CWB Release

[charliep]

[URL="http://www.cwb.ca/public/en/newsroom/releases/2011/news_release.jsp?news=061611.jsp"]June 16[/URL]

[TOM4CWB]

Dear Charlie,

If Chairman Oberg see's no future for the CWB... in a premium competitive market like exists now for Canola in western Canada... He and all others who share this attitude should be forced to resign their position on the Corporation Board of Directors.

It is clearly not in the interests of western Canadian grain growers to have Oberg and fellow directors of his state of mind... sabotageing the CWB.

Resign NOW Chairman Oberg. Let us have new elections to install CWB Directors who will do the needed job of transition to a voluntary marketing system.

[agstar77]

If you are right, why are not the appointed directors speaking up tell us how they see the new CWB adding value? This is not a confidentiality issue. Could it be that they see none?

[Fransisco]

Oberg,"There is no model that comes even close to providing the value to farmers that the single desk does right now."

That's true. Every other model provides MORE value than the current single desk.

[FarmRanger]

<i>""The Wheat Board belongs to us. As farmers,
we pay for its operations from the sale of our
grain. We run it, through our elected
representatives on its board of directors. But we
are not being allowed to decide its future," said
Oberg"</i>

Oh the irony. The Feds are finally giving the
farmers in western Canada the same market
freedom taken for granted in every other free
nation, and we are subjected to the "we are not
allowed to decide the future of the CWB"
rhetoric. They would have us continue NOT
being able to have any say in the future of our
own grain sales, and use our money out of the
pools to fight us.

If the CWB ever had any ability to provide value,
it would still be there without the single desk.

Please don't back down Minister Ritz!!!

[charliep]

agstar77

You should likely spend some time reading the CWB director code of conduct before making your comment. It is very specific about the issues you raise.

[URL="http://www.cwb.ca/public/en/about/people/board/#code"]duty of loyalty[/URL]

specific reference:

A. Duty of loyalty

Directors must act honestly, in good faith, and in the best interests of the Corporation. The key elements of this standard of behaviour are:

(i) A director must act in the best interests of the CWB and not in his or her self-interest. Acting in the best interests of the CWB includes ensuring that the views and concerns of western Canadian wheat and barley farmers are brought forward to the entire Board.

(iv) A director must maintain the confidentiality of information received by them in their capacity as directors. The policy regarding confidentiality is outlined in the Communications Policy.

(v) A director must adhere to the policies and By-Laws adopted by the Board, which govern board and directors conduct. (e.g. the Communications Policy)

G. Public Comment

Directors have an obligation to make official public comment within the parameters established by the Board approved Communications Policy . All other comments are to be clearly identified as personal opinion and not official Public Comment or CWB Policy.

[agstar77]

Yeah and?? What are they afraid of Harper will protect them. Nothing is stopping them from expressing their personal opinion. Anyway where does T4 get all his insider info? A little bird?

[charliep]

In your opinion, would it be appropriate for the non elected directors to express their opinion?

The boards I have been on do their tough discussions behind closed doors. Once a decision has been reached, a spokesperson (usually the chair) presents the concensus opinion that has been reached with the other board members expected to support or at least keep quite. Your experience with boards may be different.

I note the code of conduct refers specifically to the communications policy/code several times. From what I know, not posted/an internal document. This would go into a lot more detail about board of director responsibilities.

[charliep]

Found the following interesting.

From the release- "There is no model that comes even close to providing the value to farmers that the single desk does right now. There is a couple that might - under very specific conditions - allow the CWB to survive in some form. Under the right conditions, and with some very large concessions, it might even be strong and viable."

[agstar77]

Sure if they know how the board could operate in an open market and still give us the benefit of pooling and a marketing advantage. But if they do they probably have been told to keep quiet by Ritz. The CWB would need leverage to function in an open enviroment, simply outbidding the free market wouldn't cut it or be responsible.

[charliep]

Will leave for discussion. For my education, what is the benefit of price pooling and its close relative, the pricing pace model? It would seem to me that a farmer can do the same thing on their own.

Could your vision of price pooling be accomplished with shorter pooling, breaking the spring wheat excluding durum classes into separate pools, using things like malt barley cash plus, etc.? I suspect there are things currently the CWB could be doing to manage their risk better and in a forward thinking manner, allow them the opportunity for survival in an open market.

[charliep]

One other comment before the real debate. Always looking for common themes/things that can be agreed on in a new CWB. I note the reference to a new organization and harvesting opportunity.

In that document, the CWB b of d of the time talks about a move from being a shared governace corporation supported by legislation to a not-for-profit, non-share capital corporation (supported by government legislation I suppose). They also talk about a for profit corporation. Not sure what this means. Perhaps someone can help.

Has anyone else thought about governance and structure of a renewed CWB. Traditional cooperative? New generation cooperative? Corporate?

Also note the reference to CN and Petrcan being able to develop an asset base. If this is a good idea, why wasn't it included in the original legislation? Seems a strange comparison but was talked about.

[charliep]

Reference was to Air Canada - not petrocan. Sorry about that.

[wilagro]

I would say that Ritz and the CONs really don't care what happens to the CWB once the compulsory aspect is removed.

The CWB will be an orphan with its powers reduced to the point of a standstill and will quickly starve.

The board of directors will be the pallbearers as the corpse is carried away for a quick burial.

[TOM4CWB]

Agstar77,

There are NO PROBLEMS too BIG to SOLVE:

ONLY PEOPLE TOO SMALL TO SOLVE THEM.

You and Chairman Oberg need to think through your program of deceit. A thinking person... can see straight through it from 1000 miles away.

You intend to prove the voluntary marketing proponents wrong... by doing every thing possible to sabotage the CWB Corp... to prove this point; THAT ONLY THE CWB 'SINGLE DESK' CAN ATTAIN PREMIUM PRICES.

This could not be further from the truth.

Federated Co-operative attains excellent marketing benefits to our farm. They keep input costs down... and are searching for opportunities to serve our communities. Federated is BIGGER than the CWB... and well managed.

CENEX in the US is the same... and arbitage UP grain markets. The CWB would do well to link up with a global cooperative to provide real and tangible benefits to us as grain growers.

If your buddies do not have the vision to fix the CWB Agstar77... please have the decency to tell then to step aside and allow those who care about creating prosperity, in our communities, to do the job at hand.

I get it.