Wheat Board Directors Backtracking

[parsley]

Remember when Mr. Goodale's appointed Director attended the fundraiser even though the Board of Director's policy carefully forbid any such activity? They ignored the policy and Mr. Zinger attended.

Remember when the Board of Director's policy stated that Directors couldn't drag staff with them to put gold loonies in Liberal silk purses? Well, they ignored that one too, and staff got dragged along by the ear behind 'Art Macklin et al', going from the Liberal banquet's frying pan into Farmer Fire.

Looks like the CWB is throwing out voter appeasers, because according to this week's Western Producer:

"The Canadian Wheat Board won't be giving any more money to political
parties. The agency's board of directors has adopted a new policy that bars corporate donations to political parties or anyone running for elected
office. "

So the Board is backtracking and farmers get another new policy! But Board Policy never stopped the Directors before, did it?

Ken Ritter and his Board with the exception of the Alberta Director Chatenay, defiantly defended their actions time and time again and never once have they admitted they broke their Code of Conduct. The only reason they could possibly have for backtracking at this time is to try and gain back some disenchanted-voter support.

The Western Producer goes on to say:

" He [Ritter] said the board feels strongly that it must be, and be seen to be, politically neutral, so directors decided the best course of action was to impose a complete ban on political activity by the corporation."

Goodale's appointees or CEO are hardly politically neutral; hence, the past policy safeguard. But farmers have twigged on to the fact that specific political activities by the Board, already banned by policy, were flagrantly broken. Here's the Question..... What good is policy at all... if you have a Board that refuses to follow the rules they crank out?

It's not the policy that needs replacing, guys. It's the present Board.

Parsley

[jensend]

I think Ritter meant the board is neutered.

[cowman]

Well its pretty hard to give up a cushy part time job that pays well. So you do what you have to do! If that means laying low for awhile, you do it. The directors are no different than any other politician...you take care of Numero Uno and the most important thing in the world is getting reelected!
I wonder if the CWB ever made any contributions to other political parties? Say the Alliance?

[TOM4CWB]

Parsley,

It is good to see the CWB directors feeling a pang of concience, accountability in any form... so they can listen...

I certainly hope the CWB drops the garbage that they should act like any other normal corporation, as the CWB obviously is one of 2 monopolies (Canada Post being the other), and the other monopoly doesn't get the federal government to put people in jail for disobeying their monopoly.

As the CWB has gone to Canadian Alliance functions as well, it should be obvious and painfully clear the CWB directors have misunderstood what they mandated to do by prairie growers, which is to sell our wheat and barley at the best price possible price.

The CWB election this fall has added real pressure to focus the directors, and that is good for grain producers!

Now, will the directors elect a CEO the will create efficiency, risk management improvements, real marketing options, and reinvent the CWB as the "Canadian Wheat and Barley Producer's Marketing Board", which facilitates the marketing needs of those it is supposed to serve?

This will be

[TOM4CWB]

My computer tricked me...

This will be a good test!!!

[parsley]

Cowman,

It makes no difference if the CWB contributes to the Rhinocerous Party or the Liberal Party or the Alliance Party. They don't need to lobby to speak to Government.

Are all the Directors so dumb they don't realize they have an open line to a Cabinet Minister? The Government has appointed a Cabinet Minister Directly responsible for the CWB ; in contrast, Cargill or Con-Agra do not have the same Cabinet pipeline to the Government. Why would the Directors "lobby" Government when they have a Minister soley at their pleasure?

Ministers can react like cats. At least Mr. Goodale seemed instantly in touch when they changed the Regulations over exporting wheat, but I concede he has not been quite as nimble in explaining why his Mr. Zinger broke the Code of Conduct.


As CWB Director Rod Flaman has written when he was aked if he attended Winnipeg's Liberal gala :

QUOTE

"I did not attend. Had I been invited I would have attended. It is a challenge for a farmer to stand face to face with influential members of the government on their own turf and champion the issues facing us today. Part of the challenge of having farmers elected to the CWB Board of Directors is allowing those directors to grow professionally in areas of communication, finance, corporate governance to mention a few. It is good that the term of office is sufficient in length to facilitate this professional growth. " UNQUOTE

What do you suppose this means?

Somebody needs to tell these dumb farm boys trying to play the game called "Wheat Board Director" just to pick up the damn phone.

Parsley

[parsley]

When Mr. Rod Flaman was elected to the board he was a free market supporter. Now he has turned coat and become a CWB supporter and Mr. Ritter did the samething. Have they explained to anyone why they had the change of heart. If so I would like to hear what it was that changed their minds on Marketing.

[parsley]

Kernel,

The Board can't seem to market farmers' grain for a better price than the local feeder market offers farmers, so obviously the Wheat Board's 'unsurpassed' marketing ability shouldn't be dazzling these boys.

Maybe it's the plane ride, Kernel.

Parsley

[TOM4CWB]

Kernel;

Prosperity...Power...Prestige...Pride, all humans need the acceptance of others, it is just sooo easy to go with the governments wishes, and be well rewarded for following the crowd in Power...

This is how politics works generally... smooth things over, don't ruffle anyone elses feathers, especially if they have great power...

It is sad to see the worst result from politics come out of the CWB board... they forgot about what they got elected for... the reason was to make the CWB the most efficeint effective and reliable marketer possible... sadly power, prestige, pride, and the prosperity of their positions clouded the trust that they were given...

It is too easy to demonize the Railways, Multi-nationals, grain co-operatives, various governments, and make all the partners we must work with into enemies...

Obviously this is not the way to efficiently and effectively market grain...

[parsley]

Good Morning Agrivillers,

It is not only advancing farmers' money to political parties where the CWB Directors are backtracking; indeed, they are no longer saying that if the monopoly is broken, NAFTA will not allow re-establishment of the monopoly. Remember when they tried to scare farmers with that one?

What the CWB says and what NAFTA states are two different things.

In Chapter 15 of the actual NAFTA text, Article 1502 states:

"(1) Nothing in this Agreement shall be construed to prevent a Party from designating a monopoly."


and in in the part of the NAFTA text where they make clear their definitions:

"For purposes of this chapter:

designate means to establish, designate or authorize, or to expand the scope of a monopoly to cover an additional good or service, after the date of entry into force of this Agreement;"

Some will claim the CWB is instead a state enterprise, so look at Article 1503:

"Nothing in this Agreement shall be construed to prevent a Party from maintaining or establishing a state enterprise."

Farmers cannot believe what the CWB Directors tell them about NAFTA or political funding because CWB facts parallel Enron facts. Political funding policy was defended by every member of the Board of Directors and was suddenly "wrong" only when they were found out. NAFTA propoganda was silenced only when farmers presented the CWB with facts directly quoted from the NAFTA text.

Rod Flaman's words, " allowing those directors to grow professionally in areas of communication, finance, corporate governance', is certainly part of the CWB's training agenda, but if CWB communications are not based on truth, if Board finances are inaccurate, or if corporate governance is a flock mentality reflecting staff, then we not only have to look at replacing Directors, but we have to look at the training program that influences them.

Parsley