HALIFAX — I am writing as a concerned shareholder in response to the letters by two members of the Brattleboro Food Co-op Board of Directors who have been forced to resign [Letters, July 23].
The Brattleboro Food Co-op is a nonprofit organization with a mission of service to the community in exchange for a tax-free status. The rules for nonprofit behavior are vague enough at times to allow actions and behaviors by the boards of directors that are questionable when viewed in light of the mission.
This punitive action against two board members appears to be another example of behavior that violates the affirmation of responsibility to the community, an important part of the organization's mission.
During the last 10 years, I have watched with increasing disenchantment the board's ambitious and repeated expansions, and I have cast my vote in opposition each time. Board members' detached response to the terrible tragedy between two employees and the painful struggle of employees for a path to air grievances without fear of reprisal were further examples of a board more concerned about business than people.
In each challenge, the response has been either disengagement or clearly obstruction, as in the struggle of employees for union representation. Behind each of these instances, the behavior of the board of directors emphasizes that the bottom line is power and profit, not dialogue and discussion.
“Speaking with one voice” in a community as diverse as Brattleboro is a policy that reeks of secrecy and detachment from both employees and the public. Listening with one ear is a recipe for failure to live up to the Co-op's avowed commitment to the community at large.
As both Tom Franks and Michael Szostak, the two board members who resigned, so eloquently stated, “employees are the face of the Co-op” and are critical to its success. Employees also keep disillusioned shareholders such as myself from dropping my membership and boycotting the Co-op. Any organization that is trapped in fear is unable to function if reprisal is the response to a difference of opinion.
Perhaps what is really needed is a change in the constitution of the board itself, but it appears that rules for who can be a candidate are restricted in such a way as to guarantee the continuation of actions such as these.