Last month I wrote a long commentary (note: that's an OPINION piece) about Food Front. I suggested ways the grocery could improve and solve its troubling financial problems.

Now, because of an article in the Northwest Examiner newspaper (see my story in this issue), many are calling for changes that go well beyond my suggestions.

My commentary last month referred in passing to an unidentified  "elephant in the room" at a recent meeting that the co-operative's board and management had with a small gathering of Hillsdale co-op "owners."

The Examiner story was more than referential about the elephant.

Food Front's behemoth is like the one in the story of blind men touching different parts of the elephant. They describe their experience, but fail to identify the beast.

Whose experience are we to believe?

Obviously those who aren't blind. In this instance, those who can "see" are hard to find because of differing, limited and even fearful perspectives.

I'll return to differing "perspectives" later.

Blind though we are, we can at least share and compare perspectives. The truth may emerge even though we can't see.

"Hey, this thing I'm holding on to feels like a rope."

"Could it be a tail?"

"Hey, this thing I'm holding feels like a tree trunk."

"Could it be a big leg?"

In the case of Food Front, the reports I'm hearing add up to an elephantine problem that won't be solved until people start communicating, questioning, listening...and then, acting.

And cooperating. Food Front, lest we forget, IS a co-operative. The Food Front "community" needs to remind itself of its shared dedication and overriding desire to have a successful, co-operative grocery.

All parties should drop their titles and roles and admit they are often blinded by those roles.

Food Front suffers from way too much talk of "management," "the board," (and board "policy") and "the staff."

And, sadly, there is very little talk at all of "the owners" who number 10,000, including me and likely you.

The owners are invisible in all of this for several reasons:

* They aren't invited to truly and meaningfully participate. (Could others at Food Front be threatened by what owners might see?)
* They aren't made aware of serious problems, like those cited by The Examiner.
* They show little or no sign of caring about the co-op and its potential.
* They have forgotten or ignored the value and potential of a being a co-operative, and of having Food Front in Hillsdale.

So what about the problems brought to light by the investigative story in November's Northwest Examiner? Editor Allan Classen chronicles serious discontent among many workers. He also gave the board and the management the opportunity to tell their side of the story.

Unfortunately, he also used a misleading, "shock" headline and graphic to get his readers' attention. As he later told me when I questioned him, neither was necessary. The story speaks for itself.

To his credit, in the interest of full disclosure, he also shared is own long-ago professional and unfortunate experiences with the co-operative's general manager Holly Jarvis.

Sure, I would have written and displayed the story differently, but its thrust was on the mark: Food Front has major personnel problems. Moreover, the board with its "hands-off management" structure has utterly failed to address the problems.

In response to the Examiner story, Food Front's management and the board issued a sweeping, blunt rebuttal that Classen's sources "lacked credibility." The management and the board refused to detail that criticism. They cited personnel policy demanding confidentiality.

But when I pressed the management and the board about the "credibility" of two named sources, Joe Bailey and Tom Mattox, the board's written explanation shifted. Bailey was the CFO at Food Front. Mattox held the community relations job in management and then, starting in 2012 served on the board until he resigned in frustration earlier this month.

Both had inside experience with the workings of the board, the management and the staff.

Significantly the response to my question didn't mention the key word "credibility" but cited Bailey's and Maddox's "strong personal perspective."

Which takes us back to the Elephant.

Everyone has a "personal perspective" and for many it is "strong" and, I would add, valuable because of its strength.

The key is to share those perspectives to get at the truth in order to find answers to some hard questions.

Here are some that many have raised:

* Can the current management team and the present board work through these issues?

* Does Food Front need a new general manager and a new management team?

* Are board policies, practices and limited powers standing in the way of needed change?

* Is this board in particular capable of instituting that change?

* How can change be effected in a way that ensures the co-op's survival?

* Will owners be willing to step up and get involved, perhaps by creating an independent group ("Friends of Food Front?), perhaps by running for the board?

* Would an outside assessment by an independent consultant provide a pathway forward to the kind of organization everyone, despite "strong personal perspectives," desires? (Note, the board shows signs of inching toward this suggestion.)

* What can the Hillsdale community do?

Former board member Mattox provided insight and guidance (and yes 'perspective"') in a response to me:

"When an organization (including the board) is failing and can't or won't admit it, people will go outside the system for answers. That's what is happening (at Food Front). The staff who say they are afraid of retaliation from management have learned they cannot count on the board for help, so they go public. The Hillsdale community has a lot of smart people and they are well-organized. They know the Hillsdale store is failing; more than likely they will start demanding change... If they want a successful grocery store in the Town Center, they are going to have to get involved in way that is so far, unprecedented."

NOTE: A letter about Food Front from Mattox and one  from Barb and Greg Higgins  are printed below. As always, letter responses are welcomed.

Rick Seifert
Editor

Editor:

The Food Front board has always insisted that there is a small group of disgruntled staff and this is typical in any business. This de-humanizes people, ignores real human suffering, and turns a blind eye to the detrimental effect staff unhappiness has on our business.

The board has in its hands real data showing, in my view, alarming trends in working conditions at Food Front. According to a recent survey, staff, overall, feel less safe than they did two years ago in bringing their concerns to management without fear of retaliation.

A management report submitted to the board in October, showed management out of compliance with several board policies on staff treatment. Some of these were out of compliance in 2012 and some show conditions are worse now.  The report was scheduled to be on the board's consent agenda in late October.

The day before the board meeting, I asked for the report to be pulled from the consent agenda for discussion in December (Editor's note: 6 p.m., Thursday, Dec. 11, at The Watershed Building in Hillsdale). As far as I know, no other board member requested this. In other words, if any board member was planning to ask a single question of management, on a report that showed persistent lack of compliance with the board's own policies on staff treatment, I am not aware of it.

Our staff deserve vigorous oversight.

Fortunately, the board has another chance, the report will be on the December agenda.

Tom Mattox
Food Front Board Member 2012-14

Editor:

With all of the current attention and controversy regarding Food Front
swirling about, we wanted to share some thoughts.

We've been Food Front members since the '80s when the store was at 27th & NW Thurman. We were active in advocating for a Food Front here in Hillsdale and have been nearly daily shoppers since its opening - its our primary grocery store not only
because of location and shared history but because of its strong support of local food producers and lack of "green washing."

  As small business owners we're keenly aware of how challenging
economically the last six years have been. Staffing, cost of goods sold,
rising costs of doing business in a down-turned economy created many
challenges beyond the norm.

Optimistically the economy is finally on the uptick and it's time to re-evaluate and retune strategies
for future success. The rumors and stories that are circulating concerning Food Front's management, business practices and stability are concerning to
say the least.

As members we have experienced frustrations and confusion over various decisions, practices and changes. Whether all the allegations
are valid is not really for us to determine.

What is clear is that there are management communication issues overall and specifically between
the two stores.

Success is going to be achieved by clarifying Food Front's identity. Trying to imitate one's competitors in any business is not a strategy to rise to the top.

Setting higher standards and making them known to the public will set Food Front apart from the other natural grocers in town - many of whom have questionable practices and products.

Obviously pricing and marketing are important in this regard but
ultimately, given the constraints of store size and purchasing power, the keys to success are service and quality. Strengthening relationships with producers and farmers markets and publicizing those relationships is an opportunity that should be embraced.

How the management team resolves the current challenges and then uses this situation to grow stronger and more responsive to their members'
concerns will determine where the store is headed.

For the store to flourish it has to rise above this current quagmire and position itself at the top.

We'll continue to be loyal
supporters - let's move on to how to make Food Front the best local natural grocery in town.

Thanks,
Greg and Barb Higgins

(Editor's note: Greg Higgins owns and operates Higgins restaurant in downtown Portland.)

Return to top of commentary