THE DEMOCRATIC STRUCTURE OF THE COOPERATIVE

 

 THE DEMOCRATIC STRUCTURE OF THE COOPERATIVE

 Within the Cooperatives, specific decisions are in the hands of the general assembly. The
Co-op Acts provide the foundation for this authority by law, however the co-op’s bylaws may also
provide that specific policy decisions, such as wage rates, may require approval by the members’
meeting. Importantly the bylaws of the co-op, which regulate the life of the co-operative, must be
approved by the members and can only be changed by a meeting of the members.

One of the key legal responsibilities of the members is to elect the board of directors of the
co-op. The bylaws will specify the number of directors, their qualification and length of terms.
Directors, by law, are responsible for the affairs of the co-operative. Their duty is always to make
decisions in the best interests of the co-op as a whole. The directors, once elected, in turn elect
other officers like president, vice-president, secretary, and treasurer. These officers of the cooperative
society will have specific duties outlined in the bylaws. In small co-ops, members often
serve in more than one capacity and often all members are also directors.

Good collective decisions require well-researched information and good communications
between the board of directors, manager and membership. Cooperative societies may operate
democratically, but you can’t stop in the middle of the workday to discuss every decision which
must be made. The directors are responsible to ensure that an effective operational structure is in
place that it is supported by the members. This may take many forms, depending upon the desires
of the members and on the type of enterprise that the cooperative society operates.
Within most cooperative societies the following structures are usually in place and are the
forum for the following types of decisions.

The general assembly comprises all members and constitutes the supreme deliberation and
decision-making organ of the cooperative society. Its decisions bind all the members.

TYPES OF GENERAL MEETINGS:
 

1. Inaugural (constituent) General Meeting
I. A cooperative holds this meeting to inaugurate the functioning of the cooperative, to
authorize the list of the founding members, to discuss and adopt the -bylaws and draw up
the regulations of the cooperative, to approve the financial and operational plan for the
first year’s ‘activities and to elect the members of the cooperative's managerial committee
and other committees.
II. Founding members have no extra rights than other members, except that they participate
in the inaugural general meeting.
III. The inaugural general meeting will adopt by vote the list of founding members present at
the meeting to be full members of the cooperative. IV. Those who have not attended this inaugural meeting will have to be approved as members
according to the stipulations lay down by the law and the bylaws regarding acceptance of
new members to the cooperative.
V. The inaugural general meeting takes place only once

2. An Annual General Meeting
I. An annual general meeting convenes once a year on a date fixed by the bylaws of the
cooperative but, not later than three months after the end of the financial year.
II. The annual general meeting will assess all aspects of the previous year's activities from
the reports of the president, the secretary general, the treasurer, the audit control and that
of the control committee. They will examine, approve or adjust elements and give or
refuse the cooperative's authorities the final confirmation.
III. Will approve the financial, social, and development plans for the following year.
IV. Will elect the managerial units of the cooperative and the control committee for the
following year.
V. Will fix the authorized maximum amount of debts that the cooperative society may contract
with any credit supply organization.
VI Will fix the investment and deposit ceilings above which decisions must be taken by a
special general meeting.
VII. The annual general meeting will be convened and presided over by a special AD-HOC
committee created by the annual general meeting for that purpose. The annual general
meeting will never be convened and presided over by the outgoing or incoming'
management of the cooperative.

3 Extraordinary General Meetings
This meeting will be called only when the following matters are considered:
- Amendments to the bylaws
- Acceptance of new members
- Expulsion of members
- Dissolution of the cooperative
Decisions thereof require a special majority of all the members present at the meeting.

4 Special or Ordinary General Meetings
This meeting may be called at any time during the year whenever necessary. It may be
summoned at the insistence of the management committee, the audit or the control committee, the
registrar of cooperatives, or at the request of at least ten percent (10%) of all the members of the
cooperative.

CONDITIONS PERTAINING FOR ALL GENERAL MEETINGS REGARDLESS OF TYPE

1. A general meeting may be convened only when a quorum is present. A quorum should be
one person more than 50% of all members of the cooperative. If there is no quorum the
meeting will be postponed to no earlier than one hour later, and no more than one month
later. Any number of members present in the latter case would then consist of a legal
quorum
2. Members must be informed about the date, time and place, as well as the proposed agenda
of the general meeting well in advance up to two months prior to the date of the general
meeting. Where it is possible written notice must be sent to all members at their official
addresses at least one month prior to annual and extraordinary general meetings. When
ordinary general meetings are concerned the notice should be sent as early as possible. The
notice should include the date of the alternative general meeting to be called if a quorum is
not reached.

THE STEPS IN DECISION MAKING PROCESS
       The following steps can be adapted in decision making process.

Step 1 Identifying/clarifying the decision to be made. If the decision has not yet been isolated, it
should be identified as a first step.The decision‐making process begins when a manager identifies
the real problem. The accurate definition of the problem affects all the steps that follow; if the
problem is inaccurately defined, every step in the decision‐making process will be based on an
incorrect starting point. One way that a manager can help determines the true problem in a situation
is by identifying the problem separately from its symptoms.
Step 2 Identifying possible decision options. The next step requires the decision maker to spell
out, as clearly as possible, just what the decision alternatives really are. In fact, the more ideas that
comes up, the better. In other words, there are no bad ideas. Encouragement of the group to freely
offer all thoughts on the subject is important. Participants should be encouraged to present ideas no
matter how ridiculous they seem, because such ideas may spark a creative thought on the part of
someone else.
Step 3 Gathering /processing information and analyze the alternatives.
Next, the decision maker collects or processes information that can help guide the decision. If
such information is already at hand, then it simply needs to be processed; that is, studied and
understood by the decision maker. If there is no relevant information available, or if there is
insufficient information, then such information must be collected so it can be processed. The
purpose of this step is to decide the relative merits of each idea. Managers must identify the
advantages and disadvantages of each alternative solution before making a final
decision.Evaluating the alternatives can be done in numerous ways. Here are a few possibilities:
1. Determine the pros and cons of each alternative.
2. Perform a cost‐benefit analysis for each alternative.
3. Weight each factor important in the decision, ranking each alternative relative to its ability
to meet each factor, and then multiply by a probability factor to provide a final value for
each alternative.
4. Regardless of the method used, a manager needs to evaluate each alternative in terms of its
Feasibility — can it be done? Effectiveness — How well does it resolve the problem

situation? Consequences — what will be its costs (financial and nonfinancial) to the
organization?
Step 4 Select the best alternative. After a manager has analyzed all the alternatives, she must
decide on the best one. The best alternative is the one that produces the most advantages and the
fewest serious disadvantages. Sometimes, the selection process can be fairly straightforward, such
as the alternative with the most pros and fewest cons. Other times, the optimal solution is a
combination of several alternatives.
Sometimes, though, the best alternative may not be obvious. That's when a manager must
decide which alternative is the most feasible and effective, coupled with which carries the lowest
costs to the organization. Probability estimates, where analysis of each alternative's chances of
success takes place, often come into play at this point in the decision‐making process. In those
cases, a manager simply selects the alternative with the highest probability of success.
Step 5 Making/implementing the decision. After the information has been considered according
to its relevance and significance, a decision based on that information should be made and,
thereafter, implemented
Step 6 evaluating the decision. In recognition of the fact that not all of one's decisions are likely
to be defensible, the final step in the five-step decision making process is to determine whether the
decision was appropriate. Ordinarily, this will be done by ascertaining the decision's consequences.
Ongoing actions need to be monitored. An evaluation system should provide feedback on how well
the decision is being implemented, what the results are, and what adjustments are necessary to get
the results that were intended when the solution was chosen.
In order for a manager to evaluate his decision, he needs to gather information to determine
its effectiveness. Was the original problem resolved? If not, is he closer to the desired situation than
he was at the beginning of the decision‐making process?
If a manager's plan hasn't resolved the problem, he needs to figure out what went wrong. A
manager may accomplish this by asking the following questions:
a) Was the wrong alternative selected? If so, one of the other alternatives generated in the
decision‐making process may be a wiser choice.
b) Was the correct alternative selected, but implemented improperly? If so, a manager
should focus attention solely on the implementation step to ensure that the chosen
alternative is implemented successfully.
c) Was the original problem identified incorrectly? If so, the decision‐making process
needs to begin again, starting with a revised identification step.
d) Has the implemented alternative been given enough time to be successful? If not, a
manager should give the process more time and re‐evaluate at a later date.