chalk up to immaturity, the simple point is that the Co-op has a duty of care to members and visitors. One of the products contained artificial additives including E129. The packaging expressly stated that it could cause harmful reactions in children. With a child-oriented market due the next day, I'm really glad the group picked it up. The subsequent suspension from trading (applied for one week) might be seen as quite light touch regulation in the circumstances, given that the same stallholder had been repeatedly found to have prohibited substances on their stall.

Yet, the next trading day began with this suspension being challenged in the most unacceptable possible way. The chairperson, who had gathered the agreement of the board to support the decision, wasn't asked to calmly discuss the matter, he was sought out and accosted. I need not repeat again what came next....

Well into the afternoon, hours later, some Products Group members sought to pass out information to Producer Members at their stalls regarding the E-numbers issue when mis-information was clearly circulating. When we did so, we'd already faced harassment and abuse from one stallholder [the subject of the violence complaint] and so tried to do it quickly and staying as close to one another as possible in case he confront us again. If we appeared odd or agitated in doing so, it was not without reason. Almost certainly, it was a poor decision, in hindsight - but it is neither the issue nor its cause.

---

Producer Members are a diverse group of individuals and each has surely formed a view on the events that took place from what they've heard second hand over the weeks. Only a very small number sought any information or clarification from Products Group members on that day or subsequently. My sense is that a very skewed view of events and the supposed agenda of the Products Group has been encouraged by some in the Co-op, not least because it distracts from the concerns outlined above.

The Products Group advertised itself, on a poster with a few basic details, as open to any member to join on a noticeboard in the core produce area. It also maintained a system of product suggestion slips. The range of input from members was wide and we took up what we could. Many said they wanted more Irish produce and Irish options, even if non-organic - hence the Irish jams. We tried for Irish chocolate brands and had them for a time but two of the three Irish suppliers have folded in the last 12 months and the other discontinued their organic range. We always researched thoroughly for new products (you should have seen our checklist for evaluating a single item) and in the little over a year of existence were able to bring about steady, positive changes and additions - from French organic soy milk to Mooncups. As volunteers, we'd have loved to have done more - we were looking at ways to try and find alternatives to sourcing from China for so much produce, we wanted to link the co-op up with many more small Irish suppliers, we hoped to finally sort out the refills system.

The sad fact is that the Products Group is no more. Several of its members, myself included, have been harassed, intimidated and faced hostility within the Co-op and withdrawn from volunteering. Some of these incidents have been advised to the board, but unless the violent incident at the centre of this thread is finally and properly resolved, what hope of dealing with the smaller stuff? What point reporting it? I'm no idealist, but when jibes and low-key harassment become increasingly routine for several committed Co-op volunteers, something is badly wrong in the Co-op's culture. Amazingly, over months, I'd grown used to encountering behaviour that in any healthy organisation would be quite unacceptable. I'm very grateful to the person who finally snapped me into realising how attunded and numb I'd become.

Contrary to my supposed resignation, I remain a co-op member. That's because I'm still fundamentally committed to co-operatives, co-operative principles and consensus decision-making. Sadly, that membership now feels like a gesture, as I no longer feel safe and at ease to do the things that are meant to come with membership - like being able to shop and relax there!

by Bittersweet symphony Fri Sep 16, 2011 11:03

Fair points, and presented well. Would you not agree however, that bringing staff wages, etc, into the arena, showed a little hostility. That perhaps it was slightly irritating that people were being paid staff at the coop, whilst you guys were slogging your guts out for nothing? Is it not true that there was deliberate segregation amongst the core volunteers groups and others?. In my opinion, any products to be rendered suitable for the shop, new applicants as Producer members etc, should not be monopolized by a group of people who have the power to accept or refuse something new. It should be offered up to the whole membership, via email, newsletter, and handouts, as a motion, that could be voted in or out, and thats it.
No lengthy meetings, a simple pdf with the the basic info, a members comments box, and a yes or no to tick, at the end. As a avid shopper at the dry goods section, I was appalled to see that a non organic irish producer of jams, was accepted, amongst chocolate thats not organic, and a few others. I have shopped at the dry goods for seven years, and only eat certified organic food. This had never happened, up until the products group were accepting new brands. It should always be up to the whole membership to give the go ahead for a new product, and if there was a good qualified manager, with no past interest at the coop, but filled a position based on job experience, this would be the protocol for any new produce, applicants, etc, that would be done swiftly and professionally. There is a certified organic chocolate company in Ireland, why were they not put in, before the non organic fair trade? Because nobody did their homework......., a manager on the other hand, would be working on these things, intensively, with weekly explanations of the work that was carried out, the figures, the staff rosters, etc. Its a no brainer!

In regards to the violence issue, I suggest that you follow a certain protocol, contact a solicitor, to see if you have a case. If not, then what can the rest of us do?? We are not the law, and can't pretend we are, and we know what to do. What would be the solution? An apology? that was already said, to no response.
And in regards to the producer with the conventional stock at their stand. It is very wrong, I accept that, but it was innocent because of the age of the producer member, naive and trying to be cool by dressing up there stall, without thinking about the environment that they were in. Come on, we have all been there, and the way you guys should have dealt with that, was to discuss this with the their age in mind. You flew around around the room, with printouts, and trying to catch your breath, it was appalling behavior, and was completely the catalyst, that started the whole problem, that was all your fault, so take some responsibility please!
The next of kin to the producer member, another producer member, was caught in the middle, and acted defensively, under the circumstances, its normal behavior in an abnormal situation, not abnormal behavior in a normal situation

by Dave Moore Thu Sep 15, 2011 22:39 davecorcra at yahoo dot ie

Okay, let's try and unpack this, since it's strong on assertions that are either vague or plain false.

The starting point, 'a simple mistake', I take to refer to the excuses given when the Products Group came upon several products containing a raft of E-numbers on a Producer Member's stall, one of them specifically labelled as capable of causing adverse effects in children - the evening before this stallholder was due to trade at a family market. A poster on the stall advertised products for sale that could only have been made using some of the ten items which members of the group identified as either containing E-numbers or as being unmarked and also suspect. When told in writing they must not be used and asked for an account of why these products were even on the stall, in a setting most people assume to be organic, the group were twice told a pack of lies - later admitted as such in a review meeting.

In a quite unprecedented move, since Producer Members have never received much scrutiny at all at the Co-op (and only a very non-wholefoods looking bottle on a shelf had drawn our attention to this issue), the Products Group pushed for a suspension for the next trading Saturday following a second blantantly contradictory account being offered. It was a truly exceptional case. The board gave its backing to this action late in the day.

What then followed was the chairperson being harangued by phone that evening by another Producer Member, who then sought to confront the chairperson before the start of business the next day. As reported to the board by the complainants, it was an encounter in which violence and threatening behaviour were used. (Clearly, some who weren't present choose to believe otherwise).

It is correct to say that there was a lot of stress about in the Co-op that day. Not only were several volunteers in shock over the incident, but there was further dismay when the Producer Member suspendend from trading not only attended but proceeded to circulate round many of the stallholders, clearly putting the case that he had been treated unfairly. By contrast, no Producer Member was getting a fair account of what had taken place upstairs before trading began.

It its disingeneous to suggest that any member of the Products Group - before that day, on it or since - has ever held 'secret disgust' toward any stallholder (and convenient that our supposed disgust was secret, given it removes the need to give examples). There could undoubtedly have been better communication prior to and on that day from the Products Group about our activities, but few of those activities generally related to stallholders at all, but rather to the Co-op's core stock. On the day itself, the members of the group that were present faced intimidation and insults from the same person who had started the day seeking out a confrontation with the chairperson. Thus, volunteers who were already reeling from what had happened following our efforts to look after the safety of members and visitors faced further harasment and abuse.

Yet, what came out of the day's events was an apparent rallying together of many Producer Members behind an idea that they had somehow been collectively wronged. I think this was deeply misinformed. Though it is understandable that stallholders would feel a collective solidarity and protectiveness, this should never extend to defending or excusing the indefensible.

I have never accused or believed Producer Members to be profiteers - again more distortion. What I have said - in a meeting after the events described above - is that I have concerns when those who derive income from their relationship with the co-op as staff or Producer Members seek election to the board, especially in numbers. I think that stands to very much reshape the character of a co-operative and would open a door to possible abuse - or perceptions of it - especially given that Dublin Food Co-op has no safeguards or policies around those with financial interests taking leading roles.

The previous comment included a ragbag of assertions about my character and mindset that are too feeble to be drawn into.

Nothing should take away or blur the central issue here - the co-op's failed response to complaints of violence. Those complaints have not been meaningfully investigated, let alone resolved and the members who made them have been left out in the cold.

The supposed initial 'ban' - limited as it was - was not even respected by the accused. Only hollow, email half apologies were ever offered - ones that were not accepted by the board, let alone the injured parties. Whatever pitiful investigation had begun, seemingly fell apart and dissolved soon after, not even having identified witnesses, of which there were clearly few since the events were before the start of trading and away from the main hall. The most objective evidence would have been provided by CCTV footage. This, however, is where things get very murky as the footage was apparently purposefully deleted soon after.

The complaints of violence won't go away because an anonymous post, full of factual inaccuracies says it ain't so. The complaints need to be investigated and resolved, however belatedly, as the June members' meeting asked of the board. (Of which no mention in the comment, interestingly).

The real issue is whether the Co-op, as an organisation, is capable of dealing appropriately with the complaints put before it and of ensuring that it is an environment in which all its members can feel safe. Right now it has a very long way to go.

======

For reference, the mandate of the Products Group is available via the link below

by Bittersweet symphony! Thu Sep 15, 2011 18:57

As I was not a direct witness to the words and happenings of six months ago, I am not going to sugar coat any side of the argument. I was in the building on the day, and witnessed a build up of ridiculous proportions of a simple mistake, and what finally looked liked, loads of people suffering from either post traumatic stress disorder, or some form of the DT's.

What was most obvious about this whole fiasco, was the secret disgust, that oozed out daily from the products group, at pretty much all Producer Members, if we wanna be truly honest here. Having belief systems that are not realistic in the real world, however admirable, are not the way to make change at the coop, and congregations of friends with exactly the same views, made up a group of dictators, that were putting the fear of god on some of the traders and their lively hoods before "the happenings", what would you like to call that, mental torture perhaps?
These Producer Members, the profiteers as you put it, is just ridiculous. And some volunteers, didn't have a personal interest in the coop also?? Discounts, trust, premises control, control over the ordinary members choice to vote in or out a new products as an example, to name a few, its complete hypocrisy.

And as for the middle class mortgage holders (as quoted by yourself)...., if it was not for these people, the mere member like yourself, as you put it, would not have a coop, even to get your bags of beans and rice, at a wholesale cost. Take all of these middle class people, producers members out of the picture, as this was the intention and dream of the power hungry, regardless of how much you got the rent down, this collective group of members could sustain the rent, rates etc, with trading amongst each other? Don't think so mate!

It seems to me that you were never happy with being a member of this coop, because it didn't support your belief systems, which are of good intentions no doubt, but probably as close as you could get a platform for your beliefs, to be accepted and supported, but not as opinionated as you may have hoped for. Its variated opinions, many walks of life, etc, etc, what makes the coop and can only be accepted by openminded members. When we are all collectively open to change, communication, and make decisions together with love, its productive.
Forget the past, it will eat you up. What happened at the last meeting of your resignation, was consensus, what a coop is about. Not six or seven people, who are all mates, dictating rules and regulations, with absolutely no intention of understanding the not so committed to the coop- member, who may just like to come to the coop, do a bit a shopping, have a coffee, and enjoy a chat with a complete stranger in a community atmosphere. Thats what the coop is all about, not all this hate and segregation thats going on, its a complete farce, but goodness and love will always prevail. All these rigid views that's filled with undertones of aggression, disgusts me. Build a bridge, have yet another meeting, kiss and make up, and iron out the differences, or start your own coop.

And I would not be saying this, if I felt "The happenings" of so called violence was some real threat. Nobody at the coop, members, staff, producer members, would allow that to happen, period. It was was heated words, with somebody being pushed out of the way, although not acceptable by any means, the CB did ban the accused from the building and demanded that the accused write various different apologies, which they did, with no reply.
These were members who apparently had witnessed the event in question, and could not establish a real threat, but gave suspension of five weeks nevertheless.It seems that this was the tip of the iceberg, the real issue being, the disgust that most of the products group had with the so called "Profiteers", of the coop.
It is "our camp or there camp", thats whats going on.........., hierarchy. This is what happens when there is nobody running the business, and everybody wanting to do it their way or the highway. The coop needs a good manager, full stop. A CB thereafter, and no sub groups. And a fully paid manager at that!