There is great risk to the democracy of our Society

The only way you can vote is to be there in person. This stops many members having the chance to vote on the proposed, very significant, rule changes. There is never a good time of day for everyone. The 6pm slot may be optimal for those leaving work and going home, but is very difficult for many families and for those with caring responsibilities or elderly people who do not like to drive after dark. In addition, some members will be off-island.

As the purpose of the SMM is to seek rule changes, maximising access to the meeting should be a priority in our member organisation. The Co-operative Code requires the board to have procedures to maximise and enable member participation that include post and electronic voting.

At present, it appears that the board is wishing to minimise engagement.

The board says it is too expensive to arrange online participation. Yet the cost of a separate SMM with all the costs of venue hire for a meeting in each island, flights from Jersey/Guernsey for key people, overnight accommodation and food are apparently acceptable. Why not hold the SMM after the annual meeting in May, as is custom, to maximise engagement?

Members’ participation is being denied and reduces the democracy in our independent Coop. Motion 4 is to change the rules to provide for proxy voting which is described as an attempt to extend participation. However, how would it work? No details are provided. It would be ironic if participation for this SMM was restricted by not providing an online option, when members are being asked to agree to future proxy voting to extend participation.

A number of years ago it was accepted that the business had become more complicated and some specific skills were needed on the board. Two directors can now be appointed. Since then there has been strong screening of members willing to stand for election for the remaining places. Particularly in Guernsey, this has resulted in either a single candidate being cleared by the board, or none at all being presented to members for election.

Very similar motions were rejected a number of years ago by members. There was and remains good reason for that. There is great risk to the democracy of our organisation. The clear cooperative difference has all but disappeared to the detriment of our society.

The corporate approach of recent years has led to many valued, long-standing colleagues leaving the society, the new shop on the Bridge closing and now the expected non-payment of divi for last year and, from looking at the new till receipts, no suggestion of divi for 2024.

Save our member-owned organisation, attend the meeting tomorrow, at the St Pierre Park Hotel, registration from 5.30pm, and reject the proposed rule changes.

Sue Ryde

Former Coop director

May 2013 to April 2021

Kevin Kelly, chief governance officer and society secretary at the CI Coop, responds:

Thank you for the opportunity to respond to your correspondent’s letter.

We very carefully considered the points raised before proposing these changes to the society’s rules. To that end, we have sought comments from Co-operatives UK, specialists in co-operative governance, and looked at what other societies are doing across the country. Far from ‘minimising engagement’, we have also commissioned independent research among our members in the Channel Islands, through focus groups, which showed that they are broadly supportive of the suggested proposals once they had listened to the rationale behind the proposed changes.

We understand and expect that changing our member rules will stimulate debate, and we welcome that because it is the very essence of a democratic process. It is important to stress however, these proposals are suggested. The board cannot make these changes without the approval of the members. To encourage engagement and participation, we have advertised the changes – and the Special Members’ Meeting – to ensure everyone is aware of what is being proposed and enable as many as possible to have their say.

With over 129,000 members across the Channel Islands, it would be impossible to have everyone attend the SMM either physically or virtually. We have previously made members’ meetings available online but attendance through this medium has been low and it has been more difficult for everyone to engage in the debate. We understand not all our members can physically attend the meeting either, which is why one of the proposals we are putting forward would enable members to elect a proxy to vote on their behalf in the future if approved.

We would like to specifically address your correspondent’s anxiety about the ‘reduction of democracy’. The proposals being put forward have at their heart a strengthening of the democratic culture of the Channel Islands Coop, coupled with pragmatic improvements to the governance of the organisation.

While the founding principles of a co-operative remain extremely important to the board, it must be remembered that we are a £200m. business that needs to operate efficiently and effectively on behalf of all members.

The current constitution does not, in the board’s view, achieve this and, from our independent research that is the view shared by many of our members. Your correspondent has a different view – that is the nature of democracy, and we would hope that they will attend the meeting to express and evidence their view.

All four motions are designed to address these weaknesses:

l Motion 1 opens the position of chair to the wider group of directors, instead of only those elected from the membership. This allows the most qualified director to be elected chair. Importantly, it does not take away the right of an elected director to be the chair if they are considered the most qualified for the role. The second part of this motion would enable the chair to stay in office for three years instead of one, providing certainty and continuity to the leadership of the board. This is not undemocratic, rather it is prudent business management.

l Motion 2 aims to standardise the maximum term of office for all directors, to nine years. Currently, elected directors can serve up to 12 years, but appointed directors serve only six. A team works best when there is continuity, and we believe bringing the different terms together will create a more effective and productive board.

l Motion 3 seeks to reduce the minimum spend criteria for prospective directors from £1,300 to £500. The aim here is simple – to be more inclusive and create a wider pool of talented individuals from which to attract our elected directors. We believe it is mistaken to conclude that financial means equates to a passion to serve.

l Motion 4 will enable members to appoint a proxy to vote on their behalf.

We see these proposals as a means to strengthen our governance, provide certainty in leadership and continuity in business strategy. Your correspondent references a similar vote several years ago. The world was a different place then. Much has been said in recent weeks about the challenges our business has faced over the last five years and will continue to face in a difficult and turbulent economic market. At the core of the current board’s strategy is strengthening the foundations that have underpinned our business for over 100 years, but modernising our structure so that it can continue to serve our islands for 100 more.

We believe these proposals are an important step in that strategy, but it is important to stress once again that they are only proposals. We are a member-led organisation, and we will abide by the majority decision of our members for or against the proposals at the SMM.