Would CWB votes be different if voting was based on tonnes of product sold to the CWB

[poorboy]

On CWB elections, one permit book equals one vote, however in most of the public traded companies your vote is multiplied by the number of shares you hold, so that your vote is an accurate representation.

The largest suppliers of grain to the cwb should have the largest say in what happens.

[boone]

poorboy; why would you want to shut out the directors from the "Alberta Barely Growers",(excuse my typing skills) from having a voice.

[TOM4CWB]

Boone;

Let us talk about what you have just pointed out!

In fact, the vote is exactly as Poorboy has said... at the Alberta Barley Commission (ABC)!

ABC funding comes from a levy... that is voluntary, if Alberta farmers don't like what we do, as directors and deligates, farmers can vote with their pocket books and withdraw every last cent from the funding flow of income to the ABC.

If refunds grow to over 35% of the total, then a manditory vote is held on disbanding the ABC.

If we had these kind of democratic ABC accountabilities built into the CWB... PPO's would be totally different, and a operational style much more like the Ontario Wheat Board, would be an instant requirement!

We welcome constructive suggestions of what should be done differently at the ABC... in fact our levy was just voted to be increased at our local and Overall Annual General Meetings.

We are happy that our Alberta barley growers have expressed such confidence and approval for our actions... by voteing with their wallets to support our ABC. We surely hope we will have the same opportunity with a vote with our barley... in human consumption and export markets... whether or not to ship using the CWB, or some other innovative marketer... when that choice becomes a reality for us as Barley growers in Alberta!

This will be true democracy... and should we be allowed to vote with our grain, the CWB method of elections will become very secondary and unimportant.

One last thing;

Alberta Barley growers have voted with their barley... as much as possible... to avoid the CWB wherever possible. Last year's 2001-02 Annual Financials make this VERY clear. THe CWB has done a terrible job of marketing our barley... and I am being charitable!

[boone]

Tom4cwb; you don't have to convince me of your last statement. It is long past the time when CWB should try to keep buffer stocks for domestic use, without having user/customer forward price, so in that regard I would totally agree, it may be time to step aside. In feed wheat the same if you cannot cost effectively serve a market bow out. You see I'm not dyed in the wool. I have a need to keep options open. It has been my view that ABC has represented feedmills and feedlots more than pure barley growers. You decide your closer.

[TOM4CWB]

Boone;

As a deligate from the beginning, I can honestly say that ABC is working to maximise quality, Maximise value adding, and very concerned with maximising the competitive ability of Alberta farmers to grow barley profitably on their (and my) grain farms!

THe ANTI US CORN outbursts by ABC should be good enough evidence that ABC is working for grain producers in Alberta!

[boone]

Tom4cwb; I hear you on that issue loud and clear. I was more troubled lately with the let market decide on embracing GMO Wht,Barley whatever comes.

[wilagro]

The deductions from barley sales for funding ABC are NOT voluntary. You also have to apply to get these compulsory deductions refunded.
An awful pile of money has been spent in the past number of years on legal challenges against the CWB. I wouldn't mind these deductions if they were used for promotion and research and not wasted on lawyers fees.

[wedino]

Poorboy, I agree with you, but instead of voting according to number of bushels produced I think we should vote according to number of acres we farm.

[TOM4CWB]

Wilagro;

Many people would agree about the waste that legal costs create... you can be sure that ABC management are not any happier about how the court system works... than anyone else.

Many fancy Lawyers sell their work as an art form... promise the moon... and seldom deliver.

We all live and learn... hopefully we become smarter as we grow older!

The refundable levy gives fair chance for anyone to apply the democratic principal of withdrawing support...

I would be extatic, if I had the chance to withdraw funding from Ottawa's income tax, GST, and fuel taxes... and would be very pleased to have any hoops they would create... if these fees were all refundable! I could find a thousand charities more worthy than Ottawa for our families hard earned cash!

[Everest]

I agree with the idea that votes should be proportional to one's stake in the business. One vote per permit book definitly does not accord with the norms of the business world. The CWB is fond of calling itself a "corporation". As I see it, it then should then be governed like one. The CWB, if it truely believes it is a corporation, should be advocating a change to the voting procedures.

The CWB should be asking Ottawa to amend the director election procedure so that each 100 acres is entitled to a vote.

Does anyone think a retired farmer who has only 40 acres of land sowed to barley, (who leaves it in the swath each winter to feed the deer, and still gets his permit book), have the same say as a 30 year old farmer who is working hard to manage a commercial operation, and has another 30 years ahead of him in the business?

[poorboy]

Wedino,

I think that anything would be better than one vote per permit book, however, I can see a couple of problems with an acre equalling a vote.

First of all an acre produces a different amount of bushels of wheat depending on where you farm. Secondly, not every acre produces crops that are sold to the CWB.

I think that the growers that are delivering grain to the CWB should be the voting ones. A producer that primarily grows non board grains should not have as big a say as a CWB grain grower because the CWB grower has a much greater involvement in the changes that may occur.

With the average age of farmers almost at 65, I am concerned that a lot of landowners that are retired and not interested in change are getting an equal vote to those who are trying to survive in the business and shape the future.

The voting may have exactly the same outcome as it is today, but is sure would be interesting to compare the two.

Lastly, I think that the CWB should get out of feed barley sales. It is such a small volume that I think the grain companies could do a better job of finding feed markets both domestically and offshore.

[poorboy]

The way we vote is a very important issue. What and when we vote for something is very inportant also.

I don't think something as important as marketing should be thrown in with director elections. Personallities and politics should not be in conflict with the issues of the day. Ten directors should not be without guidance from it members in the more important issues like marketing without a pure an concise consensus. Not made on pure politics and personalities. A separate vote should be made at permit book application time. For example a vote should be; 1.more marketing choice

or 2.retain single desk

The idea of the board thinking they have a mandate on the marketing issue is through director elections is far from the truth and a dangerous assumption. Why not hold a vote this summer for clarification of marketing choice.

Power is for them that govern for freedom of everyone. Ritter should pay attention because he is presently on a huge power and ego trip that will lead him no where.