posted on July 14, 2001 02:52:03 PM new
Hello, Mark. I thought I posted this earlier but apparently not. According to your bylaws,
"Section 6.3 - Member Responsibilities: ... [Members] support, through patronage and capital investment, etc.... Legal rights and responsibilities of cooperative members include:
"Section 6.3.5 - Patronize the cooperative. Members must make a conscious decision to be committed to the cooperative, even when the short-term prices or services may be better elsewhere."
As stated, this is not an "ideal." It is a rule. This section is ambiguous (what constitutes a 'committed decision?'). If I were a prospective member, that clause might be enough to discouage me from joining. (The word "must" makes that statement an imperative, not a request.)
I know why members should patronize their co-op, but according to the reading I've done, that was not a requirement of the original Rochdale Pioneers. In fact, I read anecdotes that the Poineers' wives were often too embarassed to shop at the co-op.
Forgive me for quibbling, but the co-op is not only a benefit to its users. According to your bylaws, your Board and officers will initially serve for a period of five years. You will set your own salary, the payment coming from "operating expenses" (dues, fees, etc.). If I am incorrect please let me know. I have already heard at least one poster tell of a co-op which charged prices equal to other corporations, the Board enjoying luxuries of travel, fine meals and hotels.
For the sake of prospective members, I hope you will clarify that section of your bylaws which requires members to pay higher prices at the co-op. To make such a specific rule in your bylaws opens the door to all kinds of ethical questions. (As an aside, when I'm looking at a contract and I'm told that a clause means other that what it appears, I become very skeptical.) The Rochdale Pioneers built their success by providing quality goods at fair prices.
posted on July 14, 2001 04:19:58 PM newvcm
When you return, perhaps you could respond to the question asked about how many members you presently have and (since this is a co-op) provide a list. I think this should be public but if you prefer I will prvide you with my email address.
It strikes me as funny that this info is not (or has not) been forthcoming. I can't picture myself (or anyone) joining a co-op when such questions as "How many members do you have" and "Who are they?" isn't addressed.
I don't even see a model in place for how this co-op will be formed and run.
I do however see that you expect people to send 250.00 on blind faith alone.
With all due respect (I don't know you other than what you have posted to this thread and by looking at the site you put up) it brings to mind a famous W.C. Fields expression.
Thank you and I will check back tomorrow afternoon to see if any of my concerns are addressed.
posted on July 14, 2001 10:00:42 PM new
Apologies to all for stirring this pot! OK, Sorry all, I usually just read and watch but this time my hackles are up!! I shouldn't do this but have been reading these and just gotta say this... I am so blown away...
Sir, you appear to be a very SMOOTH silver tongued devil with a gift of gab and sliding edges of truths, and with a self inflated ego...the combo is scary!
You get what you give in this world, now that's called Karma (fate) but I see you've not heard of that theory. If all the other folks that you have contact with in this world are to (or have already recieved) this treatment you feel the need to dish out then Yikes...you are in a serious negatory (owing)state of being...
Control is obviously a big issue for you here...hmmmm.
Sadly it appears you must feel the need to rule...but let me be the first to tell you this is still a country that has "voters" who decide details. You say "others" and yourself MADE THE DECISION to oust someone?? Who made you Allmighty and please exactly who are the others and exactly how many (numbers of the votes, etc...) were recorded ...yada yada yada...
I know this is not going to be addressed but felt good saying it.
Since the forum here is so kind to allow this prattle then please respond with DETAILS only...no more vague and "out there type answers", details sir! If you are to proceed in any form on the auction or co-op venture then I am sure you by now are internally aware you are screwed and can say (proudly) that yes...this much you did indeed do on your own. Quite the accomplishment...
I myself can only watch in disbelief the Ways of your World, Its hard enough on a daily basis to just survive; know the game and hopefully the rules...we don't need someone always changing things up, clouding issues and making their own rules as they move along..life is way to short for all that negative work....
You get what you give in this world; so sir when you're gonna be stupid you'd better be tough...
Classic Truisms...
Thanx to all for some well worded questions that as of yet haven't been addressed or answer...
Wonder if they will be...
Smiles to all!
Please heed to the last post made by Pattaylor - if this thread continues in the vein it has been, it will be locked - refrain from making personal comments to or about other posters, and address the Topic of the thread only.
posted on July 14, 2001 10:14:22 PM new
Truly sorry moderator, won't do it again. You're job is also a hard one and appreciate your efforts to watch it all! Have a good one and again sorry...
=8-(
This is great and the type of input that is productive to a co-op.
I just got back in and will be hitting the sack soon, but wanted to get up to date here first. I remember you asking the question earlier and talked with the Board earlier regarding the same issue. We agree that the wording could be construed as you stated. This was certainly not our intent.
When one gets so involved in all the various issues, little (but important) things like this get overlooked. We have already made a resolution that corrects this oversight and you will see the changes made tomorrow.
Yes, at this point in time, these changes can be made that easy. We just incorporated and there hasn't even been enough time to receive any applications for Charter Members. As such, there will be no need to have the members ratify the admendment.
But just for the sake of conversation and example, let me explain how this would have worked (short version) if we had 1000 members. The proposed change would be put before the Board for a vote. If carried, the proposed change would be implemented. The members would be mailed ballots and an explaination of the change. Members can then mail their ballots in or be present at the annual members meeting and vote in person on the admendment. If the members approve of the admendment, it will stand as changed. If they do not approve of the admendment, it will be changed back to its original state prior to the change. This process is the same whether it is a change in the Bylaws or the Terms of Service Agreement. Isn't democracy great!
This is the reason we made the decision to post here in the first place. The nature and scope of this co-op has never been done before and there is no history from which to draw upon...sort of like the U.S. Constitution, they had no template to work from, they just knew what they wanted.
Regarding your other issue. It would be nieve of us or anyone to think that abuses within corporations, whether co-op or not, have not or do not occur...they do. I can say without reservation that this type of behavior will not occur during my term as President. But to most, this is just so many words. That is why it is so important that the Bylaws have addressed 2 particular issues.
1) The importance of member involvement in the affairs of the co-op. And
2) The prevention of special interest groups within the co-op that serve their own purpose and not that of the co-op.
You are also correct in that the Board sets the salaries of its officers, the Board, Chairs (if any), and employees. Nobody else can do this. In some co-op's, board members are not paid anything and in others they are. You will find that most of the boards that do not receive compensation are educational co-op's. Being the venue we are and the nature of the membership at large, we will be structuring in a compensation for Board members. The amount will be token with additional compensation based upon their duties and responsibilities as committee heads, if any.
The reason behind this comes from our own experience in attempting to get volunteers to take on similar responsibilities and the realization that once operational, it would be very difficult, if not impossible, to get qualified board members if there was no monetary incentive, however meager. It is important in any corporation to have qualified people in qualified positions. Again, this is where member involvement is important. They must vote for the one they feel most qualified, not just because they like the cut of their clothes.
You quote the Rochdale Pioneers regarding quality goods at fair prices. Our fair prices are posted and as far as quality, I believe if anyone takes an objective look at everything we have done so far, they will see that we will not settle for anything less than a quality site that is deserving of its members.
Thanks again for your objective observations and input...it is greatly appreciated.
Mark Davis, CEO
President
Vintage Cooperative Marketplace, Inc.
www.vcm-coop.com
I have not addressed the issue of releasing a list of members because I felt it was obvious. We do not release this information for the same reason that eBay, Yahoo, or any other similar venue...its called a Privacy Statement. The fact that we are a co-op has no bearing on the issue. On the other side of the coin, if we promised not to release any of your information to third parties, you would not only be upset if we did, you would have legal grounds for action against us. The type of information you request cannot be disclosed publicly or privately and to do so would be irresponsible. Look at my reply to twinsoft in reference to numbers.
Your statement ..."I don't even see a model in place for how this co-op will be formed and run..." I don't know exactly what you are missing, but this co-op has already been formed...it exists now. Read the Bylaws, they spell out exactly how the Co-op must be run.
Your statement ..."I do however see that you expect people to send 250.00 on blind faith alone..." There is nothing blind about it if you read the Bylaws, Terms of Service Agreement, and related documents.
Mark Davis, CEO
President
Vintage Cooperative Marketplace, Inc.
www.vcm-coop.com
posted on July 15, 2001 02:56:34 AM new
Hi, Mark. Thank you for addressing my concerns. I consider the forming of your co-op to be a landmark, though obviously there are mixed feelings regarding the collateral damage (as we encountered in our own discussion group).
I am not a party to your internal workings and I have no idea what your issues were with other volunteers. Now that you have a co-op, I hope you can steer clear of negativity and focus on providing services to your members. I wish you success, and success to all of us.
. Internet Pioneers
posted on July 15, 2001 05:50:14 AM new
First a comment, then a question... I just read your TOS with great interest. They seem to be quite comprehensive. From what I can see, your terms cover just about every concern sellers and buyers have expressed regarding other sites.
My question is, is the $250 fee only for charter members? I consider myself a "hobby" seller and I simply cannot justify spending that kind of money. Are you going to have different levels of membership with different benefits? The only info I get when I click on the "Membership" link is the application for charter membership, I haven't found any other information on the site.
You have asked a question that we have debated for some time. The whole basis for the co-op is a one member / one vote organization...that is a benefit we cannot take away (among others).
Some have suggested that we charge less in circumstances such as yours, but charge more in the way of fees to compensate.
The downside to this is that it empowers members with the right to vote with less monetary commitment than others.
The bottom line was that we felt it best to have the same membership fee straight across the board and as all the services get in place, we felt that the additional benefits offered by the Co-op to its members will more than offset this economic disparity.
By the time we get closer to accepting General Memberships, maybe someone can come up with a fair and workable solution.
Thanks for addressing a very valid concern that I am sure others wanted to know but were afraid to ask.
Mark Davis, CEO
President
Vintage Cooperative Marketplace, Inc.
www.vcm-coop.com
posted on July 15, 2001 10:32:55 AM newvcm
Thank you for addressing my queries.
In response may I say that Ebay and Yahoo are online auction venues and not co-ops. I don't expect a list but I feel before you expect someome to plunk down 250.00 along with their SS number that these questions should be addressed. I do not know you from Adam. Ebay nor Yahoo asked me for one red cent nor my SS#. I feel that the very first question that I should ask is how many are in this co-op and who they are. I can respect you not posting it on a public board but I have offered you my email. BTW, I have belonged to a co-op (real estate) for 12 years and have even sat on several boards. I have some knowledge of how they work and how they are run.
Thank you in advance if you could address my concerns. While I have not posted much, I have followed this co-op idea from the first day. I do not wish to argue or confront you, I only wish to have some of my concerns addressed.
I asked a question about the decision-making process used by the cooperative to make a specific decision, and you responded evasively, even attempting to question my motives.
Since decisionmaking process is the most important feature of cooperatives, your reply -- or lack thereof -- speaks volumes about your commitment to or understanding of the principles on which cooperatives are founded. If the president and CEO of a cooperative (care to disclose the process by which you were assigned those titles?) thinks the manner in which decisions are made is irrelevant -- and that is exactly what you said -- then I seriously question the legitimacy of the cooperative.
We have seen several instances of people without any commitment to co-op principles exploit the term "cooperative" to lure in volunteers and separate people from their money, only to discover that the result would not be anything resembling a cooperative. One of them is apparently now trying to sell the site he originally promoted as a co-op for personal profit.
From all appearances, you are not only the president and CEO, but also the only visible "member" of this "cooperative", having successfully ousted the other visible organizer by a process you won't disclose, Not only that, you are the cooperative's president and CEO. You think the decisionmaking process is irrelevant, even though that is the only means that members of a cooperative have to ensure accountability and responsiveness to their concerns, and think anyone who asks about the decision-making process is being disruptive.
And you want people to volunteer their time and send you large amounts of money?
posted on July 15, 2001 02:28:32 PM new
As I read the by-laws, it will be 5 years before the membership is granted an opportunity to elect any members to the board of directors. Since the board makes all decisions (including the decision to pay itself), and the members have an official voice only through election of board members, that means zero meaningful member input until the year 2006.
Mark, would you care to tell us who the three "initial" board members are, by what process they were selected, what interrelationships (business or family) they have, and what their qualifications are to operate this co-op for the next five years?
(Footnote for those who aren't familiar with the process of establishing co-ops: Normally, the initial board members to serve only until the first meeting of the members, at which time a new board is elected. I've never heard of a provision to give the initial, unelected, directors of a cooperative a five-year tenure.)
posted on July 15, 2001 06:47:40 PM new
booksbooksbooks,
You are partially true in that there are many co-ops where the initiators are in office until the first meeting of the members and there are just as many where the standard has been 2-3 years. The reason for this is to enable them to continue in their quest to solidify the co-op and get it running on its own as per the bylaws.
You must have also read Sections 7.2 and 7.2.1 of our Bylaws which provide for the removal of said board by the members.
There are many valid reasons for a five year initial term of the initiators. If you analyze these reasons and the logic behind them, you will understand why it is reasonable and necessary, given the unique nature of this co-op and the diverse personalities of its members (and potential members).
This Co-op is so unique in many ways that it will take more than just a standard 2-3 years for this process. The initiators have established this Co-op with strong ideals and a sound foundation, and even though it appears that they have more control than what one feels they should, it is this control that provides the guarantee to the members that no outside special interest can take control, especially in its infancy when it is most vulnerable. As with any organization, power can be abused. From a very logical and realistic standpoint, this does not happen while initiators are in office.
The reason for this is very simple. Initiators, by its own definition, have spent countless, grueling hours; personal funds and resources; and many sacrifices to create, in this case, a co-op online auction site. These same initiators are not about to destroy their dream and creation over any thoughts of power abuse or even for some possible meager gain. In this endeavor, we are idealists, not capitalist. We wish to see this grow and be fruitful, as any initiator does.
Another issue that is not clearly apparent is the fact that unlike other co-ops, there is no established member base or organization to draw from. It will take longer than normal to build a membership base that is large enough from which we are able to draw qualified Directors. History has proven that one of the main reasons why a co-op, or any corporation for that matter, fails, is the lack of qualified Directors. Just because someone says they want to be a Director, this should not be enough. If the general membership does elect Directors that are not qualified, the co-op is doomed to failure.
You indicate, or imply, that we are not qualified to continue serving this co-op and keep it on its original and intended course. Who better to guide the co-op during this period than the initiators who know and have lived with every little detail since its inception. Who better to trust than those that have committed their lives to the co-op. Who better than those that have accomplished something that NO ONE has yet been able to accomplish. If not, then who would you prefer? Someone from the outside that has experience directing a co-op of online auction sellers and buyers? This person does not exist, in me or anyone. This is all new ground with very little experienced resources to draw upon.
Given the above (and others), you can see that this 5 year period is a most reasonable period of time to get all the provisions of the Bylaws in place and working. Remember still the provisions in Sections 7.2 and 7.2.1.
I have answered the only question of yours that I am allowed to, either by way of privacy and/or AuctionWatch protocol. If you continue to ask topic related questions in an honest and forthright manner, you will continue to get serious and forthright answers.
Mark Davis, CEO
President
Vintage Cooperative Marketplace, Inc.
www.vcm-coop.com
posted on July 15, 2001 08:12:04 PM new
I continue to be amazed.
You tell us that a main reason co-ops fail is lack of qualified directors, but refuse to tell us who the other directors are or what their (or even your) qualifications are.
You say that just because someone wants to be a director, that's not enough, but, based on what you have disclosed so far, that's the only qualification that these three directors have.
You said earlier that potential members do not have to trust you, but only themselves and the other members, but you don't trust the members to elect the directors until 2006.
If AuctionWatch guidelines prohibit you from telling us who the directors are, and what their qualifications are, then please post their biographies on your web site, and I'll be happy to take a look. If privacy is the reason, get real -- if your directors are unwilling to be publicly associated with the cooperative, or to state their qualifications, they clearly don't have the commitment that they will need to lead this organization (or they have some other reason to remain hidden). One would think that the initiators of something never done before in the entire history of humankind would be tripping over themselves to come forward and participate in the ticker-tape parade. Do you really think they can remain anonymous forever -- are they going to come to membership meetings with ski masks over their faces?
Your "committed their lives to this project" and "have accomplished something no one else has before" language is quite dramatic, but very misleading, as is the incredible claim on your web site that the hardest part is now completed. (Believe me when I tell you that writing up a few documents is the easy part. You still have to build a membership, create a site, and keep it all operational for the long haul.)
You have written a document and paid a filing fee to the state of Delaware. Whoop-ty-doo. Give me the names & addresses of five willing directors and a couple hundred dollars and I'll incorporate an Internet auction co-op by the close of business tomorrow.
And quite possibly we would both have the same thing: a co-op that's not worth the paper its by-laws are written on. What will determine whether the act of incorporation will lead to something meaningful will be, among other things, 1) the existence of a real membership base, (2) democratic and participatory decision-making, and (3) qualified leadership. On all three of those points, you refuse to answer questions. That leads me to believe that you have exactly what I would have if I incorporated a co-op tomorrow -- a paper co-op.
Nothing would thrill me more than knowing that several hundred people were actively involved in the creation of this co-op; that Cathy was removed by a democratic 101-99 vote of those people; and that the initial board members have a lengthy and proven track record of successful Internet sales, website management, financial management, cooperative ownership, and all the other areas of expertise that this co-op will need to succeed. But on each of these points, you have refused to answer, leaving me to conclude that those answers would not be the ones I -- or any one else who would consider ponying up $250.00 for a membership -- would find reassuring.
posted on July 16, 2001 02:55:30 AM new
vcm posted on July 14, 2001 08:57:27 AM new Good Morning CAgrrl, I have already given a history of how we were formed. You may choose to believe what I have stated, or you can believe her. This is your right and choice.
Uh, did you not get the part where I said
" I have to say that I have no prior knowledge of whatever incident you guys are talking about"?? Believe her? Believe you? sheesh, all I wanted was the same answer that others here want as well- how it is that one volunteer is able to oust another volunteer in a co-op. I'm still wondering, BTW.
To take this logic a bit farther, what would stop you from ousting ME out of the co-op at some later time if I were to join? I think this is a valid concern, especially since the balance of power would not be in my favor with you as CEO and me as a mere member. This is a scary scenario in my opinion.
You said, "As a public forum, more information has been forthright than what really should have been. Most of what her volunteers are pursuing is the gossip of our history."
I don't know her. I don't know her volunteers. I don't know what you're talking about, to be completely honest.
You also said "I doubt there have been many people that wrote eBay and said...."hey, before I invest thousands of dollars in fees to you, I need to know all the "gossip" of what has gone on within your organization..."
I can read all about ebay in the wall street journal whenever I want info about them. I would also be able to get an annual report and other documentation to enable me to see what I was getting myself into, if I wanted to make an investment in their site. Potential "owners" of your site simply do not have that luxury. I read my Wall Street Journal semi regularly, but not once has the name of your co-op come up.
I think your definition of "gossip" differs greatly from mine. My definition of gossip is, when you talk about who's going out with who, and who has a drinking problem, and who got fired or had a fight or moved to a different country. I'm not asking about your sex life, I'm just curious as to how you got to be CEO of the co-op, and how it is that you ousted a fellow volunteer. Believe me, if Pierre ousted Meg tomorrow, all the stockholders would want to know what happened.
posted on July 16, 2001 07:20:59 AM new
To take your analogy a step further, CAgrrl, what if Pierre ousted Meg, then announced that he had hired a new CEO, CIO, and CFO, but wouldn't publicly disclose their names or their qualifications to hold those positions.
Can you imagine just how fast the stock price would nosedive?
posted on July 23, 2001 11:48:24 PM new
AHH, SO! Answer very simple.
Confucius say: "When sneaking up to dragon's back, must proceed with caution. When confronting dragon head-on, must run very fast!"
posted on July 25, 2001 06:12:03 PM new
Actually, VCM, I would be wary of a website that requires your SSN# and DOB. I would not recommend ANYONE give that information, which means one cannnot recommend joining.
Your site is not very professional, and it does not scream of trust.
posted on July 25, 2001 08:07:11 PM new
Whatever happened between Mark and Cathy is juicy gossip, I'm sure. But it's sad to see this thread turn into the usual AuctionWatch dig-fest.
I do feel bad for the way things turned out, but hey, it looks like there will now be two co-ops. Whether they can mend fences remains to be seen. I sure hope so. I say this (modestly) as a co-op organizer who also participated in an "ouster." I can tell you it's not easy, but people are pursuing their vision and sometimes that requires tough decisions.
I do not know what happened among that group's volunteers. But the fact is VCM is the first online auction co-op, and for that they deserve some credit, not just the usual raking over the coals. Hey, folks, aren't you the ones who were running to Gegy.com just a couple of weeks ago? A co-op is the ONLY real solution to our problems, and now we have one. If I sold vintage collectibles, yes I would join.
I don't have a problem with giving out my personal info. In fact, I hope VCM (and other co-op sites) make SURE their users are verified. And I don't have a problem with them sending my income info to Uncle Sam. I'm not hiding anything. If you guys are so paraniod, stick with eBay or Gegy where you can be SURE you'll get ripped off. This thread could have been very informative but instead it got trashed, and that is too bad for everyone.
posted on July 25, 2001 08:39:24 PM new
If this thread "got trashed" it's because the originator could not stand up to hard questions - or so it seems. And that is my opinion.
Hi Twinsoft: if anyone could put up a viable CoOp site it's you! Don't ask me why, but I trust you! Some of the others I do not. It's all in the gut baby!
posted on July 25, 2001 11:15:34 PM new
Morgantown, LOL! Anyhoo ...
The problem here is that the moderator specifically warned Mark about discussing the issue that everyone was asking about. (Including me.) And apparently Mark also thought that some of the posts were just typical tabloid stuff and there is some truth to that.
I like Cathy and respect her. I know she worked hard on her idea and despite this obstacle she will form her own co-op. She probably won't be able to take the name (Vintage Marketplace Cooperative) she wanted, but that's not the end of the world. I don't know what happened with VCM/VMC. But I am going to take the stand that this issue is bigger than any one or two individuals. (No, that's not ironic. I also said I would support Auctionpie if they delivered a co-op.)
There may be a trust issue, but why turn it into a 'distrust' issue? At least with a co-op, you've got a set of bylaws which are public and can't be changed except by a majority vote of the membership. Seems to me that's a whole lot better deal/guarantee than you're going to get from ANY corporate auction site.
I can't condemn VCM out of hand for something I know nothing about. I'd rather take a wait and see attitude and hope that Mark and Cathy can get over their differences. Co-ops support each other and how VCM/VMC handle themselves will be a good indication of their dedication to co-op principles.
posted on July 26, 2001 02:19:42 PM new
To be Honest I would say as of this point the way things were handled show where there co-op principle lies.
VCM is a legal co-op On paper only lonely and no members.
VMC Is Co-Op members left to double efforts they have already made in order to get a site and Idea back togeather again.
These groups need to work togeather there is only so much interest in out there in this to go around and even more limited since were talking about a niche group.
I dont believe the question that were posted here were out of line at all they were pretty straight forword and basic asking info about The membership of the group.
these groups need to get all togeather and all need to understand no one individual owns controls or runs a cooperative its a group ran and owned business.
maybe mark was asked not to discuss some of these Issue here at this message board but many have requested to receive email on the subject with no responce either.
posted on July 26, 2001 04:07:53 PM new
Dman, Mark did say there was a privacy policy. Where can you go on the web and see an organization that makes public its paying membership list?
I agree that some questions should have been answered but weren't, but I also think that many "questions" were just thinly-veiled attacks. Do people really want to know the answers, or are they just looking to fuel the fire?
Yes, VCM is a co-op on paper, but that is a huge step forward for all online auction users. I'm not discounting the personal battles that may have taken place, and maybe there are hard feelings and maybe some dirty pool. I just think this thread could have been a lot more useful if it hadn't turned into the usual AW feeding frenzy. And I am to blame for that as well.
You know from our history why I can't criticize Mark. Even if the situations were completely different, I'm not the one to nay-say Mark's decision. I only hope at this point that both Mark's group and Cathy's group realize that what they are doing is more important than whose name is on the papers. This is something that affects the entire online auction community. Splitting VMC in two was a mistake, maybe a fatal mistake. They need to call a truce right away and get on with their business. Co-ops cooperate, that is a fundamental co-op principle. And once both groups are legally established, they should keep that in mind.
What happened with VMC happened in our group, and at Auctionpie as well. In each case, somebody changed the locks and somebody was left out in the cold. As bad as that is, I don't think it's a reason to trash any of our groups. We all have a unique vision, and I know that Mark, Cathy, Jamie, I and others are still working towards their own goals despite personal differences.
posted on July 26, 2001 11:26:21 PM new
IMO, a phoney co-op is worse than no co-op at all, because it poisons the atmosphere for future efforts.
Each time a co-op disintegrates into someone's personal ego trip or for-profit business, prospective co-op members become more cynical, less likely to join a legitimate co-op organization, particularly where significant money is involved.
I'm appalled that the word "co-op" has been used to lure people into giving their money, time, and ideas to projects that ultimately turn out not to be co-ops, so I'm very grateful that we have this forum to ask tough questions and minimize the damage done.
I think 90% of the questions have been legitimate:
Decision-making process is fundamental to the existence of cooperatives. If decisions are made based on who paid for the web site, rather than one-person one-vote, that's not a co-op. That, taken together with the initial three directors placing themselves in complete control until the year 2006, raises serious questions about the founders' attitude toward democratic management.
While I agree that asking for a list of members is over the top, I don't know of any legitimate organization -- particularly one that is raising funds from the public -- that won't disclose the names of its directors. I don't know about Delaware, but in my state the list of initial directors is filed with the state and publicly available. The only reason I haven't inquired further with Delaware state officials is that I think VCM is pretty much irrelevant at this point.
posted on July 27, 2001 05:10:21 AM new
I agree that a member list is something that doesn't need to be publicly provided. If it had been I'd probably be even more skeptical about the security of my own info were I to join, so it's to Mark's credit that that info was not provided.
But I would not join a group where I'd have to a)provide sensitive personal information b)invest a lot of my time c)invest my money when I have no re-assurance whatsoever that I wouldn't be "ousted" out of the group for some unknown transgression. Since I don't know the whole story of the "ousting", and what little I know of the story looks completely ugly to me, and since no-one is giving me any more of the story to show me the reasoning that would probably make it look less ugly, there is no way in the world that I'd get involved at this time.
I also agree that it is really a shame that there are going to be 2 vintage co-ops when it really would be to those people's advantage to work together.
