Does Democracy work at ABP? part 2

[rkaiser]

Thought I would start a new thread grassfarmer, with a title that would cause all of our media friends, and all of my colleagues ;-) at ABP to take a look.

As far as the AGM itself is concerned, democracy works as good as the rules allow it. A room full of Zone representatives, a lot of whom have come to the room as acclaimed candidates rather than elected officials. And even those of us who were elected only had to beat out one extra volunteer who, in most cases could never cause any more change than a rabbit in a coyote den.

The election process was predictable with those who towed the party line elected and those who challenged put back in their chairs. How dare anyone get up and criticise the stand of ABP or the process. In other words I got no where in my attempt to climb the proverbial ladder to the board level. No bitterness, and maybe not where I belong anyway. The pain of watching the process would likely have been to hard to take.

Poor old Minister Groeneveld found the wrath when the most frank and honest speech given by a politician in years was met with disgust and a call for a change in the minister by most, rather than responsibility and forward positive action, which the Minister asked for.

Now that I have given the democratic process cudos at the AGM, I will ad that as far as claiming to be representative of the all producers in a democratic way is a joke.

The comparison to the typical political process is everywhere. Everyone has a right to vote they say. Everyone has a right to show up at the fall meetings and run if they wish and at the very least bring forward resolutions. After these resolutions are are passed - at times in numerous zones; the experts (LMAO) at ABP cut loose and show the delegates in attendance how much they know compared to the rest of the world. There are some smooth talking young men in the room who know how to twist a story around to make the unpolitical delegates look dumb and and use these intimidation tactics to keep the majority of the delegates in their seats. Delegates who, like I said before are mostly volunteers with little or no debate experience let alone public speaking ability. Some of these fine honest individuals are truly there to try to help, and most in the room have the industry as a whole in mind. ( I told you all I could be nice from time to time did I not)

One little example was the 4th and likely final tome that I bring the debate on BSE testing to this kangaroo court. If someone else were to bring it forward again next year as a resolution, I will go through the motions once again but expect no change in the position of the BSE testing regulator --- ABP.
In fact that tactic was even tried this year by another pro testing delegate when he suggested that ABP is challenging the government to stop the CFIA from regulating us out of market potential, while becoming a regulator themselves on the BSE testing issue. BSE testing is a trade issue, as much as the experts (LMAO) at ABP want to deny it.

One of the delegates in my zone who challenged me on the issue all through my election campaign, which saw me magically appear at the AGM running on the one issue, stood up and gave false information to the delegate body when the debate was on. He said that the motion was brought forward at all three zone meetings, defeated in two and barely passed in the third. I will go so far as to say that this was not only a twisted perception, but an out right lie. We only had the resolution appear at two meetings and the only vote that was close and was the one where it failed. In fact my zone director asked me if I wanted to challenge the count after the meeting was over as she thought the chairman had jumped the gun saying that the resolution was defeated. I guess this young fellow thought he was representing the voters HAY??????

Anywhoo most of the resolutions failed including all of the ones that were passed on to me by my good friend in the west country. I had one of two hands in the air on at least one call and the room saw the back of my head a lot as I took the front mike on as many occasions as possible, but hay ----- that's democracy for you.

Darn good thing ----that back up plan thing --- I will still be sitting at the round table discussions at the Alberta Legislature as a member of BIG C (another democratic industry group with just as much credibility as the one I just left) where the will to change course, and the other democratic atmosphere is far more unclouded.

I would like to thank the staff members of ABP for the feeling of welcome that I got and fully expect to get a few more handshakes from delegates out in the public once the eyes of the God team at ABP cannot see them anymore.

[farmers_son]

There is more to ABP than BSE testing. Speaking as someone who has been involved with a number of political organizations I think you will find as the year goes on that there is a whole lot more to the ABP than the Annual General Meeting. You will be on committees that meet throughout the year, many more resolutions will be debated, some passed and some defeated but you will be part of that debate. You will find that there is a lot of work involved with being a delegate and the issues that ABP deals with seem almost endless. It is my impression you are not afraid of hard work. You will also see as the year goes on that many ABP delegates take a great deal of time away from their operations and even their families to try and deal with industry issues and that it is often a thank less job. But you might even get to like it. Give it at least a year, probably should give it two years before passing judgement. You have really only got your toes wet to this point.

[rkaiser]

Don't worry about me working hard farmer-son, but working hard within an organization that I find more problems with than solutions will be challenging to say the least.

Isn't it fun to make old Kaiser look like a one issue guy. One of the gang even made it sound like BSE testing was my idea of the industries silver bullet at the meeting, and that's all I got.

Yes I use it a lot, but it is a fine example among many of how truly undemocratic this organisation has become --- or maybe has always been. Read the rest of my post as well farmer_son. I do appreciate the efforts of other delegates, but just like here on agriville -- how are we going to get anywhere when fear holds people back from attaching their name to their opinion. ;-).

This organisation is in serious need of a government study to see how it is working. A self proclaimed democratic group with no opposition is only the beginning. Like I said before, no sour g****s for not getting to the board farmer_son, the meetings are somewhat democratic. It is the process that puts these folks in the room that needs serious consideration as well as many other things.

There is no way that the current Plan Review will make any changes as opposition will be dealt with the same as it is at t eh AGM. The board or maybe even the executive will decide.

I think that a call needs to be made for an outside plan review by government, or industry with ABP as only part of the discussion.

Once again thank you to all of the delegates for their volunteer efforts.

[grassfarmer]

Well I'm disappointed but not surprised with the result of the ABP agm. I appreciate the effort you are making Randy. ABP may be very smug and arrogant whilst living it up at their AGM paid for by producers check off but the chickens will come home to roost some day.
I would like to hear the opinions of numbercruncher and other ABP contributers to this forum who insisted that ABP were ready to welcome change and progress ahead of the fall producer meetings - what happened??
I am surprised in ABPs reaction to Groenveld's speech - are they really so arrogant that they think they can call for the ministers removal because he advocates change? Wait a minute something is not right here - the ABP do not represent producers as can be seen by their treatment of any resolutions forthcoming from said producers. As far as I'm concerned they exist to transmit the wishes of the Alberta Government and the US packers. If they dismiss what Groenveld has to say presumably he could negate ABP's influence in any future talks on the beef sector. This begs the question is Groenveld acting on behalf of the whole Alberta Government or is he acting alone in which case he may become a sacrificial lamb?
If Groenveld truly speaks for the Alberta Government the ABP may be committing political suicide by not being more receptive to his ideas. I wish that were the case but I am not totally believing that the Alberta Government has changed it's spots. Lets face it they have largely created the dire situation that exists today of corporate exploitation of agriculture in this Province. In the "manifesto" shown a few days ago there was no acknowledgement of the Governments role in creating the current crisis and I have never seen or heard anything that suggests they have changed tack. Perhaps we are all being played for fools and the Packer/Government/ABP alliance forges ahead with no intention of change?

[farmers_son]

From what I understand, even rkaiser voted against the occasional resolution…

Resolutions are passed at the fall meetings to be debated at the AGM and in committee. If in the course of the debate the larger group of producers, assembled in one room from all over the province, decide the resolution should not form ABP policy that is part of the process. It is not reasonable to suggest ABP is undemocratic when a resolution you personally favour is defeated, obviously the larger majority of producers simply did not share your point of view.

Apparently Groeneveld’s speech chastised ABP for not making more progress with age verification. It is no secret that the Province of Alberta wants to make age verification mandatory in which case producers would never receive any value at all from doing the paper work and instead would face fines or loose any access to government programs. It is my understanding that cattle producers do not want mandatory age verification seeking ways to either receive a portion of the $30 premium for age verified finished animals through the marketplace or some receive some other value for instance carcass feedback. If ABP took some heat from the Ag Minister for representing the wishes of producers, then so be it. They are big boys and girls.

[rkaiser]

If you remember the last two ministers grassfarmer; ABP loved them. In fact Horner looked me right in the eye in his office and said that ABP was the beef producer representative group in this province. Shirley was and is still an idol in the old guards eye.

Your wishful case may be closer to reality than you think grassfarmer. What do you think - should the other industry groups including the likes of the NFU and them Wild Rose folks get together and demand an independent study of ABP structure? I kinda think we may have an Ag office that would take a look at the very least.

[grassfarmer]

Farmers_son you statement "obviously the larger majority of producers simply did not share your point of view" is interesting. It implies that there were more people in attendance at the ABP AGM than at all the Fall producer meetings combined which I know is not true. The majority of producers attending fall meetings have formed consensus on issues in the past but the leadership (who are a minority of producers) of ABP refuse to accept their decision and instead continue to form policy as a dictatorship - that is undemocratic.

Randy, I think it is too late to call for an independent study - we need action now. The minister and Alberta Government have the power to set the wheels in motion to relegate ABP to the same level as the other producer groups. That is free standing, self financing organisations that act on behalf of their members. If they did that ABP could kiss goodbye to their multi million dollar budget because producers would not support them financially any more than they support them politically today.

[rkaiser]

Gee whiz you would think that old batman was sitting right behind me at the meeting.LOL

Yes I did vote against a few resolutions batman -- especially the one that me and some guy tight behind me both spoke against.

This one was an attempt by the feedlot boys to jump in on the information highway after it finally made it's way down a one way street from the packer to the original tag owner.

The resolution came from the floor and not a zone and asked that the feedlots be able to access the carcass data that may finally come to the primary producer should a prior resolution asking for this to occur was passed.

I talked of information actually having value and suggested that the feedlot boys may have to pay for that private information. In fact I think that the packers should be paying in the first place but ABP seems to think that trickle down takes care of that. LMAO.

Anywhoo -- I voted against a couple of other ones too farmer_son and I am sure that if you ask your undercover source, you can find out which ones.

My contention is still that democracy at the meeting although very political and somewhat childish is there. I think that the process prior to the AGM is where democracy is a joke as well as the fact that most democratic processes actually allow opposition.

[farmers_son]

Rkaiser: If you define politics as the internally conflicting interrelationships in a society, then ABP is political. But I bet you will be good in that environment. It takes us farmer/rancher types a little while to learn good listening skills, how to form consensus and to craft a compromise but that is part of the process. It is a team effort, not a individual sport. Kind of like a no hit hockey game.

Grassfarmer: As for democracy, it is common in our society to elect a few people to gather and make decisions and form policy on behalf of the larger group. The strength of ABP is in its ability to gather representatives of the cattle industry from all over the Province of Alberta in one place to discuss issues of importance to the cattle industry. Is it perfect? No and it never will be. But any Joe Grassroots Farmer/Rancher can become a delegate to ABP and be part of the process, there is no way that it is a closed club. Why even ol Rkaiser is a delegate to ABP. It really helps to have good public speaking skills but public speaking is a skill that can be learned and I have seen people get really good at speaking before a large group like there is at the ABP AGM.

[grassfarmer]

So in this world farmers_son why even bother with fall producer meetings? You have confirmed that ABP is run as a dictatorship, why continue with the pretense that it is a producer organisation that forms policy around what producers resolve at the fall producer meetings?
So we can all run as delegates - to be silenced when we join the flock at an AGM but why can we not pass resolutions at Fall producer meetings asking that ABP lobby on our behalf on certain issues and have the leadership follow these directions? democracy my a@#$#!!

[rkaiser]

I bet I would be good at the political game too farmer_son, but I don't have the lifetime that it would take in the flawed democratic process of ABP.

I like the part where ABP "gathers delegates." LOL

Is that like the current delegates go out and hunt for folks that they know they can count on to support the status quo and talk them in to volunteering for a position? I wonder just how many of the delegates sitting at the AGM were actually elected to that position. There were two elections this year and a whole two extra nominees had their wings clipped. IN THE WHOLE PROVINCE.

Acclaimed Acclaimed Acclaimed 34 head according to my count. And how many of these were board members acclaimed --- At least 2/3rds according to my book, but maybe one of our ABP readers could help me out with the actual numbers.

[rkaiser]

I have to share some one of the lighter moments with ya all.

A few producers out there are actually hopeful enough to think that if they ask for a cut back of the levy, a directional levy, or the dreaded of all democratic phenomena the plebiscite, it will actually get some attention at the AGM.

What do you think happened?

We had a few laughs as my lone hand waved in the air when the plebiscite resolution came to a vote. The chairman giggled when he pointed two fingers toward me to let me know that there was actually another hand somewhere in the back of the room. There may have been a few more when the $1.00 direction levy was presented, but I did not bother looking back from my front row seat. I wondered after if my front row seat was planned so everyone could be entertained watching from behind. Like I suggested before, if any major change in this organization is to occur, it will have to come from the outside.

Being that the ABP gang doesn't want to buy old George a drink these days - it may be time for the other organizations to lobby directly to the ministers office.

[grassfarmer]

Lighter moments perhaps but also underlining the culture of obnoxious arrogance that rules the ABP. I know in our zone at nearly every fall producer meeting I've attended it has been evident. ABP officials and delegates s******ing like school girls at some of the views and comments made by producers. S******ing also at any producer who is having difficulty articulating their viewpoint because they were not used to public speaking. Even s******ing at one producer with a slight speech impediment who got exasperated trying to get his point across.
Yeah, real mature guys - it gives us all confidence in your ability to represent primary producers which in case you have forgotten is what the whole process is supposed to be about. Is it any wonder that the overwhelming majority of producers want nothing to do with ABP or Fall producer meetings which leads to the situation of most officials being elected by acclamation?

[rkaiser]

Thus the need to stop comparing ABP to some other democratic political situation in the free world. Most all organizations have elected officials who have no problem taking this mind manipulation and brushing it aside.

Most of the ABP delegates are well meaning and moral individuals who truly do a great job on things like environmental issues, promotion, and many other things which I do not mind spending a few bucks on in the way of a mandatory levy.

It is when this group gets involved in legislation, or in the case of BSE, regulation, that this flawed democratic structure becomes dangerous. This is when the politicians kick in to high gear and use their mind games over the regular, good meaning volunteers to cause trouble. This is when the self interests of the few dominate and cause their views to override the will of the general population.

How about this for an idea. If a resolution is passed in more than one, or for the sake of argument two zones, it automatically goes to that dreaded of all democratic process called a plebiscite, instead of the kangaroo court called the AGM. These resolutions could be mailed out to all producers in one document and require a certain number of replies to be carried or not. I am personally involved with groups that work in exactly this manner, and there is no excuse why this would not work for ABP.

The ruling body would then have to act responsibly to the people and either support that will or resign and form their own group with their own money!!!!!!

[farmers_son]

I guess ABP could use mail in ballots. The Canadian Wheat Board uses mail in ballots. It is pretty expensive to have the required auditors look after the process to protect the integrity of the vote. Even then mail in ballots are subject to problems like ballots being sent to people who are no longer producers, some producers getting more than one ballot and so on. You would have to contrast that process to electing representatives who then become informed on the issues and vote accordingly. Just because resolutions you favoured did not become ABP policy does not mean that there was a problem with the voting process. It could be that the resolution simply did not have the support of the majority, even if you thought it should have.

ABP delegates are just ordinary men and women who have the common distinction of being cattle producers. Some have big operations, some have very small operations. Some raise black cattle and some raise white cattle. Some are cow calf and some are feedlot, quite a few are both. You take a group of people like that from all over the province and put them in a room to vote on a resolution. The resolution is debated, pros and cons are discussed; that resolution gets only 1-5 votes out of voting body of 60-70 delegates. I would suggest the problem is not the voting process, the problem is there is no support for the resolution. Yes there may be a few vocal people promoting a certain policy but when the rubber hits the road the majority just aren’t buying it.