Review of the CWB Election - Kevin Bender, WCWGA

[charliep]

Perhaps the challenge going ahead is the current board of directors got elected on one issue - single desk. The world is changing interally (farmers are getting used to a whole new world of CWB programs - this is not going to change over the next 4 years) and externally (the potential for a WTO or change of government which has major impact on the CWB operations). Their challenge is leadership and strategic thinking.

[charliep]

Listened to Bob Treadwell, a futurist at ABC annual meeting. His theme was to think what is likely to happen in the future and then have a plan including risk identification/mitigation.

When I put on my forward thinking hat, the biggest changes I see coming to the CWB are governace and corporate structure including developing a contingency fund/equity.

[charliep]

Oops. Bob Treadway (not Treadwell).

[TOM4CWB]

Fransisco,

Goodale set up the Election process... NOT the CWB.

The election is as trustworthy as MNP... which I would respectfully suggest that the outcome is 99 percent reflective of the intent of the CWB Act and the voters who voted in this 2010 election.

There is no change to the election process without Ottawa changing the CWB regulations.

If we need to clean up who has a permit book... and the many landmines that issue would highlight... I would want a bullet proof combine, truck, and tractor before I entered that battlefield. This should however... be done... to have a fair election process.

Then there is the redistribution of Districts to retain a democratic voice for each voter... so we do not have a large voter discrepancy between Districts.

[stubblejumper]

the point of the Star Phoenix editorial was if the majority of producers wanted change all they had to do was vote.

[charliep]

by way of clarity, producers has to be changed to CWB permit book holders. change also has to be defined in terms of single desk. Will note change is a reality of the new world - will note the change to policy with the implementation of a 200 % epo for feed wheat. I note you avoid comments on CWB operations but you have to admit this was significant.

[Fransisco]

wd9 we disagree on the significance of the election, you haven't changed my mind and I obviously haven't changed yours.

But you didn't answer my question so I'll ask it again. Do you think that the Director elections which have been set up by the CWB, are run by the CWB, and are policed by the CWB are fair and impartial? Do you think that maybe, just maybe, the boards own self interest finds its way into the process?

Tom MNP is not an independent arms length operator. They get all of their marching orders from the board. The board tells them what to do and they do it. They have no independent power or authority in these elections. They do the paperwork thats it.

[wd9]

Francisco, no i don't think so. Everyone who sells wheat gets a vote. Whether it is 1 bushel or a million. The election discussion has happened on here before, vote weight by wheat amount or by individual farmers regardless of how much you deliver. If farmers were shareholders in the CWB then it would be easy. But we don't. So that method is out too.

I think it would be more fair and less opportunity to shift votes using 1 farmer 1 vote then 1 tonne 1 vote.

|i hope this answers your q.

Did anyone who is not for single desk not get a ballot? If no one does, then i guess the opportunity to vote is there and its fair.

[Fransisco]

Well then I guess we'll have to disagree on that one as well. First off I don't think these things should be up for vote to begin with. But since they are I don't think the current permit book based voting system is fair, nor do I believe that they are being run in an impartial manner.

[wd9]

So what is a fair system?