This is a CTP of initiative: Slow Food USA
The critical turning point refers to the period 2010-2012 in which Slow Food USA was run by a young executive director who introduced fundamental changes within the organization in terms of internal management as well as the aims, mission and the activities that Slow Food should conduct.
Slow Food USA had been working on the United States around for a decade (officially, since 2000) preserving traditional foodways, closing the ties between consumer and farmers and valuing the dedicated work of food producers. However, from 2010-2012, under the leadership of the new executive director, Slow Food USA's goals started to shift from food biodiversity toward food politics and “food justice”, pursuing organic agriculture to be more popular.
This also involved a taught redefining of their identity; getting rid of certain existing “air of elitism” within Slow Food leaders. Slow Food´s discourse became more defiant and critical in these days, which had positive and negative sides.
On the one hand, Slow Food USA dramatically increased membership, growing to 25,000 members, with 225 chapters nationwide, becoming more popular for the younger and less affluent people. However, according to the interviewee, Changes in direction caused a dramatic internal crisis within the initiative, due to the fact that relevant longtime members (e.g. P. Tooker, G. P. Nabhan) were unhappy about the change in focus and openly manifested their rejection to the new political orientation taken by the initiative.
Some leaders and spokespersons criticised the loss of the Slow Food´s core values and identity, though the new direction was turning away from the organization's roots and becoming a political movement as the respondent explains:
Well, when you are involved in this kind of organizations, you really are not allowed to lobby politically, you can advocate for certain political changes but you are not allowed to actively lobby in Congress, even at the local level. I attend meetings to make my presence known, but it is a difficult decision and there is a certain line in politics involvement. Certainly, Slow Food is getting more political active. Carlo started as a slow food is a sort of part of the communist party in Italy. In USA, more grassroots are political active, and the former president wanted to be very political orient. I remember him and some members of groups protesting against GMO and he was a young activist and protestor and that was how he took the organization down and that is not what Slow Food is about
Regarding the people and circumstances that contributed to the coproduction of this critical turning point within the history of Slow Food USA, the interviewee explicitly points out the figure of the new president of the national association, which was hired in 2008 and left the organization in 2012. Josh Viertel, who came to Slow Food from the Yale Sustainable Food Project, introduced big changes within the organization that –as we explained above- were highly criticized by long experienced Slow Food associates.
A second actor in this critical turning point was the Slow Food USA Board of directors, the body responsible of the governance of the national association, which hires and supervises the work of the executive director and headquarters´ staff. According to with the interviewee, this critical turning point happened in so dramatic way due to the lack of commitment of this Board, which was not overseeing the work that the director had been doing:
I believe that the Board, at that time, were people very involved in their businesses and they have not the commitment to do this kind of part-time job. That is a job, and if you don't have time to do it, because you have to deal with family or you have a high time-demanding work, then you have not the time to be the leader. I am not pointing the finger or posting blame but that is what happens when you don't do what you should do. It was a big disaster
Also, despite the big number of staff that Slow Food USA hired in that period, more of them were new employees, with low experience in the management of a mid-size association like Slow Food which had a millionaire budget from private donors (e.g. Kellogg’s´ Foundation), this situation also contributed to the financial problems that Slow Food had to deal with in these days.
Regarding the different reasons that lead to this situation, the interviewee also reflects on internal lobbies and pressures that might influence the decision of hiring the new director and that might cause an internal problem if the new personnel does not endorse the core values or does not syntonize with the feelings of the associates:
I heard a rumor that there was a very influential person within the Slow Food movement that wanted him in the position of executive director and that is how he got the job. A person who donate a lot of money to the organization. It´s a gossip but is probably true because everything is political. Even a non-profit board is political. When a big donor… I believe that was a political movement to elected him as the Executive Director of Slow Food USA
The first related event mentioned in the interview was the official constitution of the national branch of Slow Food USA in 2000. Previously, Slow Food counted with several small local chapters spread over the country, but, since 2000, the movement counts with a national office in New York City and, pace by pace, the national association increases in the number of associates and gains external support and funds. In the beginning, slow food only counted with an executive director, the food activist Patrick Martin.
Later, Slow Food was able to hire a new employee, Erika Lesser, who replaced Martin in the position of director until 2009 and continue working along the same line. In 2008, Slow Food created the new position of President of Slow Food USA and once Josh Viertel assumes his post, he works to reinforce the national association, hiring new staff and starting new projects led directly from the New York headquarters.
In the same year, Slow Food celebrates a big event called “Slow Food Nation”, hosted in San Francisco, which gathered thousands of Slow Food members. During this meeting, the newly elected president discussed with other Slow Food participants the possibility of building a movement committed “not only to the simple pleasure of the shared meal and paying the farmer fairly but to becoming a force for social change” (as Viertel explained in 2012 [1]).
Since 2008 Slow Food Nation, Slow Food USA initiated projects and campaigns to “change school lunch policy, shut down Ag-Gag laws, reform food and farm policy, and to save the honey bee”. However, in November 2010, Slow Food USA suspended the activities of Slow Food USA’s Committee focused on the Ark of Taste international project and ceases several projects work relating biodiversity conservation.
Another relevant event related to this critical turning point was the “$5 Challenge” campaign that Slow Food USA launched in 2011, proposing a new and wider approach to food issues, focusing in low and mid classes and advocating national policies. Despite the good results of this activity in terms of acknowledgment and public support to the Slow Food cause, (which even received the support of the White House), this campaign received many negative critics within the organization as explained in the previous sections.
Finally, the Executive Director of Slow Food USA presented his resignation in June 2012. The national Board changed as well and new members assumed the responsibility to reorganize the movement. In 2013 Slow Food USA hired Richard McCarthy [2] as the new executive director of the initiative, starting a new stage in the history of the initiative.
They find Richard McCarthy, who has proving success leading Market Umbrella, and he was very good doing damage control, which was very important because there was lot of damage under former leadership. A lot of damage. We are now becoming healthy again. The staff went down from 12 to 3 people running the national office. Josh took a very expensive space for the office there, just a business chaos. Thus, do not doing better oversizing is how this things happens
References:
[1] Opinion article published by Josh Viertel in The Atlantic Daily: http://www.theatlantic.com/health/archive/2012/01/the-soul-of-slow-food-fighting-for-both-farmers-and-eaters/251739/
[2] Interview with Richard McCarthy in The New York Times: https://dinersjournal.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/01/08/new-leader-for-slow-food-usa
As it was previously mentioned, strong opposition arises within Slow Food USA regarding the main decisions taken by the new leader of the American Association. Contestant people were mostly veteran associates, long terms chapter leaders who have been involved in the movement from the 2000s and were reluctant to many of the organizational changes proposed by the new president, such as the cancelation of the work of the “Ark of Taste Committee”:
Chapter leader and managers, were very dissatisfied with the director of the organization, Joshua defunct biodiversity programs, cogarden programs, etc. Chapter leaders nationwide were closing their chapters, they were very, very, very unhappy with director leader. It is very disappointing to see that the organization was less, chapter leaders quit, and they abandon the organization
However, the strongest opposition comes with the initiative called “$5 Challenge” launched in 2011by Slow Food USA. It causes an authentic internal crisis. Very popular members of Slow Food USA manifested their opposition to the national leader in their blogs, webs and mass media. Eventually, some of them decided to abandon the association, closing several local chapters.
However, other leaders decided to stay and try to contribute to the healing process, making a positive change. As the interviewee explains, it was a matter of commitment and personal attachment to the Slow Food movement:
I was a regional governor. I was involved in the leadership of several chapters and I heard a lot about complain in many chapters. But I believed in the work of Slow Food internationally, and I stayed because I have a strong commitment to the organization, the philosophy... and it was a great existing momento on Slow Food in the country, about supporting agriculture. I really believe in the principles and I think that I should hang on and see if I can make a positive the difference. I didn't like how some chapter leaders say good bye. I wanted to try to make a positive change
During the celebration of one International event, many of Slow Food chapter leaders had the opportunity to meet and discuss the Slow Food USA situation.
Besides, the president of Slow Food International shared their concern regarding the hard issues Slow Food USA had been struggling and committed to collaborating with the Board to find an appropriate solution:
Long-time leaders that have been leaders for long time in the USA were very unhappy, and this called the attention of Slow Food International. I can remember going to Italy to attend Salone del Gusto, talking with Carlo Petrini and meeting with Paolo di Croce, asking me what is going on with Slow Food USA? They were really, really concerned and, to be honest, we felt very concern. I was very committed with Slow Food. My chapter organization was like my baby, and I didn't want to see how Slow Food USA felt (…) I believe that Slow Food International put a lot of pressure on the board of Slow Food USA to find someone else
s the critical turning point refers to a four-year period of time, it is difficult to affirm that this was identified as a critical turning point at the time when it occurred. Some clues could indicate, to some people that the association headed towards disaster or internal conflict. For instance, the interviewee remarked the inexperience of the new leader, "who was really young. He was in his 20s. Really 20s. He was very political".
Along being a very young director, he took some controversial decisions regarding the association, such as "hiring staff without any control or complains from the committee board". Some people [1] manifested, later, their concern about the complete turnover of Brooklyn´s headquarters staff that “was effectively erasing the cultural memory of the decade-old U.S. organization”.
According to to the respondent, despite new employees were highly qualified in community activism or community media skills “they do not speak the language of food or agriculture” and the new team was accused of abandoning the Slow Food´s roots, as the following explains:
And I believe he made a trouble into the ground. The first thing he did was to left go a long-term staff that have been there and he brought all of his friend on the board as is staff, and he didn't have the business experience to running an organization in a healthy financially manner. And this just didn't’ work out
Nowadays, some of the Slow Food USA associates evoke such period a very critical moment from with they are just recovering now. All tensions and taught opposition, also exposed in media and covered by the press, damaged the good reputation of the Slow Food movement in the USA.
According to the interviewee, as a result of this internal crisis, the national association lost some key supporters, the national office staff was reduced to minimum numbers and the national office had to undertake a strategic planning process under the supervision of the new board of directors.
References:
[1] As Poppy Tooker, founder of Slow Food New Orleans Chapter posit in the online newspaper: http://zesterdaily.com/cooking/slow-food-usa-needs-to-regroup (consulted on 17-11-2016)
Three main lessons have been pointed out by the respondent regarding this critical turning point. First learning relates to the internal organization of any association. Despite having financial resources enough for hiring professional staff, any kind of superior body should actively oversee the work that the CEO or executive director develops.
Second, people on the board and hired staff should have a long-term perspective of the emergence and evolution of the initiative, as explained in the following:
I personally learnt that it is really important to have an historical perspective, because when you have constant changes at leadership at national level, and constant changes in staff turning over, and there is no one who has this historical perspective, you will lose a lot. You will lose a lot of momento. You lose your history, many people, none, at the national office, was involved in Slow Food at the very beginning. And it is a problem, because if you leadership change, you lose your background and you have no backup
Most of conflicts could have been avoided o minimized if the personal leading the project had more confidence or close relation with chapter leaders. Besides, practitioners learn from both successes and failures, and such knowledge should remain within the organization:
In the beginning, when the organization was small, it was a really close, like a closeness community. At enlarging, a gap became. When an organization became bigger, it is hard to maintain this conviviality, and community, and I think that is something that people miss. I´ve been working in organizations at this nature for a long time and this is a trial. And you learn for your mistakes and you learn from your successes. And that is how we learn, I guess. At that time I want to learn more by doing, learning by doing and learning about what works
Finally, Slow Food members learned that feeding confrontation is not a good strategy to solve conflicts. Practitioners highlight that Slow Food is an organization committed to the transformation of the food system but, in contrast with other political movements, Slow Food feels more comfortable gaining allies to their cause and bridging different communities into the same project.
Then, the members of Slow Food USA prefer to be inclusive and welcoming, sending a positive and constructive message than negative one:
Most of us want to make change by building bridges, not confronting but educating. And it works. I saw it. I see the change. It is better staying in the side lines than put the finger blame. It is better to make friends and make bridges. And that is what we do and how we work. There is an expression in the America South that says that “you can catch more flies with honey than with vinegar”. You can make change by being nice, and making friends that pointing the finger blame and shame
Stay informed. Subscribe for project updates by e-mail.
