Peninsula Co-op wants to build a new facility...on this piece of farmland.
- This article has 18 Comments
- Send to a friend | Email the editor
- Enjoy this article? Share it with others.
Co-Op Co-opted?
Critics worry Peninsula Co-op is drifting from its roots
Following Peninsula Co-op’s $16,000 foray into the 2008 Central Saanich municipal election to endorse candidates sympathetic to its business ambitions, the organization’s board and executive continue to seek opportunities to tilt the table toward a longstanding plan to build a new grocery store on West Saanich Road farmland.
At the Co-op’s June 24 annual general meeting, three incumbent board members—Mike Fecteau, Cathie Ounsted and Ron Gaudet—were returned to their respective positions, while three challengers were left with a bitter taste in their mouths from the experience.
Now, those three challengers, as well as other Co-op card-holders, are ratcheting up criticism that the 48,000-member organization’s board and management are growing increasingly anti-democratic—and cite irregularities around last week’s board election to support their claim.
“When you look at the principles of the Co-op—open, transparent, democratic—basically, in my opinion, they’re not following those,” says Co-op member and board candidate David Wilson. “And when it comes to ethical behaviour, they’re not even in there. From my perspective—and I’m not saying I would have won the election, because clearly they had more people out that were willing to vote for them—but their behaviour in my opinion was less than acceptable.”
What was less than acceptable, says Wilson and other dissenters, was an e-mail select Co-op members received two days before the AGM from Peninsula Co-op general manager Pat Fafard via his workplace e-mail.
In the message, Fafard, who was hired into his position in 1981 and has helped guide an expansion that saw the Co-op’s numerous gas stations and its food outlet do $138 million in sales last year, wrote, “It is VERY IMPORTANT that the three incumbents get re-elected. I have serious concerns about the motives of the other 3 nominees. I believe these nominees are very active in the community in their effort to stop the Co-op from building a much needed new food store. They have been very aggressive in ensuring they get their friends out to vote for them.”
To counter the rallying efforts of the outside candidates, Fafard urged the e-mail recipients to attend the meeting to ensure an incumbent win.
The Co-op’s general manager then goes on to list what he sees as the shortcomings of outside candidates Wilson, David Lawson and Alicia Cormier. Fafard was particularly critical of former Co-op employee Cormier, questioning her ability to fulfill the responsibilities of a board member. For her part, Cormier says she has not ruled out legal action against Fafard for his potentially defamatory remarks.
Regarding candidate David Lawson and his requests for detailed financial information and a complete membership list prior to the election, Fafard mused in his e-mail that “disclosure of more detailed financial information could harm the Co-op if it fell into the hands of our competitors.”
Fafard’s plea for incumbent support proved successful, as more than 500 ballots were cast at the AGM, approximately five times the usual number that turn out for the event.
Fafard would not comment on events surrounding the board elections, telling Monday that the Co-op was preparing a press release to counter the claims from the dissenting members.
“All I can say is I wouldn’t give too much credence to some of the things people have been saying,” Fafard says. “We held an AGM, it was duly held, we had resolutions, fair elections and it was all in the democratic process—regardless of what people might be saying.”
The present saga long predates the recent membership meeting, but hinges on a 15-year-old desire to replace Peninsula Co-op’s existing Central Saanich store with a proposed 27,000 square foot facility. It says that in order to remain competitive in the grocery business it needs more space and that a new food facility could help the organization rely less on fuel revenues.
The catch? The Co-op’s decision-makers want to build it on eight acres of land it has owned since 1994, and while the lot is not held in the province’s agricultural land reserve, it does fall outside of the municipality’s urban containment boundary as defined by the Central Saanich Official Community Plan and enshrined in the CRD’s regional growth strategy.
For more than a decade, the Co-op’s management has made several unsuccessful attempts to demand the municipal government review the designation of the property and, in the 2008 municipal election, took its efforts to new lengths.
Through mail-outs and prominent in-store displays, the Co-op identified sitting councillors and fledgling candidates who were supportive of building on the lot and spent $16,488 to get the message out—all without a formal vote by the membership of the cooperative.
The Co-op management’s efforts proved successful, with two pro-development candidates winning seats at the table. Now, Central Saanich watchers say those councillors are beholden to the business that helped put them there and the irregularities at last week’s annual general meeting are just the latest chapter in plans to open the South Island’s agricultural heartland to commercial and residential development.
And some, like Central Saanich resident, Co-op member and organic farmer Randy Pearson, just don’t understand why in an age of growing concern about food security, it makes sense to build on potentially productive farmland.
Pearson had planned to attend last week’s Co-op AGM to voice his concerns with the building plan. Learning of the Co-op management’s attempts to influence the outcome of the board election further ruffled his feathers.
“I said, ‘This is outrageous,’ The [general manager] sending out a notice to go vote for the incumbents, but not only that, he slags the three people that were running,” Pearson says. “To me that goes against all Co-op principles and democracy. I was pretty upset about the farmland—putting up a food store and blacktopping eight acres of farmland instead of looking at food security is what upset me in the beginning—and now I’ve got this thing. It’s crazy, it’s out of control.”
Pearson says the Co-op is not upholding the principles on which the business model was founded.
“[The board] seems to think its their’s and we’re not equal members,” he says. “We’re not on side, so we’re some sort of opposition.”
Central Saanich resident and former municipal council candidate Sue Stroud says that while the Co-op executive may not like the Central Saanich official community plan which prevents construction of the store on the site, the document is the product of its citizens participation.
“The important point here is that the citizens decided what our urban containment boundary would be,” says Stroud. “People keep saying ‘No, the CRD decided it,’ but we held meetings, we decided what our urban containment boundary would be, we then took that decision to the CRD when they were doing the regional growth strategy and they accepted it. So they didn’t decide, we decided it.”
Stroud says abandoning the urban containment boundary would set a bad precedent. “Otherwise Brentwood Bay will become this gigantic long line that stretches from Stelly’s all the way down West Saanich Road until it gets to Tillicum Mall.”
Small town’s being what they are, a call by David Wilson for an investigation into the Co-op’s role in the November election has been referred to the RCMP because Central Saanich police chief Paul Hames also sits on the Co-op board. Incidentally, board member Ron Gaudet is the chief of the Oak Bay police, helping fuel the joke among critics that only accountants, property developers and cops can get a seat at the Co-op board table.
Dark humour aside, Stroud doesn’t much like the present vision for the Island’s successful co-operative.
“There’s absolutely no reason that land couldn’t be farmed, and if Co-op had any sense of community, they would offer it out to community gardens,” she says. “There’s lots of people that would love to have a piece of land and also lots of young farmers trying to start out, and the Co-op could use that land as a starter piece for somebody. But they don’t seem to be interested in doing that. They seem to be more interested in beating up the members and citizens who came with questions.” M
Thanks you for the balanced news story.
Cathie Ounsted gave a shockingly negative little speech at the meeting - if she were talking about me, some legal repurcussions would be felt.
Now that C.Saanich has a developer council, urban sprawl will be the only mantra spoken . . . a truly backward stance.
The Co-op should sell that land to a farming group and either build something on the business/industrial spot or go closer to the Saanich District population. After all, their new ‘corporate’ style needs a larger operation better suited to urban areas.
We need food security in the Greater Victoria region so we can buy local.
The co-op seldom caters to local anything.
As a member of the Co-Op I was appalled in the manner in which the AGM was held, and just as appalled at the obvious involvement of the General Manager who stacked the meeting in order to get the 3 incumbent candidates re-elected.
When our family became members many years ago, we never thought that our membership would be used by the current Board of Directors to register the Co-Op as a campaign organizer - spend over $16,000 and use the services of the staff to elect a pro-development council who would be so willing to destroy Saanich Peninsula farmland.
Credit must be given where it is due. The success of the Co-Op has only been the result of its membership (the people) who have, up until now, believed they were supporting the Co-Op model and who thought that by purchasing from the Co-Op they were supporting local food production.
During the meeting, one of the incumbent Board member actually implied that staff are not qualified, not smart enough, or successful enough to become a member of the Board. Obviously the Board don’t think that their employees (the General Manager included) should be credited with any success regardless if they publically supported them and stacked the meeting to get them elected.
This meeting was a farce from the get-go. Nothing about it was fair or democratic. We will be joining our friends and neighbours in cancelling our membership. In future, the only thing we will look forward to receiving from the Co-Op is a reimbursement cheque for our $25 membership fee.
We call on every Co-Op Member to do the same.
As a long standing co-op member, I am disgusted with all of this negativity towards Peninsula Co-op.
Mr. Wilson talks about ethical behaviour yet he displays none himself. He accuses the Co-op Board and Staff of mud slinging, but does worse himself. He wants access to the membership information...this is absurd. Why should he have the personal information of over 40,000 people in the Greater Victoria area? His ‘group’ has distributed false and damaging information about the Co-op passing them as truths under the guise of “Friends of Peninsula Co-op”. They have posted garbage on the internet and even went so far as to say “They will likely try and bore you so you walk out before the election so bring your Suduko, knitting or whatever you need.” (they have obviously never even attended an AGM). They say who to vote for. They paint the incumbents in a bad light. They are far from upstanding in their tactics. Their agenda is self serving and they speak for a small minority of members - many of them very recent members.
The reason that the 3 incumbents were re-elected was because the majority of members attending the meeting believe in what the Co-op has accomplished in the past 25+ years. Strong, ethical leadership has seen this Peninsula Co-op grow into a very successful, local company - something to be proud of. The majority of the members want to see this course continue and are confident that this is the right group as we move forward.
The controversy over the election is only an issue because someone lost. Peninsula Co-op had every right to give their members information about the candidates as it impacted their business. Voters gather information about the candidates and vote based upon many factors - they were just given another piece of information - information that was provided by each candidate.
The most frustrating thing about the “challengers” and this article is not all of their fallacies, but the fact that these people seem to forget that Peninsula Co-op serves more than just Central Saanich. This is one issue in one municipality - and it was disgusting the way they dominated the AGM with their personal agenda.
Peninsula Co-op is an ethical company who is concerned about the communities that they do business in. They are certainly not a large corporation who wants everything “paved and painted green”. The elected board (elected by the members) will do the right things on our behalf.
Thanks to the current and past board members for your contribution to Peninsula Co-op’s success.
Oh and Cathy’s speech was AWESOME!!! It was direct and spot on - someone had to say it.
Anyone who attended this Co-Op AGM would have witnessed just how corrupt this meeting actually was. We never became members of the Co-Op to be part of this corruption.
We will definitely be cancelling our memberships and supporting other local business’ who are interested in preserving local farmland, who respect the community and the environment, and who have ethical behaviour. In our view that is not the Peninsula Co-Op.
To the employee who posted that this is not a peninsula issue you are correct. This is a member issue and members come from all across the province. Many came to the meeting who do not reside on the Peninsula and they were just as appalled as anyone would be with the tactics used by the Board of Directors and Employees of the Co-Op. You have all forgotten who pays your salaries.
If all the mud slinging above about Peninsula Co-op is true, and the vocal MINORITY in Central Saanich are so ethical and outstanding citizens, then why was the vocal MINORITY in Central Saanich unsuccessful in the Nov 08 municipal election and then again unsuccessful in the election at the Co-op AGM?
My guess is because for every one vocal minority that has so much time on their hands to sling mud and tell lies in an effort to manipulate people, there are likely 100 non-vocal majority residents / Co-op members that are focusing their time on productive issues and thus being successful at whatever it is they choose to focus on.
I wish to remind the non-productive vocal minority in Central Saanich, democracy is “rule of the majority” not “individuals getting what they want by making the most noise”. That belief is what is making you unsuccessful - and rightfully so.
Reading your posts is like reading a tabloid newspaper - it is full of manipulated information and flat out lies to make for an entertaining read. But in the end, everyone knows it is all not true.
My question to some of the posters on here is what about the meeting was undemocratic? Members showed up and cast their votes, an independent accounting firm counted the votes, and the results were reported. How in the world is that not democratic? I happen to agree with the above poster that democracy is NOT about getting your way just because you kick up the most fuss. It is about equal representation of the people and majortiy decision making. That’s exactly what has occurred here and also what happened at the municipal election. Just because you didn’t get your way doesn’t mean the process wasn’t democratic.
The incumbents were re-elcected because the majority chosen to have them there - end of discussion. I know I speak for a lot of members when I say that they were re-elected based on their qualifications and the tremendous success that the Co-op has seen over the past decade plus due in part to their leadership. In my opinion, the three challengers didn’t even come close to having the qualifications and abilities that the incumbents had. Proof positive was the comment by Ms Cormier that the Co-op should consider building a second story for their food store. I actually laughed out loud when she said that. Have you ever seen a two story grocery store before? Not likely. Why? Because it does not make any business sense at all whatsoever. How exactly am I supposed to get from one story to another with a massive cart full of groceries for my family of five? Suggestions like that tell me that the slate of challengers didn’t have a clue about what it takes to run a business, especially one of this size and complexity.
I also disagree that Mr. Faford was wrong for endorsing the incumbents. As far as I’m concerned, he was doing his job - looking out for the best interests of the Co-op and it’s members. Clearly he saw what the MAJORITY of the rest of us did, that the slate did not have the abilities nor the proper motivations in running. I commend him for taking the high road and stepping up and doing what was necessary.
Finally, I find it laughable that anyone can criticize the Board and employees for their “tactics”. What I have seen and heard about the tactics of the slate is what I find absolutely appalling. Everyone of them had motivations other than the best interest of the Co-op. That is NOT who I want leading this company.
I have to wonder that if one or all of the nominees, Mr Wilson, Mr Larson or Ms. Cormier had been elected to the Co-op Board of Directors if we would have to have read any of the “misconduct” that they claim has occurred. As an attendee of the meeting, it was interesting to “watch the watchers” as Sue Stroud and “friends” continually checked on the of the auditors at the ballot boxes, the staff registering voters, and any other person attached to the election to see if anyone was going to make an error in judgement while others continually challenged Mr. Fafard and Mr. Gaudet even after they were told they were out of order.
I read the article that was in the Vancouver Sun regarding Mr. Wilson and his family feeling unsafe....get a grip David doesn’t one of your children work for Peninsula Co-op? If you felt it is such a bad company and don’t think that it represents itself ethically, I’m thinking that you shouldn’t have family working there.
Mr. Lawson with his quest for membership lists should be a violation of the privacy act. He has no right to see who are members of any organization and as a member I would pull my membership if I knew he had access to that information.
It doesn’t surprise me that Ms. Cormier would contemplate legal action but since it was Mr. Fafard’s opinion, I think he is allowed that. He didn’t say in his letter that it was fact, it was his opinion. We are all entitled to opinions....hmmm maybe not in Central Saanich with certain people
It is unfortunate that member information mailings for the election have been interpreted as more than what they were intended. I know I was happy to receive the information that outlined for me what each candidate thought. As for building a new store, the Co-op will have a difficult time surviving where they are and in reality, food stores do not belong in industrial areas. If the battle continues, it would be unfortunate that we could possibly loose the great community store that we have.
On one last note, for Ms. Cormier who had a proposal to Council at the beginning of last month for a development in Brentwood Bay, I think that you should be putting down some green space, plant a few trees and designate your “development property” to the community as your donation to keeping Brentwood green instead of trying to build a 3 storey condo.
To the Co-op, I applaud the Board and Pat Fafard to listening to what has been put forth to them and to the loyal members for believing in what the Co-op stands for. Yes, the majority did vote for who they wanted to represented them and fortunately it was the incumbents.
Mr. Fafard has spent too many years building his empire and making sure the “right” people are elected to do the good job, but also to violate the principles of Co-op and its constitution. They have managed to manipulate their dedicated workers into believing everything they hear, without realizing that they were “bought” and that the management has become more like a big corporation. Anyone wonders why there were only 130 people attending the AGM last year, and almost 600 voted this year?
My question is: why is the management of Co-op afraid of, what do they have to protect so much that they are ready to lie and try to influence their members into maintaining the status-quo? Dear members, you better look into that.
The whole issue seems to be the new development in a farming location. That is partially the reason for all this debate. What is more important is what Co-op has become: a corporation putting profits before its commitment to be a community-based organization. And the store location issue: Co-op can barely make the existing store work. The Keating location is not the issue, its management is.
It was interesting to see at the Co-op AGM the sharp contrast between the incumbents and the new-comers presentation. On one hand we had a plan for the future, to maintain the health of the Co-op with the added advantage of being ethical, transparent and true to its constitution. On the other hand we had incumbents basking in the past successes and attacking the new candidates.
I don’t know how many of the ardent supporters of the incumbents heard that, fresh from their “oiling” the weekend before, or voting and leaving before the meeting even started, as instructed by their boss, Mr. Fafard.
For the Co-op management it doesn’t seem to matter that they make a mockery of their promises to their members. The have become too big, profites too large, salaries and bonuses too enticing, and they have to protect that. It is too bad that their supporters see only as far as their rewards go. Let’s make this clear: the management is corrupt, and their big money backers have a lot to gain from the development they propose. The community doesn’t need another store - you better look at making work the one you have. The community doesn’t need this kind of development. But more than that - nobody needs corruption, political interference and lies.
People are entitled to their own opinons, but not their own facts. “Shaking My Head” asks, “ Have you ever seen a two story grocery store before?” Sure. Grocery stores across the world have more than two floors. Let’s start with H MArt, in exotic, far-away Vancouver. Bit too close? How about McEwans, in Toronto? Fortnum and Masons, in Picadilly, has two of its seven (AIR) floors selling food. New Seasons in Portland comes to mind, as does Whole Foods in Pasadena. Not to mention the largest grocery store in Jakarta, the name of which I can never remember, and Marukai in the Gardena district of Tokyo. As to grocery carts, imagine an escalator with steps three feet deep. Or an even more clever device called an elevator. (The stores listed above have both.)
I was quite fascinated at the Co-op AGM. It was a bit like watching a road accident in slow motion. The whole time I kept asking myself what the present Co-op board and management was so afraid of that they had to personally attack very well qualified candidates. I will admit that the new candidates were quite threatening. I quote them here. They wanted “the growth of our Co-op and the building of a new store in Central Saanich as supported by a detailed needs analysis and business case. Any new store development needs to adhere to the Official Community Plan, Urban Containment Boundary and the development processes in place within our municipality.” They also want to encourage local producers and to “strengthen the connection to the rural and urban communities we serve.” Pretty scary! Very subversive! They want to follow the Official Community plan which the citizenry was involved in creating at some expense.
They were critical of present Co-op policies, I will admit that. They felt there was a “lack of vision for the green economy supporting energy sources and sustainable food production.” They also criticized the present board for becoming involved in the last municipal election without the knowledge and approval of the general membership. I was upset enough about that to go to this AGM. The thing I never heard from any of these candidates, were personal attacks on any of the present board. Had the membership been left alone to make their minds up after hearing these people speak, we might have some new ideas in the Co-op. Does the present board think that members are too stupid to make up their own minds? I think they must, because they were encouraged to come and vote – no need to stay for the meeting. They know best.
I came away smarter than I went in to the meeting. Sadder too, because it is discouraging when people blindly follow. I challenge Co-op members within the community to get involved and to really understand the Official Community plan and how important the Urban Containment Boundary is to the vital existence of our farming community.
Balanced story? David Wilson? he is the most negative influence in our community right now. He was financial agent for Zeb King who lost election and now Zeb and David and thier cronies are trying to re fight the election. Don’t they realize that Central Saanich Voters and Coop voters don’t like thier NDP brand of Politics? they were supported by NDP who lost on all accounts. Give the people of Central Saanich and the Co-op shareholders some credit for rejecting this negative brand of Politics. It is typical of the left when they lose to claim that it was not fair, it was not democratic, it was wrong, there were irregularities etc etc ad nauseum. When they win they say its the will of the people but when they lose they blame it on everyone else. They are the typical left wing whiners who don’t realize that Central Saanich residents were tired of all the same do nothing approach of Mr King and his friends like David Wilson and kicked him out. now he is running around trying to use the co-op as a way to get back into power. The left lead by Mr Wilson and MR King have even joined the non partisan Central Saanich Lions club to try and politicize them!
Mr Wilson, Mr King, Ms Stroud and all others who lost in Central Saanich Council election and Co-op election, give it a break. try and build the community instead of tearing it down. you are what gives our community a bad name and you are doing nothing for it other than causing divisions. Time to put your money where your mouth is and stand up and work with the elected council and with the elected board of directors at the coop and make our community better rather than your own personal left wing goals. You never built anything, you just criticize. time to grow up and show up!!
This is what I see from my fence: on one side the Co-op management supportes screaming loadly and attacking individuals, but not discussing the issues. On the other side I see people who look at the bigger picture of what Co-op stands for, respecting its values and principles.
Looking closer I see the first group defining “making the community better” through building at any cost, profits more important than principles and the health of the community. The other side wants Co-op to continue its good work with the community, “giving back” not only money, but transparency, ethics, dignity and respect for what gives us food.
In the end Co-op management puts money before community. The “others” put the future health of the community above anything (and this includes not only the environment, but also ethics and basic rights).
For me the choice is simple: I prefer health more than money.
The only things I have to say is:
Thank you to the current and past board members for your contribution to Peninsula Co-op’s success.
Also I cannot agree more with the previous posting:
Cathy’s speech was AWESOME!!! It was direct and spot on - someone had to say it.
As a long time co-op member who was brought up with the principles of cooperation and ethical leadership, I want to applaud the professionalism of the Co-op board members and management at the AGM. Despite what others have posted, I did not hear any Co-op representative yell or disrespect anyone at the AGM (with the exception of Cathy Ounsted- but I applaud her honesty and passion-she took a great risk but her comments needed to be heard). It seemed to me that it was a set up by certain negative members of the community, attempting to sabotage a respectful AGM process.
I’m very glad that so many people showed up to the AGM to cast their vote. It shows that the Co-op membership is strong and involved. There is nothing wrong with 600 people showing up to vote as some have criticized; the more people voting, the better. The results are not what the minority wished for, but this does not mean that there was anything “corrupt” or “undemocratic”. To say these things shows that the people using those inflammatory comments do not know the definition of such words.
I thought that I heard at the AGM that the Co-op was no longer pursuing to build on the lot on Keating and West Saanich. I wonder if the author of this article was even at the AGM?
I’m proud that we have a Co-op in our community, proud of the strong leadership at the Co-op and proud of the donations made to the community. Keep up the great work!
Speaking of health concerns, I don’t think I want to eat anything coming out of that field unless it comes from a grocery store.
When the Co-op bought that piece of property it was unfarmable. They wouldn’t have bought farmland and then immediately tried to develop it, they’re not idiots. Even though it’s a field that may look similar to the one across the road used for agriculture, no geologist in the world would deem that field farmable. Please stop using the word farmland. It’s inaccurate and hypocritical. Hypocritical because you are preaching honesty and transparency when you are putting forward inflammatory words to beef up you’re argument, which is a sign of weakness.
The co-op deserves the right to develop a grocery store on their land (it’s not a nuclear power plant, and Pat Fafard is certainly not Homer Simpson.)
continued
Co-op management already buys some of their produce and meat locally from local farmers and the 4H club.
The purchasing of local goods depends on the availability of the goods. If the supplier doesn’t have the product, the company can’t sell it. Then, upon realization of the product not being available at the co-op, the customer is unpleased and goes to Thrifty’s to buy some nice fresh California peppers or Alberta Beef. To remain competitive with other grocery retailers, the co-op must purchase produce from these sources as well.
3 acres of land behind (and below, remember the laws of gravity here) a gas station, carwash and mechanic shop is not going to solve the problem of availability of local goods. What it will do is facilitate the ability to infuse the local economy, give more local suppliers a greater opportunity to become competitive and reach their potential due to a grander stage on which to showcase the fruits of their labor (no pun intended) as well as, yes, here is that word, turning a profit for the Co-op. Now for those of you taking notes at the AGM, consider the percentage allocation of profit to community relations that the co-op has, doesn’t that mean that the big scary “profit” word is a good thing for the community? More money in the Co-op’s hands means more money for the community AND its shareholders, the members.
May I suggest you take a few bucks from your rebate cheque and do something green with it?
The big bad wolf here is not the co-op, but the people who believe they know what’s best for the community by looking at what they want first, rather than what’s good for the community.
Oh yeah, the co-op did not spend $16,000 to tell its members who to vote for. It did spend $16,000 telling members that there was a vote going on in the municipality, and it gave the CANDIDATES the ability to comment on their position on the co-op’s bid to build the store. There were arguments both for and against, both giving equal airtime, so to speak.
There was no backdoor deal, the members vote on which audit company tally’s the vote each year and the resolution is always passed unanimously.
Thanks for reading. This community is build around this co-op. That doesn’t give it a right of passage, but let’s not be so quick to criticize before we know all of the facts. Selective hearing makes fools out of people.
A very happy Co-op Employee