Yesterday's Market was more restorative than it has been lately, probably because the PRIDE parade came through and we got to feel more a part of things. I felt that the market management hadn't been very welcoming to the NO KINGS and other political protests, as I saw people being asked to not hold their signs up within the market, and being handed a flyer that I did not see. Plus what hit the media was kind of prioritizing our commerce over what the community wanted to do, which I think is a bad look that separates us from the community. I think what the community wants is more important than what our event wants, even though that is sometimes hard to think through.
This has been playing out in several ways in the last few years, after we got such amazing community support during the pandemic, and should have continued to show our gratitude for that. First thing was a grant proposal I wrote for a downtown program grant, which was intended to invite community partners to get free booths in the closed streets for their own fundraising, to celebrate our connections and honor their nonprofit goals, which benefit all of us. I did this as a volunteer with staff approval, and it took many hours, as any of you who apply for grants will know. (Sometime I will tell the story of a grant proposal I was asked to do for a $26,000 grant that I put about 10 days into, which was fumbled.)
But we didn't get the $5000, and the event then morphed into the Sustainability thing we had on Oak where members and others who had sustainability focuses got booths, which was a much different thing and not the original vision. I had stepped out, and left organization to staff, and there wasn't much organization. The Kareng Fund was told we couldn't do our planned raffle so we didn't do a booth, as our resources are too limited to just do outreach. Anyway, that was one opportunity lost to thank our community partners, although there were some nonprofit booths and I hope they were supported. I know we still allow free nonprofit spaces, but without any notice in the newsletter of who they are, I don't have time to run over to find them and decide if I want to pitch them some cash, which I generally like to do when I can. I'd love to see them listed, and at HM too.
I noticed Farmers had or are having a similar event to what I had envisioned, with a lot of nonprofits, but they seem to be able and interested in featuring a lot of community partners and although I think we are asked, we don't generally feature them, to my satisfaction anyway. But then farmers allow free tote bags and stuff to be given away by those partners, so it's not always without issues.
Another way we didn't show community support was the attempt to displace the Artists and Authors Fair from the Atrium at HM. That wasn't successful, but they were pressured to move to one of the side meeting rooms so the vision of changing the HM map to shift to a different traffic pattern could happen. I know that if the general public knew we did that, it would look really bad for us, but as it didn't succeed it didn't get too public. It may not be over, but again, there seemed to be such disregard for other groups by the so-important Saturday Market. My feeling is that we have no need to do things like that...our importance is already in place, self-evident, and we are best just being part of the whole, not a dominating force.
But of course domination and control is now part of our ethos, from the top down. It scares me that our culture can be that easily changed, although there has been resistance. There seems to be an effort to marginalize those of us who carry these "old" values that used to be our guiding values...but since we haven't had any kind of visioning retreats since before Kirsten was manager, we've lost touch with the group knowledge that we always have carried forward proudly, that we cared about all of us, kept options open for people struggling, had ideals that we considered in every decision. Some of that is still happening, no doubt, as we do have caring people and many of them, but it tends to be embodied in certain ones of us, and not everyone.
And the false narratives take their toll. The "mean members" narrative keeps coming up, that it is so hard for our manager because we members won't do what she says. Yes, we don't all follow all the rules, and we are a giant group of people, so I don't know why it would ever be expected that we would have 100% compliance with any rule. The idea is to have group agreements that make sense so that it is easy to follow them, because for the most part, people's needs are met. But sure, some people don't have as strong of a group ethic, are more individualistic, and need help seeing why they might want to get closer to following any particular rule.
Previous managers just did their best to encourage general agreement with good examples themselves, having ethics of their own, fostering trust, community building, clear communications, realistic expectations, and whatever else they could do to appeal to our better natures. Members make better and lasting changes in their behaviors when they see the benefits. Punishing them and trying to manipulate them has never worked, and in fact has the effect of creating opposition and dissatisfaction and that is more what our problems are about now. People are being targeted, punished and threatened and are reacting badly to that. I mean, I won't go to meetings, and I love meeting process and as Secretary was required to attend every meeting for the last fifteen years, and was happy to be there. When meetings started to be held without me, I saw a huge red flag. They were called other things besides Board meetings, but when a quorum of Board members are in attendance, that is legally a Board meeting. And our bylaws require a Secretary, and minutes. Special meetings, town halls, annual meetings, orientations, whatever they are called, require minutes and some kind of officer in place taking responsibility. So yeah, I hope someone steps up to be Secretary at this next Board meeting. I always felt it was the most important official role, protecting the public record, the legality, and the ethical standards of the organization, for the members.
I'm never opposed to change, if that is what the members want, but it has to be informed, careful change that doesn't only benefit those in the room. The recent fee increase came without data, such as how many members we have who are struggling at the low end of income, and how much more this would cost them in relation to their sales. For instance, a member near me this past week made $20. So they paid $22 in fees. Obviously a few weeks of that would lead them to give up, or start playing the system somehow for their own survival. There are plenty of people who really only sell well in the HM environment, and not as well on the Park Blocks. Our current system has a lot of people forced to sell on the PB for their HM points, putting pressure on the PB, so we turn away a lot of people who would like to sell, and we prioritize those who can afford to stick with it even when it isn't really working for them. In the beginning it was intentional to keep spaces available at HM for SM members, so people couldn't just come in for "the cream" without drinking the weekly milk of the harder PB sales reality. Now I think we should look again and see if we can restructure that somehow to meet the different needs of the two groups of members. It would need a task force and a lot of careful analysis, so it won't probably be a task for this particular power structure, but maybe someday it could be addressed.
Decisions about these types of things can not be quickly made. There are always unintended effects, and we are now experiencing the effects of the decision to expand HM. That isn't over. There will be more with this new HM map. Someone pointed out that it is very convenient that we now have what I call the corner tax, which is an additional $20 a weekend for corner spaces, and our new map has a much larger number of corners. This is kind of a hidden fee increase, that kind of made sense, but now kind of looks more like a subterfuge.
Because trust has been broken. We just don't have it. We have members who won't talk to each other, members who are targeted for harassment, members who are punished and many who are afraid to speak. Under the disingenuous plea for "unity," it has become dangerous to disagree. It's routinely unpleasant and there are surely members who have quit rather than try to weather it. Some are fighting for their survival and right to participate. Our election was compromised with negative campaigning which worked. People who didn't toe the company line were rejected by rumor, innuendo, and outright lies. It was highly demoralizing. It was exhausting.
I've been hypervigilant so long it seems like it's constant. Since I'm overworking right now, it's very hard. I feel that it's important for me to declare that without market, I will lose my house and my ability to survive the coming years. I know I am not the only one. Will this flawed power structure take my livelihood away from me? A few years ago, I would not have even considered this a possibility. Now, I do. I do not feel like they care about me. Remember when we used to say we wanted to "keep everyone in the basket?" It wasn't that long ago.