<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 3.2//EN">
<HTML>
<HEAD>
<META HTTP-EQUIV="Content-Type" CONTENT="text/html; charset=iso-8859-1">
<META NAME="Generator" CONTENT="MS Exchange Server version 6.5.7638.1">
<TITLE>RE: [SSC] SSC constitution</TITLE>
</HEAD>
<BODY>
<!-- Converted from text/plain format -->
<P><FONT SIZE=2>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.<BR>
<BR>
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.<BR>
<BR>
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.<BR>
<BR>
R.<BR>
<BR>
-----Original Message-----<BR>
From: ssc-bounces@lists.aktivix.org on behalf of Joss Winn<BR>
Sent: Sun 27/02/2011 10:50<BR>
To: ssc<BR>
Cc: CCooke@lincolnshirecda.coop<BR>
Subject: Re: [SSC] SSC constitution<BR>
<BR>
On Sun, February 27, 2011 9:30 am, George Roberts wrote:<BR>
> Hi all<BR>
><BR>
> Thank you for circulating the draft constitution of the SSC<BR>
><BR>
> Drifting off the topic of formal organisation, I have a general question<BR>
> about workers v. consumers co-operatives.<BR>
><BR>
> I think workers co-ops have the aim of providing a living (or at least a<BR>
> wage) for their members through the provision of goods and services to<BR>
> others (e.g. Infinity Foods of Brighton), while consumer co-ops, which may<BR>
> enable or even require members to work, have the aim of providing members<BR>
> with benefits: goods and/or services on a preferential basis (e.g. Weavers<BR>
> Way of Mt Airey, PA). There are of course many examples of both kinds, and<BR>
> not all to do with food. And, I suppose there is a continuum between the<BR>
> two.<BR>
><BR>
> Education (higher or other) is an interesting and challenging good/service<BR>
> to be provided on co-operative lines. If the co-op is to provide a living<BR>
> (wage) for members, this presumes some exchange of value between members<BR>
> and<BR>
> others. If "others" are learners, and "members" are teachers, the<BR>
> traditional institutional power divide appears to be replicated. If all<BR>
> participants in the co-op are deemed<BR>
> learners/teachers/researchers/scholars,<BR>
> then there are no "others" with whom to exchange value. The co-op then<BR>
> might<BR>
> become dependent on third-parties (the state, charities or other<BR>
> donor/patrons), or possibly the members themselves, i.e. members are<BR>
> required to work for a living (wage) elsewhere. This latter model either<BR>
> replicates the old state-funded "free" education model - students get<BR>
> grants, teachers/researchers get wages, or is more like a consumer<BR>
> co-operative, where members work for the benefit of the co-op, but do not<BR>
> derive a living (wage) from it.<BR>
><BR>
> George<BR>
<BR>
Hi George,<BR>
<BR>
To some extent, this issue was raised at our meeting last Thursday. In our<BR>
case, we're proposing that all members, teachers, students and other<BR>
supporting members, assume an equal membership in the governance of the<BR>
co-op and that decisions are made by full consensus. This should mean that<BR>
no one person or type of member (academic, student, etc - we've still to<BR>
decide what the membership types might be) has any greater power than<BR>
anyone else.<BR>
<BR>
The constitution being proposed assumes that no-one will make a wage from<BR>
the SSC. We did discuss the possibility that some roles might receive<BR>
payment, although this wasn't discussed in detail and I'm not sure of the<BR>
implications of this. It was suggested that where possible, specific roles<BR>
such as secretary, treasurer, etc. would be rotated, so that no person<BR>
remained in the role permanently.<BR>
<BR>
My recollection is that Charles said that if we really wanted to make the<BR>
distinction between what kind of co-op we were, it was closer to a<BR>
consumer than worker co-op, but he felt that in the case of the SSC, the<BR>
distinction was pretty meaningless. The SSC, at least initially, is a<BR>
co-op where members provide services to themselves and what we are<BR>
proposing is that members directly fund the co-op from external sources<BR>
(i.e. wages brought in from elsewhere). This isn't fixed in stone of<BR>
course, and it will be up to the members over time to decide on the<BR>
funding model. The advice we received was to initially assume as little<BR>
organisational complexity as possible, which is why we're also proposing<BR>
that we are not incorporated until we find it necessary.<BR>
<BR>
Someone else at the meeting might recall what else we discussed on this<BR>
issue, but it was put to us as a pretty obvious way to proceed initially.<BR>
Your thoughts on this would be greatly valued.<BR>
<BR>
I've copied in Charles (who's not subscribed to the list) in case he wants<BR>
to expand on answering your question.<BR>
<BR>
Best,<BR>
Joss<BR>
--<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
_______________________________________________<BR>
SSC mailing list<BR>
SSC@lists.aktivix.org<BR>
<A HREF="https://lists.aktivix.org/mailman/listinfo/ssc">https://lists.aktivix.org/mailman/listinfo/ssc</A><BR>
<BR>
<BR>
</FONT>
</P>
</BODY>
</HTML>