[SSC] SSC constitution

[Richard Hall]

George raises a good point for it drives much of our *politics* and agenda, and whom we might approach/include. It might also connect into how we partner with other organisations.

We focused upon the connections between the productive/consumptive nature of the Centre, the political basis rooted in consensus, and the emergent nature of our work. That stuff/projects/ideas/objects would happen/develop over time was, I think, central.

Within our extant economic reality we noted that subs would enable us to develop our alternative[s], but that we would generally not take monies out - we might discuss expenses for travel, or employing an administrator. But perhaps we could swap subs-paid-as-cash for subs-paid-as-skilss [e.g. auditing accounts, managing membership database etc.] The main focus of our alternative thinking was, I think, on higher learning [HE equivalent but not HE in structure, accreditation etc.], negotiated co-production, and engaging with political differences. Nigel began this latter discussion when he asked about our subject scope. I then asked whether our political base/values/objects  - as a scope for our work - might enable, for instance, neoliberals to join.

R.

-----Original Message-----
From: ssc-bounces at lists.aktivix.org on behalf of Joss Winn
Sent: Sun 27/02/2011 10:50
To: ssc
Cc: CCooke at lincolnshirecda.coop
Subject: Re: [SSC] SSC constitution
 
On Sun, February 27, 2011 9:30 am, George Roberts wrote:
> Hi all
>
> Thank you for circulating the draft constitution of the SSC
>
> Drifting off the topic of formal organisation, I have a general question
> about workers v. consumers co-operatives.
>
> I think workers co-ops have the aim of providing a living (or at least a
> wage) for their members through the provision of goods and services to
> others (e.g. Infinity Foods of Brighton), while consumer co-ops, which may
> enable or even require members to work, have the aim of providing members
> with benefits: goods and/or services on a preferential basis (e.g. Weavers
> Way of Mt Airey, PA). There are of course many examples of both kinds, and
> not all to do with food. And, I suppose there is a continuum between the
> two.
>
> Education (higher or other) is an interesting and challenging good/service
> to be provided on co-operative lines. If the co-op is to provide a living
> (wage) for members, this presumes some exchange of value between members
> and
> others. If "others" are learners, and "members" are teachers, the
> traditional institutional power divide appears to be replicated. If all
> participants in the co-op are deemed
> learners/teachers/researchers/scholars,
> then there are no "others" with whom to exchange value. The co-op then
> might
> become dependent on third-parties (the state, charities or other
> donor/patrons), or possibly the members themselves, i.e. members are
> required to work for a living (wage) elsewhere. This latter model either
> replicates the old state-funded "free" education model - students get
> grants, teachers/researchers get wages, or is more like a consumer
> co-operative, where members work for the benefit of the co-op, but do not
> derive a living (wage) from it.
>
> George

Hi George,

To some extent, this issue was raised at our meeting last Thursday. In our
case, we're proposing that all members, teachers, students and other
supporting members, assume an equal membership in the governance of the
co-op and that decisions are made by full consensus. This should mean that
no one person or type of member (academic, student, etc - we've still to
decide what the membership types might be) has any greater power than
anyone else.

The constitution being proposed assumes that no-one will make a wage from
the SSC. We did discuss the possibility that some roles might receive
payment, although this wasn't discussed in detail and I'm not sure of the
implications of this. It was suggested that where possible, specific roles
such as secretary, treasurer, etc. would be rotated, so that no person
remained in the role permanently.

My recollection is that Charles said that if we really wanted to make the
distinction between what kind of co-op we were, it was closer to a
consumer than worker co-op, but he felt that in the case of the SSC, the
distinction was pretty meaningless. The SSC, at least initially, is a
co-op where members provide services to themselves and what we are
proposing is that members directly fund the co-op from external sources
(i.e. wages brought in from elsewhere). This isn't fixed in stone of
course, and it will be up to the members over time to decide on the
funding model. The advice we received was to initially assume as little
organisational complexity as possible, which is why we're also proposing
that we are not incorporated until we find it necessary.

Someone else at the meeting might recall what else we discussed on this
issue, but it was put to us as a pretty obvious way to proceed initially.
Your thoughts on this would be greatly valued.

I've copied in Charles (who's not subscribed to the list) in case he wants
to expand on answering your question.

Best,
Joss
-- 



_______________________________________________
SSC mailing list
SSC at lists.aktivix.org
https://lists.aktivix.org/mailman/listinfo/ssc


-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.aktivix.org/pipermail/ssc/attachments/20110227/8f1d216e/attachment.htm>