Has violence triumphed at Dublin Food Co-op?

dublin | consumer issues | opinion/analysis

Sunday June 12, 2011 19:36

by Dave Moore

davecorcra at yahoo dot ie

Today marks three months since the Dublin Food Co-op received a complaint of ‘physical assault and violent aggression’ on the premises. Despite the seriousness of the charge, the directors’ collective response was feeble in every respect, leaving those who reported the incident out in the cold.

At the time, I listened carefully to details from both of the members who reported being on the receiving end – plus another witness who hasn’t even been asked for their account. All three, while still shaken, explained what happened with a high level of consistency. This was serious stuff and it was vital to the Co-op’s integrity that it was dealt with decisively and transparently.

Yet nothing of the kind ever happened. Worse still, the accused stallholder merely defied the limited sanctions put on him pending an ‘investigation’ and appeared emboldened by the week, his position ever more normalised and his income still flowing, while a resolution seemed nowhere in sight.

Questions abound for those supposedly in charge: How can they justify failing to enforce a suspension pending investigation? Exactly what process was followed and what came of their ‘investigation’? Is it concluded? Is the outcome a secret? Why were witnesses accounts never properly sought? Why have concerned members who wrote in never received an update? Why hasn’t the reporting of an incident been acknowledged to the membership at large? Where are the minutes of the board meetings dealing with the complaint (supposedly available to members)?

In any environment, thirteen weeks would be a long time for the issue of violence to hang in the air with no sense of resolution. In Dublin Food Co-operative it has been hugely corrosive: as head-in-the sand attitudes have prevailed, many of its most active members have pulled away, often in sheer disgust.

If the board have found the accusations unfounded – making liars of the complainants – then they should say so. Otherwise, they have a duty to the members to explain why they have been unable or unwilling to act. As it is, each day of silence only adds to the impression that, for all the co-op’s peace-loving roots, it has failed miserably to take a stand against violence within its own walls.

===

Previous article: