Zone Meeting

[ALLFARMER]

Went to the ABP meeting here last night. Around 150 people in attendance. Most of the discussion from the producers was around packing plants, and there were a lot of resolutions, many of which were around packing plants as well. A lot of the resolutions weren't do-able, and some were just foolish but there were some good ones as well.
Darcy Davis was the feature speaker and his presentation was well received. There were some pointed criticisms of ABP from various producers, but it was an informative meeting. I think that there is a complete lack of understanding of the work that ABP does, and the limitations on how much they actually are able to do as far as the BSE issue is concerned.

[farmers_son]

The ABP spent $520,890 on Producer Liaison in 2003/2004 so if there is a complete lack of understanding of what the ABP does then there is definitely something wrong because the money was spent.

Was there any discussion of "Industry Council" and the ABP plans to include 2 packer reps on the Board of Directors?

[pandiana]

emrald1,I believe you are correct in your assessment that producers do not understand what ABP does. Producers measure ABP achievements by what they see as positive change in their industry. If the average cow herd in Alberta is 120 cows, that is $300 paid or 300 good reasons to expect that their interest are served.

I am not sure that ABP delegates know what they do. Comments from delegates who sit on committees and provide input to bigger committees,say that the government and/or CCA pretty much ignores them. If this is the case, I am not sure were fault is. Maybe a problem with the structure of these organizations.

We have an industry that is searching for strong leadership, a flagship to lead us. Where is this leadership? For 18 months we stewed in our own juices waiting for somebody or something to take charge and lead us out of this mess.

One thing I have learned is that to do nothing is far worse than to try and fail. If you try, at least you are still learning.

[pandiana]

farmer_son No. the topic of industry reps did not come up. I am not sure if producers grasp the significance of this move. I am not sure I do. I need more history to get a feeling of why they thought these representatives were needed and what they hoped to achieve.

It worries me a great deal that the grassroots primary producers representation in ABP would appear to be more and more diluted by other sectors which have different perspectives and vested interest in maximizing returns in their segment of the industry at the expense of the primary producer.

I would be interested in your thoughts.

[rusty1]

I'd like to know how APB can legitametly consider itself to be the voice of the industry when only 1300 out of some 32,000 actually voted last year.

[grassfarmer]

Farmers_son, I intend to raise the question of industry reps at the Ponoka meeting tonight and move a resolution on it. Emrald, I was at last nights meeting too and was annoyed to see that virtually every question asked to the ABP sitting delegates was left unanswered. Time and again they were asked "where do ABP stand?" " are ABP lobbying?" "what are ABP doing?" on a number of different issue and the result was a long winded meander through what the topic was about but at no point did they ever answer as to what ABPs role had been - consumate politicians. The entire night only one member of the audience backed ABP when he said he thought they had done an "adequate" job of representing producers given the crisis they faced.
The arrogance of two of the sitting delegates had to be seen to be believed - a producer was asking a question to the panel and these two worthy gentlemen were sitting with their heads down chuckling like a couple of naughty schoolgirls - so much for understanding the plight of producers.

[grassfarmer]

rusty1, it is not the fault of ABP if producers do not get out and vote !!!! It is no different than a municipal election where some idiot is elected by acclaimation and it totally useless the results of apathy lie at the feet of the apathetic !!!!
I think that all sitting delegates at the meeting last evening are struggling right along with the rest of us. Granted, there are some wannabe's in ABP as there is elsewhere, but they were elected by due process, so producers have no one to blame but themselves if they elect people who do not understand how serious the situation is. I spoke with most of the delegates last evening and found that all of them realize there needs to be more done, they butt their heads against a wall everytime the lobby government it seems. I thought some of the questions last evening weren't even applicable to what ABP's mandate is. Some of the movers to the resolutions didn't seem to know exactly what they were moving or what the ramifications are, so don't lay all the blame on ABP.
How many people who are regulars on agri-ville have allowed their name to stand for election as a zone director? Personally,I think it must be a thankless job !!!

[bombay_43]

We also had a meeting last Thursday night. Neither myself or my spouse attended. We were both more than a little P.Oed!

Prior to the meeting, we called on our ABP delegate to verify that both of us would be allowed to vote. Last time we attended an anual meeting, only one could vote, because although we split income and expenses 50/50, (including cattle income) we had sold in only one name. Since then, we included both names on the sales.

Neither one of us works off the farm. We calve out almost 200 cows. However, after checking with ABP, we were told, only one would be allowed to vote.

I will respectfully be requesting that ABP return my 1/2 of the checkoff!

[grassfarmer]

Shame you didn't attend anyway - to have brought your point in front of a crowd would have been more effective than privately.
Ponoka last night was a poorer turnout -I guess 50-60 producers which is pretty poor for the "cattle capital" of Canada. A rather muted meeting due to the smaller crowds but the previous delegates were definately taking a more consiliatery and less arrogant tone.
I raised the issue of packer reps being appointed to the ABP under the guise of Council Reps and was given a big speech by Tony Saretsky(sp?)beef industry council chair who was in the audience. He stated that no way were packers going to be allowed in, he certainly seemed to dislike the packers as much as I do. I moved the resolution: "Be it resolved that Alberta Beef Producers will not appoint representitives of the Packing Industry to the board of ABP as Industry Council Representitives or in any other capacity without first getting approval of producers at the majority of Fall Producer Meetings in any given year." which was carried easily.

[farmers_son]

Clearly the packers will be invited to sit on "Industry Council". According to the 2003 Annual Report, page 2 "Industry Council members could include packers, auction markets, dealers and order buyers or any other business involved in the beef cattle industry."..."Industry Council would elect from its membership two industry council directors to sit on the ABP Board of Directors."
If Mr. Saretsky led you to believe that packers could not sit on the ABP Board then you were misinformed. The whole purpose of "Industry Council" is to bring the packers into the ABP Board. These people will be stealing all the profits from the beef producer while at the same time they will have their hands in the producers other pocket spending their checkoff dollars. And the worst part of it all is almost no one knows it is happening. A cover up if there ever was one.
Since the packers would be selected from amongst themselves and not appointed by the ABP the resolution brought forward will unfortunately be of no effect even if it was a nice try.

[farmers_son]

Good news grassfarmer. If you lived near Vancouver, would you still choose that code name??????? I hear there are a lot of GRASS farmers in secluded locations in B.C.

You are exactly right about showing up to ABP meetings with concerns, and hopefully prepared resolutions.

We had our last meeting last night in Okotoks, and I was pleased to see at least half a dozen rather contoversial resolutions passed by the grassroots producers who turned up to vote at these four meetings.

This is your chance folks. If you have a point to make, come out and make it.
I've been involved in a bit of coordination of resolutions as well which will definately help if the democratic process is given a chance.

For instance. Two seperate meetings passed two resolutions regarding packers (existing or new) being allowed by CFIA (government) to test for BSE should a market (like Japan) insist on tested beef. Both times reps from ABP reminded us of consumer confidence issues, etc. etc. Both times the motion was passed unanimously, in fact with only one or two votes against.
When I sit as a delegate and this topic is brought up again at the next level, I will be there to remind the directors that this is democracy in action, and discussion needs to be very limited before the motion passes final approval.

This is, as I said, one example. My campaign is over, but my phone will not stop until the final ABP meeting.

Every issue that is important to the folks here on Agriville can and could be brought forward as a resolution. The people at these meetings are looking for new ideas, something other than the current direction. You will surprise yourselves with the support you will find for common sense practical ideas from different prospectives.

" The world will not evolve past it's current state of crisis by using the same thinking that created the situation". A. Einstein I think he was anothe Grass Farmer.

Good luck
Randy

[grassfarmer]

Then I guess you will have to raise the question yourself at either a Fall producer meeting or at an ABP delegates meeting. I did the best I could with the sketchy information you have provided me.

[grassfarmer]

That reply was intended for farmers_son not you Randy, you must type quicker than me! Good luck with the election result!
p.s. we had the pleasure of driving your old Galloway buddy from south of town to the meeting.

[farmers_son]

grassfarmer: Yes the information on "Industry Council" is sketchy and that is the whole point. Producers should be informed of what amounts to the most significant change in their organization's structure since it began. They are not informed. The ABP spent $406,485 in 2002/2003, $520,890 in 2003/2004 and a budgeted $491,500 2004/2005 on Producer Liaison with the express purpose of informing producers of ABP activities yet no one knows what is actually happening.
How can producers express their views on their organization if they are not informed of what that organization is doing?
Like I said, nice try on the resolution but I think it is going to take a major outcry from producers to keep the packers off of the ABP and there will be no outcry if producers are not aware of what is happening. They should be informed.
According to the 2004 ABP Annual Report page 16 the Producer Liaison Committee is responsible for communicating ABP news to the members, increasing producer awareness of the ABP and encouraging feedback and direction from them. Yet the proposed changes to the ABP to allow "Industry Council" (packers) to have 2 seats on the ABP Board is invisible in the 2004 Annual Report, the ABP website or issues of Grass Routes. And that is simply very wrong.

[grassfarmer]

farmers_son, if you read the second last paragraph of Doerksen's report headed "structure" on page 2 of the Annual report the move to appoint 2 industry council delegates to the ABP board is outlined. This is repeated in the Audio-visual presentation shown at the Fall Producer meetings.